Margi Leininger maintains a very energetic pair of goals for 2006. Recently named the new executive director of Stevensville’s Chantilly Theatre, one of her ambitions is to continue making community theatre available to the Bitterroot Valley, and the second: encourage more locals to be serviceable contributors to our area’s dynamic cultural landscape.

Leininger hopes that more locals will experience a live theatrical event at Chantilly this year, either as a volunteer donating time keeping its programs running, as a performer showcasing their talents on stage, or as a patron appreciating the local arts scene right in their own back yard. Indeed, no matter what capacity of involvement, community theatre is a way to escape the ordinary.

“I’m trying to remind people that we’re a community theatre,” said Leininger. “And that we’re looking for more participants in the community.”

Leininger replaces Gretchen Speiss, an acclaimed costume designer, who owned the Chantilly until 1995. That same year the theatre went non-profit and came under the ownership of the Chantilly Players, Inc. Built in 1930, the building it occupies was last used for movie showings in the late 1980s. The structure remained abandoned, worse yet condemned, until Speiss’s father bought it and created the Chantilly Theatre in 1989. With its bold colors and geometric designs, the theatre still epitomizes the decorative and architectural style of the late 1920s - early 1930s.

“We will miss Gretchen, and we hope to transition smoothly here without her,” said Leininger. “She transformed this place into a very special community theatre.”

“We all very much appreciate, respect and love Gretchen to death,” continued Leininger, who has volunteered in nearly every aspect of Chantilly’s operation, from working at the box office and concession booth to directing plays and serving as its board president.

Adoringly staffed by enthusiastic volunteers of all ages (working everywhere from the box office to back stage), the atmosphere at the Chantilly is that of an informal, intimate spot where nobody is looked at as a stranger, and where everybody knows everybody.

The Chantilly will be sticking with all the tradition that it possibly can, said Leininger. “We’re keeping the family atmosphere, that’s important. We do want to involve more families with our productions.” Additionally, there’s some new juicy material being planned for the future that’s “a little risqué without being offensive.”

“We’ve got some stuff that’s a little scary for Stevensville,” she said.

Tonight is the first “full run-through” of William Gibson’s legendary masterpiece, The Miracle Worker. The play depicts the life of a young Helen Keller, blind, deaf, and mute since infancy. In danger of being shipped to an institution, and trapped in her secret, silent world, the girl’s powerlessness to communicate has left her despondent, even violent.

Tasha Sorenson, 12, is portraying Keller. “I like having the chance to be somebody else,” she said. “It’s so fun.”

As the play unfolds, Helen’s parents seek help from the Perkins Institute, which sends Anne Sullivan (played by Raynee Daguerre), a “half-blind Yankee schoolgirl” to tutor their deficient daughter. Through doggedness and love, and sheer tenacity, Annie breaks through the girl’s walls of speechlessness and sullenness, and teaches her to communicate.

Toni Daguerre is making her directorial debut. With six weeks’ worth of preparation put into The Miracle Worker, consisting of four to five rehearsals per week, and a fairly large ensemble of 14 actors and one dog, Daguerre said that directing “has been an education.” She said that a substantial commitment of time and energy is required on the part of each member of the all-volunteer cast and crew involved with the production.

Daguerre said that she grew up loving Anne Bancroft and the actress’s performance in the film adaptation of The Miracle Worker. “It’s my personal favorite,” she said.

“It’s great to see your dream come alive,” Daguerre added.

So, just what is it that compels folks like Daguerre to voluntarily get involved with community theater productions? Why is it that so many people work in community theaters as actors, directors, crew, board members, etcetera, and put in lots of effort for so many hours without pay?

The attraction for some, said Leininger, is that being a part of a community theater group allows you to present a persona that’s most personally satisfying, both on and off stage. Creative expression is the allure for others.

“Community theatre gives us the chance to share many of our own feelings and thoughts,” said Leininger.

“It’s nice to have an influence,” said Daguerre. “And it’s nice to be able to share your own vision that drives a production.”

Over the years, Chantilly Theatre has introduced over 700 young adults and local high school students to theatre. In fact, the theatre has served as a developing point for quite a few folks who have gone on to be a part of Off-Broadway musicals and Broadway-bound projects.

“Lots of people come back to Chantilly later in life due to their remembrance of their experiences in high school and earlier,” said Leininger.

“So many children have been a part of this theatre,” said actor and writer Dean Diers, who is playing Helen Keller’s father in The Miracle Worker. “As adults, many of them credit the Chantilly with being an early and great source of inspiration in their lives.”

The cast is ready for their practice performances; their work begins in earnest. As director, Daguerre has the crew focusing on the same goal: to make the best production possible as a result of their cohesive collaboration. Though it can be intense, dramatic and difficult, the cast and crew of the theater care about each other – on and off stage. Overcoming timing issues, forgotten lines, even a prop problem or two, the cast of The Miracle Worker gets past their first full run-through and finds they are ready for dress rehearsal.

Shortly, in less than weeks, the show will go on. The play will be on its feet, just like the director imagined, and ready for an audience. Opening night is exhilarating for everyone, even the very nervous worriers in the group.

Leininger invites the public to go the extra mile with Chantilly, and to create new community relationships through fun, madcap parodies and emotionally engaging programs, like The Miracle Worker.

And true to the essence of one of her stated goals for 2006, she encourages community participation in all of the theatre’s activities.

“I’d like to reach out and let people know that they have a great deal to gain from exposure to live theater.”

The Miracle Worker will show on February 3, 4, 10, and 11 at 8 p.m., and on February 5 and 12 at 2:00 p.m. For ticket availability or other information call 777-2722.

On March 14, 1903, without fanfare, President Theodore Roosevelt signed an executive order establishing Pelican Island, a five acre island off the coast of Florida, as the first federal bird reservation. Pelican Island was the first time that the federal government set aside land for the benefit of wildlife. Eventually, he established a network of 55 bird reservation and national game preserves for wildlife - the lands that eventually would evolve into the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Why did President Roosevelt establish Pelican Island? By the late 19th Century, an expanding market for bird feathers for the fashion industry (both foreign and domestic) resulted in the slaughter of beautiful herons, egrets, spoonbills and pelicans; at one point, plume feathers were worth more than gold. One out of every 1,000 Americans was employed in the millinery trade. Frank Chapman, curator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and a member of the American Ornithologist’s Union, identified 40 species of birds adorning 525 women’s hats while walking on the streets of Manhattan.

Professional feather collectors were very effective in their efforts, especially targeting colonially nesting birds, and it soon became fact that Pelican Island was the last rookery of brown pelicans left on the entire eastern seaboard of the U.S.

But, the birds of Pelican Island were about to be saved by the arrival of a concerned German immigrant. Paul Kroegel arrived in Sebastian, Florida in 1881, and homesteaded with his father on an ancient shell midden on the west bank of the Indian River Lagoon. From his home Kroegel would look out to Pelican Island, a five-acre mangrove island where thousands of brown pelicans and other water birds would roost and nest. He took an interest in protecting the island’s birds. Without state or federal laws to protect the birds, Kroegel would sail out to Pelican Island with his gun and stand guard.

Many other private citizens were also working for bird protection. William Dutcher, insurance salesman, and Harriet Hemenway, Boston socialite, mobilized national public support via an educational and legislative campaign using the grisly accounts of bird slaughter as one of their tools.

In 1901, the American Ornithologist’s Union and the Florida Audubon Society led a successful campaign to pass legislation in Florida calling for the protection of non-game birds. Kroegel was one of four wardens hired by the Florida Audubon Society to protect water birds from market hunters. Two of those wardens were eventually murdered in the line of duty.

Frank Chapman and his fellow bird protection advocate, William Dutcher, understood that protecting the birds of Pelican Island required additional protection. Chapman and Dutcher were acquainted with President Theodore Roosevelt, who had assumed the Presidency in 1901. They visited Roosevelt at his home in Sagamore Hill, New York, and appealed to his strong conservation ethic. President Roosevelt affirmed their reasoning and made the executive order of federal protection; Paul Kroegel was hired as the first National Wildlife Refuge manager. He was paid $1 a month by the Florida Audubon Society, as Congress had not set aside funds for this refuge created by executive action.

And now thanks to Judy Hoy, Bitterroot Audubon Society, and The Wind & Wing Studio, Lee Metcalf NWR has a mounted American white pelican on display in the Visitor Center as a symbol of the National Wildlife Refuge System historic beginning.

The Friends of Lee Metcalf NWR are sponsoring a contest to “name” our pelican. All children under 17 years of age are invited to participate in this contest. Simply stop by the Lee Metcalf NWR Visitor Center and fill out a Name the Pelican form.

The winning entry will be awarded the National Audubon Society publication - The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America. The winner will be announced during Welcome Back Waterfowl Day on April 1, 2006 at the Refuge Headquarters.

For further information, contact Bob Danley at 777-5552 x203 or Bob_Danley@fws.gov

During a recent visit to one of our area’s ski resorts, a fellow that was riding the chair lift with me noticed I was wearing Telemark skis and boots. He made the comment that Telemark Skiing seemed to be the up and coming ski sport in Western Montana. I informed the gentleman that the sport had been around since 1850, and that a young Norwegian by the name of Sondre Norheim developed the Telemark stance that is presently used by ski jumpers all over the world. Sondre Norheim was from an area in Norway called Telemark. Sondre used the stance to add stability to his landings during ski jumping. The stance provided him good balance on a landing both fore and aft. The skis also helped form the natural arc created when initiating a turn, and thus a form of skiing was born.

Today, modern technology has aided the sport’s popularity by providing good technical equipment that makes the turning easier and more enjoyable. Plastic boots have been designed to keep the feet warm and dry, and at the same time provide the driving force for turning and manipulating the skis. The boots have various densities of plastic to allow the toe area to flex. Hinges in the boot allow for a touring position and a stiffer position for downhill turns. Buckles are used instead of laces, giving the boot firmness similar to that of a downhill boot. Foam moldable liners are used to add comfort and warmth to the boot. The liners are heated in an oven then replaced into the skier’s boots. The skier then places his feet in the boots, closes the buckles and lets the liners cool to the shape of their foot. There is no better feeling than a warm, well-fitting boot.

Skis have come a long way in recent years. No longer do Telemark skiers have the trademark of being known as skiers skiing downhill on cross-country skis. The skis have the parabolic shape similar to today’s downhill skis. The binding has no heel attachment, thus allowing the natural flex of the toes. With this freedom of movement, Telemark skis are used for backcountry skiing. Skins are attached to the base of the skis to give the needed traction on uphill climbs in the backcountry.

When done properly Telemark skiing is one of the most graceful body movements preformed by a skier. As difficult as it looks to the observer, Telemark skiing provides the user two more shock absorbers: the toe and ankle joints. In many cases, this is easier on the knees than downhill skiing. Modern Telemark skiing techniques do not demand that the skier get low and to the ground. A modern stance will have the skier shuffling his feet fore and aft, keeping the thighs relatively close together with the feet much in line with the hips. The attraction of Telemark skiing is the skier’s ability to have more interaction with more parts of the body than you would get with downhill skiing or snowboarding.

A good Telemark skier will gracefully dance down the slope in beautiful rhythm following the fall line. A feeling of euphoria is met when the skier’s senses coordinate in unison with all of the body’s different muscle groups to float the skier down the slope in poetic motion. A good Telemark skier will always wonder why another skier would go down the slope in any other style.

Jim Wilson is the owner of Pipestone Mountaineering, located at 129 West Front Street in Missoula. Pipestone specializes in avalanche gear, winter active gear, and much more. For questions or information about outdoor products and services call 721-1670.

Do we read history anymore? Or more accurately, do we read good history? To approach an answer to this question, we must define what constitutes good history. The French historian Marc Bloch formulated a framework which we can use as a guide. First, the historian must have a deep understanding of not only the subject matter, but also of human nature and culture.

A critical mind that questions all available evidence is essential. Moreover, the critical mind must also be an open mind, empty of any preconceived conclusions. Finally, the historian must appreciate complexity and irony in history, and recognize that his or her point of view is not the only possible one, and that ultimately, she or he may be wrong.

The history-mindedness of western civilization began with the Greeks, from Homer to Herodotus, but most importantly with Thucydides. For the Greeks, the study of history would yield crucial intellectual, cultural and moral lessons, without which, a civilization would perish. Thus, history was both serious and important.

Today, the study of history is in full retreat, despite the trite verbal volleys lobbed between various ideological camps about what history does or does not show. The publication of quality history books is largely limited to academic presses and small independent publishing houses. One historian whose latest work was published by Harvard University Press, disclosed that this press publishes serious historical works like his not out of business acumen, but that by keeping such works as Apostles and Agitators in its catalog it maintains its raison d’etre. Another author raged that mainstream publishers desired anecdotal histories with no notes on sources. These large publishing houses are increasingly reluctant to publish complex historical monographs with copious footnotes and extensive bibliographies.

To be fair, these companies know their readership. Fewer readers are willing to expend the effort required to read these weighty tomes. Where the financial bottom line trumps intellectual stimulation, those authors hawking serious historical wares rarely get a glance. The academic and small independent presses, where these works more often find favor, usually charge more for the books due to higher production costs associated with limited print runs (although the gap is closing). This further diminishes the pool of readers searching for these books.

What historical works have succeeded in the world of mainstream publishing? Let’s look at two commercially very successful books published in the last year. Firstly, David McCullough’s 1776, now firmly entrenched on both the Booksense and New York Times bestseller lists, is a narrative history of a crucial year during the American Revolution. Written in an easy style and based on archival sources, it nonetheless adds little to our historical knowledge of the period. It lacks the intellectual rigor that all good history books should possess. It does contribute what Lewis Namier described as the “cherished lore,” upon which a society draws to legitimate itself–good for myth-making; somewhat suspect in terms of raising our historical consciousness.

The second work to consider, also a fixture on the bestseller lists, is Collapse by Jared Diamond. In his book, Diamond argues that the ecological choices made by various civilizations through time determined their success or failure. More scholarly in style than McCullough’s, it nevertheless suffers from serious flaws. His one-issue approach to catastrophe (similar to Marx, although Marx chose the economic rather than the ecological) fails to take into account the complex and dynamic nature of even “primitive” societies.

Furthermore, by casting his net so wide across time and space, one comes away with a superficial and skewed perspective of these civilizations. Finally, by utilizing the Bitterroot Valley as a test case for the present, he changes the parameters of his analysis. Despite what some might claim, the Bitterroot is not a civilization unto itself. To his credit, Diamond does advance a provocative thesis, and while not good history, Collapse does eclipse 1776.

Tony Judt’s Postwar represents an exception to the above trend. His study of postwar Europe, while not a bestseller, is engaging and insightful. Not without errors, and infuriating at times–being Burckhardtian in my historical leanings, I would argue that Judt does not give sufficient weight to the role of ideas in history–he nevertheless penned a remarkable study of a tumultuous period of European history. Incidentally, controversy is inherent in history. Objectivity, “that noble dream” in Peter Novick’s apt phrase, is impossible to achieve, like “nailing jelly to the wall.” Interpretation, based on the analysis of available evidence by both the historically educated author and reader determines the nature of history.

Despite the above noted exception, a glance through the frontlist catalogs of the major publishing conglomerates confirms the bleak outlook for the widespread publication and dissemination of quality works of history. Hope rests with those small presses. We are fortunate that Thucydides wrote The Peloponnesian War two and a half millennia ago–it found a home with Penguin Classics. If he was writing today, neither Penguin nor any of the other major publishers would give him the time of day. He would need an agent. And probably not even then would he be considered.

Shawn Wathen is part-owner of Chapter One Book Store, the Bitterroot Valley’s only full-service bookshop. Located at 252 Main Street in Hamilton, Chapter One has been the Bitterroot’s book source since 1974. For questions or information regarding Bitterroot book happenings call 363-5220, or visit www. chapter1bookstore.com

He will be leading a discussion of Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals for Chapter One’s Open Mind Series on Feb. 22 at 7:30 p.m. Wathen will also be teaching the book Austerlitz by W.G. Sebald for the Marjorie Crawford Literature Seminar in March.

A spacious house with big windows facing the Bitterroot Mountains, a wrap-around porch and the peaceful atmosphere of a real home are cozy and relaxing features that Kathy Porter uses to make her residents feel comfortable at Kathy’s Place.

“We’re one big, happy family,” Porter said.

Kathy’s Place is an assisted living center for the elderly in Florence. It is home to eight elderly residents placed in Porter’s care by family members not wanting to put them in nursing homes. After working with the elderly for nearly 20 years in nursing home facilities, Porter said it was time for a change in the quality of elderly care, and that she was going to be just the person to offer it.

“It was just really sad for me to see people have to end their lives like that,” Porter said.

She was employed as a certified nurses’ assistant caring for the elderly in Michigan before moving to Montana, where she continued this line of work before opening Kathy’s Place.

“You have to totally commit your time,” Porter said.

The large grey house the residents call home is also where Porter lives, meaning she is on the job 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The care provided by Porter and her employees differs from that in a nursing home on a professional and personal level. With a small number of residents and staff, more one-on-one time can be spent with residents catering specifically to their needs.

Fostering an intimate, home-like environment doesn’t stop at medical care. Porter actively involves her residents in an array of activities both at home and in the Bitterroot Valley and Missoula community.

On “Spa Day” residents tend to their hair and nails along with receiving a weekly therapeutic massage. Pet visits are arranged for neighbors to bring their animals to Kathy’s Place for residents to enjoy their company. Music is also an important part of life at the home. Porter has a collection of songs from each of the residents’ eras, and, if they’re feeling vocal, a karaoke machine gives them the chance to belt out their favorite tunes from the past. Recordings of old T.V. shows, such as “I Love Lucy,” also offer hours of entertainment.

While each of these activities brings enjoyment to their lives, the residents’ favorite at-home endeavor is bowling. The excitement surrounding this event is heightened by the incorporation of a traveling trophy. At the end of each competition, the winner for that day is awarded the trophy and is allowed to display it in his or her bedroom.

In the summer, the bowling alley is assembled along a board walk in the backyard with real bowling pins. In the winter, play continues on a board game version. A twelve-inch alley with tiny brass pins and a ball serves as the competition venue.

Activities outside the home include weekly outings to Wheat Montana in Missoula to hear live bluegrass music on Tuesday evenings; an annual appearance at the Hospice Ball complete with fur coats, gowns and a limousine; and participation in Missoula’s River Bank Run where Porter said they are normally the last ones over the finish line but they still have fun.

Day in and day out residents are occupied with exciting events but when the holidays hit festivities take the atmosphere to different heights.

“It kind of perks some things up for them,” Porter said.

On Easter, eggs are decorated by the residents and then hid in the yard at Kathy’s Place. Once the Easter Bunnies have done their job, children of family and friends are invited over to find the hidden treasures and sing songs to the residents. Elaborate Christmas decorations, including a village with an ice fishing pond, which actually contains fish, help get residents in the mood for the holiday season. Each holiday is celebrated with appropriate décor and dress along with a feast and a non-alcoholic champagne toast to the occasion.

Kathy’s Place isn’t the only assisted living center of its type in the area, but Porter said the family atmosphere fostered in her home makes it unique. Other facilities often have fewer residents and the owners seldom live on-site, she said.

Porter hopes to improve and expand what she has started. Currently, she is in the process of attempting to purchase a piece of land to build a new house, and in the future, Porter would like to open two or three additional homes with the same set-up: having one main operator or “house mother” who is always around and aided by a few employees.

“I think there’s a great need for this (type of care center),” Porter said, “but it needs to be done right.”

While Montana’s Democrats are enjoying a bit of a renaissance within the state, Democrats on a national level are enjoying the taste of shoe leather.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton, speaking to a mostly black audience on Martin Luther King Jr. Day in Harlem, made a remark that epitomizes the Dems’ troubles. Senator Clinton took a shot at Republicans, asserting, “Because when you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation. And you know what I’m talking about.”

Apparently, not many do know what Clinton is talking about.

Clinton’s attempt to inflame the Harlem crowd failed, and set her up for parody. On the January 22 episode of “Saturday Night Live,” Clinton’s remark was lampooned by cast member Amy Poehler. Playing Senator Clinton in the opening skit, Poehler was questioned about the intent of the remark. “Isn’t it obvious, I was pandering.”

While Clinton’s remark was a gift to comedy writers, it highlights a less-than-humorous approach by Democrats—a grand-standing, pandering approach which only serves to further deteriorate political discourse in this country.

Clinton’s MLK Day remarks came after the hearings for Justice Samuel Alito, hearings in which U.S. Senate Democrats were criticized for speaking more than Alito. One only needed to listen to the awkward and inept questioning of Senator Ted Kennedy to get a sense of the skewed nature of the proceedings. While the hearings were purportedly about Justice Alito and his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, they were instead (like Clinton’s MLK Day remark) about Democrats and their attempts to highjack the spotlight.

I spoke with Montana Republican Party Executive Director Chuck Denowh recently, and asked him if such episodes benefit Republicans. Denowh said, “Definitely. [Democrats] have been ineffectual by catering to their base so much. When that happens, it fires up our base. It’s been a rallying point.”

Specific to the Alito nomination, Denowh remarked, “[Democrats] are using him as a political football to kick around. They’re treating the nomination as a spectacle, as a place for gamesmanship. They’re playing politics, and I think the American people see through that approach.”

Denowh’s remarks are certainly timely. Conservative columnist and commentator David Brooks, commenting on the way the Alito hearings went, said that Democrats had given Republicans their first good week in quite some time by grand-standing at the Alito hearings. Even after months of controversy over wiretapping by the Bush administration as well as the percolating Abramoff scandal, the Dems still managed to come off looking self-serving and less-than-serious about the issues.

“I think [the Democrats] are having a really hard time figuring out who they are, which makes it more important for us to be the party of ideas,” according to Denowh. He knows what he’s talking about. Republicans have consistently focused on core issues, and they’ve consistently gained ground, especially among young families.

Now, winning elections is something different than getting the President’s Supreme Court nominations confirmed. Or at least it should be. And this fact seems to have escaped the grand-standing Democrats.

Our political structure is ailing under its own inability to have frank discussions and facilitate constructive discourse. This is to say, of course, that voters have not sent the message that such discourse is welcome and essential to winning elections.

In other words, at the base of this problem is our inability as a culture to host and participate in frank discussions about substantive political issues. Instead of these discussions taking place between voters and candidates, and thereafter elected officials and their constituencies, divisive issues like abortion are getting shoved into the wrong forums.

Part of what we witnessed in the Alito hearings, as well as the Roberts hearings, is political opportunism and “gamesmanship,” as Denowh put it. Or in the case of Senator Clinton, as the parody so aptly captured it, “pandering.” To put it another way, it is indirect and inappropriate campaigning that, at the very least, is an inappropriate way to greet two jurists of the reputation and accomplishment of Messrs. Alito and Roberts. Furthermore, it shows great disrespect for the institution of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In another conversation, I spoke with a friend in Washington, D.C. knowledgeable in and familiar with matters of the Supreme Court. He brought up the notion, widespread among many on the Left, that there is a conspiracy to undermine and outlaw abortion. Of this notion, my friend stated, “The fact is that guys like Alito are smart, thoroughly decent people who are not out to alter America radically, and I have no doubt that he is not out to undertake such a revolution.” Given his credentials and experience in these matters (because of his sensitive position, I can’t enumerate them here), as well as the extensive conversation that preceded this statement, his point is well taken.

But what baffles me is why such conspiracy myths are perpetuated. It’s not to lend the proper air of dignity to the hearings, or to clarify issues and inform voters. Certainly, much political hay can be made by perpetuation of these myths, but here again is the place of voters.

Just as constituents are presented with a moment in which to address what is purported to be widespread corruption within the U.S. Congress, voters have equally been charged with the responsibility to reject the opportunistic and pandering approach Democrats on the national stage have embraced.

When addressing this most fundamental relationship between Americans and our government, Thomas Jefferson is both insightful and instructive:

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere.”

Storm clouds are on the horizon.

It’s no secret that the Bitterroot Valley is marvelous and impressive in terms of its immense indigenous beauty. Few places in Montana offer more spectacular and edifying captivation than the Bitterroot does. But, the area does present us with something else that’s pretty special, quite enjoyable and foolishly underrated: authentic Mexican food. To find out more about a Mexican mainstay right in our own back yard, La Mas Fina Mexican Taqueria, let’s get On the Clock:  

How long has La Mas Fina Mexican Taqueria been serving the Bitterroot authentic Mexican food?

(Fabian): “My wife has been here her whole life. I just came back six or seven years ago. I traveled and worked all over the place. Then, we decided to open a restaurant. We started with a taco wagon, and we built it into this.

(Margaret): “We started five years ago. We started over there by Dunbar’s Warehouse. We were in a bus at the time. Then, we kept the bus and bought the house here. My husband went through a lot of stuff to get this open. We’ve only been open since Cinco de Mayo, May 5, 2005. But, we were running the drive-through for four years.

What makes your food authentic Mexican?

(Fabian): “We are using century-old recipes passed down from generation to generation. All the recipes are from my mother, and all the cooking is stuff that I learned from her. I do experiment with and taste dishes in other parts of the country, and in Mexico. Like the hot sauce that I make, that recipe came from Jalisco.

(Margaret): “Fresh ingredients. We cook only using soy bean oil. This is the real stuff. It’s Hispanic/Mexican and my husband makes it all. He makes everything from scratch using some of his mom’s recipes. He knows a lot about cooking. His family had a restaurant for years and years, and his brother had one. We decided to try this because we don’t think anybody can cook the type of food that we do. There are a lot of Mexican restaurants, but we cook South Texas style. The Chili Verde (pork with green tomatillo sauce) is really good.

What’s your favorite dish on the menu?

(Margaret): “Chili Verde. I just went to New Mexico and the Chili Verde there wasn’t very good.

(Fabian): “They are all good because we offer real stuff. I do all the cooking and the prep work. That’s why the recipe remains the same. It never changes.

What are some of your customers’ favorite dishes?

(Margaret): “Well, we have our regulars that come here often, and they usually try all different things. We are putting in some new beef dishes soon for people to try.”

So, it’s not so hard to find great Mexican food here in the valley?

(Margaret): “Nope it’s not. All you need is the right cook.”

(Fabian): “You have to know how to cook it. If you are looking for authentic Mexican, you can find it here.

Your restaurant is open six days a week, from 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., and what do you like to do with your time off?

(Fabian): “Go to Missoula and buy more supplies. That’s what we do on Sunday. I have to buy meat and other things from different areas.”

By Brian D’Ambrosio, Editor

In mid-November, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service announced its intention to remove the Yellowstone grizzly bears from the Endangered Species List. As a much maligned and powerfully mesmerizing symbol of the American wilderness, the grizzly bear has enjoyed protection status as an endangered animal in the lower 48 since 1975.

Thanks to strong legal assurances at the federal level and changing human perspectives, certain monumental safekeeping advancements have been achieved for grizzlies. However, Chuck Jonkel, co-founder of the Great Bear Foundation, is concerned this recent USFWS proposal will aid and abet the rolling back of recent conservationist strides made in grizzlies’ favor. Never the type of guy to simply, well, grin and bear it, Jonkel’s reception to this motion has been distinctly chilly.

“If passed, the decision will set a bad precedent for grizzly populations in the lower 48 states,” said Jonkel, a biologist and a bear researcher for over 40 years.

Jonkel started the Great Bear Foundation more than two decades ago, primarily because no other organization dedicated itself strictly to bears. Then, teaching about bears was exceptionally difficult; most folks didn’t tolerate them, he said. “People considered them vermin, the equivalent of rats congregating around garbage dumps. Bears held no value. Really, there weren’t any hunting limits or licenses.”

“They were either demonized as vicious killers or trivialized as teddy bears.”

Up until the late 1950s, knowledge and research about bear ecology and biology was minimal and spotty. This limited knowledge and understanding of bears increased with the invention of the dart gun in 1957, and with the subsequent availability of potent tranquilizer drugs in 1959. Four very valuable bear studies were conducted that year, including a black bear program administered for the state of Montana by recent UM graduate Chuck Jonkel.

“It was an interesting time because nobody knew a thing about bears,” said Jonkel.

Due to the precarious nature of his studies, Jonkel had to learn the ropes quickly. Using modified traps and this new equipment, he set out to study bears – massive mammals with long shaggy coats and reinforced claws – which earlier researchers remained relatively ignorant about.

“The scariest part of being out in the field back then was not being able to detect when the tranquilizer drugs wear off,” said Jonkel. “You should never assume that a dart is functioning the right way. One thing that I’ve learned to look for is if the dart is rigid then it’s stuck in cartilage or bone, meaning that the actual drug wasn’t injected. That took me awhile to figure out.”

More than four decades ago, Jonkel trapped his first bear while he was working near Whitefish. At that time, there was a humongous and dangerous problem with the crude type of sedative he was using: it was nearly impossible to distinguish between anesthetic success and deadly inundation.

“The last thing that would happen if the drug worked was the bear would struggle to breathe, and that often resembled what an overdose looks like. So, you wouldn’t know whether to give it more drugs or artificial respiration.”

“Sometimes I’d jump in and give artificial respiration, and the thing would end up chasing me.”

Not unexpectedly, he has made intimate contact with bears, leading to his share of harrowing incidents and close encounters.

“You see, I’m doing what I’m doing for the good of the species, but they don’t understand the value of research,” quips Jonkel. However, there’s nothing foolishly idealistic about his approach, and he notes that “a number of bear biologists have been done in over the years.” Looking back on his own longevity, Jonkel credits luck, carefulness and his wild country instincts for the notable absence of a single bad bear experience.

Jonkel, who writes pamphlets detailing the misinformed human behaviors which contribute to the likelihood of one dying in bear country, is quick to remind you that bears rarely harm humans. Bears normally leave an area once they’ve sensed a human.

After finishing his PhD at the University of British Columbia in 1966, and spending eight years employed by the Canadian Wildlife Service regulating polar bear studies, he co-founded the Great Bear Foundation. Whether writing newsletters or funding research projects, this organized body of benefactors dedicates its time to fighting for all eight species of bears, studying their behaviors, and aggressively pushing efforts aimed at securing such omnivores their rightful place in the ecosystem.

Over the years, Jonkel has become quite popular – something, he said, epitomized the public’s stupendous fascination with and terrific interest in bears. After two cubs were left orphaned due to a logging mishap which killed the sow, he raised the pair in his custody for five months. Naturally, this only augmented his prominence.

“These cubs were very helpless, similar to people,” he recalled. “I was feeding them every two hours throughout the day and night. People would just walk into my house wanting to see them.”

“But, most of the time I was outside with the bears teaching them to climb trees,” jibed Jonkel.

Daring to defy delisting

Grizzlies enduringly impress upon the imaginations and perceptions of both their supporters and opponents. Indomitable animals that have on the rarest occasion killed people, they once ranged throughout western North America from Alaska to Mexico; there are now only two populations left in the contiguous United States.

“It’s hard to convince someone who hates the grizzly bear that they are magnificent animals. They are so superbly evolved. It took, literally, millions and millions of years of honing for them to live in this habitat. Grizzlies are a true and meaningful part of the Rocky Mountains.”

“We even respect it for its ability to hurt people. The first thing that most people injured by grizzlies say is: ‘don’t kill the bear, I was in its habitat’.”

The Montana ecosystem isn’t intact or whole without the grizzly bear, he said.

One grizzly populace is based in Yellowstone National Park and one in northwest Montana. Combined, both populations consist of about 1,000 inhabitants. When the grizzly was protected under the Endangered Species Act in 1975, it became a federal animal, so to speak.

“That means that they belong to everybody, not just people in the Western states.”

Jonkel’s opposition to delisting efforts is firm and unshakeable. On this topic, he speaks sternly, with his voice rising to a crescendo of unquestionable indignation. Worried that states will not earnestly pursue their financial and land management promises, and won’t maintain any clout in protecting vital animal habitats, Jonkel cites Idaho’s recent killings of over 50 wolves as a cautionary example.

“I want to see guarantees on the state level before they are delisted. I want to see the state pledge viable management resources and substantial amounts of money. State money should be spent wisely and pledged for ten years. It’s always been a problem generating money for bears on the state level.”

“The state is more concerned with amassing tax revenues from building big houses, and not with the lost habitats caused by new subdivisions. That would only accelerate.”

Around 600 grizzlies comprise the Yellowstone grizzly population, which is a sharp increase from the 229-312 estimate offered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service in 1975. The problem, said Jonkel, is that as soon as delisting takes place, “these bears and their habitats will essentially be up for grabs.”

When it comes to grizzly bear recovery, it’s all about the habitat, he said.

Sound land resource and recreational use management will also be jeopardized in areas surrounding the delisting proposal, said Jonkel. “That means more mining, logging and motorized recreation. The recommendation will make it easier to remove bears deemed trouble.”

The variegated 15-million acre Selway-Bitterroot ecosystem of Central Idaho and Western Montana is one of the few places satisfying grizzlies’ subsistence requirements. In the mid-1990s, when the topic of reintroducing grizzlies to the Selway-Bitterroot was most clamorous, Jonkel pushed for an inclusive plan dubbed “alternative four.” This arrangement, which called for the expansion of vital wilderness boundaries and the establishment of larger protective corridors for grizzlies, resembled augmentation more than reintroduction, explained Jonkel.

Jonkel’s proposition was stymied. And the preferred alternative, a Citizen Management Plan, has since stalled.

“See, reintroduction implies that they are all gone. But, surveys have found grizzlies in the Selway-Bitterroot for years. These bears are always on the move. Maybe there are two of them? Or, maybe there are twenty? Now, in 2006, newspapers are reporting that there might be grizzlies living there.”

“Land management agencies don’t want to make concessions or admissions about grizzlies because they would be obligated to make changes.”

These alterations, he said, would include the forcing of restrictions on logging.

Today, it’s still difficult, said Jonkel, to drum up understanding clients not just for grizzlies, but all bears. “With elk it’s easy; a lot of rich guys hunt elk and pheasants. Not true with bears. Some people still consider the only good bear a dead bear.”

“Bears were here before primates in North America, and running the show. State after state made the deliberate choice to kill all their black and brown bears. Fortunately, we in Montana didn’t do that.”