Denny Rehberg's guest column today.
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/06/01/opinion/guest/guest78.txt
On May 5, I testified on behalf of thousands of Montanans against the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act. NREPA would turn more than 24 million acres of federal land into wilderness across Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. For perspective, 24 million acres is larger than the districts of any of the bill’s 90 House co-sponsors, and it’s more than 3,000 times larger than the lead sponsor’s 13-square-mile district in New York City.
The issue isn’t whether protecting our federal lands is a worthwhile objective. It is. The issue is whether the top-down approach NREPA takes is the best way to do it. Reasonable people can disagree, and in that spirit, Paul Richards recently penned an op-ed (Missoulian, May 28) in which he refers to opponents of NREPA as “anti-wilderness rednecks.” While I don’t believe name-calling is the best approach to having a reasonable disagreement, I nonetheless respect Richards’ dedication to this issue.
Unfortunately, it’s evident that many of NREPA’s supporters share Richards’ misunderstanding of why so many Montanans oppose this legislation. Perhaps they truly believe that folks who live in the Northern Rockies are ignorant rednecks who need sophisticated New Yorkers to tell us how to manage public lands. So if you’re new to this issue and aren’t sure if you’re a hick or an urban sophisticate, it may be helpful to consider some of the reasons Richards and others might think you’re a redneck for opposing NREPA:
- If you think Montanans are better equipped to manage federal land in the Rockies than Washington, D.C. bureaucrats, you might be a redneck.
- If you, like the entire Montana congressional delegation, are worried about gun bans on federal lands, you might be a redneck.
- If you can’t afford an airplane to get you to inaccessible camping or hunting grounds, you might be a redneck.
- If you own private land that would be surrounded by new wilderness without any guarantee of access to your land, you might be a redneck.
- If you want to ease the challenge in fighting wildfires, you might be a redneck.
- If you support an active response to 1.6 million-plus acres of dead and dying trees from pine beetle infestations, you might be a redneck.
As you can see, there are legitimate reasons to oppose NREPA. It might not be redneck ignorance after all.
If Richards had seen my entire testimony n which is available on YouTube at www.youtube.com/dennyrehberg n he would know that the 10,000 Montanans who contacted me in opposition to NREPA are not opposed to wilderness at all. In fact, quite the opposite; we support responsible conservation. We just respectfully disagree that the best source of responsible conservation will come from New York City or Washington, D.C. Real conservation isn’t about making tough decisions for someone else who lives thousands of miles away.
The simple fact is, NREPA would actually do more harm to the land it seeks to protect by locking out the local expertise of the people who live, play and work there. The worst thing we can do for the public land we all cherish so much is put faceless federal agencies in control of something as important as land management.
Richards is right when he says these lands belong to Americans, but it’s important to understand this also includes the people who live in the Northern Rockies. As I said in my testimony, wilderness expansion must be consensus-driven. Instead of calling people with legitimate concerns names, NREPA advocates should spend their time developing that consensus.
It’s revealing that NREPA has not earned the support of a single representative n neither Republican or Democrat n from the regions it affects. I’ve heard from county commissioners, state representatives, ranchers, timber workers, sportsmen and women and recreationalists who have expressed their opposition in letters, faxes, e-mails, survey responses and even a rapidly growing Facebook group.
If we’re going to ensure the rugged beauty of Montana remains the Last Best Place for generations to come, we’ll need to move beyond name-calling. I will continue to reach out to folks like Richards and encourage them to put rigid ideology aside and instead come together to find workable solutions that truly reflect Montana.
Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., is a member of the House Appropriations Committee. His full testimony can be read online at www.rightmontana.com/ dennyrehberg/2009/05/05/2880.
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2009/06/01/opinion/guest/guest78.txt
On May 5, I testified on behalf of thousands of Montanans against the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act. NREPA would turn more than 24 million acres of federal land into wilderness across Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, eastern Washington and eastern Oregon. For perspective, 24 million acres is larger than the districts of any of the bill’s 90 House co-sponsors, and it’s more than 3,000 times larger than the lead sponsor’s 13-square-mile district in New York City.
The issue isn’t whether protecting our federal lands is a worthwhile objective. It is. The issue is whether the top-down approach NREPA takes is the best way to do it. Reasonable people can disagree, and in that spirit, Paul Richards recently penned an op-ed (Missoulian, May 28) in which he refers to opponents of NREPA as “anti-wilderness rednecks.” While I don’t believe name-calling is the best approach to having a reasonable disagreement, I nonetheless respect Richards’ dedication to this issue.
Unfortunately, it’s evident that many of NREPA’s supporters share Richards’ misunderstanding of why so many Montanans oppose this legislation. Perhaps they truly believe that folks who live in the Northern Rockies are ignorant rednecks who need sophisticated New Yorkers to tell us how to manage public lands. So if you’re new to this issue and aren’t sure if you’re a hick or an urban sophisticate, it may be helpful to consider some of the reasons Richards and others might think you’re a redneck for opposing NREPA:
- If you think Montanans are better equipped to manage federal land in the Rockies than Washington, D.C. bureaucrats, you might be a redneck.
- If you, like the entire Montana congressional delegation, are worried about gun bans on federal lands, you might be a redneck.
- If you can’t afford an airplane to get you to inaccessible camping or hunting grounds, you might be a redneck.
- If you own private land that would be surrounded by new wilderness without any guarantee of access to your land, you might be a redneck.
- If you want to ease the challenge in fighting wildfires, you might be a redneck.
- If you support an active response to 1.6 million-plus acres of dead and dying trees from pine beetle infestations, you might be a redneck.
As you can see, there are legitimate reasons to oppose NREPA. It might not be redneck ignorance after all.
If Richards had seen my entire testimony n which is available on YouTube at www.youtube.com/dennyrehberg n he would know that the 10,000 Montanans who contacted me in opposition to NREPA are not opposed to wilderness at all. In fact, quite the opposite; we support responsible conservation. We just respectfully disagree that the best source of responsible conservation will come from New York City or Washington, D.C. Real conservation isn’t about making tough decisions for someone else who lives thousands of miles away.
The simple fact is, NREPA would actually do more harm to the land it seeks to protect by locking out the local expertise of the people who live, play and work there. The worst thing we can do for the public land we all cherish so much is put faceless federal agencies in control of something as important as land management.
Richards is right when he says these lands belong to Americans, but it’s important to understand this also includes the people who live in the Northern Rockies. As I said in my testimony, wilderness expansion must be consensus-driven. Instead of calling people with legitimate concerns names, NREPA advocates should spend their time developing that consensus.
It’s revealing that NREPA has not earned the support of a single representative n neither Republican or Democrat n from the regions it affects. I’ve heard from county commissioners, state representatives, ranchers, timber workers, sportsmen and women and recreationalists who have expressed their opposition in letters, faxes, e-mails, survey responses and even a rapidly growing Facebook group.
If we’re going to ensure the rugged beauty of Montana remains the Last Best Place for generations to come, we’ll need to move beyond name-calling. I will continue to reach out to folks like Richards and encourage them to put rigid ideology aside and instead come together to find workable solutions that truly reflect Montana.
Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., is a member of the House Appropriations Committee. His full testimony can be read online at www.rightmontana.com/ dennyrehberg/2009/05/05/2880.
