Guest Column
You Might Oppose The Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act If …
In this guest column, Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Montana, defends his opposition to the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act and takes offense at opponents of the legislation being called "anti-wilderness rednecks.”By Congressman Denny Rehberg, Guest Writer, 5-30-09
 |
|
 | |
| Rep. Denny Rehberg. Courtesy photo. | |
|
On May 5, I testified on behalf of thousands of Montanans against the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act. NREPA would turn more than 24 million acres of federal land to wilderness across Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Eastern Washington and Eastern Oregon. For perspective, 24 million acres is larger than the districts of any of the bill’s 90 House cosponsors, and it’s more than 3,000 times larger than the lead sponsor’s 13 square mile district in New York City.
The issue isn’t whether protecting our federal lands is a worthwhile objective. It is. The issue is whether the top-down approach NREPA takes is the best way to do it. Reasonable people can disagree, and in that spirit, Paul Richards recently penned an op-ed in which he refers to opponents of NREPA as “anti-wilderness rednecks.” While I don’t believe name-calling is the best approach to having a reasonable disagreement, I nonetheless respect Mr. Richards’ dedication to this issue.
Unfortunately, it’s evident that many of NREPA’s supporters share Mr. Richards’ misunderstanding of why so many Montanans oppose this legislation. Perhaps they truly believe that folks who live in the Northern Rockies are ignorant rednecks who need sophisticated New Yorkers to tell us how to manage public lands. So if you’re new to this issue and aren’t sure if you’re a hick or an urban sophisticate, it may be helpful to consider some of the reasons Mr. Richards and others might think you’re a redneck for opposing NREPA:
If you think Montanans are better equipped to manage federal land in the Rockies than Washington, D.C. bureaucrats, you might be a redneck.
If you, like the entire Montana congressional delegation, are worried about gun bans on federal lands, you might be a redneck.
If you can’t afford an airplane to get you to inaccessible camping or hunting grounds, you might be a redneck.
If you own private land that would be surrounded by new wilderness without any guarantee of access to your land, you might be a redneck.
If you want to ease the challenge in fighting wildfires, you might be a redneck.
If you support an active response to 1.6 million-plus acres of dead and dying trees from pine beetle infestations, you might be a redneck.
As you can see, there are legitimate reasons to oppose NREPA; it might not be redneck ignorance after all.
If Mr. Richards had seen my entire testimony – which is available on YouTube www.youtube.com/dennyrehberg – he would know that the 10,000 Montanans who contacted me in opposition to NREPA are not opposed to wilderness at all. In fact, quite the opposite, we support responsible conservation. We just respectfully disagree that the best source of responsible conservation will come from New York City or Washington, D.C. Real conservation isn’t about making tough decisions for someone else who lives thousands of miles away.
The simple fact is, NREPA would actually do more harm to the land it seeks to protect by locking out the local expertise of the people who live, play and work there. The worst thing we can do for the public land we all cherish so much is put faceless federal agencies in control of something as important as land management.
Mr. Richards is right when he says these lands belong to Americans but it’s important to understand this also includes the people who live in the Northern Rockies. As I said in my testimony, wilderness expansion must be consensus-driven. Instead of calling people with legitimate concerns names, NREPA advocates should spend their time developing that consensus.
It’s revealing that NREPA has not earned the support of a single Representative – neither Republican or Democrat – from the regions it impacts. I’ve heard from county commissioners, state representatives, ranchers, timber workers, sportsmen and women and recreationalists who have expressed their opposition in letters, faxes, emails, survey responses and even a rapidly growing Facebook group.
If we’re going to ensure the rugged beauty of Montana remains the Last Best Place for generations to come, we’ll need to move beyond name-calling. I will continue to reach out to folks like Mr. Richards and encourage them to put rigid ideology aside and instead come together to find workable solutions that truly reflect Montana.
Montana’s Congressman Denny Rehberg is a member of the House Appropriations Committee. His full testimony can be read online here and you can follow him on Facebook here and on Twitter (@dennyrehberg) here.
New West welcomes guest columns of all kinds. Submit yours to editor@newwest.net.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Regional forest planning does not call for all of these lands to be wilderness.
They are called RWA's Recommended Wilderness Areas.
Why dont you work on those first ???
the real mike, doesn't Congressman Rehberg sleep on his couch and fly back to Montana every weekend? Basically you're going to attack him for being in DC to do the job we elected him to do? And then, of course, there's Baucus who lives in Georgetown and doesn't even on a house in Montana...
People from the intermountain west seem to just subsist between booms by hoping some eastern corporation will be throwing some colonialism our way now and then.
And if you want to recreate wilderness in places where it's "gone," how about giving that a try back wherever you've lost it all? Then you can make it up as you go along, and that's nothing new, right?
http://www.mtvoters.org/elected/u_s_representative_dennis_rehberg
In 2005, Rehberg voted for the notorious public lands sell-off measure authored by Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo and Nevada Congressman Jim Gibbons. The measure, contained in a budget bill, passed the House by a narrow two-vote margin in the dead of night and without debate as part of its Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (H.R. 4241). Though the damaging bill was thwarted in the Senate, the Rehberg-supported proposal to sell-off hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands to the highest bidder flies in the face of Montana’s rich hunting and fishing tradition.
Rehberg supported a Bush administration plan that sought to eliminate the Roadless Forest Conservation Rule, a law put in place by the Clinton administration to end logging operations and the building of new roads in 60 million acres of American forest. He voted against a measure that prohibited the Interior Department from using funds to change the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. (HR 2691, House Vote 386, 7/17/03)
Rehberg voted against banning snowmobiles in Yellowstone National Park. Rehberg was criticized in a Great Falls Tribune editorial for his efforts to defeat the bill. The editorial noted that “while Rehberg railed against Easterners, the majority of Western representatives voted to ban the snow machines.” It alleged that Rehberg did not “acknowledge that his own constituency is divided on this issue.” (HR 4568, House Vote 263, 6/17/04; Great Falls Tribune, 7/22/03)
Rehberg supported uranium mining in groundwater. Rehberg voted to allow uranium mining in ground water through a process called “in-situ leach-mining.” The techniques involved injecting chemicals into groundwater to release uranium from the surrounding ore. The metal-laden water was then pumped to the surface and refined. (HR 6, House Vote 138, 4/10/03; Santa Fe New Mexican, 6/5/03
Sorry guys, you've been duped. Rehberg doesn't want "consensus" for wilderness. In fact he has no use for it. It seems he has no use for public land, either.
Time and time again, local industry oppsoes any sort of public land management that reduces development potential. And time and again we see that the preservation route was the right route to take.
Our national forest and national park system was entirely created because lcoal industry had far too much influence and power to objectively care for and manage these special lands. They were put in the hands of the feds to remove that easily corruptible low hanging fruit.
Rehberg is advocating the exact same thing as the people who opposed Glacier National Park. We are hearing the same keywords too: "local expertise", "consensus", "hands on".
It's bull.
Todd, the same goes for your despicable self as well. No private property was ever "taken" for the Tetons. The land was either already government property or purchased from willing sellers. Either you do not know your history and are thus willing to spout disinformation freely, which makes you unethical, or you do know your history, know you are spreading disinformation, and are thus lower than low. Which is it?
Interestingly, the creation of the Jackson Hole National Monument in 1943 was the actual beginning of the western Sagebrush Rebellion, as all the lies you hear from Sagebrush Rebels these days about conservation and wilderness actually were first written and told in the response of developers, county commissioners, Congressmen, and ranchers to the creation of the Monument--including the lie that private property was taken.
Take a look at Robert Righter's book Crucible For Conservation for the details of the history of Grand Teton National Park.
"Members of Congress should be compelled
to wear uniforms & numbers like NASCAR drivers
so we could identify their corporate sponsors."
he is as wrong about wilderness as he has been wrong in supporting bush/cheney. he needs to be set out to pasture.
Don't worry, the silence you're noticing is just the funeral march for the NREPA bill. I guess NewWest is trying it's hardest to keep this thing alive but it just doesn't look like it will make it.
The "land of make believers" got another days worth of hearings in Congress to vent again, taxpayers funded a days worth nonsense testimony, a bunch of jet fuel was burned, urban representatives got their campaign contributions, and now we'll all let NREPA slip quietly back into the night.
So please everyone, let's all take a minute here and bow our heads together for a moment of silence.......................
as to the misguided argument that only montanans can dictate policy for montana land...federal land is presumably the property of every american citizen. that means we all have a say in how it's managed, even a representative from (heaven forbid!) NEW YORK. horror of horrors that someone with foresight might propose an idea for land outside her district. have you visited new york's suburbs? do you want montana to look like that? maybe we should restrict denny to only speak or vote on matters that take place in montana.
unfortunately, our system is majority rules no matter how slim the majority, which negates the need for "consensus" decision-making. it would be a big improvement if groups truly wanted to work together but more often we see victors steamrolling opponents who simply tried to shoot down an idea without offering a viable alternative. or the "shooters" triumphing and returning it all to the status quo for a few more years.
You still won't see any wilderness anytime soon. Nice dodge on the Indian thing.
Reason: They just want roadless and wilderness to go away, period.
I don't want wilderness to go away at all. I like having the Bob Marshall around. I just don't want it to SURROUND me.
Tell ya what...you focus on taking care of the wildernesses you already have and leave the rest for the rest of us to use and enjoy. Deal?
If Rep. Rehberg has any interest at all in public lands, why hasn't he introduced his own bill? Debating the irrelevant neatly avoids the wilderness issue altogether. Sadly, he has never proposed a single area in Montana for wilderness designation. Of the 535 elected representatives in Congress, Rep. Rehberg represents the leading edge of wilderness opposition in America. He has supported legislative attempts to privatize all national forest system lands, which not only makes him categorically opposed to wilderness and national monuments, but opposed to public land ownership as well. "Consensus" that.
Since 95% of the lower 48 is roaded and motorized, how about you pitch in for a little balance and help conserve the last few wildlands?