No action in Senate on bridge access bill

The usual characters, or should we say character, spoke out against the bridge access bill in a Senate hearing on Thursday. Attorney John Bloomquist, who always seems to find a reason to oppose public access, led the opposition. But this bill passed by a 97-3 vote in the House, and should finally find its way to Gov. Schweitzer's desk for a signature this year.

Dam good news

The final pieces of the Milltown Dam are being removed. This spring the Clark Fork may behave like a free-flowing river again.

Setback law dies in committee

Not a big surprise, but a disappointment. The streamside setback bill has been killed on a party-line tie vote in committee.

Bridge access bill goes to Senate

Thursday the Senate Fish and Game Committee will hear public comment on the bridge access bill that sailed through the House. The Public Land and Water Access Association is urging hunters and anglers to let their legislators know they support the bill

Obama admin backs delisting

Wolves are biologically recovered in Montana. Now it's time for social and political recovery to commence. Delisting is an essential part of that process.

Wolf protest misses the mark

Hunters gathered in Kalispell over the weekend to protest continued delays in the delisting of wolves in Montana. If that was as far as it went, we'd have no problem here at mthookandbullet.com. But as is too often the case, hunters decrying the lack of wolf management (known in impolite but honest society as killing them) do as much harm to their cause as good.

Yes 2008 was a tough year for hunting, and elk and deer numbers are down in some cases. And yes, we've exceeded the wolf recovery targets for a number of years now. But when I see a bunch of hunter-orange clad nimrods waiving signs that read "No More Wolves" I worry about the the message that sends to the vast middle, the 80 percent or so of citizens that are neither hunters, nor anti-hunters. These are the folks we need to have a conversation with, to keep on our side so that they remain passive supporters of hunting rights. And we're convinced the message on display this weekend: "Kill more wolves so we can kill more deer" is a losing message.

Now you could argue that "No More Wolves" just means don't let the population get any larger, rather than re-exterminate the critters. But I don't think that's the message non-hunters hear. And that's especially the case when hunters wave signs with silly statements such as "Elk — The next endangered species" or post comments on newspaper message boards about how they kill every wolf they see.

There are complex interactions between game and predators species, and their are complex interactions between those animals and the landscapes they inhabit. As wolves have reestablished themselves in northwest Montana, they have changed the elk and deer humans are found of hunting. Elk will always be a tougher target for human hunters if those elk live in the presence of wolves. It's the difference between hunting a truly wild animal (an elk in wolf country) versus a semi-tame animal (elk that only have too look out for predators in the fall).

Yes, let's manage, I mean kill, more wolves to keep that population in check and avoid the kind of boom-and-bust ungulate population cycles more common in unmanaged systems. But hunters need to remember wolf reintroduction is popular with the public, and necessary to restore our ecosystems to a more wild state. And if that wasn't our goal, we'd spend our falls pursuing trophy elk in enclosed game parks where we could count on success. Oh yeah, Montanans rightfully ended that dreadful practice in our state years ago.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Access bill gets overwhelming support in House

The bill designed to clarify the public's right to access rivers and streams at bridge crossings picked up a lot of momentum Monday when the House gave it initial approval by a 95-5 vote. A final vote is expected today in the House, before the bill moves on to the Senate.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer has already said he'll sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

Obama administration reviewing delisting

Let's hope the Obama administration officials reviewing the Bush admin's last-second delisting proposal for wolves allows those regs to take affect. There are plenty of wolves out there, and even if hunting has the disastrous effect the anti-delisting crowd claims, wolves have shown they can increase their numbers quickly.

This quote is particularly rich:

“Wolf recovery has been successful, but that can be reversed very quickly,” said Louisa Willcox, senior wildlife advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The population numbers bounce around a lot. You can have a big down-bounce. If you manage for the minimum, kill 500 in Idaho, and then you have a disease year, it makes it hard to crawl out of that hole.”

Hard to crawl out of that hole? There were about 60 wolves released in the northern Rockies in 1995 and 1996. Today there are about 1,500. The minimum population target of 300 animals was reached in 2002, six years after reintroduction.

The notion that wolf populations are somehow fragile and could easily be wiped out is ridiculous. What is fragile is the social/political dynamic that creates an environment of support for wolves in the human populations that surround wolf country. If the anti-delisting crowd keeps playing games with wolf management they run the risk of turning that social dynamic against wolves. Maybe they don't care. Maybe they think they can say the Hell with what the locals think.

We think wolves are better off if the local human populations favor the wolf's presence. We think that's an environment that promotes long-term sustainability of these magnificent predators.

Access foes keep playing the game

What do you do when you lose in court? If you've got enough money, you keep hiring lawyers and keep throwing bogus arguments at Montana's citizen legislature in hopes that you can delay, and maybe prevent, the LAW OF MONTANA from ever being enforced.

At least that seems to be billionaire landowner James Cox Kennedy's startegy when it comes to bridge easements for river access in Madison County.

Wolves delisted?

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service again moved to delist wolves from Endangered Species Act protection, a decision that is almost certain to be challenged in court. Delisting is the right call, while the likely legal challenges and delays to hunting seasons for wolves in Montana and Idaho will continue to threaten the the long-term viability of wolf recovery. The deal was that once these critters were recovered, management would move to the states and limited hunting would be allowed.

By the way, Wyoming was excluded from delisting due to the fact that that state has yet to present an adult-drafted management plan. Wyoming's shoot-on-sight policy everywhere but Yellowstone National Park is childish nonsense.

Wolves are now recovered in Montana and Idaho. Period. Their fecundity has exceed all expectations. But some of the environmental groups involved in the lawsuits seem less interested in wolf recovery, and more interested in the cottage industry of conflict that the continued battle over delisting provides. In the mean time, they threaten to shatter the fragile coalition that paved the way for successful reintroduction and recovery.

The recovery goal for the program was at least 300 animals in Montana, Wyoming and idaho, with 30 breeding pairs. That goal was reached in 2002. There are now more than 1,500 wolves in the Northern Rockies by official estimates, a number that probably understates the population.

The recovery of this species — once eliminated from the lower 48 in one of the ugliest campaigns of extermination in American history — is nothing short of miraculous.

“The bottom line is wolves are fully recovered, and they should be delisted,” federal gray wolf recovery coordinator Ed Bangs was reported saying by the Missoulian during the teleconference announcing the decision. “It's the right time and the right thing to do.”

Bangs is right to a point. Wolves are recovered, biologically. But social and political recovery is still on hold. Full recovery waits for Wyoming to put some adults in charge of drafting its management plan, and for environmental groups to stop playing politics with the species.

Get er done

This may be the legislative session where the issue of river access at bridge crossings is finally settled. It sounds as though a coalition of interest groups is behind this common-sense solution for creating safe access to rivers, while keeping cattle behind the fence where they belong.

We especially appreciate this comment from bill sponsor, Rep. Kendall Van Dyk, D-Billings:

“If a rich, out-of-stater wants to buy access to rivers and streams, I know some incredibly pretty places in Wyoming they can look at."

Montanans cherish our Stream Access Law. A final ruling on bridge crossings, coupled with the Supreme Court's slam dunk decision not to allow landowners to deny the public access to the Bitterroot River (know as the Mitchell Slough Case) means the Stream Access Law is stronger than ever.

Access, other issues top agenda

Stream access tops the list of proposals the legislature will consider this session that have particular importance to hunters and anglers. Another proposal would fine landowners who string barbed wire across rivers. That seems like a no brainer issue of public safety.

Wilderness fans gear up

Anticipating a more friendly president will soon reside in the White House, wilderness advocates are polishing up proposals for a new Montana wilderness bill. Sure to be considered is this proposal for the Rocky Mountain Front.

Plum Creek the good guys?

Leave it to the Bush administration to make even one of the environmental movement's favorite whipping boys look good in the waning days of this dismal presidency. Plum Creek officials now say the timber company won't use logging road easements to access forest lands for development, even while Agricultural Undersecretary Mark Rey keeps pushing for the deal.