Greater Yellowstone Conservation And Recreation Act

[canadiantuxedo]

I'm curious as to why the Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and Montana Wildlife Federation endorse Greater Yellowstone Coalition's Conservation and Recreation Act (links below), when the proposal will increase recreation in SW MT's existing WSAs and most assuredly result in the decline in numbers of huntable species.

With 1,000,000 people visiting Hyalite annually, GYC's plan to make a "Wildlife and Recreation Management Area" around the location will hammer that area even worse. Same with their "Wildlife and Recreation Management Area" across the highway from Big Sky.

I would imagine most Montanas support permanent wilderness designation for the existing WSAs. But maybe I'm a loon.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...e+Conservation+and+Recreation+Act+6.26.24.pdf

The Legislation — Greater Yellowstone Conservation and Recreation Act

www.greateryellowstoneact.org

 

[Straight Arrow]

I would imagine most Montanas support permanent wilderness designation for the existing WSAs.

I certainly do!

However, in this scarlet red state it seems most worship the rhetoric of Congressional delegates Daines and Zinke. They do not like WSAs and barely tolerate real Wilderness ... if only for political reasons.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm curious as to why the Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and Montana Wildlife Federation endorse Greater Yellowstone Coalition's Conservation and Recreation Act (links below), when the proposal will increase recreation in SW MT's existing WSAs and most assuredly result in the decline in numbers of huntable species.

With 1,000,000 people visiting Hyalite annually, GYC's plan to make a "Wildlife and Recreation Management Area" around the location will hammer that area even worse. Same with their "Wildlife and Recreation Management Area" across the highway from Big Sky.

I would imagine most Montanas support permanent wilderness designation for the existing WSAs. But maybe I'm a loon.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...e+Conservation+and+Recreation+Act+6.26.24.pdf

The Legislation — Greater Yellowstone Conservation and Recreation Act

www.greateryellowstoneact.org

You can either hold your breath and hope for a miracle of Big W wilderness or you can work with people and make ground protecting what you can.

Having been involved in the last Big W wilderness effort that passed in 2014 in which 60k acres were added to the Bob & Scapegoat, getting a bill passed is remarkably difficult, moreso now in the current climate. Before that, it was the 80's when it happened last

I love designated wilderness. It is critical for us as a people to maintain undeveloped lands. The WSA issue has percolated for 4 decades and when groups seek to find resolution, they get hammered by the purists.

While I respect their position, they are not living in the reality that everyone else is. Good for BHA & MWF for supporting it.

 

[Elky Welky]

I'm curious as to why the Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and Montana Wildlife Federation endorse Greater Yellowstone Coalition's Conservation and Recreation Act (links below), when the proposal will increase recreation in SW MT's existing WSAs and most assuredly result in the decline in numbers of huntable species.

With 1,000,000 people visiting Hyalite annually, GYC's plan to make a "Wildlife and Recreation Management Area" around the location will hammer that area even worse. Same with their "Wildlife and Recreation Management Area" across the highway from Big Sky.

I would imagine most Montanas support permanent wilderness designation for the existing WSAs. But maybe I'm a loon.

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...e+Conservation+and+Recreation+Act+6.26.24.pdf

The Legislation — Greater Yellowstone Conservation and Recreation Act

www.greateryellowstoneact.org

Both orgs you mention are conservation groups, and this act falls squarely within their missions.

Usually I just speak for myself here, but stepping into my role as a board member for Montana BHA, I can speak for us: the known pros far outnumber any perceived cons with what this act will do, and I'm happy to stand behind this effort. If you look at what it will do, particularly with regards to decongesting trailheads, protecting migration corridors and habitat, keeping water clean, and permanently protecting 250,000 acres of public land... well, the act speaks for itself.

And speaking for myself, any collaborative effort that achieves far more than a broken status quo is worthy of support, even if it doesn't accomplish everything you want.

 

[Rie Bread]

The proposal around hyalite in terms of water quality preservation makes sense. Ima guess it’s gonna bring about some minor enforceable rules and that’s it, like mandatory wag bags for backpacking- not that it’s not a good idea to do already , it just puts the rule up in the trailhead sign.

 

[canadiantuxedo]

You can either hold your breath and hope for a miracle of Big W wilderness or you can work with people and make ground protecting what you can.

Having been involved in the last Big W wilderness effort that passed in 2014 in which 60k acres were added to the Bob & Scapegoat, getting a bill passed is remarkably difficult, moreso now in the current climate. Before that, it was the 80's when it happened last

I love designated wilderness. It is critical for us as a people to maintain undeveloped lands. The WSA issue has percolated for 4 decades and when groups seek to find resolution, they get hammered by the purists.

While I respect their position, they are not living in the reality that everyone else is. Good for BHA & MWF for supporting it.

Ben, as you know, I deeply respect and admire the collaborative approach you take toward land use/management issues. And as the father of a one year old, the time I have to track these issues is much more scarce than in years past.

I guess my questions are: why is submitting a plan right now better than doing nothing? I'm unaware of any competing plans being submitted, so why attempt to reduce any wilderness that has been designated as such since 1977? My other question is why is GYC misleading, and should hunting organizations support organizations that are misleading as a matter of principle?

As quoted by GYC and Elky Welky above, GYC is claiming 250,000 acres of current wilderness will be forever set aside under that designation. But the truth is only 92,000 acres will be protected as true wilderness, while the remaining 158,000 acres will be designated as "Wildlife and Recreation Management Areas." The good folks at the Gallatin Wildlife Association recently pointed this out. See, https://mountainjournal.org/wilderness-proposal-in-gallatins-madisons-sparks-debate. Also, GYC states 74% of Montanans support their plan, but the truth is they set up tents at outdoorsy events and gather signatures from folks who take a pledge to "support wilderness" in general, not folks who are saying they fully support GYC's specific plan. Maybe I'm being naive and/or alarmist, but something doesn't smell right.

 

[Nameless Range]

I am a fan of these collaborative efforts. I think we really need to do our best to "set in stone" what the management of certain chunks of earth will look like for the decades to come as soon as possible in the now. The chances of a lot of different ideas that are a net-good will fade - not because of extractive industry, but because of expanding recreation on the landscape that once established will not budge.

As it pertains to Wilderness, Conservation/Recreation Management Areas, and the like - I strongly believe that either you work to implement realistic change - and it will feel like a compromise - or change you have not had any input on will come to you and it very well may be a sort of anti-grass roots legislation and/or projects serving a very special interest. I've seen proposed projects that I thought were a net-negative emerge seemingly out of nowhere because the special interests were willing to pay for/do the legwork and had a relationship with decision makers.

 

[SAJ-99]

GYC's plan to make a "Wildlife and Recreation Management Area" around the location will hammer that area even worse. Same with their "Wildlife and Recreation Management Area" across the highway from Big Sky.

Why would it get worse? Porcupine gets a lot of traffic now with the biggest problem being people going into the elk refuge in the winter and heavy snowmobile use on some of the areas. I don't think it can get worse.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, as you know, I deeply respect and admire the collaborative approach you take toward land use/management issues. And as the father of a one year old, the time I have to track these issues is much more scarce than in years past.

I guess my questions are: why is submitting a plan right now better than doing nothing? I'm unaware of any competing plans being submitted, so why attempt to reduce any wilderness that has been designated as such since 1977? My other question is why is GYC misleading, and should hunting organizations support organizations that are misleading as a matter of principle?

As quoted by GYC and Elky Welky above, GYC is claiming 250,000 acres of current wilderness will be forever set aside under that designation. But the truth is only 92,000 acres will be protected as true wilderness, while the remaining 158,000 acres will be designated as "Wildlife and Recreation Management Areas." The good folks at the Gallatin Wildlife Association recently pointed this out. See, https://mountainjournal.org/wilderness-proposal-in-gallatins-madisons-sparks-debate. Also, GYC states 74% of Montanans support their plan, but the truth is they set up tents at outdoorsy events and gather signatures from folks who take a pledge to "support wilderness" in general, not folks who are saying they fully support GYC's specific plan. Maybe I'm being naive and/or alarmist, but something doesn't smell right.

There's a long-standing rift in the conservation & environmental community about whether or not to pursue big W Wilderness. It's a trade off though, especially in light of climate change and the political climate we find ourselves in. WSA's were never meant to be a lasting status. When Reagan pocket vetoed Pat Williams bill back in 88, it was clear that gaining new wilderness would take a mountain of work, literally and figuratively.

For some, this was their life's work and I completely respect that and think those folks are bad asses beyond belief. But, the idea of the WSA was to study it's characteristics and ensure that it fit within the criteria of the designation. They were meant to be acted upon. That has translated into frustration with some folks and acceptance from others. Recent attempts to remove WSA protections carte blance have been close enough to successful that people feel the need to act on what they can get, and compromise on the rest while putting some level of protection on the land.

The RMF Bill was no different. Alliance, etc all slammed the bill as insufficient because it was only 60K acres of Wilderness, and about 240K Acres of a conservation management area - a special designation that was created for the RMF. That's still 300,000 acres protected. That's same kind of marketing that the groups are doing, combining protections to achieve a larger footprint than Big W can give them.

Given the issues of forest health, the need for some management here and there, I'm really good with protections that are a touch less that wilderness. People tend to forget that tribes worked the land to provide habitat (fire especially), so the notion of "wild" is somewhat dated, since these lands have always had human footprints. But, the level of protection given to special places needs to have significant public buy-in in order to last (look at Bear's Ear in UT and the see-sawing back and forth over designations). That's how we protect what we love long term. The approach of wilderness or nothing is one that, while ideologically pure, is not realistic. We lose land fast, we need to save what we can.

As the old Lion said, do what you can, with what you have, where you are. And that's what these groups are doing. God bless 'em.

 

[Rie Bread]

How will this designation affect the windy pass cabin?
I’m all for this designation, and happen to love the remoteness of the greater Gallatin crest. It seems like wilderness to me