The recent brouhaha over national monuments is certainly creating a lot of attention and a lot more confusion. So much so, that national BLM director, Bob Abbey, recently accepted an invitation to come to Malta next month to help explain the situation.
The flare-up centers on a brainstorming memo made public by the Department of Interior two weeks ago which, among other things, discussed possible new national monuments locations. On the list was one area in the northeastern prairie lands of Montana. Although some have been using the memo to fan the flames of fear, I think most Montanans can see above the spin.
To help, I've noticed a few myths popping up in the papers that need to be busted.
Myth 1: Imminent land grab:
The fact that the BLM went through a conservation assessment of its lands does not translate to likely action. Instead those who stand to benefit politically have ginned up a false and scary scenario where farmers, ranchers and others will be kicked off the prairie. To quote the Shakespeare play, this is "Much Ado about Nothing."
Myth 2: Monuments bypass the public:
In the memo itself and in numerous press stories, the BLM has clearly stated that any monument designation would come only after extensive public vetting. We should remember that this is the same administration that has embarked on an unprecedented listening tour this summer - the "America's Great Outdoors" Initiative - to engage Americans about conservation for the next century.
Finally, it is worth remembering that the 2001 designation of Montana's Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument followed an extensive public involvement process, from initial recommendations from Montanans, to a public hearing with the Secretary of Interior in Great Falls, to meetings with the delegation and even formation of a local group focused specifically on this landscape and its designation.
Myth 3: Private property and livelihoods at risk:
Monuments are about public land only and do not involve seizing any private land. This has never happened and is not going to happen. Again, look at our Missouri Breaks Monument. While it includes 120,000 acres of private lands within its boundary, the BLM has not once forced any sale of inholdings, closed any access roads, or even significantly altered livestock grazing levels for local ranchers.
Myth 4: Monuments are undemocratic:
Presidents don't just wake up one day and decide to create a monument. Instead they are responding to a long history of vocal support for the area and a clear threat to the land. Congressional action is the preferred and most used path for land designation in this country, but, as we all know, "Congressional action" can seem almost glacial paced.
Furthermore, if our elected representatives are going to push for bottom-up, collaborative approaches that go through the halls of Congress, then they need to reward those that embark on this approach. That translates to full support for legislative proposals- whether it is Sen. Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act or the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act proposal which is still awaiting sponsorship by any member of our delegation.
Myth 5: Only Democrats create monuments.
Republicans have a long and proud history of using the Antiquities Act, whether it be the very first monument designation by Theodore Roosevelt (Devil's Tower) or the most recent and largest ever monument by George W Bush (Pacific Islands Marine Monument). Republican presidents Coolidge, Roosevelt, Taft and Harding all designated monuments in places as diverse as the Grand Canyon, Muir Woods, Colorado National Monument, and Craters of the Moon.
In all the hype, we should not lose sight of two facts: 1) some of these sensitive Montana grasslands identified by the BLM memo do represent the "best of the last" for native prairie and may deserve some higher level of protection someday; 2) As we figure out how best to achieve this in Montana, informed, inclusive public discussions beats out fear-mongering any day of the week. I have hope Montanans can rise above the fear-based spin and engage in such a dialogue.
Peter Aengst is the acting Northern Rockies regional director for The Wilderness Society. He can be reached at peter_aengst@tws.org.
Matthew Koehler posted at 9:10 am on Wed, Sep 1, 2010.
Hello Jerry.
If you didn't notice, it was TWS' Aengst who chose to bring up Senator Tester's FJRA in his opinion piece. I simply just provided a little more context and pointed out the direct fact that TWS has officially expressed serious concerns with certain major provisions of Tester's FJRA to the Senate ENR Committee.
Jerry, it's too bad that you believe those of us who are simply trying to prevent the bad parts of the FJRA from going forward (such as motors in Wilderness, mandating logging for the first time in US Forest Service history, profoundly negative budgetary implications) are being "a little extreme to say the least."
Thank you.
Jason Holt posted at 3:29 pm on Tue, Aug 31, 2010.
Over the last few months, I have read many Opinion pieces which attempt to calm down the residents of northeast Montana by dismissing their fears of new government land designations. Although some of these pieces are well-intentioned, they all demonstrate how little the authors know about prairie communities.
Myth 1: The BLM was just brainstorming.
The "Leaked Monuments Memo" is 22 pages long. Congressman Rehberg has obtained 300 pages of e-mail relating to that document. The Department of the Interior is still withholding 2000 pages of related e-mail and attachments. People in northeast Montana do not believe that a low-level brainstorming session could generate so much documentation.
Myth 2: As long as there is public input, everything is all right.
"Public input" is not the same as "local support". A well-organized, national-scale political group could easily gather a million people who think that Bridger Bowl should be shut down to preserve the habitat for wild horses. Should they have more say than the people who actually know how ridiculous that idea is?
Myth 3: Changing the designation of federal land cannot harm the local community.
The ranch where I live includes a mix of federal, state, and private land. It would be topographically challenging to restrict grazing to only the private land. It would also be ecologically and economically unsustainable.
When the government takes away grazing permits on the federal land, our community loses. Neighbors whose herds grazed in the Missouri Breaks for a hundred years have been forced to sell their ranches when the CMR National Wildlife Refuge cut their grazing. Frequently, these ranches become the property of absentee owners who want the land for a financial investment and a private hunting preserve. Previously accessible private land becomes closed to the public. Healthy native rangeland becomes a target for potential subdivision.
Although President Clinton did attempt to protect the ranchers' heritage of sustainable grazing, his monument opened the way for anti-grazing lawsuits, which continue to this day. And there is no guarantee that the next monument in Eastern Montana will come with any protection for the ranches at all.
Myth 4: Presidents will follow the will of the people.
In a 1999 letter to a constituent regarding the Missouri Breaks Monument, Senator Max Baucus wrote, "Two weeks ago, I called Secretary Babbitt and the White House asking them not to move forward with such a designation. I am pleased that Secretary Babbitt listened to me and to the voice of all Montanans who weighed in on this issue, and recently announced that he was withdrawing his proposal for designation of this land."
President Clinton created the monument 17 months later.
Myth 5: Only Republicans oppose new federal designations.
This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of local control vs. federal control. The Antiquities Act allows the President to create monuments against the will of the local community, against the will of the Montana legislature, and against the will of Montana's congressional delegation. The law needs to be changed.
Myth 6: Environmentalists should support new federal designations.
After five years of living on the land in question, I am beginning to understand that ranchers and their cattle are important to the prairie. I have seen my mother-in-law fighting off a knapweed infestation that could have overtaken three miles of native riparian grassland. I have seen my father-in-law building fences to implement a rotational grazing system that promotes healthy plant communities. I have seen the prairie bursting into April-green -- not in spite of the cattle that grazed there, but because of the cattle and the way their grazing was used to benefit the grass.
Yes, northeast Montana has the best of the last native prairie. But the range has not been preserved by chance. It has been preserved because ranchers and the BLM have been managing the land in the right way.
You cannot preserve the land by making radical changes to the system that has restored it and conserved it for decades. Changing the federal designation is not just a threat to the people who live on that land. It is a threat to the land itself.
JerryArthur posted at 11:33 am on Tue, Aug 31, 2010.
What does that have to do with National Monuments Matthew, the subject of this piece? Your one-issue, all consuming campaign against Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Recreation Act is a little extreme to say the least.
Matthew Koehler posted at 8:33 am on Tue, Aug 31, 2010.
Hello, I'd just like to point out the fact that The Wilderness Society is on record officially opposing major provisions of Senator Tester's FJRA, something which Mr. Aengst fails to mention. Below is a snip from The Wilderness Society's official testimony submitted to the US Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee:
“We oppose Congressionally mandated treatment levels in the bill because they, a) neglect the root causes of the problems this bill is intended to address, b) set an adverse national precedent, c) create unreasonably high expectations, d) fail to provide the agency the resources it needs to do its job, and e) most important, we do not believe this approach will work on the ground....Based on consultation with NEPA experts, we do have concerns that some of the specific language in this section of S. 1470 could effectively undermine the application of NEPA and its implementing regulations.”
Mr. Aengst's mention of the Senator Tester's FJRA in his opinion piece has more to do with the politics of TWS supporting Senator Tester (So that TWS will remain in the Senator's good graces) than with The Wilderness Society's support of the actual language of the FJRA. Thanks.