By Skip Kowalski, Board Member, Montana Wildlife Federation, Stevensville
I found Keith Kubista’s May 2nd Guest Comment in the Bitterroot Star, titled “Releasing WSAs will improve access for sportsmen”, disturbing. He categorically states: “Wilderness study areas (WSAs) have resulted in less access for Montana sportsmen and sportswomen”, “that releasing these WSAs follows the science” and “Continuing to keep these areas as WSAs has a negative impact on the public, particularly those of us who’d like to hunt, fish, trap and enjoy other outdoor recreation”. These statements are misleading. They focus on a very narrow view of access to public lands and are biased toward supporting his personal perspective that wild areas have little value to sportsmen.
The definition of “access to public lands” takes different forms depending on one’s objective. They include: (1) the manner in which one legally crosses private lands (easements, rights of way, obtaining landowner permission); (2) the purpose for being there (hunting, fishing, hiking, getting away from it all); (3) the mode of travel (automobile, ATV, horseback, by foot) and (4) how one’s presence impacts the environment and other users (impacts to soil, water and wildlife, noise, solitude, camaraderie).
Constrained by his narrow view of “access”, Kubista is surprised that other groups “that normally support increasing public access” disagree with him. To him, “access” apparently means that, unless everyone can crisscross every acre of public land with some type of motorized vehicle, people are “locked out” of public lands.
Some sportsmen, however, perceive access more broadly. Instead of viewing access entirely in terms of motorized recreation, they consider access to include the ability to use motorized equipment to get to the trailhead, park their vehicle and pursue a backcountry recreation experience without the aid of motorized equipment. In this case, the main objective is to experience peace and quiet while pursuing or observing wildlife in a relatively undisturbed setting. This definition of access has nothing to do with constructing roads or promoting development of the back country.
Access can also mean ensuring that one has the legal right to cross private property. Situations do exist, some legitimate and some not, where private land owners deny the public access to public lands. Gaining legal access in these situations is a high priority for many conservation groups and has nothing to do with how public land is used.
Stating that science shows WSAs reduce hunting opportunity is also misleading. Wildlife scientists have long understood that big game, especially elk, avoid roads during the hunting season and seek remote areas to escape hunting pressure. As areas of security habitat are increasingly accessed by roads, elk are more vulnerable to hunters and harvest quotas are reached more quickly. This ultimately leads to shorter hunting seasons and a fall-off in the quality of hunting.
Since one size doesn’t fit all and access issues go well beyond WSAs, land management agencies should provide a variety of access types that cover the entire range of public land users. Managers should also consider the long-term availability and potential loss of access for specific recreation user groups. In my opinion, because much of the public landscape is already accessed by some type of road, we probably need fewer developed areas – not more.
Supporting a comprehensive land use strategy, that accounts for all of the different types of access user groups while accommodating the needs of wildlife, soil and water, should eliminate much of the confusion and conflict over public access. Everyone may not get all they want, but, done correctly, there should be sufficient amounts and kinds of access to meet everyone’s desires, including the needs of Montana’s precious fish and wildlife.