Roxy and Terry Hunt have opened up the Farm to Market store in Hamilton. The store is located in the old Loonies and Toonies store on North First, about a block north of Main Street. The store is dedicated to having as fresh and local a product as the owners can find and is a combination of organic, natural and non-organic produce, baked goods, meat and fish. It is open seven days a week from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.

“We look at the Bitterroot first,” said Roxy, “ to find what we want. If we can’t find it, then we look in state. If it’s still not available, then the Northwest is searched and finally the U.S.A.”

Of course, the seasons will dictate some availability but a quick look around the store has one drooling at the brightly colored oranges and apples, bananas and peppers. There are strawberries, asparagus and many more items. Much of the vegetables, as well as eggs and chicken, come from the Hutterites. In addition, the store features freshly baked goods from Bernice’s Bakery in Missoula and Olde Coffee Mill in Stevensville.

In the back of the main store are a full deli and a salad bar. There is also an espresso shop. Across a small alley, in another building, is the meat counter. Rows of pork chops, steaks and chicken are lined up, just waiting for the grill. If buffalo is on the menu, they have that as well. Almost all of the meat comes from producers here in the Bitterroot. Cod, salmon, crab, and shrimp is brought in fresh every other day from Oregon, Washington and Alaska. Depending upon the catch of the day, other fish will also be offered when available.

County wants school to settle up over rabies vaccine

By Michael Howell

The Ravalli County Commissioners have asked Stevensville School Superintendent Kent Kultgen to set up a meeting with the Stevensville School Board of Trustees to discuss a potential resolution of the costs incurred in holding a rabies vaccination clinic related to an incident at the school in which many children and some teachers were exposed to a rabid bat. County officials expressed frustration at dealing with the school’s insurance company representatives and want to discuss the matter with the School Board members directly.

Lisa Coombs, a property claims supervisor for the school’s insurance company, wrote the county in January stating that the company was only willing to pay for the vaccines that were administered to students.

That cost was estimated at $75,000. Coombs stated that they would not cover the teacher’s vaccinations, but would forward that $5,579.17 bill to the teachers’ workers compensation carrier.

Commissioner Jim Rokosch told Kultgen that the county had gone above and beyond its legal requirements in responding to the emergency at the school. He said that state law only required them to investigate the event and then recommend to the people involved that they seek the appropriate medical advice from their private physicians.

Instead, he said, the county saw the need for immediate action due to the short time window involved with potential rabies infection. So the county decided to help obtain the needed vaccine and help orchestrate the vaccination clinic, none of which it was required to do by law.

In the course of that action, however, more vaccine was ordered than was actually administered in the end. Not only that, but the authorization of local county health officials was required to order the vaccine. Based upon that authorization, Marcus Daly Memorial Hospital actually placed the order and served as the recipient, since it had the facilities to receive and store the vaccine. As a result, Marcus Daly Hospital paid for the vaccine when it arrived and forwarded the bill to the county. The county believed the school should pay.

When the school’s insurer balked at paying for any vaccine that was not administered, the county stepped in to accept custody of the unused vaccine and is trying to resell it to other counties and perhaps out of state. So far the county has recouped a portion of the cost of the excess vaccine but still sits on about $24,000 worth. There is a time limit on the process because the excess vaccine has a shelf life and will be worthless after that runs out in August, 2011. The county is worried about being left holding the bag.

It is for this reason that the county hesitates to sign a general release of liability for the school which the insurer wanted before making the proposed payment of the $75,000.

In the meantime, Marcus Daly Hospital, frustrated at the time it has taken for the school and the county to reach an agreement, has instituted a late fee on the payment owed to them and now another $3,500 has been added to the bill.

The county wants the school to help get the school’s insurer to accept a limited liability release and to pay for the late fee as well.

The county’s attorney, Karen Mahar, said, “There is some insurance jargon muddying the waters. I wish we could clear it up.”

Kultgen said that he understood that the county had concerns about the excess vaccine it had paid for and the uncertainty it faced in recovering those costs. He said he also understood the need to deal with certain late fees.

“If you give me a day or two to work this out, maybe I can get it resolved,” said Kultgen. He agreed to try, and at the same time to place the commissioners on the school board’s next meeting agenda in case he was unable to craft a resolution. That way the commissioners could still make their appeal to the school board.

Stevi Horizons on the move

By Michael Howell

The Stevensville Horizons group has spawned three different action committees to pursue its community goals. They include the Help Fair committee, the Community Garden committee, and the Business Directory committee.

A Help Fair is being planned for May 16, at which participants will find a plethora of resources gathered to help individuals who are looking for meaningful employment. There will be a representative from the Bitterroot Job Service to advise job seekers as well as other business related seminars. Help with job applications will also be available.

A clothes drive is being sponsored in relation to the event in which the Clothes Closet will be collecting used clothing that could be worn to job application interviews.

The Community Garden committee is planning to establish a, you guessed it, community garden. It will probably be located on the school grounds. Interested citizens can participate in planting, tending, harvesting, and preserving food from the garden. A canning or freezing project to preserve the garden’s bounty is also being planned. Organizers hope to donate fresh and preserved garden goods to the local Pantry Partners. A “buy a fencepost” fundraiser is being conducted. Plaques will be placed on the fenceposts surrounding the garden honoring the business or person who donated to the campaign.

A Business Outreach Directory committee is also at work. Members plan to put together a directory of community businesses directory to help local entrepreneurs. The Directory group is holding a business card drawing for placement of an ad in the directory.

All the committees are pursuing fundraising activities to support their efforts. Members of the Business Outreach Directory sold raffle tickets on the street at Stevensville’s most recent First Friday celebration.

Tickets for a gift basket worth $385 are being sold for $1 per ticket or 6 for $5.

Anyone interested in participating in any of these Horizon groups may contact them on line at http://stevensville.communityblogs.us/.

Wolf delisting headed back to court

By Michael Howell

Nothing has been more on again-off again, on again-off again, on again than the delisting of the gray wolves from protection under the federal Endangered Species Act. Now, after the latest attempt to delist them, a number of conservation groups has announced their intent to flip the switch off again by suing in federal court.

Gray wolves were first slated for delisting in April of 2008, but a federal judge overturned that decision and put the wolves back on the endangered list arguing that state management plans were flawed and were inadequate to ensure survival. In the waning days of the Bush administration delisting of the wolves was once again proposed. However, that proposal was put on hold by the incoming Obama administration pending review.

Then, on March 6, 2009, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar affirmed the decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove gray wolves from the list of threatened and endangered species in the western Great Lakes and the northern Rocky Mountain states of Idaho and Montana and parts of Washington, Oregon and Utah. Wolves will remain a protected species in Wyoming.

“The recovery of the gray wolf throughout significant portions of its historic range is one of the great success stories of the Endangered Species Act,” Salazar said in a press release at the time. “When it was listed as endangered in 1974, the wolf had almost disappeared from the continental United States. Today, we have more than 5,500 wolves, including more than 1,600 in the Rockies.”

“The successful recovery of this species is a stunning example of how the Act can work to keep imperiled animals from sliding into extinction,” he said. “The recovery of the wolf has not been the work of the federal government alone. It has been a long and active partnership including states, tribes, landowners, academic researchers, sportsmen and other conservation groups, the Canadian government and many other partners.”

The Service decided to delist the wolf in Idaho and Montana because they have approved state wolf management plans in place that will ensure the conservation of the species in the future.

At the same time, the Service determined wolves in Wyoming would still be listed under the Act because Wyoming’s current state law and wolf management plan are not sufficient to conserve its portion of the northern Rocky Mountain wolf population.

The Service oversees three separate recovery programs for the gray wolf; each has its own recovery plan and recovery goals based on the unique characteristics of wolf populations in each geographic area.

Wolves in other parts of the 48 states, including the Southwest wolf population, remain endangered and are not affected by the actions taken.

The northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment includes all of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon, and a small part of north-central Utah. The minimum recovery goal for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains is at least 30 breeding pairs and at least 300 wolves for at least three consecutive years, a goal that was attained in 2002 and has been exceeded every year since. There are currently about 95 breeding pairs and 1,600 wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.

The Service believes that with approved state management plans in place in Montana and Idaho, all threats to the wolf population will be sufficiently reduced or eliminated in those states. Montana and Idaho will always manage for more than 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves per state and their target population level is about 400 wolves in Montana and 500 in Idaho.

Even though Wyoming is included in the northern Rocky Mountain District Population Segment, the subpopulation of gray wolves in Wyoming is not being removed from protection of the Endangered Species Act.

Last Thursday several conservation organizations officially announced their intent to sue over Salazar’s latest decision.

Suzanne Stone, Northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife, said, "Nothing about this rule has changed since it was rejected and deemed unlawful in federal court. It still fails to adequately address biological concerns about the lack of genetic exchange among wolf populations and it still fails to address the concerns with the states' wolf management plans. If this rule is allowed to stand, nearly two-thirds of the wolves in the northern Rockies could be killed. We had hoped for a new delisting plan, based on current science that provides for a healthy, well-connected wolf population in the region. Instead we are forced to, once again, challenge a bad rule forcing the expenditure of time and money that would have been much better served towards developing responsible state management plans."

Jenny Harbine of Earthjustice said that the country was close to having a viable sustainable population, but that the government was willing to settle for only 300 to 450 wolves in the Rockies and it was not enough to ensure a sustainable population. She said that independent scientists have put the necessary number at closer to 2,000 to 3,000 wolves. She said the rule did not allow for the continuity between wolf populations to ensure the necessary genetic health of the population. She said that the court had already ruled that all the states must be involved in the process or it would not be legal. Leaving Wyoming out was a mistake, she said.

USFWS biologist Ed Bangs said that the delisting of the Grey Wolves was a good thing for the wolves and for the people of Montana. He said that Montana has managed the wolves before and can do the job. He said the state would manage for 300 to 450 wolves. He said that concerns about continuity of the wolf packs for genetic reasons were overblown. He said there is a contiguous population of over 12,000 wolves in Alberta and British Columbia.

“If you are against hunting wolves, that’s O.K.,” said Bangs. “That’s your opinion. But the science is clear that the wolves are fully recovered and with proper management they will never be endangered again.” He said that interpretations of the law are one thing, but the science is another. He said that the science is on the side of delisting and state management.

Bangs said that both Montana and Idaho were planning wolf hunts for the fall.

“It will be up to a judge to decide if it is lawful or not,” he said.

He said that the USFWS is a strong supporter of state management and hunting is a good management tool.

“Look at what they’ve done with the mountain lion and bears,” he said.

Ron Jones of Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife said that his organization has been lobbying hard for state management of wolves. He said that his group has been looking at the studies and the numbers and believes it is time to manage the wolf population. He said that feedback from the membership was in favor of delisting because elk and mule deer buck populations in the area seem to be low.

“We are seeing less game animals and more wolf tracks than ever,” said Jones. “A lot of experienced hunters are saying that something’s got to be done.”

Governor sends slaughterhouse bill back to legislature

By Michael Howell

Governor Brian Schweitzer sent a bill (HB 418) authorizing investor-owned equine slaughter or processing facilities back to the legislature with amendments for reconsideration last week.

The bill, as passed by the legislature, would not only have authorized any new horse slaughter facilities in the state, it also would have prevented a court from granting an injunction to stop or delay the construction based upon legal challenges or appeals of a permit, license or other certificate or approval issued in conjunction with environmental laws. The bill also set bonding requirements on anyone who did pursue a legal remedy against the construction of such a facility.

The Governor begins by saying that his proposed amendments do not prevent the licensing and operation of a horse slaughter facilitv in Montana. But he goes on to say, “My amendments retain those aspects of HB 418 that clarify existing law to ensure that a horse slaughter facility, if licensed to operate in Montana, conforms to Montana's current laws pertaining to all livestock slaughter facilities. My amendments are focused on eliminating what I believe is the unnecessary and potentially harmful special treatment that would be granted to one particular industry under this bill.”

“While I understand the value in licensing horse slaughter facilities, it is equally important that any facility approved to operate in Montana comply with this state's health and environmental laws. Therefore, a person applving to license a horse slaughter facility who wishes to do so in accordance with Montana law has nothing to fear from the amendments I propose,” wrote Schweitzer.

The governor proposes eliminating the language in the law placing limitations on the person bringing a legal challenge.

“It is my opinion that current statutory standards for the issuance of injunctions already provide sufficient safeguards to ensure the remedy of injunction will only be available to a party under limited and justified circumstances,” he writes. “In other words, I believe that the legal standards currently in existence sufficiently safeguard the rights of all parties, and, conversely, that the restriction upon a court's power to enjoin construction of a facility unnecessarily tips this balance.”

Schweitzer also objects to the imposition of liability for all the financial losses by a facility onto the person bringing the court challenge if it is unsuccessful. He believes it would have a “chilling effect” on people legitimately concerned about the operations of a slaughterhouse facility.

“I am unaware of any equivalent provision in Montana law, and I believe its inclusion in this bill unfairly tips the balance by discouraging a challenger from seeking what would otherwise be a legitimate injunction for the benefit and protection of public health and safety. Again, I believe the current, established legal standards relating to the issuance of injunctions – including the current standards pertaining to an award of costs and damages to persons wrongfully enjoined – are sufficiently stringent and properly balance the competing rights of litigants. I do not believe special rules are necessary or appropriate for this particular industry,” wrote Schweitzer.

Schweitzer also objected to the requirement of placing a surety bond of up to 20 percent of the value of the facility on anyone challenging a facility in court. He said that such a provision would effectively deny citizens the right to challenge a permit in court. He said that he was not aware of a single other instance of a surety bond being required to challenge the issuance of a state permit.

The governor also objects to language in the bill specifically requiring that anyone whose legal challenge of a proposed slaughter facility is deemed to be without merit pay the cost of the lawsuit. He said that laws and punishments already exist to sanction people who file meritless lawsuits.

“As with my other concerns, I see no reason to impose new, special, and undefined standards in this bill, applicable to this one industry, where current law adequately provides for sanctions in proper circumstances,” he wrote.

Members of the local equine group, Willing Servants, that formed in response to a recent high profile animal abuse case and offers an equine euthanasia program, testified against the bill. Local Senator Rick Laible also spoke out strongly against the bill before passage.

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Legals •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2009 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney