FIRST AND ONLY ON NEWWEST.NET
Pat Williams on Wilderness and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership
Revise and expand the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Bill and don't think small. You might only get one chance.By Bill Schneider, 12-13-08
 |
|
 | |
| Former Montana Congressman Pat Williams | |
|
“With Wilderness bills, we can always find reasons not to do it.”
So says, Pat Williams, the man who probably has more standing in the seemingly endless efforts to protect Montana’s wild land than anybody still living in the state.
In an exclusive interview with NewWest.Net on Friday, Williams spoke out on Montana’s Wilderness Drought, and uncorked some sage advice for Montana’s delegation and green groups on how we should try to end it--and, also, how not to try to end it.
Williams, a Democrat, served Montana for nine terms in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1979 to 1997. Now he teaches part-time at the University of Montana and serves as a Senior Fellow at the Missoula-based Center for the Rocky Mountain West (CRMW).
During his 18-year tenure in Congress, Williams fought long and hard for Wilderness, introducing 16 different bills, including Montana’s last major effort, a massive statewide bill, which actually passed Congress in 1988 but was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan.
That was 20 years ago. Not much has happened since then, except ubiquitous disagreement and infighting among green groups on how to proceed, which has contributed to even more disinterest in the Wilderness issue from Montana’s congressional delegation.
The delegation hasn’t even introduced a single bill in the past 13 years, Williams emphasizes. In a recent commentary in Headwaters News, a CRMW project, he called that situation “downright embarrassing,” pointing out that Idaho and Montana “are the only states in the entire nation to not have satisfied the imperative of providing the ultimate protection of wilderness designation to the most important of our remaining wild lands.”
So, what does former congressional leader Pat Williams think Montana greens and politcos should do to finally move forward?
“I think the delegation should bite off as much as it can swallow,” Williams advises. “It’s almost as hard to pass a small bill as a large bill.”
Specifically, he supports using a revised version of the proposed Beaverhead-Deerlodge bill as a base and then adding “at a minimum” the Great Burn ("which is ready"), the Yaak ("which is also ready") and the Rocky Mountain Front “and put it all in one bill.”
(For those unfamiliar with wild areas in Montana: The Great Burn is 175,000-wild land straddling the Idaho-Montana border west of Missoula; the Yaak is in multi-faceted proposal including a small, Wilderness for far northwestern Montana; and the Rocky Mountain Front is a huge swash of wild country stacked up against the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex west of Great Falls.)
“This would still be less than one half the size of the bill Reagan vetoed in 1988,” he notes.
That was “the last big attempt to pass a statewide wilderness bill,” he said. “It has been 25 years since we passed any bill.”
And Williams thinks green groups might only have one chance. “The next bill they (the delegation) pass might be the last bill they pass in the next 25 years.”
Translate: Wilderness advocates should not think small.
Some major green groups and members of the timber industry are already employing this strategy and have come up with an extensive collaborative effort called the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership (BDP) and have a draft bill to formalize it. The BDP covers a lot of territory, but it’s still not big enough for Williams.
(Click here for a recent NewWest.net commentary on the BDP.)
“The Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership is the product of a good local collaboration and a lot of hard work,” Williams said, but “I personally would like to see changes in it because it’s unworkable as it is. There is a lot of concerns in the conservation community about the language of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge bill, and I’d be stunned if the delegation didn’t heed those objections.”
He’s also concerned that disagreements among greens over the current version of the BDP bill could turn into a messy situation for the delegation and end up extending the Wilderness Drought instead of ending it.
Ironically, Williams is included on a list of “those who have praised” the BDP on the website of the Montana Wilderness Association, but when asked about it, he said “I only support the process.”
Basically, Williams believes creators of the BDP bill should have used other bargaining chips instead of giving up key wild lands, such as the West Big Hole and the areas included in the 1977 Montana Wilderness Study Act, S. 393.
“We can’t give up the S. 393 areas,” he said, forcefully. “They should never be released.”
But Williams believes in the collaborative approach and is convinced it can be done correctly to help the timber industry. “You can get timber out, but not out of RARE II or S. 393 areas.”
(RARE II was a 1979 inventory of key roadless areas conducted by the U.S. Forest Service. The West Big Hole, included in the current BDP bill, is a RARE II area.)
“There are ways to leverage the process and get timber out with release language,” Williams believes, “but not out of roadless areas.”
He favors release language for already roaded areas to help timber mills and “non-timber trading” like economic development funds and various relief options for industry on grazing, energy, and water rights issues.
Concerning the efforts by some green groups to address wild land protection by codifying the Roadless Rule, Williams is cool on that approach, mainly because the Roadless Rule doesn’t ban motorized use.
“Once you have motorized use, you’ll never have Wilderness,” he believes. “Motorized use is the biggest threat to Wilderness.”
His final word on Wilderness bills: “It’s not about preservation. It’s about Montana’s economy. It’s about hunting and fishing which is a cash register for Montana communities, large and small. We want to keep Montana like it is. This is the way to do it.”
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
wilderness in montana is our chief asset. it is the one thing that makes montana montana. they provide clean water and excellent wildlife habitat as well as incredible life time experiences. i agree with pat. if we are going to ask congress to pass a wilderness bill, it should have all the parts so we can be sure it stays alive for future generations. no sense bidding on a dead horse. let's shoot for a live one.
The comment on the S 393 lands is interesting...goes to show that once something is PROPOSED by the narrow wildernist faction, then it is theirs, in their mind. So much for compromise and moving goalposts, hah?
Again, the B-D is a joke because it front-loads wilderness with no substantial protections for multiple use. Any action can still be litigated to death after the designation. So it's not a compromise at all, even though it seems like it to the all for us and nothing for anyone else clique.
Come to me with a wilderness bill that DOES hard release other lands for other uses, and not just voidable language like in the Washington and Wyoming wilderness acts, and maybe we can come to a lasting solution. But front-load, leaving the door open for the same old destruction by neglect we now have, while allowing Greens to refocus their efforts on claiming yet more inappropriate Wilderness...well, kiss my grits.
Big "W" wilderness will never fly again. It is a lot like the old gun control battle. You won't "educate" us into seeing the light of your path and the error of our ways. Wilderness deignation is too restrictive for most public lands. That is not to say we don't need wilderness. In fact most people believe we have lots of it. That is why we have this so-called "wilderness drought".
If my party wants to continue to win elections we need to resist the screwed up logic of urban liberals and eco-fanatics.
when you start messing with wilderness supporters keep in mind you are messing with me and a lot of other montanans who feel the way i do. by the way- were you aware that pat williams is a native montanan? i am proud of montana because of men like pat who are not afraid to stand up to small talk by pea brains like you two.
Now back to wilderness.
There are several wilderness study areas within the Missouri Breaks...yes there is life outside your little idea of Montana. The problem with WSAs is they slant the debate to, as Pat said MOTORS. So when we have an RMP update we spend years and millions fighting over motors on the rivers and in the uplands. If you think the locals are for less access you are a fool or a liar. I have listened to that crap for the past 10 years and the fact remains, there has been no new wilderness in 30 years. Your plan is busted friend, come up with a better one or wait another 30 years.
I don't kow if the objection to wilderness protection lies in simple ideology ("the government is bad, and if they do it, it is bad" -- which I notice doesn't stand when anti-wilderness zealots are defending farm subsidies or new highway projects), or whether Cotton Mather is their god ("all which is not useful is evil"
which ol' Cotton was prattling before we knew about watershed protection, etc). I think it is time for anti-wilderness citizens to explain and outline what the world would look like if they had the power. What exactly is it that you believe? That 98% of the land surface being accessible by road is NOT enough? Why so much anger? What is it about wilderness designation that offends you so? Given the current situation of the world- 6 some odd billion people and climbing, a population equivalent to that of California's added to the US every few years- your position not to designate new wilderness areas, to preserve these lands, seems extraordinary, an extremist position.
There are entire libraries available that explain the position for preserving wilderness. There are a few pamphlets here and there that argue for less of it- and the ones I have read almost all rely on anger and ideology rather than real argument. Am I missing some crucial book or documentary, or reasoned argument against
preserving, say the Wilderness Study Areas?
I've been around a long time, and have had alot of these exchanges here, and elsewhere. I think you'll know my question is serious, and sincere. There is something that should be explained here, if possible, so that we can move the discussion forward.
Hal
I will go with what I know.
I work and play in the breaks. Eight years ago 375,000 acres of it became a national monument. Within the monument are several WSAs in some fairly remote areas. These lands are hunted and grazed, the cows are fat the sheep and elk are expanding. The Missouri runs through it, motorized use seasonaly, I won't go too far into the details, basically downsteam only in summer, up or down the rest of the year. It works. It all works. It ain't broke! But no...now that it is a monument every NGO in the Us wants to "save" it. Now back to WSAs, can't have wilderness with motors, No more cows, no trucks, no motorboats. To my way of thinking no access. I'm fairly certain we are headed to court over the BLM RMP, the WS and MWA didn't get everything they wanted.
Some of the older folks that ranch down there are ready to sell, but not to NGOs, it goes to Cabela's. Too bad. Your plan doesn't work.
Bottom line...no trust. It doesn't help much when you preach that we are not 'correct" enough to engage in civil discussion.
Let's not forget that good old Bob Marshall's Alaska Wilderness Experience was in a map-dot where his neighbors had mines and claims or were subsistence hunting...in other words, trying not to be visitors but to remain.
Let's not forget that Bob was also an eastern scion of money and pretty much a socialist when socialism was young and fresh, prior to Stalin's purges yet after the dekulakization.
Let's also not forget that the Indians pretty much put the landscape to whatever uses they could, wherever they could. That's a fact. North America at the time of Columbus was not a natural landscape, but one with an anthropological history.
Whether or not these lands appeared "wild" after Eurodisease wiped Indians out, doesn't override the fact that most vegetative and animal communities were shaped heavily by induced changes through set fires, agricultural planting, et cetera. What about those charcoal soils in the wild, wild Amazon?
The point I am driving at is that North and South America have been managed for human purposes for a period far longer than any living Joshua tree. Indians were no more passive in their environment than any white or yellow or brown or purple people on any of the other continents. And when it comes to "tradition" -- the real tradition of Indians is, guess what, to adopt the tools that work free of any neo-Luddite hooey. It's an amazingly pragmatic, effective and utilitarian outlook -- probably utilitarian because tribal governments lack resources to waste.
Okay, so if we adopt tools that work, on landscapes that evolved with human management, in order to generate the stuff we want (and that's not always industrial raw material, although I do like forest products a lot), how do we make that adoption a situation where the effort (cost) is justified by the outcome (benefits)?
One way we start is by integrating landscape management. There will be places where good outcomes could be had from plain old fire. Yet it might be efficient and cost-effective to allow chainsaws for trail operations...beats the tar out of hand-bucking. Maybe even some wheeled scrapers for the mules to pull on tricky erosion projects or bridge improvements? Both are no-no's in "Wilderness." But probably allowed in a "roadless area."
Aw heck, I could rant on about this forever, but choose instead to declare that "wilderness" is illusory. It's a human concept...it's humans that pick the places they want to declare "wild" -- Marshall picked spots he found beautiful, remote, or at least looked like it.
Wild country is not so because Congress declares it, it is so because of topography, weather, and accessibility. Alaska, for example, will always be a pretty wild place, simply because it is Alaska. The Sahara will be so as well. But the Serengeti? You tell me those fancy-pants camps with the Range Rovahs are wild? Psht. Yet I hear all this hooey about "America's Serengeti." Just a cheap sound bite for the gullible.
Phooey.
And I'm writing in from our fmaily place, where I grew up, in Alabama. And I just got back from fighting traffic for forty minutes on what used to be a road through farmlands and creek bottoms. I can point out where we used to shoot doves on one side, and hunt deer and ducks on the other, where we caught all the bullheads, etc.
And, my friend, it is flat covered up. Gone. As Dave would say, it has "evolved with human management." Boy, that's the understatement of the century.
Most people don't seem to miss it, or feel the loss. But I do, so somebody else, must. Seems like it might make what is left more valuable, following the old rules of economics.
you do not trust wilderness any more than we trust less protective designations. you mistrust government and we mistrust government also. that is why we want as much protection as we and congress can provide for the last bits of our best lands. less protective designations somehow always end up being compromised and wilderness keeps it as close to the original state of the land as we can get. it is that simple and the fact that we cannot agree on this is just a fact we will have to all live with as the process for montana's long delayed wilderness bill moves forward.
I'm sure you don't resemble the clown lawyer that showed up at an RMP hearing in Big Sandy suggesting that if we didn't "save" the Breaks subdivisions would sprout all over. This is front of 4th and 5th generation ranchers with a somewhat more realistic view to say the least. A little respect goes a long way
If you want to use your motor, you have 95% of the lower 48 to use it on. Save the rest for people who have the ability to look at the bigger picture,and who think with their great grandchildren in mind.
A "wilderness drought" does not exist. We have millions of acres of Wilderness here in Montana. A empathy drought among Wilderness organizations does exist. Plans are purposely being rushed forward without regard to the impacts on others. We are in a race to see who can create either the first wilderness in 25 years, or the most wilderness, or the most inappropriate wilderness.
This all should be about preserving and improving ecosystems. It should be about reducing suburban sprawl. This should be about understanding the world we live in. Wilderness isn't always the answer. It doesn't always fit. The best answer usually isn't that simple.
Think about these:
National Protection Area
National Conservation Area
National Recreation Area
National Scenic Area
Think about actual cummunication with entire communities. Think about promoting both the pro's and con's of Wilderness. Give people the knowledge they really need to make informed choices. Sometimes the answer will be wilderness, sometimes it will be something different. I wager it will not be an answer that promotes destruction of an area's character.
I'm encouraged that he's urging that the wilderness cause be taken up seriously again, and I hope that many will take his advice. I get the feeling that he's pointed out a way for Montana to distinguish itself by designating wilderness as part and parcel of the state's economic strategy, and if that's what he's suggesting, I couldn't agree more.
In western Montana, specifically in the case of the timber industry, the ace decisions need to be focused on what we do on the acreage that's already been logged. Many promises of multiple use, renewability and sustainability of logging have been made for that acreage. We need to make sure that those promises can be kept, and will be kept, and that will require a bit more attention than it's had so far. But even the designation of every eligible acre as wilderness will still leave the timber industry lots of acreage to prove that it's made promises it can really keep.
In eastern Montana, specifically in places like the Missouri Breaks,
the ranch and recreation industries outrank timber as top concerns. There are still a lot of people who believe that cows will get kicked off of any federal public acreage designated as wilderness. And there is a very active motorsports industry campaign hard at work to tell us all that we have a "right" to ride our machines on public land.
But when the Wilderness Act of 1964 was up for passage, Sen. Frank Church of Idaho held hearings here in the Northern Rockies to show that nothing in the Act says that cows have to go when wilderness is so designated. Yes, there are many environmentalists working to the best of their ability to have cows removed from public land, but they don't imagine that they can do it by relying on the actually pretty cow-friendly Wilderness Act.
When the BLM was deciding which path to take for motorized support policy in far eastern Montana, it scheduled a public hearing in Miles City. The Miles City Star reported on the hearing. The Star quoted a rancher who said that people riding their machines on public land have no idea where public land ends and private land like his begin, and, so, "They're ruining my land, too."
In eastern Montana,
The original Wilderness Act was not supposed to be an open-ended process. Ten and fifteen years were the intended cut-offs for BLM and USFS holdings. It was not supposed to be some kind of perpetual motion machine until the day there was no more possible land to cut off and save. It was never intended to be abused as was just done in the Wild Sky legislation, where formerly-logged and roaded ground is now big W Wilderness. Nor was it intended to facilitate "roadless" areas being created from "unroading" forest areas, as is discussed in the appendix of the Dombeck roadless "rule."
No, areas were supposed to be set aside after a reasonable period of study of the suitability of same. We are well past that, far away from the intent of the Wilderness Act.
So with that in mind, my general outline of an acceptable solution would be to make wilderness designation contingent on meeting other criteria. In short, not one more acre in, say, a National Forest, until the non-designated areas have been back under satisfactory multiple use sustained yield for ten years. Satisfactory meaning there isn't any litigation over obscure species and procedural paperwork gigs, there is plenty of recreation -- INCLUDING mechanized, fires are under control, the budget is not being busted, in short, the way stuff is supposed to work and did until the "Environmental" Era. If a, say, "leadership council" appointed by local elected bodies is satisfied after ten years, they can then vote to approve the final set-aside of so-called "Wilderness" into such status.
The Partnership has none of that. While the USFS preferred alternative was a passive, timid joke, that everyone hated, MWA and Sherm Anderson threw pretty much everyone else under the bus. I found ANderson's move to be completely nuts, especially when the science guys he hired COULD lay out a heck of a case for forest management with a major wood-products output as well as better conditions. He completely misread the political environment, so did Conrad Burns...nothing new there, of course.
But the bottom line is the BD gives designations up front while providing no substantive anti-gridlock legislation for the rest of the forest and the rest of the forest user community. If it ever happened, the wilderness would be front-loaded, and everything else would be subject to the usual lawsuit paralysis. MWA has given lip service to pooh-poohing lawsuits, but we all know that MWA has no control, and in their hearts would never devote resources to filing serious amici or paying lawyers to support any action alternatives.
So...unless future wilderness designations are contingent upon successful multiple use over time, with due consideration for larger economic factors, I can't support wilderness at all...even if I do support select areas now that even to my evil multiple-use eyes, are clearly worthy of wilderness designation.
Now that we're finally (in what remains of our planet's eleventh hour) instituting the necessary corrections to timber industry practices such as "stewardship forestry" and "restoration", why is it that can only be done in a "this for that" trade-off? Why must the public be forced to lose, through trading away and selling-off rights to public lands essential to ecosystem services such as stable populations of wildlife, etc.,etc.?
The answer lies in crony capitalism and corporate access, campaign financing, and "free market environmentalism" (talk about oxymorons). The ranks of free market environmentalists are filled with global warming deniers who would have us ignore the role of timber harvest as significantly contributing to the release of carbon to the atmosphere.
This is precisely why QPQ wilderness proposals are devoid of the necessity to prioritize carbon sequestration in forest management. Wild Bill, along with George Bush, has been playing their fiddles while our planet passes tipping points of no return.
Enjoyed the article. Keep it up
I hear from you that you don't want a "onesizefitsall" Wilderness designation for the Breaks, and I am right there with you on that.
We need to get together and figure out a bold new way to protect the things we cannot stand to lose on the public landscapes and rivers that we live and work and wander on. I know that "wilderness" legally described, has been a treasure for the places where it has been designated, and there are hundreds of thousands of acres - WSAs, ONAs, etc, where the designation is still needed, and still appropraite-we need to add them to the wilderness system. Other places need other, new, models to protect them. We better start building them. Because what has happened to my home country will happen to them- not exactly the same, but something that you don't want.
The world is run by those who show up. So far, the motorized interests, backed by enormous sums of money from the industries that make and sell the vehicles, have been showing up real early. Those who satnd to make big (or any)profits) from these lands will show up early and show up first to make policy regarding their use. Those of us who just want to hunt, fish, ride horses, or even ride an ATV into these places without going into a motorized, overgrazed wasteland, will be the ones who lose.
I myself don't like regulations. I still go to Glacier and Yellowstone, but I don't feel as free there as I'd like to. I was all for grizz in the Selway-Bitterroots until I looked at the plans for new regs that would be put on the users of the wilderness there.
The continued existence of the wilderness and the continued existence of all wild places, depneds on people who know these places and learn to see and love what is there. You do not fight for what you have never known, or what you have been denied access to.
I want public lands to be as free as possible, and as free as they can be while not being degraded by users. I don't like these new ideas of tradeoffs- sacrifice areas where motorized users dominate and tear up the public lands- nobody has that right- if you want to do that, its great, and fun, and you should do it on private land where you can pay the costs of your use.
So, let's come up with a new model for places like the Breaks. It is time.
If you say no to every kind of protection, or just despise the feds so much that you won't work with them, or decide that it is just too complicated or boring or whatever to participate, the place wil be transformed, just like where I am now. No doubt.
Was that Big Sandy meeting the one in winter a few years back where the Coulee King ranted and raved about evil ATVers from Great Falls and whatnot?
As for saving the Breaks, Hal, the simple fact is the hordes of users and supposed "abusers" never showed up, and they still haven't. I had Fred all to myself last summer, even the skeeters stayed away for some reason. The Fort was still ghostly, the fancy new center looking nice and pristine...and while I was poking around elsewhere, I saw pretty much no one except those who had to be there for a reason. Not even any Subarus in pullouts...so you can't even claim that use group was out there, and this was a good time of year.
I sure like talking to you guys. Clears the mind.
Ya Dave that was the meeting.
hal, dave is right, nobody goes to the breaks except for seasonal hunters and a few summer paddlers. I argree Hal, we need to work this out but in the RMP process the greens were the misinformed groud that showed up at every meeting. i attended all but Helen and Kalispell. They obstructed everything in the name of "W" or the promise of it. That has to stop.
After all the hype we got a new visitors center (3 + million), but no replacement for the worn out ramp at Judith Landing.
Use has dropped by half...not a bad thing really.
The comments, for the most part, have been informative, interesting, and civil. There are, sorry to say, always those who rely on personal attacks. I, long ago, grew used to it and they run off of me like water off a duck's back. Those people are usually found on the political fringes...Right and Left. In the case of these angry responses, the authors seem to occupy the anti wilderness Far Right. But so be it: those who seem to be driven by hate are in a small minority and, as I mentioned, the bulk of the above responses are very worthwhile.
As our Congressional Delegation approaches the cusp of seriously considering the protection of Montana's wild places, let's remember a few essentials: first, the areas likely to be candidates for wilderness designation are those lands which are unroaded, undeveloped, and in which there is not now any motorized use...no off road vehicles or snowmobile play in those areas.
These lands are the state's most critical watersheds, spawning grounds, game habitat, and migration corridors. It is, most Montana's are convinced, in our best interest both economically and culturally to keep these Montana lands just as they are: wild and free.
It has been exactly 30 years since the Forest Service presented its RARE ll (Roadless Area Review and Evaluation) recommendations to the U.S. Congress. During these three decades only two..count 'em..only two states have failed to have those designations pass and be signed by the President: Idaho and Montana. And by the way, the Congress in no instance approved exactly what the Forest Service recommended and in ever single case added more wilderness than called for in RARE ll. Why? Because in each state the public demanded more Wilderness and that includes the people of Montana.
For 13 years our Congressional Delegation has failed to even introduce a Montana Bill. Idaho...Idaho... has, at least introduced and tried to get Wilderness legislation through the Congress during the past decade. I understand and in part appreciate the reasons for this Wilderness drought. In some ways political conditions in the White House and the Congress were not fruitful for the passage of a good bill. But, none the less it is embarasing at least and disappointing at best that of all states our Montana should be last to act in the noble effort to legislatvly protect the last great remaining wild lands in America.
Perhaps Bill Schnieder's article and the many responses are the beginning of a new conversation and consideration of that process which will finally begin the completion of our state's potential Wilderness areas. That process should, of course, include all local considerations. That's how it was done in the past ...resulting in the nation's first Wilderness..the Bob Marshall and through all the others: including The Rattlesnake, The Gates of the Mountains, the Great Bear, The Missions, and The Metcalf.
We Montanans have a great task ahead. We want to ensure that future generations enjoy the Montana we know and love. We want to assure clean places to fish, hunt, and camp. So...let us begin again.
My best wishes for a Happy Holy Christmas to you all.
Pat Williams
.
On 12-18-08, Pat Williams said "... let's remember a few essentials: first, the areas likely to be candidates for wilderness designation are those lands which are unroaded, undeveloped, and in which there is not now any motorized use...no off road vehicles or snowmobile play in those areas. These lands are the state's most critical watersheds, spawning grounds, game habitat, and migration corridors."
I'm scratchin' my head about that. It seems to assume that some of Montana's "most critical watersheds, spawning grounds, game habitat, and migration corridors" don't already have "vehicles or snowmobile play" in them. I'm just as capable as anybody of putting two and two together and coming up with anything but 4, but, Pat, are you saying that some of our most critical roadless watershed, spawining grounds, game habitat, and migration corridors" are not likely to be considered for Wilderness Act protection because vehicle and snowmobile play has effectively ruled it out?
Back in the early '80s, I accepted an invitation to follow the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee on one of their tours. At a meeting in Northern Idaho, IGBC had arranged part of the time for people to wander off to group discussions of several topics. Anxious to learn what I could, I moved around from group to group. I'd just joined the group on snowmobiles and motorcycles use of logging roads when one of the men said his motorcycle club had talked about it a lot, and came up with agreement that they'd really dig in their heels about any closures on logging roads their club members wer already riding in 1970.
A little later, Regional Forester Stan Tixier approached me with a question as I crossed the room to sit in on another group: "What do you think so far?" I told him I was pretty impressed with groups willing to see road closures back into the '70s. I've always wondered what happened to those folks.
I have a problem with Frank Church anything, for his role is not mandating working fish ladders on the Snake River dams at Hells Canyon, and above. He was pimping for Idaho Power Co., and did so until his dying day. Now that burning salmon spawning stream riparian and uplands is de rigeur, the claim that ESA listings are about political power, and not critter survival, gains more credence.
If there are going to be Wilderness additions, I have to side with Skinner in demanding that there are hard boundaries on the ground and in law to protect multiple use lands. Big W Wilderness has proven to be not much more effective at landscape protection than churches were at protecting native Americans from genocide, and Wilderness designation is that genocide policy of denying Indian land use put into law. Anytime you deny a race its history and cultural background, the practice is defined in Webster's as genocidal in nature. Prove me wrong.
Securely protected landscapes are a good idea. The bad part comes in the laws as passed in Congress, and the back door dealings and compromises that come about when Congressmen and women meet with Senators to align each other's bills into law. Conference committee decisions dilute and disenfranchise voters every day. The sausage is rotten. The "bailout" bills back that opinion every day. Lehmans is allowed to fail, and wipe out savings for hundreds of thousands, but GoldmanSachs is allowed to be saved. Phew!!! That so stinks!! That was so unfair. That was so Democrat controlled Congress. Chuckie Schumer's Wall Street economic engine for New Yawk City was saved, and I have to imagine based on who gave how much to whom in the past. And now the Gov. of New Yawk State is whining about not enough money being made by Wall Street executives, all of which is taxed to support New Yawk City, and is draining the city coffers of dough. Do you care in Montana? Or Colorado? So when you have a Wilderness Bill in Congress, you have to know what you end up with is not going to be what you wanted, unless, of course, you have greased the proper palms. Or not.
The public discourse seems to indicate Americans favor great expanses of Wilderness. The big lie in that claim is that the overwhelming majority of those folks believe that Wilderness is the same as Park, Monument, RNA, Wildlife Refuge, or any other special use Public Land. The overwhelming majority have no idea the prohibitions of access and use of Wilderness. When the unwashed masses have a working comprehension of what a Wilderness is, and how it is accessed, used, and protected, to the full extent of the law, the claim that Americans overwhelmingly support Wilderness is hollow. And there will never be an attempt to change that fact because it works against Wilderness proponents. My lawyer father, now 93, told me as a kid that telling half a truth was a form of lying. Not telling the whole truth was lying. Until all the pertinent facts were on the table and understood by all, anything less was a lie. He never made a lot of money, but he sleeps well.
I am so glad you chimed in here. You still play an important role in our state, and I suspect you will do so in the creation of this next bill. I have concerns about the B-D Partnership plan, and you have pointed out a detail that prompts me to sound off here once again.
You mentioned angry responses and political fringes, both far left and far right. Maybe implying that you, or the B-D Partnership Plan, is coming from a neutral position. A group that I am affiliated with, the Montana Mountain Bike alliance, is coming squarely from the middle on these land-zoning questions, and has been repeatedly chastised by member of the “Partnership” for speaking out in support of a middle ground. While the plan is not a radical far left movement, it is far enough from the center to confuse us bikers and our solutions as a far right aligned group. The result of this is that the B-D Partnership, until they start working with us rather than opposing us, will not obtain a broad based support. They do not yet have enough confidence in their vision to work with a middle ground organization. The whole scheme remains considerably left of center.
We are able to act as negotiators, effectively pulling citizens with diverse interests together to find solutions to public access and land preservation. On a current project, we have gained support from several county commissions, businesses, and a municipality. This is something the Partnership Plan will not achieve without learning to reach out toward the center.
The Wilderness movement has moved away from land preservation, acting as more of a zoning cult in which Wilderness is the only viable answer to manage our wildest lands. To illustrate my point, if the movement was really about preservation, a more diverse and harmonious base of support could be obtained by using the other available congressional land zoning options in addition to Wilderness. If these options can be brought in play, to provide preservation and repair our divisions, Montana and Montanans will truly begin to benefit. These designations are: National Protection Area, National Conservation Area, National Recreation Area, and National Scenic Area. I would love to read a Wild Bill article about these designations, and their features. So far, the Wilderness players in Montana have opposed any efforts to bring these designations forward. They have openly shown that any land designations less restrictive than Wilderness cannot be tolerated.
To further illustrate the divisiveness of Wilderness, just give the following fantasy scenario a bit of thought. Bicycles and skis are similarly technology driven. The sports of mountain bicycling and alpine skiing have a comparable evolutionary timeline. One device is allowed in Wilderness and one is not. Just ruminate a bit about how little alpine Wilderness would be designated if skiing were not allowed. Now just think of how much wilderness would be designated if bicycles were allowed. This comparison shows a major flaw concerning social accommodation in the current interpretation of the Wilderness Act. The act is not perfect; but it is discriminatory in a biased way. However I am not advocating changing it, just to be careful where and how it is used so as not to cheapen the concept of Wilderness. The Partnership Plan contains discriminatory flaws. This is why the B-D Partnership Plan needs adjustments. We have the land planning tools of the alternative designations to repair these errors. This is why Wilderness should not be used in every instance. It is not fair to divide the public over a land zoning preference for only Wilderness based land preservation, when other, often more socially acceptable options, exist.
The Forest Service and BLM, are effective at evaluating wild lands for Wilderness eligibility. But the agencies are poor at evaluating the social uses and values that a wide variety of historical users place on these lands. Consequently, while we have other possible designations, they only recommend Wilderness. This recommendation is commonly misinterpreted as a need for Wilderness and that Wilderness is the only solution for these places.
A statewide land preservation bill should contain several elements, which are lacking in the B-D Partnership Plan. It should transcend being simply a Wilderness bill and make the big step to being an encompassing land preservation bill for us all. A statewide land preservation bill should also be a partnership with Idaho, because of our extensive and wild, shared border. It should not happen quickly, because it takes time to thoughtfully accommodate all of the public. It should not be a tool to simply end an imagined “Wilderness drought”, because that would cause irreparable damage to many of our State’s citizens. A “Wilderness drought” is a shallow and selfish concept to many of us.
Remember, this is as much about the public as it is about our land. Planning should come from the middle as much as from the right and left. Because Wilderness is permanent, every effort to involve every facet of society should be made; time should not be an issue at all. This planning should not be an exclusionary process. Right now, the very groups that have the ability to bring the “right wing” users to the table have been excluded from the B-D Partnership Plan. This exclusion has reinforced the non-centered stance the plan actually takes.
Happy Holidays to you Pat. If I have made you think with these statements, and you wish to talk, please look me up, I’m easy to locate.
First, amen to your comment that folks out on the ground get compromised back in D.C. I've said it sometimes seems like the same deal the Indians got when signing onto agreements that were later voided by Congress. The Montana press seemed to pick it up in a more recent form in a late-'80 to early-90s article quoting a well-known Montana environmentalist as saying, "They compromised our compromise."
You said, "The overwhelming majority have no idea the prohibitions of access and use of Wilderness."
True enough. I wish it wasn't so.
Also, your comparison skiing and mountain biking is way off the mark. People were skiing in Scandinavia more than 5000 years ago. When were bicycles invented again? You say that the "sports of mountain bicycling and alpine skiing" have a comparable history, but this is completely besides the point. There are no ski resorts or alpine ski races in National Parks. The question is whether using skis or bikes as a means of transportation is compatible with historic use of these areas, and the answer is a pretty clear yes for skis and a no for bikes. Personally, I question whether this criterion of historical use is the right one, but it is the one that was used in the Wilderness Act, and we have to live with it for now.
If I can find the time, I will describe the details of the alternative designations later in this forum. They do indeed provide more than adequate land management protection, and two designations are very close to Wilderness in restriction. Wilderness contains the most restriction, because that is it’s role.
Bicyclists want to be part of the solution. They have many good ideas and this has been reinforced by the reactions of the many land managers we have met with over the past several years. Bicyclists want to have a role in access decisions but so far forest supervisors or the Region One Supervisor has not considered our ideas. Becky Heath of the Gallatin National Forest was the lone exception, and she has been relocated and her travel plan decision has been litigated against. Even though the plan was controversial, and many diverse parties filed approximately 100 appeals, most now see the wisdom of her decision, especially in light of the pending litigation.
Only one compromise has been reached in Montana between Wilderness advocates and bicyclists, the High Divide Agreement. The majority of the state’s bicyclists support it and IMBA supports it, but there may be problems looming with it, as I suspect not enough motorized parties were involved. Please, someone, prove my suspicions wrong, because the High Divide contains many fine elements. It was crafted with a left of center bias though, and the danger of not coming squarely from the middle contains the real possibility of unnecessarily polarizing Montana’s citizens.
Bicyclists have wanted to be part of the B-D Partnership Plan for two years, yet have not been allowed. Exclusions such as this will not foster good will or good results. So far, bicyclists are dependant upon the random acts of kindness that may somehow be doled out here and there from the Wilderness groups. It doesn’t look good at this time. I call this “trickle down access”, a decidedly Republican theory, practiced earnestly by the Wilderness groups. They do like to be in charge, and are highly undemocratic in their process. Bicyclists believe that they have a legitimate right to advocate for their own access issues, but have been chastised for doing so. Bicyclists have enough “green values” to know where to give up access to trails for the greater good. Finally and most importantly, bicyclists represent the middle ground, and have the ability and desire to get people together in order to find compromise. Wilderness groups have mis-interpreted our actions lately as siding with “motorized”. In reality we have reached out equally to both the right and left concerning various forest closures. What has happened so far is that the only positive response has been from motorized groups, who have understood and supported our ideas and understood the way all designations, even the big W, can be used to preserve our public lands. So far, Wilderness groups, at best, only listen to search for argument. So strong is their quest, they have been unable to agree with us in the slightest amount. I sincerely hope they can adjust, because it is a shame to deny Montanans a path to find compromise.
Lukas, you stated that you would be willing to sacrifice some mountain bike trails, if it meant that some areas could be preserved as wild for future generations. I’m with you completely on that one, and I know many motorized folks who are too, although we probably have differing ideas on what we would sacrifice. That is where the hard work comes out. I suspect our differences are slight, and I would like to get together to talk.
While I have found that my quest for preserving the land often exceeds that of Wilderness advocates by a little, I have found a major difference in that I have a much larger social conscience that any of them that I have met to date.
This issue is not about bikes or wilderness if compromise cannot be reached. It is about social unrest that could happen here in the Big Sky state as traditional Montana values are ignored in the quest to quench an imagined “Wilderness drought”. We must learn to work together, and that isn’t going to happen by pushing agendas from the left or the right.
Finally, it doesn't help the discussion when you claim that you have a much larger social conscience than Wilderness advocates. This might be your impression (and I wouldn't know how to measure social conscience scientifically), but mentioning it just creates adversity. Also, the "Wilderness drought" is not imagined, there has been no new Wilderness in Montana in the last 25 years. Maybe you welcome this fact, but it certainly is real.
For example, there is a consensus of Montanans who rally around the Farm Bureau, and another consensus of us who rally around the National Farmer’s Union. And, recently, the formation of R-Calf rallied many ranchers who formed this new consensus out of disagreement with more long-established groups. Not every Montanan is aware of these varied consensus groups within farming and ranching. But I’d bet that more are aware of the differences than of the substance behind them.
There is a similar, longstanding division of competing consensus groups in logging. (Back in the ‘80s, for example, some rank and file workers in the logging industry were saying that loggers had less to fear from environmentalists than from the then-booming clout of the logging corporations who had come elbowing their way into the state.) Not every Montanan is aware that the logging industry was and is divided into competing consensus groups. But I’d bet that even fewer of us can pick up a newspaper and read in-depth coverage of the substance behind their competing opinions.
The same tradition of competing consensus groups has also been obvious amongst Montana’s environmentalists, including differing consensus groups on designation and protection of wilderness. In this case, though, the fact of differences amongst the environmentalists is widely known, and is often taken as cause for lament about our lack of unity, as if we should be more unanimous in our opinions than others are. And I’d bet that here, too, it is harder for Montanans to get their hands around the substantive reasons for the differences than it is to see that the differences exist.
For example, it’s easy to see that some Montanans – and some big out-of-state groups – find themselves in the kind of consensus that formed the Beaverhead-Deerlodge group. And it’s easy to see that other Montanans – also with support from out-of-state – find themselves in a competing consensus that forms the base of support for the NREPA, the Northern Rockies Ecoystem Protection Act.
An old friend of mine since we attended third grade in Great Falls public schools in the early 1950s stated the NREPA side of the story like this: “All we want to do is save what’s left.” For others, though, this seemed to be asking too much, and these folks thus took the stance that the logging industry should be permitted – even encouraged – to press deeper into what’s left of the state’s wildest spaces.
So, what’s the substance behind these two, quite-different Montana environmentalists’ consensus groups? The answer to that question will shape not just the state’s environment, but also it’s economy.
Some of my own answer to that question is already plain, from my earlier comments on the high importance of leaving logging on the lands it’s already cut. Next, I’ll post something more about my own understanding of the wilderness question. For now, though, it seems important to recognize that there is no such thing as any single “consensus group” on wilderness in Montana, and that the topic really is important enough that the debate should be encouraged.
The question today becomes who to trust? Neither side trusts the other. And the resource use folks have every right not to trust government, because Federal land policy has been bought and paid for by campaign contributions, pure and simple. They actually thought they would get some relief and security under Bush, which never happened because the MegaPulps had bought Bush, and put their guy, Mark Rey, into the job of seeming to look like he was to break the analysis paralysis and lawsuits forever forest management situation. He was there to make it worse, and to protect Canaddian forest products producers. He did a fine job. That the Green Groups got more than they dreamed of from Bush was well received by the public. The collateral damage that is a diminished forest products industry on the ropes will have long lasting results.
The Rocky Mountain region private land is worth 6 times as much to development as it is for timber production. The new land management structures, REITs and TIMOs, have counted the beans and declared so. Our future lumber supplies will have to come from socialist Canada and other lumber exporting countries. The dollar drain will continue. The jobs, the opportunity, the rural self sufficiency, all continue to slide to town and then to overseas. The U.S. has to figure out who they are, how it wants to live, and what enterprises will support us, and soon. The only reason there is any kind of hope, that there are not now soup lines, is that people don't have to spend two of the dollars per gallon of fuel they were spending just months ago. If we still had $4 gas, our plight would be severe, and land use problems would not get a hearing in any venue.
If we don't get a handle of escalating food costs, and find meaningful employment for more than 10% of our citizens, this failure of the economic engine will continue. A no-interest economy, with people having lost 30-60% of their invested assets to market manipulation and speculation, does not serve endowments at universities, does not serve saving for education for your children, does not serve personal complements to pensions and social security. Rising prices to a large and growing fixed income geriatric community are going to a huge social problem, as is the whole of the welfare system. There is not the resources to continue to support people without means to support themselves. If "stimulus" is a make work deal for construction trade unions, then all is lost. We will have created a middle class privileged public and private union workforce not having to bear economic pain, which will foment more than discontent in what we hope will still be a voting public in a democracy.
Lands held by government are fine in theory, but in reality, they become reserves that don't contribute to economic stability, and in fact, detract from the human condition not unlike state run newspapers, a nationalized Walmart or Exxon. The forest products producers were essentially a large group of small business using a public resource that was put out of business by an unholy alliance of MegaPulps like Weyerhaeuser, MegaGreens like the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and the use of tax forgiven wealth transferred to management by dilettantes well taken care of by their trusts and foundations. That those same people now want to build a MacMansion on former MegaPulp timberlands, a la Plum Creek Timberlands, should they be denied because they are rich, well protected by Congress, and connected by campaign donations?
I know this is an odd way to distill what the problems in coming to a consensus present. But it really is about more than concerned grass roots local people who might have a far better land ethic than most, an empirical knowledge of the landscape and its particular strengths and weaknesses, and a desire to interact with that landscape on their terms and conditions. These are 50 states, all with the same citizens under one flag. The question is find how the whole of the country, all of its citizens, will find benefit in public land use decisions, up to and including the transfer of ownership of all of it to private hands as was the original intent.
Then, it turns out that d) wild things get some of that same relief from our mechanization and population. And it's the benefits to the critters that I've come to appreciate most, even though the Act was plainly intended to benefit people.
Others seem to have a more capital-intensive interpretation in mind. I suspect there's always been some of that, but it seems to gain a little traction now that global change will be putting pressure on Wilderness as well as on every other acre of the world. I think I sense an argument, and it may be a more explicit argument than I've personally seen, that we need to step in with spending and action to save Wilderness from the harshness expected under our new climate -- I think some are arguing that we need to keep wilderness natural in a time of climate change.
Well, there's nothing more natural than response to climate.The scientific literature is rich with documentation that landscapes change in response to climate. In her review of the literature, Camille Parmesan noted that the topic of climate change is not new to biology, and that early documentation response to climate conditions can be traced back to the 1700s. (I have Parmesan's literature review as pdf, for anyone on this list who'd like to give it a once-over.) Offhand, I can think of nothing more natural than for Wilderness, wilderness, logged-over forest, foothills ranch or prairie farm than to undergo change when the climate changes.
If it were up to me, I'd keep the land management budget focused where it's most appropriate : on already managed lands. As a society, we face questions galore just about farming, and, ahem, food, and I'd hate to see a dollar needed for those questions get frittered away by spending in Wilderness or wilderness. Let wilderness and especially Wilderness go its way, including in the parks to whatever extent that's still within reach.
But designate it. With or without a changed climatic regime, it fills many important ecological, economic, and social needs.