Advertisement

Local Elk Range Saved From Condo-ville

RockyDog

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2002
Messages
902
Location
Hamilton MT
I know this will piss some of the usuals off, but several thousand acres of elk and deer range were saved from condo-ville today. You can complain to that evil RMEF and Nature Conservancy.


Blackfoot landowners buy commercial timberland

By SHERRY DEVLIN - Missoulian - 05/19/04

Intent on preserving their ranching heritage and wide open spaces, Blackfoot Valley landowners bought another 19,883 acres of commercial timberland Tuesday.

Brokered by The Nature Conservancy and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the $14.9 million purchase included irreplaceable deer and elk winter range and heavily timbered grizzly bear habitat.

Tuesday's was the second of three purchases planned this year by the Blackfoot Challenge and designed to protect 42,927 acres of Plum Creek Timber Co. land from subdivision and development.

Eventually, the landowner group hopes to buy all of Plum Creek's mid-elevation timberland between Clearwater Junction and Rogers Pass, north and south of Highway 200 — more than 80,000 acres.

‘‘This is the heritage of the Blackfoot Valley,'' said Jim Stone, an Ovando rancher and chairman of the Blackfoot Challenge. ‘‘People want to see these lands managed in a way that maintains the valley's tradition of ranching, forestry, wildlife and public access.''


While their goals are simple, the details of the ranchers' plan are complex.

Acting on behalf of the valley, The Nature Conservancy actually bought the land from Plum Creek and will hold it while residents agree on a resell plan.

Some of the property will go to state and federal land management agencies, assuring public access, habitat protection and some continued timber cutting. Other parcels will be sold to ranchers with adjoining land — as long as the buyers agree to keep the land largely undeveloped.

Always, Stone said, buyers must agree to manage the land ‘‘in a way that supports the community's rural and conservation values.''

Tuesday's deal includes 3,835 acres that will eventually go to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks — and will consolidate ownership of the Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area.

The Nature Conservancy will first sell the acreage to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, which will hold it until FWP receives $3.3 million earmarked for the project in the federal government's 2005 budget.

‘‘Lots of people have worked a long time to see this day,'' said Mike Thompson, a wildlife biologist for Montana FWP. ‘‘It's a great day for the wildlife of Montana.''

More than 1,000 elk spend winters on the Blackfoot-Clearwater game range, Montana's largest state-owned property dedicated for use as wildlife habitat.

Thompson said FWP hopes to have the money needed to buy the land from the Elk Foundation by fall.

Also included in the new purchase are 7,659 acres of grizzly bear habitat along the Continental Divide in the Alice Creek drainage.

Grizzlies and elk pass through the drainage as they travel south out of the Scapegoat and Bob Marshall wilderness areas. Were Alice Creek developed, the animals would be isolated in the wilderness.

Jamie Williams, state director of The Nature Conservancy, said the next round of purchases will include about 4,600 acres in the Marcum Mountain and Nevada Creek areas, and is expected to be complete in mid-August.

Meanwhile, the Blackfoot Challenge will work on the disposition of lands purchased in January and, now, on Tuesday.

Stone said one of the highest priorities is protection of Ovando Mountain, a landmark in the center of the Blackfoot Valley. Already, he said, residents have said they want it set aside as a ‘‘community-managed conservation area.''

The first round of purchases last winter included 9,629 acres on the lower slopes of Ovando Mountain.

‘‘This project has been inspired by some amazing community leaders who have a long history of conservation in the valley,'' said Williams. ‘‘We're honored to support them.''

Added Stone, ‘‘This project is an amazing undertaking for us and our partners, one that is consuming thousands of hours in planning and community meetings. We're pleased at the high level of community involvement.''

Cooperation and neighborliness are also part of the valley's heritage, Stone said, so the Blackfoot Challenge has a strong foundation on which to build.

‘‘Instead of focusing on our own ranch or our own family, we thought it was important to look toward the future as a community and try to create something long-lasting here,'' he said. ‘‘It looks like we may just succeed.''
 
Thats great!!! I wish they would have had the money to buy out the Yellowstone club and Moonlight basin... They have totally f'ed up the madison range... Put a huge development and surround it by widerness!!! Make the wilderness one big park for the rich bastards, because it gets to be way to far to hike or ride in.
 
Bambistew, i agree about moonlight and yellowstone club, BUT what on earth are you talking about it being too far to hike or ride into the madisons? I always got the impression you were a fairly ambitous hunter and shed hunter? In that country you cant get much further than 5 or 6 miles (as the crow flies) from a road in that area, and i wouldnt want them any closer.
 
RD I don't have a problem with the closure, more deep wilderness for me... I just wish I could get my ATV in there ;) What has happend is the yahoos from Bozeman are now coming over to the Ennis side to access the The Gallitan side of the Madisons because its closer than going all the way around the Club... consequently they are finding that the hunting is just as good on the Mad. side as the Gall. side and not wasteing their time to get in there anymore.

I'll be hunting this September within spit'n distance of the ski lift on the Yellowstone club... Its only about 8 miles, but my area that I hunt (4-6 miles in) has started to look like a fuggn Bozeman gathering! The Yellowstone club has added a lot of pressure to my area. Some of the best elk hunting in the madisons is now owned by the "club"

Moonlight basin used to be one of the best unkown spots to hunt and fish in the Madisons, (and still is) but since its one big playground only a few get to hunt it... 25,000 acres of prime elk, deer, moose, sheep habitat all for a mear $7M. They paid for it in two years... selling 40 acres at a time for $280-400K, not to mention all the condos and ski lifts they've put up next to big sky. One good thing is, John Fossil bought half of it and has only built one house on it.

I hate to say it by I hope a BIG fire blows though there this summer and turns it all into a waste land!
WE lost out big time on that deal. I just wish the RMEF or someone would have been there with the money when the sale came up!
 
It seems that the posters here think buying up wildlife habitat to protect it is a good idea. In Idaho the politicians in our legislature scream bloody murder if the F&G wants to buy any land. In fact, they have laws to prevent it.

Do you vote for politicians who are anti -F&G owning land?
 
I think this is a very good thing, these people are putting their money where their mouth is...We have a pretty big chunk of ground that is being sold very soon to a big developer and has pretty good hunting on the back side of it... He has planned on putting a ton of new houses in this area. But since I don't have the money to buy it, nor the time to fight it, it will pass into history fairly soon as the news stated.

Bambi, I worked this last winter in the area you are talking about I believe, one thing for sure, when a fire hits in that area and the fire endices are right, it will go up like a Roman candle. The woods are all past their prime and lots and lots of dead and dying trees in there to help fuel the whole area into a big weinee roast..LOL... Yep, the tax payers may have to pay to keep that fire under some semblence of control :rolleyes: But one thing that seems to come out of these huge fires is that the areas are then as far as I've seen, let burn naturally and the woods are once again let to have fire control it's environment on more of a natural occurance...
 
But one thing that seems to come out of these huge fires is that the areas are then as far as I've seen, let burn naturally and the woods are once again let to have fire control it's environment on more of a natural occurance...
I am slow to comprehend, could you explain what you are talking about to this simpleton.
 
Simpleton? I would not even assume such a comment...
What I have been seeing with the Forest Service any way, is that the areas that have been burned over already are managed now, using fire as one tool to keep every thing in check and balance. Instead of trying to put it out as soon as possible, and some areas are even left to burn up more country, because they have a heck of a time doing prescribed burns to the extent that is really needed. They also seem to prescribe burn these same "devistated" areas on a regular basis so that to much debri isn't able to accumulate as it has in the past...
 
Theres alot more to the fire theory than that.

Some of the habitat types have fire frequencies of 5-15 years, others are 100-500 years, and everything in between.

Using prescribed fire at this point to put things back in balance is an effort in futility. Heres why:

1. The areas that had fire frequencies of 20 years or less are the types that are giving the FS the most trouble. Typically lower elevation Douglas-fir, Pondersa Forest types had short fire frequencies. Also the same Forest Types found in Wildland/Urban interfaces across the West. The 100 years of suppression has affected these areas the most adversely. Try writing a fire prescription next to any developed area. The FS will simply not set itself up for that kind of liability.

2. Most of the areas that have the longer fire cycles (100+ year frequencies) dont need to be burned...yet. These areas can still be "managed" under a let-it-burn policy.

The sad thing is though, the stands/forest types that need fire the most are the ones least likely to get it.

Back to the topic though, best news I've read all week.
 
I would fully agree with that. One of the things I did see last year for example on the Roberts fire, 66 square miles worth of ground had been burned on that one alone. When you stood on mountain tops, as far as the eye could see, every thing had been hit to one degree or another. Looking at the stuff that was hit and what was left, it will start over some of the areas that had been let go to long. Dirty burns as a lot of it is called because it did not fully burn, did look to a point as if that is what is supposed to happen in that type of environement. Things weren't totally wiped out and the plant life would rebound pretty quick to these areas.
The areas above Helena we were in last year, for the most part were totally nuked, meaning pretty much every thing was burned except for the standning snags that were left. There are a number of fires in the areas around Helena that I have noticed that seem to be coming back pretty well, the FS is reburning the dead stuff that has started to accumulate in these areas. It looks like some of the burns for these ones is about 6-10 years old that they are prescribe burning. That would play exactly into what you stated in part of your last post.
I still watch what is going on in every burn I go by, no matter how long it has been. That way I can learn first hand the history that comes from this type of stuff. Same thing I did in Washington with trees. I am very fortunate that I have just enough knowledge right now to understand what is going on in these ecosystems and they type of life that seems to be flourishing there. To me this stuff is so very fasinating to look at and study. Any little bits of knowledge I can glean from any one about this topic is greatly appreciated. I get most of my history on the local burns from the older FS guy's that were around to witness them...
Thanks very much for the info Buzz...
 
IT- In UT I would not be for the DWR purchasing large parcels of land. Money for management is harder to come by for states, much do to the lack of personel in place and the lands have (IMO) a better chance of being sold to a private entity than under federal ownership. Heck, the guy in charge of habitat enhancement projects for the state is worried that funding will be short enough next year that he may be out of a job. At least in UT, the DWR does not have the personel, infastructure, or funding to manage large chunks of land.

In addition to Buzz's comments of fires in woodlands; the shrub and grass dominated ecosystems, which IMO are the most important in the West for big game, are just as convoluted. There are three types of Big Sagebrush, all which have a different fire return interval, most of which are different from other nearby communities such as scrub oak.
 
Back
Top