Great Falls Tribune Opinion - August 12, 2001
by Dennis Tighe, President, Friends of the Missouri Breaks Monument

National monument is no threat to ranchers' property rights

We have just ended a three-day whirlwind of public meetings on the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument by a task force comprised almost exclusively of monument opponents.

Prior to the monument's designation, we had a year and a half of public hearings and open debate. Unhappy with the designation, monument opponents demanded a replay in a new arena.

Monument opponents did not win over any converts. Most of their opinions were based on unfounded speculation, suffered from a creepy distrust of the government, and demonstrated an unwillingness to balance interests or protect the unique values of the area.

Management of the monument balances the interests of local landowners and local authorities with the public's desire to preserve the historic, biologic, and scenic attributes of this landscape.

Traditional uses such as hunting, boating and grazing are kept intact, and gas exploration and development on valid existing leases can continue. In turn, public land is preserved just the way it is, benefiting wildlife and the stark beauty of the breaks, while providing new economic opportunities for communities bordering the monument.

The anti-monument folks are not satisfied with this balanced approach or with exploring new opportunities. They want to eviscerate the monument by shrinking its boundary. Some even urge that the boundary of the Wild and Scenic Missouri River must be changed! Their tool is an unabashed misinformation campaign.

From insinuating that Secretary Babbitt had secret meetings with environmentalists in Great Falls, to charging that the monument will be under United Nations control, they have completely lost sight of the landscape they claim to love. They no longer talk about keeping the area the way it is or of preserving the wildness; instead, they argue that the monument is too restrictive because they cannot develop gravel pits, drive off-road vehicles everywhere on the land, explore for gas along new roads to every corner or promote commercial overflights.

Some have abandoned common sense when they talk about grazing and private property. Grazing on public land is a contract right, not an inherent right. Grazing in the monument is governed by existing standards and guidelines administered by the BLM, just like grazing on other BLM land.

The monument proclamation clearly states these facts, yet monument foes continue to falsely claim that ranchers' livelihoods will be harmed. Their only supporting argument is that they do not trust the government. Apparently, they do not trust our democracy.

Monument opponents do not talk about private property except in terms of a mythical land grab or confiscation that came with designation. No land has been taken.

Private property within the monument boundary is not part of the monument, only the public land within the boundary is part of the monument. This simple concept is lost on the critics. Indeed, since 1977 almost 35,000 acres of private land has been within the Wild and Scenic corridor without much concern.

The monument includes private property within its border for the sake of management efficiency. If a willing landowner offers property within the boundary to the public, then it automatically becomes part of the monument. Otherwise, it would take an act of Congress to add this acreage to the monument. Another simple concept lost on the critics.

Monument opponents complained that they did not see maps of the area to be protected before the designation. Not true. In February 1999 the BLM published a map of BLM and private land encompassed within a boundary that included the Wild and Scenic Missouri and much of the upland breaks outside the river corridor. The map depicted the area the BLM believed needed special protection. The agency presented this map to legislators and county commissioners.

The map was printed in the Tribune in 1999 accompanying an article on the wild Missouri. The truth is that monument opponents were not interested in the monument boundary because they did not want a monument at all.

It is disingenuous for opponents to complain that they were not consulted about the boundary when they never wanted a boundary to begin with and chose not to get involved in the discussion.