WILD BILL
Rocky Mountain Front Not “Saved”
By Bill Schneider, 12-14-06
Last week, the old purple Congress did something unusual. They actually worked on Friday. December 8 was the last day of the 109th Congress, so I guess it seemed like they should actually do something. Our political leaders passed a tax extender bill with a load of riders and earmarks on it. One rider banned fossil fuel leasing on public land on the famed Rocky Mountain Front in west central Montana, which is great news for anybody who enjoys outdoor activities on the Front.
Immediately after passage, the main ball carrier, Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.) had this to say: “We finally got it done,” Baucus proclaimed in an interview with the Associated Press. “We finally protected the Rocky Mountain Front forever. Thirty years from now, our kids and grandchildren will thank us."
Yes, Max, I’m sure our grandchildren appreciate what we will not do to the Rocky Mountain Front, but we still have a lot of work to do. We have not saved it forever. Not yet.
The Front still faces at least two major threats--uncontrolled motorized use, especially on national forest land, and the specter of all those beautiful valleys filling up with trophy homes.
“We’re very happy about the leasing ban,” Gene Sentz, a spokesperson for Friends of the Rocky Mountain Front, told me in a phone interview, “and especially for Max Baucus picking up the ball and carrying it in for a touchdown, but we still have work to do.”
The leasing ban, although a welcome, hard-fought victory, only addresses leasing on public land. Keep in mind that nothing in the bill changes anything on private land along the Front. Even though some private fossil fuel exploration and development is already underway, Sentz does not consider it a huge threat.
Motorized use, or wrecreation as it’s sometimes called, is a different story. “We have been working with the agencies on this ORV problem,” Sentz says. “We see this as a definite threat, especially on the north end in the Badger-Two Medicine country.”
Oddly, Sentz notes, the State on Montana and the Bureau of Land Management have stricter rules on motorized use than the Forest Service. But this should not surprise Sentz or any of us. The FS has a sterling track record of either promoting or quietly ignoring wrecreation problems throughout the national forest system.
The FS, through the Lewis and Clark National Forest, is currently finishing up a travel plan for the Rocky Mountain Front, and the draft contains several alternatives that could open much of the Front to motorized use. During the recently finished public involvement phase, Lewis and Clark Forest planners received about 7,800 comments, many times more than they had ever received on any issue. More than 90 percent of Montanans and more than 98 percent of people nationwide opposed motorized use on the Front. Chuck Blixrud, a local rancher and outfitter, summed up most comments: "The fragile nature of the Rocky Mountain Front is so eggshell thin that attempting to accommodate motorized recreational uses over the majority of this land will destroy the quiet and the solitude that so many people today are seeking."
Hopefully, the FS will listen this time. Sadly, the agency also has a long track record of ignoring the majority of comments from the people who own the national forests.
Having a good travel plan promoting what people want on the Front, which is traditional uses like hiking, hunting, and horseback use, would be nice, but even that is not the real solution. The only answer to curbing wrecreation is Wilderness designation. Perhaps Baucus can follow his recent success with a real success and carry a Rocky Mountain Front Wilderness Bill through the new, blue-green Congress and truly save it, forever, for our grandchildren.
As far as rural subdivision filling up those scenic valleys, that all happens on private land. Sentz said he and other members of his group are concerned about it, but they have focused on public land issues. The county governments along the Front have to carry this ball. Hopefully, they can step up with a system of meaningful land use planning or zoning before it’s too late. Based on what’s happening elsewhere in the New West, there isn’t a minute to spare.
People worked together to achieve the leasing ban. Perhaps they can continue to pool opposing views into legislation and plans that finish the job.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
Seems like a strange twist. During the campaign Senator Burns was repeatedly drubbed as anti-environment while Tester was praised for his friendliness towards environmental concerns. Montana's environmental interests and the money to fund them seem to require special legislative footwork and earmark legislation to fund them. I seem to remember that Tester was for ending all earmarks. In fact he is quoted as saying so in the Oct 9 debate at MSU. See: http://www.issues2000.org/Economic/Jon_Tester_Government_Reform.htm
"Q: Which of the 34 Montana earmarks in the latest transportation bill qualify as unjustified pork?
TESTER: The current process of earmarking in the middle of the night, without transparency, is the wrong way for representative democracy to be working. Good projects, like this land-grant university, can stand up to the scrutiny of the light of day. Quite frankly, I don't support earmarks, period.
If a project's a good project, which includes probably most if not all of those 34 earmarks, they could withstand scrutiny in front of the entire Congress. I'm not for earmarks because they don't pass public scrutiny with the transparency that our government and our forefathers set up.
JONES: Incumbents always put something in the transportation bill so they can brag about all the money they brought to the state. None of the 34 are qualified.
BURNS: I'm proud about what I brought back to Montana. That money's going to be spent somewhere in America, and I want Montana to get her share."
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. The $162 million loss to Montana critical interests may just be the tip of the iceberg. The earmark process has many bad examples to point to. For a state like Montana that does not have the large urban voting blocks, what are its options to garner support and attention for non urban needs like conservation easements and critical water canals? The press seemed ready, willing, and gleeful to turn its vitriolic venom on Senator Burns time and time again. Will you now, with equal fervor, turn your fangs on the newbies when they don't walk their talk knowingly, ingnorantly, ineffectually or some combination of all three?
If only a fraction of that war money was coming our way eh?
-Californiamontanacan
Yes, Conrad Burns was very skilled at using earmarks to bring federal pork back to Montana, and many worthwhile projects benefited from it. Some of these earmarks might of had a green tinge, like the Blackfoot Challenge, but there is no way Burns could be considered a friend of the outdoor environment. His legacy is about as anti-environmental as you can get.
I personally do not view earmarking as an environmental or outdoor issue, but one of fiscal responsbility. This is not the way we are supposed to pass legislation or get federal money. Funding should go through the budget process and legislation -- yes, like the leasing ban on the Rocky Mountain Front -- should go through the normal legislative process. Regrettably, the whole process of tacking riders and earmarks on must-pass legislation has gotten so entrenched, that is is difficult to remember a piece of legilsation that passed Congress as it should.
It is possible that I am not the only person who sees it this way, and that Conrad's bragging about all the pork he brought home might have cost him votes. Perhaps Jon Tester coming out against earmarks helped him gain a few votes.
I do agree, though, that this is not a republican issue. Max Baucus is equally eager to earmark, as are many other democratic senators. I favor doing it the right way, even if it costs Montana some valuable projects in the short-term.
Bill
Bill
If they wrapped this area up and gave it all to you for Christmas, you still wouldn't be satisfied!
Have you ever heard of the concept of SHARING?
Motorized recreation is having less impact on this area than in the past, because of restrictions, user education and common sense.
Whenever something is gained by "you people", obstructionists, whether justified or not - it never seems to be enough...you want it all. Kind of a sad position to be in because your never satisfied.
I'm content whether it's closed or not to motorized recreation. My kids and grandkids may never see these places I have had the priveledge to enjoy. We go where we can ride, it just may not be the RM Front.
Once they eliminate motorized traffic, they will eliminate bikes, then folks with black shoes, then red, and on down the line until one enviromental bunch of top brass is trying to eliminate the other. Look at the snomobiles for an example, now that pollution isn't a problem, it anoys the "good folks" becaseu they can hear them and ruins their day.
There's sort of a conveyor belt of threats to the Front.
Oil and gas drilling was a big one, to be sure.
You've put your finger on what are up next ---- ORVs and rural subdivision.
The damage to the Front just south of Marias Pass in the Badger Two Medicine is beyond belief.
There's no time left to rest on the victory.
Your columns are consistently thought-provoking and interesting.
Happy holiday.
Tom Kotynski