20 Aug 2009: Opinion
Finding Common Ground on
Protecting Montana Wilderness
In the Yaak Valley of Montana, environmentalists have been talking to loggers, snowmobilers and other longtime opponents of wilderness protection about the future of public lands. Their accord is part of a cooperative effort that could lead to the first wilderness-area designation in the state in a quarter century.
Occasionally, while cleaning out files, I’ll come across old screeds and op-eds and newsletters in which I express hope that we are almost there, that wilderness designation for certain of the wildest lands in northwest Montana’s Yaak Valley is imminent.
Known as the Land the Wilderness Act Forgot, the Yaak Valley is the lowest valley in Montana — the confluence of the Yaak and Kootenai rivers is 1,880 feet. It’s also the wettest valley, and from that fecundity, it nurtures the greatest biodiversity in the state.
Relative to other, drier regions of Montana, my home valley of the Yaak
Photo by Randy Beacham
The Yaak Valley is nestled in the Kootenai National Forest, in the northwest corner of Montana.
This is the Year of the Yaak, I have been telling people, with regard to the possibility of finally getting some lands here designated and protected as wilderness. I thought we were close in the 1980s — we were, only to have President Reagan veto a bill — and we were close again in the 90s, when Montana Rep. Pat Williams put a bill through the House with 302 votes, only to see it stall in the Senate. And we were close at other times over the last 10 years.
Yet across the decades, traditional opponents of wilderness — snowmobilers, ATV riders, loggers, millworkers, and general anti-government or anti-regulatory zealots — have proved themselves adept at blocking wilderness throughout Montana. In the Yaak, they’ve been successful for 45 years, ever since the Wilderness Act of 1964 was passed by Congress and signed by President Johnson, with the aim of protecting designated areas and keeping them wild. There’s still not a single acre of designated wilderness in the Yaak.
About five years ago, a small community group of which I’m a board member, the Yaak Valley Forest Council (YVFC), began informal, open discussions with those various stakeholders, aimed not so much at telling them what we wanted — wilderness designation for the last roadless lands in the Yaak — but instead asking what they wanted.
Some couldn’t answer. Some were simply and philosophically against
The new legislation might provide a template for communities facing other issues in the fractious rural West.wilderness. Others, however, had specific needs or desires. The ATV riders wanted a loop route — not in the wild backcountry — and snowmobilers wanted to continue riding in the few basins where they were currently allowed to legally ride. The vanishing timber industry wanted jobs in the woods.
We can work with all that, the YVFC agreed. Let’s draw our different user areas on a map and see what the map looks like.
Elsewhere around Montana, other communities were conducting similar exercises. On the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest — where five independent sawmills teeter chronically on the edge of economic collapse in that dry country, as global warming increases tree mortality — another partnership was formed with community members as well as a state wilderness organization, the 7,500-member Montana Wilderness Association. And up in the Seeley Lake and Swan Valley area, where ranchers, environmentalists, and timber workers had been meeting for years to discuss how to defend against residential sprawl and overdevelopment, a similar project emerged simultaneously, one that would add more than 80,000 acres to the Bob Marshall and Mission Mountain Wilderness — the largest federally-protected wilderness area in Montana.
The process has been as inclusionary as it has been informal, with the participants not directed by any agency requirement, but instead by the grassroots flow of democracy. The sole request by the various partners in
Photo by Rick Bass
While there has been little development in the Yaak Valley, environmentalists say road building and intensive logging have degraded forest habitat.
Named the “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act,” the bill would designate over 700,000 acres of new wilderness — the first in Montana in nearly 30 years, and the first ever in the Yaak. It also creates an assemblage of Recreation Areas, Special Management Areas, and Protection Areas, in which various user groups — including solitude-seekers and snowmobilers — are segregated to avoid conflict. And it directs the Forest Service to perform restoration forestry — a mix of thinning, stewardship logging, prescribed burns, weed treatments, culvert replacements, and road decommissionings — on 7,000 acres per year in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, and 3,000 acres per year on the Kootenai National Forest, over the next 10 years.
If Tester’s legislation is successful, it would result in the first wilderness legislation in Montana in 26 years, the longest that any Western state has gone without protecting new wilderness.
Supporters are quick to point out that it is not a traditional wilderness bill, but is instead more of a stimulus and community revitalization proposal. Tester’s bill is small — it pales next to the long-proposed Northern Rockies
This bill increases wildness and detoxifies – once and for all – the word ‘wilderness.’Ecosystem Protection Act, which would protect approximately 24 million acres of wilderness in five western states (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington and Oregon). But that legislation has never secured the backing of a single senator from the northern Rockies. Tester’s bill is notable because it might provide a template, as well as motivation, for communities facing other issues — whether social, environmental, or economic — in the fractious rural West.
It’s hard to break the culture of failure in any endeavor. The Three Rivers Challenge — a plan to share stewardship of the Yaak region among logging interests, recreation enthusiasts and environmental advocates — is the proposal best known to me in this legislation. Just because it is championed by ATV riders looking for a legally designated route near communities that already possess roads, as well as by snowmobilers trying to hold on to some of the areas that they have left and millworkers and woods-workers trying desperately to stay employed, doesn’t make it a bad bill. That was the old paradigm of failure. This bill increases wildness, protects endangered species, and detoxifies — once and for all — the word “wilderness.”
It would be a good dramatic story if this bill was a sellout, but it’s not. It’s just a map of common ground — places where longtime opponents have agreed to agree. That’s good for them and for the land, and it’s historic for Montana. Do I mind that here on the leading edge of an ecosystem collapse threatened by global warming there will be some special stewardship logging contracts for local workers in less remote areas? Not in the least. I celebrate it. It doesn’t take a learned scientist to walk around and see that on some sites in these areas there are too many trees per acre for an overheating world.
Some in the far-left environmental movement will oppose Tester’s legislation because it involves chainsaws of any kind. Some in the far right will oppose it because it involves protecting our wildest places — through force of regulation — for future generations. But it is my hope that the vast sweet middle will support it as a politically bold and visionary idea, in these troubled times.
POSTED ON 20 Aug 2009 IN Forests Policy & Politics Pollution & Health North America
ABOUT THE AUTHORRick Bass is the author of numerous books, including The Book of Yaak, Wild to the Heart, The Deer Pasture, and Why I Came West, which was a finalist for a National Book Critics Circle Award for autobiography in 2008. He has lived in Montana’s Yaak Valley since 1987 and is a member of the Yaak Valley Forest Council.
Stumble UponRELATED ARTICLES
Why Africa’s National Parks
Are Failing to Save Wildlife
The traditional parks model of closing off areas and keeping people out simply may not work in Africa, where human demands on the land are great. Instead, what’s needed is an approach that finds ways to enable people and animals to co-exist.
As Copenhagen Talks Near,
What Are Prospects for Success?
For months, hopes that a climate treaty would be signed at the upcoming Copenhagen conference have been raised, then dashed, then raised again. Now, with prospects waning that a binding accord on reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be reached this year, ten environmental leaders and climate experts outline for Yale Environment 360 what they believe can still be accomplished at Copenhagen.
In Japan’s Managed Landscape,
a Struggle to Save the Bears
Although it is a heavily urbanized nation, fully two-thirds of Japan remains woodlands. Yet many of the forests are timber plantations inhospitable to wildlife, especially black bears, which are struggling to survive in one of the most densely populated countries on Earth.
The Spread of New Diseases
and the Climate Connection
As humans increasingly encroach on forested lands and as temperatures rise, the transmission of disease from animals and insects to people is growing. Now a new field, known as “conservation medicine,” is exploring how ecosystem disturbance and changing interactions between wildlife and humans can lead to the spread of new pathogens.
Controlling the Ranching Boom
that Threatens the Amazon
Clearing land for cattle is responsible for 80 percent of rainforest loss in the Brazilian Amazon. But with Amazon ranching now a multi-billion dollar business, corporate buyers of beef and leather, including Wal-Mart, are starting to demand that the destruction of the forest be halted.
MORE IN Opinion
Why Africa’s National Parks
Are Failing to Save Wildlife
The traditional parks model of closing off areas and keeping people out simply may not work in Africa, where human demands on the land are great. Instead, what’s needed is an approach that finds ways to enable people and animals to co-exist.
How High Will Seas Rise?
Get Ready for Seven Feet
As governments, businesses, and homeowners plan for the future, they should assume that the world’s oceans will rise by at least two meters — roughly seven feet — this century. But far too few agencies or individuals are preparing for the inevitable increase in sea level that will take place as polar ice sheets melt.
Looking for a Silver Lining
in the Post-Summit Landscape
Much was left undone in Copenhagen, and the many loopholes in the climate accord could lead to rising emissions. But the conference averted disaster by keeping the UN climate negotiations alive, and some expressed hope that the growth of renewable energy technology may ultimately save the day.
Copenhagen: Things Fall Apart
and an Uncertain Future Looms
The Copenhagen summit turned out to be little more than a charade, as the major nations refused to make firm commitments or even engage in an honest discussion of the consequences of failing to act.
The Dangerous Allure of
Global Warming Technofixes
As the world weighs how to deal with warming, the idea of human manipulation of climate systems is gaining attention. Yet beyond the environmental and technical questions looms a more practical issue: How could governments really commit to supervising geoengineering schemes for centuries?
Bringing Hope to Copenhagen
With a Novel Investment Idea
Governments from the developed world will never come up with enough money to help poorer nations adapt to global warming and implement renewable energy technologies. The solution may lie in using a modest allocation of government funds to spur private sector investment in green energy projects in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Copenhagen: The Gap Between
Climate Rhetoric and Reality
As the UN conference enters its second and decisive week, the calls for strong global action to deal with climate change do not appear to be penetrating inside Copenhagen’s Bella Center.
Climategate: Anatomy of
A Public Relations Disaster
The way that climate scientists have handled the fallout from the leaking of hacked e-mails is a case study in how not to respond to a crisis. But it also points to the need for climate researchers to operate with greater transparency and to provide more open access to data.
As the World Waits on the U.S.,
a Sense of Déjà Vu in Denmark?
Twelve years ago in Kyoto, the world was poised to act on a climate treaty but looked for a clear signal from the United States. Now, with the Copenhagen talks set to begin, the outcome once again hinges on what the U.S. is prepared to do.
As Copenhagen Talks Near,
What Are Prospects for Success?
For months, hopes that a climate treaty would be signed at the upcoming Copenhagen conference have been raised, then dashed, then raised again. Now, with prospects waning that a binding accord on reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be reached this year, ten environmental leaders and climate experts outline for Yale Environment 360 what they believe can still be accomplished at Copenhagen.
RELATED e360 DIGEST ITEMS
09 Feb 2010: U.S. Creates Office to
Coordinate Climate Change Data
08 Feb 2010: Black Soot is Main Cause
Of Himalayan Glacier Melt, Study Says
05 Feb 2010: Mideast Project Develops
Biofuel With Water From the Sea
04 Feb 2010: Scientist in E-Mail Scandal
Largely Cleared By University Inquiry
04 Feb 2010: Obama Backs CO2 Storage,
Biofuels in Bid for Bipartisan Energy Policy
02 Feb 2010: Faster Growth of U.S. Trees
Due to Higher Levels of CO2, Study Says
02 Feb 2010: Nations Pledge CO2 Cuts
that Will Not Meet 2 C Goal On Warming
01 Feb 2010: Pentagon Says Warming May
Affect Global Security and U.S. Missions
01 Feb 2010: China Will Pass U.S. in
Smart Grid Investment in 2010, Study Says
29 Jan 2010: Corrupt Indonesian Military
Closely Tied to Illegal Logging, Study Says
Yale Environment 360 is
a publication of the
Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies.
DEPARTMENTS
OpinionReports
Analysis
Interviews
e360 Digest
TOPICS
BiodiversityBusiness & Innovation
Climate
Energy
Forests
Oceans
Policy & Politics
Pollution & Health
Science & Technology
Sustainability
Water
REGIONS
Antarctica and the ArcticAfrica
Asia
Australia
Central & South America
Europe
Middle East
North America
ABOUT
About e360Contact
Submission Guidelines
Reprints
CONNECT
BookmarkEmail newsletter
Twitter: YaleE360
e360 on Facebook
Share e360
Subscribe to our feed:
Top Image: aerial view of Iceland. © Google & TerraMetrics.
OF INTEREST
COMMENTS
Rick Bass does himself and his cause a disservice by claiming that "Some in the far-left environmental movement will oppose Tester’s legislation because it involves chainsaws of any kind."
That statement might make for a good on-liner in an essay (even if it just seems to foster the type of polarization that Bass wants to end). But in reality that statement is just really a sophomoric cheap-shot and far from the real reasons why many conservation groups and dedicated wilderness supporters throughout Montana have concerns with not only Tester's bill, but also the exclusive nature of some of these so-called "collaborations," most notably the Beaverhead Partnership.
For a look at some of these issues and concerns, I'd suggest this recent essay from ecologist and author George Wuerthner at http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/perspective_analysis_on_the_tester_forest_bill/
Thanks.
In view of Rick Bass' many years of investing heart and soul (sweat, blood, and tears?) in efforts to protect the Yaak, my put is "give him (and Tester) a break and your support."
In another arena, with others, I spent many years working for the perfect, to end up with nothing.
The art of the possible can resolve the dilemma in which the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Visit this link for a very interesting exchange regarding the Beaverhead Deerlodge Partnership and Tester's Logging Bill that appears at High Country News.
http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.13/collaboration-schmlaboration.
The exchange is between Jack de Golia, the recently retired public affairs officer for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and Ray Ring of High Country News. Many of Mr. de Golia's concerns stated below about the Beaverhead Partnership and Tester's Logging Bill are also shared by others in leadership positions on the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest, based on their personal communications with us. Thanks.
Mr. Bass speaks for a very tiny minority of Montanans. Selling out vast areas of Montana to simply gain a few small personal favorite areas for himself makes him an untrustworthy and dangerous sort of wilderness activist.
The tester bill is a hastily written scrapbook paste-up of old Conrad Burns tactics pasted together with some loose alliances of corporate timber interests and good old boy corporate sponsored faux environmental groups. it is introduced with little or no real support from traditional and genuine conservationists. it is slapped together by a freshman senator's staff who should know better and it is poorly thought out policy by Jon himself. it will most likely die a lingering death in congress.
Bass degrades the discussion of how wilderness designation gets effected, by invoking favored cliches of reductionist thinking: "far left" vs. "far right" with "the vast sweet middle" representing, inexorably then, reason.
Look again, everyone. Bass is deftly circumventing the real issues of Quid Pro Quo ("this for that") Wilderness designation.
The QPQ model is "politically bold" alright, boldly redefining how democracy should work by destroying the full range of diversity fundamental to democratic decision-making through the practice of devolution: creating a self-selecting voting membership composed of collaborator "stakeholders" with a personal financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings.
These collaborators with conflicts of interest, cannot plausibly represent the best interests of present and future generations of Americans. This includes the funneling of millions of corporate foundation dollars into free market "environmental" nonprofit organizations such as Trout Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy and other neoliberal/libertarian corporate front-groups.
The QPQ model is boldly practicing the degradation and deregulation of bedrock environmental law (especially the definition of Wilderness as stated in the Wilderness Act). No one should be granted the right to use such degradation as a bargaining chip at a roundtable employing a manufactured consensus.
The QPQ model routinely employs privatization of publicly-owned resources as another bargaining chip to throw on the roundtable which is largely outside of the public's ability to understand, or hold accountable, the seedy backroom dealmakers.
Finally, these dealmakers function with a predetermined outcome based upon an ends justifies means groupthink in an artificial vacuum ignoring the present-day threats from climate change.
Do we really want to see this model spilling us onto the slippery slope of devolution where fewer and fewer have the ability to control the destiny of the commons and the integrity of our foundational environmental laws?
POST A COMMENT
Comments are moderated and will be reviewed before they are posted to ensure they are on topic, relevant, and not abusive. They may be edited for length and clarity. By filling out this form, you give Yale Environment 360 permission to publish this comment.