Ah, wilderness. How can we have so much disagreement without ever having any agreement, let alone any results?
Now, the issue has hit the news again with the re-introduction of the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (NREPA). It makes me ask, again, how could we be so short-sighted?
I’ve almost given up on our politicians passing a true Wilderness bill i.e. so-called big “W” Wilderness” designated by Congress under the Wilderness Act of 1964. Now, I define “wilderness” as any public land designation that doesn’t allow road building and motorized recreation. So, for the rest of this column, think little.
This isn’t Indiana, folks. We have something here in Montana most people can only dream about having – millions of acres of wilderness on our horizons, but we still persist in our efforts to turn the special into the ordinary.
Way too many people view wilderness as a top-down, eastern-liberal-conceived, environmental conspiracy to drive westerners and their machines and livestock off public land to make a sanctuary for the rich, elite super-fit. Before you join in, please pause, look around, and answer these questions.
Why do most people move to places like the Flathead Valley? Why do they vacation here?
To see mines, drilling rigs, and “stewardship logging?” To see livestock grazing on federal lands that all Americans own? Or to see bears and wolves? To hear noisy, smelly ATVs tearing around? Or enjoy nature’s sounds?
How many small businesses depend on wilderness? How many more would spring up if we protected the rest of it?
Why is wilderness never considered a jobs program? If we could track the number of people who depend on wilderness, directly or indirectly, for their economic livelihood, we would have protected our roadless lands decades ago.
What drives the economics of communities like Bigfork, Kalispell, Whitefish and many more, large and small, like them? And what makes these some of Montana’s fastest-growing communities?
Theses economies are based on what I call, “eating the scenery.” In a word, our economy heavily depends on proximity to wilderness.
What would those who incessantly oppose wilderness say if we proposed developing places like Glacier Park or the Bob? We know the answer, don’t we? In fact, we’ve already seen this happen – normally anti-wilderness people opposing mines or geothermal development near Yellowstone or fossil fuel drilling near Canyonlands, or my favorite from the late 1970s when an energy company proposed “Bombing the Bob,” setting off a string of seismic charges to search for fossil fuel. When the push comes, all business people understand how their bread gets buttered. It’s the wilderness, stupid.
Yes, mining, logging, and grazing are legitimate uses (but not multiple uses) of public lands and create jobs, but so does wilderness. We would be shocked if we knew how many jobs our unprotected wilderness already creates, but it could create a lot more if we protect it. When a wilderness or national park is designated, the local economy always benefits.
NREPA might not be the answer, but at least its backers have the moxie to try to protect our roadless heritage. The people with no courage, the people who should be barraged with our anger, are the members of our congressional delegation, for being so disinterested as to sit ideally by watching our wilderness disappear knowing they’re the only people who can do anything about it.
It’s fantasy to think wilderness will ever be a political lay-up. In most cases, diametrically opposed stakeholders can’t agree on a compromise bill, and in most cases where they do, the bill becomes so convoluted that it accomplishes little and often becomes even more controversial.
There is a better way.
In Montana, wilderness stakeholders have proved they can’t agree on what to do, so I say to the politicians, stop waiting for a slam-dunk and draft your own wilderness bill. This might give some of my wildernut friends strokes, but I prefer it isn’t a big “W” bill. “Wilderness” has, so sadly, become another “w” word like “wolf” or “war” that promotes polarization. Instead, call it something else, anything; just make sure it allows bicycling and not road-building or motorized recreation.
Don’t put non-wilderness stuff in the bill. If the timber industry needs help – and I’m among those who think it does – put that in a different bill.
Even if we wilderness advocates aren’t the majority, does it matter? We are definitely a large, important constituency, and we deserve some attention.
I feel the same way about logging and motorized recreation constituencies. People who like to watch trees being pinched off or enjoy racing around on ATVs probably aren’t majorities either, but they, too, deserve attention.
But not in the same bill!
So, senators and representatives, if you can’t accept your responsibility, you have no right to stop somebody in New York who owns just as much public land in Montana as you do from doing your job. Don’t rush to the podium to criticize those evil “outsiders” who don’t understand “local concerns” and dare to try to protect “our” public lands. We’ve been waiting for decades for you to do something meaningful. If you can’t stand up for your wilderness constituency – and your wilderness economy – then get out of the way and let somebody who does care do it.