Rehberg Opinion: From Collaboration to Consensus, What I've Heard on the Wilderness Bill Trail

In early January, I held 21 public listening sessions and meetings, to hear what Montanans had to say about Senator Tester’s bill to designate more than 600,000 acres of new wilderness.  Hundreds of Montanans attended, each with the opportunity to stand up to offer an opinion.  Next weekend, I will finish my listening tour in Libby, although I will continue taking input by phone, letter, email, fax, Facebook or any way Montanans care to contact me.

You don’t need to spend too much time in Western Montana to see the need for good forest stewardship.  While problems like fires and beetle infestations were around long before man settled among the trees, we now have the ability to manage these challenges to create healthier forests and build a stronger economy.

The hard part is finding a balance between stewardship and wilderness because too much of either can damage the health of both the forest and the economy.  It’s also important that such a balance come from a broad consensus of stakeholders.

Over the years, various partnerships between people with similar interests have emerged.  Senator Tester’s effort to bring many of these partnerships to the table to develop a collaborative piece of legislation is commendable.

The fruits of that collaboration were evident in the support I heard for Senator Tester’s bill at my public meetings.  But I also discovered that many people with legitimate and important concerns about the bill were left out of the process entirely.  These Montanans deserve to be heard, and it’s my job to listen to them.

That’s why my first step was a listening tour to field comments, suggestions and concerns about this legislation.  And while the comments varied, one theme remained consistent — something needs to be done to move the process forward and end the deadlock facing our public lands, and any such legislation needs to be balanced.

And I listened.

I got a lot of input, and heard some very good ideas:

One idea is to create a graduated trigger for wilderness designation.  Under current provisions in the bill, new wilderness would be created on day one, while the designated forest management areas risk perpetual limbo in an endless sea of legal appeals.  Radio-man John Schuyler suggested an incremental approach.  Each parcel of new wilderness would be created once a certain number of acres were opened to stewardship, or a certain number of jobs created.

A representative of the Montana Backcountry Horsemen expressed his strong support for Senator Tester’s bill, saying that it would afford many benefits to the ailing timber industry while improving fish and wildlife habitat.

A supporter of Senator Tester’s legislation argued that Montana was overdue for a wilderness designation since the last one was 26 years ago.

A representative of the Montana Woolgrowers Association asked that “hard release” language be added to the bill in order to end the management of de-facto wilderness in places like Montana’s seven Wilderness Study Areas.

Over the course of the meetings, it became evident to me that a collaborative effort does not necessarily yield a consensus.  I could collaborate with my wife Jan to decide that the Rehberg family should watch The Sound of Music on movie night, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the family will think that’s a good idea.  And while the fundamental idea may be sound, when making a decision that affects the whole family, the whole family ought to be involved.

Unfortunately, in this case, some industries like timber were invited to the table, while others were excluded.  For example, our state motto is Oro y plata, an homage to our mining heritage.  Yet the resource industry wasn’t included in the drafting of the legislation.  Similarly, some members of the agricultural community found themselves on the outside looking in.

As I stated on my listening tour, this legislation is the first step, not the end of the process.  The majority of Montanans agree there are places in our state that ought to be protected as wilderness, and areas that should be managed for healthier forests.  I commend Senator Tester and his partnerships for their bill.  Now that the product of their collaboration is public, the public must weigh in and consensus found.  I look forward to reflecting on what I learned, reviewing the nuance of maps and legislation and finding a workable solution for 2010, 2020 and beyond.