News Bite
Rehberg Testifies Against Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act
By Courtney Lowery, 5-05-09
 |
|
 | |
| Photo by Bill Schneider | |
|
Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg testified this morning against the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act, using New York’s Central Park as an example of how public land should not be managed.
From his testimony:
“A Montanan who visited New York’s Central Park recently shared an observation with me. Although Central Park was free of buildings and streets, many of the open spaces were cordoned off by fences. Visitors could walk or run on centrally planned pathways, but the fields of grass around them were off limits. NREPA models its philosophy for 24 million acres of land after the approach taken in the 843 acres of Central Park. Look, but don’t touch. This approach may work in Manhattan, New York, but it doesn’t work in Manhattan, Montana. I can’t stress how crucial that distinction is, and that’s why I oppose this bill.”
Click here or see the full text below to read Rehberg’s testimony. (Link opens PDF)
Today’s hearing, in the subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, is the bill’s first close look in the 111th Congress. The 110th Congress also considered the bill, but it never got to the floor for a vote.
This year’s version, H.R. 980, sponsored by Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and 69 other Representatives of both parties, would designate more than 24 million acres as Wilderness: 7 million acres in Montana, 9.5 million acres in Idaho, 5 million acres in Wyoming, 750,000 acres in eastern Oregon, and 500,000 acres in eastern Washington.
For more on the legislation, I’ll defer to the Wilderness expert around here, Wild Bill Schneider:
House Holds Hearing on Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act
Northern Rockies Wilderness Bill Back in Congress
It’s the Wilderness, Stupid
Rehberg’s full testimony is below:
Testimony of Congressman Denny Rehberg (MT-At Large)
Opposing the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public LandsChairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, thanks for allowing me to return to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands to testify again on behalf of the people of Montana.
I’m here representing county commissioners, state representatives, ranchers, timber workers, sportsmen and women and recreationalists who have expressed their opposition to the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act in letters, faxes, emails, survey responses and even a rapidly growing Facebook group. All told, I’ve heard from almost 10,000 folks who live in the Northern Rockies – who consider the land at issue in the legislation we are discussing today to be their home. It’s where they live, work and raise a family.
I’m here to report that more than 96% of us who live in these areas oppose this bill. In my years of public service – beginning in the state legislature, then as Montana’s Lieutenant Governor and now as the sole Representative in the House, I can think of few subjects that have evoked such a unified opposition.
If Congress wants to, it can ignore these concerns and pass NREPA without their consent and without a single vote from any of their Congressional Representatives. The land NREPA federalizes is represented by only 7 Members of Congress including myself; far fewer than the 72 current cosponsors of the bill. Congress can just say it’s inconvenient that none of those 72 cosponsors are from the districts that NREPA impacts. Recently, Congress passed the Omnibus Lands Act, which created over 2 million acres of new wilderness, this bill carves out more than 24 million acres of new wilderness. That area is larger than any of the districts represented by the 72 cosponsors of the bill. In fact, out of 435 Congressional Districts, only 18 are larger. Representative Carolyn Maloney – who is the lead sponsor of this bill – could fit her New York district into the new wilderness created by NREPA almost 3,000 times.
And while you may have the votes to force your will on the people who live in the Northern Rockies, I’m here to tell you that doing so isn’t in anyone’s best interest. Not the folks who live on this land, and not the people you were elected to represent. It’s not even in the best interest of the ecosystems we all want to protect.
Let me be absolutely clear about something. The folks I represent support responsible land conservation. Currently, there are more than 30 million acres of state and federal land in Montana alone - that’s nearly one acre in every three. As a state where lifestyles and livelihoods depend on the land we live upon, it’s one of our top priorities. And we do an outstanding job.
To manage these lands, stake-holders come to the table and formulate consensus driven
solutions at the local level. The federal government could learn a lot from examples in my state that center around three words: cooperation, trust and consensus. For example, the Undaunted Stewardship approach demonstrates the ability of farm and ranch families to contribute to the preservation of open space and scenic beauty while continuing to use the land for productive purposes.For the Montanans who work, till, graze, hunt, fish, hike, camp and enjoy this land, conservation is not only a daily personal choice; it’s our way of life. Real conservation isn’t about making tough decisions for someone else who lives thousands of miles away, yet that’s exactly what NREPA does.
The workable solutions we need won’t come from Washington, D.C.; we need to reach a balance that truly reflects Montana not the ideals of powerful special interests. From Washington, D.C., it’s impossible to smell the toxic smoke from hundreds of raging wildfires that will be harder to fight if NREPA passes.
From Washington, D.C., it’s impossible to see the 1.6 million-plus acres of dead and dying trees that result from pine beetle infestations that will be more difficult to manage if NREPA passes.
From Washington, D.C., you can’t watch a hillside change colors as indigenous plants are slowly strangled out of existence by toxic weeds that are impossible to fight once NREPA passes.
From Washington, D.C., you can’t hear the frustration in the voice of a hunter or angler who can no longer get to the secluded mountain ridge where his family has gone for generations once NREPA passes.
From Washington, D.C., you can’t walk on the overgrazed lands once managed by ranchers who can no longer take their open range livestock to new pastures once NREPA passes.
From Washington, D.C., Congress pushes for alternative energy from wind and the sun. But how can we get that power, and create green jobs in the process, if we can’t build transmission grids across our lands once NREPA passes?
And there’s a new concern looming in the minds of the folks around Montana and the country. There aren’t many things folks in the Northern Rockies care more about than their Second Amendment rights. Bills like NREPA create more federally controlled land, but they don’t guarantee Second Amendment rights on that land. The recent decision to eliminate Second Amendment Rights on some federal lands is nothing more than back-door gun control, and it’s not hard to imagine wilderness as the next target for restricted gun access. I’m concerned that NREPA has no guarantees that the federal government won’t someday ban guns on other federal lands the way it just did in National Parks.
At the end of the day, this is about Washington, D.C. thinking it knows how to manage the Northern Rockies better than the people who live there. I’m here to say this isn’t the case.
Many of Representative Maloney’s constituents in New York’s 14th District undoubtedly find Central Park a welcome refuge from the urban surroundings of America’s most crowded city. A Montanan who visited Central Park recently shared an observation with me: Although Central Park was free of buildings and streets, many of the open spaces were cordoned off by fences. Visitors could walk or run on centrally planned pathways, but the fields of grass around them were off limits. NREPA models its philosophy for 24 million acres of land after the approach taken in the 843 acres of Central Park. Look, but don’t touch.
This approach may work in Manhattan, New York, but it doesn’t work in Manhattan, Montana. I can’t stress how crucial that distinction is, and that’s why I oppose this bill.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Ya think you'll outpoll Kelleher next time?
No other city in the world has a big plot of undeveloped land in its center, and it's been universally praised for generations, if you don't count the greedy turn-of-the-century developers who wanted to build it out of existence.
It's an excellent example of the value of foresight.
As for the fences, last time I was there they were only used to protect revegetation projects -- sorta like how we keep cows out of riparian areas -- which you gotta do in a city of 8 million.
but missing opportunities and lacking vision is rehberg's brand.
what an embarrassment to us all.
solutions at the local level." Tell that to the "local level" in West Yellowstone. If it came to an unintimidated vote, the "consensus driven solution at the local level" would be that there'd never be another unmuffled two-stroke snowmobile on public lands within 50 miles. You think we're hard of hearing because so many of us are old retirees? Naw, it's because of the sled noise. You think we're aging fast because of the harsh environment? Naw, it's because the sled noise keeps us from sleeping between Christmas and St Patrick's; of course we look old in the spring. You think our lips turn blue because of the winter cold? Naw, it's the blue smoke; we have to hold our noses and mouthbreath all winter because of the two-cycle exhaust fumes. Rehberg needs to pull his head out and grow up.
His lower intestines?
If it's a gutfeeling I recomend phillips milk of magnesia.
I don't really know the details of this bill well enough to know if I support it, but I know that Denny Rehburg either doesn't know a thing about it or is twisting information. I do think the Wilderness Restoration idea is wonderful and designating Wilderness within YNP is a waste of time.
Indeed just a quick perusal of the listed designation sites is probably enough to send Skinner or Bearbait or any body from the non-Liberal side of the spectrum in to cardiac arrest, just from the sheer length of the list! And I understand where these guys are coming from because they have some very socially valid concerns. To me it is questionable if some of these smaller areas truly possess the qualities necessary to be reasonably considered for true capital W designation, as particularly on the Lolo and Kootenai they are often just little pockets of slopes that were too steep to log, surrounded by a sea of clearcuts. However I can see how there designation could perhaps be critical additions to the interconnected linked wildlife habitat corridor phenomenon and thus the genetic exchange issues etc.
Of course I understand that eternally preserving so much more acreage, 16.5 million in MT and ID alone, raises the eyebrows of any person who still wants to see our public lands managed from the standpoint of Multiple Use Sustained Yield old school Forest Service style. I count myself as somebody who thinks MUSY is a sensible theory ,even though thus far it has proven to be an elusive myth ,with the pendulum swinging from unsustainable single use ,not multiple enough timber harvest focus to the current -timber industry does not exist and shows no signs of any hope of ever being resuscitated situation! That right there is at the very heart of the controversy. As long as there is still a significant portion of the rural Western community population who believe their personal economic prosperity will be adversely affected by the preservation of so much land through restricting the future resource extraction opportunities they so optimistically perceive to exist there will still be vehement opposition to a bill like this being passed!
As I’ve stated in previous posts I personally am totally sympathetic to loggers and their plight but I just do not understand WHY so many still seem to believe that the glory days of the 60’s,70’s and 80’s massively cranking out board footage would again be just around the corner were it not for "damn environmentalists". Global and domestic market demand as well as mechanization of the industry suggests otherwise! This seems roughly akin to just refusing to believe that Santa Clause doesn’t exist-It would be nice if all these jobs were still booming but that’s just simply not reality!
The crux of the issue with NREPA comes back to that stale old jobs vs. environment debate so if the proponents can convince folks that the restoration employment generated by so much formal preservation really will occur and be fairly perpetual or at least long-sighted then maybe more widespread support can be garnered but I think "locking up" so much land will still always make some people uncomfortable, regardless of how many opposing views claim that such preservation is essential to sustainably yielding -water, wildlife, recreation and air quality.
I do not understand why the ATV, ORV and snowmobiling folks are so opposed to it as essentially it aims to protect lands that are technically already off limits and not likely to see road development occur given the prohibitive costs of new road construction. I suppose that if these people were convinced that they were not going to be locked out of any of their traditional riding grounds or lose much in the way of future expansion opportunities they would not see it as such a threat. As far as grandfathering in traditional uses such as grazing, I could find no language written within the bill that addresses such issues, but I’m no expert on legal language, that’s 4 sure!
On a personal level I already feel that “traditional uses” were already overlooked during the first W designation process. My big beef with the current W stipulations is that I find it beyond the pale of ludicrous lunacy that an outfitter can go in there and participate in what technically amounts to the “commercial” harvest of elk meat and antler racks or fish, yet I as a commercial morel mushroom harvester am not allowed to go in and harvest an extremely ephemeral fungal species, with no known wildlife forage value, in a manner that certainly inflicts no greater impact upon the environment than any of the other allowable uses!? This is especially pertinent to us in years like here in 2009 when there were virtually no fires in suitable mushroom habitat outside of capital W fire management zones. People should be able to guide and hunt there-I’m all for that-just don’t tread on me and my concerns!
But I realize, in this situation –no body gives a shit about us commercial mushroom pickers since 70 percent of us don’t even have green cards or speak English beyond the words “mushroom” and “price”. But that’s a whole different topic that as I stated before I suspect no one really cares about in this forum, either! It just goes to show how there can be unforeseen debatable issues that may later arise when interpreting acceptable uses within the context of the legal language surrounding preservation sites. Just look at the whole mountain bike issue which by comment post alone has now far surpassed any single contentious topic ever covered on New West-even wolves!!
So THC, to folks like you and I who developed some of our perspectives and knowledge of these issues through the Willard Old School of Ecological Conservation Thought, NREPA makes a lot of sense when we want to insure that this spectacular place we are blessed to live within and enjoy sustainably yields the water, wildlife, air quality and certain recreation activity part of the MUSY myth. However, the counterpoint to all of this idealistic ecological integrity for our bio-region is the rather rough, convoluted and not necessarily predictable employment quagmire. If all these eco-restoration jobs will actually be developed and prove to be more viable at providing JOBS than the traditional resource extraction pursuits, then it would be more locally embraced but then of course that’s a whole `nother angle to the debate-that most nonwestern city dwellers –the population majority, are in favor of all this Wilderness designation and it’s the publics land so the public majority should rule.
I would argue that the average American in Baltimore, Poughkeepsie, Chicago, Des Moines or Dallas is utterly clueless as to what an ecosystem, bio-region or linked habitat corridor actually is and would not even begin to understand or truly even really give a flying u know what about the actual costs, benefits, consequences or qualities of any of these issues will be to both the landscape and the people that live here! If it passes NREPA still wont do much for wilderness in Tejas, though I suppose by really stretching the bio-regional concept one could include the Davis, Guadalupe’s and Chisos as proposed additions to an all encompassing REPA that would also include the Central and Southern Rockies. There’s at least 100 acres of Rockies reminiscent Ponderosa habitat there, eh? Dream BIG, right!!
Let me get this crap straight. You believe in control over western public lands being left in hands of local westerners, rather than being dictated by easterners, and you badmouth western wilderness at every opportunity; but, you actually grew up in the Catskill Mountains and Hudson Valley region of Upstate New York? Then, you flap your lips about how Maurice Hinchey, who represents the very eastern upstate New York district where you're actually from, would never support wilderness there.
So, ...why don't you just move your eastern ass back there, let us real westerners make our local decisions without your easterner input and enjoy the not wilderness that Maurice Hinchey will never designate there?
The Real Mikey, Because I live here. And I do believe you are a real Westerner. So get your own ass back to San Leandro or Milpitas or Cucamonga, or wherever you came from. Let me guess: Richmond, the armpit of the Bay Area. I can smell you from here.
If you asked Max Baucus (or even Tester or Pat Williams) why they do or don't support NREPA, you wouldn't hear any better answer than Rehberg gave. Maybe Pat Williams can pay off some karmic debts, now that he is a "senior Fellow" rather than someone who has to win the next election. Someone with some authority has to join this. Much as we all like Steve Kelly and the AWR, they can't do it alone - not even with the help of the powerful and influential Montana Green Party!
Until the resource extraction proponents come up with a sound strategy to promote their rationale for believing that not developing these lands is an unreasonable opportunity cost loss (like who’s going to come up with the investment capital necessary to resuscitate an industry that’s been dying for 20 years)proposals like NREPA will gain ever increasing support .
Still it’s not infallible and I think it needs to be modified a bit to truly bring the collaborative compromise good will vibration to the table that is necessary to allay some of the legitimate concerns about access and other issues. I think some areas should just be given just a sort of wilderness lite designation where mountain bikers and say some commercial mushroom harvest can occur, maybe less restrictive than capital W yet protected enough to maintain eco-integrity. When one talks about wasting taxpayer dollars it is ironic to note that whatever taxpayer funding has been "wasted" by AWR pales in comparison to the waste of taxpayer dollars spent on below cost timber sales in the region, even when the economy and cost of fuel was much better!
The major point that critics seem to be missing here about AWR, Wild West etc. is that they honestly believe that NREPA is not a bullying tactic to close everybody out of the woods in an elitist sense but rather it is the only way to move forward in this region both ECOMOMICALLY and ECOLOGICALLY and they just might end up being close to correct. Without belaboring what I stated in the earlier post- I don't understand how the pro logging camp thinks traditional logging is going to be the viable new wave of the future for this region! I think politicians like Rehberg are more concerned about locking up mineral rights and energy dev. than truly being naïve enough to see a, big logging boom on the horizon. I also think a lot of the fears over the effects of this bill are understandable but exaggerated.
However I for one am reluctant to further restrict access-there are already many roads that have closed in recent years making some skiing and peak bagging become more of a bitch than this older and lazier space cowboy is happy to tackle on an average given day! When a peak bagging expeditions slog time increases from 3 to 12 miles that’s a significant difference, and its access that’s the other big restrictive fear in this equation for most people ,that some how the recreation that they cherish ,whether motorized or not or even a combination of the 2 ,on the same day, will somehow be adversely effected. Land owners near these proposals also need to be assured their traditional access concerns will be maintained and anything less should, understandably be considered, seriously flawed, un-democratic, socialist bullshit tactics by those who would have to endure any such nonsense from the proposals.
The west is a divergent place, and with current migration trends, becoming more so. Like the change or not. While I truly love the spirit of Montana in arenas such as banning red light cameras, the Governor's stand on a national ID, and issues of personal freedom and responsibility, Montana does not have the best record on environmental stewardship. (If you disagree with that statement, I'm sure there will be plenty of fuel for that argument next winter when the DOL wipes out more bison) These lands are already federal, already allow hunting, fishing and non-motorized recreation. So by creating the ecological connectivity this bill appears to be attempting, those activites for residents and the tourist dollars they bring in are preserved.
Just a thought...when residents of Montana begin to be protectionist with "their" federal lands...how dare those easterners or the dreaded California environmentalists weigh in on western issues, ask yourself how much of the federal subsidies for roads, farmers, etc. come from those far more populated areas. Montana would quickly be in huge trouble were it not from revenues collected by the federal government from other states. There simply is not enough population or high wages to tax to support the services the state needs within the state. That is why we are the United States and are intertwined and dependant upon each other. That is why on federal lands, others..."outsiders"...deserve a voice too as they help pay your way. I know many people who have never been to Montana, but their lives are more hopeful and richer just becasue they perceive that there is a place so beautiful and wild, even though their circumstances do not allow them the priveledge of living there.
Now, the Republicans have become bigger pork brokers than the Democrats ever thought of being, but both parties seem to think that the more we waste and consume, the better-off we'll be. This is where the Greens come in, with their values of future-focus, environmental sustainability, as well as egalitarianism and social justice.
I'd guess that half or less of those reading NewWest would qualify as "egalitarians," though. So, the Green message remains a hard sell - especially, it would seem, to Liberals.
One thing, there is a high amount of retirement pension, social security as people leave where they made their money.
Two, and I know this applies to NM, Montana historically had a high presence of defense stuff, for missile silos. We got some of the jobs, in trade for being Target One. NM has Sandia Labs, Los Alamos, Kirtland AFB, et cetera. High dollars there.
If the lard was broken out better, who knows. It's like COnnecticut, all those Noo Yawk tycoons taking the New Haven to the burbs. So the Moynihan calculations aren't purely comparing apples to apples. Each category could be broken out and discussed more fully.
As for NREPA, it's shyte, always has been, and always will be. It's what it is, an Earth First campfire smoke bomb. Like Foreman's tequila bottle that never landed.
Finally, I must say that the core concept of representative governance is when the people most effected by the outcome of a policy have the most say in what the policy turns out to be. I never was real fond of Montana's resource colony status or the politics from that. Now we have a new colony mentality, where we are the Third World paradise all the "geotravelers" want to visit. I'd love to drop Carole King and Carolyn Moloney in the center of the Bob Marshall with whatever they can carry, and see if they can make it out.
Funny thing about those Tea Parties last month. I never heard a single one of the rabid right wingers attending mention the fact that Wyoming ( where I live) gets back way more in taxes than they send in. So not only is Wyoming deep in your metaphorical Lard Bag , around here Pigs actually fly ! There goes one now...
Actually , converting the existing roadless areas into real wilderness would be one of the smartest investments this generation could make. That is self-evident, and to my mind hard to argue against. And long overdue. It should be a populist issue, not political. But the GOP is obstructing any and all legislation put forth by any Obama Democrat regardless....Neo Scorched Earth. The Republicans likely wouldn't even vote to spend $ 100 for the second coming of Christ pageant if it were sponsored by Democrat. The opposition to NREPA is purely political in Washington.
Before you'all vent your spleen over the fact the NREPA is eternally re-sponsored by some "Eastern Democrats", do look at the historical context. It should be noted that back in the 1960's when the Wilderness Act was codified ( 1964) , Endangered Species Act (1973), and most of the landmark environmental legislation was passed, those were all pushed by Republicans. Even Western Republicans . Nixon signed them. The Democrats, mostly easterners, at the time were dead set against wilderness and the environment , because their blue collar working class demographic didnt want to threaten their precious logging and mining jobs and such. It was in fact the Barry Goldwater conservative Republicans who crafted most of the landmark wilderness and environmental legislation we live under today , over the protest of the Dems.
Today , that polarity on these issues is exactly the opposite. A total role reversal. It is western Republicans trying to blast any attempt to set aside more wilderness in Wyoming and Montana.The pendulum swung.
And there goes another flying Pig. It's aircraft tail number is NREPA.
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/wilderness/nrepa.htm
I have lived in Montana my whole life of 27 years. I already CANNOT access any of the land my father grew up on, unless I want to hike for 4 days to get there. I have been closed out of my favorite areas, only to look at that gate year after year, noticing NO-ONE on foot accessing this area. The road is there. Perfectly usable. But not to those who would actually make use of it.Who is going to walk 30 miles up a dirt road to get to a beautiful overlook? No one.