Page 29 - Flathead Beacon // 12.14.16

CLOSING RANGE DAVE SKINNER TO HEL(ENA) AND BACK
GUEST COLUMN JEFF HAGENER
IN A FEW DAYS, MONTANA’S LEGIS- lature will be in session again. If you’re planning on being a “citizen lobbyist,” good, especially considering the real lobbyists will be there every day (and every evening, in every Helena watering hole), pushing things you might not like.
Interested? Then read my archived column from 2015 on the Beacon web- site (“I’ll See You In Hel”). And don’t forget your copy of the legislative guide from Flathead Electric when they come o the press, a useful gift from all Mon- tana Co-ops.
I think Montana citizens enjoy a pretty cool set-up, for two reasons:
One, Montana legislators are part- time. They therefore must “keep their oar in” real Montana problems, or su er the consequences.
Second, the open access to leadership that average Montanans enjoy is pretty amazing. Want some face time? In D.C., you need a sta “inside connection” at least. In Helena, there’s no sta ! Just show up and lurk a little; your legislator might actually be happy to see a familiar face from home.
So what about the session?
Well, I was happy to learn that Bob Keenan of Bigfork won a Republican leadership slot in the state Senate. But Keenan’s elevation also signals what we can expect in general. Keenan tied Llew Jones of Conrad, who is in his last ses- sion, 16 votes each, with a coin ip being the tiebreaker.
Clearly, the three-way split between RINOs, real Republicans and oh-so- real Democrats will again be a factor in 2017, at least in the Senate. Expect some reworks.
Now, there is a need to “get things done” in the Legislature in order for government to function, but there is a big di erence between right and wrong “things.” So reworks can be helpful.
In terms of wrong, Gov. Steve Bull- ock’s budget proposes to cut Highway Patrol funding by $7.7 million, sacking 27 o cers where the rubber literally meets the road. Now, I should like that, because fewer units on the road means fewer chances for a speeding ticket.
However, if Bullock wants to cut any
transportation money, perhaps the funds could be better saved from the budget for magnesium chloride, or whatever the heck goes into that corrosive, bolt-rust- ing, wiring-killing, stripe-darkening “road slime.”
Then there’s the seemingly separate issues of “local-option sales tax” or gas taxes.
The “popular,” but dishonest argu- ment in favor of local option seems to be that the “tourists” who jam up town streets should pay for town infrastruc- ture. Sorry – tourists, drat them, are here maybe one week out of the year, or per- haps only a couple of days. They’re here, then gone.
Really, who should pay? Us. Period. Through a gas tax.
See, although I’m a conservative and hate taxes, I’m logical enough to under- stand that appropriate and fair taxes are sometimes best. The “best” taxes are paid by those who generate the cost. Or, those who reap the bene ts, pay those bene ts. Tourists? No, those of us (yes, you too) who drive and enjoy these roads year-around, right here in Montana.
If Montanans had the willingness to tax themselves for stu they want, guess what, it wouldn’t have taken eighty bazil- lion years to fund and build the west side bypass – or even the east side Willow Glen route that could have made more impact at less cost, based on actual traf- c ows and needs.
So, I’ll be watching to see which (gas or option), gets picked in Helena.
Finally, please pardon this digression, but Dec. 7, 2016 was the 75th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. I was shocked to realize that those who were fresh-faced teenag- ers when the Japanese attacked are now age 93, older, or gone to their reward.
My “Navy Dad,” Leland Spoon Ober- holser, was one. Lee graduated in 1940 from Roosevelt High School in Hono- lulu and joined the Merchant Marine Academy o cer cadet program. He was assigned to the President Coolidge, which hit a mine and sank at Espiritu Santo in October 1942. That was just the begin- ning of an experience which Lee had the good sense to put down on paper, captur- ing his legacy while there was still time.
Have you captured yours?
IMANAGEMENT
N SOME WAYS, 2016 WILL GO DOWN
the Bitterroot-Selway, but this summer FWP con rmed sightings of at least one grizzly in the Big Hole Valley, on the southern edge of this recovery area.
While FWP manages day-to-day issues associated with grizzly bears, the FWS has overall management author- ity. FWP is permitted to handle and “harass” bears according to an annual permit issued by the FWS. That per- mit contains stipulations about what FWP can and cannot do, and most actions must rst be approved by the FWS. Essentially, this means that if FWP wants to remove a problem bear, we must rst get authorization from the FWS. This is confusing to many Mon- tanans because while FWP is usually the agency responding to a con ict, the ultimate decision on any action is at the discretion of the FWS.
Other management actions that must get prior approval include trapping and moving problem bears, preemptively moving bears away from areas where they may come into con ict and eutha- nizing problem bears.
Another player in grizzly manage- ment is the U.S. Department of Agri- culture’s Wildlife Services. This agency responds to livestock depredations for the agriculture community. They may investigate a depredation event, identify the likely culprit as a grizzly and inform the FWS, who then coordinates with Wildlife Services and FWP on a solution.
FWP is dedicated to e ective and sound grizzly bear management. We work with landowners on solutions to keep bears away from livestock or attrac- tants. We closely monitor bear numbers around the state so that we understand the populations of bears in Montana and their distribution. We communi- cate with the public about bear activity and promote wise and safe behavior for people working and recreating in grizzly bear country.
Given the policies and agencies involved, the process of dealing with grizzly bear con icts can be cumber- some, but it is the situation we face as long as the bears continue to be listed under the ESA. By the benchmarks established by the ESA, grizzly bear populations are recovered in the NCDE and the GYA. The goal of the ESA is to recover species, and in the case of griz- zly bears in these two ecosystems, this e ort has been a resounding success.
We continue to advocate for grizzly delisting in these areas. We are commit- ted to management plans that will keep the populations healthy while allowing us much more exibility in bear man- agement and addressing concerns from communities, livestock and agriculture producers living in bear country.
UNDERSTANDING GRIZZLY BEAR
“THE THREE-WAY SPLIT BETWEEN RINOS, REAL REPUBLICANS AND OH- SO-REAL DEMOCRATS WILL AGAIN BE A FACTOR.”
Mike (Uncommon Ground) Jopek and Dave (Closing Range) Skinner often fall on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to political and outdoor issues. Their columns alternate each week in the Flathead Beacon.
as a landmark year for grizzly bear
management.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) announced its proposal to del- ist grizzly bears in the Greater Yellow- stone Area after a federal court rejected a 2007 delisting rule. The grizzly popu- lation in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) reached its recovery goals prior to 2007 and continues to exceed all recovery benchmarks, as outlined by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the FWS.
Recovery of grizzlies in the GYA is one of the greatest conservation suc- cess stories in the nation. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, along with many partners, helped bring an iconic spe- cies back from the brink of extinction. Now a healthy population of grizzlies inhabits its native range in southwest Montana and beyond. Similar e orts in the Northern Continental Divide Eco- system have also led to that grizzly pop- ulation exceeding its recovery goals — another success story.
As these two grizzly bear popula- tions recovered, bears expanded into areas they haven’t been for decades. The Rocky Mountain Front is an area where bears continue to move further out into prairie environments. This activity has resulted in con ict between livestock producers, landowners, community members and bears. Increased con icts cause confusion about grizzly bear man- agement, including who makes manage- ment decisions, what level of protection bears have and what exibility FWP has in dealing with problem bears.
Grizzly bears were listed as threat- ened in the lower 48 under the Endan- gered Species Act in 1975. The grizzly bear recovery plan identi ed six recov- ery areas, four of which are in Montana: the GYA, the Bitterroot-Selway, the Cab- inet-Yaak and the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE).
The ESA allows for the bears to be recovered/delisted by distinct popu- lation segment, or one area at a time — that’s why the GYA population was proposed for delisting separate from the other recovery areas. If FWS del- ists bears in the GYA, FWP will take over grizzly management. In the rest of the state, including the NCDE, grizzlies will remain listed as threatened and be managed by the FWS. A delisting pro- posal for the NCDE is not currently on the table, even though that population exceeds established recovery goals.
Conservative estimates indicate about 750 grizzlies live in the GYA, about 1,000 live in the NCDE and nearly 50 live in the Cabinet-Yaak. We have no o cial counts of grizzlies in
Je Hagener is the outgoing director of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
DECEMBER 14, 2016 // FLATHEADBEACON.COM
29