Housing costs are pushing the limits of Montanans’ pocketbooks, with four markets – Kalispell, Bozeman, Missoula and Hamilton – failing the housing affordability criterion, according to an article published in a recent issue of the Montana Business Quarterly.

In each of these communities, median-income households cannot afford the payment on a median-priced home without devoting a higher proportion of their income to housing, authors Patrick Barkey and James Sylvester wrote in the article titled “Housing Affordability and Montana’s Real Estate Markets.”

“Housing prices in the last 20 years have surged ahead much faster than the income used to pay them,” the article said. “Over the span of time that the median price for a Montana home grew by 96 percent, the per capita income of Montanans rose by about a quarter as much, or 26 percent.”

Throughout Montana, the article said, substantial numbers of households pay more than 30 percent of their incomes toward housing, which makes them housing-stressed according to HUD standards.

While the current recession has caused housing price growth to slow throughout Montana, it hasn’t made housing more affordable because income growth has stalled at the same time, the authors wrote. Furthermore, it will take more than a few years of tepid price declines to significantly alter the effects of almost a decade of rapid price growth.

Other articles in the summer Montana Business Quarterly include “The Economic Cost of Alcohol Abuse in Montana,” “Pre-Existing Health Conditions Limit Job Flexibility,” “Four Wheeling: Off-Highway Vehicle Use Growing” and “Long-Term Care Insurance: Could Montana’s New Partnership Plan Have Helped the Smiths?”

The Montana Business Quarterly is published by the University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research and is partially supported by the Missoula Federal Credit Union. Annual subscriptions are available for $35. For more information or to subscribe, go to http://www.bber.umt.edu or call 243-5113.

Commissioners move on Airport EA

By Michael Howell

Last Friday the Ravalli County Commissioners revised the Task Order, submitted for signing by consulting company Morrison-Maierle, for an updated Environmental Assessment analyzing alternatives for improvements at the Hamilton Airport. The Commissioners made changes restricting the scope of the project in the hopes of eliminating some unnecessary effort and expense. Rather than revising the entire EA with two new alternatives added, the Commissioners have re-written the Task Order to simply analyze some proposed amendments to two of the alternatives. The Commissioners also want input on any choice of a “preferred alternative” prior to taking the matter to public hearing. They cut the timeline for producing an updated EA from six months down to two months. They made it clear in a telephone conference with Scott Bell of Morrison-Maierle that they wanted to see a Final EA ready for adoption within six months of signing the new Task Order.

As a matter of consensus at past meetings, the Commissioners have already made it plain that the no-action alternative is not a real option. They also reached consensus on not lengthening or upgrading the runway or widening runway/taxiway separation to the standards that would accommodate heavier, larger aircraft. That essentially takes Alternative 4 (the “preferred Alternative” in the original EA) off the table.

The remaining two options, being considered in their modified forms, are:

Alternative 2A - A runway length of 4,200 feet with a safety area extending 300 feet beyond the end; a shift of the runway location 94 to 100 feet to the east with no shift to north or south; a maximum runway/taxiway separation width of 290 feet; and a maximum runway weight-bearing capacity of 17,000 lbs.

Alternative 3A - A runway length of 4,200 feet with a safety area extending 300 feet beyond; a shift of the runway location 240 to 299 feet to the east with a yet to be determined shift to the north depending on safety issues; field data regarding cuts and fills from north end hillside and gravel use, storage, and sale that may apply to this option; consideration of airspace and taxiway requirements.

The Commissioners wrote some specific instructions into the Task Order to ensure that they get a cost analysis of the alternatives that covers the entire construction costs, as well as costs involved in moving the Daly Ditch Co. offices and historical hangars, and estimated annual maintenance and operational costs.

They want to know if the alternatives comply with FAA safety and design requirements, and if not, what amendments could be made to achieve compliance.

They want to know the adequacy of the aviation easements to the north if the runway should be moved in that direction and what measures might be undertaken to minimize the impact of airport construction on existing airport businesses.

They also want to be kept in the loop and have all correspondence over the analysis pass through the Commissioners’ office.

They want the EA to address the potential impact of Resolution 1244 on either of the alternatives. That resolution calls for a public vote if the airport is ever enlarged. Advocates of Alternative 2A argue that no land acquisition is required for implementing that option. Alternative 3A does involve some new land acquisition and may trigger a public vote.

The county has spent around $140,000 to date on preparation of the EA. The estimated cost of the new Task Order for an updated EA is close to $50,000. The FAA has indicated that it would fund the new Task Order through a grant that requires a 5 percent local match. If the county succeeded in getting half of that matched by the Montana Aeronautics Board, the cost to the county could be reduced to approximately $1,300 for the new Task Order. Without MAB assistance it would be twice that figure.

Commission Chair Carlotta Grandstaff said that by revising this Task Order the Commission was taking control over the next phase of the process.

“We inherited the first phase, but with the second phase we have taken ownership,” said Grandstaff.

River Park management policy adopted

By Michael Howell

The Hamilton City Council adopted a new policy for management of River Park last week. The first version of the policy was voted down at the previous council meeting, but, following some tweaking in committee, the new policy bounced back and was adopted on a 3 to 2 vote at the council meeting of August 18.

The park policy affirms the goal of preserving the cottonwood stands that are currently located in the northern, “developed” 3-acre portion of the park. It also describes the process by which a tree may be removed from the park. It requires approval by the City Council following consultation with a qualified arborist or urban forester. It sets aside an area around existing trees that is not to be mowed in order to enhance opportunity for replacement growth in the area immediately surrounding the older tree. The rest of the lawn will be mowed to at least three inches.

The issue has been contentious. Several people spoke in support of the new management policy, but some others, including City Parks Department personnel, spoke against adoption of the policy.

Supporters emphasized that the issue was not an all or nothing thing and that the new management policy represented a compromise between a park where children could play games on the lawn and yet some natural trees could be accommodated.

City Parks employee Guy West called the new policy “a direct attack on (Parks Director) Terry Cole.”

Cole, who spoke adamantly against the policy at the previous meeting, reiterated his stand.

“Vote it down,” Cole told the council members.

He called it micro management that still did not address the problem of hazard trees. He said under the new management policy the park would go back to the condition it was in that sparked public unrest and the passage of the first park policy, which he said was still adequate. He stressed that the presence of hazard trees had been confirmed by two state inspectors.

Jenny West, President of the Parks and Recreation Committee, said that the new policy was just a needed refinement of existing policy. She said that it was not micro managing, but was a response to going down to the park last spring and seeing that six trees had been removed without going through the council or even the Parks and Recreation Committee. Following that, she said, playground equipment was installed without going through the committee or the council.

“I’m not against kids’ playground equipment,” said West, “but no one from the Parks Department came to our committee meetings to even inform us.” She said that some procedure needed to be formalized to make that happen.

Councilor Mike LaSalle said, “I don’t agree with this plan whatsoever. One hundred percent of the Parks Department is against it. We are micro managing.” He asked why the same sort of management plan wasn’t being devised for the Public Works Department.

Councilor Nancy Hendrickson said that it was the council’s duty to set policy. She said that the state forester wanted the trees to be saved, but that this was not done.

Councilor Joe Petrusaitis said, “I think we should call this Zombie Park, because this issue will not die.” He said that he had gone back and forth over the issue, but that he felt like it was a form of micro management, and he was against it for that reason.

Councilor Al Mitchell said that he supported the original park management plan and that this new one does not change things much, except by specifically preserving some cottonwood groves.

“The state forester recommended taking out 2 or 3 per year. We went down and took out 6 or 8. I don’t agree, but it is possibly a safer park.” Mitchell said that he did not see the new policy as micro management “any more than when we tell Mr. (Public Works Director Keith) Smith to within one half inch of how much snow must be on the ground when he sends his crew out to sand and plow.”

Mayor Jerry Steele said that this kind of disagreement could be avoided in the future if the City would proceed with a Comprehensive Master Plan for management of all its parks.

Petrusaitis said that the council once decreed that nothing would change until a Master Plan was adopted. He said since none had been adopted he would abstain from voting on the River Park plan.

Councilors West, Hendrickson and Mitchell all voted to adopt the new management policy. LaSalle voted no. And Petrusaitis first passed and then voted no. The Resolution was approved 3 to 2.

In other business the council:

• approved a Memorandum of Understanding with Corvallis Canal & Water Co. for Hieronymus Park Trail;

• approved a contract with HDR Engineering for engineering, consulting and related services in connection with the Hieronymus Trail project;

• authorized the Mayor to sign a Right of Way Deed for an easement on 10th Street;

• approved on second reading ordinances to amend the city code on animals’ licensing costs, etc., allowing objects (like candy) to be thrown at parades, and bringing sewer billing practices into line with the water billing process.

Everybody to the rescue

By Kathleen Meyer For the Bitterroot Star

Three springs ago, a young pair of fish hawks, or osprey, struggled to establish what was likely their first nest—atop a power pole north of Victor. A scraggly, airy affair of loose sticks, balanced perilously near the wires, it offered little apparent shelter and blew apart in every good wind. Not to be discouraged, the couple rebuilt and rebuilt, until, finally, late in the season, they hatched one egg. When the knob of white fluff poked above the rim, everybody who'd been passing by beneath—and turning shades of blue from holding their breaths—issued a collective sigh. By then the birds had names, probably many names (Ophelia and Oscar in my household); area residents tended to keep the nest a hushed topic, even among themselves.

Mr. and Mrs. Osprey might have been greenhorns at abode-building, but as fishers they were Olympiads, flapping home from the Bitterroot River with trophy-sized catches weighing sometimes more than half their own body weight. Think of trying to flail your arms with enough vigor to raise your body out of a swimming hole, all the while hefting, say, a full-grown and squirming goat with only your toenails. Osprey, of course, have the advantage of wings. They also have thorny toe pads and, on each foot, a reversible toe/talon, which help them grab a slippery fish and position it head-first for aerodynamic flying. These large raptors’ wingspans can reach up to six feet, and their vision has evolved to the spectacular. From 40–100 feet in the air, they select a fish and tuck wings into a forty-mile-per-hour dive, throwing their long legs and feet forward only at the last second, to enter the water talons first, beak and head second. They are the only birds of prey that accomplish complete immersion. Some individuals, just like humans, are more athletic than others. A mature adult with an accumulation of experience and wisdom might come up with a fish on 90% of its tries; those who veer toward clumsy don't last long.

The newly-weds, at what I'll call the Bell-Meridian nest, fairly doted on their first offspring, trying to teach it everything a good osprey should know, and sticking with it long after all of them would usually have departed for southern climes. Osprey fly south at the end of the summer, the adults leaving first, with different destinations in mind—to return the next spring to each other and the same nest. “It's because of their separate vacations,” someone crowed, “that they can stay hitched for life!” Another theory contends that it’s the nest to which they make their strongest commitment. Montana's birds winter anywhere from the southwestern U.S. to Mexico and Central America; those of New England fly as far as Venezuela, via Florida and Cuba; and Finland's winter in Africa. A four-month-old fledgling is on its own for its first transcontinental flight, relying on instinctual navigation. Whether that navigating has to do with the stars or earth’s magnetism or something else, is still a mystery to us. Only an estimated 30% survive, and it’s the chicks born earliest in the season that have the greatest chance at someday reproducing. The young ones don’t fly north again for a full year and a half, using the time for the antics of adolescence and perhaps to search out prime winter fishing locations for when they start their own families at age three or four. Osprey can live into their twenties.

In the second week of September, Olivia (or maybe Oscar Jr.) began to stand on the eyrie's rim, doing the osprey jumping-jack, catching air with her wings, practice-flying. Mom soon took to chasing the youngster into flight, nudging her into spinning wider and wider circles off the nest. For the first time, the roost emptied out, for hours. The whole household had moved on to fishing lessons. These days with the river carrying bumper-to-bumper flotillas of wildly behaving humanoids, an osprey can't afford to be shy. Once, a few years ago, I was drifting along, when one splashed-in twenty feet from my boat. Soaking wet, pumping hard to gain altitude, lugging its unwieldy prize, it flew smack over my head, giving me a bird's-eye view of what it's like to have to fish for your dinner—no catch-and-release here.

Then, one morning in October, the new parents vanished. The wee one, almost adult-sized now, continued to fish and grow stronger and visit the nest. In another ten days, the homestead lay abandoned. Prayers had gone with them all.

I spent the winter here in the Bitterroot, skiing and shoveling snow, and reading up on osprey. My favorite book, by far, turned out to be “Return of the Osprey” by David Gessner. Published in 2001, by Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, it's the account of the birds' roaring comeback to Cape Cod after their almost total devastation by DDT, and finally its banning in 1972. One copy resides at the Bitterroot Library in Hamilton, and Stevensville's North Valley Public Library has another on order.

In the spring of 2008, Oscar and Ophelia returned to spanking new digs that offered the most panoramic view on the west side—thanks to Ravalli Electric Co-op. The original nest, having been moved to a platform on a specially planted pole, now sat a few feet higher than the tops of the surrounding power poles. (Osprey will nest on the highest location available.) Here, another baby, Ollie, was born. And with childrearing completed earlier this year, the entire family lit out for parts south by mid-September.

April 2009. The nest again became a hopping scene, but now overseen by old hands. For awhile, the pair focused on remodeling—although anything resembling tidiness is not in their nature, except for teaching the young ones, early on, how to shoot poop over the side. Gessner writes that osprey are virtual packrats, stuffing the walls of their nests with “everything from boat line to Easter tinsel to plastic bags.” He’s also found fishing line, the odd shoe, and, most amazing, a naked Barbie Doll. The birds continue padding and reinforcing their nest throughout the summer. In farm country, such as the Bitterroot Valley, bright wads of baling twine are ubiquitous and unfortunately enticing as nesting material. It wasn't long before the recognizable orange snarls appeared, tucked in all around, with one thoroughly knotted-up loop dangling down a couple of feet.

Ophelia and Oscar, who share the task of hunkering over their eggs—“buffy, brown-blotched” items, according to Audubon’s field guide—now hatched two babies. Their species has been known to raise as many as four offspring. (To see a photo of two adults with four beefy youngsters standing shoulder to shoulder on their nest in Martha's Vineyard, go to the Web site: www.bioweb.uncc.edu/bierregaard/ospreys.htm#Introduction.) Because eggs are laid on successive days, and hatch in the same manner, the oldest sibling is generally larger and more advanced in skills than the youngest. With a clutch of these fast growing, ravenous juveniles, the confines of a nest can spur fierce competition, to the point of the larger ones trying to starve a smaller one, or even peck it to death.

Opie and Ozzie turned out to be two lively females, gender evident by the dark necklace of spots across their white breasts. Males' chests are most often a plain, startling white (or show very minimal spots), and males are a bit smaller.

It was the first week of August, with both babies already practice-flying on the nest, when disaster struck. A passer-by saw one of the birds caught in orange twine—hanging by one leg, upside-down, under the nest—and phoned for help. (There’s no record of this person’s name. Whoever you are, please know that many people express their gratitude.)

Steve Larson and Steve Bartells from Northwestern Energy hurried out, and Larson climbed the pole. Carrying an extendo stick with a knife on it, he managed to cut the bird loose. It fluttered to the ground in the corner of the cow pasture. Then before they were through, Larson held the bird, and Bartells cut off the rest of the twine. Thinking the bird had a broken leg, they called local rehabists, Bob and Judy Hoy.

While all this was going on, a friend of mine, driving by on her way to work, noticed the two power-company men holding the bird, and called her husband to come and check out what was happening. He was too busy just then to leave home. “Well then, call Kathleen,” she said, “and find out what’s going on with our birds!” I live half a mile east of the nest and happened to be at home. When I arrived, Larson was just receiving another urgent call. In his driving off, I got only a shouted “I cut down the bird.” Soon I spotted it inside the fence, its mottled back giving it away as a juvenile. But for a little twitching of its head and eye and the fact that it was sitting upright, it might have been dead—that is, to a novice birder like me. I raced home to call Hoys. Unbeknownst to me, Larson had also called Deborah Goslin, a biology technician with U.S. Fish and Wildlife at the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge. Next, I sped back to the nest corner, taking along a friend who considers osprey, and particularly the ones in this nest, his spirit birds who’ve helped him heal from cancer. Together, we kept an eye on the cows. Within half an hour, nine more people showed up: Deborah with three firefighters in her vehicle; Bob and Judy; a neighbor on a four-wheeler; and two men in a big, noisy pickup with Wyoming plates. The latter two, headed to their home state after working nearby on road repairs, were happy to wait, because, as they said, “We’ve been watching the nest everyday.”

With a crowd gathered around, Judy and Bob examined the bird’s leg and then encouraged it to take a few steps, however tentative, on the dirt road. Success! Diagnosis: leg bruised, pink, and swollen, but not broken. The Hoys prefer that the bird’s parents teach it to fish (rather than them), but there wasn’t a way to put it back in the nest, so they placed it in a cardboard box big enough for a washing machine and took it home. Early the next morning, Bob accompanied Jeff Huls and apprentice lineman Kenny Buhler, from Ravalli Electric Co-op, with their bucket truck. Huls clicked a digital camera, as Buhler road the cherry picker up with the box. Following Bob’s instructions not to rise higher than the rim of the nest and thus frighten the other youngster into leaping off, Buhler carefully set the bird in the nest. Ophelia also was there, looking on.

Shortly thereafter, I arranged to meet Dr. Erick Greene, a professor in the department of biological science and wildlife biology at UM. He’s one of three Missoulians who head up Project Osprey, an organization interested in the birds’ health and welfare, and funded largely out of pocket. Greene’s had a fascination for osprey since his youth watching them in Nova Scotia. A lanky, fit man, he arrived by bicycle and carrying his own coffee mug to our informal appointment at an umbrella table outside Le Petit Outre. He handed me his osprey-and-baling-twine brochure, which I’d heard about a few years ago, and told me that 5–10% of osprey deaths are caused by baling twine. A batch of photos in hand, he related several rescue stories—of birds he’d gotten to “just in time.” Then there were many gruesome-type shots: dead infants entrapped in gobs of twine; a limp strangled female; an osprey’s leg turned gangrenous and fallen off as the bird had grown bigger and a twist of twine had become a tourniquet. Once a year, a group of high school and college students ride a cherry picker and help Greene clean the orange, black, blue, and red twine from area nests. When spread out on the UM Oval, the twine from one measured over a quarter of a mile. The group’s efforts serve to cut down on overall accumulation, but to keep the plastic line from migrating into nests during the breeding season, it needs to be kept out of sight, housed indoors or stashed in fifty gallon drums.

The next day, I watched one of the juveniles fledge and guessed it was not the one with the sore leg, who was now looking a bit puny to me. Perhaps it had been the runt starting out and now had lost a day’s meals; Judy had said it wouldn’t eat the “lovely fish” caught for it by the folks at Lee Metcalf. At about this time, I discovered that another female (from a Hamilton nest) was eating the fish. The bird was rehabbing at Hoys from a broken wing. With their planning to move it from one cage to another, I buzzed over to see and photo an osprey up close. The wing was mending, still showing dried blood, and the bird was holding it awkwardly out to the side. In the head picture I snapped, however, the bird looks whole and regal.

On the afternoon of August 15th, I watched two females sitting on the nest, and Oscar in his favorite cottonwood snag. After a bit, Oscar flew off toward the river. Pretty soon, one on the nest unfolded and took to the air, then the other. Hooray! The injured bird has fledged! But in my starting to use binoculars now, I discovered that probably I’d frequently missed seeing a bird when it was lying low in the bottom of the nest. That same evening, in waning light, I counted four osprey roosting in and around the nest. The next day it dropped to three.

Midday on the 18th, two females were again sitting in the nest, with Oscar on the south pole. The scruffier of the females was facing north and avidly ripping apart a fish. The other one was, I assumed, a contented or exhausted, but well fed, Ophelia. She looked larger, more “together,” and gazed steadily westward, as though meditating, as I often do, on the grandeur of the mountains. Osprey parents continue to feed their young after they’ve fledged, because the youngsters don’t become accomplished fishers overnight. And, a young osprey—giddy, to my mind, with its new ability to get airborne—may fly around, hang out by the river, go on a little trip, and not visit the nest. So, who was missing? Had the hurt bird crashed and burned in its first few days of flight? Had the stronger one had a fatal mishap? Or was it two babies I was seeing lounging at the nest, with mom having said something like “Whew! They’ve finally left home. It’s all yours, Oscar, I’m heading to Cancun. See ya next year!” Or, yet another scenario: Was it actually Ophelia who was busy bringing home the bacon (by afternoons, Oscar was plunked in his snag, looking whipped), with one baby not even fledged?

Ospreys, with their lifestyles of flash and daring, their boisterous kew, kew, kew cries, and their endearing, out-in-the-open persistence with the struggles of daily housekeeping, bread winning, and family life, easily spark a human’s empathy, and obsessive interest. Now beside myself with concern and curiosity, I was visiting the nest three and four times a day, sometimes sitting and peering through my binoculars for hours on end, waiting for a bird to fly in, or fly out. For my trouble, I did start to differentiate better between adults and adult-sized juveniles. The dark, chocolate-colored feathers on a baby bird’s back are edged in white. One time when the light and their positions were just right, I was sure it was both the babies in the nest. But I’d be positively certain if I could just see the color of their eyes, which only turn from red-orange to yellow with adulthood. I called Deborah, and she offered to bring over her scope at the end of the week.

The night before scope day, I drove over to the nest for a late look, about 9:30. It had been more than a perfect day for August, the air pungent from several rains, the grass too wet to beg mowing, the temperature a comfortable 72, the sky an endless blue—nowhere a wisp of smoke—all which translated to sharp etching of the Bitterroots’ crags and vibrant color saturation of the whole range. A glorious precursor of autumn. What could possibly go wrong?

As it turned out, nothing. Against a last electric-blue glow, the silhouettes of Ophelia, Oscar, Opie, and Ozzie stood quiet and erect. One on the east pole’s crossbar, one on the south pole’s top, two on the nest. I heaved a huge sigh and, not caring which was who, cooed out the window kew, kew, kew.

Wolf hunts scheduled in Montana

Montana's first-ever, fair-chase wolf hunting season is set to open Sept. 15 in some areas of the state. Montana's Fish, Wildlife & Parks will offer hunting licenses for the wolf season on Aug. 31.

The state has been split into three distinct hunting districts:

- Wolf Management Unit (WMU) 1, which extends across the northern tier of Montana. The wolf harvest quota is 41, with a subquota of two in the North Fork of the Flathead River subunit.

- WMU 2, a patch of southwestern Montana that stretches from Missoula south through the Bitterroot and Upper Big Hole valleys. The wolf harvest quota is 22.

- WMU 3, which extends across the southern tier of Montana from Dillon east to the Montana border. The wolf harvest quota is 12.

FWP Director Joe Maurier said the statewide quota of 75 wolves is a conservative approach to hunting a prolific species like the wolf, whose numbers in recent years have increased about 20 percent annually in Montana.

The wolf hunting season dates correspond to Montana's early backcountry big game hunting season and the big game rifle season

• Sept. 15–Nov. 29 in early backcountry deer and elk hunting districts 150, 151, 280, and 316

• Oct. 25–Nov. 29 in entire Wolf Management Units 1, 2 and 3

• Dec. 1-31, if quotas aren't met, the wolf-hunting season could be extended in specific WMUs. No more than 25 percent of the established WMU quota, however, can be harvested in December.

Officials noted, however, that a federal lawsuit to overturn the recent wolf delisting decision could prevent the wolf hunting season and hunting-license sales. FWP recently joined the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' legal defense of the delisting decision. FWP will also oppose a preliminary injunction to stop planned wolf hunts in Montana and Idaho. If the lawsuit succeeds in placing the gray wolf back on the federal endangered species list after hunters have purchased licenses, they could get a refund.

Maurier said if Montana's wolf hunting season is blocked, fees will be automatically refunded in the following manner:

• Full refund—if cancelled between Aug. 31 and Sept. 15, due to having no opportunity to hunt.

• Eighty percent refund—if cancelled between Sept. 15 and Oct. 25, due to having a limited opportunity to hunt.

• No refund—if cancelled after Oct. 26, due to the general season being underway, which is consistent with existing hunting license refund policies.

• No refund—to a hunter who harvests a wolf.

• No refund—regardless of the date of cancellation, if the statewide wolf-harvest quota has been reached.

Wolf licenses can be purchased online at fwp.mt.gov, or from any FWP regional office or license provider. Hunters must have, or purchase, a valid 2009 conservation license. Wolf hunting licenses are $19 for residents and $350 for nonresidents. An access fee may also apply.

Hunters will have strict reporting requirements. Upon the harvest of a wolf, hunters must call 1-877-FWP-WILD (1-877-397-9453) within 12 hours to file a report. When a WMU reaches its quota, FWP will close the season upon 24-hours’ notice. Hunters should always check FWP's closure updates before each day afield. Hunters can call 1-800-385-7826 for the latest wolf harvest status and closure information.

Regulations are available via the FWP Web site at fwp.mt.gov, and from most FWP license providers.

Rehberg visits Hamilton on statewide tour

By Michael Howell

Montana’s sole Congressman Denny Rehberg is on a whirlwind tour of the state’s towns and cities holding “listening sessions” at which he responds to comments and questions from the audience. He plans to have visited 18 different counties by the end of August. A stop in Hamilton was recently squeezed into the list. Hundreds of Ravalli County citizens and some from Missoula County turned out at the Hamilton Performing Arts Center theater to hear what he had to say and dozens got to be heard as, one by one, they got to comment and ask the congressman specific questions.

Rehberg said near the outset that he was a Republican working hard to accomplish something in a nation controlled by the Democrats. He blamed the Republican Party for the fact that Democrats now rule the White House, the Senate and the Congress. He said the Republican Party “got arrogant, lost its way, and got put in the penalty box.” He is looking forward to turning things around.

Health care reform was at the top of the list of issues addressed but the issues and comments on the part of the public as well as on Rehberg’s part were many and varied. Topics ranged from immigration to gun control, from forest management to military spending, from stimulus spending to Indian affairs.

Concerning the health care reform legislation now before Congress, Rehberg hefted what looked like a one and a half to two foot pile of papers and emphasized the difficulty involved in reading such a huge document, much less understanding it.

Without yet having read the whole bill himself, Rehberg was basically critical of it. He noted how the Obama administration had shifted the rhetoric from “health care reform” to “health insurance reform.” He questioned whether the government ought to be getting involved in that business at all. He said that it could undermine competition in the market place and actually end up reducing people’s options and result in rationing.

“Are we going to destroy the best health care system in the world?” asked Rehberg.

He expressed opposition to any kind of “public option,” but especially one modeled on Medicare and Medicaid. He said those were not viable options because they weren’t paying for themselves. He said that the answer to our health care problems was not to expand an already broken system.

One woman asked Rehberg to debunk some of the false myths being used to oppose the bill, such as that it might pay for illegal immigrants, that it might pay for abortions, and that it might interfere with end of life decisions.

Instead, Rehberg said that those things might end up being “unintended consequences” of the bill. He did not know, he said, but they could, if they are not explicitly excluded in the legislation, come about as unintended consequences.

He said that there were other ways to address the real problems of affordability and accessibility in health care. They include increasing the opportunities for people to pool their insurance purchases, tort reform to cut down on the legal costs, and tax credits for the citizens and businesses that buy insurance. He said we also need to train more physicians.

Commissioners to look at portage route requests

By Michael Howell

The Ravalli County Commissioners are scheduled to examine the portage route requests made by the Bitterroot River Protection Association (BRPA) for access into Mitchell Slough next Friday afternoon.

BRPA first made the portage requests in November 2003 but the process was put on hold by a District Court order in 2004 pending the outcome of the litigation over the river channel. Pending in that litigation were the questions as to whether 310 Law and Stream Access Law applied to the 16-mile long river channel.

A unanimous Montana Supreme Court decided in November 2008 that the stream was protected under 310 Law and the public had the right to access it under the Stream Access Law.

Landowners and ditch companies along the slough appealed that decision, arguing that the Court had not adequately distinguished the top part of Mitchell Slough from the bottom part. They argued that the top part should be excluded from the laws because it essentially functioned as a ditch. The court rejected the appeal.

For a number of reasons, however, the entry of that judgment into District Court was a long time coming.

In July of 2009, with the judgment still not filed in District Court, BRPA asked the Commissioners for their portage route request which had been put on hold in 2004 to be opened up again. The group also modified its request, dropping one portage route request and adding two others on Mitchell Slough, keeping the one at Bell Crossing, and adding one at Victor Crossing and one at Tucker Headgate.

Following the BRPA request, the County Attorney informed the County Commissioners that another individual, Scott Blahnik, of Victor, had also made a portage route request to the Bitterroot Conservation District for access at Tucker Headgate back in April. The Bitterroot Conservation District, just as in the case of the BRPA request, had declined to act on the matter and referred it to the County Commissioners as the law allows. The Commissioners received the notice from the BCD about Blahnik’s request on May 26, 2009.

County Attorney George Corn told the Commissioners that Blahnik’s request had “fallen through the cracks.”

He told them that, in the meantime, he had received a letter from an attorney representing the three ditch companies that operate the Tucker Headgate. In that letter, dated July 8, 2009, the attorney, John Bloomquist, notes that no final entry in District Court had been made in the Mitchell Slough case. He argued that because of this it was not clear that there was access to Mitchell Slough at Tucker Headgate.

“Until the District Court issues a final judgment,” he wrote, “confusion seems to abound as to whether the Ditch companies’ land is implicated by the Montana Supreme Court’s decision.” Bloomquist ends by stating, “even if the area below the headgate is open under the Court’s decision, that decision does not authorize entry upon or crossing private property around Tucker Headgate to enter Mitchell.”

Corn told the commissioners that he believed that the Supreme Court ruling did apply to Mitchell Slough and that the Stream Access Law did apply. He said that it allowed access across private property to circumvent a manmade obstacle, like a headgate.

“But I will seek the advice of the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks in the matter,” Corn said.

Head legal counsel for FWP, Bob Lane, holds that Mitchell Slough is accessible for recreational purposes at the Tucker Headgate and that under the recent Supreme Court ruling fishermen have the right to access the slough by portaging around the headgate and across private property “in the least intrusive manner possible.”

A few fishermen from Victor were recently found innocent in Justice Court of trespassing charges after being ticketed for portaging around the headgate. The charges were dropped due to a request from FWP and “in the interests of justice.”

The Tucker Headgate area has recently been fortified with new fencing to restrict access and fishermen who do enter are being followed and videotaped by the ranch security personnel.

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