Letters to the editor
More on the Monster(s)
Dale Ferguson’s letter about sightings of single “monsters” in the Flathead invites a response. Actually, a well documented sighting of multiple fish by at least 16 adults working at the Methodist Youth Camp in Rollins occurred in the 1930’s. The sight was of many huge fish “frolicking in the bay” below the hill where they were watched for nearly an hour. (Olive Bishop McAlear diaries and letters, Goldrenrod Girl (c) 2010). Grandmother Olive was a trained scientist with a Master’s degree in math and biology.
In the late 1950’s, Big Fish Unlimited President J. F. McAlear devoted a great part of his free time to catching another sturgeon since the one hauled in by C. Leslie Griffith (Montana Nessie ...(Fugelburg, 1992, pp 16, 17 and 24) paid for by BFU was “disputed” to have come from Flathead Lake except by the Montana Supreme Court who stated it did in their final decree. After the “SS Flathead Sturgeon”, a wooden 1919 era Coast Guard Motor Life Boat, outfitted with a huge reel of 1000 lb. aircraft cable, (the boat having cost $1000 in 1951 and thereafter called Fay’s folly” by the family) sank in the bay off our dock on Finley Point (ibid, pp. 18) grandpa Fay bought a 20-21 foot Whitehouse cabin cruiser for his nocturnal fishing forays. Having the only permit ever granted for set lines in Flathead Lake, grandpa and select grandkids would venture out into the dark night to check the floating yellow painted barrels complete with baited hooks around the Narrows, Cromwell, Wildhorse and areas of other sightings. Said barrels were further enhanced by the addition of chum - consisting of pigs blood filled, then punctured, plastic bags dropped over the side to attract the big fish as recommended by a grizzled Snake River sturgeon fisherman. Big yuk!
One night, Fay and grandchildren Karen Montgomery Dunwell and Pamela Montgomery Ebel were startled to see three fish emerge at the boat’s side, at least one being longer than the cabin cruiser. The fish did not take the bait, unfortunately.
In the mid 1970’s, I and three step kids aged 8-12, were fishing for silver salmon (Kokanee) between Bare Belly Island and the east end of Finley Point. We were stopped, pulling in our lines and cowbells, and looking over the boat’s side when we clearly saw three 6-12 foot long sturgeon 15-25 feet below our keel. The water was so clear in those days that depth was difficult to judge but we calculated it by the color of the lines we still had out. The kids nearly fell into the water they were so scared.
Sturgeons have long been known to live an excess of 100 years. The map on Wikipedia of the Columbia River basin before damming and entrapping White sturgeon shows likely access to Flathead Lake through at least two waterways: via Lake Pend Oreille and the Kootenay drainage of the upper Flathead near Cranbrook.
It is important to note that sturgeon are bottom feeders through a sieve-like toothless mouth like a sucker, are nocturnal, and therefore unlikely to be sighted unless you seek them deliberately at night.
It is my opinion, having lived my entire life near and on Flathead Lake and having been part of the sturgeon mania since 1955 (cousin Dean and I are pictured in the Courier looking up at the big fish hanging from a tree in front of the McAlear home), that sightings that describe a many humped beast are not of a single fish but of backs of several sturgeon swimming in schools as is their nature. Sightings have diminished, in my view, because low speed trolling for our once bountiful fish by many, has been replaced by high speed boating and jet skiing which is unlikely to produce any daytime activity by these bottom dwelling fish.
Yes, they are still there. Sister Pamela saw a small one off our dock in Mulligan Bay less than a decade ago. Until a sustained effort takes place preferably at night to photograph, use sonography, or otherwise detect them in this huge and 350+ deep body of water, rare sightings will have to suffice to assure they remain our own special secret.
Connie Potter
Polson
Concerns about irrigation
While we are glad to see the adjudication process for irrigation water rights in the Flathead Indian Irrigation Project (FIIP, also “the Project”) moving forward we have at least one issue with the draft agreement (Reference) between the Flathead Joint Board of Control (FJBC) and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) that concerns us; specifically, the FTA (Farm Turnout Allowance) cap of 1.4 acre ft per acre limit on water delivery.
We are disappointed that the water rights process has come this far and this is the first that we have officially heard of the proposed “water cap”. In any negotiation there is “give and take” but each party also has some “must have’s” that are hard points that must be considered in the process. We are extremely disappointed that there were no sessions that we were made aware of, for the irrigators to weigh in with the FJBC on what the irrigators hard points might be. This compact process is a “one time only deal” and it’s important to get it right. Why weren’t the irrigators input consulted in the process? There would have been as many different opinions about what was important as there are individual irrigators but in gathering this information several key themes would have been obvious that would represent the majority of the irrigators and this input would have led to a proposal that the majority of irrigators could get behind. We know of no irrigators with double duty water who were consulted by the FJBC. We would ask the Board where the authorization to eliminate the duty system of water rights came from?
It is our understanding that the premise for the duty system was that certain soils could more beneficially use additional water and thus the double duty rating. This is a logical and scientific reason for allocating additional water. What has changed to invalidate this? When we purchased our ground, we were told by the Project office that we had “double duty water” and we purchased our property on that basis, paying a premium for this irrigation benefit. This provided us the promise of water delivery in favorable years of as much as twice the allocated water from the Project and we considered this an “implied individual water right” that would be honored when the adjudication process was complete.
The proposed agreement limits water delivery to no more than 1.4 acre ft per acre so that anytime there is an water allocation of greater than 8.4 acre inches per acre, “double duty” ground would be limited to the 1.4 acre ft per acre cap. This is a “take away” from our viewpoint and a reallocation of water under these conditions. Where is that water going to go under those conditions?
As we understand water rights, they are rights attached to property and owned by the property owner. The Project is a distributor of the water per the water right attached to the property and the Project collects fees for operation and maintenance of the Irrigation District. Since water rights in the FIIP have not been adjudicated, the FJBC is representing the individual irrigators in negotiating water rights with CSKT. It is our position that there should be a preservation of the “implied individual water rights” that each of the present irrigators have on record with the Project. To do otherwise, in our opinion, is not in the best interest of the individual irrigator and is not fair! Land with “double duty water” is inherently worth more than land with “single duty water” so this proposal results in a devaluation of our property.
Further we believe this cap acts as a disincentive for us and other irrigators to support project improvements that will increase the system capacity since we will not be able to utilize any improvements in system capacity due to the cap.
We believe we have always been strong supporters of the CSKT, FIIP, and the FJBC but we are disappointed in this erosion of our implied water right as proposed in the Reference. The elimination of our double duty water and the imposition of a 1.4 acre ft per acre cap does not allow us to support the reference agreement as written.
We strongly urge you to utilize the duty system of water allocations on record and used for Project operation (for probably over a hundred years) in the water agreement with the CSKT. It is based on a logical and scientific system of soil classification and should be retained. Utilization of the duty system need not change the total water use of the Project and will be a more equitable way to distribute irrigation water within the Project. Rather than individual caps, it would be more fair to cap the entire irrigation system usage and distribute water based on the duty system. It will maintain our property values and also incentivize all irrigators to support improvements to the FIIP since they will all benefit proportionately from system improvements.
Jerry & Christine Laskody
St. Ignatius
Aquatic Center fundraiser
I would like to say thank you to all the visionaries, employees and volunteers who made the Aquatic Center a reality, along with probably everyone else who attended Saturday night’s “Filling the Pool, One Bowl at a Time” silent and live auction. What an absolutely perfect and amazing community event! I hope those of you who participated in the planning are feeling the immense satisfaction of making the event the success it was. It took all of you, along with our town’s support, to make this remarkable facility become a reality. Who could not appreciate what all of you did to put together such a grand time at Saturday’s “Swim Party.”
What a wonderful gift you have all contributed to! I applaud everyone who participated, employees, potters, auction artists and volunteers who were involved in the planning, fundraising and auction at our newest community facility.
Mary Hoover Jensen
Big Arm
Water rights, domestic wells and livestock
The Water Compact approach to domestic wells has not received much public attention. My concern is a one size fits all approach to new domestic wells that is inconsistent with the rural character of this reservation.
Under state law automatic approval for a water permit is allowed for a new domestic well subject to the following limits: a 35gpm pump and 10 acre feet per year. Within certain limits it also is relatively easy to add a stock well permit to a domestic well.
Under the current Compact Draft new domestic well permits will be approved relatively automatically if within the following limits: 35gpm, 2.4 acre feet per year, and use limited to .7 acre of irrigation and a few noncommercial animals. To go beyond those limits a land owner will need to seek approval from the Unitary Water Management Board that will administer water rights under a Compact agreement.
Compared to the state limit of 10 acre feet of water per year, the 2.4 acre feet limit will reduce the risk that existing water users will be squeezed out by a new well. This makes sense for high density areas on the reservation with many homes concentrated on relatively small parcels of land.
But many tribal and nontribal families on this reservation often use their domestic well to provide water for small herds of alpacas, buffalo, cattle, goats, horses, llamas, pigs and sheep. On the positive side there is a commitment to grandfather all existing wells. But the 2.4 acre feet annual limit and the use limits for new wells under the current Compact drafts will make it difficult to sell property in the future to individuals who plan to develop a small livestock operation.
Potential buyers faced with the uncertainty of whether it would be possible to get a larger water right for a limited livestock operation are likely to look outside the reservation for property.
Hopefully the Compact negotiators will consider modifications to the current Compact drafts in order to bring the domestic well provisions in line with the rural character of this reservation.
Dick Erb
Moiese
Big, bad wolves
We have just finished with an election that will affect most Americans in a very negative manner unless we decide to actively participate with the politicians who are running our country. I have tried to inform people of what is going on in the Mission Valley and many other places in our state, however, this has been ignored by most people. If you are a hunter who relies on wild meat for a portion of your food supply you need to start taking an active role in protection of our game animals. I have hunted all my life and in the last four years have seen our deer and elk herds being destroyed and we all know what is doing this. I was actually tracked by a wolf on Buck Creek in the Jocko canyon yesterday and this is nothing new. The government tells us we must protect these animals and not harm them but they are hunting 365 days per year and consuming 15 pounds of meat every day. Do the math. I have
not taken any game from that area for four years and see very little. Each year I purchase a wolf tag yet the
numbers are growing far faster than hunters following the rules can keep up with. If people do not start getting
aggressive, hunting will come to an end for all including Tribal members. Pro-wolfers will win and we will lose.
Chuck Ripley
St. Ignatius
Oh rats
The election is finally over. I’m cryin’, Clint Eastwood is cryin’ and Lady Liberty is cryin’. Meanwhile, the Neros of America are fiddlin’ with great exuberance. Now we get to see which rats leave the ship.
Let’s start with the Attorney General, Eric Holder, who has stonewalled Congress for over a year on what or what not the Justice Dept. and/or the White House knew about “Fast and Furious”, the gun running operation that resulted in the death of U.S. border agent Brian Terry and countless Mexican nationals.
Also, what does the Justice Dept. or the White House know or not know about the six month investigation into the General Petraeus affair, which was held secret until the day after the election. Is the General part of the Benghazi cover up or was he ready to spill the beans on the entire fiasco?
Speaking on Benghazi, what about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who heads the department that is supposed to protect our ambassadors and embassies? She was as swift as President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Rice to get on television and proclaim the fiasco as a mob response to a video that few had ever seen, and not a preplanned terrorist attack. Who gave the order to the rescuers to stand down and not go to the aid of their colleagues? Were there bigger rats that were aware of the attack at the time and were they watching it as it took place?
Americans need answers and they need them fast before the stonewalling gets even greater than it already is. It’s up to both sides of Congress to get together and conduct a full investigation in order to bring any or all the rats to justice.
Martin Tetachuk
Rollins
Ninepipes Museum
Dear Bud, Laurel Cheff, Members and Friends,
On behalf of Big Arm Association Members (BAA), I want to express our gratitude for your gracious hospitality and personal tour provided our group at your museum on Saturday the 17th.
To have Bud Jr. along with wife Laurel conduct the tour, answering questions and pointing out items that many of us missed on previous visits, unveiled many historical gems. An example was the meaning and history of “Ninepipes”.
We are so very glad of your recent success in obtaining the deed to the property. Losing it would have been a gigantic loss; the loss of a significant State treasure.
I would encourage everyone to make repetitive visits to the museum and have a delicious meal at the Allentown restaurant. While there, I recognized and spoke with former Chief Justice Jean Turnage, who was also touring. How about that?
Thank you all for your hard work and success,
Jim Sisler, on behalf of
Big Arm Association Members
Dixon Melons could be left high and dry
The end is near, no doubt about it, Dixon Melons is just about history. Soon it will be no more.
Dixon Melons has been in business in Western Montana for 24 years commercially. We grew all the local melons and expanded the operation as the years went by. My wife Joey and I employed and partnered with our family, including sons, daughters, cousins, nephews, and grandparents. We also employ up to 35 local individuals as seasonal laborers as well as in our retail sales. Local kids, both tribal and non-tribal have worked for us steadily over the years.
Josh Carter, an agricultural consultant that runs field trials for the large seed company named Keith Williams, works specifically in the Northwest Region. Josh and I spoke about the water quota necessary to grow my melon crop. Josh confirmed that I am using my water very efficiently with our drip system. Drip irrigation is state of the art for vine crop production. I asked him about the 1.4 acre feet maximum of irrigation water proposed by the Water Compact Commission that includes the CSKT, Montana State, and my local representatives the Flathead Joint Board of Control. After consulting with industry irrigation professionals, Josh’s initial advice shocked me. His advice was that I should relocate to a farm where I would have an adequate supply of irrigation water for the Dixon Melons. Josh informed me that 1.4 acre feet would not nearly be enough for a successful harvest. In other words, Dixon Melons would be no more.
According to Imperial County Extension Service Bulletins, melons require a minimum of three (3) acre feet of water in order to produce a high quality crop. If we were to grow Dixon Melons on the maximum amount of water that the Water Commission insists is adequate, we would have vines with, at best, deformed, half grown watermelon, honeydew, and cantaloupe. In other words it would not be possible.
Over the years our business has survived grasshopper onslaughts and late frosts, hail, thieves, and alfalfa beetles, but never have we been deprived of a consistent source of good irrigation water. We are not the only productive producers that require ample water. Truck farms in this area and productive hay operations also require much more than a 1.4 acre foot maximum. It is likely that, if the current Water Proposals are passed for the Flathead Irrigation Project, there will be a number of farmers out of business. The proposed water Farm Turnout Allowance that is being forced on the producers in this area seems to be designed to put the local farms out of business. Either that or the data that the Water Commission has based its recommendations on is totally flawed. No entity, whether it is the State of Montana, the CSKT, or the Joint Board of Control, should be able to dictate if I can grow my crop, the same crop that I have grown for over 24 years. Who is actually benefiting from taking water from producers and reallocating it to go down the river to be leased somewhere else? It is certainly not our family, the people that have used the water and paid for it for over 24 years. This proposed water agreement must be revised to accommodate local farming. Please call your Joint Board of Control and ask them to truly represent the irrigators in all negotiations. The JBC needs to use collected, on site data to make any firm decisions about my farm and others, based on soil and possible drought conditions.
Have you ever had a bite of our Dixon Melons? If so, you must know that we pride ourselves on a quality, sweet, vine ripened melon. No water, no melons.
To contact the Joint Board, call 406-745-2090 or e-mail fjbc@blackfoot.net.
Harley Hettick
Dixon