For Mary Lyons, of Stevensville, it has been a long, drawn out ordeal and it is not over yet. But a big hurdle has been passed in her quest for a new kidney. She has one!

It's a goal that many people across the country and some right here in the valley, even here in Stevensville, are still hoping to reach. That is, finding a donor for a kidney transplant.

Mary's kidney problem, related to her diabetes, has been a longstanding ordeal in and of itself. Getting help turned out to be another ordeal. Finding a kidney is no easy task.

According to information provided by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, the current nationwide list of people in need of kidney transplants is 74,191 names long. One of the country's leading institutions for kidney transplants, Virginia Mason Hospital in Seattle, only performs about 100 transplants per year, according to Mary's husband, Bill Lyons.

Sitting around waiting on such a long list can be depressing. At the suggestion of Bitterroot Star publisher Victoria Howell, the Lyons agreed to be interviewed for a story in the local newspaper about their plight in the hopes that someone local might decide to become a donor.

It worked.

Ellen Snoeyenbos, a relative newcomer to the community, read the article and took an interest and, after some investigation and deliberation, decided to donate one of her kidneys.

The transplant surgery took place on November 27. It took about four and a half hours.

The transplant was an immediate success. The kidney showed signs of working within hours of the transplant operation. But recovery for Mary will be slow.

One of the greatest dangers facing an organ recipient is that her own body will reject the new organ. In that case the new organ is interpreted by her own body as a foreign invader and the organ is attacked as though it were a disease. Mary is looking at benchmarks in accepting the new organ that are measured in months. One month, three months, six months and finally twelve months following the operation. There will be a lot of monitoring in the meantime. More visits to the doctor. But the sooner that signs of rejection are detected, the more effective the treatment is in staving it off. Organ rejection is treatable with drugs. Mary is confident in her own recovery.

She and Bill expressed that primarily they both felt thankful for generous response from the community and from Ellen. Bill said that the community's response was "humbling." About the donor he said, "The donor makes it all possible."

The donor, Ellen Snoeyenbos, does not have to face the problems of organ rejection. Her ordeal is over. She's already back on the job, hiking, and riding horses, which she loves.

"It went fabulously," said Snoeyenbos about the transplant surgery. She said that her recovery was complete.

"It's a remarkable thing," she said. "I'm thankful for being able to participate in something like that." She also downplays the idea that it is any kind of ordeal for the donor. If you are healthy, as a donor is supposed to be, the loss of one kidney is an easy thing to rebound from, according to Snoeyenbos. Her own recovery is proof of that.

"I feel great," she said. "And I really feel great to have been able to do that."

More kidneys needed

A kidney for Katelyn

Twelve year old Katelyn Atkinson, from Stevensville, has developed End Stage Renal Disease, more commonly known as Kidney Failure. This is a serious life-threatening condition. Katelyn requires chronic peritoneal dialysis to sustain her life. Katelyn was admitted to Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle by Life Flight on November 2, 2007. Following surgery to place a peritoneal dialysis catheter in Katelyn, she remained in Seattle to heal from her ordeal. Katelyn and her family received training and education about her dialysis care and treatment. Katelyn receives dialysis every night for about twelve hours while she awaits a kidney transplant.

A benefit has been planned for March 1, at the Holiday Inn Parkside in Missoula. Tickets to the benefit are $35 per ticket or $60 per couple. Doors open at 5 p.m. There is a buffet scheduled for 6:30. There are live and silent auctions at 7:30 p.m.

Raffle tickets are also being sold for a 358 Browning lever action rifle, a hand made quilt and a half side of all natural beef. Sponsors of the benefit and auction items are being sought. All donations are tax deductible as charitable contributions to the MCA Foundation. Checks may be mailed to MCA Foundation, attn. "Kidney for Katelyn", P.O. Box 906, Fairfield MT 59436. The donations are to help defray the huge medical expenses involved.

If you are interested in possibly donating a kidney call the Living Donor Program at 206-598-3627. For information about organ donation see www.uwmedicalcenter.org.

Strahs needs a kidney

Sue Strahs suffered from emphysema for many years. She was on oxygen for 19 months before finally receiving a double lung transplant in 1999. As part of her transplant treatment Strahs was given anti-rejection drugs to keep her from rejecting the new organs. Unfortunately one of those drugs was later determined to cause kidney failure.

Signs of kidney failure began to appear but Strahs put off dialysis as long as possible. Now she goes to Missoula three times a week for dialysis treatment. She has been on the national donor list for a little over three years.

Her first possible donor did not turn out to have the right blood type. A second donor, that was determined to be compatible, did not have any insurance, making the surgery unaffordable.

The Strahs, originally from Illinois, live in the Florence area and attend church in Stevensville.

Anyone interested in possibly donating a kidney can call 206-341-1201 or 206-354-9527, ext. 11201.

New Councilors sworn in

By Michael Howell

Three new Hamilton City Council members were sworn into office last week by Mayor Jessica Randazzo. They included Ward 1 Councilor and former mayor Joe Petrusaitis, Ward 2 Councilor Al Mitchell, and Ward 3 Councilor Jenny West. County Commissioners Carlotta Grandstaff and Kathleen Driscoll were on hand to welcome the new councilors to their respective positions. Both commissioners expressed excitement about anticipated collaboration over areas of mutual interest between the county and the city governments. Randazzo said that she looked forward to working with the new councilors as well.

Mayor vetoes three council resolutions

Mayor Randazzo announced that she had vetoed three resolutions recently passed by the preceding council. They included a resolution setting the city limits, one describing lines of authority and giving the council power over employees, and a third dealing with tree planting policy. Randazzo said that she was vetoing the resolutions due to factual errors, and legal factors relating to state statutes.

The Mayor's veto actions will be on the agenda for council consideration at the meeting of January 15 at which time the council will either confirm or override the vetoes.

City moves to annex six wholly surrounded properties

In quick succession the council voted unanimously each time to annex six wholly surrounded areas within the city limits. City Planner Dennis Stranger told the council that there were currently at least 11 enclaves of county property within the city limits. He recalled that the council directed that a plan be devised for providing services to them. He said that, as a result of that work, he was now proposing the annexation of six out of the eleven properties. He said that these six were being presented first because they were the most straightforward. Stranger noted that there was a number of steps involved. First was passing a resolution of intent to annex. Then, he said, a public legal notice would be issued for an annexation hearing. He said that the law only requires notification of registered voters in the area, but the city would be notifying property owners as well.

"It's better to over notify," said Stranger.

The properties subject to the intent to annex resolution are located on South 4th Street, South 5th Street, the west end of Main Street and along Fairgrounds Road.

All the resolutions of intent to annex were approved unanimously.

Shook property purchase option in limbo

City Planner Dennis Stranger told the council that he presented the approved option to purchase offer of $5,000 to Garry Shook to hold his riverside property for 90 days while the City considers making the purchase.

"I haven't heard from Garry so the deal is in limbo," said Stranger.

Stranger went on to ask the council to approve a $20,000 expenditure of budgeted legislative funds for the "due diligence" work that would be required to consider purchase of the property.

The council decided that with the option to purchase in limbo it did not make sense to move forward with the requested funding authorization. The matter was postponed until the next meeting.

In other business the council:

- voted to advise the Public Works Director to move forward with negotiations to contract with HDR Engineering for engineering design for Phase I A and B of the Waste Water Treatment Plant upgrades.

- voted to send a request for an impact fee waiver from Summit Housing Group to the Zoning, Annexation and Planning Committee and the Finance Committee for consideration and recommendation.

City Planner Dennis Stranger cautioned the council that any reduction in impact fees at this point would be arbitrary without an in-depth analysis of the effects. He said that it was unwise to reduce fees without a detailed analysis.

The decision to send the matter to committee means that the Summit Housing Group will not get approval for a fee waiver within the timeline they were seeking. The fee waiver would be for Phase 3 of a three-phase development called the Mountain View Apartment Complex. Impact fee costs have gone up considerably since the project began

- approved up to $1,500 for the expenses related to a planned Council Retreat at which roles and responsibilities would be studied.

- approved the Tree Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance banning livestock within the city limits. These were passed on second reading with slight modifications.

Canyon Breeze subdivision approved

By Michael Howell

The Ravalli County Commissioners gave conditional approval to the Canyon Breeze Subdivision, near Stevensville, last week. The proposal, made by Robert Kwapy, is to create 14 lots on a little over 28 acres along Stevi River Road.

Although the subdivision adjoins Stevi River Road as it follows the river north from the Stevensville Bridge, access onto the road is prohibited except in case of emergency. An emergency only entrance/exit with a knock down barricade is proposed along this stretch of the road. Main access during and after the development phase is restricted to the main access site at Highway 93 on the northwest corner of the subdivision.

Details concerning an irrigation easement through the subdivision to serve a neighboring property were hammered out and agreed to by the developer and the neighboring irrigator at the meeting.

The Commissioners weighed the proposal against each of the state's six criteria for subdivision review. If it is determined that a proposal makes significant negative impacts to any one of these criteria then the subdivision is to be denied unless the developer offers effective mitigation of the impacts, reducing them to non-significant in relation to the criteria. As a result the commission essentially solicits mitigation efforts at some cost to the developer as possible mitigation of the impacts of the development.

In this case the commissioners did get offers of donation amounting to $500 per lot to the local school district, the local fire district and to county Public Safety services, such as the Sheriff's Office and the 911 Center, a total of $1,500 per lot to various services.

It was pointed out at the meeting that estimates of the cost of education of a student that is absorbed by the district before the development is placed on the tax roles amounts to about $2,558 per student. Based upon the current formula of .5 students per household this subdivision might produce an additional seven students into the school system.

With reference to the effects upon agriculture, commissioner Jim Rokosch raised the question of whether the land had "soils of local importance" or not. It was noted that no determination to that effect had been made in the record. Deputy County Attorney Alex Beal said that the intention of that criteria was to assess whether the soils were of "statewide importance" or not. He said that to consider the criteria to include soils of local importance as being significant would mean that no bare land could be subdivided without making a significant negative impact. He said that the designation "soils of local importance" was simply the catch all category for what's left when you take out soils of "statewide importance."

Rokosch disagreed, stating that not all soils were of local importance, and that a recent survey suggests that only about half the soils in the valley are classified as soils of local importance. He said that he believed that it was a rational designation and consideration and some determination should be made in that regard in order to decide if there would be significant negative impacts from the development.

The commissioners originally voted 3 to 2 that the proposal would have significant negative impacts on agriculture. Kwapy argued that the land had already lost its agricultural significance and that's how he ended up purchasing it for development. He did not offer any mitigation.

After some confusion about the procedure being followed, a re-vote was taken and it was determined by a 3 to 2 vote that there were no significant impacts to agriculture.

Commissioner Kathleen Driscoll strenuously objected, on the grounds of effects on public safety, to the fact that no walkways were proposed within the subdivision. She eventually got her way and the developer agreed to establish a 5-foot-wide walkway through the subdivision.

The final vote on the subdivision was 4 to 1 to approve it with the stipulated conditions. Commissioner Rokosch voted against the subdivision, sticking to his guns over the soils issue and refusing to approve the proposal on the grounds that it did not mitigate a potentially significant negative effect on agriculture.

Darby meeting on forest travel plan punctuated by profanity and threats

By Michael Howell

Close to 250 people packed the Darby Club House last Wednesday, January 9, for a public meeting hosted by the U.S. Forest Service to disseminate information and accept comment upon proposed changes to the Bitterroot National Forest Travel Plan. Unable to proceed according to plans, which had called for breaking up into groups, Virginia Tribe, the private moderator hired to facilitate the meeting, adapted by changing the format to simply take comment from the public one at a time. Comments from the public were, however, disrupted by other comments from the floor, some of which were profane and at least one of which was threatening.

As a result of the high turnout and the unruly comments from the crowd, the Forest Service cancelled a presentation planned for Stevensville on Thursday and significantly changed the format for the meeting planned for Hamilton on January 15.

Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor Dave Bull said, "It was quite a show and I was sitting there front and center with a big target on my chest."

Bull and Stevensville District Ranger Dan Ritter gave a shorthand account of the changes being proposed for the Forest Travel Plan. Overall, it reduces the number of miles on the forest open to motorized vehicles by about 364 miles. It calls for maintaining the rest of the 2,487 miles of roadway open to motorized traffic. The plan also calls for eliminating about 1,666 miles of user-created roads on the forest and limiting access based upon the type of vehicle and the season. The plan calls for closing 1,906 miles of road to motorized traffic.

Bull said that the agency was surprised at the number of people in attendance. He said that the planners hoped for 70 to 80 people but anticipated up to 100 or 150. About 250 people showed up.

He said that the agency intended to have a short informational presentation and then split up into groups where concerns would be recorded and addressed if possible.

Bull said that there were quite a number of Forest Service personnel present but not in uniform. He said that attending without uniforms was a decision that had been made in advance. He said that it became apparent immediately that a lot of people were opposed to any reduction in motorized use. He said that initial comments set the tone and the meeting was undercut by murmurs from the audience. He said there were rude people making inappropriate remarks. He said that he did not hear most of the profane remarks that were made, according to others, nor did he hear the threatening comment allegedly made. He said that the "f-word" may have been used but he did not believe it was made by anyone with the floor giving public comment.

Jim Miller, President of Friends of the Bitterroot, said it was an angry and hostile crowd making many disrespectful remarks. He said that there was obscenity and people were being ridiculed. He said that he did hear the threatening words spoken as a conservationist was giving public comment, he heard a man in the audience say "put a bullet in her head." He said that Gary Milner, upon hearing the remark, approached the man and asked him if he said it. The man replied, "yes," and a Forest Service official took his name.

Another member of Friends of the Bitterroot said in an e-mail that he heard the remarks as well and given the general hostility being displayed felt it was not safe to speak out publicly at the meeting.

Bull said that the alleged threatening remark was being investigated by the Forest Service and the Darby Police Department. He said that investigating officers had talked to the man who allegedly made the statement but the investigation was ongoing and he could not comment further.

According to Bull, the Darby meeting "pretty much told us our planned format was not going to work." Besides hastily canceling the meeting in Stevensville, the format of the Hamilton meeting was also redesigned. What is now planned is an open house with maps and information officers to be held from 3 to 9 p.m. Each of the four Forest Service District Rangers will be in different corners of the room with maps and other informational material. The public can engage each ranger and ask detailed questions about the Travel Plan changes being proposed.

The deadline for making public comment has also been extended until February 29. Bull said that a meeting in Stevensville was being rescheduled and would invovle taking public comment with a court reporter to record the comments verbatim. Each member of the public will probably be limited to three minutes to comment. An additional open house meeting in Hamilton may also be arranged before the closing of the scoping period on February 29.

Afterwards the agency will sift through the public comment and develop some alternatives based upon the comments. A draft Environmental Impact Statement may then be completed in the late summer or early fall. Comments on the Draft EIS will be considered and a Final EIS produced by spring or early fall of 2009. A final decision on the Travel Plan may then be made by December 2009.

"We have a good starting point and hopefully we can arrive at a final decision in that time frame," said Bull.

Wolves back to stay

By Greg Lemon

The black wolf sat on a rock and just watched. He was about 100 yards away, high up above us as we searched for a way across Sawtooth Creek, 12 miles into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.

When I saw the wolf we stopped. It was about an hour before dark and my friend Steve and I were heading down the trail looking for a camp spot. But the wolf made all our thoughts of sleep and dinner disappear.

Neither of us had ever seen a wolf. We knew they were around and we had seen some sign of them on the hike in. But we never expected to see one.

The wolf seemed just as curious as we were. He sat with his head cocked looking more puzzled than scared. We might have been the first humans it had ever seen. When we moved again, the wolf stood up and moved lackadaisically off into the trees.

When we found the hiking trail, we found more sign. Scat and tracks littered the area. It was obviously a spot a pack was using. Less than a mile down the trail we heard one long howl, bouncing off the granite walls of the canyon behind us.

It used to be that seeing a wolf was uncommon. But as I shared the story with locals, it seemed like many people who spent time in the backcountry had a similar story. Wolves used to be the stuff of myths and legends, now they're a fixture of the landscape in Montana.

In the Bitterroot Valley, everyone seems to have an opinion about wolves. Some people are enthusiastic about their reintroduction and healthy population. Others question whether or not they should have been reintroduced at all. And others feel their reintroduction was a horrible misstep by the federal government.

But the fact is that the grey wolf, which was once gone from the landscape of western Montana, has returned.

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks is now proposing a hunting and trapping season for wolves, in the anticipation of their removal from the Endangered Species List this February.

In some ways, the wolf recovery in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming can be seen as a success. The latest estimates from FWP say more than 400 wolves call Montana home. This includes at least 71 packs and 37 breeding pairs.

Others see the wolf population as an unfortunate explosion. Some ranchers, who already had enough challenges in keeping solvent, now have to protect livestock from wolves. Hunters are now seeing elk and deer herds more dispersed and behaving differently because they now have to worry about wolves.

The Timeline

The story of wolves in Montana begins more than a century ago when the country was unsettled and wild. At one point in time, wolves prowled the entire western landscape.

In 1884, Montana had an official wolf eradication policy. People were paid bounties for wolf hides. By 1925, they were nearly gone from the western landscape, though in Montana a few lingered until 1936, when by and large, they were essentially extirpated.

Wolves were listed as an endangered species in 1974. This is a key point in the history of the wolf, because under the Endangered Species Act, once a species is listed the government is mandated to work toward its recovery.

Through the 1980s and 90s wolves moved south from Canada into Glacier National Park and further south.

By 1993, officials estimated 45 wolves called northwest Montana home.

The wolf recovery plan for Yellowstone and central Idaho was completed in 1994 and wolves were scheduled for reintroduction in both locations. The plan also stated that wolves would be considered recovered when 30 breeding pairs existed in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming for three straight years.

In 1995 and 1996, more the 40 wolves were relocated from Canada to Yellowstone National Park and nearly 30 were relocated in central Idaho.

By 2002, wolves had reached recovery goals in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, with an estimated 43 breeding pairs and 663 wolves. In 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved Montana and Idaho's recovery plan, but Wyoming's was rejected, which delayed delisting from the Endangered Species List.

Now Wyoming's wolf management plan has been accepted, provided that the Fish and Wildlife Service delists the wolf by the end of this February.

Keeping Up

The Bitterroot Valley is used by at least 12 wolf packs, which contain about 65 wolves. Wolf biologist, Liz Bradley, says that's a low estimate. Their territory could cover as little as 50 square miles and as much as 325 square miles. Some current research estimates the territory size could be even larger.

Bradley works for Montana FWP monitoring wolves from the Big Hole to Superior.

The Bitterroot is home to resident wolf packs, as well as packs that split time between Montana and Idaho. On the east side of the valley some packs move over into Rock Creek or the Big Hole.

A wolf pack can range in size from only a couple wolves up to 15. They vary depending on litters.

The packs in the Bitterroot are spread out from Lolo to Lost Trail Pass.

"We've got wolves crisscrossing the landscape all the time," Bradley said.

The estimate of 65 wolves in the Bitterroot is low because they move around so much and they're simply hard to keep track of. Most packs in the valley have at least one wolf with a collar, but some don't. Those packs without collars are hard to monitor and locate, she said.

Bradley traps wolves to collar them. When wolves are trapped, they're sedated, collared, weighed, measured and released. The collars usually will last five years before the batteries wear out.

The yearly cycle of the wolf starts with mating and denning in the early part of the year. They usually mate in late February and have a 63-day gestation period. Pups are born in the spring and they stay with the parents for at least a year. In the summer, the pups and parents move to follow food - typically elk and deer herds.

In the fall they began moving again, looking for mates and new territory. Adult wolves typically break off from the pack and go hunting for mates. Once they find a mate, the alpha male and female wolves establish a new pack and a territory.

This cycle means that every year some wolves are traveling long distances looking to start more packs.

Bradley leans on the public for wolf information. She's always encouraging people to report wolf sightings. Any information about wolves helps her keep track of what is happening with different packs.

She also deals with conflicts between wolves and landowners. As the wolf population in western Montana has expanded, conflicts with livestock have increased.

In the summer of 2006, wolves started killing cattle on a ranch in French Basin, near Sula. Bradley and her crew responded, trying to haze the wolves off the ranch and back to the high country, but it didn't work. They established a rendezvous site on the ranch.

Wolves use a rendezvous sight during the summer as a place to congregate and keep pups, while the adults hunt. The fact the site was located on the ranch property was troubling, Bradley said.

Typically, wolves move into the high country in the summer along with the elk and deer herds. This pack didn't. The non-lethal methods of deterring the wolves didn't work, so the pack was killed. In all 15 wolves were shot and killed, she said.

As it turned out, the likely reason the pack wouldn't leave the ranch is because two other packs had established territory in the higher country behind the ranch, Bradley said. The pack on the ranch didn't have anywhere else to go.

Managing conflicts with wolves is a big part of what Bradley does.

"The most important thing for my job as a manager is to try and prevent that," she said. "If we have dead cattle, we have dead wolves."

Under the current plan, ranchers who lose livestock to wolf depredation are compensated by the Defenders of Wildlife, a national conservation organization.

Policy and Controversy

Wolf management is done by both the Montana FWP and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said Carolyn Sime, Montana FWP wolf coordinator. Montana won't have exclusive control over the management of wolves until they are removed from the Endangered Species List.

Until that happens, Montana FWP works with the Fish and Wildlife Service monitoring wolves and managing livestock conflicts.

The Montana wolf management plan includes not only monitoring but also hunting and trapping - like any other big game species, Sime said.

Montana's plan was developed in cooperation with the public as well as the Fish and Wildlife Service. In 2000, Montana FWP formed the Wolf Advisory Council, which is made up of 12 citizens appointed by the governor. In the beginning the council took public comment and looked at population data to come up with a management plan. The plan, from the beginning, included hunting and trapping options, she said.

In the 2007 legislature, Montana lawmakers decided to establish a hunting and trapping license for wolves, in anticipation of their delisting. The Montana Fish and Game Commission is proposing a hunting season for 2008 and adding a trapping season in 2009.

But for full implementation of the plan, the wolf must be officially removed form the Endangered Species List, Sime said.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to make a decision on the wolf's status at the end of February. With the wolf population in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho well above recovery objectives, the Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to delist them. But Sime expects their decision will be challenged in court.

From the beginning, the wolf recovery has been controversial.

Aaron Wheaton and Ben Wohlers own World Class Wildlife Studio Inc., a taxidermy shop in Hamilton. Like all taxidermists, they talk to a lot of hunters and many who come through their shop are not wolf advocates.

"Sportsmen are seeing them regularly," he said. "Once you start seeing them that means there's way too many in a given area."

By nature, wolves are secretive animals. They don't like people and don't want to be seen, Wheaton said. But like any animal, when they become prolific, they have to go where they don't naturally want to go in order to find food.

In the last week, Wohlers has seen six wolves. A mountain lion hunter was in their shop recently and he had seen 10 west of Hamilton.

"I'm not against wolves," Wheaton said. "It just adds to the experience (of hunting). It just adds to the mystique."

But they are eating more elk and deer. It just makes sense since there are more wolves, says Wheaton. He firmly believes there are too many wolves. He believes the state and federal government should have implemented hunting and trapping seasons as soon as the wolf population reached its recovery goal.

John Vore, Montana FWP biologist in Hamilton, agrees wolves have changed the ecology in the valley, but he doesn't see any reduction in elk number due to wolves.

Vore counts elk every year and has seen a steady number. It fluctuates a little, but currently there are more elk – valley wide – than FWP has outlined as population objectives for the area. Last year's count was nearly 7,200 elk in the valley and that's just elk he saw during his count. He figures he counts around 75 percent of the actual elk.

In fact, elk are doing so well that seasons are regularly extended to allow hunters more opportunity to hunt elk, he said.

But elk are changing. They don't use the habitat the way they did before wolves were reintroduced. For instance, they travel in smaller herds and use less open area. They're smart and they've adapted, Vore said.

For hunters who say elk populations have decreased, Sime questions whether or not they're hunting the same area they did before wolves. If they are, then maybe changing tactics and changing areas would help. As wolves change how elk act, hunters are going to have to change, too, in order to continue to be successful, she said.

For many hunters the frustration with the wolf program isn't only directed at the state, it's with the federal government as well. It doesn't make sense that the wolf wasn't delisted as soon as it met the recovery goals, Wheaton said.

He's astute enough to know that if the Fish and Wildlife Service decides to delist wolves, there's going to be a lawsuit. And once it's in the courts, hunters are going to lose, even if the wolf is eventually delisted, he said.

Hunting wolves isn't going to be an effective way to manage the population and even trapping will have its limits, Wheaton said. Wolves are too smart and too elusive. Once people start shooting at them, they'll learn quickly how to be avoid people. He's accepted the fact wolves are here and they're going to stay and do well in the Bitterroot.

"It's a battle that deep inside we all know we're going to lose," he said. "We've already lost the battle against wolves here. We don't have any hope of it getting better."

Adding to the frustration with what Wheaton sees as an out of control wolf population is the mistrust between hunters and the government, both state and federal.

The fact is many hunters don't believe the wolf population numbers Montana FWP is presenting to the public, he said. What they say the wolf population is and what people see in the woods is different.

"It doesn't jive," he said.

The problem is wolf management and any eventual hunting and trapping season will be based on population numbers, Wheaton said.

If hunters don't trust the numbers that Montana FWP is presenting, then how can they trust the agency will ever really get a handle on the wolf population, he said.

Sime understands people are frustrated, but she also emphasizes the fact that monitoring wolves is a difficult task and inexact at best. The population estimates are always presented with the caveat that they're minimum numbers simply because counting all the wolves would be impossible.

"We're not disclosing that this is an exact count nor do we think it's an exact count," she said. "People have always questioned Fish, Wildlife and Parks data, I'm glad they do. It keeps us on our toes and it's a clear signal to us that people value somebody looking because they know sooner or later that translates into hunting opportunities."

It behooves the state to have as accurate a wolf count as possible, because if they can show wolves are doing well, they'll be able to keep them from falling back on the Endangered Species List once they're removed, she said.

In Montana, the bottom line is 15 breeding pairs statewide, Sime said. That means if hunting and trapping were used as a management tool, they'd have to keep up with monitoring to ensure wolf populations don't drop below federally mandated levels, she said.

Montana FWP really doesn't know what kind of effect hunting and trapping will have on wolves. There aren't any good examples to look at from other states. Plus Montana is unique, Sime said. Unlike Idaho and Wyoming, there aren't any huge pieces of wilderness for wolves to live in. Given the way Montana is developed and settled, wolves and people are going to interact, it's just part of having wolves in the ecosystem.

The best thing hunters can do is stay engaged in the process, commenting on the proposed seasons and helping keep track of wolf populations by continuing to report sightings, Sime said.

Currently, Montana's wolf monitoring efforts are federally funded. But when the state takes over wolf management, the federal dollars for monitoring will dry up, Sime said. The state is currently working on ways to monitor wolves other than radio collars, which are expensive.

"If you think there's lots of wolves, chances are no matter what data we put in front of you, you'll always think there's lots of wolves," she said.

Ranchers are also facing new challenges with wolves.

Brad Mildenberger's family owns a large ranch east of Hamilton, in the foothills of the Sapphire Mountains. He believes two packs use his ranch.

Mildenberger has spent a lot of time observing wolves and their behavior on his ranch. He believes he's lost eight calves to wolves. But it's hard to prove. Wolves are good at devouring the entire kill. Unless you find a wolf-kill early, there's never enough evidence to prove it was a wolf, he said.

Wolves have changed the way he runs cattle. Before wolves, they ran cattle on the higher elevations of the ranch during the summer, when the grazing is good. But now they can't keep cattle in the higher range because wolves continue to push them down. That means foliage and grass doesn't get grazed down, which creates a fire hazard in the late summer, Mildenberger said.

"It's a ticking time bomb for us," he said.

Mildenberger, like Wheaton, is in favor of a hunting season for wolves, but also like Wheaton is skeptical of how well it will work.

"You could give everybody a tag, you're not going to kill those wolves," he said. "They're going to accumulate much faster than we humans could ever kill them."

Getting Involved

Montana has always been ahead of the curve as far as wolf management is concerned, Sime said. The state had a management plan approved early by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It was a plan developed with a substantial amount of public input and interest.

The hope for wolves in Montana is that they'll eventually be managed like any other big game species.

The current hunting plan will be open for public comment until Feb. 1. Montana FWP is holding public meetings around the state discussing the plan. A meeting will be held in Hamilton on Thursday, Jan. 17 at 7 p.m. in the Daly-Leach Chapel. The meeting will discuss all big game seasons.

The current plan calls for Montana to be split into three wolf hunting districts: northern Montana, southwest Montana and southeast Montana. The hunting season would begin Sept. 15 and go through the Sunday after Thanksgiving. Hunters could buy a tag for one wolf per year.

However, there will be a quota system in place in each district, which means once the quota is reached hunting would stop.

Hunting would begin this coming fall if the decision to delist the wolves isn't litigated, Sime said.

A trapping season for wolves wouldn't start until 2009. It is slated to run from Dec. 1 to Dec. 31, with trappers having to apply for special permits. They would also only be allowed one wolf.

Both hunters and trappers would have to report their wolves to FWP much like they do now with mountain lions and bears, she said.

Sime also directs people to look to the Montana FWP website, fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/wolf, for more information about wolves, the proposed hunting season and their population in Montana.

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2007 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney