Dear HCN,
I believe Ray Ring’s
piece on Montana environmental politics lacks a broader contextual
framework that would provide insight and result in different
conclusions.
The suggestion that Montana’s
progressive environmental legislation passed in the early 1970s due
to greater collaboration with rural industries misses a big
historical point. Although briefly acknowledged by Ring, the
progressive environmental legislation enacted in Montana during the
1970s was not unique to Montana, nor is the current conservative
bent of Montana’s Legislature necessarily the result of reduced
collaboration or a negative backlash against environmental
protection.
The early 1970s were the high point
for environmental legislation throughout the West and nation.
Oregon passed its landmark statewide land-use planning laws in the
1970s. Idaho’s congressional delegation helped to protect the River
of No Return/Frank Church Wilderness. During the same period, we
passed such national legislation as the Clean Water Act and
Endangered Species Act, among other laws. Progressive environmental
legislation was passed throughout the West and nation due to a
unique set of historical factors that came together at this time,
not because of greater collaboration or environmental concern, as
Ring suggests.
By the same token, the
conservative bent of Montana’s governor and Legislature today is
due to a number of complex factors that Ring doesn’t even
acknowledge. Demographic studies have documented that many of the
recent immigrants who moved into Montana and other Western states
like Idaho, Utah and Colorado are white, politically conservative
folks fleeing California. While their overall numbers are small,
their effect on low-population states like Montana is huge. Many of
these new immigrants are not exactly hostile to environmental
concerns, and may even be drawn to Montana for its natural beauty
and outdoor recreation opportunities, but they generally come with
a “less government regulation is better” attitude. This plays well
with established rural-dominated extractive industries, hence helps
to elect anti-government legislatures that seek to dismantle
environmental laws.
But that doesn’t mean that
citizens in Montana fully support this frontal attack on
environmental protection. Witness the statewide support of an
initiative that banned cyanide heap leach mining – a law that would
have never passed the far more conservative state legislature. As
Ring acknowledges, Gov. Judy Martz barely won the election. She did
not have a big mandate to dismantle Montana’s environmental
protection.
Whether greater collaboration between
environmentalists and resource industries would achieve greater
environmental protection I’ll leave for others to argue, but I do
believe that Ring misreads the Montana political landscape, and
knocks Montana’s many fine environmental organizations
undeservedly.
George
Wuerthner
Eugene,
Oregon
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Ring misreads Montana.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
