The Ironies
Of Wilderness

On the day after Thanksgiving, I took my gun for a walk in the George Brook area of the Green Mountain National Forest in Hancock. I had been there on opening weekend, but now something was different. In the two weeks between trips, a huge change had occurred. Congress had passed the New England Wilderness Act of 2006. Now the area was in one of the "expansion" areas added to the Breadloaf Wilderness Area.

I went up past the George and Downer cellar holes and thought how these families had cleared the land and had managed the resources to provide for their families from the early to mid 1800's until they moved out of the area in the 1920's and 30's.

I thought how International Paper had planted the fields with Norway spruce and white pine to provide future supplies of pulp and logs for their mills. I thought about the timber sales and timber stand improvement the US Forest Service had done to ensure future generations would have renewable resources for their use. Now, none of that matters.

I had to laugh when I came upon a sign I had put up after the passage of the Vermont Wilderness Act of 1984. The sign read "National Forest Wilderness Boundary." I thought about the compromise that was reached on just where to place that boundary. There had been give and take on both the pro-wilderness and pro-resource management sides. Neither party was completely satisfied, but agreed to the compromise.

What happened in the last 20 years that made it necessary to move the boundary and add more land to the Breadloaf Wilderness? Note to the Forest Service: Don’t waste your time and money putting up permanent boundary signs. I’m willing to bet when the next Forest Plan Revision comes around, there will be a "need" for additional wilderness.

I think the answer comes down to money. The Forest Service said there was no social or resource need to add to the existing Wilderness areas. The "need" seems to be the need for politicians who want to remain in office, to raise the huge amounts of money necessary to carry out campaigns in this day and age.

The "need" also seems to be the need for organizations to have a cause to rally their supporters to donate funds. As far as I am aware, most of the pro- wilderness organizations don’t rely on volunteers working in free space.

I thought about the investments the Forest Service made in construction and maintenance of several roads which are now in this and other new Wilderness areas. These roads will have to be closed and culverts pulled. Where will the money for this task come from? There was no appropriation with the bill passed by Congress.

Perhaps the 9,000-plus people we hear about that supported additional wilderness will donate $20 each to the Forest Service for the job so the already scant road maintenance and recreation budgets won’t be tapped. I for one, won’t hold my breath.

Bruce K. Flewelling

Rochester

(Mr. Flewellins is retired after 35 years of working for U. S. Forest Service in the Rochester Ranger District.)