By Bill Schneider, 2-07-08
If you follow the Wilderness issue like I do, you know that Congress is currently considering the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act (NREPA), which would designate as Wilderness basically all of the remaining roadless land in Idaho and Montana, and most of northwestern Wyoming as well as smaller tracts in eastern Oregon and eastern Washington--22.7 million acres in all, including 3 million already-protected as national parks, a chunk of real estate about the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined.
That might be too big of a bite for anybody to chew, but it seems like something a pro-Wilderness group could support, don't you think?
And sure enough, the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club support NREPA, as does the Idaho Conservation League, the major pro-Wilderness group in the Gem State. But you might be surprised to learn that the major nonprofit we depend on to protect wild land in the Big Sky State, the Montana Wilderness Association (MWA), not only won't support NREPA, but opposes it.
If you’re among those who never want to see another Wilderness, rejoice. This is your perfect storm.
When I started asking around about why MWA wouldn't support a bill that protects roadless Montana, I found an embarrassing state of affairs where dissension and a nasty, back-biting, power struggle have created such gridlock within the ranks of Wilderness advocates that I'm sad to say there's little hope of ending twenty-five years of Wilderness drought in Montana.
I was on the MWA Council back in 1983 when we passed the Lee Metcalf Wilderness Bill, but no congressional designations since then. And in recent years, in fact, we've seen no visible attempts by MWA to even have a Wilderness bill introduced.
Over the past two months, I've talked to several key players in both the MWA and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies (AWR), the primary architect and flag-carrier of the NREPA. Because so much was given to me in confidence, I'm not putting names in this column, and besides, I doubt it would add much to this distressing story.
Before I get started, I want to be clear on this point. This column isn't about a journalist trying to create bickering where there is none, like the media dreaming up a feud between Barack and Hillary. This feud is real, perplexing and clearly counterproductive to attempts to protect roadless land.
At the core of the debate is a dramatic split in philosophy among the people who want more Wilderness. This disagreement goes back at least fifteen years and has worsened to the point of outright anger. Both groups believe they have the right approach and basically refuse to even talk about common ground--or to each other. Each side blames the other for lack of progress in preserving our roadless heritage.
And, of course, if you're among those who never want to see another Wilderness, rejoice. The opposition is playing your game. This is your perfect storm.
In the meantime, an entire generation of Montanans has gone by without a chance to fight for the concept of Wilderness. As I write this, it's hard not to predict at least one more generation will slip away before we see another Wilderness designation in Montana--if we ever see one.
Here's the rub. The MWA worships the collaborative or quid pro quo approach where "stakeholders" such as timber companies, ATVers, mountain bikers, backcountry horsemen and hikers sit down and hammer out a compromise. Politicians--at least the breed we have in Idaho and Montana--prefer this so-called "bottom up" approach because they can jump in a thorny issue like Wilderness designation without getting pricked.
In past Wild Bill columns, incidentally, I have supported this something-for-something strategy, including MWA projects such as the Continental Divide Quiet Trails Proposal and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership (BDP).
The AWR has the "do the right thing," ecological approach and opposes the quid pro quo concept in general and the BDP in particular. They disagree with the continuous process of "balancing" our wild land until it's gone. By this, I mean the frequent messages we hear from politicians i.e. "I'm in favor of Wilderness, but we need some balance." The "balance" philosophy is why we're so out of balance. Depending on which figures you use, something north of 90 percent of the Lower 48 has been transformed into non-wilderness, and now we have to keep splitting up the last of the rest? In other words, when we're down to the last 1 percent, will politicos still want "balance" i.e. compromising down to 0.5 percent?
No way, says AWR, which wants to save all of the small percentage we have left. This has led to the repeated introduction of NREPA. Today's version, H.R. 1975, carried by Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) with 122 co-sponsors, including nine representatives from Colorado, Oregon and Washington, but none from Idaho, Montana or Wyoming, actually had a hearing last year on October 18, the first for any version of this legislation. Nonetheless, most politicians in the New West continue to pan this "top down" approach i.e. letting some evil eastern liberal tell us what to do with "our land," keeping in mind that only federal lands owned by all Americans, most of whom don't live in the northern Rockies, qualify for inclusion into the National Wilderness Preservation System.
The Wilderness Society and Sierra Club and the Idaho Conservation League sent in lukewarm letters of support for the NREPA hearing record, but no national alerts or aggressive efforts to turn out a lot of support for the bill. And nothing but silence from the MWA. In fact, MWA and AWR haven't even met formally to discuss the bill.
Even with a fourth of the U.S. House of Representatives sponsoring NREPA, it has little chance of getting a House vote, and even if it did, and even if the House passed the bill, which is unlikely but conceivable, it faces a lonely death in the Senate and certain veto in The White House--at least until next year when it might become The Blue House.
I believe one reason for NREPA's dim prospects, one of those unspoken "elephants in the room," is that members of Congress can see that even wilderness groups like the MWA don't support protecting all our roadless lands. In suggesting this to MWA officials, I received stern denials of any such thinking. The group's cover story for opposing NREPA, albeit unofficially, is that the bill is so "socially divisive" that the MWA leadership fears a massive "blowback" in public support for Wilderness and for MWA collaborative efforts with timber companies.
MWA may be correct about public reaction to NREPA, but an invisible letter of support in the hearing record would have no impact on the current nonchalant attitude toward the bill, but would be a little peace offering for AWR. People knowledgeable in the realities of western politics, including timber company lobbyists, don't take NREPA seriously, but they most likely expect Wilderness groups to represent their memberships and support Wilderness bills, which is why they all do--except MWA.
Later this year, the MWA will likely convince the Montana delegation to take a chance on a quid pro quo Wilderness bill based on the BDP compromise with timber companies. If so, the bill would designate about 570,000 acres of new Wilderness in southwestern Montana, mostly high-elevation country with minimal timber-growing potential, in exchange for dedicating 730,000 acres to "low-impact" logging (i.e. no new permanent roads) including the sacrifice of 200,000 acres of low-elevation roadless timberland, much of it in the West Pioneer Mountains.
(The West Pioneers, incidentally, were granted interim protection by the passage of S. 393, the Montana Wilderness Study Act, back in 1973 when Montana had Lee Metcalf and Mike Mansfield as senators. Interim protection means agencies must manage the land to preserve Wilderness values until Congress decides whether or not it should officially be designated as Wilderness.)
What goes around comes around. I can assure you that the AWR and other NREPA backers will passionately oppose legislation based on the BDP. Click here for an advance sample. That's the level we've sunk to here in Montana--you oppose our bill; we’ll oppose your bill.
I wonder how many members of each group realize how this spiteful polarization among their leadership plays into the hands of those who hate Wilderness.
Call me an idealist, but it seems to me that instead of ignoring each other, the leaders of our Wilderness organizations should shed past ill will, shelf their egos, sit down, decide on legislation that they can all support, and go for it. Defining a baseline for the Wilderness component of proposed legislation and having unified support among Wilderness advocates for that number seems like a logical first step. After that's done, try to develop support, above the baseline, from the timber industry and other detractors, hopefully enough to convince at least one member of the Montana delegation to introduce a bill. And then work together to end the Wilderness drought!
That sure sounds like a more effective approach to me, but I'm not going to try to hold my breath until it happens.
