News - Montana Wildlife Federation

Wildlife, Access at Stake In 2017 Montana Legislature

August 2, 2021December 19, 2016 by Guest Profile

Montana Capitol. Photo credit: Mark Dostal

Here we go again: the 2017 Montana Legislature will convene next month, and the Montana Wildlife Federation’s (MWF) members, volunteers, and staff will be taking a leadership role on issues that affect wildlife, habitat and public access.

MWF and our conservation partners had numerous successes in the last Legislative session two years ago. We helped pass a major overhaul of Montana’s hunting and fishing license structure and fees. That vital bill helped shore up the finances for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks for years to come, while also simplifying the complex system of hunting and fishing licenses.

MWF also addressed several key conservation issues, including getting ahead of feral swine before they reach Montana; cracking down on intentional abuse of replacement hunting licenses; and overhauling how hunters tag game animals in the field to make it easier for hunters.

2015 was, overall, a good session for wildlife, habitat and hunters. But there’s work to do next year. In 2017, we have a strong agenda to build on our conservation successes from two years ago.

The 2017 Legislature: An Overview

Republicans maintain their solid majority in the Montana House of Representatives, with a 59-41 seat advantage over the Democrats. In the Senate, Republicans expanded their majority to 32-18.

Governor Steve Bullock won re-election and will be working on some similar issues as last session, including infrastructure spending and early childhood education. He will also be advancing some proposals to protect and expand Montana’s public lands and public access, which will be of great value to Montana hunters, anglers, and other recreationists.

Budget issues will be front and center this session, with revenue projections down sharply and expected tough decisions on spending. Bullock has called in his proposed Fiscal Year 2018-2019 budget for some targeted tax increases on high income earners, as well as some special taxes on cigarettes and medical marijuana. He is also pushing for bonding roughly half of the proposed $292 million in infrastructure spending. In addition, what to do about the looming closure of two units at the Colstrip power plants will be a big theme this session.

So where does that leave wildlife, habitat, access and hunters and anglers? It is likely that our issues will not be at the forefront, although as always there will be bills that need scrutiny and debate. Montana FWP has a few bills it is proposing, mostly clean up measures.
The Senate Fish and Game Committee will have new leadership this session. Sen. Jennifer Fielder, R-Thompson Falls, has served on the committee for the past two sessions and will take over as chair.

In the House, Rep. Kelly Flynn, R-Townsend, will return to chair the committee. Flynn is a rancher and outfitter who chaired the committee last session. He brought a bill to increase funding for the popular Block Management program last session, and has worked on an effort outside of the Legislature to improve landowner-hunter relations.

MWF’s Agenda

MWF will be bringing a bill to improve public access to public land. It is based on a bill we brought last time that would increase the fine for gating a public road that leads to public land. Currently the fine is $10 per day, far too low to serve as a deterrent for illegally blocking public roads. Our bill would raise the fine to a minimum of $100 per day.

We will also be working, as always, to maintain a strong defense against any bills that would interfere with scientific wildlife management. Already there are several bills in the hopper that look troublesome, including one that would require payments of hunter dollars to landowners for crop damage. These programs in other states have led to disastrous consequences, costing state wildlife agencies millions and leading to landowner tag programs that impede management and reduce public hunting opportunity.

MWF will also be working to gain some additional funding for livestock loss prevention work to keep grizzly bears out of trouble, as well as wolves. And we will be pursuing a bill to increase the payment to landowners in the popular Block Management hunter access program to create more of an incentive to join the program.

Finally, we will be working to ensure that full funding is restored to Habitat Montana, which is Montana’s most successful habitat protection program. The program uses hunter license dollars to pay landowners for conservation easements on private land, as well as to purchase key habitat for wildlife from willing sellers. Habitat Montana has increased available winter range for wildlife, helped keep working farms and ranches in business and helped reduce conflicts with wildlife. It has also increased public hunter access and opportunity.

Last session the Legislature put a budget rider on Habitat Montana that barred any land purchases that weren’t already in negotiation. That has caused some lost opportunities for FWP from willing landowners, and hurt hunters from Montana and around the country. It’s crucial that we get the program renewed and continue to protect key habitat in Montana.

Nick Gevock is MWF’s Conservation Director. Contact him at ngevock@mtwf.org.

New BLM Planning Rule a Boon to Montana Hunters/Wildlife

August 2, 2021December 13, 2016 by Guest Profile

bonogofsky-2837-150102-2

Last week, the Bureau of Land Management issued its final planning rule for land management in the west. Planning 2.0 will update how the BLM manages the 245 million acres of public lands across the nation. The new planning rule has two major changes that will effect hunters and anglers – identifying and planning around wildlife corridors and public involvement.

Planning 2.0 establishes three additional periods where the public can be involved-increasing transparency and public involvement in land use decisions. While the land use planning for our public land has always been a public process, Planning 2.0 will allow sportsmen (and every citizen) to have a bigger role in deciding how they want to see their favorite spots to hunt and fish managed. Sportsmen having a seat at the table on these land use plans will ensure that a healthy landscape and the opportunity to chase critters will be passed on to the next generation.

The new planning rule also promotes landscape-scale management which is great news for wildlife. The old planning process had no language regarding wildlife migration corridors in BLM planning documentation, but under Planning 2.0, field offices must consider identifying and locating migration corridors early in the process of planning for land use. Migration corridors are a vital habitat component for big game like mule deer, elk, and pronghorn in the West. By identifying where animals move, feed, and rest between seasonal ranges early on in the planning process, we will reduce conflicts between wildlife and development.

The thorough pre-planning that is taking place in Planning 2.0 will help to better manage landscapes for all the ways they are used — whether its hunting, hiking, timber production, or energy development — and support the local community’s ability to maintain a high quality of life and healthy economy. With the new planning rule in place, it’s time for sportsmen and women roll up our sleeves and get to work on how we want our public lands managed.

For more information on the planning rule, visit New BLM Planning Rule a Boon to Public Involvement

John Bradley is the Eastern Field Rep. for Montana Wildlife Federation. Reach him at jbradley@mtwf.org

A Win for Wildlife: Sage Grouse Rider Left Off of Defense Bill

August 2, 2021December 9, 2016 by Guest Profile

Sage Grouse. Photos by Bob Wick, BLM Photos by Bob Wick, BLM. Sage Grouse.

Yesterday the Senate voted to send the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to the White House for President Obama’s signature. In a victory for conservationists, ranchers, and hunters, the NDAA left out destructive language that would undermine existing Greater Sage-Grouse land-management plans. The Defense Bill previously had language that would have allowed states to roll back the federal sage-grouse conservation plans and would have prevented the Department of the Interior from changing the bird’s status for ten years. This extreme provision would have ended years of bipartisan cooperation between federal, state and private interests working to keep the bird and its sagebrush habitat healthy enough to avoid listing under the Endangered Species Act.

This latest victory for the bird comes after declines in historic sage grouse populations and habitat led to the bird’s consideration for listing under the Endangered Species Act. In late 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that an ESA listing for the grouse was “not warranted.” The ruling was based on local conservation efforts that were taking place and the continued implementation of federal resource management plans by the BLM that advance the species’ recovery and improve sage grouse habitat.

The millions of acres of sagebrush steppe that the sage grouse relies upon also provide habitat for more than 350 species of fish and wildlife, including mule deer, elk, and pronghorn antelope. Healthy and functioning sage-grouse habitat across the West fuels our outdoor economy, while providing stability to local ranching communities.

With the NDAA moving forward without the negative sage grouse rider attached, it’s time for hunters and anglers, ranchers and farmers, state and federal land managers, and all who value the West need to roll up our sleeves and work together to protect this unique western landscape.

John Bradley is Montana Wildlife Federation’s Eastern Field Rep.

For more information, check out these articles.
Western Sportsmen: Drop Sage-Grouse Rider From Defense Bill

NWF Hails Removal of Harmful Sage-Grouse Rider in Defense Bill

Effort to Turn Forest Service Lands over to State Management Meets Opposition in Swan Lake

August 2, 2021December 8, 2016 by Guest Profile

During a meeting last night at the Swan Lake Community Center, a packed room of Montanans from all walks of life made one thing abundantly clear: We love our National Forests.

Hosted by Lake County Commissioners, the meeting was held to inform and seek input from the public regarding the Swan Resource Management Study, which entails a controversial proposal by the Lake County Conservation District (LCCD) to turn 60,000 acres of the Flathead National Forest, all within Lake County, into a “conservation forest” to be managed “in trust” by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC). Jim Simpson, Chairman of the LCCD, presented an overview of the proposal and answered questions from concerned citizens.

In response to a question, Simpson assured those in attendance that he was not advocating transfer of federal public lands, and that this plan is in “no way” associated with the American Lands Council, an organization that seeks to transfer federal lands to the states. The conservation forest, he said, will remain under federal ownership, but would be managed by the state in accordance with the same rules and regulation that govern management of state forests. All American citizens would maintain the right to enjoy all activities currently allowed on the land, he said, and the forest would resort back to Forest Service management in 100 years. Net revenues from management would be invested into the Swan Valley community for “conservation projects” on state, federal, private and tribal lands. The project would require Congressional approval.

“Management emphasis will be on reducing fuel levels and fire risks, managing the forest locally and collaboratively, and actively managing the forest to promote forest healthy,” Simpson said. “We want to generate income for Lake County, and put that money into conservation.”

At this stage, Simpson said, he is merely seeking comments from the public. “We want to find out, from you, if this project goes forward or not, before we approach the governor and the Montana Congressional delegation.”

Simpson showed a time-lapse video of the devastating Roaring Lion fire in the Bitterroot Valley this past summer, a wildfire that burned nearly 8,000 acres and destroyed 14 homes. He seemed to insinuate that the creation of a “conservation forest” would prevent such fires in the Swan Valley. However, there was no talk about forest-fire ecology; the historical and natural role of fire in creating and shaping western forests; how past management activities and climate change have contributed to recent increases in size, frequency and intensity of wildfires, and how the Forest Service has been actively engaged in collaborative efforts to reduce fire risks near and around homes and structures.

Some of the concerns and comments brought up by those in attendance: National Forests belong to all Americans, and all American should have a say on how they are managed; State management seems more driven by profit than protecting and enhancing wildlife habitat and clear, clean rivers and streams that are important to hunters, anglers and others; the Forest Service has a larger budget, and therefore more resources to better manage the forests and fight wildfires, and the state should seek to work collaboratively with the Forest Service to achieve goals rather than take over management of our National Forest lands.

In fact, just south of Swan Lake, a collaborative effort called the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Project is bringing together a diversity of citizens with various interests – including hunters, anglers, business leaders, county commissioners, loggers, ranchers, snowmobilers, mountain bikers, environmentalist and others – to set aside their differences, find common ground, and manage National Forest and other lands in a manner that protects fish and wildlife and related recreational activities, reduces fire risks, and helps local communities. It seems preferable to turning our National Forest lands over to state management for 100 years.

Simpson says public comments will determine whether the project moves forward or not. To learn more, and provide input, go to: swanforestinitiative.org

David Stalling is the Montana Wildlife Federation Western Field Rep. Contact him at dstalling@mtwf.org

Good News for Elk and Elk Hunting

December 13, 2016December 7, 2016 by Sonya Smith

The withdrawal of controversial habitat security standards by the U.S. Forest Service illustrates that our public lands do, indeed, belong to us all and we can all have an influence on how they are managed. It also shows the value of hunters uniting and working together.
In response to concerns by Montana hunters and various hunting conservation organizations, the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest recently dropped an amendment to the Divide Travel Plan that would have changed habitat security standards. The Forest Service decided, instead, to return to time-tested, science-based, big-game habitat security standards.

“We’re pleased that they dropped the amendment and went back to the old standards,” says Gayle Joslin of Helena Hunters and Anglers, an affiliate of MWF. “Standards are measurable and definable at the landscape level and this recognizes vegetative cover as an important thing.”

As those of us who have crawled through dense, dog-hair lodgepole thickets; climbed up and down steep, slippery slopes covered in of tag alder, and slowly worked our way through piles of blowdown in dark spruce bottoms in pursuit of wild elk . . . well, elk aren’t easy to hunt. But that’s a good thing. If hunting were too easy, there’d be less elk and more hunting restrictions such as limited permits. Or, in many places, elk flee to private lands off limits to hunting. What makes some places tough to hunt is what wildlife biologists call ‘habitat security’. Numbers of hunters, hunting-equipment technology, open-road density and the percentage of terrain covered by forests and other vegetation can all influence elk vulnerability and habitat security. Protecting and enhancing habitat security and reducing vulnerability often results in healthier, more balanced elk herds; good bull-to-cow ratios; more mature bulls in herds; higher calf survival rates and, therefore, more and better hunting opportunities.

Extensive, cooperative research between the Forest Service, state fish and game agencies and several timber companies in the 1970s and 1980s helped define terms such as “bull elk vulnerability” and “habitat security,” and led to the development of standards that the Forest Service has used when developing management plans. When the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest decided to adopt new standards, MWF, Helena Hunters and Anglers, Anaconda Sportsmen’s Association, Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and the Clancy-Unionville Citizens Task Force filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service calling for further analysis and justification for the change. In response, the Forest Service decided to avoid litigation and drop the amendment.

“I believe it’s in the best interest of the public for me to withdraw the Record of Decision for the Amendment for the Divide Travel Plan Area Divide Travel Plan,” Forest Supervisor Bill Avey stated in a decision letter dated December 2.

This is good news for wild elk, and good news for those of us who hunt wild elk.

David Stalling is the Western Field Rep. for Montana Wildlife Federation. Reach him at dstalling@mtwf.org

Jeff Lukas

Conservation Director