50 years of the "Wilderness Act"

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks for making my eyes glaze over, Ben.

So what makes you think the Big W lobby will let you mess with their "rules"?

Having worked with the Big W lobby on several occassions (Rocky Mountain Front, FJRA, etc), they're sticking to the intent of Wilderness, especially as it relates to habitat improvement projects, grazing and recreation. I've been impressed with The WIlderness Society & Montana Wilderness Association's ability to work collaboratively with several different groups. In fact, I helped facilitate a presentation by the Wilderness Society's head of Gov't relations at a WSF annual meeting to talk about what is and isn't allowable in WIlderness and how they view the act.

Those same groups have supported allowing some motorized use to maintain watering structures in proposed wilderness, fought for grazing in Big W and, over the last 10 years or so, have stopped litigating over issues like guzzlers, etc, in wilderness areas.

Some, like Wild West, etc, publicly decry the compromises made by the Big W groups. Others, like the MT Petroleum Assn say they're the devil. I guess that puts them squarely in the middle.

 

[HSi-ESi]

Not to change the subject, but I've always been surprised at the differences between wilderness areas.

Cloud Peak Wilderness in WY - had a manager that wanted 'wilderness'. So if a bridge needed to be rebuilt, then it is was too bad. We took it out.

Spanish Peak's - Backcountry Horseman built a shiny new bridge over Spanish Creek (about 2.5 miles up from the main trailhead) a few years ago (OK, maybe 10).

Bitterroot's - Private landowners still have control over head-gates to water rights up many of the drainages. Some of which have dam's that are very old and in need of replacement. And these water-rights are used for profit.

But we hold on tightly to no filming for profit.

I'm not trying to argue this way or that - just pointing out discrepancies.