Thursday, February 26, 2009

Streamside setbacks

A column on the Big Sky Rivers Act, which would control development along rivers in western Montana.

Idaho moves on wolf kill in Lolo

Idaho Fish and Game is proposing to kill about 100 wolves in the lands that border Montana on the Lolo National Forest. While removing the wolves won't fix all of the problems with declining elk numbers in the Idaho panhandle, it will help. Elk and wolves can coexist when the habitat is in good shape, but the quality of the elk habitat in this country is on the decline.

Reducing the burgeoning wolf population here should be part of an overall landscape restoration effort. Depress the wolf population, reintroduce fire to improve elk grazing conditions, and keep a lid on elk permits until the population rebounds.

By the way, there's nothing wrong with a state wildlife agency trying to boost ungulate populations and with it, hunter success rates. Hunters and anglers remain the primary funding source for game and fish departments across the West. Happy hunters pay for wildlife conservation in western states.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Streamside setbacks get state hearing

The House Local Government Committee will consider a bill that would establish streamside setbacks on 10 rivers in Montana. Setbacks will happen, eventually. But I'm not sure there's enough wind behind the idea this legislative session.

The bill has rekindled the predictable debate about property rights in the Bitterroot Valley, where there has been vocal opposition to setbacks, as well as some of the most damaging examples of streamside development in the state.

Let's not forget, if you build along rivers and streams, you eventually need to armor the bank in some way to protect your dream home. When you do so, often with rip rap, you simply shove the erosion problem off on your downstream neighbor. And you usually intensify the probelm in the process. This, of course, is where your right to swing your fist colides with my right not to be punched. Property rights are not absolute. There is a balence to be reached between the absolute right to build where ever and what ever you want with the rights of neighbors not to have their property harmed in the process.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Amazing

So the Supreme Court hands the landowners along the Bitterroot River who blocked rightful recreational access for 15 years a complete rebuke and what do they do? Why they find a screw-his-constituents-first legislator to introduce a bill that undoes what the court just ruled.

While the bill has no, repeat NO chance of becoming law, it may help end once and for all all the whining about how the Mitchell Slough case was so complicated and the the poor landowners were just misunderstood. How they're just a bunch of noble ecological restorationists suffering at the envy of all those coveting what they've created. Well no, they're not. The Mitchell Slough case is what it has always been, just the latest round in the battle by the wealthy few to deny the constitutionally protected right for all Montanans to recreate in our public water ways.

The Governor will never sign this legislation, which has little chance to make it through the legislature anyway. But rest assured, these folks won't quit trying to deny Montanans their rights until the succeed.

It's time to decide: Are we with them, or against them?

UPDATE

Sen. Rick Laible now says he's sorry and is rewriting his bill, but he won't tell the truth about who wrote the first draft, which was essentially the argument recently made by landowners in the courts.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Wilderness Bill equals economic stimulus?

I'd like to see a Northern Rockies Wilderness Bill because it's well past time we settle the wilderness debate. Providing full wilderness protection for areas that have been managed as such for years just makes sense.

But I also like the jobs creation elements of ecological restoration mentioned in the bill. Lets put folks to work removing poorly designed forest roads and the damages of clear cuts. Connecting jobs with restoration is a good thing.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Property rights versus wildlife management

The good thing about creating economic activity around hunting and fishing is that it expands the advocate base for wildlife resources. The bad thing is that often the folks who make a living based on that activity begin to expect management decisions based on economics rather than biology.

UPDATE

SB162 was defeated in the Senate.