Posted for Jerry Fruth.

*****************************
MONTANANS FOR MULTIPLE USE NEWS RELEASE MAY 5, 2004

Editors: Please consider the following information for use in current news or op
ed features.

Contacts: Fred Hodgeboom, President 406-837-1363, or 406-250-4006; Gary E. Hall,
Vice President 406-881-2345; Clarence Taber, Board of Directors 406-892-3722

www.mtmultipleuse.org.

REQUEST FOR INJUCTION FILED

Montanans For Multiple Use (MFMU) and thirteen co-plaintiffs* today filed a
motion with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia asking
the Court to issue a preliminary injunction which would, if granted, prohibit
the United States Forest Service from:

Closing, blocking, disturbing, or otherwise interfering with any roads, trails,
or other rights-of-way which is owned by private parties or by public entities
other than the United States Forest Service within the Flathead National Forest
or in any other National Forest.

Closing, blocking, disturbing, or otherwise interfering with any road, trail, or
other right-of-way within the Flathead National Forest or any National Forest
the closure of which is required or authorized by any of the Amendments which
are alleged in the Complaint as having cumulatively have resulted in a de facto
Plan revision without compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements
for such revisions including, without limitation, those authorized and/or
required by the "Regional" Amendments, Amendment 19, and any subsequent
amendment;

Adopting or processing further amendments to the existing Flathead National
Forest Plan prior to revision of the Plan as required by law, proposing any
further proposed amendments to the existing Flathead National Forest Plan prior
to the adoption of a revision of the Plan as required by law, adopting or
processing any further amendments in any National Forest in which a revision
pursuant to the NFMA is due or overdue, and implementing any Amendment to any
National Forest Plan adopted after fifteen years has passed from the time the
original Plan or last Plan revision was adopted; and

Further implementing or enforcing the "Regional Amendments", Amendments 19 and
24, and any amendment adopted from 1994 forward.

In addition, the motion asked the Court for an order imposing on the Defendants
a schedule for the prompt and expeditious development and implementation of a
Forest Plan Revision for the Flathead National Forest pursuant to the National
Forest Management Act. This order, if granted, would specifically direct the
defendants to comply with and take, forthwith, the actions mandated by NFMA
(16USC1604.(5) and 36 C.F.R. § 219.9) within a specified period.

MFMU 4/5/04 news release, p.2/3

The filing of this motion became necessary because of an approaching fire season
which will expose the public to a substantial health and safety risk and
because, notwithstanding the filing of the lawsuit by the MFMU and the other
plaintiffs, the defendants continue to process a continuous stream of
significant Amendments across the country. This ongoing process has misled the
public by disguising the frequent amendments as insignificant while diverting
resources from the revision process, and committing the defendants to policy
directions that should be reviewed in an integrated, comprehensive planning
process specified by law.

As a result of experiencing the systematic and unwavering implementation of this
process over the years, MFMU believes the Forest Service has long had a plan in
place to implement most of the provisions of their Orwellian vision of a Forest
Plan that manages people rather than natural resources.

By adopting frequent, piecemeal amendments, the changes desired by defendants
are put in place incrementally over time while the defendants avoid the
integrated comprehensive and open public process required by federal statutes.
This piecemeal approach also disguises from the public the fact that the final
product is a revised outdated Plan that is carried over into the revision
process as "Current Direction". Current Direction is the benchmark to which all
other alternatives are compared in the revision evaluation process. With a large
percentage of the changes the Forest Service wants already incorporated into
"Current Direction", it makes additional changes appear less drastic and less
costly to the public and to Congress, when in fact the vast trade off of public
benefits has already been made without the disclosures required by law.

MFMU has tried to stop this process for years by filing comments and
administrative appeals warning the Forest Service of illegal and cumulative
nature of their actions. Some of the actions appealed include Flathead Forest
Amendment 19, Regional Foresters OHV Amendment, Spotted Beetle road
obliteration, Moose road obliteration, Kootenai Lolo and IPNF Motorized Access
Management, and will include Flathead National Forest Snowmobile Amendment 24
when issued. In addition to revising the existing Forest Plan with cumulative
piecemeal amendments, these actions required site-specific changes to the long
term land use plan by obliterating roads in the suitable timber base in
furtherance of some unspecified new roadless management and "wilderness" vision
which violates the timber management requirements of federal law, and escapes
the limitations on designation of roadless and wilderness areas in federal law.

The elimination of roads and other actions in the amendments have cumulatively
resulted in increased fire hazards, increased probability of catastrophic fires,
increased fire fighting costs, increased risk and probability of damage to
natural resources, loss of critical timber industry jobs and infastructure, and
loss of private property and human lives. Many communities and families who have
lost their loved ones, and thousands of individuals have already suffered
economically and in quality of life because the Forest Service failed to assess
the cumulative effects of each amendment, and purposely ignored numerous laws
while at the same time refusing to implement a good faith effort to revise
forest plans as required by law.

MFMU 4/5/2004 news release, p. 3/3

Our assessment of this process was confirmed and documented by the Forest
Service when the "Proposed Action" for revision of the Bitterroot, Flathead, and
Lolo National Forest was released in January, 2004. MFMU’s critique of that
document along with the complete request for Preliminary Injunction and
supporting Declarations are available on the MFMU website:
www.mtmultipleuse.org.

As a result of the significant adverse effects of the implementation of these
illegal amendments, we are asking the Court to order the Forest Service to stop
processing additional amendments and to stop implementation of illegal
amendments on all National Forests while the Forest Plans due or overdue for
revision are revised in good faith.

Jim Hurst, President Owens and Hurst Lumber Company, Eureka, MT said "For too
long the Forest Service has used forest plan amendments to deny a multitude of
American citizens access to our National Forests. Grizzly bears and other causes
have been given precedence over our Senior Citizens, the disabled, the average
Joe, and resource starved wood products firms. The past actions of the Forest
Service must be challenged, unfortunately it appears the only way to do that is
through the Courts."

*Co-plaintiffs: Flathead County, Sanders County, Owens and Hurst Lumber Co.,
Flathead Business and Industry Association, Senator Jerry O’Neil, Representative
George Everett, Leland J. Moore, Lelands Honda, Montanans For Property Rights,
Capital Trail Vehicle Association, Flathead Snowmobile Association, Northwest
Montana Gold Prospectors, and North American Wolf Watch.

Submitted by: Fred D. Hodgeboom, President Montanans For Multiple Use