Who and what is “managing” Montana’s wolves?

Prior to their delisting, Gov. Brian Schweitzer advocated shooting wolves, regardless of federal law. In 2011, the Ravalli County Republican Party publically conducted an “SSS” raffle, advertised as “shhhh, don’t tell anyone, it’s really Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up.” The $1,200 prize included a firearm, shovel and a wolf cookbook. Comments online say, “The best thing would be if every hunter and rancher in Montana could immediately shoot every one of them that wasn’t in a wilderness area or a national park.”

Wolf haters on Facebook recommend “shoot 5, tag 1!” People publically advocate gut shooting and poisoning wolves. The Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association has a wolf-killing photo contest to eliminate what is reported to be 15 of the 18 quota remaining up the West Fork. Really, 15 remaining?

Recently, a photo of a magnificent dead wolf slung over a jeep collected the $100 prize.

If Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks reinforces these groups by permitting killing wolves indefinitely up the West Fork until another 15 are reported killed, how many will truly be killed? Per FWP, other wolves will certainly move into an area devoid of wolves.

People don’t talk publically about the FWP scientific findings that wolves aren’t responsible for the elk calf mortalities up the West Fork. No talk of the Montana State University findings that elk were more bothered by human activities, including hunting and residential activities, than by wolves.

Instead, store merchant owners who say they live up the West Fork publically state they have a backhoe so any wolves seen should be shot. If people are publically recommending illegal acts, what’s happening privately? How many wolves have been victims of SSS, trapped, poisoned? Who is minding the store, and can it be managed ethically, responsibly and as the public trust dictates, for all?

Shawn Sperling
Hamilton, Montana

It quickly became apparent that many important questions and concerns were going unanswered by UM officials, some of whom seemed to favor running a PR campaign over a transparent, open public process. So, to get to the bottom of what was really happening, we conducted an open records search of UM’s biomass project file, which included poring over hundreds of electronic communications between UM officials and biomass company executives.

What became so clear and so very troubling is that much of what we discovered in these internal documents turned out to be the exact opposite of what UM officials were telling the public.

For example, we turned up documents showing that the wood-burning biomass plant would actual increase emissions, pollution and particulate matter over the existing natural gas system. In fact, as was later reported in the Missoulian, UM’s wood-burning biomass plant would release the emissions equivalent of roughly 130 woodstoves burning on campus.

Anyone living in Missoula knows all too well about our poor air quality and fragile airshed. The American Lung Association has regularly given Missoula County an F-grade in their annual “State of the Air” report, although this spring we were upgraded to a grade of D. An improvement yes, but still nothing to gloat about.

Especially vulnerable to increased air pollution and particulates are children, the elderly and those living with asthma and reduced respiratory function. This is especially true during the winter months, when nasty inversions and air quality alerts are common in our valley. So think for a moment what a UM biomass plant pumping out the emissions equivalent of 130 woodstoves on campus would look like.

Equally as troubling was what we uncovered regarding the economics of this project. To put it mildly, it’s been difficult to get an accurate assessment from UM of the biomass plant’s up-front and long-term costs, something all Montana taxpayers deserve. For starters, we noticed in the project file that the cost of the project went from $10 million in April 2010 to $16 million by the end of the year.

When we carefully combed through UM’s financial pro forma, we also noticed that the biomass plant would need nearly $27 million for additional operation and maintenance expenses over the existing natural gas system during just the first 40 years of operation.

The pro forma was also troubling in other aspects. It over-estimated the cost of natural gas, while under-estimating the cost of wood fuel trucked to campus. As natural gas prices continued to drop sharply over the past year, UM refused to change their economic analysis to reflect this reality, despite numerous and repeated requests from the public.

So too, when UM’s attempted to secure bids for wood fuel from timber suppliers this summer, the deadline came and went without a single timber company responding to UM’s request because they could not match UM’s significantly rosy wood fuel cost projections. Again, UM refused to change their economic analysis to reflect this reality.

Well, yesterday, Christmas came earlier for those who value clean air and not wasting taxpayer dollars in tight economic times. UM President Royce Engstrom took to the podium in Turner Hall to announce that the University of Montana has suspended their wood-burning biomass plant indefinitely.

President Engstrom cited a number of reasons for suspending the biomass project, which I must point out, are the same issues and concerns that have continually been raised over the past year by WildWest Institute, Alliance for Wild Rockies and a handful of concerned citizens.

President Engstrom also offered a public apology for the recent statement made by UM Vice President Bob Duringer, in which Mr. Duringer claimed that those of us concerned with aspects of the biomass project were engaged in a “lower level of eco-terrorism.”

Finally, during the press conference it was also revealed that the University paid over half a million dollars – $541,000 to be exact – to an out-of-state consulting firm for the planning costs associated with this now suspended biomass project. Too bad the University couldn’t turn by the clock and put that half a million dollars towards some tried and true methods of reducing carbon footprints focused on conservation and energy efficiency.

As a University of Montana alum I’m pleased that UM finally pulled the plug on this wood-burning biomass plant, even if the planning process over the past year involved some unnecessary frustrations, headaches and $541,000.

At the end of the day, Missoula’s air quality – and Montana taxpayer wallets – were protected. And those are things that are worth standing up for all day, every day.

“I support Governor Heineman’s request that President Obama and Secretary Clinton deny the current application from TransCanada to build the Keystone XL pipeline along a route crossing Nebraska’s Sand Hills and the center of the Ogallala Aquifer,” said Johanns. “The proposed route is the wrong route. It’s clear to me, after traveling throughout the state, that most Nebraskans agree a better route is needed.

“Amid much discussion about authorities, one thing is irrefutable and that is the State Department’s authority to approve or reject TransCanada’s current permit application. The Governor has now unequivocally stated that the application should be denied; I agree. TransCanada should be forced to select a more appropriate pipeline route.”

Apparently the entire Nebraska congressional delegation has followed suit, opposing the current pipeline route and calling for the US State Department to deny the permit application from TransCanada. That got me thinking, “Where do Montana’s governor and congressional delegation stand on the Keystone XL Pipeline.”

Well, despite a recent Exxon-Mobile pipeline spill in the Yellowstone River, our Democratic Governor Brain Schweitzer has refused to rescind his support for the Keystone XL pipeline.

Montana’s congressional delegation has attempted to be a little more nuanced in their approach, but the bottom line sure seems to be that they support the Keystone XL Pipeline.

For example, in April, Rep Rehberg wrote Secretary of State Clinton and urged her to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, while he also expressed some concerns with property rights of eastern Montana farmers and ranchers. Then, on August 26, 2011, Representative Denny Rehberg released the following statement, again in support of the Keystone XL Pipeline, while paying some lip-service to those who might be most negatively impacted by the pipeline:

“The Keystone Pipeline project will create real jobs, help bolster economic growth and provide national energy security. It’s unfortunate this pipeline has been delayed, but I’m glad the federal bureaucracy is finally beginning to move. I’m going to hold their feet to the fire and make sure this deadline is met. It’s time to stop delaying economic recovery….In expressing my support for this project, it should be noted that I’ve encouraged TransCanada to work with landowners in a manner that does not impose condemnations of private property. Agriculture will continue to be the backbone of eastern Montana’s economy, and TransCanada must make every effort to respect property rights and ensure that stringent emergency plans are in place should an accident occur.”

To be perfectly honest, it appears as if Senator Baucus and Senator Tester are taking a somewhat similar approach to the Keystone XL Pipeline. Basically they always appear to be supportive of the pipeline, while going on record expressing some concerns about property rights, environmental impact and emergency plans. For example, in this statement from August 2011 Baucus supports the pipeline:

“I’m pleased to see the Keystone project clear this important hurdle because the pipeline will support Montana jobs and help ease our dependence on Middle-East oil. I am currently reviewing the State Department’s Environmental Impact Statement and will continue to keep a close eye on the process to make sure safety and stewardship of our natural resources remain top priorities. The bottom line is we must get serious about an energy policy that puts America in the driver’s seat while bringing much-needed jobs to Montana.”

In fact, last September, Sen Baucus urged “the U.S. Department of State to expedite a permit by TransCanada to create its Keystone XL pipeline.”

Yet, a few months earlier he wrote Ray LaHood, the US Sec of Transportation stating, “I support the Keystone XL Pipeline. However, I am very concerned that the conditions proposed in the special permit application do not take critical steps to protect Montana’s citizens and resources…I urge you to take steps to ensure that the Keystone XL Pipeline take appropriate steps to protect Montanans and our natural resources.”

Seems to me that calling for an “expedited permit” for the Keystone XL pipeline just forty days after being “very concerned” that the permit “does not take critical steps to protect Montana’s citizens and resources” might be considered a perfect example of a politician talking out of both sides of their mouth.

While it appears as if Senator Tester didn’t release a press statement following the August 26, 2011 US State Department approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline permit, he did send this letter on August 17, 2011 to Secretary of State Clinton. In the August letter, Senator Tester mentions that in March 2011 he “expressed my conditional support for the Keystone XL Pipeline” while he also “outlined a number of safety and private property concerns that I believe must be in place before a pipeline is issued a Presidential Permit.”

These safety concerns are relate to: requiring a publicly available Oil Spill Response Plan, incorporating additional requirements from independent pipeline safety organizations, ensuring a consistent thickness and quality of steel for the pipeline, and requesting a schedule of on-the-ground, aerial and in-line inspections. Regarding the property rights of Montana farmers and ranchers who would have their lands impacted, Senator Tester mentions that “landowners should be fairly compensated through an honest and transparent process.”

To be certain, these are all decent concerns for Senator Tester to bring up and he deserves some credit for doing so in a way that appears to go beyond what Schweitzer, Rehberg or Baucus are willing to do.

It looks as if last week the Northern Plains Pipeline Landowners Group (NPPLG), a committee of the Northern Plains Resource Council, and 34 landowners crossed by the proposed Keystone XL pipeline wrote Montana Department of Environmental Quality Director Richard Opper, asking him to accommodate safety requirements sought by Senator Tester for the Keystone XL pipeline. However, it also should be pointed out that Senator Tester ended his August 17, 2011 letter to Sec Clinton with this statement:

“I believe that the Keystone XL pipeline holds substantial potential to promote Montana’s energy economy with the construction of the Marketlink Project, the oil on-ramp in Baker, Montana. This project can be an important part of promoting America’s energy security. However, the pipeline must be constructed and monitored carefully in order to protect all of Montana’s crucial industries, including agriculture, tourism, and the energy industry itself. For these reasons, I urge you to incorporate our best technical requirements so we can confidently secure America’s energy future without jeopardizing our economic or environmental quality.”

Finally, while each member of the Montana congressional delegation has found out a way to essentially support the Keystone XL Pipeline, while also bringing up some concerns, they have also managed to talk about the pipeline with words and phrases such as “jobs,” “secure America’s energy future” or “provide national energy security.” Clearly these types of phrases make for good political rhetoric in 2011; however, is there much truth to the notion that the Keystone XL Pipeline will increase US energy security?

Just last week a new report (download pdf) from Oil Change International called Exporting Energy Security: Keystone XL Exposed was released. Here’s a snip from the intro:

“In pushing for the Obama Administration’s approval of TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, the North American oil industry and its political patrons argue that the pipeline is necessary for American energy security and its construction will help wean America of dependence on Mideast oil. But a closer look at the new realities of the global oil market and at the companies who will profit from the pipeline reveals a completely different story: Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but rather transport Canadian oil to American refineries for export to overseas markets.”

Abstract: Management agencies have claimed that the recovery and public hunting of wolves is based in science. A review of their statistics demonstrated that data collection methods did not follow a scientific protocol which resulted in flawed and often blatantly incorrect data. Consequently, agencies do not know the total number of wolves in Montana, a major reference point used by wolf managers. Therefore, the quotas proposed for public wolf hunts are completely arbitrary, and management decisions in general have not been based on facts. This has produced a wolf management system that lacks scientific perspective and does not utilize what is known about the wolves’ role in sustaining healthy ecosystems. Instead, the data demonstrates that management decisions are often based on opinion and politics.

David Dougherty with The Real News takes a very good in-depth look at the continuing White House protests and the environmental and social issues surrounding the Alberta Tar Sands and the Keystone XL pipeline. Protesters are demanding that President Obama use his veto power to halt proposed expansion of Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil from Canada, through Montana and the Great Plains, and then down to refineries in Texas along the Gulf of Mexico.

Also, I just ran across this new report (download pdf) from Oil Change International called Exporting Energy Security: Keystone XL Exposed.

Produced by Mark Fiore, this short animation is a not-so-far-fetched parody of Hillary Clinton’s State Department Oil Services and the influence of oil industry lobbyists on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline permit decision. For more information, visit http://www.desmogblog.com/tarsands.

“Eminent domain” is the legal tool used by corporations such as utilities, railroads, and energy companies to condemn and purchase private property they claim to need for their transmission lines, pipelines and railroads. The 2011 Montana Legislature, at the urging of Governor Brian Schweitzer, “clarified” the existing eminent domain law (HB 198) to favor energy corporations seeking to build transmission lines to export power out of state. But two seminal questions remain unanswered: Is there really a “need” for these lines on some of Montana’s most pristine landscapes; and are they truly in the public interest?

The issue arose because a Montana district judge denied a Canadian corporation the right to put its “Montana Alberta” transmission line, to export power to Canada, through private land dotted with tipi rings that have remained undisturbed for more than a century. The property is owned by members of the Little Shell tribe with direct blood ties to the Blackfeet who said they didn’t want to stop the line, but did want it moved away from the historic sites.

The new law will now allow the lines to be built wherever the Canadian or any other corporation wants to build them, tipi rings, historic sites, or any other reason notwithstanding. It will likewise allow NorthWestern Energy to proceed with its planned “MISTI” export power line to Idaho and points south that is now being contested in court by several Montana counties and hundreds of concerned citizens.

Those who argue for the law say that without massive transmission capacity to move the power out of state there will be no incentive to build industrial scale wind farms that will, theoretically, discourage new construction of highly-polluting coal-fired power plants.

But although “meeting the demand” has become the mantra in energy circles, there are other alternatives that make much more sense. Efficiency and conservation are vastly cheaper, faster and less costly than building new generation and landscape-defacing transmission towers and lines simply to provide all the electricity that can possibly be consumed. And since Montana already produces twice as much power as its residents consume, there is no market and hence, no need, for the excess energy in state.

Where public interest is concerned, there is no conceivable way to argue that Montanans will publicly benefit from construction of the export power facilities. An endless march of 150-foot (or larger) towers, their drooping wires and the clearcut access routes beneath them detract from, rather than add to, the public interest.

And finally, what guarantee is there that these lines will be used for transmitting wind power as proponents have claimed? Simply put, there are no guarantees. Given Governor Schweitzer’s continuing promotion of coal, combined with his efforts to develop the massive Otter Creek Coal Tracts, it is just as likely that these lines will be transmitting electricity from mine-mouth, coal-fired generation plants as windpower. A high-voltage transmission system is a conduit which is completely indifferent to the source from which its energy load originates.

The sad truth is that none of this scam has anything to do with public benefit in Montana or anywhere else: it’s about turning public resources into private profit. It’s the same as turning Montana into Asia’s coal cellar and siphoning Alberta’s Tar Sands oil into and across our state in Exxon’s controversial Keystone XL pipeline.

Eminent domain was intended specifically and solely to be used to promote the public good. Energy corporations have never operated on that basis and never will. It’s too bad Governor Schweitzer and the 2011 Legislature didn’t grasp that basic truth.

———————-

Take Action: Repeal Corporate Eminent Domain to Protect Property Rights

During the past year citizens of Montana were left out of the loop on a crucial issue that threatens our basic rights, as well as our state’s heritage and future. Montana legislators, encouraged by gigantic corporate interests, grossly expanded eminent domain authority to allow private foreign and out-of-state corporations to condemn and confiscate private property for their own bottom line. Let us decide. It’s an issue that is too important for the backrooms and boardrooms.

Support IR-125 to give citizens a voice in overturning a bad law and restoring fundamental Montana values.

(Note: This article was written by Paul Edwards. It originally appeared in the summer 2011 newsletter of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. Paul’s new tar sands/megaloads video can be viewed here. – MK)

If John Muir were alive today he’d be a member of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. Muir was no armchair environmentalist, he was a radical activist committed to demonstrable results on the land, not to collaboration and consensus. He maintained that the whole natural world was vitally connected and you couldn’t damage one essential element of it without damaging it all in ways unknown and unforeseen. He’d be with us.

So would Aldo Leopold. Leopold’s passionate connection to the wild world led him, through years of immersion in it and deep, discerning introspection, to the formulation of his watershed Land Ethic: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” That’s the mantra we live by in this organization.

The Alliance is often accused by nature rapists, ecosystem despoilers, and their phony sob sisters of being an uncompromising “obstructionist” organization. What drives them nuts is that we relentlessly attack and beat proposals that are flagrantly criminal — and so much of what is being done or attempted now in various ways by the Corporate Tyranny that owns America is simply criminal.

One good example is the Alberta Tar Sands obscenity. This incalculably destructive eco-crime has the full backing of both the Canadian and American governments, but organized opposition to it is growing every day.

Meanwhile, Exxon–a major Tar Sands player and extortionist pirate–has cut a deal with Montana’s Coalboy Governor and his Idaho counterpart, Oily Butch Otter, to run monstrous megaloads from the port of Lewistown on narrow Highway 12 along the federally-designated Wild and Scenic Clearwater and Lochsa Rivers. From there the route twists over serpentine Lolo Pass, goes down through Missoula and follows the Blackfoot River to the Rocky Mountain Front then up to the Alberta Tar Sands.

There are administrative challenges and lawsuits under way against the scam in both Idaho and Montana, but there’s no telling how they’ll play out. So, knowing I had a shot at a known enemy, I decided to try to hit Exxon where they live by doing a video to expose them in all their appalling arrogance.

The fight against the massive and continuing destruction of the Tar Sands is as David and Goliath as it gets. But as John Muir would have said, it is directly related and “connected” to the essential mission of the Alliance: We fight the arrogant and irresponsible exercise of concentrated money and power that exploits and abuses the natural world and the people who inhabit it.

Vital ecosystem connections are the essence of the Tar Sands fight and are part and parcel of what the Alliance has been doing with issues like the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act for decades. We fight the tough fights against very long odds…and we win most of the time.

For exactly that reason, members Muir and Leopold would be proud of us.

Paul Edwards was born in South Dakota and has worked as a pea-pitcher, header puncher, roustabout, wild animal trainer’s assistant, high-steel man, able seaman, movie actor and NGO rep in I Corps, Vietnam. Paul also put in 25 years as a writer, director and producer in Hollywood film and television (including the hit TV series Gunsmoke) before fleeing for his life and what remained of his sanity to his ranch on the Rocky Mountain Front at the edge of the Bob Marshall Wilderness.