On CMR Bison, Legislature Misinterprets Laws, Reality, and Montana Values

 

With Senate Joint Resolution 14, the Montana legislature lobbies the United States Congress and 3 federal agencies to prevent restoring public-trust, wild bison on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge (CMR). SJ 14 passed both houses with party-line votes. It claims the State of Montana opposes any restoration of bison on the CMR. In contrast, 3 random polls have shown that about 70% of Montana voters support returning bison to the CMR.

The CMR is the largest federal refuge within the historic range of plains bison.

The legislature claims that the state has supreme jurisdiction over wildlife on federal lands and that unilateral restoration of bison would violate the U. S. Constitution. This legal mythology was extensively reviewed and denied in the Journal Environmental Law (2017) by a University of Montana law team. The Refuge System Improvement Act (1997) directs the Refuge to collaborate with the state “for timely and effective [resource] management to the extent practicable”. Getting bison on the CMR, proposed in 1937, has not been timely or effective, and given anti-bison laws from the 2021 legislature, waiting longer for state collaboration is clearly not practicable.

The legislature warns of disease transmission from bison to private livestock, whereas this has not been a problem with several herds of private bison already surrounding the CMR – a condition that is common throughout the country.

The legislature exaggerates the amount of state land within the CMR; but correctly notes that achieving state goals for these parcels is difficult, as they are isolated within the Refuge. Clearly, it would benefit the state, occasional private users of these lands, and the Refuge, if state lands within the CMR were traded for isolated federal lands outside the CMR.

Montana Senate Opposes Bison for the CMRussell Refuge

 

 By a vote of 34-16, the Montana Senate has passed Joint Resolution 14, opposing bison introduction at the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. The resolution has been transmitted to the House of Representatives. (see more at leg.mt.gov)

The Resolution notes that the Federal Fish & Wildlife Service has identified the CMR Refuge as a potential location to restore public trust bison. (FWS has contacted potential stakeholders re this possibility. However, this Resolution was written before Department of Interior Secretary Haaland released Order 3410 with general details of a new DOI Initiative for bison restoration. Order 3410 does not mention any Refuge by name.)

The Resolution states that Montana has supremacy for wildlife management, even on federal lands including Refuges; and suggests that unilateral bison introduction by FWS would violate the U. S. Constitution. However, a review of this issue (Nie et al. 2017) debunks this states-rights position.

The Resolution asserts that bison restoration on the Refuge would jeopardize critical grazing land. There is very little, and infrequent livestock grazing on the Refuge. Very much of the surrounding grazing land is federal, Bureau of Land Management land, leased for a pittance. Studies have shown that bison grazing can enhance native grasslands whereas livestock grazing tends to damage the soil and flora, especially in riparian areas.

Also claimed is that bison would increase disease transmission between livestock and wildlife. We note that private commercial bison herds are abundant, with only rare transmission of disease to livestock, and more transmission from livestock to several wildlife species.

The Resolution fears for livelihoods of ranch families who may have to bear costs of unspecified “damages” caused by bison. It also mentions a potential loss of state revenue from small parcels of state land within the Refuge. We believe these issues would be minimal and can be handled in a fair manner, once FWS would prepare an impact statement for bison restoration.

The Resolution fails to note that the 2021 Montana legislature has already made bison restoration by the state impossible. Thus, FWS must act on its own to fulfill its legal mandates dating back to the 1997 Refuge Improvement Act of the federal Congress.

Thus, the Resolution proclaims the state of Montana opposes introduction of any bison on the CMR Refuge. However, three Montana polls have shown about 70% approval of bison for the CMR. The Resolution recognizes the state has a vested interest in the economic health of agriculture through disease control and promoting the much subsidized industry. No comparable interest in Montana’s biodiversity or the biotic integrity of Montana’s ecosystems, nor any ethical obligation to support any national goals are recognized.

Approval of SJ 14 by the Montana House of Representatives is expected.

Nie et al. 2017. Fish and wildlife Management on federal lands: Debunking state supremacy. Environmental Law 47:797-932.  

Long-term Study: Bison Facilitate Persistent and Resilient Increases in Grassland Plant Diversity

 

A 29-year study of year-round bison grazing¹ has demonstrated the value of this keystone species in restoring vegetative diversity in a Kansas Flint Hills tallgrass prairie. The study was conducted on the Konza Prairie Biological Station, administered by Kansas State University. Year-round bison grazing was compared to no grazing and to the common practice of seasonal cattle grazing.

Ungrazed plots were dominated by a few grass species, with minimal diversity of other species. Plant species diversity increased with both grazing treatments, especially for forbs (non-grass species). However, with bison grazing, the steady 29-year increase in native plant species was about twice that observed with cattle grazing. Many of the increasing species have been relatively rare and targeted for conservation in Kansas. Nonnative plant species remained uncommon. Bison-grazed communities now include a set of plant species that are nearly absent in the ungrazed and cattle-grazed treatments. Moreover, year-round bison grazing promoted plant communities that were resilient to a 2-year extreme drought.

In this study, the bison pasture was 3.8 square miles, where about 275 bison had free range. The pasture grassland contained a dynamic mosaic of fire frequencies. Our Coalition recommends at least 1000 bison on 100 square miles for rewilding bison and their associated biotic community. Under our recommendation, we expect the response of a plant community to bison restoration will be at least as diverse as in the Kansas study.

This study demonstrates, uniquely with long-term data, a need to reestablish public, wild bison on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, as mandated by Congress, to restore the overall biological integrity of the Refuge.

¹Ratajczak, Z. et al. 2022. Reintroducing bison results in long-running and resilient increases in grassland diversity. Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences 119(36):1-7.

See also, Olson, W. and J. Janelle. 2022. The Ecological Buffalo: On the Trail of a Keystone Species – reviewed here in an earlier News item.

Article Recognizes Limitations of Tribal Herds for Rewilding Bison

 

 

A January article in Frontiers of Ecology and Evolution (cited below) reviews the potential of bison restoration for Tribal food sovereignty on the Northern Great Plains. Authored by Hila Shamon of the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, the article has 30 co-authors representing numerous Native American Tribes and three major public conservation organizations (Defenders of Wildlife, Wildlife Conservation Society, World Wildlife Fund).

Diverse values of Tribal bison herds are emphasized: nutritional, economic/commercial, spiritual/cultural/educational values, and the ability of bison herds to ecologically restore native ecosystems on the Plains. These values are emphasized due to overriding and vital needs for nutritional and economic benefits to Tribal communities.

Authors barely, and indirectly, recognize the ongoing domestication and genetic deterioration of wild plains bison.

Moreover, the article injects a semantic complication into the social/political issue of bison domestication vs. recovery of wildness. We have always defined “rewilding” as a condition in which the genome-effects of natural selection are predominant over combined effects of human-caused artificial selection and genetic drift. This article defines this condition as “true restoration”. It defines “rewilding” as an imperfect version of true restoration: “the reorganization and redevelopment of the species and its ecosystem under new environmental conditions”. This justifies the continuing domestication of American plains bison, branding it with a misleading euphemism.

The article offers three Tribal herds in Montana and one in South Dakota as examples in which “overarching goals are to enhance the cultural, economic and ecological health of the Tribes and their lands”. Presented data on sizes of herds and “pastures”, and other management practices, demonstrate the contribution of these herds to plains bison domestication.

We do not criticize Tribal emphasis on nutritional, economic and cultural values in their bison management and agree these are overriding needs. They are exacerbated by limits of available Tribal lands, intermingling of non-Tribal lands within reservations, and by social aspects of competition from Tribal cattle operations on reservations.

Looking to the future, the article suggests allowing bison on large federal lands under Tribal/federal co-management. It is stated that rewilding and Tribal economic/nutritional/cultural benefits from bison “are not mutually exclusive”, implying that each can be produced to a satisfactory degree within one large herd. We disagree and have suggested that wildness, forestalling domestication of bison, will only be adequately maintained in a few large National Parks and Refuges suitable for large bison herds, according to the mandated missions of these agencies. The future of these bison and Tribal bison should proceed on different parallel tracks.

While the article describes Tribal efforts as “leading the way” in overall bison restoration, it clearly demonstrates that restoring wildness of bison and of their grassland ecosystem is not occurring in Tribal herds – and makes the contention that this wildness can be achieved with Tribal/government co-management on federal lands dubious.

Lasting political constraints, generated by the livestock industry and involving perceived states’ rights, prevent the wider USA population from counteracting domestication of plains bison and their habitats. The continued success of this political opposition to bison restoration on federal lands depends a great deal on the indifference of major non-government conservation organizations, including those co-authoring this article.

It is past time for major non-government conservation organizations to work both sides of the bison conservation fence!

Shamon, H. et al. 2022. The Potential of Bison Restoration as an Ecological Approach to Future Tribal Food Sovereignty on the Northern Great Plains. frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2022.826282/full

 

 

Fish & Wildlife Service Manual Requires Federal Restoration of Biological Diversity and Biological Integrity on Charles M. Russell Refuge

 

 

In previous Coalition News items, going back at least 9 months, we have noted that restoration of public-trust, wild bison on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge has been mandated, supported and confirmed by Congress in the Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act (1997), by the Department of Interior’s 2008 Bison Conservation Initiative (recommitted in 2012), and by goals of the Refuge Conservation Plan (2012). Here, we add the Fish & Wildlife Service Manual (2008) as a source for these clear commitments.

The FWS Manual summarizes policy, and guides employees in the management of resources under Service supervision. Appropriate sections are based largely upon mandates of Congress in the Refuge Improvement Act. The Act mandates maintaining and restoring, where appropriate, the biological integrity and diversity of the federal Refuge System.

The Manual defines biological diversity as the variety of life and its processes, including genetic differences and the ecosystems in which they occur. It defines biological integrity as the composition, structure and functioning, at genetic, organism and community levels, comparable with historic conditions, including the natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms and communities.

These mandates cannot be fulfilled on the CMR Refuge without restoring a large population of bison, as a keystone species managed for wildness and influencing habitats for other plants and animals over a large and diverse landscape. Despite persisting opposition to bison restoration in Montana, the Service has never claimed that such restoration is “not appropriate”.

The Manual states “biological diversity and integrity are critical components of wildlife conservation” and “We will restore lost or severely degraded elements of integrity and diversity at the refuge scale.” Despite these mandates and repeated commitments, the Service has been waiting many decades for the state of Montana to reintroduce public bison on the CMR Refuge.

That said, the Manual states that the Service will coordinate with the state wildlife agency in a timely and effective manner and will ensure that federal management plans are, to the extent practicable, consistent with state laws. Clearly, Refuge coordination with Montana on restoring bison to the CMR has not produced timely or effective results. Moreover, any such restoration of bison cannot be consistent with recent state laws and therefore could not be practicable.

It is time for the Fish & Wildlife Service to proceed, without Montana’s blessing, with restoration of bison on the CMR Refuge -- obeying Congressional mandates and fulfilling the Service’s stated commitments. No doubt, the current Montana administration would appeal to the courts. But past courts have established a federal prerogative over management of resources on designated federal lands (Nie et. al 1917), and the Refuge Improvement Act should supersede state laws.

For many years, federal natural resource agencies have ceded most of their management authority and obligations for wildlife population management on federal lands to the states, even to the extent of ignoring Congressional mandates. Restoring bison to the CMR Refuge is a clear and extreme case and deserves bold action that would result in a landmark court decision. The legal door to bison on the CMR is open; only a closed political door prevents federal action to fulfill federal mandates and, so far, empty written commitments of the Fish & Wildlife Service.

Nie, M., C. Barns, J. Haber, J. Joly, K. Pitt and S. Zellmer. 2017. Fish and wildlife management of federal lands: Debunking state supremacy. Environmental Law 47 (4): 1-126.

 

 

 

Interior and Agriculture Departments Will Fulfill Trust Responsibility to Indian Tribes in Managing Federal Lands and Waters

 

In November, Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture and Interior released a joint order to ensure that management of resources, including National Forests, Parks and Wildlife Refuges, and Bureau of Land Management lands, protects treaty, religious, subsistence and cultural interests of Native American Tribes. The wide-ranging order mandates Tribal collaboration in management priorities and activities for millions of acres of land, waters and their resources, including wildlife.

The order mandates “collaboration in co-stewardship” of Federal lands and resources, including wildlife and wildlife habitat. Notably, “co-stewardship” is a nebulous term. However, the order recognizes that activities must be “consistent with applicable law”. Laws include Congressionally mandated mission statements for agencies and for individual federal land holdings. Proceeding with some caution, the White House has ordered a legal review of land, water and wildlife treaty responsibilities, and a guidance document on the co-use of indigenous traditional ecological knowledge with science. These are to be completed within one year.

These directives could shape any action on the Coalition’s goal to restore public-trust, wild bison on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge (CMR), which is already in an uncertain legal-political quandary. Questions that must be addressed include:

Are states’ rights subservient to federal Tribal treaty obligations that are older than statehood? States claim primary authority to manage most of their wildlife, especially hunting, even on federal land. While federal agencies have superior rights on federal lands, the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) almost always yields to the state assertion. Might FWS use treaty obligations to justify restoring bison on the CMR and eventually to conduct federal hunting seasons, both without the state’s blessing?

What would co-stewardship of a CMR wild bison herd look like? How will Tribes be represented and how will the rest of the general American public be represented. What, if any, priorities will be given to Tribal proposals?

To what degree can Tribal aspirations for bison be fulfilled while prioritizing the general American public and maintaining the genetic and ecological integrities of wild bison, as required in applicable law?

To what degree, must treaty, religious, subsistence and cultural interests of Tribes be fulfilled by CMR bison? Are these interests more properly fulfilled on multiple-use lands than on Refuge lands congressionally dedicated for natural ecosystems and wildlife?

Federal Herds Critical To Preserve Wild Bison

 

Domestication is a major threat to wildness of plains bison. To retain wild genetics, a bison herd must be influenced by a preponderance of natural selection. However, herds are also subjected to genetic drift and artificial selection that replace or weaken natural selection, fostering domestication – a simplification and disorganization of the wild genome.

Genetic drift, the random transfer of genes across generations, is significant in herds <1,000 bison. Artificial selection includes interventions such as selective culling, vaccinations, and emergency feeding, and less recognized indirect effects from maintaining an unnatural herd sex-age composition, and a stable herd size at a relatively low ecological density on a small, uniform range.

In the USA, there are about 300,000 plains bison in private, public and Tribal herds, inciting beliefs that a future for wild bison is secure. But most herds are small with significant genetic drift; and are subject to many forms of artificial selection.

With over 250,000 bison, private commercial herds of livestock bison will contribute little to retaining the wild bison genome. Native American herds (about 20,000 animals) are touted as saving wild bison; but most are managed much like livestock. Tribes have important nutritional and economic needs for their bison. Intra-tribal support for wildness of bison has been uncommon or unclear, and inconsistent. Recently, the largest Tribal herd was cut from 2,000 to 200 bison.

About 30 “conservation herds” of bison owned by the Nature Conservancy or state or local governments are mostly small and subject to much artificial selection. Among these, only the American Prairie herd in Montana has goals for several thousand bison exposed to much natural selection. But these are legally private livestock and plans for American Prairie bison have been delayed and jeopardized by political opposition based in the livestock industry.

Consequently, only 15 plains bison herds in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges are managed under reliable, legal mandates to preserve wildness. The Park Service and federal refuges are mandated to retain the genetic integrity and natural ecological relations of wild bison. However, most these herds have only 300-500 bison. Only 2 herds have at least 1000 bison. These 15 herds will not suffice, in the long term, to provide a diversity of natural selection and retain the full suite of wild characteristics imbedded in bison genomes.

This emphasizes the need to restore public, wild bison on the Charles M. Russell Wildlife Refuge. It is the largest federal refuge within the historic range of plains bison. Unsuccessful efforts to reintroduce bison in this area go back to 1910. Bold federal action is needed to develop a truly wild bison herd in this, the best available location for reestablishing wild plains bison in the USA.

 

 

 

National Wildlife Federation Report Promotes “Intertribal Bison Herd” on Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge

 

The National Wildlife Federation has submitted a 71-page Report to the Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders Council, outlining legal issues and management opportunities for establishing an “intertribal bison herd” on the Charles M. Russell federal refuge in Montana. The Report, released in spring 2020, was co-written by the Indian Law Clinic at the University of Montana.

The Report cites tribal treaty rights and federal trust responsibilities to justify use of the public Refuge for a bison herd managed under Tribal leadership and administration with an intertribal Advisory Council informed by “generations of wisdom, knowledge and expertise” through a panel of Tribal counselors. A “uniquely Tribal approach” would promote Tribal sovereignty, with enrichment of Native cultures as “a major goal”.

The proposed level of Tribal administrative and management authority may well violate mandates of Congress for the National Wildlife Refuge System. However, treaty obligations and tribal-trust responsibilities are complicated areas of law.

The Report has been submitted to the Department of Interior. It is cited in an April letter to Secretary Haaland from the Montana American Indian Caucus (News, 29 April). The letter also cites a December, 2020 contact from the Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders Council to the Biden Transition Team, promoting bison restoration on public lands through partnership with the Tribes.

At last report, details of a current NWF position on tribal vs. federal restoration of bison on the CMR Refuge were unclear. The Report’s proposal has many troublesome aspects that deserve public exposure and discussion, especially among NWF members and contributors.

Our Coalition opposes the establishment of what would be Tribal-trust bison on the CMR Refuge. Briefly, our several reasons include: (1) Proposed intertribal management of CMR bison would dilute and unnecessarily complicate the legislated authority and primary obligations of the Secretary of Interior to manage Refuge resources. (2) Proposed Tribal goals, apportionment of benefits and intended management methods are unclear. They may interfere with or detract from fulfilling the primary mission of the Refuge System. In particular, gradual domestication of the bison may be fostered. (3) While Tribal wisdom, knowledge and expertise are not to be denied, they are limited in modern areas of population/evolutionary genetics, for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has superior resources. (4) An emphasis on Tribal needs and values would be inconsistent with the egalitarian mission of the Refuge System. (5) Tribes are not bereft of opportunities to achieve spiritual, cultural and economic benefits of wild bison across about 15,000 square miles of bison habitat on their reservations. (6) Tribal advice and some Tribal objectives can be used and accommodated with CMR bison strictly under FWS control. (7) The CMR Refuge and adjacent lands where bison are accepted are a unique opportunity for establishing a much needed large, public-trust, wild bison herd on a large, diverse landscape. This irreplaceable opportunity to accomplish goals of the Department of Interior Bison Conservation Initiative should not be jeopardized by complicating administrative efficiency or priorities among management goals. (Details of this position available on request, jabailey34@aol.com.)

Support for public-trust, wild bison on the CMR Refuge is our primary goal, justified by many values declared in this website. Since the state of Montana has rejected restoration of wild bison (News, 23 May) we will request Department of Interior Haaland to move forward with a federal restoration project, for a genetically adequate, wild bison herd under Fish & Wildlife Service management on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. 

 

 

Open Letter to 2021 Montana Legislature

 

Thank you for your service in the Montana legislature. The 2021 legislative session will be unusually challenging, likely with COVID restrictions, and with many complex budget issues.

However, we are contacting you regarding an issue that is expected to receive less time and attention, yet has a degree of urgency. We expect one or more bills that may enhance, diminish, or even eliminate any future for restoring public trust, wild bison in our state. Past legislatures have produced some anti-bison bills that have required governors’ vetoes. Such bills may again be introduced.

In contrast, the Montana Constitution (Article IX) directs the legislature to provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion of natural resources; to provide for restoration of historic, cultural and recreational objects for their use by the people; and to forever preserve the opportunity of individual citizens to harvest wild game animals. A recent legislature responded to these mandates by enacting MCA 87-1-216 with guidelines for restoring bison while protecting private property rights. Then, in an 11-year-long process with abundant public input, Fish, Wildlife & Parks released a programmatic environmental impact statement, concluding that management issues of bison restoration can be successfully addressed at a landscape scale. This EIS requested the public to submit site-specific proposals for bison restoration.

The Montana Wild Bison Restoration Coalition has submitted a proposal for a test restoration that would grow to 400 animals within the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Three polls indicated that 70 percent of Montana voters favor this option. It is intended to have no negative effects on the Montana ranching industry. See our proposal elsewhere on this website.

In the 2019 legislature, bison restoration was a divisive partisan issue. This limited objective discussion and consideration of wild-bison opportunities for Montanans. It avoided misconceptions surrounding bison, and perpetuated a lack of awareness of MCA 87-1-216. In 2021, we encourage you to reject a divisive partisan approach and to encourage full and objective discussion of bison restoration among both legislators and the public.

 

Thank you,

Jim Bailey, Montana Wild Bison Restoration Coalition

 

Ancient DNA Documents Lost Bison Genetics

 Before and during the 1800s, North American plains bison barely survived a severe population bottleneck, declining from about 30 million bison spread across much of the continent to a few hundred animals saved from 5 or 6 local populations. While the remaining bison seemed to contain considerable genetic diversity, the amount of diversity lost with the bottleneck remained largely unknown.

However, a recent Park Service study, in cooperation with the University of North Dakota, suggests, not surprisingly, that abundant genetic diversity has been lost. The incomplete study has not been peer reviewed. Preliminary results are available on the Theodore Roosevelt National Park website. Non-nuclear mitochondrial DNA was analyzed from 67 extant bison and from bones of 73 bison recovered from archeological sites, representing pre- and post-bottleneck bison from across the country.

Researchers identified 43 different genetic groups of bison. Of these, only 10 were represented in today’s bison. The indicated loss of 76 percent of genetic diversity will compromise the ability of plains bison to adapt to changing environmental conditions, and to respond effectively to future disease challenges.

For the past 140 years, plains bison have been living in relatively small, genetically isolated herds. Small herds have continued to slowly lose genetic diversity through a process called genetic drift. Recently elevated awareness of this dilemma has prompted much official concern for the management, not just of bison, but of bison genetics. Maintaining the remaining genetic diversity of plains bison will require restoration of some large bison herds on large, diverse and wild landscapes.

Restoration of bison on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, a goal of our Coalition, will greatly improve the national management and preservation of plains bison genetics. This National Park Service study demonstrates the urgency of that restoration.

Thank you,

Jim Bailey, Montana Wild Bison Restoration Coalition

Montana Politics Threaten any Future for Public, Wild Bison

Primary elections are over. Now, we move toward November elections that will finalize members of the Montana legislature to meet early in 2021. It will be a critical year, determining any future for restoring public-trust, wild bison in our state, particularly on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. The 2021 legislature could extinguish any possibility for public, wild bison in Montana, with little public awareness or input. With all the important competing political issues currently facing the state and nation, the issue of a bison future may be determined with little public understanding and attention. It is therefore imperative that we begin now to stimulate public discussion of the many issues, including truths and myths, surrounding bison restoration.

We have recently sent letters to each candidate for the Montana House of Representatives and Senate, requesting them to consider the issue of bison restoration and to promote public awareness and discussion. We noted the following justifications for restoring public, wild bison within the CMR Refuge:

The Montana Constitution mandates preventing unreasonable degradation of a natural resource, restoring historic, cultural and recreational objects for use and enjoyment by the people, and preserving the opportunity to harvest wild game. These mandates must include wild bison.

The national goal to restore and maintain genetically diverse plains bison is severely constrained by not allowing bison on the CMR Refuge, the largest federal refuge within the historic range of plains bison. Moreover, the Refuge goal of restoring natural biological processes cannot be fulfilled without bison restoration. The Refuge plan welcomes the opportunity to work with Montana in developing a plan and analysis for restoring wild bison on the Refuge.

Polls have shown that 70 percent of Montana voters support restoration of bison on the CMR Refuge.

Legislative guidelines protect and indemnify private property and resources in any bison restoration project.

There is a very large, unmet demand for hunting and harvesting bison in Montana. (There were over 18,000 applications to harvest a bison near Yellowstone Park in 2019.)

Restoring a public-trust, wild bison herd within the CMR Refuge can enhance and diversify economic opportunities in and near Phillips County.

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, with many years of diverse public outreach and inputs, concluded in a Record of Decision that bison management issues can be successfully addressed at a landscape scale and therefore solicited site-specific proposals from Montana citizens.

We encourage our readers to challenge their political candidates to address these issues in their election campaigns and in developing platforms for November. An important part of our wildlife heritage depends upon it. 

Jim Bailey