Badger-Two Medicine Cultural Heritage Act

I stopped by my friends’ house to drop off a book a few weeks ago.

We all are members of the East Slope Backcountry Horsemen and it just so happened that my friends were about to have a visitor who wanted to chat with horse people who ride in the back country.

Peter Metcalf, executive director of the Glacier-Two Medicine Alliance, wanted our support for the proposed Badger-Two Medicine Cultural Heritage Area.

Since our visit, Senator Jon Tester introduced a bill to create special rules for this area of almost 130,000 acres that is managed by the U.S. Forest Service between the Blackfeet Reservation, Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall Wilderness.

The purpose of this bill is “to preserve for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the cultural, ecological, scenic, and recreational values of the Cultural Heritage Area; and to enable the people of the Tribe to continue to carry out traditional cultural practices in the Cultural Heritage Area.”

I’m not automatically opposed to new legislation and I encourage people to worship out in the natural world, but I had a few questions for Peter.

I am a firm believer in multiple use on public land because I think land benefits from a variety of management tools and public land is meant for everyone.

The bill would permanently ban logging.

Logging is a land management tool. Used judiciously, it can reduce fire hazard and improve water retention, among other benefits.

Peter said he talked to a couple of logging companies in the area and they said they are not interested in logging the area because current prices won’t support it.

I have a hard time supporting a permanent ban on a temporary condition.

If the bill passes, new roads will be banned.

But road construction is already banned in this area.

The bill also permanently bans oil and gas leases.

Those leases have already been revoked.

Peter said the Forest Service would continue to manage this area, but the National Park Service administers National Heritage Areas.

The Forest Service and the Park Service have different missions.

I’m befuddled, confused about which mission would be implemented.

Next, we talked about how management decisions are made.

The bill would require the Blackfeet Tribe to meet with Forest Service officials at least twice a year to talk about the area.

Current rules already require the Tribe and Forest Service employees to meet, but Peter said those meetings are not occurring.

Obviously, the bill is a solution to a non-existent issue. Nobody is disallowing communication now.

The bill would allow the Tribe to contract with the Forest Service to maintain roads and current infrastructure. Yet tribal members are already allowed to bid on contracts.

The bill would require the Tribe to approve major improvements and give the Tribe veto power over major decisions.

But this is U.S. land that the Tribe sold many years ago.

I no longer have management authority over land I sold many years ago.

Yet, both the tribe and I are already allowed to comment on Forest Service management plans.

I asked Peter why the new legislation offers all of these perks to the Tribe.

Peter said that Senators Daines and Tester, who both support the bill, know that it won’t pass through Congress unless the Tribe supports it.

If it won’t pass, maybe it is not a good idea.

It would be easy to declare opposition to this bill as racist, especially in these times.

Opposition isn’t racist; it’s opposition to legislation that is unnecessary and redundant.

This legislation only makes more rules that don’t need to exist.