CBU opinion: Another example of say one thing do something different. When will the brucellosis positive bison be heading below Yankee Jim Canyon, and creating more problems for the private land owners and ranchers?  When will the entire Paradise Valley be declared a bison tolerance zone, displacing nearly a 150 years of historic ranching and a quality lifestyle for a future generations? Sooner than you think.      

Montana officials have approved a plan to expand so-called bison tolerance zones north of Yellowstone National Park by 75,000 acres for migrating animals in search of food.

Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Montana Department of Livestock issued a joint decision Tuesday approving adjustments to the Interagency Bison Management Plan.

For the full story click here

If you were recently looking to buy a motorcycle, scooter or RV on the Bozeman Craigslist, you might have seen some alarming ads for an upcoming meeting on the Gallatin Crest.

The ads, which were posted on the website’s motorized sales section, claimed that motorized users could lose all access to Gallatin National Forest land. One said that those who ride motorcycles, snowmobiles and ATVs should attend tonight’s meeting “and show solidarity to these zealots.

To read full story click here

The BLM is preparing the EIS for changes in Sage Grouse management. New proposed rules for Sage Grouse management will affect all land uses where Sage Grouse habitat is or could be present. We urge everyone to comment on the development of the EIS.

The BLM is asking the public to identify issues that should be
analyzed in an upcoming Enivronmental Impact Statement concerning sage
grouse in northeast Montana. Details can be found at:

http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/prog/wildlife/mtdksplanning.html

and

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/sagegrouse/eastern.html

Our sage grouse population is healthy because of decades of good rangeland
management. We should speak up and let the planners know that changing
management out here would be harmful to the sage grouse.

Here are two paragraphs you could use in a letter:

Northeast Montana has the healthiest, most diverse grassland ecosystem in
the world. We have so many sage grouse that the Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife & Parks is translocating some of them to Canada. This region’s sage
grouse production is due to decades of cooperation between ranchers and the
BLM.

In the EIS, please include an analysis of the importance of this
public-private partnership to the sage grouse. Please explore things the BLM
can do to strengthen this partnership by keeping ranches economically
viable. When amending the RMPs, please protect northeast Montana from any
changes in land management. Instead, this region’s land use traditions
should be used as a model for sage grouse conservation and restoration
elsewhere.

It would be good to open the letter with a paragraph explaining who you are
and where you have seen healthy populations of sage grouse.

The letter can be mailed to:

Eastern Region Project Manager
BLM Wyoming State Office
5353 Yellowstone
Cheyenne, WY 82009

or emailed to:

sageeast@blm.gov

Gallatin National Forest 9^th Circuit Appeal Decision,

The 9^th Circuit of Appeals issued their opinion on December 1, 2011 in regards to our appeal of Judge Molloy’s ruling on the Gallatin National Forest Travel Plan. Prior to this December 1^st  ruling  the 9^th Circuit requested all parties to meet and attempt to mediate the issue. The 9^th Circuit provided a professional mediator though the court and CBU, through our attorney, participated in the mediation meetings.

 CBU is committed to keeping those uses that were in place and allowed in 1977 to remain. We believe this issue will be settled at some point in time but nothing was accomplished during the mediation meetings and all parties decided to let the court make their decision.

The 9^th Circuit was then charged with making a decision which was rendered on December 1, 2011. Judge Fisher wrote in his opinion that the Forest Service failed to address 1502.22 (b)(2) of the Administrative Procedures Act and NEPA. 1502.22 (b)(2) directs the Agency “ to provide a statement of relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the human environment”. The Forest Service claimed in the Travel Plan DEIS and FEIS that no historic use data was available and therefore did not need to be considered. The court disagreed.

CBU provided the Forest Service with a substantial amount of historic use data during the comment period of the DEIS but this information was ignored. When the Forest Service was questioned by CBU as to why our information on historic use was not considered or used, their response was that “they did not know what to do with it”. Clearly our historic information was important to our continued use of the WSA but under Forest Supervisor Becki Heath, and her closure agenda team at that time, they were not interested in historic use of the WSA. Their decision to ignore our historic use documentation was a mistake and the courts have centered on this issue in their rulings.

The decision by Judge Molloy in the original case provided direction to the Forest Service to close additional areas to motorized and mechanized use to protect the “Wilderness Character”. The 9^th Circuit disagreed with Judge Molloy and his reasoning by writing the following opinion.

“We do not necessarily agree with the district court, for example, that the only way (the service’s) decision can survive the arbitrary and capricious standard of review is to substantially reduce the overall area for vehicle use or to reduce overall motorized and mechanized vehicle access. Although the Service might reasonably compensate for an increase in the volume of motorized use by reducing the overall area of impact, we do not assume that this is the only proper response to the increased volume of use when relevant data are scarce. We do assume there may be other reasonable management responses to the problem the Service faces.”

This statement in the court’s opinion supports our additional litigation which is continuing in Judge Hayden’s court. We challenged the additional closure of the WSA through the Interim Order issued for the last three years by GNF Supervisor Mary Erickson. Her Interim Order closed additional area in the WSA to winter motorized use. During the mediation talks CBU requested a stay in our action on the Winter Interim Closure case in front of Judge Haddon until such time as the mediation was either successful or a failure.  When the mediation talks broke down CBU asked Judge Haddon to again consider our case.

We expect a ruling on our Interim Closure case from Judge Hayden in the near future. As for where we go next on the 9^th Circuit ruling, it looks like the Forest Service will need to start the Travel Planning process all over again. We should again have the opportunity to comment on the Forest Service’s new proposal and submit additional historic use data in this area prior to 1977. We ask everyone to dig through your old photos and talk to folks that used this area. Gather signed affidavits and statements of use of the HPBH WSA prior to 1977 and provide this information to CBU. We have historic use information which we will again submit to the Forest Service but any additional information we can provide will help in our fight.

CBU will continue our efforts in preserving historic use of the HPBH WSA and on a different front we are also working with Representative Rehberg and his cosponsoring of HR 1581, the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act introduced by Representative McCarthy from California. If this bill were to pass it would release the HPBH back to multiple uses. This is something that should have been done years ago and our members and supporters can help us by contacting Representative Rehberg to express your support for HR 1581.

Sincerely

Kerry White

Executive Board member

CBU