Wilderness study area protections at risk with proposed legislation

Wilderness study area protections at risk with proposed legislation

Commentary by Clint Nagel
Senator Daines has recently proposed support for “The Yellowstone Gateway Protection Act,” but there’s a catch: his support comes at a high price. It is in lieu of legislation to remove wilderness study area (WSA) protections for 5 WSAs within the state of Montana. To serve that purpose, Senator Daines has recently introduced Senate Bill 2206, a bill entitled the “Protect Public Use of Public Lands Act.” To begin with, this bill is a misnomer. The name implies the public use of these lands is not protected. They are.
It is the intent of the bill to release 5 wilderness study areas in Montana from current protection of wilderness study. Protections currently in place would be eliminated, leaving nearly half a million acres of public land open for exploitation. How is that protection for public use or public lands? The five WSAs in question include the 151,000 acres of the West Pioneers, 94,000 acres of the Sapphire Mountains WSA, 81,000 acres from the Middle Fork Judith WSA, 32,500 acres of the Bitterroot’s Blue Joint WSA, and 91,000 acres of the Big Snowies.
Daines’ past actions and statements leave the impression that public land is only meant for resource extraction or to become a playground for the special interest. This is ironic since lifting current protections for the West Pioneers would once again jeopardize lands abused by off-road vehicle riders over a period of many years. How is it that allowing these lands to be open once again to undergo the same abuse be considered protection? These lands were first protected by U.S. Sen. Lee Metcalf in 1977 as part of the Montana Wilderness Study Act. Daines’ argument that these lands need to be returned back to the public is disingenuous to say the least. These lands are already in public hands and the public has full access to them. Yes, complete designation of wilderness has not been complete and finalization has taken too long, but that is not an excuse to close the process. A senator with leadership qualities would use his or her influence to resolve these particular conflicts rather than close the door on their purposed designation.
Sen. Daines’ past actions and statements leave us to believe he may have the wrong impression on what wilderness means. Below is the definition of wilderness from the Wilderness Act of 1964.
“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.”
As you can see, “wilderness” is not a use, it has a purpose. It is land set aside for its own intrinsic value, for the betterment of the planet, for its own survival; an area of land that has a right to exist “untrammeled by man.” It is a place where man can visit, but not stay. Not many landscapes exist anymore which can be so designated under this definition.
Daines’ willingness to trade these lands away like common real estate does a disservice to the citizens of Montana and to the American public, not to mention to our natural heritage. Our understanding is that he is proposing this legislation in order to support the mineral development withdrawal of 30,370 acres of Custer Gallatin National Forest in the Paradise Valley. He has placed himself in a position of offsetting one set of land values over another. This is a shameful act. Why can’t he simply allow these lands to be determined by their own ecological value? Many Montanans wonder why he can’t support a clean version of Senator Tester’s bill, “The Yellowstone Gateway Protection Act.” Why does he have to corrupt the process with political gimmicks and trade-offs? Why does he feel he has to undermine the designations of other lands within the state?
Truth be told, citizens in and around Park County of Montana have developed a coalition of more than 400 businesses and organizations in support of this mineral development withdrawal. This coalition consists of multi-varied interest and livelihoods. Why aren’t these actions of the citizens of Montana sufficient for his support? Why does he feel he has to continually divide the aspirations and desires of the citizenry? His support for the Yellowstone Gateway Protection Act should not be contingent on the future of withdrawing wilderness protection from WSAs or anything else. Each WSA and those lands in Paradise Valley need to be judged on their own merit as to whether or not they should have protection. And as you can tell by the number of surveys and polls, the majority of the people of Montana believe that both sets of lands need protection.
We urge Senator Daines to accept and support a ‘clean bill’ of the Yellowstone Gateway Protection Act and work toward the protection of all WSAs within the state of Montana. The Great Falls Tribune published a report last month stating that outdoor recreation in Montana accounts for $7 billion in consumer spending, supports 70,000 jobs (many small business) and generates $286 million in state and local taxes. Do we need to state how important and critical outdoor recreation is to Montana’s economy? The senator should also remind himself that these lands are federal public lands meaning they don’t just belong to people in Montana, but to citizens across this country, and as such, they should have a say in how these lands are designated and protected.
We urge the senator to listen to the people of his state and not just those of political influence of outside interest or those who stand to financially gain from its exploitation. Wilderness is not a use; it is a purpose for good in a trammeled world. We urge him to do the right thing. •