Montanans on both sides of monument review

Though locals and travelers are drawn to the Upper Missouri River Breaks national monument's abundance of wildlife and history, Winifred-area rancher Trevis Butcher said he and other locals call it "the bloated guppy" because the way it is drawn on a map it looks like a dead fish.

"All it was was Bill Clinton's administration outlined the known natural gas reserves and declared it a monument," said Butcher, who added that he was "overwhelmingly opposed" to the establishment of the monument.

Butcher said he supports the Department of the Interior reviewing the designation of the monument, one of a list of monuments designated since 1996, President Donald Trump ordered Interior Secretary Ryan ZInke review. The first recommendation from the review had Zinke recommend the president shrink the Bears Ear monument in Utah, a controversial monument created by President Barack Obama.

Monument designation has been controversial since President Theodore Roosevelt first used the Antiquities Act, which he signed into law in 1906. His designation of the Grand Canyon National Monument in 1908 went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1920 upheld the designation.

Trump signed an executive order instructing the U.S. Department of the Interior to review the designation and size of national monuments created or expanded after Jan 1, 1996 that are 100,000 acres or more. The order also says the Secretary of the Interior has the authority to review the designation or expansion of any monument where the public did not have enough of a chance to weigh in.

During the review period people will be able to comment in support of or against the designation or expansion. People will have until July 10 to submit messages about the monument designations by going to http://www.regulations.gov.

The Department of the Interior released the names of 26 monuments under review, including the Breaks. Days after the list was released, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said during a visit to Havre that the review is meant to give "a seat at the table" to people in communities where national monuments are created.

Not everyone in the region agrees that the monument should be reviewed.

Jim Brenna of Havre, though, worries the focus on local voices in communities around monuments could come at the expense of people outside the area who support them.

"It's land that belongs to all Americans, you and I and people in New York and Los Angeles and it doesn't just belong to people who live right next to the monument or the Breaks," Brenna said.

Recent polling from the Montana Wildlife Federation released last week says a majority 59 percent oppose eliminating the Upper Missouri River Breaks monument or reducing it in size. The poll was taken May 21-25 of 702 likely voters in the 2018 election.

Brenna said the monument should remain designated as it is.

"Let's not degrade it. Let's preserve it and protect it," Brenna said.

The Breaks monument consists of 377,000 acres of federal land. About 40,000 acres of state lands and 80,000 acres of private land are within the boundaries of the monument, meaning if the federal government buys any of that land it automatically becomes part of the monument.

Butcher said since the monument was designated, access to certain roads and airstrips have been restricted, adding that he would like the monument to either be shrunk or its designation undone.

Hugo Tureck, a rancher from Coffee Creek, was chair of the Resource Advisory Council, or RAC, a 15-member committee that advised the Bureau of Land Management on land issues in that part of Montana. He said the only reason why the state and private property is part of the monument is so the land can automatically become part of the monument if the property owner sells to the government.

Tureck said leading up to the 2001 decision, great efforts were made by U.S. Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt and others to gauge the feelings of locals.

"There was a really concerted effort by the Department of Interior to get public input and to make it very public and include it in the designation," Tureck said.

At the request of Babbitt, the RAC held four meetings to answer questions and hear from the public.

Babbitt also held meetings in Fort Benton, Lewistown, Great Falls and one down in the Breaks with oil and gas interests.

Tureck said he was asked by Babbitt to make sure there was good balance of opponents as well as proponents of the designation.

Tureck said opponents had a lot of opportunity to speak, but many of them did not like the final decision.

Ron Poertner of Winifred said he supports a decision to review the Breaks designation.

"It's one that I think deserves a re-look," Poertner said.

He said it is not what the government is doing that he worries about, but that national monuments are a magnet for litigation.

"If somebody gets people into litigation on grazing it could just be a showstopper for a lot of landowners," Poertner said.

Proponents of the monument say that it can help draw tourists to north-central Montana.

In a letter last week to Zinke, Bullock mentioned the benefits the monument has brought to communities around the monument.

"Today, the area provides over 130,000 visitors per year providing an influx of approximately $10 million to the local economy," he wrote in the letter. "The local economy has come to depend on this."

In the letter, Bullock adds 23 commercial permits have been issued to outfitters who provide historic river trips through the Breaks.

But Poertner and other supporters of revising the designation say the benefits of tourism that come from the monument are overstated.

"That was one of the false promises 'Oh, yeah, there are just going to be people crawling all over bumper to bumper, blah, blah.' It never happened, never happened; and I don't think it ever will," Poertner said.

In 2005, communities along the Missouri River predicted an influx of tourism to mark the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Poertner said the number of tourists was far less than expected.

The members of Montana's congressional delegation are divided over the state of the monument.

Democratic Sen. Jon Tester said in a statement he opposes the change in designation.

"God just doesn't make places like the Breaks anymore and we need to ensure they stay the way they are for our kids and grandkids," Tester said. "That's why over 20 years ago Montanans decided for themselves to protect the area for future generations."

A statement from Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines said he shares the commitment Secretary Zinke has in listening carefully to the farmers, ranchers, sportsmen and community members impacted by local land decisions, Daines said, adding that, as a sportsman, he appreciates the special nature of the Upper Missouri River Breaks.

Montana Republican U.S. Rep. Greg Gianforte issued a similar statement.

"I believe these designations need to be scrutinized and made with local support," he said in a statement. "It's important that any decision take into account the concerns and impact of the people living in that area."