Unreconcilable?

[Irrelevant]

Where Facts Were No Match for Fear (Published 2021)

Civic boosters in central Montana hoped for some federal money to promote tourism. A disinformation campaign got in the way.

www.nytimes.com

or for those without free views

In Montana, Joe Biden’s 30x30 conservation plan rises as boogeyman in National Heritage Area movement

The proposed Big Sky County National Heritage Area in Montana is facing opposition from organizations like the American Stewards of Liberty.

www.usatoday.com

Since 1985, 55 NHAs have been established across the U.S. – including former President Donald Trump adding six in 2019 when he signed the John D. Dingell Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act.

Do "we" really care about conservation? Because it sure feels like all we actually care about is hating the "other side."

 

[MThuntr]

Lately in MT if it didn't come from a certain person then it wasn't "great". Polarized politics have ruined any concept of critical thinking and any attempt at a civil conversation by either side will only get backlash by the extremes. The Koolaid was drank on both ends of the spectrum and the middle majority is sitting on the sidelines recognizing that the Koolaid came from same cup

 

[Nameless Range]

When blind partisanism collides with vague executive orderism: 2021 Edition.

I do believe the existence of sides, both abstractly and systematically, have co-opted brain firmware that has served us well for the last 200,000 years. Either sides are different trails, but to the same destination of chaos. It's a quote I've shared on here numerous times, but it explains most of it to me: "Arguments are soldiers. ... Once you know which side you're on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it's like stabbing your soldiers in the back".

Combine the above quote with the plethora of morons amongst us, and we are up against it.

I do think we care about conservation, but the future of it, and I believe maybe all of us generally, hinges on the abandonment of the sides. Folks typically love this idea, and agree, till it means the abandonment of their side.

Pragmatically, maybe small scale conservation is the answer. People don't like hearing that. Here's an aside:

I first heard of this percentage/time (30 x30) concept of conservation at a conference at which E.O. Wilson and Jane Goodall were the speakers. It was conversational style. On one side you had Wilson, known as the Godfather of Sociobiology, and a brilliant lifetime academic. On the other was Jane Goodall, a hands-on biologist, who I didn't know has dedicated the last half of her life to reforestation. It was two people who agree on conservation, but it seemed one who thinks about it and another who actually does it. We certainly need both, but perhaps one more than the other. I had a lot of thoughts afterward, but I came away with a further belief that we are far beyond the days of the Midnight Forests or large scale landscape proclamations being effective, and that conservation moving forward was gonna consist of small wins, and dirty hands, and a grind - maybe forever.

 

[SAJ-99]

Seems no different than the Save the Cowboy, Stop the APR movement. Based on a foundation of lies and ample amounts of BS. When people feel threatened, they are willing to "join the crowd" and lose objectivity.

 

[BigHornRam]

Margaret appears to be a small time wing nut grifter. Seems to be a lot these types out there these days.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I mean, some folks have been playing the land grab card for so long, it's got some serious foxing around the edges, and a lot of spittle on the backside.

 

[Hydrophilic]

‘Self Limiting’ is a biological term for an organism or colony which limits its own growth to ensure its survival.

You can also apply the term to conservation. Looking at wins over the last couple centuries - Setting aside lands we can’t develop, restricting year round unfettered access to certain resources, restricting tag numbers, limiting access, etc.

Ultimately, it’s hard to ‘conserve’ if there is a large movement focused on deregulation and removing self limiting behavior. The sooner we all get on the same page, the better.

 

[Dougfirtree]

It's one thing to have disagreement. It's another to see those who disagree with you as the enemy. And, it's a whole different thing to not even have a shared sense of reality. I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about our ability to do important things, going forward (at least on a national level).

 

[Irrelevant]

It's one thing to have disagreement. It's another to see those who disagree with you as the enemy. And, it's a whole different thing to not even have a shared sense of reality. I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about our ability to do important things, going forward (at least on a national level).

I think that trickles down to the State level. I do still have some faith in the County/City level.

 

[MTGomer]

This is pretty much the same comment I made on Tony Bynum’s Facebook page as well: I can sympathize with people’s desire to not promote tourism, but there are endless real world, obvious examples (Bozeman, Whitefish, the crowds on every trail, river systems needing to go to permits, a state called Colorado etc) that people don’t need to make up lies or alternate realities to support that viewpoint.

 

[SAJ-99]

I think that trickles down to the State level. I do still have some faith in the County/City level.

Kind of depends on where you live.

There is a large percentage of Americans that don’t want conservation. What they want is privatization and economic utilization of any and every type. They are not just of one party, because there are people who think that the Fed govt should just sell the land and use the money for some program they see value in. No one has a monopoly on myopic views. In some ways the more people at the trailhead means the more people that want to conserve. Makes hunting tough though.

 

[Irrelevant]

There is a large percentage of Americans that don’t want conservation. What they want is privatization and economic utilization of any and every type.

I don't think this is true. There is a small % of people that actually want the Texas model. They then use blatant lies to peddle fear in an attempt to convert the masses to their ideology.

You see that same strategy employed by other groups for other causes. But did we not just coalesce around conservation just a few short years ago to pass the bipartisan Great American Outdoors act?

 

[SAJ-99]

I don't think this is true. There is a small % of people that actually want the Texas model. They then use blatant lies to peddle fear in an attempt to convert the masses to their ideology.

You see that same strategy employed by other groups for other causes. But did we not just coalesce around conservation just a few short years ago to pass the bipartisan Great American Outdoors act?

I should have said a large % vote like conservation isn't a priority. I agree that I think if you took a survey, most Americans like the concept. But there is a lot of money behind killing the idea.
The GAOA was a major accomplishment, but it was an election year and many senators in those western states have to at least pretend they care about public lands. And don't forget that by December they were trying to implement backdoor rules to gut the whole thing. I'm not a fan of executive-branch orders, but that is the way the game is played now.

 

[Ben Lamb]

This is pretty much the same comment I made on Tony Bynum’s Facebook page as well: I can sympathize with people’s desire to not promote tourism, but there are endless real world, obvious examples (Bozeman, Whitefish, the crowds on every trail, river systems needing to go to permits, a state called Colorado etc) that people don’t need to make up lies or alternate realities to support that viewpoint.

Housing costs, commute time, etc also get impacted significantly from the jet set "discovering" your area. The economics of tourism sucks for workers, leads to underemployment & rising housing costs. It's great for small business owners who can make it work and for corporations like Anschutz that monopolize concessions in national parks, but for actual living wages, tourism sucks. A town like Great Falls could benefit from some more economic diversity through tourism, but the refinery and the Air Force base are the main drivers. Address the economic disparity between engines, and you can a long way towards better conservation & recreation.

@neffa3 nailed it with the small group leading others to the dark side through lies & such. Just look at the anti-APR campaign, the "land grab" rhetoric of the past, present and future, etc. The PT Barnum effect is alive and well.

 

[BWALKER77]

Housing costs, commute time, etc also get impacted significantly from the jet set "discovering" your area. The economics of tourism sucks for workers, leads to underemployment & rising housing costs. It's great for small business owners who can make it work and for corporations like Anschutz that monopolize concessions in national parks, but for actual living wages, tourism sucks. A town like Great Falls could benefit from some more economic diversity through tourism, but the refinery and the Air Force base are the main drivers. Address the economic disparity between engines, and you can a long way towards better conservation & recreation.

@neffa3 nailed it with the small group leading others to the dark side through lies & such. Just look at the anti-APR campaign, the "land grab" rhetoric of the past, present and future, etc. The PT Barnum effect is alive and well.

Ben, I am happy to see you recognize tourism as the economic loser that it is. That's why it's important for MT to have things like ample timber harvests, mining, oil refining etc that support living wage jobs.
Maybe I am crazy, but I don't think any of these activities are problematic if done right. In the case of timber harvest they are greatly beneficial to the game we hunt and are greatly needed in Montana.

 

[BWALKER77]

Seems no different than the Save the Cowboy, Stop the APR movement. Based on a foundation of lies and ample amounts of BS. When people feel threatened, they are willing to "join the crowd" and lose objectivity.

I'm not a tin foil hat type, but the APR does make me nervous. Anytime largely leftist billionaires fund something it gives me pause.
I also understand why people in that particular area are mostly opposed to it. It will surely speed up the decline of the small towns in that area that are already marginal in an economic sense.

 

[406dn]

I also understand why people in that particular area are mostly opposed to it. It will surely speed up the decline of the small towns in that area that are already marginal in an economic sense.

If we are brutally honest, the nails are in the coffins of small towns, nearly everywhere. The APR has not altered the glide path, appreciably.

They are one of the few solvent buyers of range land that does not have significant " recreational" value in that region. I'd guess they prop up the land values more than hurt them.

 

[BuzzH]

If we are brutally honest, the nails are in the coffins of small towns, nearly everywhere. The APR has not altered the glide path, appreciably.

They are one of the few solvent buyers of range land that does not have significant " recreational" value in that region. I'd guess they prop up the land values more than hurt them.

APR pays appraised value and not a nickel more.

They aren't propping up land values doing that.

I agree with you that small towns are already in decline for all kinds of reasons and APR isn't even a small part of that. Agri-businesses, commodity prices, farm subsidies, preference for people wanting to work/live in areas with more to offer...those impact small towns significantly.

Best thing to happen to Eastern Montana in a long time is the APR.

 

[SAJ-99]

I'm not a tin foil hat type, but the APR does make me nervous. Anytime largely leftist billionaires fund something it gives me pause.
I also understand why people in that particular area are mostly opposed to it. It will surely speed up the decline of the small towns in that area that are already marginal in an economic sense.

But UPOM scare tactics and lies are ok? APR at least seems upfront with their goal.

 

[406dn]

APR pays appraised value and not a nickel more.

They aren't propping up land values doing that.

How many other buyers are offering the appraised value, not many. So their purchases delay appraised value adjustments.