How would Charles M. Russell react to the management alternatives being developed for the national wildlife refuge that bears his name?  Given the artist’s love of the cowboy life on the open range and his admiration of those who came before and lived closer to the land than he did, one might wonder what his reaction would be and where his beloved landscape is headed.
   The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has begun drafting a management plan that will guide the Refuge for a full 15 years, taking it as far as the year 2025.  At nearly 1 million acres, the Refuge and its management have a tremendous impact on Montana, especially those six counties and conservation districts that surround the Refuge.  For example, grazing allotments brought nearly $2 million to the local economies in 2007.  Additionally, the state’s largest infestation of the noxious weed saltcedar resides on the CMR Refuge along its interface with the Fort Peck Reservoir and it is rapidly spreading to private lands. 
   Given these impacts, the local perspectives should be carefully considered throughout the planning process.  However, under the current planning system, there is no way to ensure that those local voices are heard and capitalized upon.  If the Refuge were to create and use a stakeholder advisory group, the people who are most affected by management changes would have a larger voice in the process.  Additionally, use of a stakeholder group would allow the Refuge to capitalize on local experience and successes.  After all, families who have survived in that harsh landscape for several generations can provide good advice and serve as some the best partners for effectively managing the landscape.  And given the multitude of public uses already on the Refuge, a stakeholder advisory group would allow those diverse interests to be represented.
   An additional concern with the planning process is the lack of information and data provided about the current state of the Refuge.  Given the intense effort that went into the last management plan for the Refuge (the 1985 Environmental Impact Statement), the current planning process would undoubtedly benefit from an evaluation of how well the last set of goals and objectives were met as well as an evaluation of the current rangeland, riparian, and water resource conditions.  Only after the managers, cooperating agencies, and the interested public gain a true understanding of the current state of the Refuge can good decisions be made about the future of the Refuge. 
   The Council’s comments regarding the planning process and the draft alternatives can be found online at www.MissouriRiverCouncil.info or by calling the Council office at (406) 454-0056.  Additional concerns about the planning process, as noted in the letter, include the lack of emphasis on livestock grazing as a purpose of the Refuge; the speed of the planning process; and the lack of documented public input.   The Council also has several concerns with the content of the alternatives proposed, mainly regarding livestock grazing, wildlife reintroductions, invasive species, prescribed and wildland fires, public access, wildlife populations, water quality, and Refuge partnerships.
To learn more about the planning process or to provide comments, visit the Refuge’s website at  http://www.fws.gov/cmr/planning/index.html or contact Laurie Shannon, Planning Team Leader, Division of Refuge Planning, P.O. 25486, Denver, CO  80225-0486
To advocate for changes to the process that recognize and include local input, contact your local County Commissioners, State Legislators, and Congressional delegation