WILD BILL
No More Wilderness, Forever?
By Bill Schneider, 12-01-05
Has anybody else noticed that we have had no new Wilderness designations in the northern Rockies (Idaho, Montana or Wyoming) for decades? In fact, the last wilderness designated in anywhere in the three-state region was 1984 when the Wyoming Wilderness Act passed and protected several small areas. In Montana, we have to go back to 1983 when the Lee Metcalf Wilderness Act passed. And in Idaho, the last bill passed was the River of No Return Wilderness Act of 1980—twenty-five years ago!
The northern Rockies has around 20 million acres deserving consideration for Wilderness, but we’ve gone twenty-one years without a single acre of land being designated under the Wilderness Act of 1964. Even worse, state and national Wilderness groups have few active efforts to officially propose new Wilderness.
Have we given up on Wilderness? If not, what’s the problem?
No, we haven’t given up, and the problem is politics. Seems like it always is, right? We’ve elected senators and representatives who don’t want Wilderness and consequently refuse to even introduce a bill. Green groups can’t go to New York or California to find a Wilderness-friendly senator to introduce a northern Rockies bill because western senators and representatives would consider this a breach of protocol, which means the bill would never even have a hearing and die a quiet death.
As each day passes, this gridlock gets worse and worse. Anti-wilderness groups, primarily motorized recreation organizations, repeatedly cast Wilderness as the ultimate evil plot of eastern radicals and enemy of “multiple use.� (More on this myth later in the column). And green groups allow the negativism to build as they wait and wait and wait for political climate change and for a champion of Wilderness to emerge. To me, this is like waiting for global warming to end so we can open a new ski resort.
Meanwhile, two things keep happening. First, existing Wilderness continues to be more and more heavily used, if not overused, and grow in economic significance, serving as magnets for tourism and recreation industry dollars. And second, unprotected roadless land faces an ever-mounting list of threats, the end result of which is less and less land that can ever be included in the Wilderness Preservation System.
So, what to do? While Montana and Wyoming continue to wait for a political tailwind, Idaho has finally thrown in the towel and taken a new approach. Rick Johnson, executive director of the Idaho Conservation League, plans to talk up the new game plan in Billings, Montana, next weekend at the 47th annual convention of the Montana Wilderness Association, which is the largest yearly gathering of environmentalists in the Big Sky State.
Johnson calls Idaho’s new approach “the republican way of doing things.� By that, he means getting what you want by packaging your prize with other ideas the opposition wants.
“Our best hope is a specific area with strong support,� Johnson explains, as opposed to a wide-reaching statewide wilderness bill. In Idaho, that area is the Boulder-White Clouds area, 300,000 acres of fragile roadless country near Stanley in central Idaho. In Montana, a similar area with massive support would be the Rocky Mountain Front, west of Great Falls.
Idaho conservationists convinced Representative Mike Simpson (R-ID) into introducing a bill, but so volatile has the debate become that they didn’t even call it the Boulder-White Clouds Wilderness Act. Not hardly. Instead, they named it the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act. What a shame, I must say, that Wilderness has become such a beacon for controversy that we can’t even say the word in public, let alone put it in the title of an Act of Congress.
Johnson admits that the new approach is no stranger to controversy, even among Wilderness supporters. In exchange for the Boulder-White Clouds Wilderness, the Idaho Conservation League has agreed to permanent access for motorized recreation in other areas, a lease buy-out for ranchers, and support for a federal development grant (about $8 million as currently written) for local economies. Further fueling debate, the bill also bans cross-country skiing in some areas to protect mountain goat habitat, reaffirms that some “traditional uses� such as livestock grazing will continue, transfers 2,000 acres of federal land to county government control, and even reduces the size of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area by 162 acres and gives the land to the City of Stanley and Custer County.
Why are we doing this? “Because we’re tired of waiting for the right political moment that might never happen� answers Johnson.
Not all conservationists agree with this approach, but Idaho has at least taken a step forward. The bill is a long way from getting passed in the House, let alone introduced and passed in the Senate, or signed into law by an anti-wilderness president, but it at least gives wilderness advocates the feeling of forward motion, something that has been missing for decades.
Based on many conversations I’ve had with fans of Wilderness, this “packaging� approach is preferable to the other option to get off the dime, accepting a less restrictive designation, the so-called little “w� wilderness alternative. Johnson agrees Idaho’s approach is a better option because this is the “real deal, big ‘W’ Wilderness.�
Little “w� wilderness such as National Recreation Areas or Wildlife Management Areas can accomplish most of the goals such as preventing new roads and keeping out motorized recreation (which is the primary opponent to Wilderness, not the timber industry, as in the past), but all wilderness organizations know that once they accept one little “w� designation as an alternative to “the real deal� they will probably lose all hope of ever having a big “W� wilderness because the little “w� alternative is bound to become the politically popular choice of the future.
Will the Montana Wilderness Association take a close look at the Idaho way and put together the Rocky Mountain Front Economic Development Act? We’ll have to wait for that answer, but it sure seems like an idea that could fit with Montana’s political landscape and large numbers of wilderness users growing impatient with the lack of progress.
Idaho Approach Popular with Voters A republican polling firm recently surveyed Idaho voters and found strong support for the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act, including 69 percent approval for the Wilderness component of the bill. Even 60 percent of people describing themselves as republicans favored the Wilderness component, followed by support from 66 percentof independents and 84 percent of democrats. Possibly showing that the “republican way� is the “rgiht way,� even 61 percent of motorized off-road vehicle users and snowmobilers likewise supported the Wilderness designation. Actually, the entire package gets only 59 percent support, which seems to say that more people support Wilderness than federally-funded economic development. A whooping 72 percent agreed that the legislation “may provide a new tourist destination in Custer County that could help improve the local economy wihtout hurtintg existing businesses.� To that, I say, Montana and Wyoming, let’s package up a few Wilderness bills asap.
The Multiple Use Myth. Contrary to common belief, Wilderness is multiple use. As defined by the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the multiple uses are “outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed and fish and wildlife.� All, except timber, are allowed or protected in an officially designated Wilderness. On the other hand, developing federal land for a mining, logging, or fossil fuel development is single use management because it effectively eliminates or at least greatly minimizes the value of the land for the other officially defined multiple uses.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
republican way of doing things."
My organization and 35 others (including 13 in Idaho) have come out strongly against the Simpson bill for central Idaho because it does indeed advance a Republican agenda for public lands.
The proposal includes privatization--through outright giveaway-- of about 6,000 (not 2,000) acres of public land. It prohibits the federal reservation of water rights within the newly-designated wilderness. It allows, in that nominal wilderness, activities that are totally inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the Wilderness Act, further eroding the ideal and intent of Wilderness now and into the future. It creates a 500,000-plus-acre motorhead's paradise, with a "no-net-loss of motorized trails" policy that includes 200,000 acres of the Sawtooth National Recreation Area.
The long-term implication of these trade-offs is their entrenchment in all future public land legislation. This is no sky-is-falling scenario-- in the past 5 years more than 250,000 acres of public land have been jettisoned through omnibus privatization/development/wilderness bills like this one.
Lately, unfortunately, the implications have gained speed and caught up with supporters of the Boulder-White Clouds bill. House Resources Committee Chair Richard Pombo recently gained passage of a budget provision that allows the wholesale sell-off of millions of public acres. I imagine Idaho Conservation League views that proposal with the same distaste we do--but it's hard to imagine a worse time for conservationists to go along with privatizing public lands to meet their own goals, or make common cause with Republicans on public land policy.
The main reason we have made little progress for Wilderness over the last 20 years is that the various mainstream conservation groups no longer have the courage to go out and do the hard, on the ground grass roots work to gain public support for Wilderness. Until these groups find some backbone,we'll continue to be inundated with the Republican way of doing things.
- steve kelly s