Collaboration shaping land use in Montana

In the past when hikers, bikers, bird watchers, hunters, loggers, snowmobilers, motorcyclists, landowners and campers wanted to weigh in on federal land use policy, they staked their claims and held their ground. Negotiation with the “enemy” was nonexistent, even a sign of failure in some circles.

But today, more groups are sitting down at the table, finding common ground and negotiating long before they come to an agency like the Forest Service. Call it the era of collaboration.

Some groups still don’t like to sit down at the table, preferring to argue their agendas from the bully pulpit or in court, but those who collaborate are hopeful that, over time, positive land management can be accomplished that everyone can live with.

Last week’s announcement that a major bipartisan land use bill had been negotiated by Montana lawmakers was a welcome sign, a group of collaborators said in a conference call last week.

“This (bill) was a great start,” said Bob Brown, the former Republican Montana Secretary of State. “This is a great signal … It could lead to more common ground.”

Brown served as the moderator for the Whitefish Range Partnership, a local collaborative group interested in land management for the North Fork area.

Brown said the bill resulted in compromises between Senator-elect Steve Daines and Sen. Jon Tester, who wanted his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act included in the land-use bill. His bill didn’t make it, but the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act was included.

Daines hadn’t publicly endorsed the Front act until last week, and his support came with the release of several wilderness study areas in southeast Montana.

Brown said that’s the way government is meant to work. The Front act itself grew out of a collaborative process.

“Compromise is not a four-letter word,” Brown said.

The Whitefish Range Partnership came up with a host of recommendations for managing the North Fork area into the future. Their plan endorsed a wide range of land uses, from logging to wilderness. Once they sat down at the table, Brown said, the various interest groups found they had more in common than they thought.

The hope is that as the Flathead National Forest devises a new Forest Plan in the coming year, those recommendations will be implemented.

The idea of collaboration to empower the center, said Michael Jamison, of the National Parks Conservation Association — people who are tired of political gridlock.

“I think people are sick and tired of (gridlock),” Brown noted.

The process can also be good for industry and for jobs. Julia Altemus, executive vice president of the Montana Wood Products Association, said her group was happy to see the Wilderness Society taking a hard look at the collaborative process across Montana.

“Several members of the Association participate in collaborative groups and believe collaboration is a tool to guide discussions for Montana’s future, an opportunity to consider the needs and interests of the timber industry, conservationists, recreationists, hunters, anglers and others looking to restore landscapes and sustain timber-dependent communities,” she said.

Collaborative efforts, however, should not have more weight in land management decisions than individual or “fringe” opinions, Brown said.

“We need to have differences of opinion,” he said.

Having said that, Brown also recalled a saying from his days as president of the Montana Senate.

“Everyone is entitled to their say, but no one is entitled to their way,” he said.