"You missed the point that the land in question is currently undeveloped public land that has to be razed before the houses go up. Not only will this involve the use of a lot of fossil fuels, this land should be protected, not developed."

That's a different issue than the topic of the story. Given the circumstances, someone else would be doing it, if not Dokken. And they might not put nearly as much effort into minimizing environmental impacts, since apparently they aren't obligated to do so by any statute.

If local residents are disturbed by dwellings built for seasonal use, by inappropriate land use, or by the sequestering of formerly public-access land by a tiny number of exceedingly rich property owneres, the issue is most properly addressed by changing the property tax codes, zoning laws, and environmental restrictions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the ironies of owning a home in Montana is that If more land needs to be conserved for continued public access and use, that can be done by purchasing the land, or by entering into public-private cooperative agreements and easement contracts.

I've heard the current governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, speaking on some of these issues. Schweitzer is of native Montana heritage, a former rancher and landowner, and a Democrat. He also sounds like a thoughtful and intelligent person.

I also think that it's a mistake to judge and write off all rich newcomers en masse as terminal a~sholes and wastrels, without trying to engage any of them in dialogue and/or checking for evidence of a sense of community responsibility. Rich people do have resources, after all...it's just possible that at least a few of them would rather employ some of them to help both Montana's people and its land, in preference to going the "Dallas/Dynasty" route, or what have you.

Activism and organizing at the state level tend to work much more successfully and quickly than at the Federal government level. I suggest that the residents get busy.

A good example: the environmental and recreational policies of the state of Maine, where it's been possible for lakes to have bans on the use of jet skis and/or high-powered watercraft. Maine also has good, tough environmental laws and fairly rigorous enforcement.

As a former long-time resident of Northern California who plans to return there later this year, I'm very sympathetic to the criticisms voiced in the article on the folly of building sprawling tract developements, especially in forested wildernesses. Especially when they're fated to burn, in forest fires. My own recommendation would be to limit or ban single-dwelling units in such areas (with a "grandfather clause" attached, of course.) My personal take on building in places like the foothills of the Sierras or the Rockies would emphasize high-rise apartment development communities...that's right, you heard me correctly. Compact high-rise communities. No need for laying down hundreds of miles of new paved road to connect widely dispersed homesteads, eroding hillsides and adding huge amounts of non-absorbant land surface and non-point source petro pollution, along with the massive increase in auto traffic and tree-killing air pollution from this mode of development. No need for individual wells and septic tanks, and/or huge new waterworks projects, pipelines, and culverts to connect the homes to central water supplies. No need to string sprawling cables and wires to for electrical hook-ups. High-rise apartment communities could work as oases connected by a few arteries through undeveloped wilderness- and they could be protected from the inevitable forest fires. They wouldn't even need to cause visual pollution, if constructed as stepped pyramids instead of rectangular dominoes. Everyone would get a view, and they wouldn't have to keep trimming the trees. The environmental footprint would be a fraction of the current status quo of haphazardly subdividing and constructing widely scattered residences that are fated to degrade everything in the natural environment that makes it an attractive place to live- the trees, the wildlife, the watersheds, the peace and quiet.

I sympathize with the idea that "land should be protected, not developed." But, well...I have a hunch that nearly all of the people currently reading this message live on "developed land." Think about it.

Given that, the most practical course is to combine development with protection.

Stray sentence fragment from my previous comment- "Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the ironies of owning a home in Montana is that..." Where I was going with that was to bring up something I had once read in the NYT about the tax benefits related to owning a residence in Montana, which apparently makes second home ownership there a hugely attractive bargain.

But I was unable to reference it, so I dropped the topic, failing to delete the related comment fragment.