Montana's public land, under fire
Montana
Montana Public lands; Please take a minute and share this with every hunter you know, no matter if you live in Montana or not, you may very well want to come here and hunt. Folks this is not about being a Republican or Democrat these are our public lands that we hunt fish and recreate on, should not to be used for this. Oil & gas exploration and hard rock mining. These public lands are some of the must import elk and deer habitat in Montana. Please take a minute and call Greg R Gianforte and ask him to withdraw his bills which would open up the Big Snowies, the Middle Fork Judith, West Pioneers, Sapphire, and Blue Joint wilderness study areas – a half-million acres in all – to hard-rock mining, oil and gas development, and expanded motorized use. H.R. 5148 and 5149. 1-855-935-3634
Thanks; Terry L. Zink
This is not an issue involving jobs. This is repealing protection and ultimately access to public lands. Without access, we have nothing. Montana's access to public lands creates far more incentive and revenue than any extractive industry ever will. Montana is currently receiving more high paying and sustainable jobs in the tech industry and remote workers than any natural resource extraction-related industry in the state. My 2 pennies.
"Montana is currently receiving more high paying and sustainable jobs in the tech industry and remote workers" drawn to Montana by the open public lands and outdoor recreational opportunities ... not by temporary oil derrick jobs!
thank you guys, My fear is what is their version of multiple use, is it logging, which we need, opening roads to recreation and ect.. The oil and mining aspect of multiple use (money is all its about) in which I don't agree with, sure people need jobs but at what cost. So look at the west pioneers (Montana HD 332 Bowhunting heaven to a lot of bowhunters) in Montana and the Big Hole river, it won't fly, look at Butte and that mess. The Snowies south of Lewistown, look at the Giltedge Mine North of Lewistown and North Moccasins and the mess there. Then the middle fork of the Judith and Little Belts, the elk hunting in there was ruined with Multiple use of motor cycles on ever trail. If the wilderness study areas are removed I believe it is ploy for gaining multiple use, so ok, but mining. I do agree we do not need more wilderness areas. We could still add a law and amend the study areas to include logging. This is just my opinion. I am as conservative as you get but I am to the point where I don't trust any politicians.
It is not accurate to think that there are a significant number of loggers unemployed. There are areas now open to logging where nobody is even submitting a proposal. I agree that it would be good to log a number of areas for forest management and fire risk mitigation, but to assert that we need to dismantle protections of Montana's special wild places for roads, mining, and logging is just wrong in my opinion. There ain't gonna be anymore wilderness and pristine areas invented. Once you develop roads or whatever infrastructure, the wild special landscape is forever gone! Then the wild place is just like every other place that has been developed ... and Montana gradually becomes the last best place that ain't best anymore!
My perspective is a little different. In my view the Feds in particular, have been on a crusade over the last 20 years or so to systematically close access to public lands. Now before you start thinking I’m some sort of conspiracy-theory guy, I don’t believe there was a conscious decision at the highest levels of government to restrict access. What’s happened, as happens in many government bureaucracies, individuals who have as certain perspective on the world (in this case, all natural beauty is ruined by the public unless “we” protect it) gravitate towards these agencies. Pretty soon, as they move up into management positions, their perspective becomes the agency policy.
With that backdrop, a policy of closing roads, restricting logging, etc. has emerged. Although the bureaucrats say that they are only protecting public lands for future generations, what they are really doing is restricting access to public lands now and for future generations to those individuals who have the opportunity, and are young and healthy enough to access them (nationally, that’s between 3-5% of the population). Now, before you disregard those numbers, I realize that’s most people are simply restricted because of proximity (they live in Cleveland and don’t generally have access to the Bitterroot). However, that does not exclude the relative high percentage (I’d estimate somewhere between 20-50%) of individuals who do have the opportunity but because of age or whatever infirmity including not being in shape, do not have reasonable access beyond public roads.
There are two points I’d like to make: The impact of access restrictions is simply one of consistently shoving more and more people into a smaller and smaller practical “use” area. That is, people who circumstance do not allow them to hike into the back country will congregate around the edges and in those places that do still have relatively easy access (e.g., roads). By closing more and more access opportunities, these areas become smaller and smaller, and with a growing populations, people either quit using public lands or congregate within limited areas; either case is bad.
What are we really saving for future generations? If restrictions are imposed for every future generation, then access is denied for each generations. In other words, all you’ve “saved” is the ability not to access those public lands unless you are healthy enough to do so. Taking that theory to it’s logical conclusion, if it’s so darn good to restrict access to save the natural beauty, then we should restrict all use; no one can access public lands for whatever reason because simply being there pollutes the land. That way, we’ve saved all the natural beauty and just because no one can enjoy it except from afar, the “good” is that it is still there for the next generation who cannot access it.
I understand that my perspective is a minority, but limited public lands access is something we will all face. We all get old, and even if you are healthy, there will become a time when each of us simply cannot do what we did when we were young.
May you shoot straight and enjoy the hunt, RobinHood.........
I call BS. The "feds" whoever that is, have not been collaborating in a decades old conspiracy to "close" public lands. Certainly, with the relatively sparse funding for the traditional forestry projects going to fighting fires, there have been roads closed which can no longer be maintained and some which no longer have use. Merely because an area is open only to horseback or hiking and not to roads and motors that does not constitute being closed to public access. I don't buy the assertion that one has to be an extremely fit, athletic, tiny percentage of the population to access those lands. That's a overly worn myth and baseless argument to develop wild lands and turn trails to roads. I'm nothing special physically, and in fact just won a battle against cancer. My wife underwent surgery and received a new hip in 2016. I'm seventy-three; she's in her mid sixties and we backpacked 76 miles for a week in the Bob last August. To hike, just put one foot ahead of another and walk. The percentage of the population that cannot do that is very small. For those who can hike, to simply make it easier and more convenient due to their personal choices and "circumstances" in life and develop heretofore wild public lands is a travesty and an insult to my grandchildren ... as well as support for a ever increasing state of laziness seeking convenience. As I stated, there ain't gonna be anymore special wild places invented. Push the development and soon there will be no appeal to go there at all ... those places will be just like everywhere else. Montana will no longer be that state with the public lands and special wild places which are attracting businesses and people who share the outdoors values. Nor will Montana be the state with tourism as the number one economic driver. The studies have shown that for even those visitors who are not inclined to hike the backcountry, they love that it is here.
BTW, after denying any sort of conspiracy theory, then laying it out very specifically but not attributing it to any "conscious decision" is disingenuous.
Straight Arrow:
Apparently I didn’t communicate my points properly. I suspect both of us can agree that we do not want a complete closure of all access to every public land, nor do we want completely open public lands with no restrictions on the purpose or how, where or when such access is undertaken. If that’s true, then what we are discussing is simply where do we draw the line. I believe you’re advocating that the line is either OK where it is or that it should move closer towards the complete closure extreme. I, on the other hand, believe that we’ve moved to far and that restrictions should be rolled back towards the completely open extreme. That’s a worthy and healthy discussion to undertake.
As for me being “disingenuous” as to any conspiracy, I’d like to address that also. Perhaps I should have clarified my definition of a government conspiracy. To me, a conspiracy in that context entails individuals sitting down, purposefully deciding on a certain outcome that may be contrary to the wellbeing of the public, then implementing laws, policies, regulations and actions to ensure that outcome. As I said, in this instance I do not believe that is the case.
What may help clarify my perspective is my experience of how government agencies grow and increase their budgets, staff size and overall influence and control. Obviously, this is not done through profit as in the private sector; government agency success depends on finding and solving “problems”. This is particularly true of regulatory agencies. Imagine what might happen to an agency if they came out and reported that everything is running smoothly and there are no issues. At best, that agency would remain stagnate. Government organizations justify their existence and growth only by identifying real or imagined problems and by taking control of the situation through intervention, otherwise, they die. Taking this full circle, agencies that control public land access must continually identify issues and implement restrictions, whether actually needed or not, whether going to far or not, simply to justify their existence.
Another point is that organizations, particularly government agencies, tend to unconsciously gravitate towards hiring individuals who are like-minded. Whether it is by inclination, experience and/or education, government agencies hire folks who generally agree with what they’re doing. Additionally, workers tend to apply for jobs and stay with organizations where they fit into the organizational culture. An example that is somewhat outside but related to the public lands access debate might be helpful. Who is most likely to be hired by a environmental regulatory agency, someone who believes in loosening regulations on mining practices to obtain fuller employment or one who believes in stronger environmental regulations? Who would be more likely to be promoted to management? Who’s input would most likely have the strongest impact on policy and regulatory development? Who would stay with that agency? My point is that agencies hire individuals and employees stay with organizations who promote and help justify the longterm value of that organization as seen through the eyes of those who have come before, and any voice that is contrary to the prevailing attitude is drowned out not by design but by the organizational culture.
May you shoot straight and enjoy the hunt, RobinHood.........
1. If your meaning of "open" includes development in the form of roads, motorized access everywhere, mining, and infrastructure, then yes, I am adamantly opposed. Line of access needs movement to allow public on public lands. Motorized access is excessive now, but leave it alone. Protect at least portions of the Wilderness Study Areas with no roads, no motors, and no development. Once it's gone, It's gone FOREVER. Hunting needs wildlife; wildlife needs habitat; good habitat includes space and buffers from motors and development for security. There are no public lands now that are closed (except those locked by private) to those willing to exert the effort. You can't get anymore than about twenty miles from an improved road anywhere in the continental USA and most places it's a few miles at most. 2. Your wordy justification for a conspiratorial attitude (paranoia of "government") does include some well supported dynamics, but neglects to recognize other components of "government", that is the judicial, executive, and legislative branches which oversee and set the rules for the governmental agencies for which you have laid out your "unintended" conspiracy. You can't merely analyze the dynamics and problems without considering what government is entotal, Civics 101. Extreme example, but it is reminiscent of the "government hater" who hit the USFS forestry low level employee over the head with a shovel because of hatred and paranoia about taxes and "government".
Thanks for the post Terry. You make good points, and we all should call the numbers you provided. However, it is hardly a surprise that Gianforte is proposing this bill. You should never listen to what any politician says he stands for, but look at his actions. Gianforte has already sued the State of Montana before, when he was trying to stop public access to a stretch of the Gallatin River. Best thing to do is to vote him out ASAP.
