There's no mincing words for Fred Hodgeboom. He believes in active forest management, and he says the U.S. Forest Service doesn't do enough of it.
The president of Montanans for Multiple Use has put his words into action, spearheading a lawsuit against the Flathead National Forest that recently was denied by a federal judge in Washington, D.C.
Hodgeboom hasn't given up; the court's ruling is being appealed.
"We gave it a try and we're still trying," said Hodgeboom, a former planner with the Flathead National Forest who firmly believes that the forest has run afoul of federal planning rules and the public's trust.
Hodgeboom, 69, started his career with the Forest Service in 1963 on the Kootenai National Forest, eventually working his way to the Flathead Forest planning team.
In 1980, that team started developing the forest's first-ever long-range forest plan. It turned out to be a long and laborious process, with vast amounts of public input. The final product came out in 1986, and it has been amended 24 times since then.
Those amendments are at the root of the Montanans for Multiple Use lawsuit; Hodgeboom considers them to be "piecemeal" adjustments that have collectively had a major impact on the way the Flathead forest is managed.
"I don't think the forest plan was ever implemented," said Hodgeboom. "The people who developed it firmly believed that it was a contract with the public."
Flathead Forest officials insist that they have lawfully adopted the amendments - in some cases the forest was compelled to do so by court orders - and they did indeed prevail in the Montanans for Multiple Use lawsuit.
The group was formed in 1991 and one of its main causes since then has been its opposition to a forest plan amendment that was adopted in 1995. Amendment 19 established road density standards to improve grizzly bear habitat security, standards that have led to road closures and road reclamation projects across much of the forest.
Every forest management project that comes along with provisions for closing or eliminating roads, Montanans for Multiple Use has opposed.
Hodgeboom says the amendment has been a "recipe for disaster," reducing the public's motorized access to public lands, as well as the Forest Service's ability to manage its lands and fight fires.
"If you don't have access to the forest, then you can't manage the forest," said Hodgeboom, who retired from the agency in 1994 and joined Montanans for Multiple Use in 2000.
"I just came to the conclusion that I can't abide by this," he said, adding that Montanans for Multiple Use was the best way to get involved.
Hodgeboom is particularly riled about the way Amendment 19 was adopted: through an environmental assessment process rather than a more rigorous environmental impact statement. The amendment was approved with a "finding of no significant impact."
One reason that happened, Hodgeboom said, is that forest officials anticipated a comprehensive revision of the entire forest plan to happen within just a few years. Instead, that revision process is still under way, 13 years after Amendment 19 was adopted.
Hodgeboom contends the amendment has profoundly impacted public and management access to the forest, with adverse impacts on the forest's timber program and the local wood-products industry.
And that is an apostasy for a man who firmly believes that active management produces healthier forests.
"I've always had an affinity for forestry and being in the woods," Hodgeboom said. "Even as a kid, I loved playing in the woods. All of my education and my adult lifetime has involved forestry."
Hodgeboom has been active in the Society of American Foresters since his days in forestry school at the University of Missouri. Owning a forested property north of Bigfork since 1971, he also is a longtime member of the Montana Tree Farm program.
In 2006, he was named the state's Tree Farmer of the Year.
Hodgeboom also has had a longtime interest in conservation education. He started a forestry program at a high school in Washington, he was involved with the development of Montana's forestry stewardship program, and he was one of the original organizers of the Family Forestry Expo.
The 19th Expo concluded on Sunday, with Hodgeboom present as one of the weekend volunteers.
The Expo offers a walking tour through the Trumbull Creek Educational Forest, with stations on fisheries, wildlife, fire ecology, low-impact camping, forestry, plant identification and other topics.
More than 1,200 fifth-graders from across the region attend during the week, and the event is opened to the public on the weekend, with demonstrations, exhibits and a free logging camp lunch.
"I wouldn't support it if I didn't think it was worthwhile," Hodgeboom said.
Reporter Jim Mann may be reached at 758-4407 or by e-mail at jmann@dailyinterlake.com
KB
cowboyznut77 Wrote: "We aren't lacking any forest fires" True. Many of those fires were ignited by some very irresponsible loggers trying to prove the point that if you don't log it, it'll just burn. It is a proven, known, scientific fact that forests that burn are healthier than forests that have been regulated with fire suppression. If some of the dense areas of the forest were "thinned" it would not be of concern, however, logging companies do not go in and "thin", they go in and decimate!!! I spent a lot of time in the burned areas of the forest and was amazed to find trees down and stacked (in log piles) that had not even been scorched by fire. I guess the loggers were getting a head start on the "salvage" logging deals. Like I pointed out in my earlier post, forest fires are an integral part of forest health. I would say the forest has been doing just fine for thousands of years without the help of Fred's management skills. Hey I have an idea, let's introduce a food shrimp to Flathead lake and feed the kokanee! For your information, riding a mt bike on established trails does
KB
Rob said: KB....What year is it? Rob, when you find yourself in a situation where you cannot reasonably participate in conversation you should consider the fact that you have stopped learning new things. I am open to your comments as long as you are contributing to the conversation. I, however, do not understand exactly how your comment has added anything to this particular issue. Maybe you could elaborate.
JT
Why does everybody speak of absolutes (rob, KB). This or that is "the way" it should be done and there is no other option. From my perpective you are both right. Forests have been just fine for millenia regulating themselves. The natural cycle is simply longer term, it takes generations for the new to replace the old. On the flipside, active forest management will keep existing forests intact for the short-term and protect against huge blazes which is important for areas near human habitation. There is room for both strategies. I don't want thick congested around my cabin but I also don't want to go out into the wilderness and see perfectly spaced uniform sized trees interspersed with tree stumps and slash piles.
JT
Rob - Although the logging practices of the '80s perhaps don't translate to todays logging practices, the effect of the '80s practices and the decades prior were the precusor for the current argument. It is simple supply and demand. The "cut and run" policies of most of the 1900's depleted our forests to such an extent that now, a 200,000 acre fire really does matter. Do you think people were worried about that size of fire in the '50s or '60s. No, because there was still plenty of forest to log, or recreate in (whichever). Now that we don't have much left (due to our own forest policies) we suddenly think we can manage what is left? Sounds a bit fishy to me. Still, forest management makes sense in populated areas and its peripheries.
KB
Rob said: "1980ish rhetoric is old" Sorry, I didn't catch your meaning because the fires I was referring to are the ones (just a few years ago) where they caught the logger in action south of Missoula. Also, I find it very strange that lightning prefers to strike within 15 miles east or west of highway 93 for about 200 miles north and south, very strange indeed. Please do not take my comments as rhetorical as I am not trying to sway you from your belief just trying to state my humble opinion.
hellchildmt
KB... You obviosly have never experienced a logging operation first hand. Neither have I, however I do know the kind of good people who have. There is a wonderful TV show maybe you should watch called Ax Men on the history channel. Maybe then you will see the careful planning and extreme attention to detail these hard working guys put forth. Check it out... you might learn something. You will see mother nature can use our help once in a while.
KB
cowboyznut77: "fighters were standing in the yard of my best friends cabin one half mile away ready to protect it". cowboyznut77, this brings up another issue, we (taxpayers) laid out over $42,000,000.00 during the last forest fire season to "protect" a few houses built out in remote forest areas. This does not make sense to me it would be much cheaper to let the houses burn and then build new ones. The fire fighting effort DID NOT significantly change the outcome of these fires (cold winter weather finally put it out). Yes, the local economy had an influx of state and federal dollars in the form of aid but it still came out of our pockets. I personally know of a situation where a person parked an old fire fighting vehicle (in the North Fork) that had to be towed in (and did not pump water) and was paid $400.00 per day for this. The owner was bragging how he was paid $800.00 per day to "stand around". The press does not report this type of stuff because it is not politically correct and they do not want to expose this "fleecing of America" because it might change the effect
KB
on the local economy. I respect the bravery of fire fighters but sometime they need to figure out that some fires cannot be fought and/or at what cost. Don't get me started!
KB
hellchildmt wrote: "these hard working guys put forth" It won't be long before the entire industries logging operations will be performed by logging robotic machines controlled by computers using GPS navigation technology. What will the loggers do then? Technology has already significantly changed the logging industry and has reduced the number of logging jobs by about 1/3 (environmentalists usually get blamed). I have very close friends who run logging companies and their main source of work is "parking out" forest areas bought by developers/land investors so they can recoup part of their investment by selling off the trees but leave just enough timber to maintain the "forest like appeal" for the buyers. I believe we need the logging industry to a degree but I do not want the industry to eliminate the forest altogether (how wrong is that?).
mooseberryinn
Germany manages their forests, we don't. Ours are tangled in lawsuits, left to be overgrown, wasted, burned. etc. etc. Forests should be harvested and cared for the same as any farmer's crop.
KB
Anyone who thinks they can "manage" a forest better than Mother Nature is off the rocker. I once was told the best stewards of the forest and land were loggers and farmers. If the loggers had their way, the forest would be completely gone and our farmers, stewards as they are, have been selling the land to the highest bidder for housing tracts (after years of collecting federal farm subsidies). To most of the logging industry the solution is to use all of the forests trees for profit. I like the thought of foreign companies (who have the same rights as national companies) cutting down all of the trees and delivering them to large (special) vessels waiting at port so they can turn the logs into wood products on their way back home. That is what happens when the forest becomes an open market for logging industries. At least with lawsuits and controversy we still have some forest left to enjoy.
campo
KB, the worst thing about what you said is that you probably believe it.
bullet
Read closely what Hodgeboom says and study his background. He truly cares for the well being of the forest and man's legitimate use and care of it. We need to be able to showcase more examples of well managed forests. This may help to reverse the trend of passively treating our public lands as defacto wilderness and begin to reopen roads and put a stop to the wasteful practice of decommissioning (ripping up) existing roads.
CCFL
KB, it is you that is off their rocker. I grew up in the canyon, my father was a logger and is now a steward. He is one of the BEST. We lived off a loggers salary. He is not in it for the money, trust me! He cares about the forests and conserving them. By not managing our forests they will die of disease and fire.
toadzilla
dsrobins, The basic 'root' of the heat between the pro-logging and anti-logging crowd is what you exhibited in your comment. Words like 'beating', 'rape', 'destroy' or 'ridiculous' are simply hurtful. When you take a family and maybe all they've ever known is logging or farming and you call their relatives rapist or ridiculous; it causes friction. The pro-logging side has been just as sharp with their comments at times... BUT... someone has to give and be civil. You will not get anywhere with this type of language, in fact it only makes the situation worse.