Splitting from the Montana Wilderness Association, they issue statement against the wilderness and logging bill-
Update 2-18. Tester’s Bill Causing Major Rift Among Wilderness Advocates. Former Montana Wilderness Association Council Members Bolt. By Bill Schneider. New West.
Earlier ↓
As folks probably know, the Montana Wilderness Association supports Senator Tester’s Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009, which establishes new designated Wilderness areas in Montana, mandates acreages of timber to be logged (not volumes of it), and misc. provisions.
It seems there is a split by many former officers and council members with the current organization. I was emailed their statement.
– – – – –
WILDERNESS LOST
We, the undersigned former council members and officers of the Montana Wilderness Association, respectfully urge Senator Tester to modify the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009 to rectify the problems outlined by the Undersecretary of Agriculture as well as the Last Best Chance Wildlands Campaign. We cannot support the legislation as now written. We diverge from MWA here because we believe that the bill degrades both the quantity and quality of some of America’s most cherished wildlands in Montana. We encourage consideration of the issues we have outlined below that would be necessary in order for us to support it.
We endorse the 10-point position paper, Keeping It Wild! In Defense of America’s Public Wildlands, which has been submitted by the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign, available at: http://testerloggingbilltruths.wordpress.com/.
The bill legislates the net loss of hundreds of thousands of roadless area acres, including S-393 Wilderness Study Areas designated in 1977 by the late Senator Lee Metcalf. This will create widespread environmental damage and the loss of an irreplaceable legacy for which future generations will, quite correctly, hold ours accountable. Also, the bills’ Congressional mandate for timber cut levels sets a dangerous precedent. Resulting below-cost timber sales will cost taxpayers over $100 million. And proposed new Wilderness Areas are medium, often disjointed, primarily “rock and ice” parcels that would fail to protect fragile wildland and wildlife ecosystems and corridors.
To make matters worse, the bill includes special provisions for new “Wilderness” units that defy both the intent and letter of the Wilderness Act, and the spirit of Wilderness that so many Americans believe is a vital and wondrous part of this great nation’s heritage. Motor Vehicles, including helicopters, simply have no place in designated Wilderness. Yes, we need more Wilderness – lots of it – but we want it to be real Wilderness!
The bill also codifies secretive negotiated agreements – such as the Beaverhead-Deerlodge – that excluded many individuals and groups who’ve long been involved in the public process. This, and similar agreements, have been sealed by MWA and others over the objections of excluded organizations and individuals, of whom most live and work close to the land and know the compromised areas intimately.
It is with a heavy heart that we are compelled to oppose the organization that we once served as Council members and officers. Most of Montana’s undeveloped wilds are long gone, and we cannot afford to lose big chunks of what remains. We believe that in recent years, the Montana Wilderness Association [MWA] has clearly compromised its long-held wildland protection mission and vigilant advocacy. We know many current and former MWA members who agree. In fact, many conservationists in the region are convinced that, quite simply, MWA has lost its way. We are among those people.
In summary, this bill will irreparably damage Montana’s dwindling public wildland legacy. It will salt the gaping social wounds created by MWA’s recent actions. It degrades the Wilderness Act of 1964 with provisions that damage both Wilderness and the Wilderness Idea. And it’s a bad deal for future generations of Montanans who will need wild country more than ever in an increasingly crowded and uncertain future.
Lou Bruno (past president) – East Glacier
Joan Montagne (past president) – Bozeman
Elaine Snyder (past president) – Kalispell
Loren Kreck (past vice-president) – Columbia Falls
Larry Campbell – Darby
Susan Colvin – Great Falls
Paul Edwards – Helena
Randall Gloege – Billings
Keith Hammer – Kalispell
Steve Kelly – Bozeman
Bob Oset – Hamilton
Paul Richards – Boulder
Ross Titus – Big Fork
George Wuerthner – Helena
Janet Zimmerman – Pony
Lance Olsen – Missoula
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Larry Campbell, 406-821-3110, lcampbell@bitterroot.net
Comments
I encourage folks outside of Montana to read through this bill. It doesn’t only concern Montana, it’s being pushed as a model for “ending the wilderness wars” in other states. The letter above sums up many of the problems with the bill. I’ll add a couple of my own concerns.
I especially take issue with the notion that local collaborative groups should be making these land management decisions. Have a favorite public land destination in another state? With this bill as the model, you may not have any chance to influence the management of your public lands. That privilege will be reserved for local industry and enviro groups only. And these groups can only get to the table if they already mostly agree.
Of course the bill could be amended in Congress, but Congress is not the place to make the detailed decisions about managing these lands either. Congressmen don’t have the expertise, and are under too much political pressure to be mandating travel plans, acres harvested, and restoration priorities.
Finally, this bill perpetuates the idea that any Wilderness bill has to have a quid pro quo for industry. I find that absurd. If we really need to subsidize the timber industry, then there are a hundred ways to do so without gutting the Forest Service, opening up roadless lands, doing an end run around NEPA, and allowing nonconforming uses in Wilderness areas.