Mt. Standard Guest Opinion:Study wilderness before adding any more
Guest opinion: Study wilderness before adding any more
by Debby Barrett - 08/11/2009
http://www.mtstandard.com/articles/2009/08/11/opinion/hjjajbiijfjhfg.txt
Last month I received a phone message on my answering machine from Montana's U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, informing me he was working on a wilderness bill in Washington, D.C. He asked for any suggestions or concerns I might have and ended by stating, "Hopefully we can get the damn thing passed this year." My first suggestion regarding any new wilderness designations in the state would be the same suggestion I had in 2005 during Montana's 59th Legislative Session, when I was a third-term state representative and Jon Tester was the president of the Senate.
At that time I sponsored and introduced HJR No. 9, which was a study resolution. HJR No. 9 required an interim study of the current status or condition of Montana's existing wilderness areas. The study bill also sought to learn the impact that wilderness areas are having on the surrounding local communities.
HJR No. 9 passed both the House Natural Resource Standing Committee and the second and third readings on the House Floor; then it was killed by a partisan vote in the Senate Natural Resource Standing Committee.
Tester was not a member of that Senate committee and did not vote on the bill in committee. However, on the Senate floor he did vote no on two different motions: one to blast the bill out of committee, and the second time to place the bill on second reading.
I have been following the "great wilderness debate" this summer in various newspapers across the state. Some papers have even conducted their own wilderness polls. One, I recall, asked the following three questions: 1. Is the Beaverhead Deerlodge Partnership Strategy a good compromise?
2. Is there too much wilderness?
3. Is there not enough wilderness?
These are not the questions we should be asking in Montana today. Rather, we should find answers to the following questions: l. What is the current condition of our existing wilderness areas? (Keep in mind these areas were set aside to protect them for future generations.) If we find out they are full of noxious weeds and that vast acres of trees are dead and dying from pine beetle infestations, are we really protecting the area? Under these conditions, is the wilderness area even considered good wildlife habitat?
2. What percent of the state's 3,442,416 acres are in the same condition today as they were when they were protected by wilderness designation?
3. The Wilderness Act provides that measures be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects and diseases. Is this being done in Montana, and at what cost?
4. How are the communities nearest these land set-asides faring? (We should look at their economies and compare them to the economies prior to the wilderness designation. Have jobs been created as a result of the designation, or have jobs been lost? Are there new businesses in these communities, or have businesses been closed?) Only when we have the answers to the questions that Montana citizens have regarding wilderness areas should we even consider more. Only then will we know if more wilderness in Montana is the answer, and if so, locate them where they are most needed.
We need an open, honest wilderness discussion in Montana based on known facts, not more of the same tired wilderness rhetoric based on emotions.
Collaboration for the two special interests represented in the Beaverhead Deerlodge Partnership Strategy worked swell for them — only they had a place at their table. They had the freedom to do anything they wished without public scrutiny, because all of their discussions and collaborating were done in private.
Only when they were satisfied with the results and each got just what each one wanted did they present their partnership to the public. Collaboration like this can only function when an elected official accepts the results or stands aside and allows this closed process from the beginning.
The people in this state deserve better. They have a right to be an equal part of any planning process regarding public land management and/or the right to be represented in the process by their elected officials.
Thus, my second suggestion would be not to rush through a wilderness bill this summer, but to wait until Montanans have an open, honest discussion regarding the wilderness designations we already have —and then decide also in an open, honest process just where we go from here.
— Montana Sen. Debby Barrett, R-Dillon, is a rancher in southwestern Montana. She represents Senate District 36.
