About 30 years ago the industry-spawned strategy of “collaboration” entered the policy arena to influence and neuter the “conservation movement” that was dedicated to protecting the rapidly disappearing old growth forests, native species, wild landscapes, and pristine, trout-filled rivers.

The logging industry had already lost the so-called “timber wars,” having cut themselves out of a sustainable future.  Likewise, the environmental abuses by extractive industries had left Montana with an inordinate number of clearcuts, Superfund sites (including the largest in the nation), abandoned industrial facilities and mines leaking toxins such as cyanide, that required treatment in perpetuity.

Industry strategists are anything but dumb.  They knew they were losing public support due to their track record of environmental destruction. So they came up with “collaboration,” where extractive industries would find “consensus” with conservationists — virtually guaranteeing they’d get at least half of what they wanted, if not more.  In Montana, that strategy was first implemented by Gov. Marc Racicot’s hand-picked “Consensus Council.”

Formerly, conservation groups had lauded their “grassroots” nature, since members were their primary source of funding.  But that changed as these groups began to receive millions of dollars from foundations that were more inclined to fund collaborators than hard-fighting conservation advocates.

As vast sums of foundation funding flowed into Montana, formerly small organizations like the Montana Wilderness Association bought multi-million dollar buildings and, rather ironically, as their staff size and “assets” exploded, their actual conservation victories dwindled.

They were joined by The Nature Conservancy, The Wilderness Society, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Trout Unlimited, Sierra Club, Mountain Mamas, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and many others that adopted a “go along to get along” attitude with extractive industries, government land and water management agencies, and special interests as they collaborated to cut the dwindling conservation baby in half again and again and again while hiding behind the charade of supporting “access.”

They refused to criticize Sen. Jon Tester for tossing science aside to set the horrific precedent of Congressionally delisting wolves from the Endangered Species Act protections using a rider on a defense spending bill.  Why?  Because he was running for re-election.

As electoral politics crept into influence dubious policy changes they supported expanding categorical exclusions from bedrock environmental laws that require government agencies to consider the consequences of their proposed actions — and significantly, to provide the public with the right to review, comment and object to those proposals.

They supported vast “landscape scale” deforestation proposals under highly ambiguous “emergency” declarations.  They lauded the “Good Neighbor Policy,” which allows state governments to determine the management of federal lands.  That resulted in Montana’s Gov. Steve Bullock, perhaps seeking votes for his Senate campaign, to declare a stunning five million acres of national forests needed emergency logging, thinning and burning.

But now, those appeasement chickens are coming home to roost.

Last week, it was the repeal of the Roadless Rule that protected roadless lands.  This week, the Department of Agriculture issued new regulations that eliminate public notice before using vastly expanded categorical exclusions, eliminate public comments on environmental assessments and Forest Plan revisions while dumping the requirement to publish draft Environmental Impact Statements for public review and allowing the Forest Service to choose which regulations it wants to use for on-going projects.

As the disastrous policies of the national and state administrations escalate, the collaborators are now trapped in a losing web of their own weaving.  After all, they still have to maintain those expensive buildings and pay those bloated staffs.  To do so they continue to suckle greedily at the foundations’ collaboration teats — all while facetiously claiming they’re “fighting” for conservation of our last wild lands and waters.