Yes, Bear Butte is considered a religious site by many Native Americans, but it is also a state park, a national landmark and a unique place that holds great significance, including spiritual significance, for people of all races, cultures and religions.

Because it is all those things to all those people, the Legislature is shortsighted not to endorse Gov. Mike Rounds' effort to purchase a perpetual conservation easement for about $1.2 million on 700 acres of private land near the base of Bear Butte.

Rounds is not protecting a church or a specific religion with his plan, which was rejected by the state House of Representatives on Wednesday. He is protecting a state park. In the process, he is protecting the interests of all South Dakotans.

The easement would prevent urban encroachment from private development on two parcels of state-owned parkland at the butte: A state campground across S.D. Highway 79 to the west and on the butte itself.

There is one last remaining piece of Bear Butte that is not in the park, a slice of land that goes up the southwest side of the butte to within 400 yards of the top.

It is imperative that the state prohibit commercial and housing development that close to a state park, whether it be encroachment from Sturgis Rally-related bars and campgrounds or million-dollar private homes built to capture a stunning view. We think purchasing that kind of guarantee in perpetuity for just $250,000 in state funds is a bargain to boot.

HB1175 was the governor's legislation that would provide $250,000 in state funds that would be matched with $244,000 in private donations and a $594,000 federal grant from a program designed to protect agricultural lands. It faced stiff opposition from the Meade County Commission and numerous Sturgis businesses.

But landowner-rights proponents who opposed the bill are being intellectually inconsistent. You can't argue for the rights of private property owners and then tell a rancher who wants to negotiate a perpetual conservation easement on his or her land that they have no right to control the future use of their land.

Conservation easements keep land on the tax rolls as agricultural property but also guarantee an unaltered landscape at Bear Butte for future generations.

HB1275 would have been a win-win for all parties involved. Most importantly, it would be a win for Bear Butte.