In the Crosshairs

As the economy changes our ideas of the 'haves' and 'have nots,' many issues will come under scrutiny. One that caught my eye were hunting licenses in Montana. In most states there is a fee disparity for licenses. For instance, when I fish in Idaho, I pay more for a license than a resident. The flip is true, an Idaho fly fisherman pays more for a Washington license than I do. Same thing has been true for hunting licenses.

However, in Montana, which restricts the numbers of hunting licenses, there are a number of hunting licenses reserved for nonresidents that are sold through guides and outfitters. These guides and outfitters frequently take their clients to private access areas to hunt, for instance large tracts of ranch land the guide leases from a rancher.

Hunters in Montana are fed up with this system, believing the rich out of state hunters get a better deal. On the ballot this fall will be an initiative to eliminate this system and increase the out of state license fees, much like what is done in many Western states. Of course, if this idea passes, the guides and outfitters claim they will be severely hurt. Private land owners who lease out their land (think Ted Turner) may not respond by allowing unaccompanied hunters onto their lands. Their sense is that hunters usually behave quite badly (think piles of beer cans left near a smoldering fire). It's a class war if there ever was one.

More interesting, however, I think is the backlash between the perceived economic disparity. In other words, part of this initiative is based on anger that "rich, out of state" hunters get better and different opportunities for natural resources. And as our economy continues to create a larger divide between the rich and everyone else, I suspect in many other areas we will begin to see these kinds of backlashes.

It's Not Nice to Tinker With Nature

This week, several states are in the process of tinkering with nature.  Well, of course, governments, heck we humans, are always tinkering with nature.  But at least two actions seem classic examples of not really thinking too much.

First, the State of Idaho, where elk hunting seems to be considered The Primary Right of Man, will ask the federal government permission to kill at least 80% of the wolves in the Lolo National Forest area.  Apparently this kill is estimated to be about 100 wolves.  Why?  Because big game hunters and guides believe that wolf predation is causing declines in elk herds.  

Second, the States of Oregon and Washington are about to kill Sea lions in the Columbia River who are believed to be the sole reason for declines in salmon spawning up the river.  Salmon, of course, are not only a trophy fishery, but also harvested commercially and by several Native American tribes along the Columbia River pursuant to their treaty rights.  

And we all know the outcomes of these wildlife management schemes.  Sooner or later the elk herds in the Lolo National Forest will destroy the vegetation because other than hunters, there are no other predators, and once the Sea lions are gone, the wildlife biologists will have to find another animal to blame for salmon declines because, God Forbid, we can't engage in discussions about the complex and complicated reasons for salmon declines which might require a whole set of politically delicate decisions about dams, agriculture, real estate development, off shore international fishing, Native treaty rights, sports fishing....

It appears the Sea lions will begin to be trapped very soon.  The wolf issue will require decisions from federal fish and wildlife administrators.  My guess is the feds will not allow the culling of the wolves.  

But it will be interesting in a year or two to see what we can blame next after we have tried to tinker with nature.