20 Aug 2009

Finding Common Ground on Protecting Montana Wilderness

In the Yaak Valley of Montana, environmentalists have been talking to loggers, snowmobilers and other longtime opponents of wilderness protection about the future of public lands. Their accord is part of a cooperative effort that could lead to the first wilderness-area designation in the state in a quarter century.
By rick bass

Occasionally, while cleaning out files, I’ll come across old screeds and op-eds and newsletters in which I express hope that we are almost there, that wilderness designation for certain of the wildest lands in northwest Montana’s Yaak Valley is imminent.

Known as the Land the Wilderness Act Forgot, the Yaak Valley is the lowest valley in Montana — the confluence of the Yaak and Kootenai rivers is 1,880 feet. It’s also the wettest valley, and from that fecundity, it nurtures the greatest biodiversity in the state.

Relative to other, drier regions of Montana, my home valley of the Yaak
Photo by Randy Beacham
The Yaak Valley is nestled in the Kootenai National Forest, in the northwest corner of Montana.
grows big timber, and for this reason primarily was excluded from earlier Montana wilderness protection bills in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. Yet the Yaak’s wildness is amplified by its extremely low human population — roughly 150 people live year-round in the half-million-acre upper portion of the valley, and not many more than that in the lower half. In addition, 97 percent of the valley is public land, part of the Kootenai National Forest.

This is the Year of the Yaak, I have been telling people, with regard to the possibility of finally getting some lands here designated and protected as wilderness. I thought we were close in the 1980s — we were, only to have President Reagan veto a bill — and we were close again in the 90s, when Montana Rep. Pat Williams put a bill through the House with 302 votes, only to see it stall in the Senate. And we were close at other times over the last 10 years.

Yet across the decades, traditional opponents of wilderness — snowmobilers, ATV riders, loggers, millworkers, and general anti-government or anti-regulatory zealots — have proved themselves adept at blocking wilderness throughout Montana. In the Yaak, they’ve been successful for 45 years, ever since the Wilderness Act of 1964 was passed by Congress and signed by President Johnson, with the aim of protecting designated areas and keeping them wild. There’s still not a single acre of designated wilderness in the Yaak.

About five years ago, a small community group of which I’m a board member, the Yaak Valley Forest Council (YVFC), began informal, open discussions with those various stakeholders, aimed not so much at telling them what we wanted — wilderness designation for the last roadless lands in the Yaak — but instead asking what they wanted.

Some couldn’t answer. Some were simply and philosophically against
The new legislation might provide a template for communities facing other issues in the fractious rural West.
wilderness. Others, however, had specific needs or desires. The ATV riders wanted a loop route — not in the wild backcountry — and snowmobilers wanted to continue riding in the few basins where they were currently allowed to legally ride. The vanishing timber industry wanted jobs in the woods.

We can work with all that, the YVFC agreed. Let’s draw our different user areas on a map and see what the map looks like.

Elsewhere around Montana, other communities were conducting similar exercises. On the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest — where five independent sawmills teeter chronically on the edge of economic collapse in that dry country, as global warming increases tree mortality — another partnership was formed with community members as well as a state wilderness organization, the 7,500-member Montana Wilderness Association. And up in the Seeley Lake and Swan Valley area, where ranchers, environmentalists, and timber workers had been meeting for years to discuss how to defend against residential sprawl and overdevelopment, a similar project emerged simultaneously, one that would add more than 80,000 acres to the Bob Marshall and Mission Mountain Wilderness — the largest federally-protected wilderness area in Montana.

The process has been as inclusionary as it has been informal, with the participants not directed by any agency requirement, but instead by the grassroots flow of democracy. The sole request by the various partners in
Photo by Rick Bass
While there has been little development in the Yaak Valley, environmentalists say road building and intensive logging have degraded forest habitat.
the meetings is that all participants be committed to finding a solution to the proposals, rather than simply seeking to disrupt or obstruct the discussions. What has emerged, after decades of extreme polarization that left all stakeholders exhausted and brittle, is one unified proposal that combines the three place-based initiatives. The entire Montana delegation — Sens. Max Baucus (D) and Jon Tester (D) as well as the lone congressman, Dennis Rehberg (R) — have been presented with letters from the three communities asking for sponsorship of their proposed legislation, and on July 17, Tester unveiled a draft proposal that combines the three projects.

Named the “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act,” the bill would designate over 700,000 acres of new wilderness — the first in Montana in nearly 30 years, and the first ever in the Yaak. It also creates an assemblage of Recreation Areas, Special Management Areas, and Protection Areas, in which various user groups — including solitude-seekers and snowmobilers — are segregated to avoid conflict. And it directs the Forest Service to perform restoration forestry — a mix of thinning, stewardship logging, prescribed burns, weed treatments, culvert replacements, and road decommissionings — on 7,000 acres per year in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, and 3,000 acres per year on the Kootenai National Forest, over the next 10 years.

If Tester’s legislation is successful, it would result in the first wilderness legislation in Montana in 26 years, the longest that any Western state has gone without protecting new wilderness.

Supporters are quick to point out that it is not a traditional wilderness bill, but is instead more of a stimulus and community revitalization proposal. Tester’s bill is small — it pales next to the long-proposed Northern Rockies
This bill increases wildness and detoxifies – once and for all – the word ‘wilderness.’
Ecosystem Protection Act, which would protect approximately 24 million acres of wilderness in five western states (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington and Oregon). But that legislation has never secured the backing of a single senator from the northern Rockies. Tester’s bill is notable because it might provide a template, as well as motivation, for communities facing other issues — whether social, environmental, or economic — in the fractious rural West.

It’s hard to break the culture of failure in any endeavor. The Three Rivers Challenge — a plan to share stewardship of the Yaak region among logging interests, recreation enthusiasts and environmental advocates — is the proposal best known to me in this legislation. Just because it is championed by ATV riders looking for a legally designated route near communities that already possess roads, as well as by snowmobilers trying to hold on to some of the areas that they have left and millworkers and woods-workers trying desperately to stay employed, doesn’t make it a bad bill. That was the old paradigm of failure. This bill increases wildness, protects endangered species, and detoxifies — once and for all — the word “wilderness.”

It would be a good dramatic story if this bill was a sellout, but it’s not. It’s just a map of common ground — places where longtime opponents have agreed to agree. That’s good for them and for the land, and it’s historic for Montana. Do I mind that here on the leading edge of an ecosystem collapse threatened by global warming there will be some special stewardship logging contracts for local workers in less remote areas? Not in the least. I celebrate it. It doesn’t take a learned scientist to walk around and see that on some sites in these areas there are too many trees per acre for an overheating world.

Some in the far-left environmental movement will oppose Tester’s legislation because it involves chainsaws of any kind. Some in the far right will oppose it because it involves protecting our wildest places — through force of regulation — for future generations. But it is my hope that the vast sweet middle will support it as a politically bold and visionary idea, in these troubled times.


Rick Bass is the author of numerous books, including The Book of Yaak, Wild to the Heart, The Deer Pasture, and Why I Came West, which was a finalist for a National Book Critics Circle Award for autobiography in 2008. He has lived in Montana’s Yaak Valley since 1987 and is a member of the Yaak Valley Forest Council.

SHARE: Tweet | Digg | | Reddit | Mixx | Facebook | Stumble Upon


Rick Bass does himself and his cause a disservice by claiming that "Some in the far-left environmental movement will oppose Tester’s legislation because it involves chainsaws of any kind."

That statement might make for a good on-liner in an essay (even if it just seems to foster the type of polarization that Bass wants to end). But in reality that statement is just really a sophomoric cheap-shot and far from the real reasons why many conservation groups and dedicated wilderness supporters throughout Montana have concerns with not only Tester's bill, but also the exclusive nature of some of these so-called "collaborations," most notably the Beaverhead Partnership.

For a look at some of these issues and concerns, I'd suggest this recent essay from ecologist and author George Wuerthner at

Posted by Matthew Koehler, WildWest Institute on 20 Aug 2009

In view of Rick Bass' many years of investing heart and soul (sweat, blood, and tears?) in efforts to protect the Yaak, my put is "give him (and Tester) a break and your support."

In another arena, with others, I spent many years working for the perfect, to end up with nothing.

The art of the possible can resolve the dilemma in which the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Posted by Doyle McClure on 21 Aug 2009

Visit this link for a very interesting exchange regarding the Beaverhead Deerlodge Partnership and Tester's Logging Bill that appears at High Country News.

The exchange is between Jack de Golia, the recently retired public affairs officer for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and Ray Ring of High Country News. Many of Mr. de Golia's concerns stated below about the Beaverhead Partnership and Tester's Logging Bill are also shared by others in leadership positions on the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest, based on their personal communications with us. Thanks.

Posted by Matthew Koehler, WildWest Institute on 22 Aug 2009

Mr. Bass speaks for a very tiny minority of Montanans. Selling out vast areas of Montana to simply gain a few small personal favorite areas for himself makes him an untrustworthy and dangerous sort of wilderness activist.

The tester bill is a hastily written scrapbook paste-up of old Conrad Burns tactics pasted together with some loose alliances of corporate timber interests and good old boy corporate sponsored faux environmental groups. it is introduced with little or no real support from traditional and genuine conservationists. it is slapped together by a freshman senator's staff who should know better and it is poorly thought out policy by Jon himself. it will most likely die a lingering death in congress.
Posted by problembear on 27 Aug 2009

Bass degrades the discussion of how wilderness designation gets effected, by invoking favored cliches of reductionist thinking: "far left" vs. "far right" with "the vast sweet middle" representing, inexorably then, reason.

Look again, everyone. Bass is deftly circumventing the real issues of Quid Pro Quo ("this for that") Wilderness designation.

The QPQ model is "politically bold" alright, boldly redefining how democracy should work by destroying the full range of diversity fundamental to democratic decision-making through the practice of devolution: creating a self-selecting voting membership composed of collaborator "stakeholders" with a personal financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings.

These collaborators with conflicts of interest, cannot plausibly represent the best interests of present and future generations of Americans. This includes the funneling of millions of corporate foundation dollars into free market "environmental" nonprofit organizations such as Trout Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy and other neoliberal/libertarian corporate front-groups.

The QPQ model is boldly practicing the degradation and deregulation of bedrock environmental law (especially the definition of Wilderness as stated in the Wilderness Act). No one should be granted the right to use such degradation as a bargaining chip at a roundtable employing a manufactured consensus.

The QPQ model routinely employs privatization of publicly-owned resources as another bargaining chip to throw on the roundtable which is largely outside of the public's ability to understand, or hold accountable, the seedy backroom dealmakers.

Finally, these dealmakers function with a predetermined outcome based upon an ends justifies means groupthink in an artificial vacuum ignoring the present-day threats from climate change.

Do we really want to see this model spilling us onto the slippery slope of devolution where fewer and fewer have the ability to control the destiny of the commons and the integrity of our foundational environmental laws?
Posted by David Beebe on 27 Aug 2009

Could you explain the mentality behind those who are simply and philosophically against wilderness? I cannot fathom how any human being can be so unmoved by wild nature and not seek to protect it. Thank you.

Posted by Sue Jones on 17 Mar 2010

The people of Montana need to come together compromise on the wilderness/logging issue — to continue fighting will only leave us with neither. We were taught in kindergarten to work together.

Posted by PJ Mc Bean on 10 Jun 2010

Dear Sue (03.17.2010)--

The people who are "simply and philosophically against wilderness" are not people at all--they are the corporations whom we have granted all the privileges of person-hood but very few of the responsibilities. To these "persons", trees are not trees: they are board feet; or, worse, just numbers on a ledger. The destruction of our wilderness world is being done with the stroke of a pen, not a whining chain-saw. For once wilderness has been made abstract enough (once a living forest is transformed into a number on a ledger) it becomes very easy to make decisions that seem callous, irresponsible, evil, to people like you and I. We're dealing with the old banality of evil here. I personally doubt whether you'd find many loggers against wilderness, for example--that is, against having forests around in which to hunt, fish, hike, work. What these workers are against is losing their jobs and being unable to feed their families. It's a kind of class warfare, and the victors are the corporate shareholders of the extractive industries, who earn a killing on the backs of those getting paid a modest wage for what is often backbreaking labor.

Posted by Steve on 17 Aug 2010



How Tracking Product Sources May Help Save World’s Forests
Global businesses are increasingly pledging to obtain key commodities only from sources that do not contribute to deforestation. Now, nonprofit groups are deploying data tools that help hold these companies to their promises by tracing the origins of everything from soy to timber to beef.

Are Trees Sentient Beings? Certainly, Says German Forester
In his bestselling book, The Hidden Life of Trees, Peter Wohlleben argues that to save the world’s forests we must first recognize that trees are “wonderful beings” with innate adaptability, intelligence, and the capacity to communicate with — and heal — other trees.

How Forensics Are Boosting Battle Against Wildlife Trade
From rapid genetic analysis to spectrography, high-tech tools are being used to track down and prosecute perpetrators of the illegal wildlife trade. The new advances in forensics offer promise in stopping the trafficking in endangered species.

African Wetlands Project: A Win For the Climate and the People?
In Senegal and other developing countries, multinational companies are investing in programs to restore mangrove forests and other wetlands that sequester carbon. But critics say these initiatives should not focus on global climate goals at the expense of the local people’s livelihoods.

Ghost Forests: How Rising Seas Are Killing Southern Woodlands
A steady increase in sea levels is pushing saltwater into U.S. wetlands, killing trees from Florida as far north as New Jersey. But with sea level projected to rise by as much as six feet this century, the destruction of coastal forests is expected to become a worsening problem worldwide.


Donate to Yale Environment 360