Nestled in the forest uplands of southwest Montana, a group of ranchers have come together to adjust their relationships with the land. Located near the historic mining town of Anaconda, the people of the Big Hole River Watershed have worked to balance the needs of ranchers with the fragile ecology of the region, which has suffered from pollution due to mining. After visiting the infamous Berkeley Pit (a monument to the damage caused by Montana’s mining industries), my classmates and I had the opportunity to engage with the local group working to restore this landscape.
Known as the Big Hole Watershed Committee (BHWC), it has been active for over 30 years and according to its website, it seeks to “Protect the river, wildlife, and habitat for future generations [while] involving all parties that are willing to seek potential solutions to benefit all interests” (Big Hole Watershed Committee). The BHWC illustrates this philosophy through the group’s motto – “Conservation Through Consensus” – which emphasizes that responsible stewardship of the environment is a feat accomplished through the cooperation of all stakeholders.
We first met with the committee’s Executive Director, Pedro Marques, who walked us along a portion of the French Creek stream that was rebuilt with artificial bends and ponds to encourage more absorption of groundwater – a valuable resource in the dry expanses of the Big Sky state. Not only does the extra groundwater benefit ranchers, he explained, the winding shape of the river bolsters riparian communities and forms better habitat for species like beaver. We got to see this in action the next day when we helped BHWC restoration specialist Nolan Salix build beaver dam analogs (BDAs) in the nearby French Gulch stream.
Photo 1: French Gulch riparian zone prior to BDA construction; Photos 2 & 3: French Gulch BDAs (Credit: Liz Simpson (right))
Pedro also talked with us about conflicts between restoration committees like the BHWC and environmental advocacy groups, who can cause legal roadblocks that delay critical restoration projects. The BHWC encountered such resistance during their inaugural campaign to restore threatened Arctic Grayling habitat in the watershed, so this opinion was not unfounded. While advocates have their place, Pedro argued, real harm can be done when people who don’t understand the places they want to “save” try and enforce their ideals without consulting the people they would affect.
These sentiments were repeated later in the course when we met with fellow BHWC member Erik Kalsta, who owns a ranch near the town of Dillon. Erik’s family has worked the ranch since the 1880’s and in his time as its owner, Erik has used his family’s knowledge of the land to work toward conservation goals that benefit himself and his surroundings. By collaborating with WRFI students to construct rock weirs and by experimenting with non-native grasses that resist erosion better than native grasses, Erik has restructured his land use to facilitate coexistence with native ecosystems. For example, when Erik found out grizzly bears had moved onto his property, he and his wife set up bear cameras to track their activity rather than trying to have the bears removed. However, when Erik brought a university biologist to investigate their presence, after just one day on the property, the biologist falsely concluded there were no bears.
When it comes to restoring damaged ecosystems, the work of the BHWC and people like Erik Kalsta demonstrate that restoration should be done by those who are directly impacted and who have the breadth of experience and land knowledge to determine the best course of action. Just like how ecosystems are localized, the response to their degradation should be local too. That is not to say that academic-grade science and outside perspectives should be ignored. However, it does mean that we should trust ranchers and farmers to know what is best for their land.
