Nature Conservancy Survey

In August and September 2005, representatives of the Yellowstone Business Partnership and the Nature Conservancy conducted personal interviews with 80 community leaders, business owners, elected officials and trade association representatives. This survey was designed to identify the attitudes of key community leaders to issues of growth and change in the Greater Yellowstone region. Interviews were conducted in person and ranged from forty-five minutes to over an hour in length. The survey was targeted to a broad cross section of business, civic and political leaders and contained both quantitative and qualitative questions in order to understand core ideas and attitudes. As an attitudinal survey, the process was designed to record not only what the respondents believed but also why and how strongly they felt about certain issues facing the region. In addition, the interviews were designed to discover areas of common ground and ways that diverse local groups might work together in the future to address issues of mutual concern. The survey was created by Conservation Partners, Inc. of Denver, Colorado who was also responsible for training the interviewers and preparing this summary of findings. The following section summarizes the key themes and findings from these interviews. This is followed by a review of answers to the questions asked by the survey and a more in-depth review of survey comments. - back to T.O.C.

II. OVERARCHING THEMES

The following sections identify key findings and themes that emerged from the survey findings. Individuals involved in the process articulated all of the ideas identified in this section. However, the reviewer has assembled the main themes expressed in these ideas and put these together in order to advance the conversation within the Greater Yellowstone Regional community on issues of growth and change. - back to T.O.C.

1. How Do We Define This Place?

While no single term is used uniformly to identify the region, the terms Greater Yellowstone Area or Region along with Yellowstone Area are the most common. Yellowstone National Park is the “reference point” “core” or “epicenter” as defined by participants in the survey. For most, the region stands for a wide variety of attributes: “inspirational beauty”, mountains, open space, scenery, recreational opportunities, cultural outlets, international resource, “low density of population underlies everything”, natural-air, water, rivers, quality of people, cultural heritage, ranching, neighborliness, good schools and small, rural and safe communities. While many respondents used terms like “unique”, “complete complement of wildlife”, “nothing like it” to describe the area’s qualities others reflected the sentiments of one respondent, when he stated that while the area is unique, “we collectively undervalue [the] area—all of us.” Another said, it’s “so unique and we have a choice and responsibility to maintain the quality of life.” Unlike the rest of the country, “so much land is public we take [it] for granted, we are naïve to the importance of these lands.” One respondent noted he had resisted the term “ … Greater Yellowstone … so long but realize that there is an amalgam of economic and biological commonalities” that now justify its usage.

The term Yellowstone describes not only geography, but economics. Many survey respondents identified Yellowstone as driving the economy, “providing the basis on which growth in the region has taken place”. As a result, the Greater Yellowstone Region extends to the area where commercial enterprises depend on Yellowstone tourism and related activities.

Beyond the general terms for the region, people felt more comfortable defining the area in terms of where they live and work. They used terms to describe portions of states and counties or that related to geographic features such as rivers, basins and watersheds. As an Idaho respondent put it, “I use Yellowstone Park as a landmark, for my personal life it’s the Upper Snake Valley.” It is clear that the region is so large that most people prefer to use the smaller, more manageable and identifiable political or physical descriptions. As one respondent stated, their personal preference is for the term ‘watershed’ because it is at “a scale that is not overwhelming”.

One participant described the Greater Yellowstone Region as the “geographic connection, people connection and a cultural connection.” While slightly over 10% of the survey respondents used the term Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, others pointed out that they don’t use the word ecosystem because it has negative connotations and are wary of the motives of those who do. It is clear that the use of certain terms can be controversial. One respondent stated that even the word “Greater” can be a flashpoint. A longer term resident summed up his attitude with the following comment, “…Greater Yellowstone Region, still [a] neat term even though it has had some negative connotations.”

A number of people pointed out that the county and state boundaries and jurisdictions work against the concept of a coherent region. “If the three states don’t look at as a region why should people?” Moreover there are fairly dramatic differences in tax systems between the states and the state legislatures apparently pay little attention to the three-state area as a region according to one respondent - back to T.O.C.

2. GROWTH

Growth is an issue that divides the region, in part reflecting societal divides. Frequently respondents used terms such as “controversial”, “split on growth”, and “discussion at extremes is not productive”. When participants were asked what the biggest threats to their quality of life were, the most frequent responses were population growth (44%) and the lack of adequate planning for that growth (17%). The impacts of growth are not uniform throughout the region and attitudes reflect where on the growth spectrum one lies.

Many feel “ambivalent” or “conflicted” about growth because although they may not like certain aspects, growth “brings jobs and consumer opportunities”, “cultural opportunities”, “things to do, more people to do with”, and “not just scraping by”. While about 43% of respondents believe that growth is happening at about the right pace, 36% believe that it is occurring too fast. Moreover, people are about evenly split between those that think that others in the region share their attitude towards growth and those that think others disagree with their attitude towards growth. These split attitudes often reflect polarized attitudes as well as what are perceived as offsetting benefits and detriments of growth. Many felt that some aspects of quality of life improved (shopping, amenities, jobs) while others declined (increased traffic, more people, loss of open space).

The reality is that growth has brought benefits to the region but many are concerned about the pace, type and location of new growth. Most people want a “balanced strategy”, one where “we direct it rather than it happens to us.” In fast growing areas many people expressed concern that there was a “loss of control”, “not planning for infrastructure needs”, increasing traffic and “animal jams”, “destroying the open space” that defines the region, a lack of affordable housing, “galloping suburbanization”, “danger of becoming another high-end playground”, “loving the place to death, thousands of folks moving here”, “compromising competitive edge” and approving “development without understanding impacts”. As a result, some saw that people were being “left behind in poverty”, “loosing close-knit communities”, “a little less tolerance among people”, “margin between haves and have-nots increasing”, “old timers do not want growth, some still enjoy “poverty with a view”, and “new arrivals don’t seem to care about old habits or respect the neighborhood and its uses”.

Most people recognize that the region will grow. The question for many is where it should grow, how and how fast. Most believe that it is not too late to address growth in a meaningful manner, while expressing concerns over respect for private property rights and wondering if conservative decision-makers could deal with planning issues. Many would support greater incentives to do the right development in the right place, want models to look at where smart growth is working effectively, thirst for an appropriate strategy that would be effective “without tearing apart the social fabric” and want to engage in community discussions on growth issues. As one person put it “Will it be done by default or by conscious choice?” - back to T.O.C.

3. REGION AT CROSSROADS

There is clearly a heightened awareness of change and the speed at which it is occurring in the region. Many respondents believe that there “is still time to deal with these issues”, and that there is still a relatively “low population and reasonable cost of living in most places”, but time may be short. Over eighty-five percent of survey respondents believe that the region has a high or unique quality of life. They are however, almost evenly split into thirds on whether quality of life is improving (37%), staying the same (29%) or declining (28%).

Many believe that the character of the region is changing, but “we still have [an] opportunity to do it right”. Some said, “we need an overarching vision/plan”, “plan now while ahead and can afford it”, that they don’t want “big box retail … [that] looks like everywhere else”, “on the cusp between small rural and larger [area]”. People desire to change some aspects of growth but have not defined a new vision of where and how they would like to see growth. Because of congestion in the areas around Yellowstone National Park, some form of mass transit system is proposed. A number of survey respondents propose “more regional and cooperative solutions” as a way to address common issues throughout the region. - back to T.O.C.

4. MORE IN COMMON THAN WE REALIZE

What is striking in reviewing survey responses is the degree to which there are shared values and aspirations. Virtually all respondents talked about their love or respect for the land (“widespread respect and reverence for our place”). Respondents have a strong and defining connection and relationship to the land that is uncommon in the modern world. Many stated that the reason they chose to live in the region is because of the land and the opportunities it provides.

Among the qualities that were commonly identified are: “westerners and independent”, “common sense or horse sense”, “genuine people”, “a high quality of people”, “respect for property rights”, “integrity required”, “hard working”, “here for wildlife, views, access”, “connection to land and stewardship”, “conservative”, “impatient”, “parochial”, “like slower pace of life”, “neighborliness”, rural and urban both want to protect open space, “camaraderie of sharing harsh winter and environments together, long distance to schools”, “shared experiences and recreating”, like solitude, “rural with civilized parts”, good neighbors, easy to get to backcountry in 10 to 15 minutes, often take place for granted, dedication to family, access to hiking, camping, fishing, want small viable communities, don’t like government and regulations, and “don’t want to become anywhere USA”. As one respondent put it, “80-90% of people want the same thing” but often the attention is focused on the few issues that divide us. - back to T.O.C.

5. COMMUNICATION CHALLENGING

In such a large region, distances make communication challenging. But there are other issues that were pointed out in the survey that make communication problematic. The survey revealed comments such as, it’s “hard to listen to each other”, problems with “shutting up and getting sarcastic”, “people don’t listen well”, “polarization comes from poor communication”, “when we disagree we stop listening”, “we choose sides instead of being independent thinkers” and “we are unaccepting of different thinking”. In response to this tendency towards polarization and ineffective communication, people suggested that, we “need to recover our cultural heritage of democratic principles”, “listen more, demand less”, “try to be inclusive”, engage more “citizens without an agenda”, communicate more, “stay away from extremes on both ends”, “get more towards center on growth” and “keep talking … talk leads to trust and sharing information,”. Many of the survey respondents indicated that they knew of or had personally participated in cooperative or collaborative problem solving projects that involved diverse stakeholders in the region. These experiences bode well for creating a better environment for respectful and effective communication. As one survey respondent stated, we need to “practice the three C’s [of] communication, consideration and cooperation.” - back to T.O.C.

6. HOME GROWN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND EXPANDING EXISTING BUSINESSES

The survey responses point towards desirable future economic directions. Many see the future potential in the region in small, niche business areas that take advantage of the region’s resources and talents in compatible ways. Many see opportunities for entrepreneurs and an economy, as one respondent stated, “not fueled by outside forces but internally generated using competitive advantages; an economy propelled less by outside demands and more by region specific production and enterprise.” One respondent referred to the “tradition of ‘self-created’ jobs” as a model for new entrepreneurial enterprise creation. The region may be ripe for “great opportunities for entrepreneurial kids.” Examples of compatible business opportunities that were cited included: agriculturally based fuels; wood trim, wall coverings and “environmentally friendly” building materials produced from tree thinning projects; green building practices and developments; “knowledge-based industries with low impact on environment”; decentralized meat processing through mobile processing plants; and natural or organic beef production and sales.

A number of suggestions were aimed at keeping ranches economically viable by increasing the number of enterprises on ranches and the commodities coming off ranches. These “untapped potentials” related to niche markets for beef and other animals, connections to tourism operations, value-added products, “specialty potatoes and wheat” and payments for development rights on conservation easements.

One respondent talked about a new “ecotourism that sustains local culture and natural heritage, integrating [the] knowledge base of multi-generational folks”. Other comments were geared towards changing the way tourism is practiced. For example, one comment suggested that the challenge is “not how to get more people here but how to expose people better to a higher quality experience, challenge is to enhance experience and obtain greater economic benefit without increasing the numbers.” Another added that what was needed was to “develop our own personality in terms of tourist destinations.”

Many respondents felt that in addition to new entrepreneurial enterprises, an emphasis should be placed on helping existing small businesses expand “because they retain community values.” Many of these businesses have already demonstrated their ability to succeed but could benefit from targeted assistance in improving operations and expanding. Many viewed supporting and maintaining “traditional businesses—agriculture, timber, outfitting, dude ranching and recreation” as desirable. Overall, survey respondents believe that diverse, “family-friendly” small businesses that relate to the region’s competitive advantages are the best way to expand business and job opportunities in the future. - back to T.O.C.

7. FORUM TO DEVELOP REGIONAL VISION

An overwhelming majority of survey participants believe that it is time to develop a plan and implementation strategy that identifies a desirable vision for the region. When participants were asked for their vision for the region, a substantial majority of responses emphasized four inter-related issues: better planning, better development, managed growth and a healthy economy that preserves local quality of life. There is the sense that these issues have been bubbling up for a long time without effective dialog on ways to address them. Some were critical of the “standard planning and zoning process” for not creating an appropriate vision for new growth. Others said that planning hasn’t paid off, that plans go unimplemented and “government is inadequate for the task of managing growth.”

Survey respondents would welcome a “community wide dialogue about the future”. They would prefer that it be a “bottoms-up”, “collaborative process” that engages many “people who naturally stay in the background.” There is a “need to return to civility and compromise”, “confrontational approaches are counterproductive”. One respondent identified what might be a potential theme for a forum, “Growth with conservation”. Government’s role should be to “facilitate not drive communities”, and “citizens [need] to stand up” and “take responsibility”. Among the elements that were mentioned that the process needed to address were the following: “need to replace competitive instincts with cooperation”; “park has to work with surrounding areas”; “more players at table”; “cit[ies] and counties work together on regional planning and focus on shared values not divisions”; “interdependent region”; “need to make investment in planning”; and, “need for intergovernmental discourse.” A suggestion was made to create “a pot of money to facilitate the process.” Another suggested that there “needs [to be] a really good facilitator, neutral but strong.“

While collaboration and consensus building work well on a project level as demonstrated by the number of positive examples identified by participants, the question is whether it could be taken to a larger, watershed or regional scale. It might logically be undertaken at watershed or sub-regional scales initially before there was an effort to identify common elements in a regional plan. The collaborative model of focusing on shared interests first, in order to develop the trust necessary to begin to address the hard growth issues, was mentioned by a number of survey participants. Regardless of the approach, in order to be effective, such a process would need to identify “good and bad examples” of managing growth, “common sense land use”, a “system of thoughtful anticipation and planning”, incentives to “develop in towns”, multiple solutions (“no one solution”), address region’s “reluctance to manage growth”, engage “non-profit and non-political” groups, and explore ways to get the newcomers involved. One participant stated that such a process should explore the “devolution of authority to lower levels of government for resource decisions”, giving the region greater say in resource decisions.

Developing such a vision would be a challenging undertaking. Survey responses generally identify a desire to develop more compact areas in order to protect open space lands, the need to utilize “new development patterns”, “infill”, “cluster building”, “urban in nature” concept, and define “sound environmental development”. The implications of these strategies would be controversial because the nature of rural communities and towns would change, particularly those that might be identified as growth centers. The

alternative of loosing the qualities that define the region, however, is one that most people believe they should prevent. - back to T.O.C.

8. NURTURE LEADERS

Addressing the problems of rapidly changing places is extremely challenging for governmental, nonprofit and private sector leaders. The surveys highlighted the “need [for] leaders and role models”; effective “leadership so shared visions can be achieved”. It has probably never been “tougher to negotiate between old and new” as well as deal with “personal apathy” and complacency. There is a great opportunity for those with vision and leadership capacity to step forward, but the challenges are daunting and will require a new level of community support. - back to T.O.C.

9. SAVING LAND

If there is one action upon which most respondents agree, it is the protection of open space lands, particularly ranch lands. When participants were asked how they would invest a pot of money to improve the regional quality of life, the largest percentage said they would invest to protect agricultural land and other open space. Some might disagree about methods, but all want to protect the remaining private open lands that buffer public lands, are productive working lands and provide critical habitat for many species. As a unifying concept both urban and rural people support the protection of open lands. To many, “ranch lands are the backbone of our way of life”, “ranching is the common denominator”, “agriculture holds off growth “ and ”private lands are [the] key to thwarting fragmentation of landscape”. Ranchers need to have a variety of options to protect their lands and many indicated that private property rights should to be respected when lands are protected. Most survey respondents like conservation easements and think they “help define a middle ground”. Several people noted that “denying public access on ranchlands” might limit public support for programs to save ranches. Some said that the public shouldn’t pay for easements unless there was public access, particularly if there had been historic use. Others said that there was a need to “incentivize land conservation”, encourage the states to assist protection efforts and increase funds available for conservation. - back to T.O.C.

10. EDUCATION

Throughout the three states area, there is great admiration of the state university systems and education in general. Many indicated that increasing the investment in education would be desirable. Comments about the role of education ranged from “education is power”, to “education leads to better resource protection and stewardship “ to a desire for an “educated community within an agricultural community”. The high quality of life that many residents enjoy is in part due to the presence of these institutions in the region and others that have a special relationship to natural resources such as the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) in Lander as mentioned by one respondent. Others pointed out that the region is falling down in other areas that relate to the region’s future such as, “waffling in commitment to vocational training”; “don’t offer a petroleum engineering degree”, “don’t have a college of medicine”, need for “recreation degrees”, “[don’t produce local teachers] they come from out-of-state schools” and the need for “more technical training”. People identified ways that the university programs might be more integrated into the region. Suggestions ranged from business incubators for young entrepreneurs, tourism curricula at colleges, bringing people together for regional meetings, getting universities to do cooperative resource programs in the three states and cross institutional environmental educational programs. - back to T.O.C.

SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS

1. How Do We Refer To Our Region?

The most common terms used the word Yellowstone, described portions of states and counties or were keyed to geographic features such as rivers and watersheds. Virtually all respondents referenced the area to “Yellowstone” even if they didn’t use the word in the term for the region. Most commonly, respondents referred first to their local area, county, part of a state or a watershed or basin and then to the larger Yellowstone Area or Region. Several interviewees explained that they think of a larger economic or environmental region and a smaller area within that region where they live and work. As an Idaho respondent put it, “I use Yellowstone Park as a landmark, for my personal life it’s the Upper Snake Valley.” It is clear that the region is so large that most people prefer to use the smaller, more manageable and identifiable political or physical descriptions. As one respondent stated, their preference is for the term watershed because it is at “a scale that is not overwhelming”.

Over 25% of those interviewed refer to the region as the Greater Yellowstone Area or Greater Yellowstone Region or Yellowstone Area or Teton-Yellowstone Area. Respondent’s interpretation of how large this area is varied widely. The definition of the area is often stated in a combination of economic and geographic terms that can be determined by ecological factors or extending to those areas where commercial enterprises depend on tourism related to Yellowstone National Park. Slightly over 10% of the respondents used the term Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. However, several interviewees pointed out that they don’t use the word ecosystem because it has negative connotations and are wary of the motives of those who do. One respondent stated that the word has been so “politicized to the point it’s meaningless.” It is clear that terms and the use of terms are very important. One respondent stated that even the word “Greater” can be a flashpoint. - back to T.O.C.

2. Defining Qualities

The qualities that best define and create identity for the region were the beauty of the land and the variety of outdoor activities that can be pursued in the area, which were both identified by over 25% of respondents. Other frequent responses identified by over 15% of respondents related to the land including: Yellowstone Park, the area’s rural character; wildlife; and mountains. Other land qualities identified by respondents included quality of natural resources, the wild, unspoiled character of the land, and the importance of agriculture. Respondents have a strong and defining connection and relationship to the land. Many stated that the reason they choose to live in the region is because of the land and the opportunities it provides.

Interviewees also emphasized the importance of people in defining the region. Over 15% of respondents cited positive qualities of local residents (honest, hard-working, friendly) as the defining characteristic of the area. Others said that the western lifestyle best defined the region.

Notable responses are listed below.

Scenic beauty; aesthetic natural setting, natural beauty, majestic vistas, mountain scenery, geophysical setting, scenery, “unique natural beauty”, vistas, scenic qualities; beautiful sunsets; natural landscape; natural beauty, dramatic and unique topography; “physical beauty”; “world-class scenery”

Outdoor recreation; recreational opportunities; “All the stuff you can do here”; “hunt, camp, snowmobile”; “fishing, hunting”: “camping, hiking”; “premier trout fishing”

Yellowstone National Park; Yellowstone and Teton National Parks; national parks, ”international recognition”; “national recognition”; geological/geothermal features [in parks]; geologic wonders; “uniqueness of Yellowstone Park”; “natural wonders”

People; great people; “in general, a high quality of people”; “hard-working, loyal”; “honest, hard-working’; “friends”; “quality of people attracted to [this land]”; “genuine people”; “general friendliness of people”; self-reliance, pioneering spirit; people with “personal responsibility

Rural character; lightly populated; low population, sparse population, “lack of people close by”; intimate; small communities, lack of population; openness and rural quality; “sense of place—history, demographics, sense of rural community”; “remoteness”

Wildlife; animals, wildlife diversity; wildlife populations and habitat; animal migration routes; migration corridors, elevation, habitat for certain species; endangered species and areas

Mountains; Teton Mountain Range, Rocky Mountains, mountains and streams; “geologically interesting”: mountains; geographic features; “mountains and key drainages that flow out of mountains”; mountains and forest and water; mountain ranges and wilderness areas; dramatic mountains; geography

Quality of Natural Resources; “fairly clean”; “unpolluted”, “cleanliness”; resources maintained as a result of historic land management, livestock; “quality of lakes and rivers”; “streams, mountains, air”; “clean air”; “generally pristine”; “environmental amenities”; “relatively intact ecosystems”

Lifestyle, “western life”; quality of life; culture of streams, mountains, and the people attracted to this place

“Wild, unspoiled”; largely undeveloped,; wilderness/public land, open space; “still enough open space [here] to enjoy it”; relatively undeveloped; wild spaces

Agriculture; changing agricultural economy, ranching lands, agricultural production - back to T.O.C.

3. QUALITY OF LIFE

The vast majority of those interviewed (85%) said that the quality of life in the region is high. This is remarkable given that there are great differences in economic activity throughout the region. In large part this relates to the fact that respondents expressed great affection and respect for the special place in which they live. They value the small, mostly rural communities in which they live that provide relatively easy access to open lands that they enjoy. Several interviewees stated that they could not say what the overall quality of life was because they assigned different ratings to different aspects of life in the area or because the quality of life was different for different groups of people. A Wyoming respondent explained that the quality of life in the Jackson area is high “if you can afford to live here, but not if you don’t have money and are [making the long commute] from Idaho.”

The factors that determined quality of life for most interviewees related to the character of the land and the opportunity to enjoy it. The most common answer, cited by 40% of participants was access to outdoor recreation. Other answers related to the land included: access to wild spaces (25%); beautiful scenery (18%), low population density (16%), clean environment (20%) and the agricultural atmosphere (6%).

Over thirty percent of interviewees emphasized the importance of a healthy economy and the ability to earn a good living. As one participant explained, “If you can’t [meet your financial needs], you can’t enjoy the rest.”

Participants also stressed the importance of several other amenities and qualities including: the integrity and friendliness of local people; cultural arts; educational opportunities; access to health care and personal safety/low crime rates; dynamic economy.

Notable responses are listed below.

Access to outdoor recreation—skiing, fishing, hiking, biking; access to parks; access to public lands; outdoor activities, space to recreate, recreational opportunities; access to areas for hunting and fishing; hunting and fishing, camping; variety of activities to take part in; “hiking, fishing, skiing, golf, horses”

Economic opportunity; ability to make money; ability to meet financial needs—“if you can’t, you can’t enjoy the rest”; “economic wherewithal to take advantage of qualities around you”; good livelihood; adequate job opportunities; “economic vitality/security”; “economy that provides enough, don’t have to have Bill Gates assets or win the lottery to live here and be satisfied”; per capita income; job with an adequate wage; “economic foundation—the financial ability to enjoy the area’s amenities”; economics—job opportunities in sustainable economy not subject to boom or bust; ability to provide comfortably for myself and my family; ability to make a living although this is challenging for many; business opportunity

Access to wild spaces; lack of people; freedom of movement, like a grizzly bear, don’t see others; undisturbed space; space; open space; access to beautiful places; wilderness; accessible public open space; pristine natural areas; “only 10-15 minutes away from here [you reach a place where you] don’t have to encounter another person”; accessibility of outdoors; ability to experience openness, ruralness, and naturalness of area; ability to find places to be alone; “space room to live”; rural character

People; integrity of the people; diversity of employees; quality of people who live in the region, people who live here respect wildlife; good neighbors; good people; “actual people with whom you live [including] new families who have bailed from intense, urban environment”; “in Bozeman, university [attracts] talented people”; “agricultural base attracts type of person who is solid ‘pioneer’ type”; diverse population; “neighbors and people in other counties too”; mixture of people here; diverse and interesting people; “population that respects its living environment”; people with “commitment to natural surroundings”; “friendly people”; quality of people

Beautiful scenery; viewsheds; “When I look out my window, there’s nothing I don’t like”, natural amenities; inspirational beauty; accessibility to so many wonderful places; natural beauty; scenic beauty; “God’s wonderland for backyard”; environmental amenities, “for those who can afford it, Jackson is Mecca, beautiful”

Low population; “low density of population underlies everything”; no traffic, privacy, lack of crowds; solitude, serenity; relative lack of people; sparse population; “lack of traffic and people; “ideal population with supporting infrastructure”

Clean environment; clean air; clean water; non-polluted environment; quality of air and water; relatively little light and noise pollution; clean natural environment; cool, clean air; “high quality resources—water, air, soil, wildlife”; environmental qualities—undeveloped lands clean air, water, controlled growth

Cultural arts community, Buffalo Bill Historic Center programming; cultural opportunities, especially for an area this size; accessibility of cultural, social opportunities; great performing arts, great restaurants; cultural opportunities; cultural amenities in Jackson—art museums, symphony; variety of restaurants

Educational opportunities; exceptional education system, educational opportunities—MSU, school district benefits from education oriented; quality of school system; “educated community within an agricultural community—children can enjoy simple life while seeing the benefits of an education”

Agricultural atmosphere, “still some agricultural values contributing to the open space”; economic impacts of agriculture; ability to make living in agriculture; availability of ranch land

Health/health care; health including access to exercise and medical support; access to good healthcare; medical facilities; good hospital

Safety; safe place to live, low crime rate - back to T.O.C.

4. CHANGING QUALITY OF LIFE

Although interview participants were nearly unanimous in declaring the quality of life in the area high, they were divided in their assessment of whether things have been getting better (37%), getting worse (28%) or staying the same (29%).

The reasons for their assessments varied widely. Several of those who said that regional quality of life was improving cited the growth of the local economy and the increasing work, shopping and cultural opportunities. Others cited changes in their own lives (such as job promotion or salary increase, moving to a better location) that were unrelated to the larger changes in the area.

Most of those who believe that the quality of life has stayed the same noted that some aspects of life have improved while others have declined. In their eyes, the changes have offset each other. Advantages (such as improved local shopping) are matched by disadvantages (such as increased traffic on roads and in favorite recreational areas). Others explained ways that they cope with the changes growth has brought, such as avoiding traffic on particular roads at particular times. By making these changes, they have been able to maintain their quality of life in the face of population growth and community change.

People who believe that quality of life is declining cite several factors. Several noted that increasing population density is changing the very qualities that make the area unique. A rancher in Belgrade said, “The frenetic pace and extreme growth in Bozeman has interfered with the ability to enjoy the wild spaces [that give the region its identity].” Several respondents say that sprawl is consuming valuable open and agricultural lands. Others worry about the influx of big box and national chain stores that will overwhelm main street merchants and destroy local character. Others expressed concern that good decisions have not been made in the face of growth and they do not believe that local decision-making will improve in the future. As a farmer, Idaho said, “[There has been] growth without thought. People have not gotten together to deal with it.” A developer in Bozeman said that there has been “inadequate planning” to deal with local growth. Some participants said that locals feel “a loss of control” in the face of the fast-paced growth.

Several interviewees believe that increasing polarization (of political and social beliefs and of economic class) has damaged the regional quality of life. An Idaho respondent expressed frustration that there seems to be “no middle ground between extreme growth advocates and environmental extremes”. A Wyoming respondent noted the “vast difference between the haves and have-nots” in the area.

In response to the many changes taking place in the region, many believe that the region is at a crossroads or on the “cusp” of destroying the qualities of the area that make it special or changing from the small rural towns they remember. There is a desire to manage the change before it overwhelms communities without preparation. As one respondent noted, “It’s hard to plan with the growth freight train coming at you.” - back to T.O.C.

5. THREATS TO QUALITY OF LIFE

Participants were asked what the biggest threats to their quality of life were. The most frequent responses were population growth (44%) and the lack of adequate planning for that growth (17%). Other growth-related answers included: schism between haves and have-nots as wealthy people continue to be attracted to the area; loss of agriculture as real estate prices increase and agricultural earnings lag (10%); the area becoming a playground for the rich (8%); newcomers who do not understand local culture (7%); congestion of public lands (6%); lack of affordable housing (6%); and increasing traffic (6%).

Interviewees also cited a number of concerns related to the land including concerns about the availability and quality of water (12%); environmental degradation (7%); and impacts of oil and gas development (7%). Five participants also expressed concerns about economic insecurity. Others expressed concern over “the threat of outside money”, “wealthy people who can afford anything” and “too much money in irresponsible hands”. Another characterized the threat as “enviro combatants and liberal judges”. Others expressed concerns about community change, saying that “people are becoming more self-interested rather than being interested in the community”; “not looking beyond selfish assets to work at what is needed to sustain communities.” Others complained that, “newcomers want to remake place”, newcomers have “transplanted values from other places”, and “property values forced up by people from other places with lots of money—starting to run out of common folk.”

Notable responses are listed below.

Population growth: unrestrained growth and development--eating up agricultural land for subdivisions, loss of heritage; growth [which puts] pressure on wild lands, water quality, roads, housing; exploding growth, “growth of population—every problem comes from that”; “unique sense of place” sacrificed to population growth;” too many people; more population [means] compromises; rapid growth of community [may cause] pollution problems; more people means “diminished air and water quality, increased traffic”; “loving the place to death, thousands of folks moving here; “becoming too popular”; overcrowding; “Looking at Teton Valley, don’t want it to happen here [Ashton, ID]”

Inadequate planning: poor planning and zoning; unplanned growth, not planning for infrastructure needs; concerns about ability to control growth; infrastructure not keeping up with growth; need better planning of wells and septic systems; development without understanding of impacts; Political climate [that does not control growth], “politicians will do anything to attract business, make bad choices because they see tax dollars”; “lack of vision in planning—rest of state is not listening”; lack of coordination between city and county, “we have to communicate or pay the price of not communicating”; “developers don’t have a reasonable expectation over approval process—developers will deliberately break the law because the fine is less than the profit, we need certainty and fines that make breaking the law a harder decision;” “lack of thoughtful planning for water, resource usage and environmental protection;” ‘lack of long-term thinking”; “irresponsible [or non-existent] land-use planning “.

Water—finite resource, how it is managed will determine how this country looks; future direction of water management could threaten agricultural community and economy; shortage for all uses; “danger of surface and groundwater pollution due to sprawl”; “groundwater contamination” need to protect aquifer, “asset we take for granted”; “people don’t know how to keep water clean or what it takes, people should know how to care;” “destruction of water due to irrigation, western water law has to change”.

Schism between haves and have-nots; margin between haves and have-nots increasing, people needing to work more to meet needs; cost of living; “pressure of outside money”; “wealthy people moving here, people who can afford anything, drives property values up”; next generation will not have disposable income to enjoy recreational opportunities; stratification of communities over the last 30 years; increased cost of living with lower net income

Loss of agriculture [because of rising real estate values]; farmers now selling and sub-dividing rather than farming; “danger of shifting from ranch communities—land values problematic, conservation easements not helpful”; “fabulous old ranches and farms are being broken into ranchettes, I’m sick because the big open-space ranches are going, federal dollars for easements are drying up, farmers can’t make a living, property along water or with views has real estate signs”; “agricultural land being converted to subdivisions;” “galloping suburbanization;” “encroachment of subdivision;” “agricultural economy is in the tank, marginal ground, short season, everything in the Teton Valley is doomed to go out of business;” “increasingly, people with money are buying up agricultural properties and converting the land to non-producing”

Playground for rich; bedroom community for the rich—Meeteetse becoming bedroom community; wealthy, absentee ownership; “Jackson Hole encroachment is driving up land prices down land”; gentrification; “reduced cultural and socioeconomic diversity, danger of becoming another high-end playground like Boulder, Marin, etc.”; “more people with money looking at this region to get away”

Environmental degradation; environmental degradation from adherence to traditional energy sources; “if we collectively do stupid things to harm the natural environment”; effects of fossil fuels, forces outside region; man-made [threats to] environment; pollution; development impacts to air quality and viewsheds

Newcomers: People from other places bringing changes; “Newcomers who are not invested in community health, they are using the place but giving little if anything back;” “lack of understanding of the area and the agricultural and recreational base that maintains the area’s integrity;” “influx of people who don’t understand logic and lifestyle of what’s here; how water rights work, etc.”; “stated, unstated expectations of people moving here;” “fear that some [new] folks are trying to make Red Lodge a toy village around a Christmas tree”

Oil and gas development, further leasing of national forest lands for oil and gas; “oil hangover—dwelling on current oil issues causes real impacts without solving long-term problem;” “destruction of habitat through oil and gas development;” coal-bed methane drilling; new coal-bed methane drilling between Hudson and Riverton; “Mineral boom means loss of interest in diversification, economic diversification is key”

Economic insecurity: having enough money to retire; lack of high-paying jobs; economic stagnation; “fragile economic environment, people don’t appreciate how much the outside world dictates what we have”; concerns about “long-term viability of industry, if we can’t get cheap power, plants shut down;”

Increasing congestion of public lands; overuse of some recreation areas; overuse of outdoor recreation—motorized vehicles; “too many ATV’s out in my forest is causing me trouble”; BYU-Idaho student population increase [means more] day recreation trips which increases western recreation issues”

Lack of affordable housing; “huge gaping hole in affordable housing”; escalating cost of housing combined with low salaries”; inability to find solution to housing problem [impacts recruitment of] school teachers

Traffic: Increased traffic; “transportation problems, traffic;” “traffic congestion” - back to T.O.C.

6. JOB PROSPECTS IN THE REGION

Participants were asked whether they thought that local young people had good job prospects in the region. Again there was a wide variation in responses, with 46 % of respondents indicating that prospects were not good, 24% saying that they were good and 30% giving no answer. Several respondents pointed out that there were plenty of seasonal, low paying jobs but few year round jobs with good salaries and benefits.

Interviewees were then asked what could be done to improve job prospects in the region. Several people stressed the need to attract clean industry with high wages (7%) and good benefits (6 %). Others had concrete ideas about the way to do this—improve education so that it better meets the needs of business (16%), change tax policy (10%), and improve transportation (7%) and upgrade communications infrastructure (5%). One respondent stated that kids with a good education will have good job prospects; those with without educational qualifications will receive minimal pay.

Five contrarians noted that it is not always good for kids to stay at home and said that a natural pattern of going away and eventually coming home with the knowledge gained is a good thing.

Some participants stressed the importance of expanding existing businesses, encouraging and teaching entrepreneurship and the need for venture capital. With the expertise and the wealth of experience that existing full and part-time residents of the area have, all of these issues could be addressed.

In answering other questions, many interviewees emphasized the role of ranching and agriculture in maintaining open space and the traditional western character of the area. Several interviewees had ideas for improving the profitability of this sector including production of ethanol and bio-diesel, growing organic products and responding to other new consumer demands and finding innovative uses for agriculture and timber waste products.

Notable responses are listed below.

Education; educated workforce; “if we had the best educated high school and college grads, they would have plenty of opportunities”; “Are we educating for what is needed?”; MSU could do a better job with training that is useful here, like recreation degrees, need a tech school in Montana; “What happened to ‘Schools to Career’ program?”, waffling in commitment to vocational training; Wyoming colleges and universities [don’t offer degrees needed locally], don’t offer a petroleum engineering degree, don’t have a college of medicine, [don’t produce local teachers] they come from out-of-state schools; “trying to start a restaurant training program in the Jackson high schools, training in a dominant industry; more technical training; expansion of Northwest Community College in Cody; lack of “skilled labor pool for light manufacturing,” skills will have to be taught to attract those industries; universities should be business incubators

Tax policy: Change tax structure to encourage investment, Montana has high capital gains rate, up to 11 percent, that keeps investment capital out of state, housing capital is here, but need serious investment dollars, CEOs need to see future here; Reduce state income tax and other corporate taxes; revise state income tax and replace with sales tax; create stable tax structure in Wyoming”; need statewide sales tax in Montana, with exemptions on grocery stores, medicine, professional fees, etc.; provide property tax break for people paying income tax to minimize impact on full-time residents; lack of balanced tax structure [in Montana needs to be addressed], need sales tax [to get money from] tourists and part-time residents; change tax structure [in Montana] to be friendly to job creation

Clean industry: Create light manufacturing opportunities; Attract clean industry; “Like most communities, we are looking for clean technology”; non-polluting industry; develop good jobs in a ‘smokeless industry’ that are compatible with character of region

Entrepreneurship: Development of local businesses and business leadership groups; teach entrepreneurship; create entrepreneurs and dynamic culture; put networks, relationships, systems in place to help start-ups; in a tourist/service economy prospects are poor unless you’re in business for yourself

Raise wages and benefits for all our jobs; Bring businesses and industry that are more than service providers; Attract industries that fit with our region and qualities of life, with pay above average; emphasize living wage jobs; start recruiting employers that pay a living wage with benefits, health care and retirement

Staying is not always healthy for young people, [it’s good] to get out of here and see the rest of the world, hope they come back; part of kids leaving is natural, people filter back; pull to go elsewhere; “out-migration is good, then come back”; “[kids] should go”

Transportation: Better transportation; improve roads, air travel, improve highways, airports for tourism, build light rail system in Yellowstone

Communications infrastructure, internet is key; “working with computers is a good solution”; telecommunication

Help existing businesses expand because they retain community values; expand businesses here; encourage growth of existing businesses; Red Lodge businesses like Sam’s Brewery, Montana Legends, Sylvan Peak Clothing could expand to employ more people

Information Technology: