I really love your paper, but I am sorely disappointed in the article by Michael Howell on what it means to lift the WSA designations.
First, early in the article, it would have been more balanced to say that there would still be hurdles before substantial logging could take place and mechanized/motorized vehicles would be allowed but that mining could take place immediately. In other words, front load. The way the article is written, someone who doesn’t turn to the second page would think that those of us opposed to stripping the designations are overreacting. I myself felt a little better–from the first page. I turned the page and was horrified.
The problem is that many do not turn the page. The entire first page is from the point of view of those who support Daines’ and Gianforte’s bills.
And while the article quotes extensively from men who support and/or whose jobs are to defend the plan (if we’re being honest) but does not quote at all from anyone who opposes the bills. For example, the Montana Wilderness Association is a very old organization with much support and credibility. It would have been a balanced article had Howell interviewed someone from MWA or from Montana Wildlife Federation, or one of the many other groups who oppose the bills. Furthermore, there is a substantial body of evidence about the impact of roads on animals, soil, and water. Such evidence might have been included if you want to give a fair assessment of “what it means” to lift the designations.
Again, I love the paper, but I am surprised and disappointed at this article.
Michelle Long
Stevensville