Nameless Range
Well-known member
I saw this article in the paper this morning and thought it was interesting. Keep in mind, this is not an article or thread about bikes in wilderness. That horse is a bloated carcass.
I was a big fan of Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (FJRA). It designated new wilderness areas and added to others, while also creating Recreation Management Areas – where things like snowmobiling and bicycles could be allowed, but more intrusive motorized access that really has a larger effect on hunting and wildlife would not. It also required some logging to take place. It was full of collaboration and compromise, and had it succeeded I think a lot of the places I and other Montanans value highly would be better protected today.
But that's not what this article is about. This article is about The Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship Act. Some of the things I found interesting in this article is the idea that we can’t just hold on to the status quo because it can be reversed quickly. If we are going to have large-scale landscape conservation occur we can’t ignore groups like mountain bikers, snowmobilers, and even motorized users. Large coalitions are important.
Which makes me think of groups like the Alliance for Wild Rockies and others, who see collaboration as nothing but corrupt. They want wilderness and nothing else. What’s interesting about these types of groups is they have done nothing to forward their cause, and I would argue have in fact hurt it. Short of litigation, they are inert in bringing large landscape level changes forward, and as recreation becomes more varied and important on public lands, are becoming more irrelevant with every day. That's not to say Wilderness isn't important, but more of an observation about their rationality. Because rationality and success are intertwined in respect to one's goals.
A quote I liked from the article came from Doug Ferrell of Trout Creek.
“I was a big skeptic of the collaborative process,” Ferrell said. “But my eyes have really opened about the things we can agree on. You get in the room and the industry guys said, ‘We’re not interested in that land – we’ll support your wilderness.’ There’s a small minority satisfied to fold their hands and say, 'We’re going to stick up for our principles and never compromise.'
"The chances of those guys prevailing and getting anything done is zero.”
That last sentence is important.
I was a big fan of Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (FJRA). It designated new wilderness areas and added to others, while also creating Recreation Management Areas – where things like snowmobiling and bicycles could be allowed, but more intrusive motorized access that really has a larger effect on hunting and wildlife would not. It also required some logging to take place. It was full of collaboration and compromise, and had it succeeded I think a lot of the places I and other Montanans value highly would be better protected today.
But that's not what this article is about. This article is about The Blackfoot-Clearwater Stewardship Act. Some of the things I found interesting in this article is the idea that we can’t just hold on to the status quo because it can be reversed quickly. If we are going to have large-scale landscape conservation occur we can’t ignore groups like mountain bikers, snowmobilers, and even motorized users. Large coalitions are important.
Which makes me think of groups like the Alliance for Wild Rockies and others, who see collaboration as nothing but corrupt. They want wilderness and nothing else. What’s interesting about these types of groups is they have done nothing to forward their cause, and I would argue have in fact hurt it. Short of litigation, they are inert in bringing large landscape level changes forward, and as recreation becomes more varied and important on public lands, are becoming more irrelevant with every day. That's not to say Wilderness isn't important, but more of an observation about their rationality. Because rationality and success are intertwined in respect to one's goals.
A quote I liked from the article came from Doug Ferrell of Trout Creek.
“I was a big skeptic of the collaborative process,” Ferrell said. “But my eyes have really opened about the things we can agree on. You get in the room and the industry guys said, ‘We’re not interested in that land – we’ll support your wilderness.’ There’s a small minority satisfied to fold their hands and say, 'We’re going to stick up for our principles and never compromise.'
"The chances of those guys prevailing and getting anything done is zero.”
That last sentence is important.
Last edited:
