Bark Beetle Forest Fire Risks

  • The bark beetle (pictured) is native to forests in the Rockies. (Photo courtesy of the Colorado State Forest Service)

In much of the West populations of the bark beetle have exploded. Trees
are dying, and the risk of forest fires is huge. Some ecologists are
saying that global warming is responsible, but forests will survive.
Steve Zelaznik reports the risk of fire is forcing communities to balance fire
prevention, and ecological preservation:

Transcript

In much of the West populations of the bark beetle have exploded. Trees
are dying, and the risk of forest fires is huge. Some ecologists are
saying that global warming is responsible, but forests will survive.
Steve Zelaznik reports the risk of fire is forcing communities to balance fire
prevention, and ecological preservation:


(Sound of trail)


We’re surrounded by forest, mostly lodge pole pines. The bark beetle is native to forests in the Rockies. The landscape is a patchwork of green and red. The red trees have been
killed by the bark beetle. Jan Hackett with the Colorado State Forest
Service says many of the green trees are also infected:


“Well I’m just pointing to the pitch tubes, and those are fresh hits
from this year’s beetles. The beetles are flying right now. This is a
result of this year’s flight, a successful hit. This tree will be red
next year.”


This means the tree will be dead. Dominick Kulakowski is a biology professor at
Clark University. He says climate change has caused warmer temperatures so the beetle can survive the winter and spread, but he says insect outbreaks like these are normal, and
the forest will recover:


“There have been very extensive, very severe outbreaks of bark beetles
in Colorado long before Colorado was even a state. Large disturbances
are a normal function of the ecosystems of the Colorado Rocky
Mountains. So while we may look out on this and be concerned by the
amount of mortality, what we need to remember is this may be
unprecedented based on what we’ve seen over the past hundred years, but
that’s partly a function of our relatively short temporal perspective.”


From an ecological perspective, Kulakowski just isn’t worried about the
beetles. But the dead trees increase the risk of fire. And with homes
nearby, the forest can’t be left to burn.


Driving up a winding road to a nearby subdivision, I’m in the car with Barry
Smith. He’s the emergency manager for the adjacent Eagle County. He says
roads like these make his job difficult:


“This is one of those subdivisions like many of our mountain
subdivisions that, from a fire safety perspective, this is the only road
to get into our out of this subdivision, so if we have a large fire
here, you’re trying to get fire equipment in and get homeowners out at
the same time and that’s going to create a lot of problems.”


So government is forced to protect nearby homes from fire, and also
preserve the health of the forest.


Increasingly, governments are addressing the problem by clearing dead
trees. State and federal governments have thinned eighteen thousand
acres in Colorado. This compares to the seven hundred thousand acres
infected.


Rob Davis is the president of Forest Energy Colorado. His company
takes dead trees, and makes wood pellets to heat homes. He says an
opportunity exists to improve the health of the forest and make a
profit:


“This is an extremely valuable resource,
do we want to use it? You know if this goes into energy and displaces
fossil fuels, it helps global warming. It helps climate change that is
one of the problems that we have with these forests. So are we going
to keep the narrow point of view that says ‘Oh! It’s got to stay
exactly like it was historically,’ or do we want to open our mind and
say ‘We can actually use this to help global warming, we can use this
in cases as long as remember that first thing is the health of the
forest…’ we can use it.”


But removing dead trees may have ecological costs. A 2002 study by the
University of Colorado concluded that harvesting forests leads to soil
erosion, loss of nutrients, and warmer ground temperatures. Professor
Kolikowski says the effects of harvesting might be worse than the initial
disturbance.


“That’s not to say that harvesting or salvaging is inappropriate, we
just need to be clear about what it is we want to do and why.”


And local governments may not have the money to do it all… to curb the
population of bark beetles, protect homes from fires, and preserve the
ecology. Tom Fry with the conservation group the Wilderness Society
remembers work he did on the Front Range. In the ten-county area, it
would have cost fifteen million a year for forty years to do risk
reduction and forest restoration:


“I think one of the messages here is we won’t have that money. We’ll
never have that money. So we as a community, and that community
includes all of us, need to be hyper strategic and surgical in where we
look to apply what resources we have.”


For the time being, governments are choosing to use their resources to
thin the forests to reduce the risk of fire from the beetle.


The U.S. Forest Service (White River National Forest) just auctioned
the right for timber contractors to remove dead trees from another
thirteen hundred acres. The work will begin by the end of the summer.


For the Environment Report, I’m Steve Zelaznik.

Related Links

Slowing Gypsy Moth Spread

The government concedes it can’t get rid of a pest that’s been killing
trees. But it has a program that’s slowing its spread. Fred Kight
reports federal and state officials are using a pesticide on the tree-
killing gypsy moth in 10 states:

Transcript

The government concedes it can’t get rid of a pest that’s been killing
trees. But it has a program that’s slowing its spread. Fred Kight
reports federal and state officials are using a pesticide on the tree-
killing gypsy moth in 10 states:


The Slow the Spread Project is run by the US Forest Service and Donna
Leonard is the program manager. She says they focus on hindering the
gypsy moth’s advance into new territory:


“…And for the past five or six years, we’ve been holding spread at
about two to three miles per year, compared to 13 miles per year, which
is the rate it was spreading before we started.”


The tactic employed against the gypsy moth in the spring is aerial
spraying of pesticide, and for the most part they use a naturally
occurring soil bacteria commonly referred to as BTK.


A Sierra Club activist says BTK is far preferable to synthetic
pesticides but it can be a problem because it can kill other bugs, too.


For the Environment Report, I’m Fred Kight.

Related Links

Feds Say No to Private Developers

For most of the last century, the federal
government has engaged in a practice known as “land
swapping.” That’s where the federal government sells
or trades land with private property owners. In recent
years, land swapping has become increasingly controversial
as developers build neighborhoods on previously undeveloped
public land. But one federal agency has put an end to the
practice. Some conservationists hope this recent development
represents a new era for the protection of federally-owned
land. Matt Shafer Powell reports:

Transcript

For most of the last century, the federal
government has engaged in a practice known as “land
swapping.” That’s where the federal government sells
or trades land with private property owners. In recent
years, land swapping has become increasingly controversial
as developers build neighborhoods on previously undeveloped
public land. But one federal agency has put an end to the
practice. Some conservationists hope this recent development
represents a new era for the protection of federally-owned
land. Matt Shafer Powell reports:


In the 1930s and 40s the federal government used eminent domain, or the threat of it, to
seize land all over the country. It bought up the land to build dams to make electricity.
One of the biggest projects took place in the Southeastern US. That’s where the federal
government created the Tennessee Valley Authority and flooded much of the Tennessee
River Valley. What was once deep gullies and hillsides became lakes and reservoirs
surrounded by forests. The TVA still owns about 300,000 acres of undeveloped land
throughout the region. For most of the last seventy years, the public has used this land
for recreation and conservation. Billy Minser is a wildlife biologist. He says the public
is very protective of that land:


“It provides outstanding public resource for recreation and beauty, it gives people a place to
rekindle the human spirit, a place to relax, hunt, fish, camp, bird watch or maybe to sit
home and think about how pretty the lakes are.”


In 2003, the TVA angered conservationists like Minser when it traded some of that land
to a residential developer, who built an upscale subdivision on it, and it happened again
last year with another swatch of pristine lakeshore property. Minser claims those deals
betrayed the public, but they also betrayed those families who lost their land to the
government years ago:


“If the government takes your house and bulldozes it down because it’s not enough value
and then sells it to me so I can build another house on it in the same place. Is that right?
That’s wrong. That is absolutely wrong and the public’s done with it.”


Land exchanges are nothing new. Federal agencies like the US Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management have been swapping land with private property owners and
state and local governments for decades. The practice is often used to fill in holes in
national forests or get rid of land that the government can’t use. Glenn Collins is with the
Public Lands Foundation. In some cases, he says the feds end up with more and better
land, but that means a lot of previously untouched land ends up in the hands of
developers:


“The federal lands that are placed into private ownership invariably go into development.
Either the land, the large blocks are subdivided into smaller blocks on paper, there may
be roads, improvements, it’ll be put up for sale.”


Over the years, the public has become increasingly wary of these land swaps. In the
Tennessee Valley, public outcry about the deals eventually forced a change in the TVA’s
philosophy. The agency’s Board of Directors recently voted to approve a new policy that
bans the sale or trade of TVA land to private residential developers:


“All those in favor of the committee’s policy on land, say aye.”


“Aye.”


“Opposed?”


“No.”
That one dissenting vote came from board member Bill Baxter, demonstrating the fact
that not everyone is wild about the ban. In explaining his “no” vote, Baxter echoed the
sentiments of economic development officials who worry that an all-out ban on
residential development will compromise their chances of attracting people and money to
the region. Baxter used the example of rural communities that would normally have a
hard time attracting industry:


“Perhaps their best hope for doing some economic development and increasing the tax
base so they can improve the schools for their kids and their roads and their health care is
to have some high-end residential development. It’s a beautiful part of the country and
we’re fortunate that a lot of people want to retire here.”


In the end, Baxter’s claims that residential development is economic development failed
to resonate with either the public or his colleagues on the board. After the vote at the
TVA’s board meeting, Michael Butler of the Tennessee Wildlife Federation called the
new policy a “monumental accomplishment.”


“I think it’s also part of a sound quality-of-life and tax policy into the future to look at
how we use conservation lands to really develop a sustainable way to have a growing
economy, which has got to be part of the equation, and to have a place where these
people can go enjoy themselves that isn’t in front of a television set all the time.”


The fact that the government used eminent domain to acquire a lot of the TVA’s land
means the people in the region are passionately vigilant about what happens to it, but the
public’s passion for land isn’t exclusive to the Tennessee Valley. And so the decisions
made here could have a long-term effect on the way the government approaches future
land exchanges throughout the country.


For the Environment Report, I’m Matt Shafer Powell.

Related Links

Blazing New Atv Trails in Parkland

  • Advocates of special trails for ATV riding say the trails would reduce environmental damage from uncontrolled use. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)

Managers at state parks across the country are scrambling to figure out how to deal with a
rising demand for trails for All-Terrain Vehicles. Stephanie Hemphill reports park
managers are finding it’s not easy to satisfy both fans who have fun on four wheel drive
vehicles and people who want a quieter time in the park:

Transcript

Managers at state parks across the country are scrambling to figure out how to deal with a
rising demand for trails for All-Terrain Vehicles. Stephanie Hemphill reports park
managers are finding it’s not easy to satisfy both fans who have fun on four wheel drive
vehicles and people who want a quieter time in the park:


As the name suggests, All-Terrain Vehicles are built to travel rough. ATVs power over
rocks and logs. Their go-anywhere knobby tires grip the land and take their riders just
about anywhere they want to go, and a lot of them want to go to public parks.


Whether it’s forests, dunes, bogs or a desert, riders say four-wheeling can be a fun way to
get out into nature. The vehicles are popular. Dealers are selling close to a million ATVs
every year, and sales are growing steadily. With that many people looking for a place to
play, states are scrambling to accommodate them.


In Minnesota, the state decided a long ATV trail might be a good way to attract tourism
dollars to a struggling rural area in the state.


Ron Sluka jumped at the idea. He’s the trail coordinator for a local ATV club. He’d been
wanting for years to build a trail in his area. Then he heard the state would pay for a
“destination” trail so well-built and attractive, people would come from all over to ride it.
Sluka thought it would be great news for his area.


He and county officials worked up a plan, but when it hit the local news, Sluka says a
few people raised a ruckus:


“The way it was presented to the people, eminent domain would take over in cases if
need be, and there were going to be up to 20 feet of your land taken for this trail. None
of the above is true, totally none of it is true, absolutely zero. But it’s too late: once
things are rolling, it’s rolling.”


Sluka says now, it’s hard to get a rational discussion of the issues. Beyond property rights
issues and worries about the ATVs being too loud, there are other concerns:


“The residents have kind of been left out of the loop.”


That’s Deb Pomroy. She lives near the proposed ATV trail.


Pomroy says most of her neighbors don’t mind the local ATV riders. It’s that idea of
drawing ATVs from all over the state that freaks them out, and Pomroy has her own reasons
for opposing a trail here, where the Cloquet River has its beginning: wood turtles.
Pomroy is a biologist. She says this area is a refuge for the turtles. They’re endangered in
most of their range, and listed as a threatened species in Minnesota.


Wood turtles bury their eggs in sandy soil. Pomroy says they would love to bury their
eggs in soil disturbed by ATVs, but the eggs wouldn’t survive:


“Even stepping on a nest, which is buried in soil, don’t know there are eggs there, is
enough to destroy the eggs.”


The trail is on hold for now, while county officials and ATV riders try to come up with
an alternative. Concern about damage to sensitive environmental areas is one of the chief
reasons many environmentalists don’t like the idea of letting ATVs into parks.


Jason Kiely is with Wildlands CPR, a national non-profit group that works to prevent off-
road vehicle damage on public land. He says fights over ATV trails are inevitable, as
long as public agencies don’t involve all park users in a comprehensive planning process.


“Primarily because off-road vehicles affect every other use of the forest so significantly.
So we advocate for doing comprehensive travel and recreation planning, not just trying to
carve off the ATV piece, but multi-stakeholder planning efforts that offer something to
everyone.”


Kiely says the US Forest Service and many state agencies have a lot of work to do, to
find the right balance between preserving nature and allowing ATV riders to have their
fun on public land


For the Environment Report, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.

Related Links

Forest Service Breaks Bank Fighting Fires

A new report from the US Department of Agriculture’s Inspector General shows the US Forest Service is spending too much money fighting fires. It suggests the feds get some help paying the bills from state governments. Mark Brodie reports:

Transcript

A new report from the US Department of Agriculture’s Inspector General shows the US Forest Service is spending too much money fighting fires. It suggests the feds get some help paying the bills from state governments. Mark Brodie reports:


The Inspector General report says the Forest Service went over budget four times in the last six years, spending more than a billion dollars in each of those years.


The service blames the cost increase in part on housing developments. They say more homes are being built farther into the forest.


Tom Harbour is the Forest Service’s Fire Chief.


“All of us treat protection of life as our certain first priority, and then treat the protection of communities and values on public lands as our second, and you bet it does make things more difficult.”


But some state foresters say the real difficulty comes from issues like changes in the weather and too much fire fuel on federal land. They say downed trees and excess brush make it difficult for the forest service to contain fires.


Both sides say they’ll bargain hard when it comes time to pay the bill for fighting fires.


For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brodie.

Related Links

Trees Under the Influence of Ozone and Co2

  • The circle of trees, as seen from the outside. The white pipe seen near the top delivers either normal air, one, or both of the experimental gasses to the trees. (Photo by Bob Kelleher)

In northern Wisconsin, they’re finding that gasses such as carbon dioxide and ozone will change the makeup of what survives in a future forest. An open air experiment called the Aspen FACE project has been testing trees in elevated levels of ozone and carbon dioxide for ten years. But they don’t know whether the forest can change as quickly as the climate does. The GLRC’s Bob Kelleher has more:

Transcript

In northern Wisconsin, they’re finding that gasses such as carbon dioxide and ozone will
change the makeup of what survives in a future forest. An open air experiment called the
Aspen FACE project has been testing trees in elevated levels of ozone and carbon dioxide
for ten years. But they don’t know whether the forest can change as quickly as the
climate does. The GLRC’s Bob Kelleher reports:


We’re standing inside a circle of trees: paper birch, aspen, and sugar maples, maybe 15
feet high. And they’re surrounded by a ring of large white pipes spraying the trees with
gasses – that’s the high pitched noise.


Among 12 different circles of trees, some get carbon dioxide, or ozone, or a
combination. These are the very gasses believed responsible for changing the climate –
they hold in the earth’s warmth, forcing surface temperatures higher.


Dave Karnosky, with Michigan Technological University, heads the Aspen FACE project,
near Rhinelander, Wisconsin. Karnosky’s trying to predict how these gasses will affect
the northern forest:


“Those species, with aspen and aspen mixed with birch and maple make up a huge
portion of our northern forests, and there was a lot of interest by industry as well as to
what’s going to happen in the future as these greenhouse gasses continue to build up in
the atmosphere.”


Even ten years ago, when this project started, it was clear that carbon dioxide and ozone
levels were on the increase.


Ozone is destructive. It’s bad for people and for plants. Carbon dioxide, on the other
hand, is what we exhale, and what green plants need to grow. Both gasses have been on
the increase, largely due to burning fossil fuels such as in coal-fired power plants and in
cars and trucks. Karnosky says he knew aspen were quite responsive to both CO2 and
ozone:


“We weren’t sure much about the interaction, but we were sure interested in what would
happen with that, because those two pollutants are both increasing at about the same rate
in the atmosphere.”


The Aspen FACE project has shown that most trees grow well when exposed to carbon
dioxide, and most do poorly in ozone. With the gasses combined, bad effects tend to
offset the good ones, but results vary greatly between the different kinds of trees, and
even within a single species of trees, like aspen.


Karnosky has found there’s a tremendous range of genetic variation even among the
relatively few trees they’ve tested. That variation makes clear predictions difficult:


“It’s very tough to make a single prediction for species or individuals within species,
there’s so much genetic variation. So that’s been one of the, I think, kind of the highlights
from what I see in terms of a bit of a surprise for us.”


That genetic variation could be the forest’s salvation. Karnosky thinks that if some
aspens, for example, die off from ozone, maybe others will do okay, and fill the forest
back in. Sugar maples, which seem more tolerant of ozone, could replace some aspen
and birch. Then, the mix of trees in the forest would change, but the forest would
survive.


But, there could be problems if the air changes the forest too quickly. Neil Nelson is a
plant physiologist with the US Forest Service. Nelson says the region’s paper and pulp
industries rely heavily on aspen trees. He’s uncertain how quickly the forest, and forest
industry, can respond if aspen begins to die off – and how long it might take for other
trees to grow in.


“One of my colleagues has said, you know, the key issue may be whether things change
too fast for our society and economy to adjust to, and I think that’s an open question.
There seems to be great plasticity, and we aren’t quite there in terms of predicting from a
forest management standpoint what these results mean.”


It takes time to grow trees, maybe too much time if the climate suddenly shifts. The
Aspen FACE project has already provided regulators preliminary data on ozone. It could
become the basis for future pollution law. But, even ten years into the Aspen Face
project, there’s still a lot more data to harvest among the aspen and hardwoods.


For The GLRC, I’m Bob Kelleher.

Related Links

Life After a Forest Fire

  • Biologist find signs of regeneration shortly after a forest fire. (Photo courtesy of Stephanie Hemphill)

Forest fires capture a lot of attention and concern. Loggers worry about lost resources. People who hike and camp in the forest worry they’ll see nothing but ugly, blackened vistas for years to come. But a big fire this summer in the northwoods gives people a chance to see just how fast the forest can recover. Even as the fire still burns, foresters see signs of life. The GLRC’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:

Transcript

Forest fires capture a lot of attention and concern. Loggers worry about lost resources.
People who hike and camp in the forest worry they’ll see nothing but ugly, blackened vistas for years
to come. But a big fire this summer in the northwoods gives people a chance to see just
how fast the forest can recover. Even as the fire still burns, foresters see signs of life.
The GLRC’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:


The Cavity Lake fire started in mid-July this summer. It turned out to be the fire people have been
worrying about for seven years. In 1999, huge straight-line winds knocked down millions
of trees. They toppled into an impassable tangle of drying fuel in and near the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in northeastern Minnesota. Locals call it “the
blowdown.”


The Cavity Lake fire gobbled up the blown-down trees. It roared across lakes,
threatening homes and resorts.


(Sound of boat motor)


Two forest service workers hop in a small boat to document the fire and its aftermath. In
places, the fire seems to have consumed everything, down to the soil, but these two are
looking for life.


Black, powdery ash covers the ground. Burned snags, limbless trees the color of
charcoal, stand against the sky. But even here, biologist Lissa Grover can find signs of
life.


“If you look around, you can see the 20-foot tall trees that took off after the blowdown,
and a lot of them still have cones on the top, and those cones are open now, and the seeds
will fall from them into the bare soil and germinate.”


In fact, some seeds, such as Jack Pine, wait for fire to open:


“There’s a seed bank in the soil, just waiting for a disturbance like this. There’s one plant
called Bicknell’s geranium that sprouts after fire, produces flowers the second year, sets
seed. Those seeds will stay in the soil until the next fire, even if it’s 200 years from now.”


And some plants aren’t waiting for the next generation. Grasses are already pushing
green shoots through the blackened dirt.


(Sound of motor)


Our next stop is a big island. After the 1999 blowdown in northeastern Minnesota, the
Forest Service purposely burned some areas near homes and resorts. The idea was to
reduce the amount of fuel available for wildfires. Crews set this island on fire four years
ago.


Wilderness ranger Tim McKenzie says that intentional burn saved the island, and the
resorts, from the Cavity Lake fire:


“It was traveling pretty good distances and spotting on these islands. As soon as it hit
here it just lay down.”


The blowdown fuel was already burned, and the young trees were too small and green to
keep the fire going.


Animals here are also adapted to fires. Bears, wolves and moose can walk away from a
fire. Birds can fly away or take refuge in the water.


Grover does worry about the young eagles, still in their nests and unable to fly.


“The trees are still there, the nest is still there, the adult eagles are still here, but it’s
unlikely that the juveniles in the nest survived the fire.”


But a few minutes later, we hear a sound that gladdens Grover’s heart: a young eagle
screaming for food.


(Sound of eagle)


At least one young eagle survived the Cavity Lake fire.


This land has been swept repeatedly by fires. They start, grow, move, and burn out in a
patchwork pattern. A fire last year burned until it ran into an area that had burned thirty
years ago. And here, in a thirty-year-old burn, is a picture-perfect Boundary Waters
portage.


(Sound of walking)


Young balsams scent the air with their clean, northwoods smell. Young birches lean
across the path. The moss is soft underfoot. The air is moist, and the mosquitoes are
buzzing.


Tim McKenzie fought that fire, thirty years ago. He says whenever fire burns, it’s nature
at work:


“People are used to seeing a snapshot in time. But the landscape that they’re used to
seeing became that landscape because of this process.”


And canoe outfitters here are busy planning routes that will show that landscape changing.


For the GLRC, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.

Related Links

Predators to Be Prey for Livestock Owners?

The U.S. Forest Service is loosening rules to deal with
predators. The new rules would allow livestock owners and others to hunt down wolves, bears, coyotes and mountain lions using trucks, helicopters and cyanide-laced traps. The GLRC’s Lester Graham
reports:

Transcript

The U.S. Forest service is loosening rules to deal with predators. The new rules would
allow livestock owners and others to hunt down wolves, bears, coyotes and mountain
lions using trucks, helicopters and cyanide-laced traps. The GLRC’s Lester Graham
reports:


The Forest Service says the proposed new rules simply clear up a program that’s
designed to get rid of nuisance animals that prey on livestock. Erik Ryberg is with the
Center for Biological Diversity. He says the new rules permit killing any local predator
instead of just the animal that’s killing livestock. They would also allow off-road
vehicles and even helicopters to chase down the animals on federal land, and they would
allow baited traps that explode with poison gas:


“These are buried cyanide bombs that when triggered release an explosive cloud of
sodium cyanide crystals and kill whatever has triggered it. They’re very dangerous both
to domestic pets, to children and to people. They certainly don’t belong in federally-
protected wilderness areas.”


The current rules state that the agency is to “consider the benefits of predator species in
the ecosystem” before it starts killing any predators.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Battle Over the Right to Grow Rice

  • Roger LaBine winnows the wild rice. (Photo by Michael Loukinen, Up North Films)

Since European settlers first came to this country they have had serious conflicts with Native Americans. The GLRC’s Sandy Hausman reports on one modern-day dispute between a Native American tribe and communities in the upper Midwest:

Transcript

Since European settlers first came to this country they have had serious conflicts with
Native Americans. The GLRC’s Sandy Hausman reports on one modern-day dispute
between a Native American tribe and communities in the upper Midwest:


(Sound of Ojibwe music)


The Ojibwe tribe first came to the north woods of Michigan and Wisconsin hundreds of
years ago. They say their migration from the east coast was guided by prophets. Those
prophets told them to keep moving until they came to a place where food grows on the
water. Roger Labine is a spiritual leader with the tribe. He says that food was wild rice:


“This was a gift to us. This is something that is very, very sacred to us. This is very
important, just as our language. This is part of who we are.”


For hundreds of years, wild rice was a staple of the tribe’s diet, but starting in the 1930s,
private construction of hydroelectric dams pushed water levels in rice growing areas up.
High water killed most of the plants and took a toll on wildlife. Bob Evans is a biologist
with the U.S. Forest Service. He says fish, bird and insect populations dropped
dramatically:


“Black tern is a declining, threatened species that is known to use wild rice beds,
Trumpeter swans. They’re a big user of rice beds. Um, just a whole lot of plants and
animals. It’s really a whole ecosystem in itself.”


So in 1995, the tribe, the U.S. Forest Service and several other government agencies
demanded a change. A year later, the federal government ordered dam operators to drop
their maximum water levels by 9 inches. The dam owners appealed that decision, but in
2001 a federal court ruled against them.


That fall, the Ojibwe who live on Lac Vieux
Desert harvested nearly 16 acres of wild rice and this summer, the tribe is tending more than 55 acres.
But the resurgence of rice beds comes at a price. Lower lake levels have left docks in this
boating community high and dry, created muddy shorelines and made long-time residents
and summer boaters angry:


“I used to come here and dock all the time. We picnicked here. I had to walk in 50 feet,
because there wasn’t enough water to float a pontoon, and it’s that way all around the
lake.”


Ken Lacount is president of the Lac Vieux Desert homeowners association. He first
came here in the 1940s and doesn’t see why his cultural traditions should take a backseat
to those of the Ojibwe:


“My grandfather built one of the first resorts. I fished in Rice Bay my entire life. That
was his favorite place to take me.”


Lacount is bitter. He and his neighbors feel powerless to change the situation, since a
federal court has ruled for the Ojibwa. Defenders of that decision say water levels are
especially low because of a prolonged drought in region. When that ends, they predict
lake levels will rise, and homeowners on Lac Vieux Desert will be happier.


(Sound of paddling)


Such conflicts are nothing new. Ron Seeley is a reporter for the Wisconsin State Journal. He’s covered Native American issues for more than 20 years. Paddling through the rice beds, he recalls an earlier battle
over fishing rights. In the late 80s, a court ruled the Ojibwe were entitled by treaty to
spear fish each spring. Local fishermen worried the practice would destroy their industry:


“Sometimes thousands of people would show up at the landings on a spring night. Tribal
members from all over the upper Midwest would come to support the spearers and drum
and chant. The anti-Indian forces were arrested for using wrist rockets or real powerful
sling shots to shoot pellets at the tribal members while they were out spearing. It was a
violent time up here.”


As court after court upheld the rights of native spear fishermen, and as commercial
fishermen continue to prosper, hostilities subsided and now, as the Native Americans prepare for
their biggest rice harvest in more than 50 years, the Ojibwe hope that the controversy over water levels
will also die down. Tribal leader Roger Labine says wild rice is a symbol of the Ojibwe’s survival:


“This is an endangered species. It’s something that we’re fighting to save, just like the
eagle, just like the wolf. We were put here to care for Mother Earth and all the gifts that
the creator gave us.”


And having won the first battle to restore rice beds, Labine is hoping to secure even
greater protection for these wetlands by asking the federal government to declare the rice
beds historic.


For the GLRC, I’m Sandy Hausman.

Related Links