Billings Gazette - 10/5/03
Voice of the reader - Rehberg's Breaks bill unnecessary
The grand exploration by Lewis and Clark is being commemorated. Visitors are planning to see the land of this historic American adventure. The Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument will be an important destination for many of these new explorers. As a former Bureau of Land Management state director for Montana, I was fortunate to participate in the management of this historic public land area.
There has been much controversy through the decades on management of the Breaks. The not-so-surprising fact is that most Montanans, as well as landowners, want to keep the Breaks unspoiled. There has been almost no controversy about the appropriateness of the ranching and cattle grazing with in the area.
Unfortunately, Rep. Dennis Rehberg has reintroduced a bill that will stir controversy yet again.
His unnecessary bill would remove private land from the national monument. This distracts from the needed work to forge partnerships and good working relationships between landowners, BLM, people who want economic development from tourism and recreationists.
The private property question has been answered clearly, convincingly and repeatedly. Simply put, the monument will not take away anyone's property, home or access to his or her land. The monument does not encumber private land, alter how livestock is managed, building of structures or change how wildfire would be fought. This straightforward answer has been stated repeatedly by BLM officials at all levels during the current and past administration.
Rep. Rehberg's proposed legislation would have additional unintended consequences. Such a bill, for example, would make it much more difficult for private landowners to sell or trade their property to the BLM on a willing seller/willing buyer basis. Congress would have to pass additional and separate laws to add BLM-acquired land back into the Monument.
Lewis and Clark said, "We moved on." Montana's leadership should move on.
Mike Penfold, Billings
10/1/03 - Great Falls Tribune
Bad legislation
In July the BLM invited the public to a series of 11 meetings in communities throughout central Montana to discuss future management of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. In a spirit of tolerance, openness and cooperation, Montanans offered ideas and opinions on preserving and protecting historic, cultural and wildlife integrity of central Montana's premier landscape.
Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., now wants to cut the growing bonds of tolerance and cooperation with legislation to change the boundary of the monument. Relying on baseless suspicion of future agency plans, his bill calls for eliminating any cooperation between the BLM and private landowners who may want to sell or trade their land to the government so that it can be included in the monument.
Today, that kind of fair value exchange can occur without congressmen from other states controlling the outcome, but if Rehberg's bill becomes law, that all changes and there is no guarantee that any land would be added to the Monument.
We are approaching the third anniversary of the creation of the Monument. Private land is as protected today as it was before the Monument designation. Congressman Rehberg needs to encourage cooperation and exchange, not hinder it with damaging legislation.
Dennis Tighe, Great Falls
Lewistown News Argus - 10/1/03 and Great Falls Tribune - 10/8/03
Rehberg's Monument bill is unnecessary
Dear Editor,
There are certain things in life that are just plain unnecessary when one considers the complexity of life today and the desire for many people to simplify. One that immediately comes to mind is Rep. Dennis Rehberg's bill to remove private property inholdings from within the boundaries of Montana's Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. This legislation threatens a cherished public goal of protecting, in its entirety, an irreplaceable part of our natural and national heritage.
First, let me say that property rights of private landholders inside the Monument are already secure, so this legislation is unnecessary. Designation applies only to federal lands. Therefore, folks who own land surrounded by the Monument are guaranteed access to their property and functions they perform on their land are as secure as any outside the Monument.
Another issue for landowners is that if they wish to sell their land to the Bureau of Land Management in the future, it is less likely that the BLM would purchase it, knowing that they would have to go through the entire Congressional process to have the acreage declared part of the Monument.
Last, but definitely not least, this could jeopardize more than just this Monument. It raises questions about the basis for boundaries of other national monuments, national parks, and other lands managed by the Department of Interior. For a zero gain, why would we give the American taxpayers yet another long term cost for this unnecessary legislation?
Call Rep. Rehberg and tell him this is frivolous; there are more important issues to be addressed.
Gerry Jennings, Great Falls
