EarthJustice's letter to Gov Schweitzer on wolves

by: Matthew Koehler

Sun Feb 27, 2011 at 13:27:49 PM MST

The letter was written on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for  Biological Diversity, The Human Society of the United States, Jackson  Hole Conservation Alliance, Friends of the Clearwater, Alliance for the  Wild Rockies, Oregon Wild, Western Watersheds Project, Wildlands Network and Hells Canyon Preservation Council.  Click here for PDF copy of the actual letter.

Below are some additional snips from the actual letter. Also today, the Missoulian had this article.

"In your February 16, 2011 letter to the Secretary of the Interior, and in numerous follow-up interviews with local and national media outlets, you suggested that Montana did not intend to follow federal law, nor honor its commitments under either Montana's wolf management plan or its memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to wolf management.  Your statements could jeopardize Montana's continued authority to manage wolves under its cooperative agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

More troubling, your statements may incite Montanans to violate the Endangered Species Act.  Wolves are still protected under that act. In Northwest Montana, it is illegal for anyone other than authorized wildlife agents to harm, harass, or kills wolves. In other parts of the state, individuals may only kill wolves that are in the act of attacking their livestock or pets. Nowhere is it permissible for individuals to kill wolves in a response to an alleged threat to elk herds.

We urge you to correct the misimpression left by your statements that it is no longer a crime to kill wolves. If you do not, Montanas following your lead may be punished under federal law by substantial civil and criminal penalties.... Wolves in Montana should be managed as an essential part of the ecosystem, not in opposition to it."

MEIC's Capitol Monitor: Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Under Attack

by: Matthew Koehler

Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 12:24:50 PM MST

For the complete run-down of bills and committee hearings this week, please make sure to visit MEIC's Capitol Monitor page.

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Under Attack
By MEIC's Capitol Monitor

The first week of February saw a brief halt in the introduction of new anti-environment bills. But attacks on renewable energy and energy efficiency continued, with several bills passing the Senate and being transmitted to the House.

"It seems as if they are attacking the industries in Montana that should be promoted," said MEIC's Energy Policy lobbyist Kyla Wiens. "They should be encouraging energy efficiency and renewable energy. But instead, they're discouraging them."

Here's how Mike Dennison, a reporter for the Lee Newspapers Capitol Bureau, summed it up in an article this past week:  "As majority Republicans at the Legislature talk up oil, gas, and coal development in Montana, they're also pursuing another energy agenda - torpedoing the state's incentives for conservation and renewable power."

"The major focus of the session, according to both Republicans and Democrats, is job creation," says Wiens. "Instead they are picking winners and losers for the jobs they want to create and the businesses they want to thrive. Unfortunately, renewable energy jobs are not being favored."

In an interview this week, Governor Brian Schweitzer was straightforward in his opinion of the situation:  "This action is irrational. [All energy development] creates jobs .... If the Flat Earth Society in the Montana Legislature continues to try to chase business away from Montana, it's going to have a devastating effect all across Montana." When asked if he would veto the bills he was referring to, the governor said he would "probably take a dim view" of the measures because they wouldn't create jobs.

MEIC members are urged to contact their legislators to oppose the anti-renewable energy and anti-conservation bills by e-mail, telephone calls [(406) 444-4800], or letters to the editor. A "thank you" for the Governor's support of renewable energy development and conservation would also be helpful.  

Arizona Republic: Montana pols could imperil wolves

by: Matthew Koehler

Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 12:01:54 PM MST

In response to the introduction of Rehberg's bill, Defenders of Wildlife - a very respected, mainstream voice for wildlife and habitat conservation - issued this press release "Rehberg sets the stage for nationwide wolf eradication".

Meanwhile, when the Tester/Baucus bill was introduced last fall, Defenders had this to say, "Senate bill would short-circuit Endangered Species Act protection for wolves: New legislation could set back wolf recovery, undermine federal protections for wildlife."

Montana pols could imperil wolves
Arizona Republic - Editorial, Feb. 14, 2011

Montana's 2012 Senate race could doom wolves in Arizona. It's politics. And it stinks.

The long-fought effort to restore endangered Mexican gray wolves to the wilds of eastern Arizona and western New Mexico is threatened by posturing between two politicians. Montana's Democratic Sen. Jon Tester and Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg, who intends to run for Senate, are each trying to look more appealing to anti-wolf factions in that state. Wolves are pawns.

Let's be clear: The situation for the Mexican gray wolves is very different from that of wolves in the northern Rockies. Wolves in the northern Rockies are in far better shape than the 50 Mexican gray wolves who stand between the species' survival and its elimination in the wilds of the Southwest. These wolves need more protection, not less.

Wolves in the northern Rockies are much more plentiful, yet efforts to remove them from the endangered-species list were overturned by court decision last August. Since then, Tester has been trying to satisfy the concerns of those who are not happy about the increasing numbers of wolves in Montana and its neighboring states.

Legitimate concerns about wolves need to be addressed. But Tester's efforts late last year included a move to simply exclude those wolves from the Endangered Species Act - not through a bill that could have been debated, but as part of a larger omnibus bill.

Rehberg is upping the ante. As a newly announced candidate for Tester's Senate seat, Rehberg says the federal government should have no say in state wildlife issues. This is nonsense.

The Endangered Species Act is a recognition of the value of species diversity as part of every American's national heritage. States don't trump that national interest. Yet Rehberg wants Congress to exclude all wolves - including those in Arizona and New Mexico - from protection under the Endangered Species Act. Environmental groups say this effort could also be tacked onto a larger bill without debate.

Both these efforts circumvent the role of Congress as a place to openly debate matters that affect the nation. They also run around a careful process for species delisting that is built into the existing law of the land.

This approach could create a precedent of excluding animals based on politics instead of biology. It would neuter the Endangered Species Act, which is recognized as one of the world's premier environmental laws. Rehberg's scheme would doom the Mexican gray wolves.

Democrats - including the Obama administration - have been allowing Tester to build his states' rights bona fides as he seeks re-election. The president and Democrats in Congress should show some spine and serve a higher interest than Tester's political future.

The American people benefit from a healthy Endangered Species Act and a healthy population of wolves - including Mexican gray wolves.

Attention All Planets Of The Solar Federation ...

by: Rob Kailey

Tue Feb 08, 2011 at 00:00:00 AM MST

(Carfreestupidity and I must have been sharing a brain over the last day or so.  I began writing this yesterday, and his post today hits many of the highlights.  This post has been altered to reflect his.)

 Matt Singer tells us:

There's a really funny dynamic setting up in Helena that can be seen  from afar (a 30,000 foot perspective really can be useful at times). The  tea party Republicans, having run and won on a platform of limited  government and economic development, are largely dedicating themselves  to invasions of personal freedom and the advancement of pre-Civil War legal theories. That's when they're not undertaking full-fledged assaults on the U.S. Constitution.

He is so right and so wrong.  There is nothing remotely, or certainly not really, funny about this dynamic. It actually makes clear what many of us have been warning of for some time now.  The Tea Party faithful and their toadies among (even more main stream) Republicans don't care one whit about limiting government.  They see government as control over a person's life.  They don't want to alleviate that.  They want to co-opt it.  I don't care whether it's out of fear or moral righteousness; that's truly beside the point.  They don't care what you think.  As many have discovered from their own children (or likely their own behavior) even the bestest of conservative upbringing can lead to 'bad thoughts'.  Thinking is subversive, so though they will give lip service to liberal education and media, they really don't care any more.  What they want is exactly what they are acting out in the Montana legislature.  They want control of your life from birth to death.  There must be order and by GOD they are going to force it upon us.

To save me a ton of typing, which I'm really not very good at, I urge you to go review the list of Republican sponsored bills  to the Montana Legislature that CFS has posted at 4 & 20 Blackbirds.  He ranges well into the attempts to stop the people of Montana from choosing their own destiny, but there are a few specifics I would highlight:

HB 280 and SB 176 both restrict in some way a women’s right to choose.

SB 116 aims to take away a person’s right to decide how to end their own life.

These bills are aimed directly at controlling how people behave, how people live. There is no other will behind them.  Women will be "well behaved" according to their betters, and those who hurt shall be forced to continue hurting ... that last  one blows my mind.  According to Tea Party darling Greg Hinckle, the elderly, infirm and terminally in pain folks of Montana should not have the ultimate choice over their own life, which is when to end it.

Don't get me wrong.  The attacks against women are not something I have or ever will avoid writing about.  But tomorrow, Hinckle's travesty of justice comes to committee, and should be discussed.  It would be vain to do so without a touch of context from the State Senate President, Jim Peterson.  After all, he was the one who wants to tell Montana what our code of conduct should, no, WILL be.  We are cowboys, and our code is the Code of the West, according to Big Jim.  What he thinks must be codified in state law is this:

(1) Live each day with courage.

    (2) Take pride in your work.

    (3) Always finish what you start.

    (4) Do what has to be done.

    (5) Be tough, but fair.

    (6) When you make a promise, keep it.

    (7) Ride for the brand.

    (8) Talk less and say more.

    (9) Remember that some things aren't for sale.

    (10) Know where to draw the line.

"nothing in Montana Supreme Court precedent or Montana statutes indicating that physician aid in dying is against public policy."

Note that quote well.  That is exactly what Hinckle is attempting to change.  He wants to change "public policy" based on a Teabagger sensibility that they know best what is for "us".  We don't get to choose.  They will tell us what we will choose, and that is the code of the West.  Oh wait ... no it's not.  Not even remotely.  What was that line?  Oh yeah:  Know where to draw the line.  Don't bother, Montanan.  Hinckle will draw it for you.  And you will have no say in the matter.

And that's the problem with the Tea people.  They want what they want and will tell you to conform.  They are like the Home Owners Association from Hell.  They will protect the resale value of their lives by taking the value from yours.  Don't kid yourselves that they duped fiscal conservatives into voting for their "control everything about others" agenda. People knew what they were voting for.  Montanans aren't stupid, just often misdirected.  So that's our task.  To inform Montana that people like Hinckle, Skees, Warburton, Burnett, and Knox don't give one salient crap about you is really the noblest task of us all, and is truly the Code of the West.  Be tough but fair, remember that somethings aren't for sale, and always ride for the brand, the Montana brand.  Otherwise, the weak will force those things on you.

Free Will

by: Rob Kailey

Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 18:00:26 PM MST

Just to gently annoy JC, ~wink~, and vainly attempt to remind the Tea Party of what they're supposed to be all about:

Free Will

Especially dedicated to Knox, Warburton, Skees and Hinckle.  May they kindly remember that Montanans choose their own lives, not have it chosen by those fools.

GOP, Please Don't Throw Us in That Briar Patch!

by: Matt Singer

Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 11:32:05 AM MST

More hilarious than this, though, is their belief that they've got a smart political strategy: bringing these third-rate bills into a fight with the Governor. Here's a case in point: aid in dying. Greg Hinkle is moving a bill to end Montana's currently legal practice of allowing people with terminal medical conditions to seek a physician's aid in ending their life. I'm not sure there's a better example of a personal freedom than maintaining an honest choice in whether we want to live or die. Despite that, Hinkle continues to advance his bill (surprisingly, he provides no exceptions for sheriff's who disagree or for people who choose death-by-spear). Rumor is that the Montana GOP is quite excited to pass this bill to face a veto by Governor Schweitzer.

All I can say: Please don't throw us in that briar patch. Like many of these issues, the GOP is at odds with the people of Montana. I know that they won a big election last fall, but they're also stupid to be looking forward to any fight with the Governor. By my calculations, Republican House members earned about 203,429 votes in 2010. Schweitzer received 318,670 votes in his last election, just for comparison.

Schweitzer has a bigger microphone and a more trusted brand in newspapers than any individual member of the legislature. That's just reality. Sorry, GOP, but if you pick a fight with the Governor, you're probably fighting above your weight. Smart money says you lose. Badly.

Report: Rehberg to challenge Tester

by: Matthew Koehler

Tue Feb 01, 2011 at 08:14:26 AM MST

This blog post from the Missoula Indy's Skylar Browning has all the details.  Apparently, Rehberg will make the announcement this Saturday at the Lincoln/Reagan Dinner in Helena. 

Badger-Two Med Travel Plan Upheld

by: NorthernFlicker

Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 21:47:29 PM MST

Some good news came at the end of last week - Montana District Court Judge Haddon upheld the current travel plan which the USFS implemented over a year ago in the Badger Two Med region between Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall Wilderness east of the Continental Divide in NW Montana.  All arguments put forth by the plaintiffs who challenged the ban on motorized access were rejected. 

The decision can be challenged to the US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiffs have 60 days.  

It will be good to have this matter settled so volunteers currently raising money and spending time on the defense of the travel plan could then put their time and money to restoring the region.  Weed control and healing the landscape are top priorities.  

You should see more press on this early next week.

Celebrate!

Constitution Caucus is a Joke, Possibly an Illiterate One

by: Matt Singer

Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 11:37:05 AM MST

But let's forget the federal Constitution for a second, because there is fairly little in there that actually constrains the power of state governments to be activist (there are provisions, like the 14th Amendment, that limit their ability to do pernicious things like discriminate). So the question on these matters is what the Montana Constitution dictates.

The Montana Constitution famously dictates "All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment..." The right to a clean and healthful environment isn't just in the Constitution. It's the second right listed, right after self-government and popular sovereignty.

In fact, the Constitution later mandates "The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations." Regarding education, the Constitution says, "It is the goal of the people to establish a system of education which will develop the full educational potential of each person. Equality of educational opportunity is guaranteed to each person of the state."

Cody Bloomsberg ought to schedule follow up interviews with Kerns and anyone else who considers herself or himself part of this "Constitutional caucus" and get their read on the Montana Constitution, the primary document they have obligations to represent and enforce. My guess is that we'll see their inability or refusal to read the initial intent very quickly.

Wolverine ruling puts politics ahead of science

by: Matthew Koehler

Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 09:59:16 AM MST

This week President Obama's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) decided the wolverine warranted listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). That action, in response to a lawsuit by conservation organizations, marks a dramatic turnaround from the agency's decision a mere two years ago that denied protection for these exceedingly rare animals. Unfortunately, wolverines will not be placed on the endangered species list and receive the protection they deserve. Instead, they will join hundreds of other species and continue their one-way march to extinction because the agency claims it doesn't have enough funding....

[T]hanks to both political expediency and the budgetary black hole into which ongoing wars have plunged the nation, even though the numbers of species deserving protection continues to grow every year, fewer and fewer plants and animals are actually being listed. Instead, as with the wolverine, the agency and the U.S. Congress that funds it, says protection is warranted, but their continued existence on the planet is a cost we just can't afford.

Even worse, we now have politicians like Montana's own Democratic Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester, who believe it's time to simply remove animals from the Endangered Species List through congressional mandate. I'm talking about the gray wolf, of course, a topic that never fails to spark heated debate these days over their numbers, livestock and wildlife predation, and the subsequent cost to sheep and cattle producers.

What Tester and Baucus fail to consider, however, is the consequences of their actions. If they succeed in pulling wolves from the endangered species list through a simple bill—or more likely, given Tester's recent proclivities, a rider on unassociated, "must pass" legislation—they will set a precedent that will literally gut the ESA....

The choice is clear. Congress can and should act. At the current level of more than $2 billion a day, only two or three days of military spending would fund the endangered species program into the foreseeable future. The excuse of "budgetary concerns" is simply a sad hoax perpetrated by politicians kow-towing to corporate interests. Unfortunately, between that and legislative manipulation of the endangered species list, this generation is stealing the future from those yet to come.

Wuerthner: Do ranchers have a right to predator free landscape?

by: Matthew Koehler

Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 09:18:45 AM MST

We've all seen the flood of emotionally-charged, less-than-accurate letters to the editor from some unsuccessful Montana hunters blaming their empty freezer on wolves.  Yep, apparently, in a state with a landbase of 147,000 square miles, approximately 600 wolves will kill 150,000 elk and about a 1,000,000 deer if we don't do something about it.  But don't you have to wonder how in the world some of these hunters can't find any of the 150,000 elk or 1,000,000 deer roaming the state, yet these same hunters claim to see wolves and wolf-tracks everywhere? Seriously, does this add up?

Unfortunately, the silliness will continue as we have the upcoming bi-annual state legislative session to look forward to, where one can assume that numerous anti-wolf bills and meaningless resolutions will be put forward by the Republican majority.

Yet, for a political party that likes to champion "personal responsibility," one can bet the Montana Republican Party won't be calling on Montana's ranching community to take some rather simple and straight-forward steps to greatly reduce or eliminate livestock predation on account of wolves.

With this in mind, ecologist and former Montana hunting guide George Wuerthner has an excellent new essay "Do ranchers have a right to predator free landscape?" over at NewWest.

Below are some highlights from that essay (emphasis added):

Killing predators to appease the livestock industry is nothing more than another subsidy to an industry that is already living off the public largess, in part, because most predator losses are completely avoidable with proper animal husbandry techniques.

For instance, prompt removal of dead animals from fields, and burial of the remains can significantly reduce attracting predators. One recent study in Oregon showed a very strong association between wolf packs and bone piles-places where ranchers dump dead cattle.... One study in Minnesota found that rapid removal of dead animals from livestock operations could reduce a second predation event by 55 times!

In Europe where many countries ban the killing of predators like wolves, livestock producers have adopted other measures to reduce predator losses. The use of guard dogs with shepherds is particularly effective, again significantly reducing predation losses. One study found that the combined use of these techniques could reduce predation losses by better than 90%. When you are talking about only several hundred wolf attributed livestock losses a year in each of the states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, a 90% reduction would bring these losses down to a negligible figure-and one that would remove nearly all demand for any predator control.

In Minnesota where there are nearly double the number of wolves that are found in the entire northern Rockies states of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana combined, farmers there are encouraged to adopt measures that reduce predator opportunity in order to qualify for state livestock compensation. After a depredation, a state official visits the farm, and discusses any measures that could be adopted to reduce future livestock losses. The farmer must sign an agreement to implement any changes in order to qualify for any future compensation payments.

Are You Ready For Some Football?

by: Rob Kailey

Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 16:03:13 PM MST

That's right.  It's Bobcat-Grizzly weekend, something not lost on the overwhelming majority of Montanans.  This is the Divide War, the Brawl of the Wild.  This game is one of the oldest inter-state rivalries known to human kind since the Peloponnesian War.  The University of Montana Grizzlies will host the Montana State University Bobcats; only this time, there's a helluva lot more at stake than just bragging rights.

MSU will likely make the playoffs, regardless of the outcome.  U of M ... not so much.  The Griz must win to be assured a playoff birth.  The Cats have to win to take the Big Sky Conference and earn an auto-birth, with remarkably great seeding.  Something I think all Montana can agree on is that we don't want to watch #3 ranked EWU lord it over us for a year, what with their bloody field and all.  The last time when the stakes for this game were this high?  1984.  I wonder who won the national championship that year?  Hmmmm...

So, it's time for predictions.  Based on the Cats last game against Weber, and Montana's last game against North Dakota, I offer mine below the fold.

Ochenski on Hill's returns to Montana politics

by: Matthew Koehler

Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 07:34:09 AM MST

"[Hill] says he's running for governor because he 'has a vision for Montana and its future.' But for those who remember the various outcomes of the 16 years when Republicans dominated Montana's political arena, his vision seems more like a throwback to the politics and policies of the past than new ways to deal with the many problems facing the state."

"During his campaign announcement, Hill ticked off a list of his priorities should he win the gubernatorial bid. First, and no surprise, is 'taking down the barriers to good-paying jobs.' While that sounds reasonable in Republican-speak, what it means in reality is exactly what we experienced during the Racicot years. What Hill calls 'barriers' are actually Montana's environmental protection laws and constitutional guarantee of a 'clean and healthful environment.'"

Click here to read Ochenski's entire column....  

Cows or wolves? Which Impacts more wildlife?

by: Matthew Koehler

Thu Nov 11, 2010 at 06:52:54 AM MST

"Dad, are we going to see many birds?"

I hope so, son. It looks like a good year.

Every parent knows that the hours we have with our offspring are fleeting. You cling to the bonding times, the moments when you make discoveries together that will provide opportunities for reflection later on.

For our family, some of the more memorable autumn afternoons have unfolded in pursuit of mountain blue grouse.

Bushwhacking through downfall and across high meadows is exhilarating, particularly with what you look forward to seeing along the way.

It matters less that we arrive home with wild game birds to eat. What's important is that the grouse are there, where they should be, in the national forest, on public land.

This year, as last year, as the one before it, there was no trace of birds at our favorite destinations, only broken clumps of juniper; brome mowed down to the dirt; trees rubbed bare of bark by bovines; a proliferation of cow pies; spotted knapweed rising from the disturbed soil; and trampled streamsides that used to harbor frogs.

The side valley I mention is akin to many each of us knows.

According to the revised local national forest management plan, cattle grazing is not supposed to come at the expense of achieving favorable habitat conditions for native wildlife and watershed protection.

I am a sportsman. Some organizations make claims - unsubstantiated by science - that reintroduced wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem are a "foreign" wolf subspecies never native to these parts. I've also heard of some Montana stockmen referring to bison as "exotic animals."

In what category, then, do they place beef cows and wool sheep?

Cows in the public land dale which we formerly nicknamed "grouse valley" are taking forage that would normally go into the bellies of elk, moose, and mule deer.

Tributary creeks left muddied by concentrated hoof traffic send silt into bigger streams important to native trout, clotting their spawning cobble with muck. Mountain grouse do not tolerate cattle well. The herds scatter skittish avians off of the ridge tops where they would normally be, and eat away their grassy cover where they lie in wait during the fall for grasshoppers.

In fact, amid the Forest Service meadows where cattle have been all summer, we encountered very little wildlife of any kind. There are no wolves or grizzlies to blame.

Ranchers who graze livestock on public lands get a great deal. Most pay below private market rates for the grass their cattle eats; their animals roam almost anywhere untended; and they get taxpayer subsidized predator control.

It was difficult to find a spot in grouse valley that did not resemble a private pasture peppered with cow poop.

To those who will try to distort my words, let me be clear: I am not anti-livestock grazing, anti-cow, or anti-rancher. As a sportsman and wildlife watcher, I am pro-wildlife and pro-habitat on public lands.

Should one's private livestock be allowed to impair the camping experience on public lands? If yes, then why? Should cows be allowed to sully a stream corridor (the richest wildlife habitat on a landscape), thereby marring hunting and wildlife watching opportunities?

Should the welfare of private non-native bovines be given precedence over native predators on public lands such as grizzlies and wolves?

Last year, 75 percent of the 20 wolf-related cattle depredations in Wyoming happened on public land and 42 percent of the 195 sheep losses occurred on national forests, Bureau of Land Management tracts or other public parcels.

When assessing the best use of a national forest, there shouldn't be any blind spots or sacred cows. Some of the most outspoken critics of government and condemners of wolves are those who use public lands to make a living and get a sweet deal doing it.

Many are responsible stewards gracious for the privilege; some are not.

If we in the West are going to have an honest discussion about wolves - and we should - then we ought to also have a truthful conversation about the costs of livestock grazing imposed upon taxpayers, the public land, and the corresponding loss of public values including wildlife diversity, especially in Greater Yellowstone.

The impacts of domestic livestock grazing on wildlife inhabiting public lands are huge and far greater than wolves. If we're going to have an honest accounting and blunt discussion, let's put everything on the table.

It still hurts in the morning

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 09:07:40 AM MST

To wit:

Rehberg, as expected, coasted to victory. McDonald picked up 34 percent of the vote, which was two points better than John Driscoll in 2008, a candidate who didn't campaign and endorsed his opponent. Rehberg vowed to work on the economy. Watch out, economy.

Both Don Ryan and Ken Toole lost their election bids for PSC. Two things: this means the end of consumer protection from the PSC, and Brad Molnar is now chair of the commission.

CI-105 passed 73 - 27 percent, and the Californication of Montana's government budget begins.

The GOP captured the House, and it's not even close. The Democrats lost more than 15 seats, including Mike Jopek's Whitefish seat to...Derek Skees. H*ll, Bryce Bennett won HD92 by only a couple hundred votes, a seat Robin Hamilton won by two thousand in 2010. The GOP looks like they'll also build on their 4-seat Senate majority, but not by much.

On the bright side, Beth Baker won her bid for the Montana Supreme Court, and, right now, Kendall Van Dyk has a small lead in SD25 over Roy Brown.

Mulling the results, I am again reminded how much national media narrative influences state elections. To punish Montana Democratic legislators for fiscal reasons is insane. The state's run smoothly under Democratic governance: the governor and legislature have consistently produced budget surpluses while safeguarding the public services that Montanans want. Why, it was the Democratic caucus that fought for CHIP expansion, which was overwhelmingly approved of by the voters - and which Republican legislators opposed.

Then again reason hardly ruled the 2010 election. After all, the national Democratic ticket ran on healthcare reform. And now they're being voted out for enacting healthcare reform. Go figure.

Whatever. This Montana legislative delegation looks even more combative and radical than that which tried to shut down the state government in 2007, and at one point voted the HHS budget down to $1. My hope is that this bunch will concentrate on testing Glenn Beck's theories of constitutional law by passing all sorts of bills negating federal law (which will likely be tossed out in court) instead of taking their radicalism out on the school systems and other social services.

Then again, when confronted with an actual budget - instead of the fantasy budget of their conservative day-dreams - maybe they'll realize the complexity of governance and act accordingly.

...and the rest of Dennison's top ten legislative races...

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 13:17:10 PM MST

SD 25 (north-central Billings): Easily the most-watched, most-expensive legislative race in the state, with Democratic Rep. Kendall Van Dyk mounting an aggressive, well-financed challenge to Republican Sen. Roy Brown, who's trying to win a second term. Van Dyk has unleashed a torrent of attack mail against Brown, labeling the former oil developer a tool of "big oil" and other business interests. Brown is striking back by casting Van Dyk, a staffer for Trout Unlimited, as an environmental ideologue bent on killing resource jobs.

If you haven't heard about this race, you're probably living under a rock, politically speaking. The most contested race of the 2010 election. And ugly, to boot.

Kendall Van Dyk proved he's a legisator that gets stuff done: he was the force behind the passage of 2009's HB 190, the stream access bill that ensured Montana anglers have access to Montana rivers, and the first stream access bill passed in 25 years - despite years of controversy and previous bills. Van Dyk's a "lifelong conservationist, a farm kid, a dedicated sportsman, and one of the hardest workers in Montana politics."

In contrast, his opponent, the former oil executive Roy Brown was named by the League of Conservation Voters as one of the nation's "dirty dozen" state-level legislators, a dubious honor to say the least. And in a disturbing turn of events, the state senator recently abandoned his usual moderate stance on issues, and tacked hard right this election cycle, courting Nutcase Koopman and backing
the faulty lawsuit against the recent healthcare bill. And a quick swing through our archives will remind you of Brown's ill-fated and polarizing bid for governor in 2008, which he lost by 35 points and barely edged out a candidate who refused to run and endorsed his opponent, and a perennial parliamentarian candidate of dubious faculties.

It's easy to forget in all the Sturm und Drang surrounding this race that Kendall Van Dyk is the candidate that has an actual history of bipartisanship and compromise in passing legislation that benefits all Montanans, while Brown has steadily and noisily shifted to the right to consolidate his base and woo the Tea Party.

Van Dyk for SD 25.

HD24 (northeast Great Falls, Malmstrom Air Force Base): Republican state Rep. Brian Hoven, who won a close, surprise victory in 2008 in this district that leans Democratic, faces a challenge from well-known teacher and coach Gary Lucero, a Democrat.

This is what I wrote about Brian Hoven in 2008: "Brian Hoven is a businessman and the Chair of the Cascade Republican Party; he ran once for SD12, advocating for Great Fall's coal-burning plant. He wants to eliminate property taxes (d*mn the schools!), slash taxes for business, put a cap on medical lawsuits, favors prayer in school, school vouchers, and is pro-choice. The usual big business Republican." To be fair to Hoven, he was one of the few House Republicans to buck his party's leadership and supported the implementation of CHIP expansion in the last legislature.

Gary Luchero is a popular local middle-school teacher, running on a campaign as a pragmatic moderate. Check both candidates' positions in this Great Falls Tribune profile and KRTV interviews of the race.

HD47 (Billings Heights): Democrat Pam Ellis, a retired schoolteacher and principal, is trying to pick up this open seat held by a retiring Republican. Her opponent is Republican James Knox, a tea party favorite and operator of a computer business.

Ah...James Knox. You really have to sift through Cowgirl's archives to get the full effect of the man's...er..."abilities," from donning costumes, to spamming his candidacy in comment forums using anonymous accounts, from his irrational obsession with the Billings fire department, to his planting of hidden cameras in his yard signs, the man is a "shaky" candidate at best. And that's not even addressing his views, which are pure Tea Party.

Pam Ellis is a Billings native and a retired elementary school teacher with, naturally, a strong platform and promise to be an advocate of education. She's also a proponent of home energy efficiency, renewable energy, and a balanced budget.

Frankly, the choice is friggin' clear, even if you're a Republican. Ellis.

HD77 (Jefferson County): This largely rural district between Helena and Butte has long been held by Republicans, but Democrats hope Sheila Hogan of Clancy can put the now-open seat in their column. Hogan, who runs a job skills program in Helena, narrowly lost a race here four years ago to Rep. Scott Mendenhall, R-Clancy. Her opponent this time is bar owner Alan Hale of Basin.

Here's what I wrote about this race: "HD 77 stretches over much of Jefferson county, and includes a slice of Helena. Here, born-and-bred Butte-ian and miner's daughter, Sheila Hogan, is battling a "constitutional Republican" looking to hand over the keys of the state to multi-national extraction and energy corporations. Hogan is the executive director of the Career Training Institute, and a long-time advocate for jobs in the state, which makes her the ideal candidate in this economic slump marred by joblessness." Hogan!

Check out the the HD 77 profile in the Helena IR, and the interviews with the candidates by KXLH.

HD100 (west Missoula County): Democrat Willis Curdy, a retired teacher and former smokejumper who lost narrowly in this district two years ago, is running again, this time for an open seat. Banker Champ Edmunds is trying to keep the seat Republican.

Willis Curdy was the last-minute replacement candidate (for the stricken Democratic primary winner) to tackle Bill Nooney in Missoula's sole GOP-controlled House district, HD100. This time around he's not only had time to prepare for the election, he's battling for an open seat after Nooney's withdrawal from public service.

Curdy's a fave of the b'birders - a "4th generation Montanan, small business owner, retired high school teacher and retired smokejumper." (I wonder what was harder, the parachuting into wildfires or managing teenagers...) He's running to protect public lands and on a platform of job creation. Edmunds, a banker and Navy vet, just isn't up to snuff.

The Social Sample Ballot

by: Matt Singer

Fri Oct 29, 2010 at 09:03:17 AM MST

The basic idea is you get you fill out your sample ballot while seeing how your Facebook friends have voted in various races. This isn't a tough call on some items, like the Congressional race, where most people know they'll come down. But the Supreme Court race, the Constitutional Convention, and CI-105 are all areas where some folks should be persuaded. I've also seen the votes cast so far spark a lively conversation over the outfitting initiative.

Check it out.

Dennison's top ten legislative races...the first five...

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:18:36 AM MST

House District 8 (central Kalispell): An open Democratic seat, this district always features a razor-close race, and this year has the added element of a third-party candidate. Bill Jones, a dentist and former Republican state legislator seen as a moderate, is running as an Independent, along with Democrat Bryan Schutt, a local architect, and Republican Steve Lavin, a Montana Highway Patrol officer.

LiTW has already spilled ink on this race. Schutt's our man. Donate. Volunteer. Contact.

HD20 (south Great Falls): Another open Democratic seat in a district that usually has close races. Republican Steve Fitzpatrick, an attorney, is squaring off against Democrat Donna Zook, an advocate for the mentally ill.

Again, another race mentioned here on LiTW. Donna Zook is our candidate, an early and steadfast opponent to the Highwood coal-fired plant.

Her Republican opponent, Steve Fitzpatrick, an attorney highly regarded by Gregg Smith at ECW, has wildly outraised Zook, cashing in on a whopping $25,965, according to the Great Falls Tribune, an obscene amount for a House race. What gives? Sadly he lacks a website, so we can't really check him out, but we can get a glimmer of an idea from the GFT profile of the HD20 race. In the questionnaire, this is how Fitzpatrick defines how he's different from Zook: "We need to bring new ideas and a new perspective to the Legislature. We can't continue to promote the same policies that have resulted in enormous debt and the highest level of joblessness since the Great Depression."

(A) The Montana state budget is not running a debt. (B) The policies that have led to high joblessness are free market policies: the deregulation of the financial industry. Are you telling me you're a progressive reformer, Fitzpatrick? I don't think so. What you have here is GOP electioneering bullsh*t, which challenges Gregg's characterization of the man as "honest."

Contact Zook, or donate.

HD36 (northeastern Montana corner): Rep. Julie French, D-Scobey, who knocked off a Republican incumbent four years ago in this rural district, now faces her own stiff challenge from Republican Austin Knudsen, a Culbertson attorney who grew up on a local farm and ranch.

This is what I wrote about French and HD36 before: "Scobey resident Julie French is our only incumbent in the battleground House races. Elected to the House first in 2006, she became the Democratic Majority whip in only her second term in office. She sits on the Human Services and Rules committees, and was vice chair of the Agriculture committee. In 2008, she was the primary sponsor of several bills, including an attempt to revise Montana's medical marijuana laws, which was killed by gross partisanship. Her opponent, Austin Knudsen, is a lawyer and big-business Republican running against health care reform."

Donate. Contact.

HD78 (East Helena): Two relatively well-known candidates are squaring off for this open seat, which Democrats have been winning by close margins in recent years. Democrat Joe Cohenour, a Highway Patrol trooper, is trying to succeed his wife, Jill, who can't run because of term limits. Republican Steve Gibson, a longtime administrator at the state Department of Corrections, lost a 2008 bid for the seat.

The Helena IR ran a good, in-depth profile of this race. Both candidates are well qualified for the seat, and Gibson's years of experience of public service tell me he recognizes the value of good government, and won't be voting to eliminate the HHS budget. Cohenour served on the Helena school board and supported the district's health and sex ed curriculum, and he's the pro-choice candidate in this race.

Really what it comes down to is if Gibson's really the moderate he paints himself to be. Can he resist the crushing pressure of the Republican caucus and vote against the interests of what has been a very radical bloc the last two sessions? Based on the experience of past Republican moderates - I'm guessing not. Cohenour, on the other hand, has a ringing endorsement from Montana Conservation Voters.  Admittedly he wasn't my first choice, but if we want to avoid letting the inmates run the asylum, he's your man. Donate. Contact.

Senate District 17 (Havre and portions of Hill, Blaine counties): House Speaker Bob Bergren, D-Havre, is trying to move up to the Senate by winning this open seat held by an outgoing Democrat. He faces a stiff challenge from Republican Rowlie Hutton, a well-known minister at a Christian Church in Havre.

This is what Yellowstone Kelly wrote about this race: "For the D's to have any shot at controlling the Senate, Bergren, the outgoing Speaker of the House of Representatives, must hold this seat. Hutton is the pastor of one of those large Sunday warehouse churches. If Bergren commits himself to the task at hand, this seat should stay blue. Advantage at outset:Slightly Bergren."

Bob Bergren is our man here. There's not much out there on Rowlie Hutton, but what there is hints that this guy is going to be a pretty fierce social conservative. Take this GFT profile of SD17. This is what Hutton has to say (amidst egregious use of scare quotes) on the back end of the report: "The role of government is to help people lead quiet and tranquil lives. Voters want someone who is not part of the back-slapping culture, but will instead fight for the people rather than governing against them. I believe in the sanctity of life and limited government. The recent controversy in Helena surrounding the forced sex education curriculum is a good example of government out of touch with the people. This is not the first time this issue has reared its ugly head. A proposal was made in the last two sessions to make this a statewide effort. I would oppose this - my opponent voted for it."

The Helena sex ed and health curriculum was done legally, in the open, and with the input of the community; it is not an "example of government out of touch with the people," it's government representing the interest of the community. H*ll, anti-health-curriculum crusader Kristi Allen-Gailushas dropped her lawsuit against the program because she received no support from the community. Oh, and the legislature has no power over the curricula decided on by local school boards. In short, this is pure, unmitigated lying bullsh*t intended only to rile the base.

Donate to or contact Bob Bergren for volunteer work.

I'll get to the second half of Dennison's article later...

Citizens United Comes to Montana

by: Matt Singer

Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 19:33:05 PM MST

The Citizens United case is a remarkable example of the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court deciding law rather than settling a case. The independent expenditure in question in Citizens United was mostly financed by individuals (as I understand it, corporate financing would round to 0% of the budget pretty clearly) and didn't even actually specifically advocate against Hillary Clinton's election.

Additionally, Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority that the government's anti-corruption interest did not hold sway.

Let's compare that to the facts on the ground in Montana where three plaintiffs appear. The first two are interesting examples:

• Montana Shooting Sports Association. I've been under the impression that MSSA is an individual membership organization, so I don't even think the ban on corporate spending would apply to them..
• A local small business in Bozeman. This is a corporation that exists basically for liability purposes. The owner argued simply that he wanted to be able to use his business as a disclaimer in ads instead of his own name because he thought it would carry more weight. I'm not sure that creates a legal right to incorporate and use a random name for political argument whenever one chooses, but whatever.

That's their explicit strategy. As Debra Bonogofsky, a Republican who was targeted by WTP in a legislative primary in June, highlighted, the Montana state investigator looking into Western Tradition Partnership found that they have been soliciting funds from "officers of several foreign corporations." Toward what end? Their own words can speak for themselves:

"Our success won't depend on which party is in power," the presentation [WTP] said. "Politicians get the message loud and clear when their colleagues get beaten in the ballot box."

Fortunately, the Montana Supreme Court has a chance to revisit this decision if Steve Bullock chooses to take this fight upstairs.

Good News for Protecting and Recovering Bull Trout and their Habitat

by: Matthew Koehler

Wed Oct 13, 2010 at 09:27:09 AM MST

According to the AP:

The final rule issued by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service represented a major expansion of the streams, lakes and reservoirs protected as critical habitat for the fish, primarily on federal lands in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Nevada, and a reversal of Bush administration policy on endangered species.

The new ruling protects 19,000 miles of streams, which is five times more than the 2005 rule, and 490,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs, which is more than three times greater than previously ordered. But the 754 miles of marine shoreline in Washington state was a reduction to make room for U.S. Navy testing grounds.

Faced with a lawsuit, Fish and Wildlife agreed last year to revise the 2005 critical habitat designation after an inspector general's report found it was among dozens of decisions improperly interfered with by former deputy assistant secretary of Interior Julie MacDonald, who resigned in 2007.

Montanans, and others, who value native fish and their habitat should celebrate this important critical habitat designation for bull trout. Much of the credit goes to two Montana-based organizations: Friends of the Wild Swan (sorry, no website) and Alliance for the Wild Rockies.  A chronology of the issue from 1985 to 2009 is available here.

You can bet the lobbyists and political supporters of the timber, mining and grazing industry will blast this designation of critical habitat for the threatened bull trout. After all, now logging, mining, grazing and oil and gas development projects on public lands will now have to more fully take bull trout, their habitat and their recovery, into account.

In the coming days and weeks, it will also certainly be interesting to see if Montana Trout Unlimited, the National Wildlife Federation and the Montana Wilderness Association support and celebrate the Obama Administration/USFWS's new bull trout critical habitat designations...or if these "Tester bill collaborators" will stand with their new friends in the timber industry in opposition to these new rules. Stay tuned....