Michael Garrity gives a thoughtful account of The Political Viability of NREPA citing the Speaker of the House and Chairman of the Natural Resources committee’s support.

A lot of good things may be on the horizon for those willing to push.

About The Author

Brian Ertz

7 Responses to The Political Viability of NREPA

  1. matt bullard says:

    It should also be noted that this story ran along side a piece on newwest.net by Tim Baker of the Montana Wilderness Association. Baker’s piece advocates for the much maligned (around here) collaborative approach to wilderness advocacy.


  2. April Clauson says:

    Now that is a real good piece of news, I hope NREPA can succeed in this, it would put a whole new twist on all concerns in the west we have regarding our wildlife also, not just the road less issue, I think??

  3. Thank you for the info, Matt.

    I’ve had the flu for a couple days. Brian has been running the blog, and I want to thank him for taking over for me.

    Ralph Maughan

  4. Robert Hoskins says:

    Yes, Tim Baker’s piece was pretty much the old Rodney King, can’t we all get along?

    Well, no.

  5. matt bullard says:

    Glad you added to the conversation in a positive way as usual, Robert. Pretty apparent to me that it is generally a waste of time to bring up points of view that challenge the hard line, no compromise approach around here sometimes.

    For what it’s worth, I thought Garrity piece made a compelling argument, but I still believe that NREPA represents a safe bill for non-intermountain west congressfolk to support, knowing full well that it will not move given the political reality that those types of bills traditionally, in Congress, must have local support to gain any traction. While I agree with the concept that NREPA represents, I still don’t see it as politically viable. But that’s just my opinion…

  6. JB says:

    I think Bill Schneider’s words are worth reviewing…

    “Two weeks ago, I posted a Wild Bill column about how the feud between wilderness groups stifling efforts to protect roadless lands. Both groups…were unhappy with what I said and the comment section filled up with many insightful reasons why green groups have such dissimilar approaches to protecting roadless lands.” [He goes on to ask reps from these organziations (Garrity and Baker) to author articles explaining why].

    Frankly, I didn’t see anything in either article that actually addressed “why green groups have such dissimilar approaches,” which is a shame. I agree with Schneider, arguing over who’s “greener” doesn’t help anyone. It only creates divisions where there should be unity. There’s no reason for people interested in Wilderness to view these as either-or approaches. I’m for NREPA; but I recognize that it MAY not be passable (hell, it may not even get to the floor). However, I also believe the efforts of the Montana Wilderness Association are a step in the right direction–they represent incremental progress. There’s absolutely no sense in throwing away 560,000 acres of wilderness of wilderness because you don’t get the 7 million–and certainly no reason to condemn Baker for promoting a plan that creates new wilderness–this is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    My 2 cents.

  7. JB says:


    I, for one, don’t view the path Baker advocates as a compromise. Any step forward is better than standing still!



February 2008


‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey