WASHINGTON - Chuck Jarecki's preferred mode of transportation into the wilderness is his Cessna 180.
The 65-year-old Polson resident is urging lawmakers to implement a law to prevent federal officials from closing backcountry airstrips.
Environmentalists oppose the effort, saying remote airstrips harm wildlife and ruin the wilderness experience for other people.
"More motors, more noise, more speed all violate the intent of national monuments, wilderness areas and wildlife areas," Montana Wilderness Association field representative Mark Good said. "There need to be some areas where there are no motors."
Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., is a strong supporter of the bill, HR 2776, that would require the Interior and Agriculture departments to consult with state aviation departments and the Federal Aviation Administration before attempting to close airstrips. It would also require the federal government to give 90 days notice by publishing its plans in the Federal Register, giving pilots time to review the plans.
"To say the Forest Service can close a runway so only their people can fly in and out does not make sense to me," Rehberg said. "Other people use them. We make better decisions when there is public input."
Rehberg and other bill supporters say Bush administration officials have been prudent in not closing backcountry airstrip. They were not nearly as happy with federal officials during Bill Clinton's presidency.
"While President Bush has suggested he won't close additional strips, there are no promises in our form of government," Rehberg said.
The Clinton administration's goal was to minimize the number of remote airstrips on federal lands and some remote airstrips were, in fact, shut down, said David Alexander, supervisor for the Payette National Forest in Idaho.
The bill's main sponsor, Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter, R-Idaho, shares Rehberg's concern that a future president would allow the airstrips to be shut down.
"The need for the airstrips will last long after the Bush administration's second term is over," Otter said. "We're a government of laws, not names."
Environmentalists preferred the Clinton administration's strategy and say the maintenance of the airstrips harms the backcountry areas.
The lawmakers and the pilots who support their effort say they support efforts to protect wilderness areas.
"I don't think we have a big impact," Bozeman insurance agent John McKenna said. "Relative to other uses it is a statistical zero. It's like a postage stamp."
McKenna, who is the chairman of the Montana Pilots Association Recreational Division, describes himself as a "big supporter of the wilderness." He said that maintaining the airstrips prevents backcountry areas from becoming inundated with people because they disperse people throughout the area.
A main source of contention between the pilots and the environmentalists is the Schafer Meadow airstrip in the Bob Marshall Wilderness. After the Bob Marshall Wilderness was created in 1964 all the other backcountry airstrips that are located within it were closed. There are other backcountry airstrips in the Flathead National Forest and Lewis and Clark National Forest.
It is unclear how many backcountry airstrips there are in Montana and other western states and the lack of clarity has created problems.
Environmentalists are worried that an airstrip could be defined as any place a plane has landed, such as a dirt road. They say that such a definition is part of an effort to subvert efforts to protect federal lands from development.
Good lumps Rehberg's support for the bill with his promotion of efforts to remove private property from the Missouri River Breaks National Monument.
"He just doesn't have any respect for wild places," Good said.
The pilots who support Rehberg are angry at the environmental groups.
"I got frustrated by the no-compromise attitude that the environmental groups have," McKenna said.
The two groups are likely to have some more time to get frustrated with each other. The House passed an identical bill in 2002 and is likely to pass Otter's bill this year, but both Otter and Rehberg are concerned about its fate in the Senate.
"We got it passed once in the House, but we can't get it to budge in the Senate," Otter said.
Rehberg added: "The nature of the Senate is different. I hope they will consider it."
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)