What's This About? Three Montana Conservation Organizations Forgotten Their History/Roots?

[Sytes]

Daily Montanan Author Rick Meis, resident of Oregon, wrote the following published statement;

Three powerful conservation groups have forgotten their histories and roots​

Three powerful conservation groups have forgotten their histories and roots • Daily Montanan

Columnist Rick Meis says that the conservation groups involved in the Gallatin Wilderness issue are forgetting why they were founded.

dailymontanan.com

Excerpt:

How many of those who support these three groups actually know that their actions may not be what they think the groups are doing. One friend recently dropped his membership in Wild Montana when he learned just that — that the organization’s actions were not what he understood they were doing.

Is this a matter of a co-founder for the original Madison Gallatin Alliance that evolved into a Chapter of the Montana Wilderness Association (aka, "Wild Montana"), who's turned disgruntled, have these conservation organizations lost their way, or... a variance of both?

 

[2ski]

That was a poorly written opinion piece that doesn't give any examples of how he thinks they aren't supporting things. His okay specific detail on anything is his friend getting drown out by music. Policies put in place or public comments by the organizations? None to be found. He mentions the summer of Lee, which I remember for Bridger Brewing coming out with their Lee Metcalf Ale, which they still produce, and at the time I felt was their best beer. But again, he doesn't bring up specific details as to why he had such a problem with that event.

So in answer to your question, who can tell from that article? I can't.

 

[Beignet]

I guess they don’t have an editor to look over opinion pieces? That was pretty bad indeed. Zero context except that he’s upset with a few groups and that might have something to do with mechanized use?

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's a long-standing conflict between those who want wide-scale Big W wilderness and those who are working in a collaboration model that doesn't designate every piece of Roadless as Wilderness. Essentially, it's Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the far left groups coming after the more centrist, left leaning groups.

For the record, Dorothy Bradley is Montana Badassery at the highest level. Con-Con delegate in 1972, was the first woman legislator elected to the legislature and one of Montana's true treasures. If someone showed that level of disrespect to her, then they should be called out, albeit privately.

 

[Big Fin]

It seems he is pissed that groups finally relented on the pressure to stop the logging in the Bozeman municipal watershed. City of Bozeman did a study to see the greatest vulnerabilities to its water source. The result showed the greatest risk is a catastrophic fire in the Sourdough Creek area, the place where Bozeman built its water treatment facility. Siltation would destroy the workings of the facility. Bozeman has three days of water at any given time.

Credit to the USFS for sticking to its plan and seeing its way through the litigation. The plan is currently being implemented, with closures of the Leverich Canyon and Kirk Hill Trails this summer. They are doing it with helicopters hauling the trees to landing decks where the trucks are loaded. It has pushed all of the summer hikers to Sourdough Creek, which trail has stayed open.

I hear a lot of complaining and I just shake my head. Yeah, I'm biased as to the benefits of logging. This is happening in view of my front porch and I'm more than willing to put up with the chopped noise and the viewshed be that of a thinned forest. Folks on the trails are bitching about the chopper noise overhead, the crowding with two of four popular trails closed for the summer, and who knows what else. I'm bitching about the insane amount of dog shit left on the trails from the dogs owned by some of the folks complaining.

Some of the staunch complainers have litigated this effort, and any other forest management, for years. To the credit of the orgs that are now accused of "having lost their way," they stopped the craziness and the project is going to solve some big issues. It is costing a ton of money, even after the stumpage receipts. Yet, if we want healthy forests and healthy watersheds, we better be willing to deal with some of the inconveniences.

Here is a very good video of the forest treatment project that seems to have caused the turmoil among some groups. It uses the Bozeman Watershed Forest Treatment Project to illustrate what has happened to our forests over the last 75 years. I think the USFS folks deserve a lot of credit for not caving in to some of the more "politically connected" vocal folks who opposed this project.

 

[Drake4]

It seems he is pissed that groups finally relented on the pressure to stop the logging in the Bozeman municipal watershed. City of Bozeman did a study to see the greatest vulnerabilities to its water source. The result showed the greatest risk is a catastrophic fire in the Sourdough Creek area, the place where Bozeman built its water treatment facility. Siltation would destroy the workings of the facility. Bozeman has three days of water at any given time.

Credit to the USFS for sticking to its plan and seeing its way through the litigation. The plan is currently being implemented, with closures of the Leverich Canyon and Kirk Hill Trails this summer. They are doing it with helicopters hauling the trees to landing decks where the trucks are loaded. It has pushed all of the summer hikers to Sourdough Creek, which trail has stayed open.

I hear a lot of complaining and I just shake my head. Yeah, I'm biased as to the benefits of logging. This is happening in view of my front porch and I'm more than willing to put up with the chopped noise and the viewshed be that of a thinned forest. Folks on the trails are bitching about the chopper noise overhead, the crowding with two of four popular trails closed for the summer, and who knows what else. I'm bitching about the insane amount of dog shit left on the trails from the dogs owned by some of the folks complaining.

Some of the staunch complainers have litigated this effort, and any other forest management, for years. To the credit of the orgs that are now accused of "having lost their way," they stopped the craziness and the project is going to solve some big issues. It is costing a ton of money, even after the stumpage receipts. Yet, if we want healthy forests and healthy watersheds, we better be willing to deal with some of the inconveniences.

Here is a very good video of the forest treatment project that seems to have caused the turmoil among some groups. It uses the Bozeman Watershed Forest Treatment Project to illustrate what has happened to our forests over the last 75 years. I think the USFS folks deserve a lot of credit for not caving in to some of the more "politically connected" vocal folks who opposed this project.

Thankful for that downpour last night. If that Fox Creek Fire blew up yesterday, I think we'd be witnessing first hand what City of Bozeman and USFS have been so rightfully worried about.

 

[Drake4]

For the record, Dorothy Bradley is Montana Badassery at the highest level. Con-Con delegate in 1972, was the first woman legislator elected to the legislature and one of Montana's true treasures. If someone showed that level of disrespect to her, then they should be called out, albeit privately.

Dorothy is one of my top 5 favorite ladies on the planet.

 

[Nameless Range]

I'm not speaking to anyone being disrespected in a meeting here, but I think Wild Montana's change in tack from going to a wilderness-only centric organization to something a little more broad was wise. I do not believe will ever have new large scale Wilderness designations - those days are gone - and the most that group can hope for are dinks and dunks of additions to existing big Ws or at best some tiny ten thousand acre blobs here or there. That said, there was no way to rip the bandaid off without it hurting some long-time people who A: Put a lot of blood,sweat, and tears into the old vision or B: Don't really have a realistic view of the current landscape of possibility.

Many hardliners in the environmental space despise the concept of Collaboration - partly because they have seen it yield the endorsement of landscape management compromises they view as something akin to a moral compromise of the soul of organization X. Often but not always, I find these people short sighted and out of touch with the real world and the people who live on it and the organizations who manage its surface and what is really possible or even likely within the framework that governs it all. Many of them never do anything in the affirmative insofar as pushing any change forward, they just "hold the line" through litigation - killing essentially all change efforts they can and only ever propose changes that don't have a snowball's chance in hell.


Collaboration and compromise can still certainly go too far, but they really are the only way. 20 years from now, one should ask those who spend today chitting on the majority of the grown ups in the conservation space, "How's that working out for you?". It really all does hinge on an assessment of what is realistic and will be a net-good toward one's greater vision, and I think many many people are out of touch. Litigating or opposing relatively tiny fuels projects to the detriment of municipal water systems serving tens of thousands might be exhibit A.