FORMER COUNCIL MEMBERS OPPOSE BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE PLAN

Memo to MWA: Return to our Roots


By Bill Schneider, 3-19-08

Editor's Note: With some trepidation, I have decided to post the following letter. It is, sort of, an "internal document," but it is so revealing to the reasons we have suffered the 25-year Wilderness drought in Montana that I felt it should be in the open. This memo was sent about a year ago to the Montana Wilderness Association (MWA) officers and council by Elaine Synder and Ross Titus, two former council members and long-time supporters, financial and otherwise. It was edited and published here with permission of the authors. It was never published in the MWA newsletter, Wild Montana, as requested by the auhtors. I removed off-subject sections but retained all key points relating to MWA's record of achieving success for its members.--Bill Schneider

 
  New policy is totally at odds with organization’s wilderness ethic.


March 10, 2007

To: MWA Council

From: Two long-time Flathead-Kootenai Chapter members who have served on the Chapter and MWA Council, as officers and as continuing members of MWA for two or more decades.

We seek your undivided attention. It has taken us several months to personally “vent,” gain some perspective, organize, and draft our concerns. Hear us!

We would like this letter published in Wild Montana, unedited…We need to revisit our mode of developing and advancing wilderness proposals.

As we write this, a new group will be formed in the next few months to continue our efforts in ways that do not degrade the Association’s founding principles. Those principles were democratic to their core but no longer are, as has been demonstrated by staff and Council actions since mid-2006.

Here are the specifics of what we find so deeply disturbing:

1. The new MWA organizational chart does not have its members or the Council on the same page as all the Helena staff. It now seems staff is MWA. No Way! The enormous amount of money spent (we think wasted) on the consulting that went into this reorganization plan robbed MWA of its most authentic resource: the power of its member leaders and activists.

2. The Chapters have always been semi-autonomous parts of MWA since 1980…(The) Chapters will now have their agenda and direction set by Helena staff…This is unacceptable. MWA needs Chapters to survive. It is far better to form a new autonomous group than to submit to all this bureaucracy through Helena.

3. Grassroots members grew MWA into what it is today. They have always hiked, mapped, organized local wild areas into wilderness campaigns. The Council and state organization have helped broaden and strengthen these local efforts and gotten areas into the wilderness system. Over the past few years the Council and staff have given a “cool” reception, at best, to the (Flathead-Kootenai) Chapter’s Winton Weydemeyer Wilderness Proposal. Now, the new group can devote itself to this worthy campaign.

4. The Flathead-Kootenai Chapter…nurtured new members, oversaw local issues, developed and dealt with agencies and other groups along with local activists. (Now), we have lost an enormous amount of credibility and standing that we spent years building here.

5. We strongly urge the Council to reclaim its governing power and to reduce top staff.

6. Finally, withdraw MWA from the ill-conceived “Beaverhead–Deerlodge Strategy.” Return to grassroots originated proposals, approved in accordance with the Strategic Plan and its required 21 Criteria, for presentation to the Montana congressional delegation. Beaverhead–Deerlodge wilderness is important but its submission to D.C. must follow the MWA Council’s rules.

Why was the Strategic Plan not followed? The current quid-pro-quo deal came about after a chance meeting between a sawmill owner and MWA staff at a limited public participation roadless area hearing in Missoula in December 2005 called by former Senator Burns. Clearly missing from the B-D “strategy” is all the long range grassroots ground work so vital to the passage of any Wilderness legislation.

It is evident from recent issues of Wild Montana that the membership is not receiving the full story of the B-D Strategy. The agreement was presented to the Dillon office of the B-D Forest almost a year ago.

Omitted from the newsletter is any detailed information about the 713,000 acres in the MWA-wood products companies joint agreement that the parties would urge the U.S. Forest Service to classify as “suitable for logging” in the eventual new forest plan. Who in MWA is prepared to assure the members that there is no reason to suspect there are good and sufficient reasons to withhold approval to log everywhere in an area that is seven-tenths the size of the entire Bob Marshall Wilderness? This kind of carte blanche should never be granted by any wilderness advocacy group that only under the most extreme pressure has ever appealed an agency management action and is even less experienced in litigating issues of national forest management.

By collaborating with five sawmills and two conservation groups not seriously concerned with wilderness designation, MWA has fallen in with the likes of The Wilderness Society, Idaho Conservation League, and, of course, the thoroughly compromised Campaign for America’s Wilderness, seeking fast and painless wilderness tokens at the cost of the most essential element of the wilderness ethic: working and sweating for wilderness support among the people that live near it and out on the political hustings, and not trading equally precious wildlife and ecological values (especially the integrity of roadless areas) for drabs of rocks-and-ice wilderness.

Does MWA intend to continue the current practice of collaborating with any partner offering to help gain wilderness designation in its area of commercial operations in return for our help in gaining access to saw timber in that area? In other words, quid-pro-quo. If the answer is yes, then the Council must prepare to fully inform the membershiip of this opportunistic turn of policy that is totally at odds with this organization’s founding land and wilderness ethic.

A related ethical question concerns the B-D strategy of using Mark Rey, current Under Secretary of Agriculture in charge of the U.S. Forest Service, as a supporter of the Beaverhead Plan. We urge the Council to look closely at Mr. Rey’s plans for Forest Service lands before making arrangements with industry that compromise roadless area rules.

Also of concern to us is the fact that current leadership and possibly some among the large Helena staff of MWA appear to have a pessimistic attitude about MWA’s history that has driven them to “consult” with the Campaign for America’s Wilderness (formerly the Pew Wilderness Center), and now to rely on money from Pew Charitable Trusts. The latter continues the old Pew drive to confine wilderness legislation to rocks-and-ice regions by co-opting gullible or calculating people in the wilderness movement. The material supporters of Pew include Weyerhaeuser, Burlington Northern, International Paper, ITT Rayonier, Dow Chemicals, Dupont, Phelps-Dodge, General Electric, Raytheon, Caterpillar, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, Texaco and others.

Organizations that have gained access to Pew money are expected to show short-term gains in wilderness protection regardless of the cost to other public resources and political efforts. MWA received $37,000 from the Campaign for America’s Wilderness. What conditions, “advice” or other strings were attached to this grant? All MWA’s members should have received this information long ago.

The Great Bear Wilderness designated by Congress in October 1978 was the last wilderness legislation won in the Flathead. The Flathead-Kootenai Chapter has spent the years since then building and cultivating our grassroots advocacy. We will not submit to Faustian bargains in an attempt to cut across the switchbacks on our way to new wilderness.

For wilderness' sake, we are wilderness advocates. Thank you for listening and best wishes,

Elaine Snyder and Ross Titus



Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.

Like to receive our print magazine, The New West? Click here for free subscription information.

Read more Travel & Outdoors stories
Advertisement

Comments

Two reporters from the New York office of a major Japanese daily came to Missoula to ask about New West's option for citizen journalism. Among others, they interviewed me.

Among other questions, they asked about conflicts within the enviromental community. What did I think about them?
Are the conflicts harmful to the enviromental cause?

I said I'd be surprised if there were no conflicts. Environmentalists are as diverse as any other group. All we need do is open even a mediocre newspaper, and we find evidence of conflict within the Republicans, the Democrats, Iraqis, muslims, Christians, farmers, ranchers, and families.

I said I'm not interested in media reports that there is conflict within the environmentalists. Conflict as mere fact is a big ho-hum for me, and where the rubber hits the road, and things get really interesting, is the why of it. And I think it's very fair to sum up the source as a conflict of the brown v. the green.

The Snyder-Titus letter sheds a lot of light on the brown-green conflict in Montana's wilderness protection community. Thanks for running it. As yet another former MWA council member disappointed that its selected priorities depart from its charter and purposes, I hope MWA can get itself together enough to run the Snyder-Titus critique in Wild Montana.
Wow! 25 years without any new wilderness designated? Is there no wilderness left or . . . is it enough to read between the lines in the edited letter above to understand the last 25 years [of failure?]?
This infighting in the MWA is all new to me. Our Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front have been fighting hard, some for at least 20 years, to save this magnificent piece of wild country from oil and gas exploration and atv/off-road vehicle abuse. I have been a Wilderness supporter for many, many years. Probably have hiked at least as many areas as most long time MWA members. However, upon getting into the fray to protect the Front, I gradually became aware of competing interests among various environmental groups.

I was and remain disappointed in how so many of these groups have lost focus. My goal is to save our wild country. PERIOD. I, as a maverick individualist (which I will remain until death), simply have been amazed at how much in-fighting can occur among those who purport to preserve the ever dwindling wildlands.

Some of the concepts presented in the letter by Snyder-Titus letter were revelations to me. I do, however, wonder what is really won by strategies that allow this battle to be strung out for decades. I have no idea about the strategies for insulation, isolation or power grabbing within these environmental organizations; however, my message is grow up or be destroyed from within; Do not allow our last remaining wildlands to sit in limbo, only to be lost by piecemeal and in many cases purposeful encroachment by those who purposely want to develop or commercialize or those who just don't care about the land and its wildlife.

I watched some of the give and take between various groups who purportedly had been working on Wilderness designation for areas along the Front and other areas. It makes me ill when I see what the Bush-Cheney administration has done. Where are the patriots in these battles?

The bottom line, echoed by many of us who have become much more active in the battle to save wild country, is that too many people advocating for environmental groups simply will not or do not want to face reality. If your position is to shut out local concerns and advocate without any compromise, then good luck. No Wilderness for the last 25 years is evidence alone that hard line, and sometimes uneducated thinking, creates a stalemate. Where was everyone during the last 20 years in getting a Travel Plan for this majestic area? Without some help from locals, none of the environmental groups would get anywhere. The proof is in the pudding. Working together brings solutions.

Please remember, if you want to give voice to that baby calf elk or that maginificent grizzly, then the goal is to get protection for their habitat. Period. Reality tells me it will not get done without some consideration of other concerns.

If I had my way, Wilderness would come out to the Forest Boundary; however, I guarantee you that hardliners on that theory will loose. Let us stop in-fighting. I feel about this infighting like I feel about Congress. Quit fighting each other and get the damn thing done. Let us designate as much Wilderness as reasonably possible instead of losing valuable areas by inner turmoil.

I appreciate anyone who loves wild lands; but, ask that we all be careful about losing our battles by disagreements from within. If you are a strict constructionist, then I expect MWA will all march lock-step into failure. Focus on the goal.

Stoney Burk
My sister and brother-in-law live in Helena. They recently worked with many parites on a travel plan for an area near Helena. They are familiar with many people and organizations. My sister commented that Mr. Gatchell (sp) and his wife have a pretty good thing going with the perpetuation of the (non) wilderness situation. An economy unto itself with no victory (purposefully) in sight.
The environmental, economic and social damage that has been done by the eco greens will never be fixed. All for the love of money do these people push their so called save the earth religion. Too bad for mankind and the animals. Choking on Mercury filled smoke from renewable resource destruction in a time when conservation is needed. Reducing animals to charcoal, soils sterilized, and once healthy watersheds to rivers of mud and erosion. Oh yes, the greens are doing one hell of a job at destroying our environment. A big thank you to Sara Jane and company.

Your Comment

Comment policy:

NewWest.Net encourages robust and lively, but civil participation from our readers. By posting here, you agree to the NewWest.Net terms of service. You agree to keep your comments on topic, respectful and free of gratuitous profanity. Contributions that engage in personal attacks, racism, bigotry, hatred or are otherwise patently offensive will be subject to removal.

Other than using a filter that scans for comment spam, we do not moderate contributions before they are posted and we do not review every thread, so we ask that you help us in keeping the discussions civil and appropriate. Please email info@newwest.net to notify us of comments that may violate these guidelines. Thanks for your help and cooperation. Click here for some tips on how to best interact on NewWest.Net.

Name

Email

Remember my name and email address.

Notify me of follow-up comments.

Advertisement