PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR PROTECTING MONTANA’S ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT

Recognizing the long history of private, state, and federal efforts to protect the world class wildlife and scenic values of the public lands on Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front, an impressive collection of local leaders, newspapers, and elected officials have spoken out against drilling there. Polls, public comment opportunities, and letters to the editor show that the vast majority want to see the Front motor free and protected from development.

Elected and Agency Officials Oppose Front Drilling:
An impressive array of local, tribal, state, and federal officials support the 1997 Forest Service ban on any new oil and gas leasing in the Front or have criticized recent proposals to drill on Front leases issued before the ban. As a solution, many have also supported legislation introduced by Senator Baucus that would begin a process to buy or trade out existing Front leaseholders.

Lewis and Clark County Commission: The southern third of the Front is located in Lewis and Clark County. On July 31, 2003 all three Commissioners signed a letter to the delegation stating their support for the lease ban and Baucus’ Front bill. It stated, our constituents oppose the idea of road and drill pad construction in such a unique area… every option must be explored to protect this area.

Blackfeet Tribal Council: The Front’s Badger Two Medicine area is sacred to the Blackfeet tribe and used for vision quests and other traditional needs. In 2004 the Tribal Council passed a resolution opposing any drilling here and is working to get the entire Badger Two Medicine recognized under the National Historic Preservation Act (70% of the area has already been deemed eligible).

Great Falls Mayor: A 2003 letter from the Mayor of Great Falls, Randy Gray, supported the 1997 lease ban and the Baucus Front bill, explaining that: leaving our few wild places in that condition [untrammeled] is an important asset to the future economic well being of the this state.

Montana Senator Max Baucus: Besides supporting the 1997 lease ban, Montana’s senior Senator has twice introduced legislation recognizing the Front and providing for the swap or buy out of existing leases. In a 2003 address to the full Senate, he said: The Front’s habitat is just too rich, the landscape too important to subject it to roads, drills, pipelines, chemicals, noise and human activity.

Former Congressman Pat Williams: In speeches and in commentary Montana’s former U.S. Representative has adamantly articulated the need to protect the Front from any energy exploration.

Former Lewis and Clark Forest Supervisor: Gloria Flora was the Forest Service Supervisor who decided in 1997 that there should be no new leasing along the Front. She continues today to speak out for the Front, stating recently: The Front is so special we should just leave it alone. It should not be drilled, dug, and discarded like so much of Montana’s – and the world’s – wild places.

Former Forest Service Chief: When he was Forest Service Chief, Mike Dombeck supported the 1997 leasing ban. In April 2004 he publicly supported a resolution from 45 wildlife conservation organizations calling for new legislation banning energy development in the Front.

Retired BLM State Director: Matt Millenbach former BLM State Director for Montana explained in a 2003 op-ed in the Billings Gazette that: responsible energy development means not drilling in some places and that gas development of the Front should not be permitted.

Montana and National Newspapers Feel the Front is Too Special to Drill:
The controversy over possible drilling of the Front has received significant coverage in Montana and national newspapers and the need for its protection has been consistently and repeatedly advocated on the editorial pages of local, regional, and national newspapers. No paper has come out supporting drilling.

From 2002-2004, the following Montana papers editorialized against oil and gas drilling in the Front: Great Falls Tribune, Bozeman Chronicle, Kalispell Daily Interlake, Missoulian, and Helena Independent Record. Many have editorialized more than once in support of protecting the Front.

Editorials in several prominent national papers have also included the Front as an example of a place that is too special to drill or that is under unjustified threat because of the current Administration’s policies. These include the New York Times, Boston Globe, and Los Angeles Times. In an August 10, 2003 editorial ("The Land of Lewis and Clark") the New York Times stated "The Rocky Mountain Front, home to the largest big game herds in the Lower 48, is greatly in need of permanent protection from the oil and gas companies and their friends in the Interior Department."

Even conservative publications like The American Spectator have written about the drilling threat to the Front. A November 6, 2003 column concluded, "If the Rocky Mountain Front is not such a place, then, sorry, there is no God. And if Senator Burns and the BLM fail to prevent natural gas along the Front, then, sorry, this conservative will succumb to the drug of wacko environmentalist activism."

Most Montanans Want the Front Kept Just the Way it is – Drill Rig and Motor Free:
Whether through polls or comment period results, the numbers clearly show that protecting the public lands of the Front is broadly popular. Drilling here is clearly an issue that most Montanans oppose.

A statewide 1997 poll commissioned by the Great Falls Tribune found that, by a two to one margin (55% to 23%), Montanans want the Front closed to drilling (margin of error: +/-5%).

80% of the 1,400 public comments received by the Forest Service during 1996-97 for its Environmental Impact Statement process supported no new leasing in the Rocky Mountain Front.

A March 2002 statewide poll by Fairbanks, Maslin and Associates found that only 28% agreed with the statement that, "For future growth in our economy and population, we need to increase our supply of energy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil by drilling for more oil and gas in the U.S., including the Rocky Mountain Front." (marign of error: +/- 4%).

Only one recent poll, done by Mason-Dixon in 2003, has found that Montanans are near split on Front drilling (margin of error +/- 4%). This anomalous result could be because of the misleading poll wording or other factors.

98% of the 7,600 comments received by the Forest Service in 2002 concerning its proposed Front travel plan supported limiting use to traditional non-motorized means. 92% of the respondents living in Montana and 83% of the respondents living along the Front supported this position.