Land swap in the Breaks Monument a bad idea

The last thing landowners operating in the shadow of the Missouri Breaks Monument wanted to hear is that Gov. Brian Schweitzer and BLM Director Bob Abbey are reportedly in lock step over plans to swap out all the state land in the Monument.

Landowners are aware that monuments have a way of morphing into national parks and the removal of state and private land holdings could be a step toward that end.

At present, there is little chance a national park in the Breaks would be approved because parks cost money to run and our government is broke. But, during better economic times, elimination of checkerboard land patterns and the right political climate, it could happen.

The motivation for swapping out state lands in the Monument seems to come from a different venue right now.

For the state, the driver is to generate more revenue to support schools or pad the state's general fund. If a land swap meets that criterion, Schweitzer tells us it probably gets "pounced" on by him and his "world class land traders" at DNRC.

For the BLM, there is an innate reflex to block up federal land holdings in an area to achieve a single land managing agency and to facilitate ecosystem management. Competing interests from state and private sectors are eliminated and federal rule making is easier to apply.

Add to the mix Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's Treasured Landscape Initiative that calls for eliminating checkerboard land patterns and for specific funding to buy out private land in the Breaks Monument.

To advocacy groups like the Wilderness Society and the so-called Friends of the Monument, the land swap is a wonderful idea they plan to peddle to BLM Director Abbey during his visit to Montana. They tell us it's about money for schools, but it's really about advancing their narrow agenda of land preservation and locking up federal lands. The law suit these groups filed against the BLM's management plan for the Monument validates that conclusion.

Regardless of the driving force behind the land swap, landowners say hold your horses because it's a bad idea.

State land ownership in the Monument enables the state to keep its oar in the water for all land management considerations. Doing so affords leasees a measure of protection against unnecessary change and the heavy hand of federal government. Maintaining private and state interests in the Monument transcends the notion that land swaps should only be about money and is a long term hedge against a national park or wilderness designation.

Land swaps can be a risky venture. While a tract of BLM land may hold promise of greater value to the state, there is no guarantee that value will be realized. Environmental litigants are ready at the drop of a hat to sue any agency over resource use that doesn't fit their preservation mantra.

The stewardship, culture and land use patterns that have existed in the Breaks for over one hundred years has made it the special place it is. Let's not screw up a winning combination and cave in to special interest groups that seem to have sway in Helena and Washington.

Absent any plans for an open public process on this matter, you can bet the farm that private land stake holders in the Monument are going to dig in their heels and oppose any land swap.

(Ron Poertner of Winifred is secretary of Missouri River Stewards.)