Long-term outlook for home values positive

To the editor,

Merrill Lynch's Jan. 23 report predicting a free-fall in home prices was yet another panic analysis based on faulty assumptions. While home values are adjusting, flattening out or even declining in some markets during the current economic downturn, the long-term outlook for home values remains positive. Consider the facts:

Except for about 30 or so high-flying metro markets where home values doubled in four or five years, the correction now underway in home values has been relatively modest for the vast majority of U.S. markets. And home values can be expected to stabilize and then edge upward again with the next recovery. To argue that home values will continue to decline and will never recover, someone has to make a convincing argument that it will cost less to build a new home three years from now than it does today. That's not going to happen. The cost of land will rebound as the recovery gets underway, particularly in high-growth urban markets where there is a very tight supply of land available for development. And the hard costs of building — labor and materials — can also be expected to continue to rise.

There is no monolithic housing market. Like politics, all housing markets are local in character and driven by their own unique set of supply and demand pressures. That makes national forecasts on home values, such as those issued by Merrill Lynch and others, irrelevant. People want to know what's happening in their own market, and factors affecting home values vary considerably from one market to the next.

America is on a growth path, with the projected growth in population and households being formed year after year requiring about 1.8 million new housing units per year over the next 10 years just to meet demand. Once the current inventory of unsold units is cleared out, the pace of home sales and new housing construction will return to more normal levels.

The Flathead Building Association along with the Montana Building Industry Association is so committed to this message that we will launch a "Buy Now" campaign this spring. Please contact the FBA at 752-2422 for more information.

Robert Helder

President, Flathead Building Association

Frustrated with rejection of North Fork Plan

To the editor,

Thanks to Larry Wilson for his lucid explanation of the North Fork Neighborhood Plan, including its origin and intent (HHN, Jan. 24). As Larry succinctly phrased it, "[It] is the vision of private landowners in the community," and is designed to guide governing bodies whose decisions will affect the nature of our community.

Given the past history of planning efforts on the North Fork, I share Larry's frustration with the Flathead County Planning Board's 4-3 vote to reject the reformatted plan pending further discussion and clarification.

However, I think the current planning board is acting in good faith, and that the Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office has been of immeasurable help in our rewriting of the plan. This minor setback for the North Fork Neighborhood Plan, I think, is because the state law mandating neighborhood plans was passed just recently, and most involved are new to the process.

Richard E. Wackrow

Polebridge

Fears about wolves unfounded

Despite the fact that wolf packs have been present in northwest Montana since 1986, and in Central Idaho and Greater Yellowstone since 1995, recent public hearings on wolf recovery and delisting show that among some wolf opponents, levels of concern, fear and hatred remain strong.

The good news is that 50 years of research and field experience show that most of the fears are either unfounded, or can be addressed in a number of effective ways. Here then are some of people's top concerns, and what we know about solving them:

1. People are afraid that they or their kids will be attacked or killed by wolves. A half-century of repeated fact checking has repeatedly discovered that, "There are no documented cases of healthy, wild wolves attacking and killing humans in the U.S. in the last 400 years."

There are perhaps ten cases of people being bitten — some involving habituated, food-conditioned wolves, and others where people were defending a pet or hunting dog — but zero deaths. In contrast, domestic dogs kill 20 to 22 people per year, and send 800,000 to emergency rooms.

2. Livestock producers are concerned over depredations to their cattle or sheep. While most wolves seem to concentrate on natural prey, some, particularly those close to livestock operations, do take cattle and sheep.

For example, in the three state region around Greater Yellowstone where depredations are the highest, losses over the last decade have averaged 0.13 cattle/1,000 available, and 0.22 sheep/1,000. Fortunately, ranchers may kill wolves in the act of killing or injuring their livestock, and in 2006 federal and state agencies killed 53 Montana wolves, and 142 region-wide to resolve depredations.

In addition, since 1987, Defenders of Wildlife has compensated ranchers for confirmed losses at 100 percent of fall market value, and probable losses at 50 percent. Compensation paid over the last 20 years has totaled $966,332, including $287,724 in Montana. Average annual losses across Montana in the past decade have been 21 cattle, and 42 sheep.

3. Some sportsmen are concerned that wolves will substantially lower big game herds, impacting their hunting opportunities. Perhaps we should recall that in 1804-06 when Lewis and Clark poled up the Missouri there was no predator control, yet the explorers repeatedly noted "vast herds" of bison, elk, deer, antelope — and large packs of wolves.

Whether you look at Alaska, Canada, or the Great Lakes States with 4,000 wolves, game managers and wolf biologists have consistently noted that wolves, by themselves, are seldom able to significantly lower big game numbers and hold them down. Such reductions can occur, however, in the presence of high human harvest, other predators, severe winter weather, or prolonged drought, as we've seen with the Northern Yellowstone elk herd.

In addition, Wyoming Game and Fish reports its elk herds are 17 percent above objectives, Idaho harvests are at or above historic averages, and Montana, with 130,000 to 160,000 elk recently asked sportsmen for ideas on how to lower herd numbers. Wolf predation has been shown to move elk around their home ranges more widely than they did in the last 60 years, wolves aren't likely to wipe out their own food supply anytime soon.

As many sportsmen know, a fatal brain illness called Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has been moving north and east from Colorado threatening to decimate deer and elk populations, and has been called by some "the number one threat to big game and hunting in the U.S." But CWD, by making its victims lose coordination and stagger around, makes them incredibly vulnerable to predators. Recently, CWD and wolf researchers have raised the possibility that because they attack vulnerable prey first, wolves may help check the spread of the disease.

4. Many wolf opponents believe than an excessive amount has been spent on wolf recovery in the Rockies. In fact, since wolves were listed as "Threatened" (1973), the total cost of recovery has been $26 million, or 23.4 cents per taxpayer (0.7 cents/taxpayer/year).

Interestingly, a 2006 economic study by John Duffield of the Univ. of Montana found that wolf-related tourism brings in $35 million per year for the three states around Yellowstone National Park, and those dollars turn over in local communities for a total impact of $70 million per year. Thus, the wolves of Yellowstone alone more than pay back the total recovery bill — every year.

When all the myths, fears, and fairytales are addressed, it becomes clear that we have ample opportunity, and reason, to coexist with this native American carnivore. It remains to be seen whether we'll summon the generosity of spirit to do so.

Brian Peck of rural Columbia Falls works on wolf conservation and education programs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, based in Livingston.