Keep bison range in federal hands

Rarely do we see a proposal that sparks such a wide variety of opposition as the efforts of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes to assume management authority over the National Bison Range at Moiese, and more recently, a series of outlying refuges and waterfowl production areas that are currently managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Last year, the tribes were granted an "Annual Funding Agreement" to share management responsibilities at the bison range, over the objections of many.

The opponents included moderate conservation groups, outright environmental organizations, rod and gun clubs, and more than 100 wildlife refuge managers from across the country. One letter alone listed 34 organizations as signatories.

A knee-jerk reaction, of course, is to assume that any opposition to the tribes' efforts must be rooted in some prejudicial view that federal lands shouldn't be turned over to Native American management.

But that's just not the case here: The opposition groups were concerned about provisions, or the lack of provisions, in the agreement that would ensure effective management, along with fiscal responsibility and accountability.

"No refuge manager, no matter how skilled, could successfully implement this agreement as written." That's what 23 national wildlife refuge managers from across the country had to say about the agreement itself.

But it was adopted anyway. And just recently, the tribes acknowledged that they have been negotiating with the Fish and Wildlife Service for a new, three-year funding agreement that would give tribes complete, rather than shared, management authority over not only the bison range, but also the nearby Ninepipe and Pablo National Wildlife Refuges, the Swan River and Lost Trail refuges and five waterfowl production areas in the Flathead Valley.

The issue is thus more important than ever.

And barely discussed, it seems, is the central question of whether the federal government should cede its management authority to any third party, whether tribal or otherwise. The issue of privatizing government functions is a parallel concern, and raises similar questions of accountability and responsiveness. Federal employees work for "we the people"; can the same be said for tribal or private managers?

The Confederated Salish and Kootenai agreement - and any expansion of it - also has potential to serve as a precedent for similar agreements across the country under the federal Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1994.

That law could potentially apply to 48 national wildlife refuges and 18 national parks, including Glacier National Park, where native American tribes may have similar claims to management authority.

It's a bad idea, if only because these federal lands should not be managed by 60 different governments with varying capabilities. Let's not make our federal government any more chaotic than it already is.