The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks - Essay Example

Review of Montana Draft Assessment Introduction The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks have always made big steps in the fight to maintain nature. In terms of nature they are involved with anything related to environmental beauty and life. They are especially fighting a hard war to see species of animals whose numbers are low and close to extinction win the war and make it through by reproducing more and regaining in numbers. Review The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWA) recently announced its proposal to purchase three mining claims to the public to get the views of the public.

The mining claims, Railroad and Manilla placers, which together make up forty acres and the Roosevelt Placer which is 19.23 acres are located west of Anaconda, Deer Lodge County, Montana. They are known as ‘North Lily Property’ when combined. MFWA is using funds from the Montana Chapter of MFWA for $25,000. The MFWA is purchasing the land for conversation of the bighorn sheep, which is found in the Blue-eyed Nellie WMA this land nears the mining claims hence their main reason for proposing its purchase.

Blue-eyed Nellie WMA offers significant winter variety for sheep having large horns (Montana Fish, Wildlife and Park, 2012). MFWA fears that if they do not purchase the land, then people will and they will set up private homes, which will block access to Blue-eyed Nellie Gulch, and compromise existence of bighorn. Knowing only too well that though the plan is beneficial, it might as well have dire consequences hence there idea of involving the public to give a thought on what they think about the proposal (Montana Fish, Wildlife and Park, 2012).

The MFWA has come up with alternatives to the proposed plan. The first alternative is known as Alternative A. This alternative can be described as the no action plan. This plan leaves the property supposed to be purchased to remain subject to all legal rights of use under private ownership. These rights include residential subdivision and other commercial practices. This alternative should completely be out of question since funds for purchase need to be recouped, and this is not the best alternative for MFNAWS.

The no action plan is also inefficient such that if settlement is allowed in the area septic tanks might be set up and this will interfere with the natural springs as well as the bull trout fish that is endangered species that live in Warm Springs (Harrington, 2004). Alternatively, the action plan will be very beneficiary since more warm springs will be set up on the expanded land enhancing breeding of the bull trout and also, the minerals from the ground will enhance the development of the fish (Montana Fish, Wildlife and Park, 2012).

The air and water quantity in the region but will maintain the level. The no action plan will also not affect the water, and air quantities but with development in the area, with is inefficient. The action would allow public access to the area. Adventure and wildlife watching opportunities would be allowed on the site. The public from outside the community as well as locally, will be able to watch the animals. Wildlife education projects would be started. Revenue associated with hunting in the area will be generated.

The no action plan would have private parties would retain legal access to their areas of living. There would be no guarantee for public access of the area. Weed control has been a section of the Blue-eyed Nellie management plan hence in case the Action plan goes through, weed control, which benefits the environment would hold (Harrington, 2004). Under the No Action, plan weed control decisions would entirely be made by individual owners hence if they do not get rid of the weeds, with time the environmental vegetation will die (Renne & Lord, 1937).

Since both alternatives seem to be beneficial to a member of society in a way or the other, an example is the No Action plan benefits members of the public who need to purchase land, while the Action plan benefits nature, as well as the immense benefits. There can be an alternative that favours each party. The MFWP can come up with laws favouring the two parties. This, they can do by allowing the private owners to buy the land but agree on certain rules like one must frequently control weeds in the vicinity, then some land can be set apart for hiking people from out and herding of the animals (Jamtgaard & Alternative Energy Resources Organization (Helena, Mont.),1992). Conclusion Conclusively, peace will prevail, with this in place.

Of the two plans, the Action plan seems to win over the No Action plan. This is because of the many benefits it is associated. The Action plan also meets the intent of NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) that promotes the conservation of the environment. NEPA has a preamble, which reads. The most suitable conclusion from all the findings is that the MFWP should take on the Action policy and act on it since it is the most beneficial. References Harrington, R. A. (2004). Montana healthy forests, healthy communities report: An assessment on the condition of Montana's forests, and the communities that depend on them.

Missoula, Mont.: Montana Dept. of Natural Resources & Conservation, Forestry Division. Jamtgaard, K., & Alternative Energy Resources Organization (Helena, Mont.). (1992). Results from the Montana agricultural assessment questionnaire: A survey of sustainable agriculture. Helena, Mont. (44 N. Last Chance Gulch, Helena, Mont. 59601: Alternative Energy Resources Organization. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Park. (2012). Proposed Property Acquisition, Blue-Eyed Nellie Wildlife Management Area, North Lily Property.

Retrieved on October 2 from Renne, R. R., & Lord, H. H. (1937). Assessment of Montana farm lands: A study of the inequalities resulting from present methods of assessing dry farm and range lands and some suggestions for improvement. Bozeman, Mont: Montana State College, Agricultural Experiment Station.