There she goes again. State Senator Jennifer Fielder just returned from the annual meeting of the American Lands Council (ALC) and is proselytizing across the state to “transfer federal lands to willing states for local control.” She continually claims that current public land management is “bad” and that transferring them to the states will result in “better” management.
Let’s be clear. When Ms. Fielder uses the words “public lands” or “federal lands,” in western Montana she means National Forests. This drumbeat to have the states take over our national forests has evoked a significant rejection from many Montanans. Yet she continues unabated in her campaign. Since there is clear opposition to a wholesale transfer, it appears she is now on the path of having federal legislation passed to create a shotgun approach that will blow holes in the jurisdictional fabric of our national forests. If you can’t get what you want by going through the front door, try the back door instead.
The language she uses to describe how state control would work is suspiciously similar to the language in a bill that has already been introduced in Congress and supported by Congressman Zinke: HR 2316, the Self-Sufficient Community Lands Act. The similarity is likely not coincidental.
Senator Fielder calls for the establishment of pilot project areas where state and local citizens would have a more meaningful role in policy decisions and if successful they could seek additional tracts in the future. That raises a whole host of practical and economic questions like: what are the criteria for picking these pilot areas which the bill requires to be at least 200,000 acres in size? Who would pay and how much funding would be needed for timber sale planning startup and post-sale expenses? Where would the money come from to manage people and road maintenance after all the timber is gone? Given how long it takes to grow the next crop of trees, it would be a very long time indeed before we know if the pilot is successful.
She blames unnamed distant federal bureaucrats for making “bad” management decisions. Yes, policy and laws come from Washington D.C., but management decisions are made locally. The Forest Service is decentralized for the very purpose of being responsive to local needs. Forest Service District Rangers, Forest Supervisors and resource professionals are some of the best in the country. They are our neighbors and keenly aware of local interests.
Senator Fielder contends that some other kind of local control will provide “better” public access, environmental health, and economic productivity. I can only assume that her definition of “local control” means giving decision authority to the Board of County Commissioners? I find that idea problematic if that is what she intends. Given that elected county officials are often politically motivated by short-term economic needs and not long-term sustainability, it doesn’t make sense to give them authority for National Forest management decisions. Suggesting that our National Forests would be “better” managed by counties is akin to the fox guarding the hen house.
When the National Forests were established, it was recognized that counties with National Forests within their borders should receive compensation for lost tax revenue. For example, Ravalli County over the years has annually received $2-4 million based on timber sale receipts and “payments in lieu of taxes” (PILT). The county has relied heavily on this income for decades. Unfortunately, in this era where Republicans control Congress and want to reduce the Federal budget, it is understandable the County is nervous that these long standing federal payments might disappear. However, taking control of the National Forest in an attempt to bring back a long gone timber industry is not a sustainable answer to fix the county’s economy.
National Forests embody the uniquely American idea of conservation. For over 100 years these lands have provided benefits ranging from mining to wilderness with the purpose of generating a sustainable supply of water, timber, and wildlife for America. They are a national treasure and the envy of the world. We in the west are incredibly lucky to have them in our backyards, using them for practically nothing, but too often taking them for granted. This notion of transferring the public lands that belong to all Americans to individual states is disrespectful of those original conservationists, is un-American and would ultimately make us a weaker nation.
Instead of seeking new federal legislation to take over management of National Forests, Senator Fielder should use the power of her position to bring all parties together to carry out collaborative community decision making that is already required in existing legislation. We owe it to the original pioneers of conservation who gave us this legacy of public lands to figure out how to work together. The future of this uniquely American idea depends on it.
Margaret Gorski
Stevensville
