r* 1 will allow each person one chance to comment and let everybody else comment before we allow one person a 

 j second turn, so that everyone gets a fair chance. 



I ■ Please begin your testimony by stating your name (please spell your last name so we get it correctly in the 

 I record), provide your mailing address and business or organizational affiliation, if any. 

 I ■ During this time persons testifying may not ask questions or be asked questions by anyone but me. I will 

 1 translate questions or pass them on to another resource person, in other words. DNRC and Fish. Wildlife and 

 I Parks personnel will remain for an informal discussion after the close of the formal hearing, and you may talk to 

 people informally then. If persons testifying have reproduced their remarks in writing, you may submit copies 

 to me. This is not required if you are giving oral comments, but if you want to, you can turn in written 

 comments as well. 



With that, we'll now receive testimony on the proposed Blackfoot-Clearwater Wildlife Management Area Phase II 

 Land Exchange. Again, please come forward to the microphone, state your name spell your last name clearly and 

 speak clearly for the record. I don't know who was first, or who wants to be first? Could I ask — Opponents first. 

 Are there any Opponents? Any Opponents. Seeing none, any Proponents? (Indistinguishable) 



Jack Rich: For the record, my name is Jack Rich, R-I-C-H, Box 495, Seeley Lake, MT, 59868. I'm here to 

 represent the Rich Ranch, and I stand in strong support of the land exchange, Phase II of the Blackfoot-Clearwater 

 Game Ranch and the preferred alternative. Thank you. 



Roger Marshall: For the record, my name is Roger Marshall, P.O. Box 167, Seeley Lake, MT, M-A-R-S-H-A-L-L. 

 1 am a professional forester, I have been for 25 years. 1 work for Plum Creek Timber. Myself, the colleagues I work 

 with, and the management of Plum Creek supports this exchange. They support Alternative D, the preferred 

 alternative. 1 know as a professional forester that it's important to provide for all needs of the forest community, 

 including the animals. Managing this forest through Fish, Wildlife and Parks has become, to Plum Creek, of 

 paramount importance, because they are game managers. Plum Creek is better in timber, although we do 

 incorporate wildlife management in our practices. We know that it would be in the best interest of the game, the elk 

 in particular and in the long run, to be managed by Fish, Wildlife and Parks. So we want to encourage support of 

 the preferred alternative, and hope that it becomes valid. I also want to support the cooperation between DNRC and 

 Fish, Wildlife and Parks to accelerate the management to bring about the best and optimum forest condition to 

 support the elk on the game range. It is critical winter range, and it is something that we recognize in our profession, 

 in the forestry profession, as necessary to be maintained. As such, we want to preserve it, and it's best preserved by 

 people that know how to preserve and protect it. We could do that, but it's not in Plum Creek's interest to protect or 

 to maintain elk populations. It's better served to the general public at large, and that's where we want it to be. So 

 thank you. 



Mike Kress: Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Are there any other Proponents? Mr. Finch? 



Tom Finch: I'm Tom Finch, F-I-N-C-H, 415 East Beckwith in Missoula. Mrs. Finch is also present tonight. I'm 

 retired and a nonindustrial private forester. Being from Missoula may not earn a lot of points in this end of the 

 county, but we are very supportive of what you're doing; we partnered with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in 

 the land purchase in Phase I. Because I've had a career in land management, forest lands, a career that included a lot 

 of land exchanges, I'd like to say a few words in favor of Alternative D that we've discussed here tonight. Wlien 

 you have broken or fractured land ownership in a management unit or drainage, it's very difficult and more 

 expensive to pursue your management objectives. Not that one form of management is better or worse than the 

 other, but because of the wide range of multiple use options open to the owners, the pursuit of your own objectives 

 may not be completely possible, or it may be done to some expense of your adjoining owners. Some of the small, 

 scattered tracts that DNRC proposed to dispose of are often so difficult and expensive to manage that they produce 

 no net income. I guess I'll just conclude by saying that it looks like you've got two government bodies, agencies, in 

 agreement with a large private owner — that looks to me like a golden opportunity that we should not pass up. 



Mike Kress: Thank you. 



Conrad Rowe: My name is Conrad Rowe from Seeley Lake, P.O. Box 1019, 59868. Tm Chairman of the 

 Blackfoot-Clearwater Chapter of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and we strongly support Alternative D, the 

 preferred solution. Thank you. 



BCWMA Land Exchanges Final Environmental Impact Statement 



