Prosperity, access match: Quality of life tied to stream rights
By STEVE WOODRUFF of the Missoulian
You could call it the Trout Triangle.
Take a map of Montana. Draw a line from Flathead to Yellowstone counties. Then pencil a line from Yellowstone County to Ravalli County. Add a third line from Ravalli back to Flathead. The geographic triangle you've just drawn almost perfectly incorporates the most economically prosperous parts of Montana.
Inside the triangle, business is diversifying and booming. Housing prices are high and rising. Wages are increasing. Unemployment is the lowest in history.
It's a different story outside the triangle. Towns are shrinking. Jobs can be scarce. Houses often sell at bargain prices.
The triangle encompasses diverse communities - large cities and rural communities, college towns and cow towns, bastions of liberalism and conservatism, communities at the hub of major highways and small burgs off the beaten track. The triangle takes in large areas of Montana on both sides of the Continental Divide.
One thing all these communities have in common is that they're not far from great trout fishing. That's why I call it the Trout Triangle. I certainly don't think communities within the triangle are prosperous just because of fishing. It has more to do with the fact that you tend to find trout in cold, clear rivers and lakes fed by snowmelt from surrounding mountains, rivers flowing through beautiful places with lots of room to swing your arms - and, yes, to backcast.
These are just the kind of increasingly fashionable places where a lot of us choose to live when we have the choice - not just for the fishing, but for the full array of lifestyle and recreational opportunities we have here. Most of you reading this live in my triangle and know or have spent enough time here to know exactly what I'm talking about.
In practical terms, what's far more important than the mere existence of all those trout and all that scenery is the fact that they're at your disposal. They belong to you. Many of the Montanans I know care as much about this as anything else in the world.
And I think that means trouble for the legislators who last week finished killing a useful stream access bill. Senate Bill 78 aimed to affirm the public's existing right to access streams at bridges, where public rights of way intersect the stream. Legislators supporting the bill stood shoulder-to-shoulder with average Montanans. Those who opposed the bill stood on the side of relatively few wealthy landowners, some of them infrequent visitors to our state, looking for any and all avenues to curtail public access in order to claim Montana's trout streams as their own.
It's not just about stream access. Rather, stream access is a proxy for a broader array of issues that boil down to protection of Montanans' culture and quality of life.
Perennial efforts to limit public access to streams amaze me. It's not as if stream access is an area of unsettled law. A pair of rock-solid Montana Supreme Court decisions issued nearly a quarter-century ago form the modern foundation for stream access rights. Those rights have withstood repeated attacks in past sessions of the Legislature, as well as in the courts. Mountain States Legal Foundation challenged the public's stream access rights in federal court, losing and appealing all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2003, the nation's high court flicked the appeal aside.
But public access rights still gall some landowners. Some come from states where folks don't have the same rights as do Montanans. Some have great wealth and are accustomed to buying what they want. It must be awful to want to buy something that isn't for sale.
While the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 turned back the frontal assault on stream access, the fight continues. Opponents prowl the margins, looking for ambiguity and special circumstances possibly exempt from the law.
In the Bitterroot Valley, for example, a few landowners declared an old river channel called the Mitchell Slough something other than a river and are fighting to keep the public out of it. Elsewhere, especially over in Madison County, a few landowners assert that easements that entitle the public to travel to and across a stream don't entitle the public to step into the stream.
SB78 wouldn't have expanded access rights, but merely clarified them along the lines of a legal opinion issued by the state attorney general. Montanans have the right under the state Constitution to access all waters capable of providing recreational opportunity. You're entitled to roam freely within the normal high water marks of streams. You can't trespass to reach the streams, but you can get to them through public access points, public rights of way and across private land where you have permission.
Bridges built on public rights of way are traditional and perfectly legal access points. Where streams flow through large blocks of private land closed to the public, bridges can be the only real access point.
Bridges also happen to be handy places to fasten a fence to keep the cows in. Many landowners traditionally have done so, even though the fence actually crosses a piece of public right of way and anchors to a public structure. There's no harm in doing it. The only harm is if the landowner attempts to use the fence to do what he isn't entitled to do - preclude the public from using their right of way to reach the stream.
It's unconstitutional for the government to just take somebody's property. So, every right of way for every road and bridge in Montana has been bought and paid for using tax dollars or other valuable consideration provided by the public. Landowners couldn't reach or leave their own property without using easements across land owned by other people and the public. We all honor their rights, and it's not too much to insist they honor our right to use the easements we've acquired to reach our property - streams included.
This issue won't die with the legislation. It'll be back in the form of lawsuits and more legislation - or an initiative, if that's what it takes.
It's not just about bridges and rights of way. It's certainly not just about fishing. It's about the kind of opportunity that attracts and holds so many Montanans - not to mention the millions of visitors who contribute so much to our economy. It's about “eating the scenery,” the “second paycheck” that makes profits and wages available elsewhere seem less appealing. It's about the joy and benefits of living in Montana being available to everyone, not a privileged few. It's about egalitarianism trumping elitism. It's about a whole way of life in Montana that few of us are eager to surrender.
It may not be all that easy for outsiders or some newcomers to understand what it's all about. It's something that eludes the national conservation organization Trout Unlimited. Seduced by the prospect of substantial donations from wealthy landowners who consider the public uninvited guests on “their” streams in the West, Trout Unlimited recently signaled plans to muzzle itself in future stream access disputes. A torrent of protest from its rank-and-file members throughout the West prompted the organization to reconsider its position.
Trout Unlimited has tried to differentiate trout conservation from trout fishing, but, of course, they're inseparable. Trout thrive in the West in no small measure because anglers value them and have protected or restored their habitat. Not every Westerner fishes, but an awful lot do. Support of anglers is not the same, but is very similar to public support in general. There's no keeping the public support if you're indifferent or opposed to the public's rights. Public support for conservation, environmental protection, sound economic policies, enlightened tax policies and everything else that makes Montana desirable and increasingly prosperous connects directly to the public's right to share in Montana's bounty.
Right now, stream access is a political freshet swirling through the Trout Triangle. But a well-kept secret bound to get out eventually is that you can find great quality of life, recreation and other opportunities elsewhere in Montana - far beyond trout streams. As more of Montana gets rediscovered, the triangle's going to grow and change shape. I'm optimistic, for example, about communities along the Hi-Line and in eastern Montana. I think many of them have brighter futures ahead of them. If so, those futures almost certainly will have rivers running through them - and the freedom for people to wade in if they'd like.
Stream access would be worth honoring and defending if it were just about fishing. But it's much more than that. Montana's public right of stream access is something many other states don't have, even elsewhere in the West. Its benefits include broad public support for all the things that make access to our rivers desirable in the first place. It's among the reasons people dream about living here - and why some of the kids who left will one day return.
Spend much time in Montana's Trout Triangle, and you see that quality of life is the key to our region's new prosperity. Greater prosperity comes when more people have access to a good quality of life - not when access to the good life is limited to people who already have all the prosperity they'll ever need.
Steve Woodruff is opinion page editor of the Missoulian.
PLEASE NOTE!!!
The following letter was sent to the Senate and House leadership, and to the chairs of the Senate and House environment and natural resources committees; respectively, Senator Lawrence J. Pogemiller, Representative Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Senator Satveer S. Chaudhary, and Representative Kent Eken.Legislative staff informed MACP that the letter was widely distributed, and was viewed favorably.The legislation has been passed and signed into law.
Letter to Legislators on Wild Rice Management
Re:Senate File 2103 and House File 1663 (Relating to regulating genetically engineered wild rice); and HF 1662 and SF 1652 (Relating to preparation of a wild rice management plan.) We urge passage of these bills and retention of their key provisions.At its annual meeting of March 9, 2007, the Minnesota Association of Conservation Professionals unanimously passed a resolution supporting passage, and authorized me to send this letter expressing its wishes. Key provisions include: notice of any proposed release of genetically engineered wild rice in the United States and preparation of an environmental impact statement prior to any release in Minnesota; and preparation of a wild rice management plan inclusive of involvement by all the stakeholders with interests in this important issue, including appropriate funding. Minnesota is in a unique position with respect to this singularly important plant.It provides important habitat for waterfowl, it is grown commercially, and it’s cultural, religious, and economic significance to Native Americans is extremely high.Any proposal to modify its genes by the genetic engineering techniques now available must receive thorough and thoughtful examination, especially any contemplated open-air growing of such modified plants.Part of Minnesota’s identity is tied to this plant.It is also important that we fully understand the stressors affecting wild rice from landscape and water quality changes, loss of shallow lakes and shallow parts of lakes, and the potential changes caused by global warming that might affect wild rice distribution. This letter focuses on two criticisms likely to be raised by opponents of the first two bills listed, and provides a few comments on current controversies concerning Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO.) These criticisms are, first, that additional regulation of any GMO sends the wrong message to biotechnology industries and researchers; and the second that it interferes with freedom of inquiry. Both of these criticisms are generalizations that don’t stand up to the specific case of Wild Rice. In fact, there already is well-deserved and substantial regulation of GMO, and scientists themselves have conceded that Freedom of Inquiry is and should be limited for certain GMO endeavors. Thus, considering the “big picture” of these criticisms, both have already been settled in favor of passage of these bills.Regulation and limits on research have already been established as guiding principles.The only remaining questions are how to apply these principles to unique situations, such as to a species of unusual uniqueness, as is Wild Rice. Further points against these criticisms are as follows: 1.Regulation of GMO releases, including those done by researchers at universities, already occurs.Calls for study and controls on types of genetic engineering arose from the very beginning of discovery of the recombinant DNA methods (as they were called then.)For example, top scientists in this field attending the Gordon Research Conference in 1973 warned of the dangers, and called for creation of a National Academy of Science Committee to study it.This was done, and in 1974 a prominent group of molecular geneticists called for a research moratorium until research protocols were established. This call made the international news. This led to the famous Asilomar conference in 1975, with a first attempt at guidelines for research, much controversy, and formal National Institutes of Health voluntary research guidelines in 1976.These guidelines restricted research because some lines of research were considered to be inherently dangerous.Eventually, Congress passed laws regulating the release of genetically modified organisms. (GMO). Since then also, it has been thoroughly recognized that all sorts of economic and social issues are also part of the concept of why controls are needed, accepted. and managed. In other words, it has been conclusively determined that certain kinds of gene manipulation are not done, and certain other kinds done only after thorough review or under constraints, because it is not in the broad public interest to do otherwise.It is also true that no one is saying that the biotechnology industry is economically unhealthy because of this; in fact it has flourished under this regime. 2.The debate about Freedom of Inquiry arose from the very beginning, simultaneously with questions about possible dangers.A contentious and famous debate about this topic occurred at the Asilomar conference. Many scientists weighed in then, and in the years after, but the bottom line is that presently it is entirely accepted that scientists restrict their genetic engineering research, and do not follow certain lines of inquiry. In other words, it has been conclusively determined that freedom of inquiry using recombinant DNA techniques has boundaries because it is in the public interest to have such boundaries.And, further, one would be hard pressed to find scientists who are objecting to these boundaries.Adding additional studies and constraints on freedom of inquiry for one species prior to research fully fits the principles that have been established. 3.There have been recent disturbing events regarding accidental releases of GMO plants that are causing very large economic damage to the parties responsible for the release.There have been several recent court decisions concluding error in reviews by the US Department of Agriculture of proposed releases of GMO organisms.Events include the dispersal in Oregon of Roundup-resistant bent grass genes and cross pollination with wild relatives miles away.(Bentgrass is a turf grass.)In addition, the southern US white rice crop has recently been contaminated with GMO white rice, with the cross pollination suspected to have occurred from a university research facility.Huge economic losses are the result.These events are raising concerns that existing controls on GMO releases are inadequate. Conclusions There is already regulation of GMO organisms, and there is already restraint of certain lines of freedom of inquiry regarding GMO organisms. Further, there is no inherent reason to say that all species should be treated the same when applying these new genetic manipulation techniques.In fact, it is the height of wisdom to discriminate among species because some are clearly more significant than others with respect to human values, and others have a genetic makeup indicating a high degree of caution and study is needed.Wild Rice is an example. It is eminently reasonable to have a societal debate about whether these techniques should be entirely prohibited for use on this species, given these values.SF 2103 and HF 1663are actually mild proposals, in that they merely ask for notice, and preparation of a detailed study.Careful study in a public forum that allows full disclosure shows wisdom rather than sending the wrong message to biotechnology industries.Can the application of wisdom ever be a wrong message? We urge passage of these bills.I understand there is a wide variety of stakeholders (Representatives and Senators) who might have an interest in this bill; making it difficult for us to know distribution.If you could be so kind as to have your staff distribute it to interested parties, we would appreciate it.Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Paul Stolen, President 37603 370th Avenue SE Fosston, MN 56542 218-435-1138
C:Senator Rod Skoe
Representative Frank Moe
Representative Phyllis Kahn
Commissioner Mark Holsten
Governor Tim Pawlenty
September 12, 2006
Commissioner Gene Merriam
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota
Dear Commissioner Merriam:
I am writing on behalf of the members of the Minnesota Fish and Wildlife Employees Association to continue our dialogue on off-highway vehicles (OHV) issues. We see improvements regarding these issues and but also continuing serious problems. We are writing this letter both as follow-up from previous discussions with you, and in preparation for the Legislative session that begins in January.
I sincerely thank you for attending our Annual Meeting in 2005 and especially for meeting in Brainerd in 2005 with several wildlife managers to discuss internal handling of OHV trail issues. The participants were pleased with the meetings and with your thoughtful questions and responses.
The management of recreational OHV use, especially on Minnesota’s public conservation lands and right-of-ways, remains a high priority issue for our organization. I have talked to a number of people since these meetings to obtain their opinions about OHV trail issues in Minnesota. The feelings are that the significant internal problems discussed at the 2005 Minnesota Fish and Wildlife Employees Association and the Brainerd managers meetings have been reduced. Thank you for your continuing efforts to resolve the problems and for the improved management of these issues. Nevertheless, we believe there are still major problems with management of recreational OHV use on the Minnesota landscape. It is imperative the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) fully engages with the current problems that beset OHV issues in Minnesota.
We feel we can speak with some authority on the topic of OHVs and their effects on public lands and right-of-ways and fisheries and wildlife resources. Our members and other current and retired employees from Fisheries and Wildlife and Ecological Services live and work in many communities statewide. They have professional and personal relationships with individuals in other states where there are also recreational OHV conflicts with conservation objectives.
Collectively, we have broad experience with Minnesota’s and other states’ natural resources, and the impacts to them. Finally, since we have roots in so many communities, we have a good idea what all the public is thinking and saying about these topics.
We believe the DNR is best suited for identifying problems, solutions, and for speaking frankly to the public and Legislature. Thorough research and communication will re-establish the credibility of the Department as stewards of our fish and wildlife resources and ecosystems.
We fully understand that the DNR operates under legislative direction concerning establishing OHV trails in Minnesota state forests, wildlife management areas (WMAs) and establishing grant-in-aid (GIA) trails. However, there are many discretionary choices to be made within this framework. We have identified four major problem areas concerning OHV management in Minnesota.
Current Minnesota statutes regarding OHV policies are not protecting Minnesota natural resources. We are especially concerned that Minnesota places few limits on use in the northern part of the state with respect to all-terrain vehicle operation in state forests as well as the extensive operations within road rights-of-way. The related matter of attempts in some of the northern counties to convert drainage ditch grades in currently high value wildlife habitat areas (and even WMAs) into public roads and OHV routes without adequate review of impacts is also a serious concern. The silence of the Department regarding the serious problems, true costs, and difficulty of managing OHV recreation makes it difficult for the public to understand the problems, make informed decisions and insist that the Legislature change the statutes.
The "Managed" category for OHV travel in State Forests, i.e., OHV travel anywhere on existing trails unless they are posted closed, is difficult and costly to manage, and largely unenforceable. Exemptions for hunting and trapping are problematic and may lead to trail proliferation.
The Department of Natural Resources has not adequately explored the environmental impacts of OHVs. Consequently, although there has been significant progress, there is still not adequate consensus within the DNR about adverse environmental impacts.
We are concerned the Department is not doing enough communicating internally or with the general public about what is already known about the environmental impacts of OHVs and about what use rates and maintenance needs are ahead after trails are mapped and advertised nationally. We wish to have greater public leadership from the Department in describing these impacts to the public.
The OHV issue was discussed again at the 2006 annual meeting of our Association in February. We discussed how to communicate better with the public and with DNR staff about the seriousness of the environmental impacts of OHVs, and passed a resolution on these topics. It is enclosed as Attachment 1.
We believe there is opportunity for the Department to make great progress within the existing legislation. We have a number of specific suggestions that address problems and the items contained in our 2006 resolution. We believe our suggestions will help reduce the contentiousness over motorized recreation in Minnesota by, as you aptly mentioned during the 2005 Annual Meeting, improving the DNR’s ability to obtain "the consent of the governed." They will help reduce impacts of OHVs while still carrying out Legislative policy.
You will note there are several references in these recommendations to preparing information and reports. These will be public information, and this is a deliberate recommendation from us. The OHV challenge to the maintenance and protection of natural resources is one of the most important issues to come along in a number of years in Minnesota. It is our opinion that those who pay our salaries deserve to hear from the resource professionals on this major natural resource management issue. The Minnesota Fish and Wildlife Employees Association recommends DNR implement the following actions.
Prepare a report to the Legislature that objectively analyzes the difficulties of managing the responsibilities given to the DNR in the existing legislation, referencing the other responsibilities in the DNR to protect natural resources, manage state lands, and coordinating with adjacent land managers (such as private, county, and federal lands). If the authority or funds for such a report is not currently found in the DNR, a request should be made to the Legislature for such authority and such funds for the 2007 session.
Avoid the use of the "managed" classification for OHV use in state forests until evidence is gathered that this can be accomplished efficiently and without continued damage, deterioration or proliferation of trails. The "Managed" classification for state forests places resource managers in a position of being reactive and negative in efforts to preserve resource values associated with non-motorized areas. This classification can result in extensive habitat damage through trail misuse (closed signs are readily removed), proliferation through exemptions, erosion, invasion of exotic species, and fragmentation of remaining blocks of undisturbed habitats. It is difficult to stay ahead of problems and effectively protect sensitive areas if ridership reaches critical levels. We believe the "Limited" classification—OHV travel on posted trails—fully meets OHV recreational needs, allows managers to be proactive in protecting other resource values and affirmative in providing recreational riding opportunities. The "Limited" classification is substantially more manageable and enforceable.
Prepare an interim review of the impacts of OHVs on fish and wildlife resources, ecosystems and habitats. The report should be suitable for public use and based on a literature review of up-to-date information. Those drafting the report should have an educational background in ecology, fisheries, or wildlife. After a report is prepared, it should be introduced to the public via public informational sessions in areas where OHV proposals have been common and specifically for OHV proposals for WMAs and other ecologically sensitive lands. Public comments should be solicited, and suggestions from the public on additional analysis should be welcomed. Data needs and other topics should be identified to be addressed a long-term study. The internal review necessary for the preparation of such a report will help in the continued effort to develop the needed internal consensus regarding impacts of OHVs.
Review impacts of establishing township roads on ditch spoil banks in sensitive riparian habitats on public conservation lands. We note that Minnesota Environmental Quality Board rules require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for creation of a new road over a mile in length. Resolution of this issue on state WMAs and state forests should be accomplished carefully and publicly on a factual basis of proof that actual roads exist and that they are suitable for long term use as public roadways for motorized vehicles. Due regard must be given for other state laws and policies, and policies in other parts of the state, lest precedents be set that allows creation of essentially new roads through important habitats without adequate review or mitigation.
Provide projected traffic levels and anticipated additional trail requests for each trail/system proposal, whether they are GIA trails or trails on public lands. This is needed in order to adequately design trails to withstand projected traffic levels, provide for maintenance, and to determine levels of disturbance and impacts to wildlife species and habitats. The DNR did a study of OHV trail demands several years ago, and there are existing trails in other locations in the US and Canada where data on forecasted traffic levels can be obtained. This information is essential to determine potential impacts and is crucial information for resource managers and other landowners who must make decisions about permanent GIA trails proposed to cross their lands.
Request additional funds from the Legislature or shift existing funds from the existing OHV budgets to obtain data about: a) environmental impacts of existing uses, including cost of repairing such impacts; b) environmental impacts of trails as they become established (including illegal trails); c) an objective review of enforcement and maintenance needs; and d) an objective review of alternative riding opportunities, for example, should some of the uses currently being born by trails on state forests and other public lands be directed to dedicated scramble areas specifically suited to OHV recreation. This study will be highly significant given the geographic extent of ongoing and expanding damage to Minnesota’s public lands; therefore, it will likely need a Legislative request.
Do the public relations necessary to prepare for turning down some trail proposals based on an inherent conflict with natural resource values. For example, last year we brought to your attention a GIA proposal that coincided with the Red Lake River corridor for over 12 miles. Putting a motorized linear facility on top of an important linear ecological feature and canoe route is an inherent conflict. It should be made clear that there are some GIA proposals that will not be funded by the DNR, and this is a good example.
Increase Conservation Officer presence to insure adequate regulation and enforcement. Furthermore, objective data should be collected on the difficulty of enforcement, whether current enforcement equipment is adequate, and whether current penalties and enforcement techniques are functioning as an adequate deterrent.
Operating OHVs provides great enjoyment for many people, and a large part of this enjoyment comes from the inherent ability of the machines to go where other motorized vehicles cannot go. This use is causing environmental impacts that are difficult to regulate. However, the vast majority of users have no intention to harm the environment, nor are they indifferent to such impacts when they understand them as illustrated by efforts of some ATV clubs to self police and restore damage.
We believe current trends suggest an increasing proportion of trail users will be attracted to trails for strictly trail riding. This is one of the major observations of a large study of recreational impacts in the western United States. This study indicated serious consequences could result when users have little connection to the ecological value of these lands or connection to traditional uses such as hunting, fishing or other dispersed forms of outdoor recreation. The DNR will need different approaches to protecting natural resources if these trends prove accurate.
Please give me a call if you have any questions. The Minnesota Fish and Wildlife Employees Association looks forward to discussing these matters with you in other forums, and thank you in advance for considering our recommendations.
Sincerely,
Jeanine Vorland, President
Attachment
c: Dave Schad, Lee Pfannmuller, Forrest Boe
Attachment 1
A Resolution Regarding the Establishment of Recreational Use Areas for Off-Highway Vehicles
Whereas off-highway vehicles have the ability to traverse terrains previously unavailable for the operation of most vehicles.
Whereas the adverse environmental impacts of motorized vehicles and road and trails used for motorized vehicle traffic are well documented and understood in the ecological scientific community.
Whereas the obvious damage caused by the operation of off-highway vehicles, such as erosion and direct wetland encroachment is generally acknowledged, impacts from off-highway vehicles caused by disturbance, habitat loss, fragmentation of habitats, cumulative and cascading impacts, zones of impact along trails, and seasonal impacts during sensitive times are not broadly understood or recognized by operators of off-highway vehicles and the general public.
Whereas the popular use of off-highway vehicle traffic is causing environmental impacts that are difficult to regulate.
Whereas the Department of Natural Resources is an important and highly regarded source of information about the environment and potential threats to Minnesota’s natural resources.
Whereas the Department of Natural Resources operates under constitutional and legislative direction to conserve fish, wildlife, forest and water resources for present and future generations.
Whereas the Department of Natural Resources operates under legislative direction requiring regulation of the use of off-highway vehicles and requiring establishing off-highway vehicle trails in Minnesota State Forests and establishing Grant-in-Aid trails.
Whereas the Department of Natural Resource has many discretionary choices concerning the establishment of off-highway vehicle use areas and trails as well as the dissemination of information about potential environmental impacts of these decisions.
Whereas a determined effort devoted toward education about potential environmental impacts from off-highway vehicle uses is imperative for resource professionals to make appropriate choices regarding the siting of off-highway vehicle use areas that will provide for an adequate level of resource protection and be endorsed and supported by the general public.
Therefore be it resolved that the Fish and Wildlife Employees Association requests the Department of Natural Resources implement the following strategies to improve internal and external understanding the adverse impacts of off-highway vehicle operation:
Prepare an interim review of the adverse impacts of off-highway vehicles on the environment that is suitable for public use and is based on a literature review of up-to-date information. Those drafting the report should have an educational background in fisheries, wildlife, and ecology.
Include projected traffic levels and anticipated additional trail requests for each trail/system proposal, whether they are Grant-in-Aid trails or trails in state forests.
Request to the Legislature for additional funds to obtain data about environmental impacts of existing uses, monitoring impacts of trails as they become established, a general study of off-highway vehicle impacts, and an objective review of enforcement needs.
Implement public relations strategies necessary to prepare for turning down some trail proposals based on an inherent conflict with natural resource values.
LETTER FROM CONSERVATION GROUPS ON OHV’S
Re: Pressure for Township Roads Through State Wildlife Management Areas
Dear Commissioner Merriam and Messrs. Schad, Carroll, Simon, and Telander:
We have been following an effort to take control away from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) over several routes through the Beaches Lake Wildlife Management Area (WMA). We are aware that Kittson County’s desire is to establish the disputed routes as township roads. We understand the DNR for years has given trucks and ATVs access along some of these routes in this WMA for deer retrieval purposes during deer season, but that due to recent ATV trespass and resource damage off the ditch routes and outside of deer season, wildlife staff in the field want to restrict ATV use in and through the WMA. We are concerned that a change in course by the DNR now, to give the County control over these routes as township roads, will increase ATV trespass in Beaches Lake WMA, encourage more demands in Kittson and other counties, and set a precedent in how DNR responds to demands for motorized access in and through State WMAs.
Generations of hunters and anglers have built and defended Minnesota’s WMA system. WMAs are established for public hunting, and to protect lands and waters which have a high potential for wildlife production. WMAs must be managed consistent with perpetuating and reestablishing quality wildlife habitat for maximum production of a variety of wildlife species. Physical development on WMAs, which includes providing access to the WMA for public hunting, fishing, trapping, and for other compatible outdoor recreational uses, must minimize intrusion on the natural environment.
DNR provides truck access along ditch spoil banks inside the WMA, and DNR is obligated to manage that access to minimize intrusion on the natural environment. DNR’s aim is to allow trucks and exclude ATVs, because ATV trespass, cross-country travel, and wetland damage have been occurring. These activities are inconsistent with WMA management of habitat for the maximum production of a variety of wildlife species. The County’s stated intention – to establish the disputed routes as township roads, take control of these routes inside the WMA out of the DNR’s hands, and allow all motorized traffic through the WMA – is not compatible with the purpose of the WMA because it will lead to increased ATV traffic, increased opportunities for ATV trespass and resource damage.
We oppose turning what are DNR-administered and managed routes in a State WMA into township roads, either by agreeing that they are township roads or by inviting the county to request easements for a new township road, without a clear showing of sufficient evidence to support the County’s contention that the disputed routes are in fact township roads. DNR should not divest itself of authority to make motorized traffic management decisions necessary to protect habitat and natural resources on the WMA. We ask that you not give up management authority on routes where they pass through the WMA, unless you receive firm and specific documentation for each contested route that it is a township road rather than a DNR-administered drainage ditch spoil bank. We also ask that you make no decision leading to the establishment of township roads or County authority over disputed routes, without first discussing the matter with the community of Minnesota hunters and anglers who have fought to create and protect our WMAs.
Sincerely yours,
Lance Ness, President
for Fish & Wildlife Legislative Alliance
Chairman, WMA Acquisition Committee
Gordie Meyer, President
for Minnesota Conservation Federation
Tom Glines, Senior Regional Director
for National Wild Turkey Federation
Kevin Proescholdt
for Izaak Walton League of America – Midwest Office
Paul Becka, President
for Minnesota Bass Federation Nation
Brad Nylin, Director of Development
Bill Kemp, President of the Board
for Minnesota Waterfowl Association
Bill Henke, President
for Minnesota Division of the Izaak Walton League of America
Elliott Olson, Acting Chair
for Minnesota State Council of Trout Unlimited
Martha Brand, Executive Director
for Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
Ralph Cinfio, Senior Regional Director
for Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Letter from Commissioner Merriam to MFWEA
February 24, 2006
To: Fish and Wildlife Employees Association Members
I wish that I could be there in Brainerd with you in person. Unfortunately, a schedule conflict prevented me from being able to accept your invitation this time.
These are exciting times for fish and wildlife in Minnesota.
First of all, we are so happy that Dave Schad accepted the promotion to become Director of the DNR’s Fish and Wildlife Division. We are confident that he will do a great job of helping us all work together with our partners to advance the DNR’s mission, serve the public and protect the resource.
Dave has risen through the Fish and Wildlife ranks, and we appreciate how you have been supporting him already in his new role.
I will conclude with one request.
Please take a minute from time to time to ask yourself if there is anything more that we could all do to strengthen our connection to the people we serve. As individuals and as an agency, we should be responsive to the public. After all, we work for them as we conserve and enhance our natural resources. Please help us strengthen that connection to the public in your area.
And finally, thank you for all that you do to advance the DNR’s mission.
Sincerely,
Gene Merriam
Letter from MFWEA regarding Division of Waters funding
February 10, 2006
The Honorable Senator John Marty, ChairMinnesota Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee The Honorable Dennis Ozment, ChairAgriculture, Environment and Natural Resources Finance Committee
The Honorable Tom Hackbarth, Chair Minnesota House of Representatives Environment and Natural Resources Committee
Dear Senator Marty, Representative Ozment, and Representative Hackbarth:
Our organization is pleased with the current attention being given to natural resources problems in Minnesota, and with the serious discussions about funding solutions. We are aware that a number of proposals, if enacted, will benefit fish, wildlife, and natural plant communities. Members of our organization who currently are employed look forward to their role in these efforts. This letter is to call your attention to a particular problem that our membership strongly believes should be addressed in these discussions. The problem is highly relevant to the protection of fish and wildlife habitat in Minnesota, but also is one that might be overlooked.
The problem is that there is a shortage of funding for field staff of the Division of Waters in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). These individuals work closely with fish and wildlife staff on many day-to-day issues that result in protection and enhancement of habitat. Furthermore, these DNR staff are often the lead and primary contact with local units of government. Clearly, they are the lead DNR personnel on shoreland regulations, and therefore directly work to protect important shoreline and offshore fish and wildlife habitat. In doing this work, they establish close working relationships with counties and municipalities. Their work with developers and those who need DNR permits--prior to permits being applied for-also helps in significantly reducing impacts to fish and wildlife habitat.
Often, the most important progress in protecting and enhancing fish and wildlife habitat is made at the local grass-roots and community level. This is where these DNR staff provides some of the most effective work. As just one small example of many of their valuable contributions to fish and wildlife habitat, in my part of the state (Northwest Minnesota), the Division of Waters recently set up a meeting between counties to allow them to compare notes and discuss with the DNR how improvements in existing shoreland regulations could protect valuable lakeshore habitat. Another example is their work with watershed districts all over the state. This sort of work is labor intensive but pays off greatly in the long run.
The membership of our organization consists of current and retired employees of the Division of Fish and Wildlife, and the Division of Ecological Services. We are an independent, external organization to the DNR. Please note that opinions and positions expressed by our organization are not the official opinions or positions of the DNR.
Last February at our annual meeting, a unanimous resolution was passed affirming the views expressed here, and giving the President direction to send this letter prior to the convening of the 2006 Legislative session. The support for this resolution comes from the experience of our members in observing the heavy work loads of Division of Waters staff, and their direct experience with the good work that this staff accomplishes. Our members feel this work is essential and is desired by the public. It is our consensus that, because of the staff shortage in the Division of Waters, we are missing important opportunities to protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat.
We are aware that there are always competing needs for scarce public funds. However, we are also aware that the discussions and decisions to be made in the next several months may chart the course for the foreseeable future regarding natural resources in Minnesota. We ask that our views here be given careful consideration.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our views. Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Paul Stolen, 2005-2006 President
c: Governor Tim Pawlenty Mark HolstenSenator Tom Saxhaug Kent LokkesmoeSenator Pat Pariseau Dave SchadRepresentative David Dill Lee PfannmullerRepresentative Carlos Mariani Gene Merriam