Montana Initiative - Good for Hunters?

If you’ve wondered why we often have initiated measures on the ballot, there’s a history lesson involved. Initiatives are a souvenir of what historians call the “Progressive Era,” when there was a populist revolt against state legislatures, which many felt were in the pockets of the vested interests. Many states, primarily west of the Mississippi, enacted various forms of initiatives and referendums, in which people can petition to put measures on the ballot.

The Montana initiative process requires people to submit ballot proposals to the Secretary of State’s office for analysis and screening. If a proposal passes this legal hurdle the sponsors of the initiative can then collect signatures from citizens, including five percent of registered voters from 34 of Montana’s legislative districts, with a minimum of 24,337 signatures.

As of late February, some 24 measures had been submitted and five have passed through the process far enough so that backers can collect signatures. Three of those initiatives have outdoor implications. I-160 is a measure that would outlaw trapping by private citizens on public lands. I-162 is a private property issue involving the old red-herring question of “government takings.”

Then there’s this week’s topic: I-161, a measure sponsored by Billings resident, Kurt Kephart.

I-161 would abolish the current system where some 5500 non-resident big game hunting licenses are outfitter-sponsored. In other words, a non-resident who wishes to hunt with a Montana outfitter can simply book the package, including a premium priced license. Non-residents who don’t go through an outfitter go through the drawing process for elk and/or deer licenses.

I-161 would abolish outfitter-sponsored licenses, increase the base price for all non-resident big game licenses, and make all non-residents go through the drawing process.

Based on information from Kephart’s website, benefits from such a change include making things fair for all non-residents interested in hunting big game in Montana. “Demand democracy instead of plutocracy!” is how it’s stated. In another section, Kephart states, “Access to our wildlife has diminished in large part due to the outfitting industry’s selfish interests…the outfitting industry is ready, willing, and able to use private property rights and pro business banter to rob many Montana families of their cherished family values – time spent hunting and fishing together.”

Mac Minard, executive director of the Montana Outfitters & Guides Association, in a phone interview last week, acknowledges that the initiative has some basic appeal, with vague suggestions that if outfitter-sponsored hunting licenses were abolished, we would somehow end up with better access to private lands for hunting.

Minard believes, however, that the opposite would happen, pointing out that Montana has some 8.5 million acres of private land enrolled in the Block Management Program, a program that pays landowners to open their property to hunters. Initially, the Block Management program was totally financed by revenues from outfitter-sponsored hunting licenses. Currently hunting license access fees also help, but outfitter-sponsored licenses still finance 80 percent of the Block Management program, and the increased general non-resident licenses wouldn’t necessarily produce similar revenues for Block Management. Minard points to Idaho, which increased license fees, but projected revenue increases didn’t materialize.

Minard also points out the importance of the outfitting industry as a part of Montana’s tourist industry, generating $167 million yearly for Montana small businesses, plus $11.6 million in state and local taxes, and a $51 million payroll.
Another aspect is that the initiative would repeal requirements contained in the outfitter-sponsored license laws that require outfitters to accompany their clients at all times, providing direction and advice, and ensuring clients hunt in a lawful and ethical manner.

What’s my opinion? I have a general mindset that we’d be better off if most of those initiatives never made it to the ballot, and should be defeated if they do. The initiatives of past years that banned cyanide heap leach gold mining practices, and banned canned hunts on game farms were notable exceptions.

I’d suggest check for yourself. For arguments for I-161, check www.publicwildlife.org. For arguments against, check www.stop161.org. The biggest factor in my mind is the threat to Block Management. 8.5 million acres of hunting access is too much to risk.

Big Hole River Recreation Rules

“I’m not a politician; I’m a biologist.” That’s Mike Bias’s reaction to a recent flap concerning recreation management rules on the Big Hole River. Bias is the Executive Director of the Big Hole River Foundation, an organization founded by the late George Grant. The goals of the foundation are, as stated on the Foundation’s website, “To conserve, enhance and protect the free-flowing character of the Big Hole River, its unique culture, fish and wildlife.”

Bias probably didn’t expect the publicity that resulted after he visited a board meeting of the George Grant Chapter of Trout Unlimited. This followed a Foundation board meeting, in which members discussed fundraising and perceived difficulties in getting donations from out-of-state people who feel that recreation management rules that restrict guided and non-resident floating on the river on a rotating basis were unfair.

The rules were adopted by the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Commission five years ago, following recommendations of a citizen’s advisory committee. Those rules are coming up for review this year, and the foundation board felt this would be a good time to do some preliminary work on whether those rules might be amended. In a series of bullet points for his presentation Bias said that, “The Big Hole River Foundation thinks the nonresident restriction clause is not biologically warranted to protect the fisheries…”

Josh Vincent, president of the George Grant Chapter of TU said board members present discussed the issue, commenting, “The board was unanimous that the rules should stay intact. We think that the rules have worked well.”

Nevertheless, word got around, and several past board members of the Big Hole River Foundation sent an opinion piece to local newspapers blasting the Foundation for raising the issue, suggesting that George Grant would be turning in his grave.

In a phone interview last week, Bias expressed dismay over the situation. “It wasn’t my intent to stir up a controversy—though I’m reminded of the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We’re not in this to fight over a rule review.” He adds that the Foundation is doing some important work, such as initiating a fish-tagging study on the Big Hole, in cooperation with FWP, or a recent education project, educating area school children on aquatic biology and watershed issues. “We’re a small foundation. We can’t afford to get involved in controversy.” He also pointed out that the current recreation restrictions on float outfitting and non-resident float fishing are separate rules, and that the foundation was looking only at the non-resident float fishing issue, not float outfitting.

Bias added that, following the initial uproar, the foundation sent some 300 letters to their members to get a broader assessment of how they feel about the recreation management rules. He pointed out that the foundation membership is about half Montana residents (with a strong Butte-area representation) and half non-residents. He welcomes public feedback, “Our board meetings are always open to anyone.”

As mentioned above, the Big Hole and Beaverhead River recreation plans are up for review by the FWP commission, and, according to Charlie Sperry of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, there will be open house meetings in Butte on Tuesday, March 2, and in Dillon, on Tuesday, March 9.

Where do I stand? First, some disclosure. I was a member of the citizen advisory committee of five years ago that came up with recommendations to the FWP Commission. We did some solid work and I was pleased that the Commission adopted most recommendations. I am not a member of the Big Hole River Foundation, though we have given them some modest financial support by attending their fall fundraising dinners and getting some bargains in their silent auction.

In the West, whiskey is for drinkin’, water is for fightin’. Still, I hate to see the good guys fighting with other good guys.

I believe that current rules should stay in place. The rules work well in spreading out the pressure on the river. As for non-residents who feel discriminated against, I’d remind them they can go to any fishing access site, any day, put on waders — and go fish.

Great Backyard Bird Count - 2010

The days are getting longer, and on sunny afternoons the sun has a little more power every day. It may be winter in Montana but spring is on its way, and one sign of spring is that this weekend will be the 13th annual Great Backyard Bird Count.

The Great Backyard Bird Count is an annual effort sponsored by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, the National Audubon Society and, this year, a new partner, Bird Studies Canada

The object of the Great Backyard Bird Count is to get a snapshot as to bird numbers and species and where they are in mid-February, near the end of winter and just before the beginning of the spring migrations.

The Great Backyard Bird Count is a way for almost anybody to participate in this major scientific study of birds. It’s easy and it’s simple. All there’s to it is to go outside sometime this weekend, Friday, February 12 through February 15, and make a note at what birds you see. When you get back in the house, just log onto the internet to www.birdcount.org and report your observations. You don’t have to be a regular birder to participate. You can participate on one day, or every day. It’s up to you.
Last year, participants turned in more than 93,600 reports, making it the continent’s largest snapshot of bird populations ever recorded.

Taking part in the Great Backyard Bird Count is a great way to get outside with family and friends, have fun, and help birds—all at the same time," said Audubon Education Vice President, Judy Braus. "Even if you can only identify a few species you can provide important information that enables scientists to learn more about how the environment is changing and how that affects our conservation priorities.”

“The GBBC is a perfect first step towards the sort of intensive monitoring needed to discover how birds are responding to environmental change,” said Janis Dickinson, the director of Citizen Science at the Cornell Lab. “Winter is such a vulnerable period for birds, so winter bird distributions are likely to be very sensitive to change. There is only one way—citizen science—to gather data on private lands where people live and GBBC has been doing this across the continent for many years. GBBC has enormous potential both as an early warning system and in capturing and engaging people in more intensive sampling of birds across the landscape.

Last year in Montana, some highlights of the bird count reported large numbers of waterfowl, with Canada geese leading all bird species, with 18,600 birds reported. Mallard ducks came in next with 5,901. Other game birds spotted included pheasants, Hungarian (gray) partridge, sharptail grouse, ruffed grouse and wild turkeys, among others. Surprisingly, there were even some sightings of California quail.

It’s also interesting to look back to 1998, the first year of the Great Backyard Bird Count. Amazingly, there weren’t any game birds or waterfowl reported in Montana. Most of the birds reported that year were of what I might consider as urban birds, along the lines of chickadees, pigeons, sparrows and the like. I’d surmise that the difference would reflect wider participation and getting out in the countryside to see what’s out there.

Another striking difference is that in 1998 there were no eagle sightings. In 2009 there were 398 bald eagle and 70 golden eagle sightings reported. Again, it’s an indication of greater and more varied participation by citizen observers.

Again, it’s easy to participate in the Great Backyard Bird Count. You can do it as a family, as a classroom, or by yourself. Take a walk in your neighborhood or take a drive out in the countryside. If you have a bird book and pair of binoculars, that can help you spot and identify birds. Then when you get home, log onto the internet and make your report. There’s also a photo contest that goes along with the project, so take your camera along, too (details, and photos from previous years, are on the web).

Best of all, if you’re suffering from cabin fever, going outside is the best cure.

Winter Dreams: Montana's Smith River

This is the time of the year to plan—or think of planning, at least. A catalog from a California flyshop that does trip bookings came a couple weeks ago and that got me drooling over the prospects of taking a trip to Argentina or Chile, or the Kamkatcha Peninsula, or the Bahamas. The list goes on and the possibilities are endless, when it comes right down to it. All I need is an oil well or two to pay for it.

Then in today’s mail was a Fly Rod & Reel magazine with an article by Greg Thomas, an Ennis resident and freelance writer, and current managing editor of the magazine. The article touts Montana’s Smith River as the “West’s best float trip.”

Of course, there are a lot of Montanans who don’t need to read a magazine article to be convinced that the Smith River, if not the west’s best trip, has to rank way up there.

The scenery on the river is spectacular, with sheer limestone cliffs hundreds of feet high along the canyon’s sides. Abundant wildlife can be found in the river corridor, and as the critters are somewhat accustomed to floaters they’re often approachable. Fishing can be great, though there are never any guarantees. Above all, the Smith river trip is a great experience, in that the only way to experience the river is to float it, as the main part of the river is accessible only by water, and access is by drawing a permit.

I’ve done the trip just once, when I was invited to join the party of a friend in Helena who had drawn one of the permits. Of course, doing that one trip doesn’t make me an expert on the Smith River. Nevertheless, what makes the trip so unique is that taking the trip is such a commitment. It takes about four to five days to do the trip and when you get in your boat at the Camp Baker put-in, near White Sulphur Springs, it’s with the knowledge that if you’ve forgotten something, you’d better be able to do without it, because there is no turning back. That’s something that some people who weren’t prepared for late spring snowstorms have learned through bitter experience. Lounging around a campfire on a warm summer evening is pleasant. Spending nights shivering, huddled in a soggy tent might be unforgettable, too—especially if that turns out to be that way the whole trip.

There are, of course, some anachronisms associated with the trip. While some of the river corridor goes though National Forest lands, most of the trip is through ranching country, along with some vacation home and resort developments. There is even a nine-hole golf course along the river at one point. Also, some of that wildlife you hoped to see might include black bears and raccoons raiding your food supply.

In any event, if you’re interested in applying for one of those cherished float permits, the application is available on-line at http://fwp.mt.gov/recreation, and your completed application must be submitted to Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) by February 16, 2010. You can also get permit applications from FWP offices. The application can be submitted on-line or by mail. The whole process is managed by the Parks division of FWP.

Something that’s new this year is that pets are no longer allowed on the Smith River trip. This change has been in the works for years, as certain aspects of taking dogs on the trip, such as pet waste and harassment of wildlife, have long been controversial.

While most of the trips on the Smith River are do-it-yourself projects, a small number of outfitters are licensed to do float trips down the Smith, and I have it on good authority that, after a long hard day of catching fish, with a guide doing all the rowing, it’s not all bad to come into a camp that’s all set up, with tents pitched, dinner started, wine properly chilled, and hors d’ouvres on the table to help tide you over until dinner.

This is where that family oil well comes in handy.