Are we losing our wilderness and our Montana values?

I had an interesting experience last week that is worth our thoughts.

At a public gathering sponsored by the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, in a public place, with an open invitation, the focus was on a proposal of the Gallatin Forest Partnership to split up the acreage in the Wilderness Study Areas of the Custer Gallatin National Forest. 

I have been around this country a good long time and I was fortunate to know every one of the environmental leaders of our past who worked to secure and protect these WSAs. 

They could not get multiple wildernesses through Congress in their lifetimes so they protected this gorgeous country so that final decisions could be made at a later date.

One of them was my father, another my neighbor. I believe that their perspective and intent are important to today’s discussion. I wanted to pass these sentiments forward at the GYC gathering.

However, I was shut down from speaking and the volume of music was turned up to ensure I could not be heard.  

I can say this with confidence – these wonderful visionary leaders would not have accommodated this kind of rudeness.  It is not the Montana way. But that is not the central point.

Wilderness Study Areas incorporated the word “wilderness” for a reason. These protected areas were not called “Outdoor Recreation Study Areas.” It is all about wilderness. And if their protective action had not been considered, and boundaries not drawn and protected by law, what would we have today? Nothing. 

Certainly no opportunity to plan an alternative future. We would be overrun with outdoor users – some respectful but others not – and totally unregulated in the grand scheme of things.  And yet, I don’t recall the GYC discussion even mentioning wilderness. It was all about recreation. It is fair to say that the early leaders would be rolling over in their graves.

Judging from the sense of ownership exhibited by the GYC for their proposal, it is clear that the GFP believes this is an idea whose time has come and is set in stone. But there are many, many of us who believe it is a bad idea, and a bad time; and regardless, there is never a good time to shut down discussion of a public resource.

The GFP proposal was written a number of years ago when climate change was not the topic of the day. Now, it is the hourly news. Take today, when more than 130 million Americans are under a heat alert. How many species of animals are under that heat alert?  

Landscapes are changing so fast, how much of America’s wildlife is struggling – struggling with heat, food, water, migration, reproduction? But climate change is little more than a footnote in the GFP proposal. Thankfully there is no question that the founders of the WSAs had the foresight to give us the ability to guarantee species survival in new conditions.  

And as part of climate change, what about the masses and masses of people seeking a livable home and a good spot to recreate? People in beautiful spots all over the planet are beginning to panic at the onslaught of tourists – Venice, Barcelona, Japan. . .  We need to prepare ourselves for this kind of interest in our beautiful landscape. This is our window of opportunity.  

Yes, this landscape is ours to share – but as the ones who happen to be here, it is ours to protect. We have another mini-Bob Marshall opportunity right here in our back yard. Once gone, it is gone forever.

And this is a certainty. You are entering a danger zone when you start to think you have come up with a perfect proposal that is above discussion – particularly when it is about a public resource.

Dorothy Bradley is a resident of Clyde Park, served in the Montana House of Representatives 16 years, and was first elected in 1971 when she was 23.