Missouri Breaks Monument

[Nemont]

mtmiller,
I know you have been involved in this project. In no way am I throwing stones at your work. I read this today in the Gazette and thought it would be interesting to discuss.

Nemont

May 24, 2004
Guest opinion: Public input process a sham in Missouri Breaks planning
By DARRYL OLSON

The Bureau of Land Management is developing a Resource Management Plan to establish policies and procedures on how the newly designated Missouri Breaks National Monument will be managed. The BLM has, on the surface, given the general public the opportunity to make comments into the planning process. This would be commendable if this input were actually being used to develop the plan.


BLM has excluded state agencies from planning processes with the help of Gov. Judy Martz, an opponent of the monument from inception. As this planning process is progressing, it is apparent that the agency is listening exclusively to politicians and local residents. Most of these interests are against the monument and are currently trying to soften and manipulate the RMP requirements, with seeming success.


Ambiguous regulations


There are two regulations and a BLM handbook that govern the RMP process: the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations. Additionally, BLM has a land-use planning handbook, supplementing FLMPA regulations. These documents call for collaboration between the public and federal, state, tribal and local governments.


With that being said, there is a problem: there is no way to require that public input be used in selection of the preferred agency alternative or to be included in development of the plan. Generally, complaints against an agency for ignoring public input go to court, which historically has had little success for the public because of ambiguous language in these regulations.


As the monument process has progressed, the vast majority of public comments support formation of the monument and preservation of its unique natural values for future generations. Most opposition has come from local ranchers, outfitters, county commissioners, the Montana governor, and the Montana Republican congressman and senator, all of whom have ranching and development interests.


FWP excluded


The BLM has excluded key state agencies from the planning process in direct violation of the regulatory requirements. Part of this exclusion has come from Gov. Martz: She appointed one representative from the Montana Department of Natural Resource Conservation to represent the state's interests. This individual had not solicited involvement from state wildlife management agencies until he was called to task late in the process.


The monument proclamation states: "Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the state of Montana with respect to fish and wildlife management," which implicitly assigns the Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks wildlife management responsibilities within the Monument. FWP has not, however, been given the opportunity for consultation until recently, after the agency-preferred alternative and draft management plans were already developed, effectively resulting in diminishing the state's management ability. This is a violation in collaboration requirements.


The management plans and alternatives should be thrown out until FWP has the opportunity for meaningful consultation. These are a few of several examples of how this process has not provided for meaningful collaboration. This is a national monument, not a "Central Montana Monument" for exclusive local use.

It is time we hold our government agencies accountable for allowing manipulation by minority interests of how our public lands are managed for the entire public!

Darryl Olson of Shepherd is a member of the Missouri Breaks Hunters Advisory Work Group that has been brought together as a watchdog to protect hunters' rights on issues related to the entire Missouri Breaks region.

 

[Bambistew]

Where is the monument going to be located? Is it going to be like other monuments with no hunting only hiking and touristy stuff?

 

[Nemont]

Hunting is still an allowed activity. This is a lot of good hunting land and make the land for all intents and purposes a Wilderness area. There is a lot of discussion going on regarding the monument. One thing I have heard recently is that there are some who want to maintain dirt land strips for private aircraft inside the boundaries of the monument. I know mtmiller knows a whole lot more about the Monument then I will ever know.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Bambistew:
Where is the monument going to be located? Is it going to be like other monuments with no hunting only hiking and touristy stuff?

Bambistew,

Can you please let us know which Monuments don't allow hunting? And even better, could you compare it to ALL the Monuments where you can hunt??? (If it helps, you don't need to list the DC Monumnets... Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson.... )

 

[Bambistew]

Gunner, Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson are not monuments but rather memorials... I really can't even think of a national monument on the east coast...I'm sure there are some but none come to mind. When I think of NM I think of Devils tower, Dinosaur, white sands, etc...

It would be easier to list the national monuments that allow hunting compared to the ones that don't... Of all the western states I only found 3 that allowed hunting out of about 35... The only ones I could find that allowed hunting where in ID and AK... So there When do you want my book report?

http://data2.itc.nps.gov/parksearch/geosearch.cfm

 

[Bambistew]

Will the private land inside the boundary be "taken" by the gov.?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Hopefully.

 

[mtmiller]

No, unless by willing seller. They will lose no property rights.

 

[1_pointer]

Is the red line on the map the monument boundary?

 

[Hangar18]

Has the State of Montana actively tried to exchange any of their land that lies in the proposed monument boundary?

 

[mtmiller]

The red line is the boundary. If you could zoom into the map you would see many more red lines (road system). Many of these roads were created during hunting seasons when there were no off road travel restrictions. Only 1% of the Monument is more than 2 miles from a road with the current system.

Has the State of Montana actively tried to exchange any of their land that lies in the proposed monument boundary?

I came on to the RMP later in the game, but if I remember correctly, exchanges were disussed, but the State was not interested. It definitely would have made the process easier, but I am sure they had their reasons.