And the effort continues to grow, said Sunni Heikes-Knapton, the Madison Watershed Coordinator.

The data her crews have collected over the past five years provide public officials with baseline data and a clear picture of the water quality in the area and how best to protect and enhance it.

“The argument that gets thrown out quite a bit is we’ve got good water, we don’t need to worry about it,” Heikes-Knapton told about 20 people gathered to hear her annual water quality report. “But proving that with data helps us keep what we have.”

Heikes-Knapton spoke last Thursday night at the Madison Valley Public Library, presenting data collected on Jack Creek, Moore’s Creek, O’Dell Creek, West Fork of the Madison River and North and South Meadow Creek.

Heikes-Knapton works for the Madison Watershed Partnership, which is a collaboration of two non-profit groups – The Madison Valley Ranchlands Group and The Madison River Foundation, along with the Madison Conservation District.

The water monitoring work has increased dramatically during the past two years as Heikes-Knapton has worked to provide training through Montana State University for local volunteers, who she calls the Madison Valley Stream Team. This team of local folks conducts much of the monitoring work.

However, the water monitoring on Jack Creek is a unique effort that began in 2006. Heikes-Knapton has seven monitoring sites on the small creek that collects water from the area around Moonlight Basin and flows into the Madison River just upstream of Ennis Lake.

With good access to Jack Creek due to an abundance of landowner cooperation, it provides a great educational opportunity for local school children ages two and up, she said.

The little kids can learn about how important clean water is to bugs, fish and other aquatic animals. The older students can learn how oxygen levels, nutrients and heavy metals impact aquatic life and water quality, Heikes-Knapton said.

The Madison Stream Team last year consisted of 14 volunteers who put in about 172 hours in the field and 80 hours of training.

This coming year, Heikes-Knapton is hoping to continue to provide training for current volunteers and recruit other volunteers to help with the monitoring projects.

One specific project she’s looking at for the coming year is a fecal coliform testing project on Moore’s Creek, which runs through Ennis.

This year’s tests showed elevated levels of fecal coliform in the creek both above and below town, she said. The coliform testing project this year would look at test samples from 10 different locations on the creek.

One of the major challenges with the water monitoring work in 2011 was the high water levels that persisted through the spring and into the summer, Heikes-Knapton said.

Spring snow and rain caused flooding around Madison County last year into July. The high water was hard on stream monitoring equipment and made access to high elevation monitoring sites difficult, she said.

For more information on water monitoring work around the Madison Valley, call Heikes-Knapton at 682-3181 or email her at mwc@3rivers.net.

The meeting provided attendees with a look at the finances of the medical center and an opportunity to listen to reports from a variety of people including the board of directors chairman Dottie Fossel, CEO Loren Tucker, and medical center foundation chair Mary Oliver.

The annual meeting is considered an official board meeting and is a requirement since the medical center is funded, in part, by taxes from a local hospital district that encompasses Madison Valley, including Harrison, Norris and Pony.

Once Fossel welcomed about 30 people to the meeting, she turned the presentation over to the medical center’s chief financial officer John Bishop, who started with the medical center last summer.

The financial health of the medical center has been steadily improving during the past three years, Bishop said. The most recent audits of the medical center and the hospital district were positive.

Basically, the basic operation of the medical center is a money-losing proposition, Bishop said. This means the services the medical center provides aren’t offset by the money paid by patients for those services.

However, the difference between the income from patients and cost of operations has been decreasing for the past three years, he said.

The deficit is offset by the money collected by the hospital mill levy and medical center foundation fundraising efforts, Bishop said.

“If it wasn’t for the tax levy and the foundation gifts, we’d be operating at a loss every year,” Bishop said.

This past year the medical center instituted an electronic medical records program, which qualified them for two significant payments from Medicare and Medicaid totaling about $650,000, he said. This along with the medical center foundation work to secure donations to pay off imagery equipment costs have allowed the medical center to bank about 45 days worth of operating costs.

Currently it costs the medical center about $17,000 a day to operate, Bishop said. This includes the cost of paying for equipment, personnel and debt.

The goal for 2012 is to work toward having 60 days worth of operation costs on hand, which will provide the medical center with a cushion should something unforeseen happen like a Medicare payment freeze, said Tucker.

Another goal is to work to reduce the difference in operating costs and income, he said.

Three years ago that difference was $1.4 million. In 2011, the difference was about $1 million. That’s a pretty dramatic decrease, Tucker said.

If the deficit in operation costs can be covered by the money collected by the mill levy, then the money raised by the foundation can be used to offset equipment depreciation at the medical center and a variety of other things, he said.

Community support, through charitable giving and the mill levy, will continue to play a crucial role in the medical center’s stability, Tucker said.

Along with an improving financial picture, the medical center is also experiencing some stability with their medical staff, said Dr. R.D. Marks, chief of staff at the medical center.

The core of the medical staff essentially remained the same through 2011, Marks said. This includes three physicians and one physician’s assistant along with the nursing staff.

“We have a very stable staff,” Marks said.

Now the medical center is bringing in specialists to provide gynecology and cardiology services, which will help meet the needs of local patients, he said.

Additionally, Marks is working to bring in speakers and presenters to help provide seminars and continuing education for the medical staff.

“It’s been very useful for the staff,” he said. “It helps to keep us on our toes.”

Also in the past year, the medical center provided more than $160,000 of financial assistance to 932 patients, Tucker said.

This coming year, the medical center will complete a community health need assessment and implement a program partner with the University of Montana to bring mental health services to Ennis, Tucker said.

Mary Oliver provided the report from the Madison Valley Medical Center Foundation, which had a very successful year in 2011 raising money to pay for equipment, computer software and energy upgrades within the medical center.

The foundation board is excited for the coming year and enthusiastically supports the leadership of medical center board, Oliver said.

Susie Sprout gave a report on the Ennis Ambulance Service.

Last year the ambulance service had 189 runs, which average 45 miles in length. The service was busiest in July with 25 runs and slowest in December with five runs, Sprout said.

In closing the meeting Fossel announced that two of the medical center board members were stepping down from the board this year. Both John Scully and John Duncan have decided not to seek re-election this year, she said.

Scully and Duncan served as co-CEOs of the medical center three years ago just after the new building was being completed. Their leadership and service on the board is greatly appreciated, she said.

The board held a brief public comment period before board chair Jeffrey Marsh announced the board would go into executive session and close the meeting to members of the public not involved with the grievance.

“We feel that right now it’s the right of privacy to the individuals, and we think that exceeds the public’s right to know,” Marsh said.

Former board member Karen Talley filed the grievance against Harding sometime prior to Jan. 1. Talley notified The Madisonian of the meeting Thursday morning and said she had filed the grievance against Harding, but would not provide a copy of or disclose the nature of the grievance.

Sheridan School District Policy 1700 outlines the district’s uniform procedure for addressing complaints and grievances. While the district encourages individuals with a grievance to discuss it informally with the appropriate teacher, counselor or building administrator, a chain of command exists for handling the grievance when the issue cannot be resolved informally.

Individuals may submit a written complaint signed and dated to the building administrator stating the nature of their grievance, a description of what happened and a suggestion for how they would like the issue resolved. At this point the building administrator has 30 days to address and resolve the complaint. If the complainant is not satisfied with the solution presented by the building administrator, he or she has 15 days to request that the school superintendent review the administrator’s decision.

The policy states that the superintendent has 30 days from the receipt of the written appeal to the administrator’s decision to review the grievance. In addressing the issue the superintendent has the option to meet with the parties involved in the complaint, conduct a separate or supplementary investigation, engage an outside investigator or other district employees to assist with the appeal and/or take other appropriate action to resolve the complaint.

If the complainant or individual the complaint was filed against is not satisfied with the superintendent’s decision, he or she may submit a written request that the board of trustees consider an appeal of that decision. At this point the board may place the appeal on the agenda for a regular or special board meeting or appoint an appeals panel of no less than three trustees to hear the appeal and make a recommendation to the other members of the board. The board has an additional 30 days to decide on the appeal, and all decisions made by the board are final unless it is appealed pursuant to Montana law within the period provided by law.

When a matter falls within the jurisdiction of a county superintendent of schools, the decision of the board may be appealed to the county superintendent by filing written appeal within 30 calendar days of the board’s decision, pursuant to Montana law. Sheridan’s policy does not specifically outline a procedure for addressing complaints or grievances against the school superintendent. When this is the case, the board chair may consult an outside investigator to represent the district and report back to the board of trustees.

Marsh acknowledged the board did hire a private investigator to look into the matter and report back to the school board. The board received the investigator’s report last week and reviewed it prior to Thursday’s meeting.

Following the executive session the board of trustees carried a motion granting the grievance and approving a remedy to the issue. However, this remedy was not made available by press time. It is still unclear whether it will be made public.

The next regular Sheridan School Board meeting is scheduled for Tuesday Feb. 14 at 7 p.m.

The three-person committee was appointed at last Tuesday’s Madison County Commissioner meeting. The following day committee members Rick Sandru, Neil Barnosky and
Gary Clark hosted the meeting along with all three Madison County Commissioners. The goal of the meeting was to answer questions and listen to concerns from local ranchers and set up the officers in the committee.

The Madison Livestock Protective Committee was formed after a petition was circulated among sheep and cattle ranchers in the county asking them to support a per head fee of up to 50 cents on adult animals to help pay for livestock protection issues.

Once the needed signatures were collected, the commissioners formed the committee, said Madison County Commissioner Dave Schulz.

State statute requires that for the petition to pass, signatures must be gathered by 51 percent of the livestock owners who own 55 percent of the livestock.

Once the petition was passed, the commissioners had to form the committee to administer the funds collected by the fee.

The petition was circulated this past summer and fall and was an idea that came from a Southwest Montana Stockgrowers Association meeting this past spring, Sandru told ranchers on Wednesday.

Initially the thought behind collecting the fee is to get some money together to help offset the cost to ranchers of dealing with wolf depredation problems, since Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks is unwilling to do their job, he said.

However, the money can be used for nearly anything as long as it falls within scope of the committee, Schulz said.

Though the meeting was held to answer questions and discuss the livestock protective committee, the concern most prevalent in the discussions was Montana FWP’s management of wolves.

Last year, Montana FWP took over wolf management from the federal government as the species was removed from the protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Last spring during the 2011 Montana Legislative Session, state senator Debby Barrett from Dillon sponsored Senate Bill 348 directing FWP to spend $900,000 on wolf management. The hope was that the bill would force the state to more aggressively address wolf/livestock conflicts around the state, Schulz said. However, it seems FWP has ignored the intent of the legislation and used the money to fund wolf specialists, administration and other ancillary portions of their wolf program.

Coupled with this has been a reduction in federal funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services, which is the agency used by FWP to kill or collar wolves causing depredation problems.

For several years FWP has allocated $110,000 annually to Wildlife Services to help with wolf management. However, with the reduction in federal funding, that contribution from FWP isn’t enough any longer, Schulz said.

The idea behind SB 348 was that FWP would allocate more money directly to Wildlife Services, he said. However, that didn’t happen. As a result some ranchers are forced to pay for Wildlife Services out of their own pocket when they have wolf depredation problems, Sandru said.

This can get particularly expensive when Wildlife Services uses a helicopter to track down problem wolves.

“They (Wildlife Services) haven’t been paying for that, so when the helicopter goes in the air, that cost goes on the producers,” Sandru said.

The funds collected by the county for the livestock protective committee could be used to offset those kinds of costs incurred by producers. Essentially, the committee will oversee the payment of funds collected by the fee, he said.

However, the funds could possibly be used by producers to sue FWP over their management of wolves, something a couple of the ranchers brought up during the meeting.

FWP has been side-stepping their obligations when it comes to wolf management, said Ruby Valley rancher John Anderson. Having funds collected from local producers and controlled by local producers could be an asset if they have to try and force the state to do their job.

“It does put a pot of money there under our control,” Anderson said.

Sandru agreed.

FWP seems to pay little attention to concerns by producers about the impact wolves have had on their animals and operations, he said.

“Right now they know we don’t have any money,” Sandru said. “Maybe if we had $50,000 in a fund they’d look at us a little different.”

The discontent with FWP and their wolf management seemed to be unanimous among those at the meeting, including the county commissioners.

“Fish and game just wants to side step the issue,” said Madison County Commissioner Dan Happel. “They know they haven’t done their jobs.”

And livestock producers aren’t the only ones concerned, Schulz said.

“They hunters are finding an incredible reduction in wildlife, both mule deer and elk – elk being the big issue,” Schulz said.

However, ranchers have gained little traction in taking their concerns to FWP, he said.

“The only way they’ve been able to make a statement is to shut their land off to hunting,” Schulz said. “Something to get FWP’s attention.”

After the general meeting, Sandru, Clark and Barnosky all met and elected Sandru president of the Madison County Livestock Protective Committee and Barnosky will serve as secretary.

The three men also set the per head fee at 50 cents for cattle and 10 cents for sheep. The fee should raise about $25,000 annually and will be on 2012 tax statements.

It’s impressive that Madison County was able to get this petition passed in such a short time frame, Sandru said after the meeting. But unfortunately the committee won’t have much to do until money is collected from tax payments at the end of this year.

“There’s basically not going to be anything for this committee to do until there are funds collected in this account,” he said.

Even though the wolf issue is front and center now, other issues may present problems in the future and the protective committee will be able to address those isues as well, Sandru said.

“I think this fund is going to be way more valuable down the road on other issues,” he said.

The goal of the Victims Witness Advocacy office is to offer guidance for victims throughout the court process and reduce the trauma associated with being victimized, said Amy Donovan, who serves as Victims Advocate for Madison County.

The program provides intervention as soon as possible after a violent crime occurs to reduce the negative impact and consequences that go along with being the victim of a violent crime.

“To get them to go through the entire process,” Donovan says of victims who may otherwise slip through cracks in the legal system for any number of reasons. “The most important thing is to give them enough support to hang in there so we can prosecute.”

Often times it can be a difficult and frightening experience for victims to face their perpetrators in the courtroom. The services provided by the advocacy program include direct support services and personal advocacy such as counseling, crisis intervention and referral to other service agencies.

Providing that level of support is no small task. The federal grant application to the Montana Board of Crime Control for the amount of $28,000 would help cover the cost of mental health and counseling services for juveniles and adults as well as emergency travel, medical expenses and office supplies.

The advocacy program aims to develop trust and build support for victims in the criminal justice system by ensuring protection for victims and witnesses during prosecution, minimizing the stress and trauma that victims of violent crimes typically experience and seeing that perpetrators are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

“I think one of the biggest things is doing whatever I can to support that victim,” Donovan said.

While she might not fit the archetypal image of a superhero flying in to save the day, Amy Donavan provides victims with a shoulder to lean on as they deal with the difficulties of the criminal justice system. For more information about Madison County’s Victim/Witness Advocacy Program call 843 – 5249.

More than 10 years ago, Malcolm Gladwell, a journalist and author, wrote a book called “The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.” It’s a highly informative book and a great read because it documents how the tiniest efforts can sometimes lead to incredibly positive (and sometimes negative) outcomes.
The people or person who made the small effort generally had no clue as to the eventual outcome of their effort. These tiny efforts that can lead to big outcomes can be applied to consumer trends, politics, business growth, capital campaigns and even the spread or stoppage of communicable disease. I know a bit about this phenomenon because it happened with the Madison Valley Hospital capital campaign, Fish Out Of Water, the Madison Marathon and other development projects that our office has managed.

Little efforts can make a difference. If we ignore the smallest of efforts or consider them inconsequential and not worth doing, we risk losing momentum. Potentially, we tip backwards and lose the entire project. We always have to keep pushing.

As most of you know, we are a finalist to be selected as the home community for the Montana Cowboy Hall of Fame and Western Heritage Center. We have already had one tipping point and it eventually became anything but a tiny effort. Tony and Amie James, the new owners of the Hamilton Ranch, have agreed to donate the Doncaster Round Red Barn plus 30 acres of land near Twin Bridges as part of our final proposal. This incredibly gracious gift has set us up to win.

However, even this effort started with a simple phone call inquiring if it was too late or not to consider a new land option. That phone call tipped Madison County into a position to win this competition when it may not have had much of a chance. In visual terms, we are now like a needle standing straight up at a 90-degree angle. We can either tip forward into the winning column or tip backwards as an also-ran.

Right now, I like our chances. If I were the development director in Livingston, Big Timber, or Big Sky, I would want to be in Madison County’s boots. Yet, I would also be looking for new tipping points to make my community more competitive to negate the strong position of Madison County and the other competitors.

This is where you come in. What’s your tipping point? What is the effort that you are ready to put forward for our community to tip us into an even stronger position? These efforts can be as simple as a letter of support, an offer of some kind of service (e.g. a horse training seminar), a letter writing campaign among your group or club members (e.g. a batch of letters from 4H members), a pledged donation, an actual donation, or anything else. The beauty of the tipping point phenomenon is that you never know what might be the tipping point that leads to success. The most important part of the tipping point idea is that you never stop working.

Please send me your tipping point ideas. Thank you.

Dear Editor,

I’m getting a little tired of, and upset by, the letters bashing and demonizing Bob Wagner. As I see it, he’s trying to keep his campaign promises of cutting spending, and by applying the constitution as his guideline. That’s what he was sent to Helena for.

My understanding is that the veto by our governor was based on personal feelings and a pettiness to punish those who disagreed with him. Never mind all the people who were adversely affected by it.

We all agree that spending must be cut if we’re to survive as a nation, but when it comes to our pet programs, or those which will affect us adversely, we’re up in arms.

As for me, I’ll continue to support him as long as he’s trying to do what he was elected to do.

Rose Wood
Sheridan

40 years after Roe v. Wade – taking on abortion, Obamacare

Dear Editor,

When do you believe life begins? The scientific, biological fact is – at the moment of conception.

One might more appropriately ask, “What is your belief based upon – fact or religion?” To deny scientific fact would be a religious belief, or “a supposed religious belief,” based upon rejection of this fact.

For 40 years, more than 50 million lives have been lost in the battle to protect this simple truth. There are those that believe it is good public policy to continue this lie, but is it? To support this belief, one must consider the consequences. Government then becomes the church acting against it’s own doctrine –
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Not only is this “good public policy” not good because it is contrary to the rule of law. It fails to recognize that the primary purpose of government is to protect the fundamental right to life – a life which is off limits to government because of its sovereign status from its beginning to its end.

So after one accepts the invasion of the sovereign persons right, then the question is a matter of when government is authorized to end life and who will pay for the process. In the case of the unborn, it has been the practice for the past 40 years that the taxpayer is forced to pay through taxes that are then distributed to agencies that do the dirty work. Now the question arises why are those that do not believe the false doctrine of “good public policy” compelled to contribute to a “church” that not only violates its own doctrine, but the religious doctrine of their own church.

Article I of the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This strictly prohibits the state from becoming the “church” that it has become evident of its own acts.

This past month of January marks the 40th anniversary of a Supreme Court ruling that has produced consequences far beyond the horrors of the Holocaust – all in the name of the secular religious ideology that is being forced upon the people, but the horror is not yet over. This religious ideology that decides when life is not worth living is the foundation for Obamacare. The same generation that has faithfully paid for the extermination of over 50 million lives is now threatened in their old age.

I visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. recently. After six hours of reading, watching films and listening to audiotapes, I am convinced more than ever that not only funding for the killing of the innocent must stop; but the indoctrination of our children and the propaganda circulated and paid for with tax dollars must stop. Freedom of speech isn’t free when paid for with taxes. It is 40 years past time to rise up and demand the protection of the most fundamental property right – your life, and the innocent life of others from beginning to end.

First they came for the unborn, innocent and without sin, claiming they really do not live, and I said nothing. Then they came to accommodate those without hope that wish to abandon their lives, and I said nothing. “Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.” (Niemoller, Holocaust survivor)

Rep. Bob Wagner
House District 71
Harrison

Questioning Wagner’s leadership, poor representation of district

Dear Editor,

Bob Wagner’s recent impertinent response to a House District 71 Whitehall constituent prompts a reply. Wagner’s commentary begins with the assertion that citizens who pay taxes are abused and the First Amendment is even more abused as used by one who is the recipient of said taxes. If it is an intended retort, it is a more confusing insult.

However, Wagner’s revisionist history about House Bill 351 necessitates a look at the facts.

The Treasure State Endowment Program provides grants for Montana’s infrastructure needs and last session the bill funding the program contained grants for two Madison County projects, Sheridan wastewater needs and Blaine Springs Bridge. Wagner voted against HB351 on final third reading. He stated he cast his negative vote (a direct quote) “to make a statement.” By his words, it was more important to him to show his anti-government ideology than to represent his district and constituents with a supporting yes vote for these critical projects.

Once again, poor legislative decisions wind up in the courts. Sheridan’s and Madison County’s recourse to try to retrieve funding is to spend extra tax-payer dollars by filing a lawsuit. Amazingly, Wagner then spins this action as “not being alone in his pursuit of justice.” This remedy does not vindicate Wagner’s thinking or vote. It is the only possibility to recover funding out of the mess to which Wagner contributed. Wagner, instead, blames the governor, who, when vetoing Madison County line items, reasoned that the coveted TSEP money should be prioritized and awarded to projects in districts whose representatives supported HB351 funding for their special projects.

As reported in May in The Madisonian, two commissioners, Schulz and Hart, commented on Wagner’s HD71 representation. Schulz said, in part, “that politics are now having real impacts on local communities and projects. People need to consider that during the next election cycle. I don’t think we can do anything today but I certainly think come election time we can be more considerate of the person being a true representative of Madison County.” Hart commented, “from my standpoint the breakdown occurred because of Mr. Wagner’s standpoint on things that don’t directly relate to Madison County.”

The last legislative session was rife with anti-government/Tea Party-sanctioned bills that proved to have little to do with Montana issues. Many were unconstitutional.

Bob Wagner’s record shows that his voice was and continues to be a party to this ideology. HD71 citizens must consider this when going to the polls this year.

Pat Bradley
Twin Bridges

Decreasing size of county government not the answer

Dear Editor,

As a Madison County department head I would like clarification on the statement by Mr. Yecny on “decreasing county government” – where exactly does Mr. Yecny see wasted or excessive human resources that support county residents?

While my tenure in the county is short, what I have observed and researched and what the Madison County Health Needs Assessment supports, is that a growth in county or local level government is necessary and desired by the residents to maintain a healthy, prosperous and protected community. Growth in this context can include restructuring program or process, not simply adding more bodies.

Growth in local governing is not necessarily parallel with growth in federal government; actually it supports a decrease in overarching federal government with more control being given to individual jurisdictions, i.e. giving the power back to the people who work and live within Madison County.

County government can (and does) direct services and resources to the people and environments most in need, these needs are determined by the very residents who sit on local boards, volunteer their services and respond to needs surveys. The Madison County Public Health Department will hold a public hearing on March 7 to develop strategic plans to address health and safety related issues. These plans will close the gaps in services and programs identified by residents in April of 2011.

Residents who are interesting in the findings of the preliminary meetings can read the Madison County Health Needs Assessment posted on the Madison County Public Health web site and then determine for themselves if our county government needs to be reduced. I urge residents who are concerned or better yet happy with our community to have lunch and participate on March 7. County officials and employees need the input from the community to proceed.

My opinion is my own, and not the opinion of Madison County. County government, if managed responsibility, meets the direct needs of the residents, no more, no less. This is not waste, but efficiency. Our county government, currently from the 5,000-foot view of Public Health Department, is in need of possible restructuring but is not in any way bloated. I personally do not sit idle in the public health department and neither does the public health nurse or public health clerk. On the contrary, we have identified needs from the Community Health Needs Assessment that we are struggling to meet because we are short on resources. I see other county agencies with the same constraints. Mr. Editor, county government employees are county residents that pay taxes as well, we as a group are very frugal with how we allocate our resources to serve the county. I invite the residents to help us do a more efficient job in providing services and programs by participating or by simply reading board minutes to become informed.

Theresa Stack
Madison County Public Health Administrator

Byron Bayers stands in the front entrance on the ground level of the historic Round Barn north of Twin Bridges. Bayers and his family ran a successful hereford ranch here before selling the property where the barn is located in 1985. Photo by Ben Coulter

Passersby may look at the barn and imagine the old western figures glamorized by Hollywood movies. But what may not be obvious now is the round barn’s working history. The glorious old structure has seen its share of livestock and hard work. It’s history is lengthy and hidden inside its great swinging doors is a rich tradition of western heritage and the cowboy way.

The barn was originally built in 1882 by Noah Armstrong, who made his fortune mining silver in Montana’s Highland Mountains.

Armstrong had a passion for horse racing was determined to breed racehorses, theorizing the high altitude and fertile farmland along the Jefferson River would provide a perfect location to raise superior competition animals. After buying the land Armstrong changed the name from the Jefferson River Ranch to Doncaster Ranch in honor of a favorite horse, and would go on to raise several championship quality racehorses out of the Round Barn. The most famous of these horses was Spokane, a chestnut horse who was born in the Round Barn’s stables in 1886 and went on to become the 1889 Kentucky Derby winner.

The red Round Barn and surrounding acreage was recently donated as the site for Madison Countie's bid to host the Montana Cowboy Hall of Fame and Western Heritage Center. Photo by Ben Coulter

“Those old boys used to tell me stories, and of course I loved to go back down there and listen to them talk,” Bayers said.

One day as he was nosing around the second floor hayloft, young Byron stumbled upon a rolled up piece of paper. When he opened it he discovered an original photograph of Spokane that had been stashed away years before by previous owners. Today, the well-preserved image sits on display in Bayers’ home.

However, the real history of the barn is in cattle ranching, not horse breeding, explained Bayers.

During the nearly 50 years the Bayers family owned the barn they saw their ranching operation become one of the top Hereford cattle producers in the country. They hosted an annual livestock sale in the barn, selling breeding cattle to stock ranches in several states around the nation and even going as far as Mexico and Canada. Bayers estimates that during the time his family owned the barn they sold more than $5 million worth of cattle out of it.

Byron Bayers displays an old photograph of the 1889 Kentucky Derby winner Spokane that he found while playing inside the Round Barn as a child. Photo by Ben Coulter

“The glory goes into the fishing and the hunting and the tourism that’s built around it,” he says. “But when you read the figures the cattle industry still generates a huge amount of money. “

The architecture of the barn alone is as impressive as its storied history. The three-story structure stands 48 feet tall from ground level to the tip of the third floor ceiling. The ground level spans one hundred feet across and holds 12 square horse stalls, and a 20-foot wide circular track circles the interior. In the center is an old grain elevator, harness closet and two hospital stalls designed for the animals. A spiral staircase leads to the hayloft on second floor.
The hayloft was capable of holding 50 tons of hay and up to 12,000 bushels of grain, Bayers said. Chutes were cut into the floor so feed could be deposited into individual horse stalls on the ground level. On the third floor was located a thousand gallon water tank that was filled by aid of a windmill atop the barn. The water was then dispersed by gravity through a plumbing system to the horse stalls on the ground level.

The building stands on stone abutments made from rocks gathered in nearby Hells Canyon, and sit more than a dozen feet underground below the water table.
According to Bayers the main supports in the center of the barn are as straight and true as the day it was built, but over time parts of the framework began to sag and the barn fell into a state of disrepair.

In 1985 the Bayers family sold a portion of the ranch that included the Round Barn and the building went unused. Eventually the property found its way into the hands of local rancher Allan Hamilton, who wanted to see the building restored to its original glory. Together with ranch manager George Trischman and local carpenter Bob Lancaster, Hamilton began the daunting restoration project in 1997 to ensure that the building and its rich history didn’t fade into the past.

The Round Barn was recently donated by current owners Tony and Amie James to house the Montana Cowboy Hall of Fame and Western Heritage Center. Madison County is on the list of finalists for where the facility should be located, and with the barn and its most famous horse, Spokane, already admitted to the Montana Cowboy Hall of Fame in 2008, the county will make a strong bid for the final location.

The agency will use four community meetings to explain the river recreation planning process and find out what concerns people may have about recreation on the Madison River, said Pat Flowers, FWP Region 3 director.

After the four meetings, the agency will appoint a citizen advisory committee, which will work together to develop a recommendation for recreation management on the Madison River. This recommendation will be forwarded to the FWP Commission, which will have the final say on any formal management plan.

People interested in being on the advisory committee need to submit an application by March 16.

The advisory committee will have a diverse representation to adequately address the varied users on the river and be comprised of up to 12 people, according to FWP’s website.

River recreation management has a relatively short history in Montana. Four other rivers in the state have gone through the process, including the Beaverhead and Big Hole Rivers in southwest Montana.

The process to develop a recreation management plan for those two rivers was contentious and led to the development of the more formalized planning process that exists today, said Robin Cunningham, director of Fishing Outfitters Association of Montana.

Cunningham was involved in helping the agency develop the planning process that will be used on the Madison River.

Cunningham will be applying for the advisory committee and is focused on making sure FWP adheres strictly to the process outlined in their river recreation planning rules and uses the best information available to guide the committee.

“There’s lots of layers of administrative involvement and hopefully transparency,” Cunningham said. “Because this is a river that’s nationally known they (FWP) are paying a lot of attention to transparency.”

Some of the information the agency has gathered about recreational use on the Madison River is available on a page on their website dedicated to this specific process. The information includes angler use days, along with angler and landowner surveys.

The Madison River is the most heavily fished river in FWP region 3. Depending on the year, it’s the most heavily fished river in the state – jockeying for the top spot with the Missouri River.

Over the past years, FWP has prioritized rivers around the state for recreation management. The Madison River has been at the top of the priority list in region 3 for some time, Flowers said.

Recreation management on the Madison River is really shared between FWP and the Bureau of Land Management, which manages quite a bit of land along the upper river and operates about half of the fishing access sites along the length of the river. The BLM also manages the Bear Trap Canyon Wilderness Area below Ennis Dam.
The discussion of developing some sort of formal recreation management plan for the Madison has also been ongoing between the two agencies, said Tim Bozorth, director of the BLM Dillon Field Office.

“We’ve dialogued with them for a number of years on the potential of triggering the river management rule process,” Bozorth said. “I agree with FWP that we need to take a look at things, take a hard look and get some recommendations from the citizen advisory committee on how we should be managing recreation on the Madison.”

The BLM will be engaged in the recreation management process on the Madison from beginning to end, he said.

“We intend to work closely with them on the project,” Bozorth said.

However, it’s important not to invent a problem that isn’t there, Cunningham said. All the surveys conducted by FWP demonstrate that people are pretty satisfied with the recreational experience on the Madison River.

That’s why it’s going to be important for all the people interested in the Madison River – from outfitters to main street businesses – to make sure their feelings and viewpoints are heard, he said. That way if there are recreational conflicts on the Madison River they can get addressed.

“Get a real solution to a real problem rather than someone’s preconceived notion of what ought to happen,” Cunningham said.

The one thing he cautions is focusing too much on the commercial use on the river. Commercial use on the Madison River is permitted and very easy to track.
However, it is only about 14 percent of the total use of the river, he said.

The problem is that restrictions tend to hit fishing guides and outfitters first because they’re the easiest to regulate.

“There’s always that concern, particularly in a relatively defensive commercial community, that pretty much they are the only ones who have had restrictions put on them,” Cunningham said.

While it is certain that a river recreation plan will be developed, just exactly what that plan will entail is still an open discussion, Flowers said.

“We are not coming into this with any preconceived notion with how that river should be managed,” he said. “One of the best things about this process is it comes from the users and that’s both noncommercial and commercial users.”

And though the recreation use on the entire stretch of the Madison is high – from the fly fishing on the upper river to the tubers and party floaters in Bear Trap Canyon – it’s not at a critical point, Flowers said.

“I don’t believe we are at an absolute crisis point on the river,” he said. “Which in my mind makes it a better time to take on planning when you’re not in a crisis mode.”

The four scoping meetings will begin Feb. 15 in Ennis at the middle school at 6 p.m. There will be another meeting the following night at the Bozeman Comfort Inn.
The third meeting will be in West Yellowstone at the Holiday Inn on Feb. 28. The last meeting will be at the Whitehall High School, March 1. All meetings will be at 6 p.m.

For more information on the recreation planning process or to apply to be on the citizen advisory committee, go to FWP’s website (click here) or call FWP’s Bozeman office at 994-4042.

John Anderson ranches south of Alder in the Upper Ruby Valley and Sweetwater area. Over the past several years, he has had as many as 3,000 elk on rangeland where he grazes cattle.

Last year his ranch was the location of a Montana FWP project to trap and test 100 cow elk. The project’s objective was to begin studying the extent of brucellosis in elk. Of the 100 trapped in the upper Ruby Valley last year, 12 tested positive for exposure to brucellosis.

Anderson submitted his name to be on the working group because of the location of his ranch and his concern with the ongoing risk of brucellosis transmission from elk to cattle.

“I don’t think there’s any real easy answers here,” he said.

Brucellosis is a bacterial disease that can occur in buffalo, cattle and elk. The disease can cause animals to abort their fetuses.

Under the Montana Department of Livestock Brucellosis Management Plan, the area around Yellowstone National Park, including much of Madison County, is part of a
Designated Surveillance Area. The DSA rules guide ranchers on developing a plan for regular testing and vaccination of their cattle.

This past fall, a bull bison from Ted Turner’s Snowcrest Ranch in the upper Ruby Valley tested positive for brucellosis.

The constant interaction between elk and cattle creates several management challenges in the effort to keep cattle disease free, Anderson said.

Despite the challenges in managing cattle and elk on the same ground, ranchers still need to graze cattle on public lands, Anderson said. It would be too easy to shut the ranchers off from grazing public lands to avoid conflict with elk. However, that would be economically devastating to many producers.

“That’s the main reason I’m there is to try and protect our own personal interests and the interests of our neighbors in this discussion about what we do with the problem,” he said. “The only thing I can see coming out of this committee would be to somehow mitigate the interaction between the bison and the elk in particular and the livestock at the critical time the elk are calving.”

The elk/brucellosis working group’s first meeting is Thursday and Friday in Bozeman, said FWP spokesman Ron Aasheim. FWP director Joe Maurier appointed the 11-member group. The agency received 40 applications from people interested in being on the group.

“The working group will lead an effort to examine effective elk management options and risk prevention efforts in several southwestern Montana hunting districts,” reads a press release from FWP. “The areas generally include hunting districts that border or are near Yellowstone National Park.”

The group will hopefully develop options for elk management that can be forwarded on to the FWP Commission, Aasheim said.

Over the years, the relationship between elk and cattle and the potential of brucellosis transmission has raised concern with ranchers around Yellowstone National Park. The working group was organized to help the agency develop potential solutions.

“This is something we know we have to address, so we’re looking for input,” he said.

The group will meet monthly through June. The agenda for this first meeting includes several presentations from brucellosis experts on the nature of the disease and its prevalence in elk herds in southwest Montana. The group will also work together to develop a problem statement to guide their future work.

The working group’s meeting will be at the FWP Region 3 headquarters on 19th Street in Bozeman. It is open to the public, but public comment won’t be taken, according to the press release. The public will have an opportunity to comment on any proposal developed by the group when it is considered by the FWP Commission.

The meeting will start at 1 p.m. Thursday and continue through Friday. For more information call 444-2612.