Habitat versus Access

[Ben Lamb]

A lot of times, we as hunters and anglers are told we need to decide whether we want habitat or access. Like those are the only choices.

The reality is, you can have both. And you can do it in a fiscally responsible manner.

http://www.mtbullypulpit.org/2013/06/a-cog-in-wheel.html

 

[katqanna]

Good article. On a connecting note, I was part of a conversation about objectives of this nature, the other day. And one person mentioned, why do we hold to this idea of protecting, conserving or sustaining Montana's habitat? Why dont we speak or hear about "enhancing" Montana's habitat? This I felt was very pertinent. Montana federal public land is nearly 30%. I am trying to find some current stats for the Montana state public lands. Older ones show them at 8%, but I know there have been a number of WMA purchases since the mid-2000's that would increase this percentage.

More than habitat/land acquisition, is the quality of that habitat. With climate change a factor, what takes place on these public lands is going to be crucial, to ensure that our wildlife have the necessary habitat for more than just survival numbers.

 

[1_pointer]

One issue of "enhancing quality" of habitat, especially on federal lands, is the agreement of what is considered "enhanced". There are eggspurts on nearly any side of a habitat (more on that in a bit) issue that cannot agree. What I or you consider enhanced is seen as destructive by others. If you can actually get agreement on what you want the landscape to look like, the next big hurdle is agreement on how to do accomplish the task. IMO/E this is a bit lower hurdle as a difference of means is easier to reconcile than a difference in objective. That doesn't mean that some folks/groups won't put the halt on something if they don't agree with the means. For example, in much of the Great Basin jumiper encroachment is a problem and many recognize that. However, the cheapest way to remove juniper at an appreciable scale is a good old fashion chaning. Yep, 2 dozers and an anchor chain. Very few like that idea. So instead less cost efficient methods are being done, but that hampers the scale of the projects, which IMO greatly reduces their benefit.

Habitat. I have a bit of a problem with it's use as a generic term as it doesn't often address the question, "habitat for what?". That's another problem with trying to enhance "habitat". Enhancing it for one species often times reduces it's qualities for another. So which one to favor? Again that is hard to reconcile with multiple groups...

 

[Ben Lamb]

This conversation feels vaguely familiar.

With the two programs in question (Land & Water Conservation Fund & Habitat Montana) there are processes that scores each project be it conservation easements or fee title acquisitions. I think the question of value must be answered in order to keep good programs like these popular with politicians as well as citizens. Without the support of the citizenry, there is no will politically to keep purchasing land.

As we saw last legislative session with Habitat Montana, some politicians wanted to trade access for habitat conservation due to politically unpopular fee title acquisitions. Similarly, in Congress there continues to be a fight regarding LWCF and funding. Both programs are widely supported. LWCF for example has a lot of support from RMEF & DOW.

Again, it all boils down to accountability and public acceptance.

 

[katqanna]

I just read through a study that was conducted on non-profits in the US. One of the major problems with them is the factor of accountability. Those non-profits that are keeping to the tired hierarchical structures, instead of adopting flat or circular organizational structures are losing members, especially the younger generations. In this electronic day and age, people are requiring and getting used to news when it happens, forums, blogs, websites, cell phones, etc. This more "personal" involvement is contributing to the accountability and transparency demand.

This electronic access is contributing to more public involvement as well, even if it is quasi attention deficient. So the court of public opinion can be quickly tapped into politically. The problem is in getting the education into sound bites for the fast food generation to accept.

Lamb's example of this having your cake and eat it too and doing it economically is a perfect example.

I was recently reading through another study - Grazing Fees Overview. "BLM and the FS typically spend far more managing their grazing programs than they collect in grazing fees. For example, the GAO determined that in FY2004, the agencies spent about $132.5 million on grazing management, comprised of $58.3 million for the BLM and $74.2 million for the FS. These figures include expenditures for direct costs, such as managing permits, as well as indirect costs, such as personnel. The agencies collected $17.5 million, comprised of $11.8 million in BLM receipts and $5.7 million in FS receipts." That is a huge economic discrepancy.

I have heard that requests for this type of data from MT FWP have not supplied. What are the costs of these grazing leases on our WMA's versus the income from those leases. Also, the end condition of the land from this use, needs to be factored.

Take elk for example: If our lands are not being maintained or enhanced to support wildlife, and a nearby rancher is leasing a WMA (especially considering climate change), if the livestock are utilizing the grazing or haying, at the expense of the elk, what are the elk going to do? Are they going to go after the ranchers irrigated fields for forage? Are they going to raid the haystacks causing the ranchers to contact FWP for $2000.00 in fencing materials to keep the elk out? A MT wildlife biologist wrote, "Again, I hold that we should not be practicing animal husbandry with wildlife. Rather, we should work with the land mgmt agencies to improve habitats of native vegetation that may help to redistribute elk."

This is what I would view as restoration and enhancement. And why are we paying a private landowner $2000.00 for fencing materials that did not allow public hunting access for wildlife distribution and population management? That is like salting the wound.

Where's the accountability that would encourage public acceptance in these situations?