Interior Secretary Sally Jewell to Visit Montana, Discuss Public Lands Legacy

Devils-Elbow-STD-REAL-FINAL
On May 3, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell will be joining Senator Jon Tester here in Helena to talk about our public land legacy. MWF’s own Chris Marchion will also be making some remarks.

We’re excited that Secretary Jewell will be in Montana, where we have done so much to protect our public lands, our hunting and fishing heritage, and our outdoor economy.

I hope you can join us in turning out a good crowd! The event will begin at 10:30 AM, and it will take place at the Devil’s Elbow Campground on Hauser Lake – about 15 minutes from Helena.

It’s an easy drive to get there: just take York Road to Lakeside, then drive another 2.2 miles to the campground.

If you need any additional information, don’t hesitate to contact the MWF office at mwf@mtwf.org or 406-458-0227.

Tongue River Railroad Permit Denied

BONOGOFSKY-7107-140701web Photo Credit: Alexis Bonogofsky photo of Tongue River Valley

After decades of protest from ranchers, sportsmen, and conservationists, the Surface Transportation Board just denied the permit for the proposed Tongue River Railroad. The TRR would have fragmented some of the best wildlife habitat in the state to ship Montana coal to Asia.

The Surface Transportation Board decided to “deny TRRC’s request to hold this proceeding in abeyance and instead dismiss the proceeding without prejudice. At this time, there appears to be little prospect that Otter Creek Coal’s mine permit will be secured in the foreseeable future. Otter Creek Coal and its parent, Arch, have both filed for bankruptcy, and Otter Creek Coal has suspended its application for an MDEQ mining permit indefinitely.”

This is another huge victory in protecting the Tongue River Valley from development. This agricultural valley provides ranchers and farmers the ability to carry on the traditions of past generations. The Tongue River Valley also provides some of the best habitat in the country, with pheasants, pronghorn, and trophy mule deer calling the valley home. Hunters and anglers should rejoice to know that this valley will continue to be a paradise, where future generations will be able to wet their lines and chase game.

Public Land Debate: State Takeover Remains an Unpopular, Unworkable Idea

Public Land43
Over the last few years, a small group of politicians and ideological activists have been promoting the idea that national forests and other public lands should be handed over to state management. Their efforts attracted attention last winter, when the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was taken over by a group of armed activists who also called for all wildlife refuges, national forests, and other public lands to be transferred to states and sold off for private development.

Last week, MWF Executive Director Dave Chadwick was invited to participate in a debate over public land management with Ken Ivory, a state legislator from Utah who advocates the state takeover of public lands.

The debate spotlighted yet again the many reasons why handing national lands to state management is a fundamentally flawed, unworkable idea.

In calling for the state takeover, Ivory harshly criticized national public lands and suggested that national forests need to be managed like backyard gardens. He recommended that the federal government revive nineteenth century land disposal policies and transfer national public lands to state control. Under state management, these lands could be used to maximize revenue from oil drilling, logging, and mining in order to balance state budgets.

Offering a defense of national public lands, Chadwick focused on the many benefits that public lands provide for wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation, and the economy. He cited data on the economic benefits produced by both resource development and outdoor recreation on public lands. Finally, he noted the overwhelming public support for protecting public lands for all Americans and opposition to transferring lands to state management.

We’ve known for a long time that the state takeover of public lands would cut off public access and ruin wildlife habitat. Rejecting the multiple-use approach to public land management would be bad for hunters, anglers, hikers, bikers, and every other public land user. Budget realities would force states to manage lands for maximum revenue and ultimately sell them off.

In addition to being a bad idea, last week’s debate confirmed that the state takeover of public land is also completely unworkable. The whole concept is full of unanswered questions, empty promises, and speculative assumptions. During the 90 minute discussion, Mr. Ivory couldn’t answer the most basic questions from the audience about how state transfer or management would actually work, even if it were a good idea.

The state takeover of public lands has received more than its fair share of attention over the last few years – and it has been thoroughly rejected by the democratic process. It continues to move forward only because of the efforts of well-funded ideological lobbyists and headline-grabbing incidents like the takeover of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Public land management is a complex issue that merits thoughtful action and bipartisan agreement. Reforming wildfire funding, supporting local collaboration, expediting timber harvesting and restoration to improve forest health, and fully funding federal land protection programs are all ideas that enjoy bipartisan support. Speculative philosophical debates about state management of national public lands do a disservice to the American people.

Trails are Vital to Montana

National Forest lands are vitally important not only to hunters, but to all Montanans and all Americans. They’re essential for wildlife, fish, clean water and ultimately to a high quality of life. That’s why it’s so troubling that the U.S. Forest Service is proposing severe cuts to the trails budget for the agency’s Region 1, which is based in Missoula and covers national forests in Montana, northern Idaho and the Dakotas.

The proposal in a nutshell would base funding for trail maintenance on a formula that considers user days. That might sound logical, but it’s not a good measure of the trail maintenance needs of a region or particular forest. And it would result in a 30 percent reduction in trail funding for Montana’s national forests over the next three years. That’s a drastic cut that would have devastating effects for the condition of our trails, and ultimately for public access to enjoy these lands for hunting, fishing, hiking and numerous other activities.

We simply cannot absorb those kind of cuts. It would not only hurt our access and quality of life, it would also hurt Montana’s huge – and growing – outdoor tourism economy, which currently generates $5.8 billion in economic activity and supports 64,000 jobs.

Everybody understands that we need to make some hard choices in government. Federal money isn’t flowing and we need to look for strategic places to save money. We also need to take a look at the way money is being spent.

But this isn’t an area to make cuts. And this isn’t just about Montanans. People from all over the country and the world come to the Treasure State to enjoy some of the most incredible landscapes on earth. These trails are essential to that.

The Montana Wildlife Federation recently wrote to both of Montana’s U.S. Senators, as well as Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell to express our concerns over the proposed cuts. We called for a look at other options and ultimately for proper funding for our trail system.

Fortunately, both Sens. Jon Tester and Steve Daines have spoken out against the new formula, and called for the agency to look at changes that doesn’t hit Region 1 so hard. Montana hunters, anglers and recreationists should weigh in as well.

Nick Gevock is the conservation director for the Montana Wildlife Federation.

It’s Time for Everyone to Pay for Wildlife Management

redrockslakenationalwildliferefugeusfishwildlifeservice
It’s hard for most of us to imagine a time when hunting and fishing were completely unregulated. Setting up wildlife management agencies to implement science-based management and habitat protection was really the first step in the wildlife conservation movement at the start of the 20th century.

With strong support from hunters and anglers, wildlife management was set up to be funded by hunting and fishing licenses. This “user-pays” model, in which hunters and anglers paid license fees to support conservation of the resources they loved, was a truly remarkable innovation in paying for government services – and the last century has shown that it is also a wild success.

Today, we enjoy an abundance of fish and wildlife that was unimaginable a century ago. These resources support the best hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching in the world, generating billions of dollars a year in economic activity and supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs.

At the same time, the challenges facing wildlife and habitat are getting tougher. As our communities grow, we’re taking up more and more of the lands and waters that wildlife depend on for survival. The spread of invasive species and diseases poses a constant threat to wildlife populations. Working with private landowners to protect habitat is essential, but it takes time. Wildlife conservation is getting more and more expensive, but funding continues to depend only on hunters and anglers buying annual licenses.

Perhaps most important, we’re now realizing that all Montanans benefit from our state’s fish and wildlife, but many of them never purchase a hunting or fishing license. Wildlife management shouldn’t be paid for only by sportsmen. Everyone who benefits from our fish and wildlife should help shoulder the burden.  That means we need to broaden how we pay for wildlife management beyond just hunting and fishing licenses.

A few states have already expanded conservation funding beyond just hunters and anglers. In Missouri and Arkansas, wildlife management has been funded for decades primarily from a dedicated portion of their state sales taxes. A similar effort is underway in Iowa. Other states have found ways to supplement license dollars with lottery revenue, real estate taxes, and other sources of funding that more of the public can pay into.

The experiences in Arkansas and Missouri also show us that moving away from a sole dependence on license revenue has strengthened, not weakened,  scientific wildlife management and hunting heritage. When all citizens chip in for conservation, hunting and fishing grow in importance as valued traditions and proven wildlife management tools – and not just revenue sources.

In considering ways to broaden how we pay for wildlife management, we are standing on the shoulders of giants – the first generation of  hunters and anglers who, a century ago, invented the conservation movement. Today, we have an opportunity to carry on that legacy. By involving all Montanans in paying for wildlife conservation, we can ensure that our wildlife resources and hunting and fishing traditions endure for future generations.

Dave Chadwick is the Executive Director of the Montana Wildlife Federation.  Contact him at dchadwick@mtwf.org

Jeff Lukas – MWF Elk Campaign Manager

Jeff Lukas

Conservation Director

Jeff Lukas is a passionate conservationist who has been fishing and hunting his entire life. Whether it’s floating a small stream chasing trout, pursuing elk in the high country, or waiting in a blind for ducks to set their wings, Jeff is always trying to bring more people afield to show them what we are trying to protect. He loves being in the arena, and he will never shy away from conversations about the beautiful and unique corners of Big Sky country.