But tribal officials called the report unfair, saying the CSKT has a proven record of managing a variety of enterprises that benefit both Indians and non-tribal residents.
The 2005 Report on Implementation of the Annual Funding Agreement at the National Bison Range Complex scrutinized tribal management of several major programs.
“It is not a fair evaluation of tribal people and their abilities on the Bison Range,” said James Steele Jr., Tribal Council chairman. “The Salish and Kootenai people have proven over quite a number of years that they are capable managers.”
Mission Valley Power is a good example of an operation managed by CSKT that impacts both Indians and non-tribal members, Steele said.
“The report takes one snippet and doesn't do it in a very fair manner,” Steele said.
The annual funding agreement runs through Sept. 30.
In a July 12 letter to Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall said his agency and the CSKT “believe that the first year of implementation represents tremendous progress on a complex project.”
Like any new program, Hall said, the effort has faced its own set of “unique challenges,” but significant steps were made toward successful implementation of the agreement during its first year.
The agreement was signed in December 2004. Under its terms, the tribes performed some of the activities on the Bison Range through the end of fiscal year 2006.
Besides the annual bison roundups, the tribes were responsible for migratory non-game bird surveys, weed control, wildfire suppression, prescribed burns and collection of federal public use fees.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service retained ownership and management authority over all lands and buildings at the Bison Range and its associated wildlife refuges, all of which are within the Flathead Reservation.
Several groups and individuals point to the report as proof the arrangement isn't working.
“ ‘Disaster' is a fair term to describe what is going on at the Bison Range,” said Grady Hocutt, a former longtime refuge manager now directing Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility's refuge program.
Dividing the management responsibilities between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and CSKT is leaving both sides frustrated, Hocutt said.
“This experience demonstrates, to paraphrase President Lincoln, that a refuge divided cannot stand,” he said.
Last year's agreement was opposed by PEER and 40 conservation organizations, including the National Wildlife Refuge Association, Ducks Unlimited, the Wilderness Society, the American Bird Conservancy and the Chicago Zoological Society.
The central objection, expressed in a joint letter signed by scores of current and former refuge managers, was that “no refuge manager, no matter how skilled, could successfully implement this agreement as it is written.”
“If this was the private sector, this contract would not be renewed,” said Hocutt, pointing to, among other problems, the complete loss of volunteer support for the refuge, which previously benefited from 4,500 hours of free labor. “Refuges are supposed to be run for the benefit of wildlife, not politics.”
Susan Reneau, an outdoors writer based in Missoula, called the non-competitive contract “a slap in the face of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” and a “total insult” to the people who've performed the same duties on the refuge since 1908.
“I hope you recommend that the (fiscal year) 2007 contract not be granted and that this ‘experiment' be stopped before any more wildlife is harmed,” Reneau wrote in a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
“The fact that the CSKT did not take care of weed control, did not collect wildlife data correctly, did not mend fences and (did) many other duties in an unsatisfactory way should demand that you reject their efforts to have another contract,” she wrote.
Steele, in a letter to PEER, said the CSKT are proud of their work at the Bison Range and will continue to be an effective partner with the federal government.
“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has worked with the CSKT for many years on and around the Flathead Indian Reservation, including the National Bison Range Complex, portions of which are located on tribally-owned land,” Steele wrote. “Our tribal self-governance agreement at the National Bison Range is but the latest manifestation of this evolving partnership.
“The bison there are descended from a herd managed by tribal members, and the range itself is located in the heart of the reservation,” he wrote.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)