Conflict and Compromise: The Issues With Conservation in Montana
Guest post by summer program student Nick D’Onofrio -
My journey through wilderness of Montana with this class and meeting with people working to protect the wildlife of this natural world has taught me that compromise is key. Despite negative public opinion on some specific animals species that inhabit the Great Plains such as Bison and Prairie dogs, I can still see that Montana is the on edge of change as people are trying to different approaches to preserve this vast landscape. The American Prairie Reserve aims to create a large park that will allow wildlife to cross corridors and escape some of persecution that certain species face.
However, there approach has angered ranchers as they have bought up private land from farmers try to make this dream a reality. Ranchers feel there way of life has been threatened and so they are heavily against the American Prairie Reserve. This can be seen with many signs along the highway that say “Save The Cowboy, Stop the American Prairie Reserve.” I find this ironic since the cowboys and early white settlers threatened in west threatened Native American life and stole their land in the name of greed. When compared today, Native Americans on reservation in Montana are more open to conservation and they welcome animal reintroductions on their land. The Native Americans view wildlife as “relatives” and welcome their return on the land such as bison and swift fox reintroduction on reservations in Montana. While modern cowboys and ranchers are mostly against conservation and depending upon the animal they are against reintroduction as well. Due to this I started to view the modern cowboy as a “get what you deserve mentality.” I viewed the ranchers as selfish for putting their needs above everything else so I was more supportive American Prairie Reserve.
However, I reflected on my own family history. My mother grew up on a farm under the communist leader Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania. This dictator forcibly stole farmer lands piece by piece in order to build highways, factories, and more “for the good of the people” as it was called. While I understand that buying up the land is not the same as eviction by force, the sentiment still remains. People with money or power believe they can manage the land better or get most profit out of it so they slowly take away land from farmers for their own benefit. I began to realize that shutting people out in the name of wildlife is not a feasible solution. American Prairie Reserve had the right idea but they took the wrong approach so they are gaining more enemies than allies in Montana. They are buying up land from farmers with the belief that they can manage the land better. While this may be true, the fact still remains they are choosing settlement over cooperation. They are failing to take the ranchers view and concerns into consideration when pursuing this goal of creating a large park. The ranchers with regards to conservation are nowhere near perfect as they still heavily persecute bison, prairie dogs, and wolves, however they are still much better than the alternative. When our class met the Ranch Stewards Alliance, one of the representatives, Martin explained that the biggest threats facing many grassland wildlife species are renewable energy and organic farming. Corporations are buying up land from farmers and either turning it into wind farms or plowing it up for crops. The companies are only concerned about maximizing profits so they are destroying the land in the name of greed which is a tale as old as time in Western Montana. I learned that when land is plowed then you cannot restore it. All those soils, mosses, and grasses are gone from that habitat forever.
