Protecting wilderness study areas helps prevent conflicts among public land users

Print Article

Preserving the seven remaining wilderness study areas under Forest Service management will help Montanans find a place for the public lands experience they want. In December 2017, U.S. Senator Steve Daines introduced Senate Bill 2206 to withdraw protections from those 450,000 acres of public land. When I served at the U.S. Department of Justice and defended wilderness study areas, I learned they serve a useful purpose. They help the Forest Service separate incompatible uses.

To be clear, “wilderness areas” differ from “wilderness study areas.” In the Wilderness Act of 1964, Congress created the concept of wilderness areas and directed the Forest Service to preserve those areas in their “natural conditions.” Wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act differ from wilderness study areas under the Study Act.

Congress intended wilderness areas to remain as areas where “the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” Generally, the Wilderness Act prohibits permanent roads and motor vehicles in wilderness areas. Montana hosts sixteen wilderness areas.

In contrast to wilderness areas, the 1977 Montana Wilderness Study Act directed the Forest Service to manage wilderness study areas differently. With that act, Congress created nine wilderness study areas. Congress directed the Forest Service to analyze those areas and to recommend to Congress whether to protect them as wilderness areas.

Until Congress decided one way or the other, the Study Act directed the Forest Service “to maintain their presently existing wilderness character and potential” for Congress to designate them as wilderness areas. In the past forty years, Congress removed two wilderness study areas from protection. That left the seven areas where Senator Daines wants to remove protections.

Those seven areas encourage varied public lands uses. While at the U.S. Department of Justice, I defended two wilderness study areas: the Middle Fork Judith and Hyalite-Porcupine-Buffalo Horn. In the Middle Fork Judith case, I argued on behalf of the United States that the Study Act did not require freezing the wilderness character in these ever-changing forests. That would be impossible.

I argued that, instead, the Study Act requires the Forest Service to make sure the wilderness study areas maintain their wilderness character. United States District Judge Sam Haddon disagreed and wanted the Forest Service to freeze their wilderness character. The Forest Service appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overruled Judge Haddon and adopted my interpretation. Now, the Study Act does not stop the Forest Service from managing the seven study areas as long as they stay as wild or wilder than they were in 1977.

In the Middle Fork Judith case, the Forest Service had used the Study Act to separate conflicting users in the Lewis and Clark National Forest Travel Plan. Off-road vehicle users often do not want slow mountain bikers around. Mountain bikers often do not want noisy off-road vehicle users around. The Forest Service prioritized non-motorized vehicles in the Middle Fork Judith Wilderness Study Area, and the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision.

Thus, the Middle Fork Judith Wilderness Study Area travel plan demonstrates how wilderness study areas can aid the Forest Service in separating uses and avoiding conflicts. Removing Study Act protections could increase conflicts on national forests and make management more difficult for federal agencies.

Protecting the wilderness study areas will help ensure all public lands users have access to areas where they can have the outdoors experience they seek — instead of allowing every use everywhere. Opportunities for varied experiences make Montana great and entice tourists to our $7 billion public lands economy.

Senator Daines, the Montana Legislature and others think the time for study is over. Perhaps that is true. But that does not mean Congress has to remove the Study Act protections. Congress can just designate those areas for the Forest Service to preserve their wilderness character. Doing that will help ensure we all have areas for the particular outdoor experience we enjoy.

Jared S. Pettinato is running to represent Montana in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Print Article

Read More Editorial

Lesser-known broadband policy leaves rural areas out

October 19, 2018 at 5:00 am | Western News Connectivity is the defining aspect of our 21st century economy. Access to broadband internet offers the best in education, health care, and economic development. Unfortunately for many, the best isn...

Comments

Read More

Rural communities deserve broadband access

October 19, 2018 at 5:00 am | Western News The people lucky enough to live in Montana’s rural communities know that a few sacrifices come with the territory. But that’s not to say that rural Montanans should be expected to miss out on certain...

Comments

Read More

I-185 is a bad deal for Montanans

October 19, 2018 at 5:00 am | Western News Initiative 185 is a bad deal for Montana that voters should reject. The winners of this bad deal would be the hospitals and their wealthy executives. The losers would be the rest of us: veterans, the...

Comments

Read More

Montana legislature considering housing solutions

October 19, 2018 at 5:00 am | Western News Montana, in both large and small communities, has a shortage of safe homes that people across a spectrum of incomes can afford. That impacts everything from a local business’s ability to recruit work...

Comments

Read More

Contact Us

(406) 293-4124
311 California Ave.
Libby, MT 59923

©2018 The Western News Terms of Use Privacy Policy
X
X