ANIMOSITY, EGOS GIVE WILDERNESS DROUGHT STAYING POWER

Green Group Feud Stifles Efforts to Protect Roadless Lands

By Bill Schneider, 2-07-08

If you follow the Wilderness issue like I do, you know that Congress is currently considering the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (NREPA), which would designate as Wilderness basically all of the remaining roadless land in Idaho and Montana, and most of northwestern Wyoming as well as smaller tracts in eastern Oregon and eastern Washington--22.7 million acres in all, including 3 million already-protected as national parks, a chunk of real estate about the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined.

That might be too big of a bite for anybody to chew, but it seems like something a pro-Wilderness group could support, don't you think?

And sure enough, the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club support NREPA, as does the Idaho Conservation League, the major pro-Wilderness group in the Gem State. But you might be surprised to learn that the major nonprofit we depend on to protect wild land in the Big Sky State, the Montana Wilderness Association (MWA), not only won't support NREPA, but opposes it.

	If you’re among those who never want to see another Wilderness, rejoice. This is your perfect storm.

When I started asking around about why MWA wouldn't support a bill that protects roadless Montana, I found an embarrassing state of affairs where dissension and a nasty, back-biting, power struggle have created such gridlock within the ranks of Wilderness advocates that I'm sad to say there's little hope of ending twenty-five years of Wilderness drought in Montana.

I was on the MWA Council back in 1983 when we passed the Lee Metcalf Wilderness Bill, but no congressional designations since then. And in recent years, in fact, we've seen no visible attempts by MWA to even have a Wilderness bill introduced.

Over the past two months, I've talked to several key players in both the MWA and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies (AWR), the primary architect and flag-carrier of the NREPA. Because so much was given to me in confidence, I'm not putting names in this column, and besides, I doubt it would add much to this distressing story.

Before I get started, I want to be clear on this point. This column isn't about a journalist trying to create bickering where there is none, like the media dreaming up a feud between Barack and Hillary. This feud is real, perplexing and clearly counterproductive to attempts to protect roadless land.

At the core of the debate is a dramatic split in philosophy among the people who want more Wilderness. This disagreement goes back at least fifteen years and has worsened to the point of outright anger. Both groups believe they have the right approach and basically refuse to even talk about common ground--or to each other. Each side blames the other for lack of progress in preserving our roadless heritage.

And, of course, if you're among those who never want to see another Wilderness, rejoice. The opposition is playing your game. This is your perfect storm.

In the meantime, an entire generation of Montanans has gone by without a chance to fight for the concept of Wilderness. As I write this, it's hard not to predict at least one more generation will slip away before we see another Wilderness designation in Montana--if we ever see one.

Here's the rub. The MWA worships the collaborative or quid pro quo approach where "stakeholders" such as timber companies, ATVers, mountain bikers, backcountry horsemen and hikers sit down and hammer out a compromise. Politicians--at least the breed we have in Idaho and Montana--prefer this so-called "bottom up" approach because they can jump in a thorny issue like Wilderness designation without getting pricked.

In past Wild Bill columns, incidentally, I have supported this something-for-something strategy, including MWA projects such as the Continental Divide Quiet Trails Proposal and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership (BDP).

The AWR has the "do the right thing," ecological approach and opposes the quid pro quo concept in general and the BDP in particular. They disagree with the continuous process of "balancing" our wild land until it's gone. By this, I mean the frequent messages we hear from politicians i.e. "I'm in favor of Wilderness, but we need some balance." The "balance" philosophy is why we're so out of balance. Depending on which figures you use, something north of 90 percent of the Lower 48 has been transformed into non-wilderness, and now we have to keep splitting up the last of the rest? In other words, when we're down to the last 1 percent, will politicos still want "balance" i.e. compromising down to 0.5 percent?

No way, says AWR, which wants to save all of the small percentage we have left. This has led to the repeated introduction of NREPA. Today's version, H.R. 1975, carried by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) with 122 co-sponsors, including nine representatives from Colorado, Oregon and Washington, but none from Idaho, Montana or Wyoming, actually had a hearing last year on October 18, the first for any version of this legislation. Nonetheless, most politicians in the New West continue to pan this "top down" approach i.e. letting some evil eastern liberal tell us what to do with "our land," keeping in mind that only federal lands owned by all Americans, most of whom don't live in the northern Rockies, qualify for inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation System.

The Wilderness Society and Sierra Club and the Idaho Conservation League sent in lukewarm letters of support for the NREPA hearing record, but no national alerts or aggressive efforts to turn out a lot of support for the bill. And nothing but silence from the MWA. In fact, MWA and AWR haven't even met formally to discuss the bill.

Even with a fourth of the U.S. House of Representatives sponsoring NREPA, it has little chance of getting a House vote, and even if it did, and even if the House passed the bill, which is unlikely but conceivable, it faces a lonely death in the Senate and certain veto in The White House--at least until next year when it might become The Blue House.

I believe one reason for NREPA's dim prospects, one of those unspoken "elephants in the room," is that members of Congress can see that even wilderness groups like the MWA don't support protecting all our roadless lands. In suggesting this to MWA officials, I received stern denials of any such thinking. The group's cover story for opposing NREPA, albeit unofficially, is that the bill is so "socially divisive" that the MWA leadership fears a massive "blowback" in public support for Wilderness and for MWA collaborative efforts with timber companies.

MWA may be correct about public reaction to NREPA, but an invisible letter of support in the hearing record would have no impact on the current nonchalant attitude toward the bill, but would be a little peace offering for AWR. People knowledgeable in the realities of western politics, including timber company lobbyists, don't take NREPA seriously, but they most likely expect Wilderness groups to represent their memberships and support Wilderness bills, which is why they all do--except MWA.

Later this year, the MWA will likely convince the Montana delegation to take a chance on a quid pro quo Wilderness bill based on the BDP compromise with timber companies. If so, the bill would designate about 570,000 acres of new Wilderness in southwestern Montana, mostly high-elevation country with minimal timber-growing potential, in exchange for dedicating 730,000 acres to "low-impact" logging (i.e. no new permanent roads) including the sacrifice of 200,000 acres of low-elevation roadless timberland, much of it in the West Pioneer Mountains.

(The West Pioneers, incidentally, were granted interim protection by the passage of S. 393, the Montana Wilderness Study Act, back in 1977 when Montana had Lee Metcalf and Mike Mansfield as senators. Interim protection means agencies must manage the land to preserve Wilderness values until Congress decides whether or not it should officially be designated as Wilderness.)

What goes around comes around. I can assure you that the AWR and other NREPA backers will passionately oppose legislation based on the BDP. Click here for an advance sample. That's the level we've sunk to here in Montana--you oppose our bill; we’ll oppose your bill.

I wonder how many members of each group realize how this spiteful polarization among their leadership plays into the hands of those who hate Wilderness.

Call me an idealist, but it seems to me that instead of ignoring each other, the leaders of our Wilderness organizations should shed past ill will, shelf their egos, sit down, decide on legislation that they can all support, and go for it. Defining a baseline for the Wilderness component of proposed legislation and having unified support among Wilderness advocates for that number seems like a logical first step. After that's done, try to develop support, above the baseline, from the timber industry and other detractors, hopefully enough to convince at least one member of the Montana delegation to introduce a bill. And then work together to end the Wilderness drought!

That sure sounds like a more effective approach to me, but I'm not going to try to hold my breath until it happens.

Footnote: I've written extensively about this general subject, which I call Natural Allies. Click here for a list of articles.

Editor's Note: The MWA sent a response to this column. It's the 61st comment. To save time schrolling through the first 60, you can find it faster by searching for its headline, "New Montana Wilderness on the Horizon."--Bill [End of article]

The suggestion which jumps to my mind after reading that article is this:
Let us hereafter refer to that crowd--which uses the modifier green as a negative epithet--as the grays; because their tactics will eventually lead us to one big parking lot.
And because of their insistence that the environment be--however slightly--diminished as we continually compromise with capitalist exploitation...

Thank you for a well informed article. Its a sad day when even groups representing conservation of our wilderness areas cannot communicate with one another. Hopefully they will read your article and get some perspective on how detrimental their actions (or non-actions) are to our treasured forests.
Do you have any suggestions for Montanans supporting the most recent NREPA bill?

Melanie,

People can find out how to support the NREPA legislation by going to Alliance for the Wild Rockies webiste, wildrockiesalliance.org.

Bill

Compromise is how families, communities, and governments move forward, not with perfect answers, but with workable solutions that keep people together rather than with their fingers wrapped around their neighbors' throats. It's OK to disagree so long as where we will be tomorrow is better than where we are today. That's called evolutionary progress.

Jed-E-Bare's Boulder style ecosocialism is just not workable. First, only when there is a measure of affluence do people consider other needs such as the environment. A starving or homeless person just doesn't care much other than their most pressing needs. Second, the ecosocialism approach is just so yesterday and naive about what is possible given the diverse community interests.

NREPA and allied wilderness efforts not only protect roadless areas but they also takes away presently roaded areas. The wilderness rules not only eliminate motorized devices but also bicycles and hunter game carts. This is where the rub is.

I appreciate the thoughts on wilderness. I too served on the MWA board in the 1980s and remember vividly the "split" votes on whether to protect all of Montana's 6.4 million roadless acres, or some lesser amount dictated by the congressional delegation. As I recall, we never got more than 4 votes (of 14) to support an "all" position. That's the politics.

As I learned more about the science of roadless areas, ecosystems and species recovery (thanks to my great friends Mike Bader, Lance Olsen, Paul Richards and many others), the case for connecting ecosystem fragments into a viable Wild Rockies bioregion emerged. The conservation biology tells us what needs to be done. Politically, we live in the worst region of the U.S. if the environment is your thing. So, a national strategy (as opposed to a Montana-delegation bill) seemed the sensible path to take. Nationally-significant lands need broad national interest and bipartisan support. NREPA has these qualities.

Since the first sponsor, Peter Kostmayer (D-PA), in 1992, NREPA has garnered increasing support (187 house members in 2006). A committee hearing in 2007 reafirmed the principle purpose and need for multi-state, ecosystem-based legislation.

The status quo is very tough to change. The question should be: Can we make the changes necessary to save the Wild Rockies? Or, is it more important to save MWA or the Montana congressional delegation from the winds of change? To do both may be impossible.

I agree that compromise is a key component in moving forward, and ensuring that both sides in a disagreement feel as if they have gained, whether it is perspective or some ground on what they were working towards.

I do feel however that sometimes coming to a compromise is not enough. When lawmakers choose to undo past resolutions, and abuse, neglect and downright disrespect those interests that are not in direct line with capitalist ventures, sometimes a stronger stance is necessary. If compromise is just moving us back to neutral, then it truly is not a compromise.

We elect representatives to Congress, knowing that compromises must be made to resolve problems. The problem arises when spineless representatives ask, then expect, non-profit, public-interest groups to do their jobs (tough compromises) for them. This has evolved into a lucrative "greenwash" industry.

A quality representative isn't afraid of making tough decisions for the majority (and the future) that might offend corporate lobbyists or special-interest user groups. In America today, these are in short supply.

First let us have an agreement as to what is meant by moving forward. I've heard the decider use that very term to describe what I consider the most reactionary decisions...

Compromise is an excellent tool, craigie, when it is based on win/win decisions; but the environment is yet suffering from about five hundred years of capitalist exploitation.
There have been no positive decisions yet...

Last I checked Rehberg, Baucus, and Tester have all expressed negative views towards NREPA. Perhaps the place to start is to ask them what changes to the legislation would be necessary for their support.

Actually, NREPA does not close off presently roaded areas, at least not here in Wyoming. What it does do is cut off existing inventoried roadless areas from ecologically damaging road building and so-called salvage logging.

For example, here in the Shoshone National Forest (the country's first national forest), roadless areas in the Absaroka Mountains are of volcanic origin, which means that the soils are highly, highly, and I say once again, highly erodable. The less intensive use of them, the better.

Existing roads in the Absarokas contribute considerably to erosion and high sediment-load streams, and effects, among other things, our local fisheries, which are importantly economically, both from a subsistence standpoint as well as commercial outfitting, not to mention our spiritual well-being from casting for trout with our hand-made flies.

We've learned to live/deal with natural erosion and the sometimes devastating impacts from flash floods--we don't need more roads and logging in unsuitable areas to make it worse.

I see no reason to compromise over watershed health. That's why I support NREPA and find the refusal of the MWA and other "brown" groups (I prefer "brown" to "gray," but that's just negative aesthetics) to be just plain absurd.

Craig, even though I have a degree in philosophy, I have no idea what you mean by "eco-socialism." That has as much meaningful content as Jonah Goldberg's latest pet phrase, "liberal-fascism." If anyone's stuck in the mud, it's ideological conservatives, who share that flaw with old-line socialists.

Not fouling your nest is just plain common sense, not an ideological plot from the Red/Green Star of Boulder. Being Green is about practical survival in the world we live in now, not ideological purity.

Practically, we need three things in the West: more wilderness, more big game winter range, and fewer people. I've heard more than once that in the Greater Yellowstone, we should think of ourselves as a kind of post-industrial Switzerland. The only people who should live here are those who can live without industrial amenities that are so damaging to community, land, and wildlife. I would support moving in that direction, a bioregional direction, which is more than forward looking, but also rational and practical.

Both the Federal and State governments have proven themselves incompetent to work for the common good and the public interest where land, water, and wildlife are concerned. They could help solve existing problems by protecting more land from unsustainable and damaging use, and then getting the hell out of the way. Wilderness is one way to go to get there.

Let's get more wilderness, and then declare independence.

Robert, see: http://www.iefd.org/manifestos/ecosocialist_manifesto.php

Anbody see where Governor Schweitzer stands on NREPA? If he hasn't taken a frim position, why not? Perhaps an intrepid reporter could ask all 4 Montana politicos what it would taken to garner their support.

Read it. Still have no clue what you're talking about. Did you understand the gobbledegook there? No different from the wordy nonsense you hear from conservatives; in short, Adam Smith and Karl Marx are two sides of the same coin--perfection of industrial culture and its expansion all over the globe. Differences entail only who's in charge of the empire.

Imperialism is not ecological thinking.

This is a good article but it fails to identify the true power behind the move for realpolitik "compromise" on wilderness designation. That power is the Pew Charitable trust which has used its money to underwrite those who favor a strategy of accommodation with the timber industry, motorized recreation interests, etc.

The result has been "wilderness bills" like the one passed in Nevada that designate a small amount of wilderness while facilitating environmental degradation of various kinds. For example, Harry Reid's Nevada legislation designated a pipeline corridor to facilitate the draining of rural Nevada's rural groundwater so that - among other things - the casinos can have more waterfalls and pools.

So it is not just the NREPA that has eastern backers so does the Beaverhead deal and just about every other westerrn wilderness "compromise"

You can read about how the Pew Charitable trust has worked to control the wilderness movement in the country at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/pace10092004.html

Would I support NREPA in an ideal world? You bet. But the sad reality is we who live in the Northern Rockies are not blessed with a favorable political environment in which we can pass sweeping wilderness legislation like this - at least not now. That's an undeniable fact. What good does it do to fall on the sword of environmental purity and attack other groups that are fighting for the same goals? How does that actually preserve wilderness? How does that bring the public and our elected officials any closer to supporting our goals?

If the goal is to protect our last remaining wild areas, then we must join together and come up with a suite of strategies that has the best chance of getting the job done. Those strategies might include pushing smaller scale, politically doable wilderness bills (e.g. Gallatin Crest, Beaverhead-Deerlodge), continuing to litigate in support of the Roadless Rule, working to ensure that new Forest Plans recommend as much wilderness as possible, and opposing bad projects (e.g. mines, timber sales, dams) that would permanently destroy our remaining wild country. The bottom line is we're in a situation where we have to win what we can now, and preserve our options for protection wilderness in the future.

Frankly, I think it is beyond petty the way some conservation groups attack each other in public over whether or not they support each other's wilderness proposals. And Bill, I'm afraid your article has only served to pour fuel on the fire. I expect more from you.

It's time for the conservation community to decide if its more interested in being martyrs, or actually protecting the wild things we love so dearly.

The only thing that compromise accomplishes is material compromise of land, water, and wildlife. I've already argued above that anything less that full protection of roadless areas in the Shoshone National Forest will have serious ecological and even economic consequences. I see no reason to cut a deal just to prove to a foundation or major donor that I can cut deals. What about the land?

Regarding the Pew Charitable Trust, it appears to me that foundations in general have decided to "outlaw" approaches that are based on science and principle in favor of the "collaboration and consensus" approach. Whether that decision is a "conspiracy," I'll let others discuss. All I know is that collobaration and consensus has left conservation in worse shape now than when we knew we had a fight on our hands.

I think it would be a pity if public land activists from the Rocky Mountains were to give up on pushing for no more loss of small "w" wilderness (aka roadless lands) just at the time when the region is changing politically in a manner that will make it much less difficult to achieve "good" big "W" Wilderness bills.

You all know that the interior West is changing rapidly. The trajectory of the change works for a politics more to the liking of those who want to protect not just rock and ice but ecosystems. And that is precisely why the industry types and politicians are eager right now to cut deals - they know they will never again be as strong as they are now!

All this indicates that now is not the time to "compromise" - or rather that now is the time to insist that any compromises don't involve trading high value (ecologically speaking) low elevation lands for small or even modest rock and ice wilderness.

I suspect this division is a product of the corporatization and professionalization of a public land movement that EF! and the Ancient Forest Movement prevented - or forced underground - in the 1980s and 90s. We will never save the earth with this sort of non-movement.

Felice's last comment is a good practical assessment; it's to the benefit of industry and industry apologists to get deals now. Why else is the Bush administration handing out oil & gas leases like candy even as we speak?

The only possible practical decision for "green" conservationists (as opposed to collaborationist "brown" conservationists) in the short term is to hold fast for NREPA and other science-based conservation proposals, undercut dangerous compromises, and wait until we get a real Democrat in the White House next year. And by that, I mean Barak Obama.

I believe Senator Obama spells his first name with a c.
I suspect it matters very little since he and I--or many of the rest of you--are likely to get on a first name basis with him should he be elected.
If he does not get elected he will slip from sight as have other blacks who tried and failed; and it still will not matter...

Felice and Robert:

Tell me again how passing modest wilderness bills now and protecting roadless lands so they can be designated wilderness later is worse than pushing for a sweeping bill that is dead on arrival. How is winning something worse than winning nothing?

I'm not saying we should pass wilderness bills with hard release language or language that exempts grazing, ATVs, etc. I'm just saying if you insist on an all or nothing approach to wilderness, we're going to get nothing. Sure, you might feel good about fighting the good fight, but it's not about you.

So how do the presidential candidates view this issue? Everyone from both parties....

Every year there are more and more roads closed. Anything to keep ordinary people out. We have plenty of wilderness now. Let us start designating part of the present wilderness totally off limits to every one including hikers. Perhaps that will control the weeds in back country, and maybe slow down the forest fires. It is my personal opinion that dead and down timber is providing nurseries for beetles and the fires will continue, but maybe keeping EVERYONE out will benefit the forests. Certainly those legislators in the east who want more wilderness out here might be better off finding areas in their own states that can be protected from everyone, whether hiking or driving.

In response to MT Hunters question:

The problem is that the "modest" wilderness bill on the table right now would release roadless lands for logging and other development. And those "temporary roads" can do as much damage as the permanent variety - plus they can be easily reopened in the future.

But even if we were considering "clean" modest bills we might want to consider whether we should wait until the next Congress. For the most part we will only get one shot at making new wilderness every decade or so per state or part of a state. Therefore, if you can get more wilderness designated next year it may be worthwhile to wait.

You might wonder why certain "environmental groups" would not follow this course. In my experience that has all to do with money and nothing to do with wilderness. If an organization is funded to get a wilderness bill on the Beaverhead, for example, it has an incentive to get a bill this year even if we could do better next year. If it gets the bill this year it can go back to foundation x for the next grant which also might be larger.

As usual, following the money can reveal a lot about why folks do the things they do.

Now I have a question for all of you: why do environmental representatives get taken to the cleaners so often when they are in negotiations with timber or other industrial interests?

For most of the 90's and the earlier part of this decade, Wilderness bills were required to be borne out of a consensus process. These were the so-called Pombo rules, details of which I'm sure you can find on the web. Now that Pombo is gone and the D's are in charge, has there been an official renouncement of these rules?

NREPA's greatest attribute is as a foil to another bill. The internal politics of the MWA are interesting, but it seems to me Montana needs at least one of two things to happen:
1) MT needs the 2nd house seat back. It's way to easy for Rehberg to block things as the only Rep. from Montana.
2) Tester needs to introduce a wilderness bill. Baucus isn't going to, but with a D in the White House, Tester has a chance to get a bill through.

Lastly, I think it should be noted that the really big players in the wilderness wars, the timber industry, resources industry, enviros, wilderness advocates, all generally agree, in fact HAVE agreed on a bill of about 2.5 million acres (don't quote me on that. I could look it up if pressed.....) but the real roadblock are going to be ATV/snowsled users. They weren't around as a political force in the last wilderness war, but now they are very vocal and frankly, pretty nasty. Don't fall for the "timber vs. wilderness" dichotomy. It's now Snowmobiles vs. Wilderness.

The practical problem with compromise approaches is that they assume the outcome of the process is in doubt, that wilderness advocates can get something out of it.

That assumption is wrong.

Here in the ongoing Shoshone National Forest plan revision, the Forest created a "Government Cooperators Work Group" made up of local and state government officials, all of whom, with the exception of some of the Game & Fish people, were determined to turn back the clock on conservation and ecosystem management and restore "multiple use" to its 1950s glory clearcutting days, despite the fact that multiple use/optimum sustained yield has proven to be a rotten strategic concept for conservation. The GCWG then hired, using funds out of the Governors Office, a consulting firm to provide scientific cover to demands for more road building, more salvage logging, and more ATV use on the Forest, directed toward intensifying use on roaded lands, but roadless areas as well.

Those of us who support more wilderness have had no influence on the process whatsoever. Consequently, we are better off supporting efforts at the National level with NREPA than with trying to influence the local process, which is stacked against us.

I would agree that the ATV/snowmobile groups are the worst of the bunch.

I support NREPA just as it stands and support efforts to push it through. With all due genuine respect, Montana residents and groups are certainly entitled to their opinions on NREPA; but, contrary to what they seem to being presuming, NREPA is neither just about Montana nor really intended to be about Montana politics at all. It's about wilderness protection across the region and the region extends well past Montana. It is also about the protection of federal public lands wilderness, not state lands, not county or municipal lands, not private lands, and that means that taxpayers in all fifty states, and the District, and Puerto Rico, and so on and so forth, get an equal say, regardless of what locals might want to believe.

I have great respect for the MWA and other local groups and want them to have their fair say in the matter; however, I also have a great deal of personal experience with the ease with which these smaller local groups can be infiltrated by individuals who may have other reasons for joining the group. I have seen too many instances where, once an important conservation issue pops up in a particular NGO's geographic or topical territory, all kinds of new members suddenly also pop up to express new ideas and viewpoints. These individuals are usually ever so polite and politic in their demeanor and their comments are almost always so very reasonable and conciliatory. They always seem to just want to the group to explore some compromise approaches; but, they also always seem to ensure that the group has a hard time reaching a solid decision and ultimately succeed in distracting and disabling the group's ability to stay focused and get the job done. The truth is that it is a very common tactic for the rightwing to "seed" groups in this manner. We have a good crop of these people here and serious conservationists need to stay both aware of the tactic and able to recognize its practitioners.

As I said, I support NREPA exactly as it stands. With a significant political change quite probably on the horizon, our chances of getting a strong NREPA enacted are going to improve steadily over the next four years. If we get a second term, our changes will go to near 100% toward the end of that second term. Time, relentless patience, and stubborn focus are what we need.

Democrat senators Baucus and Tester seem to oppose NREPA. Democrat governor Schweitzer will not comment on it. What political change will get these three D's to support a strong NREPA when they throw rocks and ignore it today?

What would Bob Marshall think if he were alive today? I am pretty sure that Lee Metcalf would never let this unending stalemate continue. What is missing in Montana Conservation groups is real leadership. People with the ability to unite. But that is hard and requires real committment. It requires courage and the ability to listen and it probably requires a lifetime of perseverence.
A long time ago, a very wise conservationist once told me that there should be no rush to compromise as long as the land is protected. With each passing day these lands become more valuable just as they are.

I think we need to understand the history of conservation in the West. With a few exceptions over the decades--and remember, conservation is barely a century old--Western politicians and bureaucrats have opposed every conservation measure ever considered in Congress. Wilderness is no exception.

Western conservationists, who have been many, have found themselves in the position of not being able to rely on local and state politicians, but of finding allies outside the West, to achieve conservation aims.

Why is NREPA any different? We have always had to go OUTSIDE the West to get anything done IN the West. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

Well Robert, western settlement is well under 200 years old. Now if they are doing such a grand job on protecting things in the east, where they have several hundred years more history of doing everything right go there. If they are not, starting where they themselves live would be a great idea.
I don't know where you came from, but if it was so perfect why on earth did you leave? Feel a calling to try to change our lives and priorities?
Try setting an example on how you want your world to look, and leave other folks alone.

Marion, I most certainly do set "an example" on how I want my world to look. I set that example on my own lands; but, it is also my right to support NREPA as a legitimate extension of that example and absolutely not any right of you or your rightwing friends to deny me my opinions. The truth is that my family has been here far longer than yours and, based on long and clear history, the "great idea" would have been for your ancestors to have worked on making things better where they themselves lived. It is you and yours who changed "our lives and priorities." If you were so good at things where you started, "why on earth did you leave?" "I don't know where you came from;" but, I sure wish you and yours had been the ones to "leave other folks alone." Even with all your self-congratulatory conceit and all of your social and economic advantages, you really couldn't manage to do anything more inspiring than to dig up, pump out, cut down, or butcher what was already here and you didn't amount to much in the end. After all, I'm the one buying the land back, "setting an example" of how the restoration economy can work, and sending my family to the most prestigious universities in the country. Your descendants seem to still be the stuck trying to find something left to dig up, pump out, cut down, or butcher; maybe moving back east would be good for them.

I support NREPA; it is the right thing to do for conservation and, over the long run, for maximum sustainable economic growth as well.

Mike

This is a fine response to Marion, but I have learned that it does no good to respond to anything she says. She does not know what she's talking about, never learns, indeed, refuses to learn, is arrogant and selfish, and would rather destroy everything rather than admit the damage that cowboy culture has done to land and wildlife over the last century or so.

These reprehensible attitudes pretty much define the cowboy oligarchy of the West, which is presently killing off Yellowstone bison, purloining the habitat of bighorn sheep, exposing elk to disease, and planning the re-extinction of wolves. Among other things. Would that cattle and sheep had never come to the West.

The sooner the cowboy oligarchy dies out, the better land, wildlife, and the rest of us will be.

Thanks again for your comment.

RH

Nice piece Bill S. One mistake: the nrepa/mwa rift has gone back nearly 25 years, not 15. 25 years of not getting anything done except marching across the footbridge and raging at the machine.

the hard work of conservation is grubbing it out with the other interests in an effort to do good for the land and for people. to restore forests, to reduce stream temperatures, to protect wilderness where you can. Anyone can spend all day demanding the moon, never having to account for accomplishing nothing.

Bill – great article on the Wilderness struggles within Montana.
I can’t add much to the comments made by Steve, Robert, Mike, and Felice but a thank you to you all.

I am in full support of NEPA and always have been. It is the right thing to do. It is so sad that the MWA opposes this bill, and supports the BDP. It is terribly short sighted and disgraceful.

The “greenwashing” appears to be working well on our politicos in the State. I am not sure what it will take for them to realize one of the most valuable assets of this State is our Wilderness. County Commissioners bemoan Wilderness, while crying aloud for economic development funding. Yet a look at the greatest land value increases along with economic development in Montana shows they have and continue to happen nearest Wilderness Areas. The old west will destroy us eventually, may our politicians and their cronies in compromise wake up before it to late.

As I recall, slick willy had accomoplished quite a bit by way of executive action--only to have it cancelled out by a similar executive action by the decider.

What is it all of you compromisors hope to accomplish which cannot be reversed by a a similar action by the next congress?

I suspect our problem comes down to the fact that most of the posters to this forum are so callow they have come to believe the current schism in the country is peculiar to our current society.

That is one reason--among many--to read history.
It will help you understand this nation has always been violently divided against itself.
The only thing which has ever brought us together has been a generally rather pedestrian form of nationalism...

quote:
"absolutely not any right of you or your rightwing friends to deny me my opinions."end quote.
I appreciate being able to express mine also, whether you agree or not.
If you can convince me that the states where thosse guys live is in absolute pristine condition then I will beleive they are jsutified in telling us what to do, whether they live here or not.
I'm not sure why you guys hate food producers so much, or for that matter any industry. If you are all working for environmental groups you are being supported by "gifts" from big corporations.
We have as much pristine land as we do, not because of environmental lawyers, but because of the people who have lived and worked her for generations. Sure they have used it, but just like an empty house land left unused, land will soon go to weeds, disease and burn down or decay.

Want a compromise? Here's how to do it:

Pick some really deserving (or really threatened) potential wilderness areas, a subset of NREPA but not all of it. Pass this into wilderness with no strings attached: no selling out of roadless lands for industrial use, no increase of motorbike trails somewhere else, no public land sell-offs to make county governments' coffers fuller.

My organization, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance (based in Wyoming) supports NREPA because it strikes the right balance in land management: There are already plenty of acres of national forest land that have been dedicated to industrial uses like timber extraction, and the roadless areas that remain are roadless for a reason -- not because some visionary public servant decided to set backcountry lands aside for the public benefit, but because commercial users of our public lands could never figure out a way to make a buck exploiting it. These are the lands that are too steep, timber too marginal, minerals too sparse, to support industrial-scale development. So what do we have to lose as a society by setting them aside as security areas for elk and other sensitive wildlife, recreation areas for nonmotorized use, undisturbed "control" areas where healthy ecosystems can function the way they are supposed to, providing a baseline against which managed forests can be measured for in terms of ecological health.

To be sure, NREPA is a big chunk to bite off at one sitting, which makes it an easier target for the opponents of conservation. Biting off big chunks has worked in the past (look at the benefits of protecting millions of acres under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980; Alaskans as a group are not big supporters of wilderness legislation, but nobody up there regrets this landmark legislation enough in hindsight to take a serious stab at repealing it). There is every reason to expect that the environmental pendulum is about to swing back heavily in favor of conservation interests after 8 years when industry was allowed to run wild on our public lands; if so, NREPA stands a strong chance of passing.

On the other hand, it is embarrassing to see a conservation organization actually oppose legislation that would advance its stated mission. Perhaps the way forward through this mess is to enact smaller parts of NREPA, bit by bit and without the need to compensate by destroying or degrading public lands elsewhere.

As a Montana expatriate, I used to consider that Montana had done a reasonably good job of protecting its most outstanding landscapes. But those achievements belong to a previous generation. I moved down to Wyoming to work because the environment is in much worse shape down here, with much less balance between industrial use and conservation. But now, as the pendulum begins to swing toward conservation in Wyoming, I'm afraid that, at least in the realm of forest management, it is beginning to swing away from sustainability and common-sense land stewardship in my former home.

Erik, are you related to this Center for Biodiversity in Arizona?

http://rangemagazine.com/features/summer-05/got-cha.htm

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance is an independent nonprofit conservation group working to protect wildlife and wild places in Wyoming and surrounding states; Center for Biological Diversity is a separate and unrelated group.

Erik

This question merely reflects Marion's inbred McCarthyesque "guilt by association" techniques. I would recommend you ignore it and her.

As an aside, Range Magazine is one of the most concentrated pack of lies in the U.S., outside the White House, of course.

RH

Inbred???????????????
Robert, please feel free to prove a single article in that magazine to be false. If you are refering to the article I posted, please be aware that news articles also were printed about it, are newspapers also lying if you disagree with what they write?
Once more is there no place in the states that the backers of this bill live in that needs any help? If there are, it would seem logical to support and work on what they can support.
I mentioned before, are any of you willing to designate any of the wilderness areas as areas that NOONE can use, including hikers/environmentalists? Or do you want it for jsut their exclusive use, or only those uses they dictate as being acceptable? In other words do you want wilderness if you can not use it either?

How about a wilderness just for critters--or folks willing to walk in and walk out carrying only everything they took in..?

Even if follks did carry out everything they carry in while walking, they leave behind weeds from their shoes, stress on wildlife that would like to avoid humans. There really needs to be some of the wilderness set aside for no human presence, at least half of any new designations, and 1/3 of present "wilderness". Everyone has some impact.

Nonsense...

Erik's idea of passing fragments of NREPA could work if Pew and other anti-environmental foundations weren't so powerful. Too many groups are dependent (co-dependent) on grants, largely underwritten by dividends from extractive industry equity portfolios. This money is all "earmarked," spent primarily to keep "professional" staffs and plush offices operating. It's all about status and appearances. Status, like greed, can ruin any well-intended group or program.

More NREPA-like bills would help a great deal. A 4-Corners bill or a New England bill could reinforce and broaden support for the ecosystem approach nationwide. At some point we need to turn a corner and never look back at the failed state-delegation process. Protocol in the House and Senate does more to kill wilderness than ORVs and Big Timber combined. National-interest bills are the wave of the future, and the best (perhaps only) way to overcome congressional protocol.

I am a lifetime MWA member since the early 1970s. I proudly served on the MWA board in the 1980s.

From my years of MWA experience, I have found that the elephant in the living room concerning NREPA and the protection of all remaining roadless wildlands is the MWA staff.

The MWA staff frequently ignores the MWA board. When the majority of the MWA Board favors protection of all remaining roadless areas, such as we did in the 1980s, the MWA staff, led by John Gatchell, simply overrules the will of the Board.

NREPA supporters have approached the MWA board numerous times over the last 23 years. In general, the MWA board consistently supports the concepts of NREPA. In specific, the MWA staff, desperate for approval from the logging industry, will never let the MWA board endorse NREPA.

It’s a curious situation. The inmates have taken over the asylum. To maintain this imbalance of power, MWA board members are usually newcomers to politics, handpicked by the MWA staff, kept in the dark, and fed plenty of manure.

Until the current MWA board wakes up, smells the coffee, clearly sees what is happening, and reigns in the MWA staff, MWA as a dysfunctional entity will continue fighting protection of the Wild Rockies’ remaining roadless wildlands.

Paul Richards comment seems to be on target. I always resist joining in personal attacks on individuals, but after 35 years of working toward wilderness protection of our most precious land resources, I have noticed a few general trends in human behavior:
1. positions of power tend to erode original good intentions.
2. money makes people do strange things.
3. When you are worried more about your credibility than your principles then there must be a reason.

I have canceled my membership with them. I did not join MWA to support the timber industry and its lack of innovation. I expected MWA to fight for Wilderness not roll over for harvesting timber in one of the most arid areas of the state. Is the timber industry so mentally lazy that they are incapable of changing with the times? The Gallatin Valley has scores of new mills that source their timber form a multitude of places. Why does the industry that has the physical plant in place for a diversity of other sourced wood continue down the road exploitation? Moreover, why does MWA insist on supporting them? Thank goodness, there are groups like the Alliance to the Wild Rockies who stay true to their mission.

Robert: Very good comments. And advice.

The last few comments point out some very real problems in the conservation movement in general, not just the MWA: the moral quality of the people who make it up.

After a number years in the Army, I came up with the following phrase to describe the actions of too many of my fellow commissioned officers--"the Four C's: Career, Capitulation, Cover-Up, and Cowardice." Individuals who would engage in the most dangerous physical activities (handling explosives, parachuting, live fire, combat, etc.,) didn't have any more moral courage than a mouse when action required standing up for principles, principles that are ironically explicitly taught in every leadership and ethics class the military requires officers to take on a regular basis. Something so simple as standing up for the men and women under your command is fraught with danger to one's career. So it's usually not done, and in extreme situations, fragging can be one response to it, as was the case in Vietnam.

In the civilian world, hardly anyone bothers to teach or discuss moral principles or advocates moral courage, but it hardly matters, since the ethics of too many civilians is the ethics of the playground-cum-Wall Street/Madison Avenue/the White House/the Pentagon/Congress/State Legislatures/County Commissions, etc.

This problem is all too true in conservation. Problembear lays them out well above: power and money. Most conservation groups start out with principles and a mission, with a shoe-string budget. The successful ones eventually attract support and funding. But as soon as the funding arrives, the wrong people follow the money, and pretty soon you have something like the Montana Wilderness Association, or the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, or most recently, the Wyoming Outdoor Council, where "principle" is something that describes money in the bank that engenders "dividends" for the professional and careerists. Mission goes out the door, and accomplishments are all on paper. Somewhat like Enron and the rest of the American power/financial structure.

So what we as conservationists are faced with is similar to what faces the commissioned military officer who truly believes in "duty, honor, country:" you have to go it alone, ally with the few who believe as you do, do the best you can, and hope you survive. It's tough, because there is little funding for those groups and individuals with principle, for example, the Buffalo Field Campaign or the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.

I certainly wouldn't recommend the equivalent of "fragging" in the conservation community, but I do recommend that when groups like the Montana Wilderness Association bail on principles, leaving the rest of us in burning aircraft, that discussions such as we're having here take place in public.

So I thank Wild Bill for giving us the opportunity to discuss it in public.

And, by the way everyone, keep plugging on NREPA.

When I hear somebody ranting about morality I always like to ask him how he defines the word.
Most militarists begin by assuming it is moral to expect other individuals to die for some cause which has become or always has been ephemeral at best.
Most religionists begin by referring to some ancient superstitious beliefs.
Most patriots begin by referring to the sacred forebearers or the constitution.
I've always found most people not caught up in those notions mean ethical when they say moral.
Then I ask them what they mean by <i>ethical<i>...

What?

Wow, this has been a fascinating discussion...Felice Pace, even. As for Pew being "anti-environmental" -- yeah, but not the way you folks seem to think.
Let's not forget that Pew Trusts was the largest funding entity of the postcard campaign for the "roadless initiative" -- using Audubon/TU as a fiscal pass through -- which all of you should be FULLY aware was an administrative holding action to preserve the legal requirements for eventual wilderness designation.
Eventual, of course, meaning when all the old-line Westerners all starved out or sold to Ted Turner or died off, to be replaced by that "creative class" of lone-eagle Internet immigrants that vote for Obama.
Your riffing on Pew is simply because they don't fund YOU.
As for NREPA, that bill is a joke, a socially and environmentally destructive travesty. Conservation biology is too heavily laden with social outcomes to be a true science. Boils down to CB believers hating capitalism more than loving the environment.
Burning down the land to "save" it, when the historic reality is the pre-Columbian biology and botany were profoundly human-influenced. You guys might be right had there been no Indians, but there were millions of them.
As for the B-D....I think that's garbage, too. It's an incremental approach to the same eventual goal as NREPA. The industry is going along with this because they are quite frankly good at forest products and crummy at politics.
They are trading the hope of survival (which might not happen anyway) for a front-loaded wilderness designation that rips out the sort of ground based infrastructure that 1.) will still be needed to economically manage vegetation in the future, and 2.) that the modern recreation public likes to use.
The bottom line is that the only wilderness that should be designated, ever, is that which was recommended wilderness in the first NFMA planning cycle, back before the agency become a political bludgeon.
I have no problems with the wilderness additions in the 1986 Flathead National Forest plan. They made sense, and still do for the most part. They were recommended because they were outstanding for some reason, as was the original intent of Congress. But the twisted thinking that began as the dodgers began graduating from their deferment havens in the late Sixties has simply gone too far.
There should be not one single square meter of additional wilderness designation until other lands have been allocated similar protections for economic use and those protections have operated satisfactorily for ten or more years.
Earth First....let's take care of the other planets later.

Thanks, Robert. I'm glad you said that.
I thought Jedediah's comment a bit curious and way off the point.
My sentiments exactly.
This is a discussion about protecting our last priceless vestige of land that sustains us as a nation, not only in terms of clean water,wildlife and primitive recreation opportunity for our descendents; but even more importantly, wilderness sustains the flame of freedom which flickers still within the hearts of all Americans. The fact that so many people are posting about this just proves this point. Wilderness is freedom. Protect it.

Dave, many groups didn't get behind the Clinton Roadless Rule because it included "fine print" on salvage and "forest health" large enough to drive a logging truck through. That same loophole language is fundamental to expanding the "suitable" timber base in the B-D NF compromise. The same (bait-and-switch) groups have been moving in lockstep for a long, long time. Wouldn't take Pew's money if it rained out of green helicopters.

An interesting discussion on an important bill.

I have the utmost respect for Robert Hoskins, and always appreciate your vigorous eloquence, Robert, in defence of the land. But find I must disagree with one of your posts:

"With a few exceptions ... Western politicians and bureaucrats have opposed every conservation measure ever considered in Congress. Wilderness is no exception."

Leaving aside some of the titanic exceptions that you may point out as proof of this rule (Church, the Udall brothers), this statement is not an accurate representation of the history of wilderness legislation. Of the now more than 125 wilderness bills passed by Congress, only one was enacted over the objections of the affected state's delegration -- ANILCA.

I maintain the ANILCA decision was right, even if there is a significant miinority of Alakskans who will hate the Lower 49 for many generations as a consequence. But does NREPA rise to that level of significance?

That is the real question here. MIGHT Congress decide to override their unwritten taboo for our Northern Rockies? It certainly doesn't look like it, but do you mean to hold out until a) they will, or b) our Congressional Delegation comes around? And by Congressional Delegation, of course, we're talking about our "Representative," because delegation members in BOTH houses must go along. Introduction by Tester is insufficient.

How long are you willing to wait? I've seen first-hand what happens to "wilderness-quality" lands that languish undesignated for decades -- not that we always do such a bang-up job post-designation! But -- [insert usual cliche about the perfect being the enemy of the good.]

And for those who decry the tit-for-tat sellout of recent bills: that actully is nothing new. There's always been that trade-off in our Congress, it's just that they used to be in separate bills. After all, Mo Udall championed the Central Arizona Project. (Not that I'm saying Harry Reid is this generation's Mo Udall....) For better or worse, that's how our Republic works. Or doesn't.

Change in 2009 (343 days left for the ol' POTUS, by my calendar) is not nearly enough -- unless you're talking about a change in the lone MT Representative (and don't hold your breath for the 2010 census -- we won't get another seat).

Hey, Paul Richards! How about another run for office? You'd get MY vote!

Respectully submitted by Chris Barns

Chris

I'm from Wyoming, and I can point to only two congressmen who wholeheartedly supported wilderness here--Sen. Gale McGee and Rep. Teno Rencalio, and they've been long gone. The Wyoming congressional delegation has a long history of opposing everything that is good and just. I would still say, and I do take a historical perspective, that it is generally the case that western legislators have opposed every conservation measure that has come up, because the livestock industry, or the logging industry, or the mining industry, or any other development industry has opposed it. The exceptions are exactly that--exceptions. What happens after all the horsetrading is another matter.

We all know Congress compromises. But as my good friend George Wuerthner has said, that's no reason for us to compromise. We should push as hard as we can for all we can get instead of compromising while the ink on the bill is still wet. That's the political issue of this discussion.

I do think NREPA for the West rises to the level of ANILCA in Alaska, when you consider the damage that could be done without NREPA. In the Shoshone National Forest of northwest Wyoming, which is "my" local forest, both the logging industry (or remnants thereof) and the off roaders are licking their chops to push roads into areas that are still roadless primarily because the of the very steep and highly erodable volcanic terrain (Absaroka Mountains). Previously, none of these areas has been part of the suitable timber base, but with the ideological passion for controlling beetle kill, and other "healthy forest" cover for logging by another name, all of a sudden people now think they can log in these areas with no harm to the various watersheds. I've sat in all the Forest planning meetings and I constantly hear this nonsense. And the demand by the off roaders for access to roadless areas is extreme. Administrative designation doesn't go far enough; these areas need wilderness designation and law enforcement to keep them that way.

Wilderness designations in the Shoshone are so far quite minimal; probably the Dunoir Special Management Unit--which is one of the most extraordinary areas of the Wyoming Absarokas and currently has quasi-wilderness status from the Washakie Wilderness Act of 1973-- is all we can expect out of the Forest for designation. There is no way we'll get more out of the Forest. Therefore, We need NREPA to protect all the roadless areas of the Shoshone, all of which are worthy of formal designation.

After all, it isn't all that much, is it? It's just what is left.

RH

P. S. Steve Kelley--at last, someone who understands that the dreaded "black helicopters" are actually green (dark olive green).

Gale McGee was also a Hawk who supported our invasion and attempted occupation of Viet Nam. And Teno's only saving grace to my way of thinking was his friendship for working men and women.
Go figure!

That being said, it seems an endemic psychosis along the spine of the intermountain west to cling as long as possible to those corporate powers who for so long have been able to treat our states as just so much raw material for exploitation by the eastern establishment.

There are some among us who are determined, however; to pry their corporate fingers from our throats.
I'm glad there is at least one in Wyoming.

A short while back Pat Williams penned an editorial blasting NREPA. His comments turned out to be misrepresentations at best if not outright falsehoods on purpose. Is this an attempt by the politicos to smear NREPA while setting the groundwork for the B-D Partnership? I thought Pat was a fairly straight shooter until he was caught printing these tales. Can anyone fill me in on the meaning of this rubbish?

Robert,

Thanks for your considred response. I should mention that most of my questions that were directed at "you" were actually to be answered by all of us who care for these wild lands.

I agree that NREPA is, well, ALMOST as important as ANILCA. It's way smaller in size -- but maybe that's what makes it as important. As you say, that's all that's left.

But what about the Red Rocks bill in UT. 70% of the Utah electorate favored the 5.7 million acre version introduced by Hinchey (D-NY) with scores of co-sponsors, and STILL no movement. And I'd say that was every bit as importnat as NREPA. So, will Congress take the step of designating over the state delegation? How often?

I can appreciate the "no compromise" position. Or the "at least no compromise yet" position. But the ink on NREPA isn't still wet -- it's been dry for many Congresses. Just because Rahall gave it a hearing, bless him, doesn't mean it'll get much further than when Pombo was calling the shots.

How long are you (we) willing to wait without compromise? We all know what can happen over time to these areas which, as you say, have the motorheads salivating. Wait until Rehburg and whoever follows Cubin are replaced by someone who actually cares about the environment? Wait till the taboo is overcome? No compromise? Cue Clint Eastwood: "Do you feel lucky?"

Chris

New Montana Wilderness on the Horizon

I must take exception to Bill Schneider’s recent article entitled “Green Group Feud Stifles Efforts to Protect Roadless Lands” (New West February 7, 2008).

There are a number of points of disagreement, and addressing them all will do little to move this debate forward. But a few areas demand clarity.

The Montana Wilderness Association (MWA) has not endorsed the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (NREPA). However, we did not decide to oppose NREPA. If we had, we would be working against it. We are not.

Over the last year, MWA has met with key supporters of NREPA on more than one occasion. Far from a feud or angry, those meetings have been cordial and forthright.

Perhaps most disappointing is Bill’s suggested fix to the supposed conflict with an “invisible letter of support.” He claims that MWA’s lack of support is an “elephant in the room” that persuades lawmakers to not support NREPA (compare that to his later assertion that the invisible letter would “have no impact on the current nonchalant attitude toward the bill”).

Which is better? Writing an “invisible letter of support” that is lukewarm at best and making no other effort to support NREPA, or simply acknowledging that you don’t endorse it?

Contrary to Bill’s claim, MWA is currently involved in two different (and visible) efforts to have bills introduced (the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership and the Blackfoot Cooperative project). Put together, they include over 650,000 acres of Wilderness. In both cases draft legislation has been given to the Montana delegation. Our discussions with the delegation continue, and we’re very excited about both.

One thing Bill is right about, Montanans deserve a chance to fight for Wilderness. For 50 years, the Montana Wilderness Association has been dedicated to making sure that Montanans have this opportunity.

In contrast to Bill’s gloomy outlook, we believe that in the next few years, Montanans will see new Wilderness designated. What a joyful occasion it will be for all of us who value our wild places!

Joseph Scalia
Council President
Montana Wilderness Association

The approach that MWA is taking with the B-D Forest, supporting limited (small) amounts of wilderness while releasing the remaining roadless lands to motorized recreation sets a disastrous approach for all the remaining roadless lands in Montana. This approach if allowed to transpire will set a precedent for future designation of all wilderness lands in Montana. A precedent of setting aside for future generation minimal wilderness lands at the great expense of losing so much roadless lands to industrial purposes forever.

Montana is an exception in the lower 48 states; we have much public lands, and wonderful intact ecosystems. This is by no accident. Hunters, anglers, wilderness advocates, and Montanans who know the value of our wild lands have been in this battle for a long time. There is a reason why Montana has not had a wilderness bill for several years, we are not willing to sacrifice roadless area for a small gain in wilderness. There is virtue in being patient.

MWA has become a threat to the future wilderness protection in Montana. Their desire to please the politicos, timber industry, and the motorized sports industry is selling Montana short. If it was the SCS (sierra club sucks) motorized club pushing the B-D Partnership I could understand it. However, to have an organization like MWA that has a rich history in the fight for wilderness turn against its mission is unacceptable.

I have watched with growing concern as a new breed of wilderness bills and local land swaps rise and threaten the fabrics of the Wilderness Act, Wilderness Study Areas, Roadless Areas and other lands important to cultural heritage, fish and wildlife habitat, air and water quality and as refuges of peace and quiet. I believe that all high quality public lands should be protected, not just wilderness.

I’m an advocate for the land and the values it supports, and against its privatization, degradation and development. U.S. Representative Nick Rahall said it most concisely in October 2005. "Wilderness designations should not be the result of a quid pro quo. They should rise or fall on their own merits. We all understand that compromise is part of the legislative process, yet at the same time, I would submit that wilderness is not for sale. Simply put, I believe we should not seek the lowest common denominator when it comes to wilderness and saddle a wilderness designation with exceptions, exclusions, and exemptions."

My position is not one that opposes compromise. It opposes compromise where a "this for that" approach may trade good for bad, setting precedents that are serious and far-reaching in their negative effects on the land.

Good on ye, Tim..!

"I believe that all high quality public lands should be protected, not just wilderness."
What are some examples of other high quality public lands you have in mind, Steve?
Are you talking National Forests and National Parks..?

Perhaps the MWA is intelligent enough to recognize that people come to our PUBLIC lands to recreate in different ways, and perhaps they realize that responsible forest management is not possible in wilderness areas. Even their goals are too extreme in regard to locking people out of public property for many residents of these areas.

The trouble is--some people do not seem to realize that wilderness is not a managed forest.

You are quite correct, and therein is part of the problem. I realize you are a Montana organization, but here in Idaho we already have some 4 million acres of land designated as wilderness. At a time when more and more people are recreating on public lands, and when forest health in un-managed lands is declining, it makes little sense to "lock up" even more land.

"At a time when more and more people are recreating on public lands" is exactly why we need to make sure there is intact, functioning ecosystems: clean water sources, wildlife habitat, carbon sinks, corridors, diverse species in healthy conditions, and the list goes on, to past on to future generations.

Do you know what 4 million acres equates to in percentage of wild lands left in the lower 48? Diddle squat, not enough to spit on from an ecological sustainable viewpoint.

Get over the idea these lands are “locked up”, they are an investment and frankly they represent the best hedge against the destructive practices of “recreating” you advocate.

Hi,
Help me to find most popularsites about gambling.
Thank you
Janette.

Hello to All the Guests and Members,
This site is awesome,trust me.
Work Home Online business information ideas articles and resources relating to work at home jobs, home based internet businesses and opportunities.
Check it out!
Work Home Online
Beginners guide to Make easy Money Online and work at home. Work Home Online has the best Work at Home Business Online Opportunities.

Hello to All the Guests and Members,
It's very promising site.
Financial Independence Resource is committed to providing the highest level of customer service in credit correction and debt settlement.
The process is easy!
Financial Independence Resource
Great product and services designed to help you gain Financial Independence Resource. We are currently working on our Financial Independence resources.

Hi nto All
Help me to find actual now gambling sites: casino, betting and more.
Thanks,
Typecipseplay

Your welcome everyone,
Help me to find popular dating sites: mens, womens, cristians...
Thanks,
nottorerdek

Hi guys,
Please, give me some info about actual now dating sites: mens, womens, cristians...
Thx,
gauxundancy