Lewistown News-Argus - June 20, 2001

Emotional monumental discussion highlights Missouri River Summit,
by Jacques Rutten

More than five months after the creation of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, neighboring landowners are more concerned than ever about boundaries, grazing, road closures, water and fires.

Supporters, on the other hand, are even more united and adamant about protecting the new monument with the current boundaries and rules intact. Both sides traveled to Lewistown from all over the state Saturday to voice their opinions to Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont) at a summit held to discuss a number of Missouri River issues including Fort Peck Lake, endangered species and the monument.

"It's an emotional issue and it's important for me to understand the concerns of all people affected," said the congressman.

Rehberg was there to listen, and the panel members and audience gave him plenty to hear. More than 225 people gathered at Fergus High School for an emotional discussion regarding the monument.

The 18-member panel ranged from area ranchers and gas developers to representatives of the state's leading environmental organizations. It was apparent early on that the five months since designation had brought the opposing sides no closer to consensus on how best to manage the Breaks.

Representing the Missouri River Stewards, Winifred-area rancher Matt Knox discussed the flaws in the process that went into creating the monument. "The public process was funneled through the RAC (Resource Advisory Council)," said Knox. "However, (Interior Secretary Bruce) Babbitt was telling the congressional delegation if they don't do something legislatively, he would act. To me, that's political extortion. The secretary's action trivialized the public process and made it window dressing."

Former RAC chairman and Coffee Creek area rancher Hugo Tureck admitted the RAC struggled with the process, but said it was fair. "One thing everyone agreed on was to keep it wild," said Tureck. "Keep it free. Don't commercialize it. That became the centerpiece of the proclamation." Tureck drew loud applause from the supporters when he said, "What the monument does is protect traditional uses and prevents destruction."

While many of the supporters in the audience came from outside of Central Montana, former Lewistown News-Argus publisher Dave Byerly assured the congressman there are also many local people in favor of the monument. "You'll hear from many folks today," he told Rehberg. "The truth is-here in Fergus County-there are people on all sides of this issue. And many are in favor of the monument designation. "They favor it for two reasons," continued Byerly. "It's the right thing to do to protect a very special piece of land. And it's the right thing to do for the long-term economic development of Central Montana."

Issues of concern Rehberg heard from all 18 of the panel members and 60 members of the audience. More than half of the audience members who spoke said they support the monument in its current form. The others raised concerns about a number of issues.

Dave Kozub, a panel member representing the Montana Outfitters and Guides who works as a hunting outfitter in the Breaks, said private business owners, like cattle ranchers and gas companies, fear what the government will do down the road in regards to what they will allow on the public land. "We want private business to continue as it has and for things to be left as they are," said Kozub.

Knox addressed several issues of critical importance to neighboring ranchers: the boundaries of the monument and the private land within those boundaries, water, natural gas development and the interim management plan Fergus County Farm Bureau President Dale Strouf echoed Knox¹s concerns and went on to say that ATV use should not be restricted for ranchers and raised concerns about the spread of noxious weeds.

"The inclusion of private lands within the boundaries concerns us greatly," he said. "How is the management plan going to address private property?" He urged Rehberg and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to keep sight of what the land was traditionally used for. "As the old cliché goes, if it ain't broke, why fix it?"

Representing the Montana Stockgrowers, Rebecca Wood said the monument should be reduced to the size of the Wild and Scenic River. The current monument encompasses a total of 495,451 acres. Of that, 374, 976 acres are BLM land, 38,760 acres are state land and 81,715 acres are private. The Wild and Scenic portion of the river encompasses 131,838 acres of mixed federal, state and private land. The Wild and Scenic designation is still in place under monument status.

Wood drew a loud ovation from the audience by crediting area ranchers for the current pristine condition of the Breaks. "It's in the condition it's in because of ag producers," she said.

Representative John Witt of Chouteau County said the people he represents want the boundaries reduced. "They¹re concerned about the private lands," he said, then asked BLM state director Matt Millenbach directly, "Why have road closures begun?" Witt said the BLM doesn't do a good job of managing the lands they have and wondered how they will handle the additional acreage.

Numerous members of the audience also commented on those issues, including Tom Walling, who called the monument an "infringement on my private rights." He told Rehberg he did not even know he had 320 acres of land within the boundaries until after the monument was designated.

Winifred's Ron Poertner said he had a number of concerns about the monument, but the one that tops the list "is the 80,000 acres of private land" within the boundaries.

Twelve-year-old Sally Knox told Rehberg, "It's not only adults who care about the monument." She, like many others, asked for a reduction in the size of the monument.

Oscar Cantu and Les Slivka of Winifred raised concerns about fighting fires in the monument. "We can offer fire protection a lot cheaper than the federal government," said Slivka.

Carl Seilstad, speaking on behalf of the Fergus County Commissioners, said they are not opposed to the monument. He said they welcome tourism and would like the headquarters to be located in Lewistown, but added they feel the boundaries need to be adjusted to the size of the Wild and Scenic River.

Robert Fink said the monument takes away our freedom, while Frank Bass of Lewistown questioned the "fly-over" regulations on the monument and said private pilots are opposed to the designation.

Lewistown's Christaleah Carlson put it bluntly: "I don¹t flat out trust our government."

Rudy Stulc of Winifred summed up the concerns of many by explaining there are the old industries of ranching and oil and gas in the Breaks, and now there is the new industry of tourism. "The ranchers have it (Breaks), and the tourism industry wants it," said Stulc. "Somewhere we have to reach a consensus."

Stulc said there isn¹t a rancher out there who is opposed to tourism. But they are concerned at what expense it will come. "Politicians and elected officials die, but what they do stays with us. We are very, very concerned that we're getting the short end of the stick."

Oil and gas

The oil and gas industries were also well represented at Saturday's summit. Under monument status valid existing leases will be allowed to be developed, but there will be no new leasing.

Ralph Gailey, president of Macum Energy, said they have 4,000 acres leased for natural gas. He explained the many benefits and low impacts to the environment associated with natural gas.

"It leaves a very small footprint," added Gail Abercrombie of the Montana Petroleum Association. "We have the taxes for this area, the natural gas to produce and the people to do it."

Both she and Gailey raised concerns about the size of the monument. Abercrombie said it was shaped like a "pregnant guppy," referring to the monument's narrow western side and large east end.

Supporters come from far and wide

While the majority of those who spoke against the monument at Saturday's meeting were from the Winifred-area, supporters traveled great lengths to let Rehberg know their feelings.

Glenn Monahan, a panel member representing the Friends of the Missouri River Breaks Monument, called it "a gift to the Central Montana economy." He pointed out tourism is a $1.64 billion industry that employs as many people as agriculture.

Byerly said the monument will provide a much-needed economic boost to the local area. "Our economy and our communities here in Central Montana are in trouble," said Byerly. "The monument designation is no cure all for our problems but it is one of the very few things we have going for us."

He expressed concern about the proposal to shrink the boundaries of the monument. "I am reminded a little of those good folks in Kalispell who fought the creation of Glacier National Park, saying it would ruin their local economy. I believe to dramatically shrink the monument boundary is to dramatically shrink the economic opportunity it offers our county, tomorrow and in the centuries to come."

Representing the Montana Wildlife Federation, Dave Dittloff said his organization supports the monument because it provides the framework for keeping the Breaks the way it is, "the way we like it," he said. Ditloff said the most important thing the boundary did was include the Arrow Creek Breaks, because it is important wildlife habitat.

Dennis Tighe said the Montana Wilderness Association (MWA) supports the monument because it encompasses the last 7 percent of unspoiled river and uplands along the entire Missouri.

One after another, audience members from around the state stood up to voice their support of the monument.

A World War II veteran from Great Falls told Rehberg, "I think it's worth preserving these areas we fought for."

Many of the supporters made their comments directly to other members in the audience. Chouteau County resident Wendy Whitehorn said she had prepared a statement before arriving but grew so dismayed by what she had heard from monument opponents that she decided to address another issue she admitted "was not going to be pleasant."

"I keep hearing you people say you don't trust the government," she said to the audience members. "But you sure trust them to get your CRP payments and your cheap grazing, don't you.?"

Ross Rodgers of Bozeman took offense to the implication that because he does not live right next to the monument, he is not affected by it and should not have any input regarding how it is managed. "I'm a Montanan. I'm an American. I'm directly affected by it," he said.

Kathy Lloyd said she had done a great deal of research concerning the public process that went into creating the monument and said overall, it was "exemplary." "The monument is a priceless gift," said Lloyd.

Stuart Lewin, an attorney from Great Falls who represents many farmers and ranchers and is also a self-described "strong environmentalist," told opponents of the monument, "You people are making a huge mistake in not supporting this monument."

Looking ahead

After hearing from panelists and the audience, it was clear feelings over the monument are still as divided as ever before. Less clear was the purpose of the summit or where it will lead.

MWA president Bob Decker asked Rehberg to commit to a full public process if he plans to make any changes to the monument. The congressman said the public would be involved.

The interim management plan for the monument was developed earlier this spring and released for public comment. The plan is currently being reviewed at the BLM state office and should be finalized sometime this month. The interim plan will be used until funding becomes available to begin the public process of developing the long-term management plan for the monument.

Knox said, among other things, he would like to see a moratorium or else further review of the interim management plan. Looking ahead, he is cautiously optimistic about the future of the monument. "I hope we can address these issues and fix them," he said, adding they are willing to work together and "bury the hatchet."

Many members of the audience wondered why the summit was being held now, rather than six months ago, before the monument was designated. Rehberg said the meeting would simply allow him to make more informed decisions with regard to the monument in the future.

"For a legislator, there is no greater duty than to continue to listen," he said. "Especially about an issue as important as the Missouri River is to Montana."