On Jan. 11, 2017, a public informal meeting was held. The meeting was requested by local concerned citizens not from Friends of Scotchman Peaks Wilderness or the U.S. Forest Service.

It was well attended (160-180) by the local community as well as others in the county and Montana. Representation by the USFS, Idaho Forest Group, Sid Smith from Sen. James Risch’s office and outgoing Commissioner Cary Kelly were available to field questions. The commissioner left abruptly before questions, for some reason. Two incoming commissioners were in the audience and both have concerns about the current proposed boundaries and the lack of local meetings before this proposal.

Many comments and questions were brought to the meeting regarding the proposal, land use, restrictions and etc. It is clear that the majority of those attending and speaking were either against the wilderness, had a lack of knowledge about it or had serious concerns about the process, all stemming from the lack of communication and meetings in the local area from the USFS. On March 24, 2015, the Bonner County commissioners penned a memorandum citing there was “broad public support among the residents of Bonner County.” The meeting clearly demonstrated most of the support for this proposal comes from outside the local area.

The IFG “representing economic interests” would certainly be in favor of the designation only to the extent there is no money to be made on the harvestable timber in the area due to terrain and lack of roads. The areas that have been clear-cut and that lie within the proposed boundaries will take a couple dozen more years before the trees would be mature enough to harvest.

We see no recreational or economic advantages by converting this area to wilderness. Pend Oreille Lake and Schweitzer ski area are the largest sources of the county’s economy derived from tourism. New tourists will not be creating a traffic hazard waiting to turn up Lightning Creek Road No. 419, which leads nowhere due to USFS closures and road decommissioning. There is almost zero incentive for recreation or tourism by this proposal. The ones that support this area continue to come here because this is where their families or friends live or lived. They will continue to come for what we have had for generations not because of the designation. All the designation does is sates the appetite of the select few that feel they need to make their mark and shut down our activities in our backyard.

It is clear that the Communities of Clark Fork, Hope and East Hope, due to their proximity to the proposed Wilderness, would be most affected by this proposal and have not been properly notified by the USFS or been given the opportunity to comment on this proposal in public hearings, which is clearly required by 36 CFR 293.5 of the Wilderness Bill.

Wilderness is in perpetuity and can never be changed. Just say no.

RUSS SCHENCK

Clark Fork