FIX IT OR KILL IT

Montana Delegation Wise to Avoid Current Beaverhead-Deerlodge Plan

By Bill Schneider, 4-15-09

	Kent Peak in the Sapphire Mountains Wilderness Study Area. Photo by George Wuerthner

In an April 12 editorial, the Missoulian blasted Montana’s congressional delegation for not introducing a controversial draft bill based on a multi-year collaborative effort called the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership (BDP) because it has been 26 years since Montana’s last Wilderness designation and because of the recent embarrassment of having nothing in the Omnibus Public Lands Bill, even though Montana is obviously one of the major public lands states.

I doubt any editorial writer in the New West is more pro-Wilderness than I am. Nonetheless, I believe the delegation is wise to stay clear of the BDP legislation as currently written. The draft bill must be either modified prior to introduction or allowed to die a quiet death so our elected officials and green groups can collaborate on a real Wilderness bill.

As I’ve said several times (links at end of article), I admire the time and effort the creators put into this collaboration, and they hit it one ring out from the bullseye. Now, they need try once more and hit the center of the target to make the bill better for both loggers and wildernuts.

My specific objections are:

• As currently, the draft bill protects only portions two congressionally mandated Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), the Sapphires and West Pioneers. The bill should permanently protect the entire WSAs as Wilderness, which has no negative impact on the logging industry because these areas won’t be available for timber management.

• The current version of the bill gives up more than 200,000 acres of roadless lands to timber management. This roadless acreage should be removed from the bill and replaced with an equal or greater acreage of already-roaded lands devoted to timber management under the same well-thought-out restrictions now written into the draft bill.

• A Wilderness bill should have the word “Wilderness” in the title and not be called the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Conservation, Restoration and Stewardship Act, which is as comical as it is embarrassing.

I suppose I could live with the current title, but the other two issues are deal-breakers. I’d prefer that timber industry relief go into a separate but companion bill, but I can also live with the combination. Actually, I have no problem making the bill even more friendly to the wood products industry by increasing the acreage devoted to stewardship logging, although it’s already substantial, as long as the additional land doesn’t come from inventoried roadless areas.

I’ve been told that “it’s the BDP or nothing” for the entire 111th Congress. I hope that isn’t true, but if it is, well, I’d rather have nothing than the current BDP bill. Here’s why.

Without this bill, we’ll have the status quo for almost all, if not all, of the 575,000 acres of Wilderness the bill would designate. This acreage won’t be “Big W,” but it would remain wild and roadless because right now the Roadless Rule (still in effect in Montana) gives it significant, albeit temporary, protection and the Sapphires and West Pioneers would remain essentially as wild as any Wilderness because Congress mandated it back in 1977 by including both areas (and seven others) in S. 393, the Montana Wilderness Study Act.

So, wildernuts, do the numbers. With the BDP bill, we lose more than 200,000 acres of roadless lands and a golden opportunity to permanently protect two major WSAs. As currently written, the bill designates 43,000 out of 94,000 acres in the Sapphires and 34,000 out of 151,000 acres in the West Pioneers as Wilderness. Without the BDP, we have the status quo, which is some degree of interim protection for all 575,000 acres (14 separate areas) that would become Wilderness if the bill passed.

Likewise, wood products industry reps, do your numbers. As currently written, the BDP bill opens 2,300,000 acres of national forest to stewardship logging with 700,000 acres mandated to become available for timber management within one year of the day President Obama signs it. With the above-suggested modifications, you might get even more. If the current bill goes in and then down in flames, you get what you have now, which most everybody agrees is not a pretty picture.

The last thing we want is our delegation to introduce something that turns into a lose-lose situation and then turns them away from the Wilderness issue for another 26 years, which is what I fear might happen if they drop BDP in as currently written.

So, politicos, do your numbers. You’re good at this. Obviously, motorheads will oppose the bill. They already have with full-page ads in Montana dailies. But the wreckreation constituency is smaller and “redder,” but perhaps more vociferous, than the wilderness constituency. You can bank on that criticism going in, as you can opposition from single-use advocates like the mining industry that always oppose Wilderness. Also plan on opposition from mountain bikers, which could be avoided, but most likely will not be. (That’s the subject of next week’s column)

Even with some segments of the wood products industry on board, the BDP bill still faces significant opposition, which makes support from the entire pro-wilderness constituency critical. Yet, as currently written, the BDP alienates many normally pro-Wilderness people, like myself, including the entire memberships of several small, but vocal, Montana-based green groups.

The three major green groups behind the BDP--Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation, and Trout Unlimited--basically consider these small groups bugs for the windshield as they speed forward in their zeal to convince the delegation to introduce the BDP. I suppose the delegation might concur, but I see this thinking as a tragic mistake.

It would be so much better to modify the bill prior to introduction and get all the pro-Wilderness folks on board or at least pacified enough to check their guns at the door. That sure would make the entire experience more pleasant for politicians. Right now, they face a harsh reality of seeing hard-hitting headlines about wilderness groups opposing their wilderness legislation, not something I’d want to see if I were a member of our delegation dipping my toe into the Wilderness debate.

That’s my $0.02 on the BDP. If it’s modified, introduced and passed, great. If goes nowhere, great. If it goes in as written and turns into a winless fiasco, not so great.

A much better alternative for our delegation would be a real Wilderness bill, something like proposed here. Simultaneously, introduce a pro-logging bill similar or more sweeping than the timber-related sections of the BDP and tell stakeholders “it’s both or nothing.” I, for one, support both, and I suspect most pro-wilderness Montanans would join me.

Related articles:

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnerhsip: Right Idea, Wrong Bill

Pat Williams on Wilderness and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership

It’s the Wilderness, Stupid

Montana Conservationists Urge Congress to Pass a Montana Wilderness Bill

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