I feel qualified to address several points made by Nathalie, since Wade Dokken's class envy comment was directed primarily at me for questioning unsubstantiated claims made in Ameya's advertising. Nathalie, have you actually read the letter in which Wade Dokken accused his critics of suffering from class envy? Ask Mr. Dokken for a copy or request a copy from the Park County (Montana) Commissioners.

Regarding conservation, Team Ameya has claimed in local newspaper ads and elsewhere that Ameya Preserve seeks to "set a new standard in preserving the natural landscape and wildlife” and they claim to "preserve natural resources that couldn't be preserved by any other means." Reputable biologists will tell you that a major problem facing wildlife in the Rocky Mountain west, and the world, is habitat loss and habitat fragmentation. While the Bullis Creek Ranch (a.k.a. Ameya Preserve) is not "pristine wilderness" as claimed in advertisements, it is important wildlife habitat including winter range for 1,000 plus elk, is within the mapped distribution of grizzly bears, and supports several other big game species. Building luxury homes, roads, and other infrastructure in important wildlife habitat, contributes to habitat loss and fragmentation, and habituates wildlife. Query Rocky Mountain newspapers from this past summer to see numerous articles about the relocation or killing habituated bears.

Ameya Preserve advertises custom lots “on the edge of an open meadow, in the shelter of aspen stands or bordering on nearby wetlands.” Edge habitat, aspen stands and wetlands are by far the most productive and important habitats in the Rocky Mountain west. Aspen stands and wetlands are quite limited and are disproportionately important to wildlife. Placing houses within aspen stands and adjacent to wetlands is anything but conservation of wildlife habitat.

Ameya Preserve claims residents will be able to fish 20 acres of ponds and lakes. Where are these ponds and lakes? Ameya will create artificial ponds and lakes by diverting ground and surface water. Do you know what happens to water when it is exposed to 871,200 square feet of evaporative surface? In a semi-arid environment, such a loss of water is a big deal. Is such extravagance considered conservation?

Team Ameya boldly claims “We will dedicate 1,700 acres in North Dakota to planting trees that will offset all the CO2 generation for all families of Ameya Preserve during their entire lifetimes.” Nathalie, have you ever been to north-central North Dakota? Are you aware that north-central NODAK is in the glaciated northern plains (i.e., dominated by grasslands)? THINK about it. They can't plant enough trees on 1,700 acres in NODAK to offset the first homes of their prospective clients, much less the second homes at Ameya and all of the development and construction activities. They would have to plant hundreds of thousands of trees to offset the CO2 footprint of this project and the families.

To quote Thomas Paine: “The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason.” Consumers of Ameya’s advertising, including Nathalie, should question rather than blindly accept.

Is Ameya Preserve a model of sustainability? How sustainable is building 2nd, 3rd, or more homes in remote, fire-prone areas that are important wildlife habitat? Just how many luxury developments like Ameya Preserve can the greater Yellowstone area sustain, while maintaining the natural disturbance regimes of our western landscapes, ensuring adequate water quality and quantity, and maintaining wild populations of native plants and animals? Please show me the math. Nathalie, I can be convinced with actual data, rather than empty advertising. How about you?

There are an estimated 6.6 billion people on the planet and by 2050, projections suggest there will be more than 9 billion humans sharing the planet. (Note that The Conservation Fund suggests that it takes 70 years for trees to offset the carbon footprint.) Maybe you're too young to recall the bumper sticker from the early environmental movement - "Think Globaly, Act Locally." From a global or local perspective, there is nothing sustainable about Ameya Preserve.

Take a look at the Ameya Preserve website (Living at Ameya) and this online presentation of custom home designs at: http://www.deniseandres.com/Downloads/Renderings.pdf. Just how sustainable are copper roofing, copper flashing, and copper rain gutters? Will the appliances in these homes be previously-owned and refurbished appliances? I suppose all of the rock for the houses and landscaping will be quarried on Ameya property? Look at that manicured, weed- and pest-free lawn. Nitrogen-fertilized lawns are wildlife magnets. Also, note all of the wildlife-palatable plantings. Remember the problems with habituation of wildlife?

Nathalie, you suggest that these false claims should be ignored or embraced because you think Ameya Preserve is “contributing to the greater good.” This sort of development in an inappropriate place is not designed for the “greater good.” Many of the false claims simply are targeting tragically uninformed people who feel green is stylish. Consider yourself duped.

These are just a few of the unfounded claims I've questioned. And, because I've questioned the BS that has been promoted in full-page ads in our local newspapers and on the internet, I'm told publicly that I suffer from class envy. I don't think so (self diagnosis). The issues I've raised are real and most of which are supportable with published literature. Ameya's advertising only diminishes the concept of conservation. While Ameya’s clustered housing design and plans to maintain substantial amounts of open space are much better than developments we routinely see, many of their advertising claims should be questioned, particularly by prospective buyers.

Purists and pollyannas? Nathalie, I think you've missed the entire focus of the debate.

From what I've seen of Ameya Preserve's advertising, there is much to question; and that is well worth debating!

I'm surprise that Nathalie would pretend to be a knowledgeable critic of the ongoing debate. Obviously, she is lacking knowledge of at least some of the details, if not most details. This is demonstrated by her simply writing off much of the debate to semantics. Perhaps, as Pete suggests, Nathalie could provide some data for supporting her conclusions.

I too am skeptical of the CO2 offsets, and I've spent some time in northern North Dakota. Just who does Ameya Preserve and The Conservation Fund think they're fooling by proposing such a silly scheme - maybe people like Alice Waters?

I agree with Pete's conclusion; Nathalie seems to have missed the real meat of the debate. I hope Plenty's understanding of ecology, the environment, and what it means to be green is not so shallow!

Greater Good? Are you kidding, Nathalie? Can you please provide us the names and locations of luxury residential/resort developments that provide for the "greater good." Are you as naive as Ameya Preserve's marketing team make the rest of us out to be?

I'd like to suggest a correction to Pete's posting. I believe he meant to say that his criticisms are supported by scientific peer-reviewed publications. Trained in natural resource management, I agree with the questions he raises. How about you, Nathalie?

Nathalie,

Hello! Are you still out there? Please respond to the the valid comments posted in response to your original posting. Or, is your "In Deep Waters" simply meaningless dribble?

Pete, Don, Sharon, and anyone else who's been paying attention:

Thank you for your comments. As I wrote at the end of my post, the fact that people care enough about this whole debacle to debate it is the most heartening thing about the whole affair. Given, for example, the recent amendments to Farm Bill legislation, it's obvious that change only happens when outspoken people passionately challenge the status quo.

The moderate attitude I took towards the Ameya Preserve that you've so criticized does NOT reflect a wholesale acceptance of Wade Dokken, "sustainable" developments or even Alice Waters herself. Look--second homes and even "sustainable" developments are detrimental to the environment, no question about it. As are shopping malls, cars, airplanes, cities, and every other human creation. Are we going to stop reproducing? No. Are rich people going to stop buying second homes? No. But to me, the fact that a big developer like Wade Dokken is going greener is a good thing, and I don't care if he's doing it because it's fashionable or not. Okay, that's not true, I do care--greenwashing infuriates me--but I look at it this way: developers are going to develop anyway, and people are going to buy their homes, so if they're at least a little greener, to me that's a step in the right direction. Does that mean we stop questioning them? Absolutely not. We watch their every move. If they're going to reap benefits by calling themselves green, they damn well deserve the title.

I don't question the motives of the developers of Ameya--I KNOW the driving force here is money, not world peace. But as a "sustainable" development (and I keep using that word in quotes because I am as skeptical of its usage as you are), they will be held more accountable than other, "non-sustainable" developers--by people like you. As they should be. Good on you for paying attention and raising your voice when things don't feel right. Seriously.

Yes, Ameya will be colonizing a beautiful natural habitat that has thus far lain mostly undisturbed. Is this sad? Yes, of course. But human development and appropriation of land is an inexorable truth of time and progress, and at least we've gotten to a point in time where enough thinking people out there have raised their voices in fury and demanded "more" "sustainable" development (there I go with my quotes again!). All I'm saying is that there are a lot of developers out there worse than Ameya, and they could be the ones building on that land.

I will be following Ameya's progress closely, and I hope you do too. There may be a day when I regret having praised them for having "tried" to do it "right." Right now--largely because of Alice Waters' support--I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. We'll see what happens.

Nathalie is absolutely right. The important point here is dialogue. While Pete F. claims to be 'not decided' on the project (other postings), he seems to be very quick to post rebuttals to anything approaching acceptance on any posting or website available.

The Ameya Preserve is developing a large chunk of land in Montana - primarily for second and third residence homes - just like many other developments all over the west. Is this parcel environmentally more/less important that The Yellowstone Club or ANY other large parcel split into multiple house lots at ANY price?

The debate is not "Can they do this?" The answer is yes and is defended by the Montana Constitution and even Pete's concept of property rights. In fact, Mr. Dokken could split this parcel into 20 acre ranchettes complete with fences and roads galore. If Mr. Dokken wanted to maximize profits, he could cluster 1200+ homes on 1 to 2 acre parcels, install a golf course, a large (~120,000 ft2) lodge (plus another ~50,000 ft2 of out buildings) and a security gate (there are no indications that this community will be gated - in fact I've read transcripts of commissioner meetings that specifically state that there will be no gates - that would not be allowed by fire regulations anyway) and a private hunting park and follow in lock-step the well established economic patterns of the majority of high-end developments in this country.

Frankly, I am amazed that Mr. Dokken is willing to avoid the key 'lures' that seems to be the benchmarks of these types of developments. I've personally spoken with many high end developers in Colorado, California, North Carolina, Florida and overseas and they all think that Ameya is nuts because it does not have one of the 3 'keys' - Golfing, Trophy Hunting, or Skiing.

Right out of the gate, Mr. Dokken seems to be setting a precedent of wanting to be in the "high-end' market without the 'required' amenities. So how is he going to 'fill-the-gap' and attract buyers? Answer: Arts, Music, Dino digs, archeology, wildlife viewing, etc.

Will it work? Who knows? But it seems like he has certainly committed to a lot of what he has said because he is under no pressure from ANY government organization, public regulations or land planning, or local or national development precedent to say anything that he has said.

As to whether he will actually do what he says he will do, I believe everyone has overlooked the most powerful commitment Mr. Dokken has made: Public marketing to purchasers! He has advertised nationally what his intentions are - if he does not or cannot do it; the least of his concerns will be Pete gloating. The very thing that everyone is up in arms about is the only thing that will tie his hands to his promises.

My grandfather always told me: 'If you have to piss someone off - Don't piss-off someone who has the resources to sue you’ and believe me, the clientele that Mr. Dokken is pursuing will not let him off the hook if all is not delivered.

Do I like this type of development? No. Why do I not like this development? I have to be honest and say it’s because I cannot belong to it. I would love to have the opportunity for my children to be exposed to the largesse observatory in the state, dino digs in Montana and Mongolia, private fishing and wildlife viewing or 'photo-hunts', nationally renown artists and poets and whatever else they will have up there - but God has not seen fit to grant me that wish. Does that give me the right to hate others for their opportunity? That’s not how I was raised - hopefully that’s not how I will raise my children. If my dislike is class envy then I have the honesty to accept that.

Does the community have the right to hate what is going on? Maybe - although I find it somewhat amusing that the Bullis Creek Ranch started out as an end-of-the-line cattle ranch, was purchased by an assortment of multi-millionaires who land swapped thousands of acres of federal and state land to block the property, did not allow ANY hunting by the public (on the private or the Public lands) and all but stopped cattle production resulting in an oasis of grazing and hunting refuge for wildlife. All of this has been the status quo for the last fifteen years and yet now the public outcry is centered around loss of wildlife habitat, rich SOB’s changing the feel of the valley (welcome to the perfectly legal right for anyone to live anywhere they want to), and an absurd attack against environmental claims (from environmentalists!) as if the only environmental solution is either act like the Yellowstone Club so we can hate you justly or completely set property aside like Ted Turner does.

In essence, the wildlife issues that Pete and other biologists have brought up are a recent fabrication. The abundance of elk habitat is only attributed to the lack of owner activity and proper use of the land (‘proper’ being defined as farming and ranching-the true historical uses for Montana!). The cries for public land access and hunting on the property have never been present for the public to lose (The hunting/outfitter rights for the public land sections were held by the rancher to the south and there has NEVER been free-for-all public access to the state sections in the past and NO public access for the last decade).

Wildlife officials cry about wildlife displacement due to disturbance, complaints from adjacent parcel owners and loss of habitat (read: We are losing our personal elk study opportunity that we have been able to exploit for the last fifteen years) like this has been the status quo for the last hundred years, or more specifically like they have a right to claim that improper land-use now sets the wildlife precedent for the entire area.

I am familiar with what Ted Turner does with his properties and I applaud it – although I find it laughable that the same people who attacked Ted Turner for turning the Flying D ranch into an exclusive property, gated to the community, to be enjoyed exclusively by the super-rich, swapping in-held state lands that were never accessible for blocked lands that now are, brought outside SOB culture to Montana communities and politics, conducted massive excavation of land (he lopped off 10 feet of a mountain to gain a better view from his house!), complete fabrication of ponds, lakes and rivers to enhance fisheries and property values, continues to be a hostile neighbor to adjacent property owners and local officials (re: paving in the canyon) is now lauded as the environmental highmark that Mr. Dokken should be judged against. How quickly we forget…

I see one thing that Mr. Dokken is doing that in relation to land conservation that is lacking from Mr. Turners approach – perpetual funding. Mr. Turner set aside a vast portion of land in Montana and around the country – which a billionare can afford to do – but what happens when Mr. Turner and his fortune are long-gone? There is no endowment to continue to preserve the property. No funding to spray weeds, or manage wildlife or fight fires, or harvest timber 50 years from now! Mr. Dokken has set up a perpetual endowment based on transaction process to maintain the land. Imagine, a development that actually has set aside the money to spray weeds. Try to find that in any other development in Montana. As to the conservation easement, developers cannot disclose it publicly or he will lose the tax advantages associated with it (or is that now unethical to claim and still be a conservationist? Ted did!)

If it makes Pete feel better – ask them to fix the acreage on the website or plant triple the trees in Montana – or in the wildness areas that burned down last year.

The main issue here seems to be that detractors think that NO development can claim to be environmental and doing so only dilutes the conservation movement and should be vehemently attacked for claiming to be on ‘our’ side and yet cavorting with the enemy. This seems to me to be ideological debate about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

At worst, Ameya will be just like the standard high-end development, at best it will provide a market benchmark to prove that development can afford to make conservation steps and still be profitable (a stronger motivation toward conservation than any number of marches or blog postings) but without question, it has spurred a broad look at property rights, zoning, class warfare in America, the true nature of conservation and ‘the best way to get there from here’. In that respect Nathalie is right: the discussion is the best part of Ameya.

Nathalie,

Thanks for responding to the comments others and I posted here.

You make several very valid points. The quotations around “sustainable development” are appropriate. There is very little that we do in this consumer age and ever-growing population that is sustainable. Until the laws of physics change, there is no such thing as sustainable development. Why not drop the term from your lexicon? Continuing to use the term is simply gives the uninformed a false sense of security. I also agree that it is great that “thinking people” have raised their voices about Ameya’s marketing scheme. Hopefully, many more people will think about the issues and raise their voices.

Land use issues are complex and there are no simple solutions. I fully recognize that the former Bullis Creek Ranch will be developed and I recognize that development on that property could be a lot worse than what is being proposed. I have been deeply involved in growth issues in Park County. Also, I have commended Ameya for their proposed clustered development.

My criticisms center around misinformation thrown about by Wade Dokken and Ameya’s marketing team. That misinformation does not allow prospective buyers to understand what they are actually buying. I am all for truth in advertising. Samples of misinformation include unsubstantiated claims of sustainability and setting a new standard for conservation; advertised heli-skiing in a federally designated wilderness area and putting radio-transmitters on wildlife for the entertainment of residents, planting trees in North Dakota to offset all CO2 emissions, and claiming partnerships that do not exist. The wildlife issues that have been raised by others and me are not “recent fabrications,” as suggested by Ceng1, and are far more complex than simple displacement. I’d be happy to provide you a list of peer-reviewed professional journal articles detailing the many likely impacts to wildlife resulting from developments. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks biologists have many examples of wildlife-human conflicts that arise from residences in inappropriate areas. I doubt that Ceng1, who ever you are, could provide any evidence to support his contention that wildlife issues are “recent fabrications.” That sounds like standard hype coming from Ameya. That illustrates the problem – unsubstantiated claims.

The misleading advertising should not be confused with desirable aspects of the planned clustering of development on 9,000-plus acres. Accepting the misinformation as legitimate claims of greenness does nothing to solve the problems we face today and is nothing more than catering to our desire to think that our individual behaviors are not part of the problem. We are the problem! No matter how you look at it, Ameya’s marketing represents greenwashing. It is wrong to allow blatantly false claims to go unchallenged.

Nathalie,

I’m not certain that you really understand the situation on which you are commenting. Mr. Dokken and Team Ameya have repeatedly put out in the media false claims or statements that are self-contradictory. Many of these false statements were promoted in full-page ads in local newspapers. As Pete has suggested, actions speak louder than words and provide a key to seeing who Mr. Dokken really is.

In an Ameya Preserve newsletter, Mr. Dokken claimed a partnership with the wildlife department at the University of Montana, stating, “We intend to tag our bears, lions, wolves, moose and elk and allow residents to follow the migration and hibernation patterns from their homes at Ameya Preserve or their primary homes.” In addition to their being no partnership with U.M., it is unethical to put radiocollars on animals for amusement of Ameya’s residents. It is very stressfull to capture, handle, and anesthetize animals while collaring them. Note that he uses the term “our bears, lions….” In the United States, wildlife are a public resource not under private ownership. How SENSITIVE are these claims? In my opinion, they are ignorant and arrogant statements.

Dokken advertised private heli-skiing in the Absaroka Wilderness Area, a federally designated wilderness area where motorized equipment, including helicopters is prohibited by law. Helicopter flights over mountains during winter has adverse impacts on animals such as bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and wolverine. How SENSITIVE is that?

Dokken claimed a partnership with the Park County Rod & Gun Club, another parthership that never existed. Park County R&G has some very harsh words for Mr. Dokken.

The Bullis Creek is a dry, fire-prone drainage. Look at the newspapers from the past several summers and you will find that the cost to fighting wildfires has increased significantly due to residential development in inappropriate areas. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when the Bullis Creek Drainage will Burn.

Mr. Dokken claimed that by planting trees on 1,700 acres in North Dakota, all CO2 emissions from all families would be offset for their entire lifetimes. This is another claim that is patently false.

Mr. Dokken proclaims himself to be an environmentalist and conservationist. If he were true to his convictions, he’d live in town and create a subdivision that was annexed to an existing community.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Trust and respect are earned, as are lables of greenness and environmental sensitivity. Empty, unsuported claims in the media mean nothing. Through his actions and behavior, Mr. Dokken has generated mistrust and disrespect.

Nathalie, I think the residents of Park County and his most ardent critics are seeking some truthful disclosure and an honest effort on behalf of Mr. Dokken to be part of the local community. That is reasonable to expect, but all that has been offered by Mr. Dokken has been misinformation and media sound bites espousing what he thinks potential clients what to here. I agree with Pete, let’s have truth inadvertising. Giving lipservice to sustainability, greenness and enviornmental sensitivity when none has been exhibited is disingenuous.

Ceng1, thank you for a defense that was as sensible as it was eloquent.

Pete, you're right. Greenwashing sucks and Ameya is certainly guilty of it (as are most of the people cashing in on green's cachet these days.) It's extremely annoying.

However, Dokken has been so public with his claims that they may come back to bite him in the butt, if (when?) he doesn't deliver.

I also see what you're saying about "sustainable" as an ill-fitting prefix for "development," but I refuse to see human progress as anything but natural and inescapable--if, yes, often mismanaged. What term would you use?

Hi Nathalie,

Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been preoccupied with other stuff.

Greenwashing is bad, and Ameya Preserve thakes it to a new level. As you suggest, time will tell. But it is important for prospective consumeres to be aware of the BS and ask questions before they buy.

Yes, human progress is natural, as is reproduction; and humans are the sexiest organism on the planet. However, there are predictable consequences to our inability to regulate reproduction and manage growth.

What to call development suchs as the type Dokken advertises? Let's call it what it is - development; because it is not sustainable by any stretch of the imagination. If you wish to apply descriptive adjectives to it, perhaps you could call it "planned development" or "clustered development."

Cheers,

Pete