What did you think was going to happen? Every republican within our government was screaming this sort of thing was going to happen when the Affordable Healthcare Act went into effect. More jobs are going to be lost as this monster starts its run up.
Where are all the supporters of the Affordable Healthcare Act who used to call Republicans stupid and make all those comments about how they were devils and trying to keep healthcare away from the people? Where are you now?
Where have you been when all those families healthcare insurance have went up?
I hope all Montanans realize this is the gift the Democrats have given you. This is their big plan and all Democrats own this mess and the damage it’s done and going to do. I hope the pain that these hospital workers are feeling hit all of you in the brain box during the elections.
750 ml is perfect for sharing!
Thanks for the heads up. We've added Conservation Media to the two courtesy photo credits.
The stories of fiction events. Alien invasion.Area51 Under Ground Hwy Reptilians Short Grays Hollow Earth Apollo 18 17 an more. I am testing this blog to see my new following.
The Sage Grouse Initiative appreciates the efforts of Jimmy Tobias to get this story right--traveling all the way out to see the Lehfeldts firsthand putting SGI practices on their land, following sage grouse, interviewing Dr Dave Naugle of UM, and giving this important story its due. Our SGI photo library offers great photos for newspapers to use, but we do request that photo credits are applied. We appreciate the photography and videos of Conservation Media tremendously and hope that the Independent will run a small photo of the cover in next issue and direct people to Conservation Media's website, and on the Online version make the correction immediately---www.conservationmedia.com. Jeremy Roberts is the photographer and owner of Conservation Media. Please check out his wonderful videos on our website too: www.sagegrouseinitiative.com
well put Bert Gill. Last time I checked the hunting regs, any gun having more than five rounds was illegal for big game hunting. so no ar-15 or ak-47 with thirty round magazines allowed. similar to pump or autoloading shotguns can only hold three shells for waterfowl.
Wow, gotta love downtown. Maybe if those dolt's weren't so worried about signage, transients, and drunk Indians they could find the time to help another business out.
Sad day for that sorry neck of the woods.
Well we'll just have to make that 3,000 people who voted him out come the next go-round.
cushy jobs? missoula? BAhahahaha
Just saw that lol
Ya right, we need more "kids" hunting….read this:
He would have been much better off saying Billings.... Or pretty much any city in the South... Missoula is a blue dot in a red State, and he unfortunately threw a bad dart. Oh well... At least he knows.... Now...
Amazing photography in that article! I would love to know who took those photos!
Please credit the photographer whose photo adorns your cover, and whose other photos are in your piece. The NRCS library requests that you credit the photographer, which is Conservation Media, yet you did not.
I dont get the low blows on the NRA or the nonhunting gun owners. The NRA is the reason you get to hunt unfettered in the first place. Second, in 1970 a 10% tax was put upon all handguns with the money to be used for the Hunters Safety programs. So the people with the "big guns" are helping fund your recreation.
In the interest of full disclosure, I haven't read the article yet, but I think the subtitle, "Farmers, ranchers, energy corporations, environmentalists and more are trying to save the greater sage grouse" may be misleading.
I've followed this issue quite closely for several years, and I know that the states and the extractive industries are less interested in SAVING AND PROTECTING the sage grouse than in simply PREVENTING ITS BEING LISTED as a Threatened or Endangered species under the ESA. Therefore, we can be assured that whatever protection the bird eventually receives will be minimal and barely adequate, at best.
The article quotes the decline of sagehens because of energy development and West Nile virus and yet the population declines in other areas without energy development and West Nile virus, I had a researcher recover a collared bird on my property in the middle of August, bird had been dead more than a week and little more than a collar and feathers and yet the report came back, death by West Nile, I saw 4 mosquitoes that year.
Bundy rules! Be there tonight, Missoula!
Another invite-only “collaborative” leads to unprofessional Forest Service conduct
Yet another invite-only, exclusive “collaboration” involving public U.S. Forest Service land management has sprung up in Montana. This time the collaborative group is called the Whitefish Range Partnership (WRP), and they are focused on roughly 350,000 acres of the Flathead National Forest’s portion of the Whitefish Range above the cities of Columbia Falls and Whitefish.
As you will see below, the leaders of the Whitefish Range Partnership completely admit that they made a conscious decision to exclude certain members of the public. Notably, the WRP admits to purposely excluding any conservation organization that had worked within the established public participation processes outlined within the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in order to comment, appeal and, if necessary, file a lawsuit against a timber sale on the Flathead National Forest. It also appears that the WRP purposely excluded some of the “multiple-use” folks. Also of note is the fact that Flathead National Forest officials were invited to attend all the meetings of the WRP in an advisory capacity.
The WRP leaders conducted a media blitz last week, announcing an agreed upon deal that, among other things:
• Increases the “Suitable Timber Base” by 45% in order to supposedly achieve “commercial certainty for the timber industry” (in an era where lumber consumption and home construction are down more than 50% and not expected to rebound anytime soon).
• Decreases recommendations for areas protected as Wilderness.
• Increases motorcycle recreation in the southeast portion of the Whitefish Range.
• Provides a large increase in recreation opportunities for snowmobilers.
Q: Has there even been a public lands “collaborative” group that didn’t decide to increase logging, decrease Wilderness and increase motorized recreation?
RE: Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act
Below are some concerns regarding Senator Baucus' Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act. Supporters of the bill aren't being totally honest or up-front with the public about what the actual bill language would mean for the Rocky Mountain Front.
Here are some facts and specifics based on the actual bill language:
• The 67, 000 acres of Wilderness designations along the Rocky Mountain Front proposed by Senator Baucus is a paltry sum, given the world-class, and largely unprotected wildlands and wildlife habitat, currently found along the Rocky Mountain Front. Even the Forest Service has recommended more Wilderness protections in their forest plans for the area than what Senator Baucus is proposing. Unfortunately, a few years ago supporters of Baucus’ bill dropped almost 30,000 acres of proposed Wilderness from this bill at the request of snowmobilers and those who oppose Wilderness. I strongly urge Senator Baucus to include Wilderness protections for all the inventoried roadless wildlands along the Rocky Mountain Front.
• The Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act PRESERVES EXISTING motorized recreation, private grazing and logging on 208,160 acres of federal public land along the RMF. Sure, supporters of the bill have re-named this 208,160 acre area where motors, grazing and logging will continue as a nice sounding “Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Management Area.” However, a serious question that should be posed to Senator Baucus is: How does preserving existing motorized use, private grazing and logging on 208,160 acres along the Rocky Mountain Front actually result in protecting the area or eliminating the threats posed by motorized use, grazing and logging in these areas?
• Re: Grazing – This bill mandates and LOCKS-IN public lands grazing by private ranchers across the Front by stating that “The secretary SHALL permit grazing” where it currently exists. Under existing law, grazing may be allowed to continue, but it is not mandated that it must be allowed to continue. The current language of the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act ties the hands of the Forest Service and it is worse than a bail-out, as it MANDATES the federal government to keep a private, commercial enterprise operating on public land, regardless of the ecological consequences, both now and into perpetuity. This public lands grazing mandate MUST be removed from the RMFHA.
• The bill language for maintaining existing facilities for livestock grazing is more liberal than previous Wilderness bills. The language incorporating State or local agencies for controlling fire, insects and disease promotes the trend toward devolution of federal public lands and is objectionable on that basis. This language should be removed from the RMFHA.
• Much of the noxious weed stuff in the bill is all about taxpayer funding for dropping tons of poisons on the ground while also MANDATING that all existing livestock grazing continue forever. If this were an effective strategy there wouldn’t be weeds in Montana. Given the complexities and unknowns of controlling weeds, especially with a rapidly changing climate and an escalating number of encroaching weed species, the called-for management strategy needs to focus on an assessment of existing weed infestations, the causes, potential controls, costs, likelihood of success, and clearly stated, measurable objectives to determine whether the controls are effective, and what will be done if they aren’t or if the funding doesn’t come through. At a minimum, this section of the bill should call for the plan to be written by an independent team of scientists.
Many of these substantive concerns regarding the actual language and specifics of the Rocky Mountain Heritage Act have been expressed by a number of organizations and many experienced, dedicated wilderness and forest activists. Many Montana wilderness supporters remain disappointed that the Act would only designate a small fraction of Wilderness-deserving lands on the Rocky Mountain Front as Wilderness, while leaving too much of the Front open to logging, grazing, motorized recreation and other forms of development.
We’ve tried to get the Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front to listen to our concerns, make adjustments to the bill and add more protections to the unparalleled wildlife habitat and wildlands on the Rocky Mountain Front, but, unfortunately, they seem more concerned with politics and appeasing the opinions of the anti-wilderness crowd.
I would encourage those who value the Rocky Mountain Front for it's wildness and wildlife habitat, as I do, to read the actual bill. Then contact Senator Baucus and those pushing this bill and ask them to address many of the substantive, specific concerns with the actual language of the bill. Thank you.
Missoula News/Independent Publishing |
Powered by Foundation