New West Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming
There is a raucous debate going on the Billings Gazette site today over a letter, titled, “Environmentalists terrorize America.” I hestitate to call attention to such stereotyping (on both sides) but I think the letter and the ensuing discussion is an indication of one of the largest divides in Montana, the West and the country lies and where it is the deepest. Why is it so hard for us to see that we’re all fighting for the same thing? I’ll bet if you asked each one of these commentors why they lived in Montana, they’d all give a similar answer — they’d all be trying protect the same sets of values. But the “us” vs. “them” mentality seems to be too inescapable these days. The labels are just too close at hand and sticky.
Read it yourself. Click here.
After reading the comments to this letter in the Billings Gazette, my only comment is that the US is a lot closer to becoming Iraq, or Bosnia, or Afghanistan than we think.
We the people? Wait its we the Media.. don’t they print what the goverment allows them too? you bet they do…
There are many motivations to this rolling hairball but let me point out a few. First, for some it is to lock-up a piece of heaven for a select few of “true believers” who will only tread upon hallowed ground in the approved true believers’ way. This takes the form of outlawing mountain bikes for adventureres and wheeled game carts for hunters in newly designated wilderness areas. Next, is the disdain groups have for each other. Then there is the waste of millions of dollars, like the failed reintroduction of the black-footed ferret on the north side of the Missouri breaks. The “ferret farm” was a ghost town last fall, but it looked like an RV sales lot or campground, nobody was there!
It’s shameful that a generally fine paper for its size would print such vile trash that brings not a shred of real debate.
Have the editors forgotten that environmentalists in the Kalispell area have repeatedly been the victims of real terrorism?
First of all I think it was an excellent letter, brief and to the point…..and a very good point I might add.
I think a better way of “saving wild spaces” would be to have two classes of land. One a shared use for everyone to use, the other totally off limits to everyone. I am aware that there is a group of folks who think that the land becomes hallowed jsut because they walked across it, but sorry guys, you are impacting it too. For one thing hikers leave their bodily waste where ever the mood strikes them. Wildlife may eat it, walk in it, etc. I have read that Half Dome stinks to high heaven fron folks urinating on it. Will that ever come off even if climbing is stopped now? Who knows…or cares as long as it is environmentalist urine? What about bear and other animals digging up feces, and water contamination for the same. Believe me a shortage of clean water will be a far bigger health threat than global warming, cooling, or anything else.
To Luisa: it is a letter to the editor, it expresses a person’s opinion and has no need to be balanced. It apparently has started some debate, at least here on New West. Kudos to the Gazette.
To Colonel Bain: I’m a member of the media, the government doesn’t tell me what to print, period.
To all: The writer stated “extremist enviromentalists”, wouldn’t that suggest tree spikers, those that destroy equipment or burn down houses in the name of enviromentalism?
At some point or another there has to be a balance, national land is owned by us all. Some should be left roadless, but some should be accessible, especially for those who would not otherwise be able to enjoy the “wilderness”.
Just because you can use your legs to “get out there” doesn’t mean everyone else can.
I spent a lot of my younger days with a pack on my backand cruising through the Bob Marshall, Glacier and any number of other areas. Heck, I even managed to climb a 10,000 peak in Arizona when I was 12.
Now, at 42, I could barely make it a mile downhill at Kamiak Butte in Washington with just 8-9 pounds of camera gear yesterday. My knees are shot.
It probably wasn’t a pretty sight to see a 6′ 200-pound man hobbling along, grimacing because of the pain while leaning on his 18-year-old daughter, just to get down a hill.
It struck me then, that there are some things I just can’t do anymore.
Why should I have have to give up my love of the outdoors, with its great vistas and photo ops, because some selfish, self-righteous “enviromentalists” wants lock it all up for foot traffic only.
I shouldn’t, and I won’t.
To Kai
After a long, physically damaging life in the military, I too eventually found myself unable to get very far into the backcountry on my own two feet. My solution in middle age has been to learn horses–how to ride them how to pack them, how to manage them in the backcountry. The effort and expense it took to learn horses I accepted as part of my obligation to do as little damage as possible.
As far as access to the backcountry is concerned, I don’t see advocates of ATVs and unfettered motorized access assuming any such obligation to the land, nor do I see them carrying out any obligations to the land. They hop on and there they go. It may be expensive but it doesn’t take much effort. And the damage they cause without a thought is enormous.
It strikes me that when people complain, as you and too many others do, about “seflish, self-righteous environmentalists,” they might turn that designation toward themselves as well. I’ve seen more damage done to land in a short time by irresponsible motorized recreation than has been done by horses over a long time.
The one thing that is far too lacking in most recreation of any sort these days is any concern for or obligation to the welfare of the land. There is no sense of responsibility for the land. And as the technological capacity for access has increased, willingness among users to protect land has decreased. As numbers of recreationists increase, damage to the land increases. I see it not only with ATVs, but with rock climbing, mountain climbing, skiiing (especially heli-skiing), river-rafting, mountain biking. The rule is, “have as much fun as I can and to hell with the consequences to the land.”
I have no respect for this attitude.
Given that this is the unfortunate attitude of too many recreationists these days, particularly ATVers, and given the damage that they do, there is no alternative but to restrict access to protect land. In hunting, such restrictions have been in place for decades through lotteries, or hunting license draws, for access to big game animals. Interestingly, this was a solution put in place by hunters themselves for the good of the resource. I see no such practical wisdom in the political activities of the Blue Ribbon Coalition, etc. to protect the resource. All I hear is “MY RIGHT.”
You have no rights without corresponding responsibilities.
And as far as getting older is concerned, that’s life. There are a lot of things you can’t do when your’re older that you could do when you were younger. Getting into the backcountry is just one of them.
Robert,
Did I or did I not say that some areas should be left roadless?
As with many people, you jumped the gun, only keying in on points you don’t want to hear.
I, too, have seen the damage caused by ATVs, offroad bikes and 4-wheel drives and have no respect for those that act irresponsibly.
However for you to get on your “high-horse” about using horses is a bit premature. They also cause damage. Ever seen chewed up trails caused by steel shoes? EVERY form of usage leaves an impact. I wouldn’t get too settled into the saddle about horses, they too have come under fire.
The key is compromise. Somewhere between the “lock everything up” attidude and the “cut it down and pave it” attitude.
You want to save these lands? Give people a tangible reason to do so. Allow them into areas so they can see some of the beauty, and people will see why wilderness areas are worth saving.
Lock them up out of view and eventually you’ll a “So what?” attitude. Photos and video can only capture a tiny portion of the grandeur, it has to been seen to truly be appreciated.
Your last paragraph is a bit disconcerting, change “backcountry” to “Smithsonian” and people would be in an uproar.