Ideology and Public Lands Policy

During the recent statewide election in Montana, public access was made a hot button issue particularly in the gubernatorial and U.S. House races. The issue of access has become increasingly partisan, with varying definitions on what it means to keep public lands in public hands.

On one side of the spectrum there is an argument which proposes that the best management practices are those which minimize human impacts to mitigate damages to pristine environments, ecosystems, and habitat areas. This includes the myriad of policies which limit development and place restrictions on public use of federally managed public lands.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, best management practices are seen as those which afford the maximum opportunity to utilize public lands, including unfettered recreational access and responsible development as allowed by law.

Moratoriums on development, mineral withdrawals, and additional wilderness designations are just a few of the measures viewed by many as bureaucratic barriers to access. Some, in fact, have even called for transferring federal lands back to the states in an effort to right the ship and prevent further restrictions on land use and public access. This position, however, has been incredibly polarizing.

Fear of politically motivated and/or negligent management practices, along with skepticism on whether or not the states could afford to take over the management responsibilities, are just a couple of the reasons the issue has been opposed. Montana legislators will soon convene to grapple with a much tighter budget and a host of spending proposals to bolster necessary infrastructure projects around the state. No one, however, claims that the more than 19 trillion in national debt bodes well for the federal government’s solvency. Advocates for greater access to public lands argue that increased spending on recreation, along with revenue created from development, play a vital role in boosting federal, state, and local economies.

Earlier this year, Congressman Ryan Zinke resigned as a delegate to the Republican nominating convention over the issue of transferring federal public lands to the states, a position endorsed by the GOP in the party platform. Since that time, Zinke has been selected by President-elect Donald Trump to head the Department of the Interior, which manages 75 percent of federal land in the United States, a large majority of which resides in the West. It will be interesting to see whether or not advocates for transferring federal lands to the states will change their tune under a new administration. Perhaps management can be effectively restored to provide greater balance, including options which have been curtailed under the Obama Administration.

In the 11th hour, the current administration has continued efforts to thwart access and development opportunities on federal land. All future offshore drilling on nearly 120 million acres of land in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans has been banned; dozens of oil and gas leases have been cancelled; another legally vetted and previously permitted pipeline was stopped in its tracks (and no, I’m not talking about the Keystone XL); 30,000 acres of minerals were withdrawn in Montana from future mining claims; two new, widely contested monuments were designated in Utah; a stream rule which will negatively affect coal mining operations was published, along with a venting and flaring rule which would adversely affect oil and gas development; and several thousand more acres will soon be considered for “protection” to further stave off a listing of the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act. The list goes on and on, and many of these final efforts are now being challenged in court.

Just last week, a seven-member coalition in Montana filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service which manages the remaining 25 percent of federal land not overseen by the DOI. In their complaint over the final Travel Plan in the Bitterroot National Forest, the motorized recreations groups allege that key input by the public was ignored, and that the Travel Plan Record of Decision is in violation of existing statutes and currently applicable Forest Service policies.

The crux of the above lawsuit and others is that large swaths of public land are being restricted based on ideological objectives rather than sound science or substantive data, and that consideration of public input has been negligible, selective at best. A headline in a Montana newspaper today reads, “Study: Recreation and wildlife don't mix well”. But upon further inspection, the article sites limits within the studies, i.e. “A lot of motorized studies in my pool of studies were aquatic – things like whale-watching and dolphin-watching. We found very few studies that directly compared motorized and non-motorized activity, like cross-country skiers and snowmobiles on wildlife in (the) same area.”

Exactly how applicable are studies on whale watching to Montana’s outdoor recreation?

In Montana, the middle of that ideological spectrum first addressed recognize that we can have varying means of access, responsible development, and a clean and healthful environment. The extreme factions on either side of the spectrum do not represent the majority of Montanans, and should not determine public policy which affects all Montanans. But over the last eight years, one side of the spectrum has effectively persuaded drastic policy measures, rules and regulation, which have preserved access to public lands for a small, elite group – those favoring strict regulation, limited access, and "quiet spaces".

Many who have been disenchanted, be they motorized recreation groups or coal miners, are now cautiously optimistic that a change in leadership will yield a change in policy; policy motivated not by ideology, but by sound scientific data which considers widespread economic effects.