Guest Opinion: Wolves

Recently concluded public wolf-hunting seasons along with federal predator-control killings resulted in the shootings of over 500 gray wolves in Montana and Idaho, leaving the combined wolf population in those two states and Wyoming at around 1,700 animals, close to what it was last year.  Under state management future wolf mortality can be expected to climb significantly unless last April’s removal of wolves from the endangered species list is overturned in federal court and federal protections are restored.

According to the wolf delisting rule that was promulgated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and is challenged in court by the Center for Biological Diversity and other conservation organizations represented by Earthjustice, the states of Idaho and Montana may reduce wolf numbers to 100-150 individual animals in each state.  Idaho has been particularly adamant that it intends to drive wolf numbers as low as possible.  Montana’s open-ended authorization of predator-control actions will subject wolves to almost unlimited persecution.  Wyoming’s wolves, also subject to federal killing, are still on the endangered species list and thus not yet publicly hunted – but when delisting finally occurs in Wyoming, it too will be authorized to eliminate all but 100-150 wolves.

From the Flathead Beacon

The work of a five-person commission to redraw the lines of Montana’s legislative districts in the most fair, nonpartisan and constitutional way possible is beginning in earnest. Yet paradoxically, redistricting is traditionally one of the most bare-knuckled partisan processes in Montana politics.

Since the last Democrat-controlled Districting and Apportionment Commission redrew district lines in 2000, Republicans have complained that boundaries were drawn to maximize Democratic voters and dilute the influence of GOP supporters, thus putting more Democrats in the Legislature.

“They gerrymandered the system to get the most Democratic outcome they could, and we believe it cost us three-to-five House seats,” Sen. Bruce Tutvedt, R-Kalispell, said. “The Republicans really are burned after the last time.”

GUEST COMMENTARY

Over the last few years I’ve noticed something interesting about our ongoing climate change discussions. It used to be that logic and knowledge were the keys. We looked at the best available science, weighed the predicted costs of action versus the predicted costs of inaction, and then considered the most appropriate alternatives. Businesses use this kind of approach all the time. It’s called a “cost-benefit analysis.”

Recently, though, our climate discussions have slowed and even stalled. Not because of the science, which remains irrefutable, or because of the proposed solutions, which are generally still feasible, but because so-called climate skeptics are doing their best to muddy the water and raise doubts about the issue.

HOPPY BIRTHDAY

We’ve all heard about the Tea Party and its politically conservative approach that blames government in general and Democrats in particular for all the nation’s problems.

Now, in response, we have the Coffee Party emerging to applaud more liberal views, such as viewing government as merely an expression of our collective will, so it sort of seems like it should be named the Espresso Party. Anyway, it already has 350 coffee shops signed up in 44 states.

Now, I’m hearing rumblings of another new political party starting up, one that might really solve the many troubles that threaten to sink the greatest nation on earth, the Microbrew Party. It doesn’t have a website yet, or staff, promotional webcasts, offices, or anything formal, so lots more news to break in coming months, but here’s what I’ve heard so far.

A CHANGE THAT'S LONG OVERDUE

UPDATED Friday, March 12, 1 pm:
I used this headline once before when writing about Mark Rey, former Bush Administration Undersecretary of Agriculture and boss of the Forest Service. Prior to Rey’s Reign of Terror, California Republican Congressmen Richard Pombo held the honor of being the biggest enemy of public lands. Voters booted him in 2006, but he’s back, running for Congress again this year.

Now, we have a new Public Lands Enemy No. 1, none other than current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

MAX'S 30-YEAR CRUSADE

Montana is home to some of the most gorgeous landscapes in the world. From the plains of the east, to the mountains of the west, we are incredibly blessed to be able to call it home. And there is one area that holds a special place for me: the North Fork.

One of the best parts of my year is when the weather starts to turn warm and I can get away for a weekend to Glacier or the surrounding areas. I love looking at the deep blue of Lake McDonald or the crystal clear water of the North Fork. I love staring up at the soaring peaks, and experiencing the awe when you hear names like Jackson and Stimson. I love the wildlife and the ruggedness. 

RMEF, NRA OPPOSE 1-161

UPDATED: 7 pm, February 25: I just received a press release from Safari Club International, also in opposition to I-161.

A proposed ballot measure in Montana to eliminate guaranteed big game licenses for commercial outfitters, I-161, just picked up some serious opposition.

Proponents of I-161 are currently gathering signatures, so it’s still uncertain whether it will actually be on the ballot this November 2. Nonetheless, in separate press releases, the Missoula-based Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) strongly opposed the ballot initiative. 

CAN ANYTHING MOVE SLOWER THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

Lately, it seems, I’ve been doing a lot of bemoaning about our inept political system, but alas, sometimes it does work.

Back on November 5, I devoted my column to pushing the USDA to fund a new hunting access program called Open Fields that Congress passed as part of the 2008 Farm Bill.

THE GRAND COMPROMISE

After thinking about it for about forty years, I’ve finally decided to throw out an idea for solving Montana’s totally messed up, mean-spirited, seemingly endless wilderness debate. And it might work in other states, too.

If I were your senator (scary thought, eh?), I’d much prefer to address this thorny issue all at once instead of stringing it out for decades. This is opposite of piecemeal approach preferred your real Senators, including Jon Tester (D-MT) and his beleaguered Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, S. 1470. I admire Tester’s effort, and I’ve supported S. 1470, (with two amendments he rejected), but this bill virtually guarantees we’ll be fighting over the last roadless lands for the rest of my life.

GUEST COMMENTARY

The numbers are painful.  Last year, 1,700 Montanans lost jobs in our timber industry.  Timber harvest across our state plummeted a staggering 40 percent.  Several mills—including Montana’s largest—boarded up.

If we do nothing, Montanans who work in the woods will get hit even harder.  It’s an industry that today directly employs just over 7,000 Montanans.  Thousands more rely on the industry indirectly.

If we do nothing—or if we let partisan politics trump the ideas of Montanans who worked together for years on a common sense solution—all those jobs will be on the rocks. 

In order to put Montanans back to work in the woods, we need to rethink the way we manage the woods.  We need a 21st century plan.

That’s exactly why I introduced the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.