On February 24, 2004, the BLM Central Montana Resource
Advisory Council (RAC) was presented with the BLM,
working document - not for public review, draft management
Alternative’s for the Upper Missouri River Breaks
National Monument. This presentation to the RAC occurred
before any public announcement that Alternatives were
completed. The BLM’s Interagency Management
Team also presented the RAC their draft ‘Preferred
Alternative’, again, a draft-working document
not for public review.
The Interagency Management Team, consisting of BLM
staff, two local County Commissioners, one DNRC state
official and other consultants, have displayed a negative
bias towards wildlife values although several wildlife
species, elk, bighorn sheep, sage grouse and others,
are specifically listed as “objects” to
be protected by the Monument proclamation. What is
particularly disconcerting is that Montana Fish, Wildlife
and Parks (FWP) is not a part of the “Team”
even though they are the public trustee of Montana’s
public wildlife.
An excess of 7000 public comments were submitted
to the BLM in their management alternatives public
comment process, including letters from hunters and
anglers. Sportsmen and sportswomen offered many constructive
suggestions that called for preserving the quality
hunting opportunities and wildlife values inherent
to the Monument, however, the content of those comments
are, for the most part, ignored in the draft ‘Preferred
Alternative’.
MWF also provided management recommendations to the
BLM for the Monument. MWF based our comments on a
Board adopted policy-statement that was developed
over the course of several months. The policy clearly
identified the reasoning behind recommended conservative
measures that would ensure the valuable biological,
social, ecological, and historical resources, and
demanded that wildlife be recognized as a separate
category in the deliberations. The MWF recommendations
stressed the principle of “managed area restrictions”
that would place limitations on responsible motorized
use to insure wildlife habitat health and integrity.
Further, MWF promoted the need to ensure quality outdoor
recreational experiences with diverse opportunties
for equitable access for the general public.
The Monument does and must offer high quality recreational
opportunities for general public hunters, anglers
and wildlife enthusiasts in the future over commercial
ventures; the Monument is a public estate.
The inclusion of backcountry airstrips within prime
wildlife habitat in the Monument is another major
concern for conservation minded hunters. Four of the
five draft alternatives presented include up to 10
backcountry airstrips, six airstrips have been indicated
as the draft ‘Preferred Alternative’ to
occur in the Ervin Ridge, Bullwhacker, Black Butte,
Cow Creek, Left Coulee and Knox Ridge. Five of these
six are in important core areas for Bighorn sheep.
Regardless of FWP biologists having previously registered
public protests to airstrips in critical sheep habitat
elsewhere, and that comments by hunters and anglers
overwhelmingly opposed airstrips in the Monument,
it appears the Team is ignoring this concern.
These and other significant issues regarding Travel
Management and the entire management alternatives
selection process for the Monument should alarm the
public. The long and the short of this process is
that, wildlife, recognized as valuable public resources
and “objects” within the Monument, and
sportsmen -are getting the short end of the stick
- the majority of our comments are being ignored!
Only with greater input from the public will a RMP,
good for wildlife as well as hunters, anglers, and
other recreation interests, be a reality. As it stands
now, the draft ‘Preferred Alternative’
has little vision of conserving our public estate.
