Native walleyes and $3 bills

Inter Lake editorial

It's always a good exercise to consider true motivations when head-scratcher legislation comes along.

And in the case of a bill that would suddenly declare walleye as a "native" species to Montana, the motivation appears to be 'surprise!) money.

Senate Bill 15, sponsored by Sen. Donald Steinbeisser, R-Sidney, makes the giant leap of considering that walleyes are a species that "historically occurred in Montana," with bill-backers in groups such as Walleyes Unlimited asserting that they existed in the upper Missouri River Basin prior to European settlement.

Problem is that it's just not true. One would be hard pressed to produce any actual historical or biological evidence supporting the claim. And if the evidence existed, we are certain that it would have come to light well before now.

The bill's text cites not one single sentence supporting the claim, it just declares that walleyes are native.

So why would that be? There's a clue in the bill's references to the state's Future Fisheries Improvement Program, which provides special funding for promoting fishery habitat.

"Emphasis must be given to projects that enhance the historic habitat of native species, including walleye," the bill states.

And Steinbeisser has three other bills that all appear to be geared toward beefing up funding for walleyes, which have been widely distributed by humans, often illegally, in waters east of the Continental Divide.

One bill would direct that proceeds from the warm-water game stamps be used as a match for securing federal grant money to help support the state's Fort Peck hatchery, which has chronic operation and maintenance funding shortfalls. The hatchery mostly produces walleye, of course.

Another bill would require that the warm water fishing stamp surcharge be sold as part of all fishing licenses, with an allowance for purchasers to elect not to pay the surcharge instead of the current practice of anglers having to ask for the stamp. This is just trickery, because many anglers will purchase licenses without the knowledge of their option to not pay the surcharge.

Another bill would require that federal funding for state fish hatcheries be equitably apportioned among all hatcheries. This one is wrongheaded just because hatchery funding should be apportioned according to the varying needs of the facilities from one year to the next.

While it is clear that walleye advocates are grabbing for a bigger piece of the funding pie, it should also be clear to anglers that what they gain will likely come at the expense of other fisheries.