Locally, we have two problems that need solutions soon, because they are dividing our community and we are approaching the possibility of violence. This is unacceptable.

These two problems are of course, forest health and access to public lands. The anger surrounding these issues has been festering for years and we are no closer to finding solutions than we were twenty years ago. Community leaders like Dave Bull and Rick Laible need to step forward and start building bridges, instead of tearing them down.

Instead of me making these statements in the media, it should be the two of them. But for their own reasons, they are either remaining silent, or actually encouraging these conflicts.

At the Big Sky Coalition meeting on Forest Health a while back, (which I support, by the way), I listened to Rick Laible rant and rave about his dislike of the federal government for over an hour, and the public record shows that he is one of the major instigators of this angry behavior and this acceleration towards violence. This is also unacceptable. If violence does ensue, Rick Laible should be held personally responsible for his role, as well as other major players.

Both sides of these issues are passionate about their positions and this is reasonable, considering the effects on them and their constituents. But, somehow, they need to turn this passion towards finding real solutions, which is really not that difficult.

A good first step would be to determine exactly what it is they want and why it is so important that they want it; put it in writing and then develop very specific plans to achieve these “wants”, (within the constraints that they know exist - state and federal law). The plan(s) need to be reasonable and consider the positions of the other side of the issue, as well as the positions of the community at large. They also must consider the positions of the American people as a whole, because of the fact that we’re talking about federal lands.

Present these specific plans to the U.S. Forest Service and ask them to respond, in writing, and in the media, so that we all have a clear understanding of both the problems and the possible solutions.

One clear component of possible solutions has to be a clear discussion of “rights” versus “wants”. We all need to understand that the only rights guaranteed to us are in the U.S. and Montana Constitutions, and any desires outside of those guaranteed rights are not really rights at all, but privileges, privileges granted to us by the rest of the American population, because they are the owners of federal land.

Federal land belongs to all Americans and we all need to accept the fact that it is not owned by just the people of Ravalli County. It is not the Ravalli County Forest, or the Hamilton Municipal Forest or the Darby Town Forest – it is the Bitterroot National Forest. Consequently, the American people have a valid say-so in what happens to, and on, the Bitterroot National Forest.

We have a quality of life here in the Bitterroot that is enviable to most Americans, eighty percent who live in cities the size of Missoula and larger. When they visit their national forests, the last thing most of them want to see is what they see everyday in their congested, hectic urban environments; that being motorized traffic, noise and pollution. They want quiet, beautiful refuge, teeming with wildlife, and with little or no pollution.

On the other hand, Americans don’t want to be locked out of their national forests either, and this is clearly an objective of some extremists on the other side of these issues, who want large areas of the Northwest put into quasi-wilderness status. Americans also do not like watching their national forests burned to the ground, which is happening at an alarming rate. They see their national forests completely different than the rest of us, and until we can accept this fact, we are unlikely to move towards solutions to these increasingly difficult problems.

Given this premise, it will do no good to try and revolt against the federal government and “take” the Bitterroot National Forest for our own, as is clearly the thinking behind some, inspired by local politicians using this conflict for political gain. Not only will it be met with the full force of the federal government (like it was for Mr. Greenup in the 1990’s, who is under federal control for the remainder of his life), we will also receive no help from the American people. In fact, they will likely support the iron fist of federal law enforcement, leaving us with less than we had before.

“Conflict Resolution” is a real and effective tool to bring people together to solve (apparently) unsolvable problems. If it can be used to thwart militant momentum towards World War III and human annihilation, it can certainly be used as an effective tool towards solving our local conflicts over Forest Health and access to public lands.

It is time for community leaders to stand tall and lead the citizens of the Bitterroot Valley to consensus on these two volatile issues. Otherwise, the likelihood of violence gathers energy like a runaway train. I would find it hard to believe that either side of these issues wants to see that happen. If they do, then they should be ostracized away from the conflict, for they only serve the evil that possesses them.

I think we can do better than that, don’t you agree?

Letters to the Editor

When will Forest Service listen to us?

Dear Editor,

Well, I have finally gotten my letter to the Forest Service written and sent in. I feel enough time has passed from the meeting in Darby that I may be able to write this letter with the calm and attention it should be written with. I felt many emotions after that meeting! I couldn't believe the Forest Service wasn't perceptive enough to know that it could possibly be a minefield to deal with. I cringed at some of the things that were said and the way they were said.

Mostly I hated that it gave the environmentalists a way of moving the focus of the meeting from what it was really about, loss of access to our National Forest for motorized users, to the "unruly mob" attention they painted the whole meeting with. After all, it helps their cause so much more if it looks like the people attending that meeting were just ill mannered, uneducated, mouthy Darbarians that just wanted to chew on a few Forest Service butts!

But I understood the frustration that came out in these folks. I would bet many of the same people at this meeting had been involved before in dealing with the Forest Service on another quest to keep something they already had, but were in jeopardy of losing... like our timber industry. Look where any of those battles got us, you can see where the frustration comes from.

I would love for someone to be able to answer a couple of questions for me. When did management come to mean closure? That seems to be the brunt of what we are dealing with in these proposed changes. Many great questions were asked at that meeting in Darby. No answers were given. The format of the meeting was very poor. The facilitator did a great job, and it was a job that evening, but with all her abilities, no answers were given. People went home frustrated and feeling that, yes, this is another time when you get a little chance to complain and then the Forest Service will do just exactly what they want in the end and we again will be on the losing end of the stick.

I question why every time there is a change in forest practices, my uses of the forest are always on the losing end of the stick. If some of the environmentalists were to actually lose something in the equation, I wonder just what kind of an uproar we would hear. You could bet there would be lawyers, more letters to the editor about personal rights being violated, coalitions or Human Right Alliances to take up the cause of their rights being taken away, etc.

Well, then, I wonder where my rights are and how come it is so easy for them to discount my rights? I have the right to use the National Forest properties for the enjoyments that I choose. My choices are not wrong, they are just different than the environmentalists’. I choose to ride into the hills, for whatever reason, it is my choice and it should mean just as much as their choice not to ride something into the hills. Somehow, at sometime, it has gotten to be ok to dismiss my rights. I'm getting tired of it.

Years ago this would have been bad enough but the older I get the more personally this will affect me. I can't walk the distances I used to walk and I can't climb like I used to climb. I know, and have used many, many of the trails proposed to be removed from the forest system. This is personally taking a lot away from me and my family as forest users.

A fact that the Forest Service needs to deal with is that there are more OHV users now than ever before. With an aging population, that isn't going to change. For people who have spent our lives enjoying the forest that surrounds us, and who truly love it, we're going to find a way to continue to do so. It is imperative that this be given the attention it needs. The people I associate with are good honest hard working folks that treat the forest with the greatest respect. And don't try painting me with the brush that I need to take responsibility for those that don't show that same respect to the resources, I ain't their mother and I won't take responsibility for them any more than most of the environmentalists I know would take responsibility for the tree spikers of the '70’s and '80's. I have always said that the wrong people are fighting this access battle. It should be full of senior citizens and handicapped people. Because as long as I can still walk, there are places that are being proposed closed that I will still be able to visit. But for someone that can't walk, they are gone from their lives forever! That's a long time, folks. What gets taken away, never comes back.

If you want your right to access the national Forest taken seriously, you need to write letters, get your opinion counted. Unfortunately, it will probably come to a numbers game. A lot of the folks that I know are motorized forest users aren't the kind to write letters, they want to just enjoy what they enjoy without a lot of fuss. The problem with that is, the ones that want you closed out are organized and active. Common sense isn't on the agenda of the Forest Service, public opinion is. Get busy, write letters or make calls, be heard. We have a lot to lose forever!

Tari Conroy
Conner

While you were watching TV

Dear Editor,

While you were watching TV, if you are a Republican, one of your most valuable possessions was taken from you. Your right to a cast a vote for your candidate of choice to be the next president of the United States. This right was not taken from you by a foreign entity, an electronic voting machine, or even your own government, but by the Republican Party itself. Let me explain.

This year, for the first time, the Montana GOP changed the rules for determining which candidate would receive all 25 of Montana's delegate votes. In the past, that determination was made in the primary election in June based on which candidate received the most votes from all the registered voters. The only caveat, as explained by Sen. Rick Laible at the recent caucus, was that the delegates were not "bound" to vote in concert with the will of the people. So in its great wisdom, the Montana GOP changed the rules.

Now one would think that the obvious change would be to simply require that the delegates indeed be "bound" to vote in harmony with the will of the people. Instead they came up with a change that Mr. Laible claimed we should be overjoyed with because now Montana has become "relevant" in that now we will be noted on CNN and Fox News. I don't know about you, but as for me, I acknowledge that it is nice to see Montana's vote recognized in the national media, but not when it comes at the price of striking my vote meaningless.

The following explanation of the new rules will clarify my point. The new rules provide that only those who hold elected positions can vote. In Ravalli County there are 22 precincts. Each precinct has a potential position of a Committeeman and a Committeewoman. If all the positions were filled, which they are not, it would constitute a mere 44 people plus a handful of other elected officials, to speak for all the registered Republicans in the county. Now in theory the way this is supposed to work is that the Committeeman and Committeewoman, if you happen to have one or both, are supposed to represent the wishes of the people in their precinct. That would mean if they were to do that, they would somehow need to know what those wishes were.

Let me ask you a couple of questions: 1) Do you know in what precinct you reside? 2) Do you know who your Committeeman/woman is? 3) Did a Committeeman/woman contact you by any means to determine what candidate you wanted them to vote for? If not, then how can they possibly presume to represent yours or any other voter’s interests in choosing a candidate to run for the highest office in the land?

Let's explore a scenario in a perfect world. In a perfect world all the precinct positions would be filled by means of a bonafide election. In a perfect world the committeemen/women would, by some means, contact all the people in their precincts to determine how the people they are representing want them to vote. Then, if they are honest representatives of the people, they will cast their ballet in accordance with the majority. An obvious drawback here is that their own vote is then null and void, unless it happens to agree with the majority. Truth is, it creates a serious conflict of interest.

To illustrate this point, and since we don't live in a perfect world, imagine the following possibility: Let's pretend that the Precinct Committeeman of precinct #1 does his job and actually contacts every registered voter in his precinct. He is amazed that 99% of his constituents support candidate A. The problem is he personally supports candidate B, for whom he feels very strongly. At the caucus however, he forgets all about his misguided constituents, (what do they know anyway,) and votes for his candidate of choice. After all, it is a secret ballot and nobody will ever know for whom he actually voted. This system has virtually robbed all but a small handful that presumes to speak for the rest of us, who even if they did hear us, vote the way they want anyway. Further, this system begs to be manipulated to further the agenda of a particular candidate. For example, as of the December 18, 2007 Ravalli County Republican Central Committee meeting, there were 23 vacancies out of 44 possible positions for precinct Committeemen/women. In other words, over 50% of the precincts were vacant.

At that meeting Ken and Michelle Jensen submitted their written application to be elected to the two vacant positions in their precinct. They introduced themselves to the Committee members and each gave a statement regarding their desire to become involved in the political process. They also presented themselves for interview and questioning from the Committee as required by the bylaws before taking a vote. After Michelle had given an enthusiastic and appealing speech (several people came up afterwards and complemented her on her zeal and enthusiasm), Dallas Erickson stood and made a motion that the vote be postponed until the January meeting. This was done because Dallas strongly disagrees with the Jensens on their choice of candidates, and he apparently wanted to ensure his chance to influence (manipulate) the Committee. During the ensuing month he contacted members of the Committee and maligned Michelle's reputation and position with rumors, innuendo, and half-truths, to convince members of the Committee that the candidate he was planning to recruit was a better choice. With a relatively short window of opportunity to fill these voting positions, Dallas Erickson swings into action to recruit as many people as possible who will support his candidate and his agenda. Among others, he recruited his good friend Cathy Kulonis to oppose Michelle Jensen.

In the minutes of the December 2007 Central Committee meeting, Chairwoman Susanna Pyron stated that she "hoped to get the vacant precinct positions filled with people who will remain in the positions and not just in to vote in the caucus. Only time will tell the story on that, but her concern clearly points out the flaw in the system. At the Central Committee meeting on January 15, three weeks before the election, most of those positions got filled. Realistically, how naive would one have to be to believe that anyone "recruited" to fill a vacant position, only three weeks before the election, could possibly have a clue as to the opinions and wishes of the voters he is presuming to represent? To further illustrate the farce of this whole process, at least seven of the new recruits did not even submit the required signed application form attesting that they do in fact reside in the precinct applied for. Although the application form itself states that it must be filled out and given to the County Republican Central Committee Chairman, as of this date I am told that none of them have done so.

It doesn't stop there. Dallas Erickson suggested that the rules be suspended and that one of his recruits who was not in attendance be voted in via cell phone. When he couldn't be reached by phone, Dallas suggested that his wife, who was present, represent him. This was accepted, and Don Morton was thereby elected precinct Committeeman for precinct #15. The bylaws state that an applicant must be present at the meeting so he /she may be questioned and interviewed by the sitting members of the committee. One little lady Dallas presented as a candidate for a precinct Chairwoman stood up and said, “I don't even know why I am here, except that Dallas called me this afternoon and said I have to be here."

In the January meeting Michelle Jensen lost her bid to Dallas's recruit. Although the election was by secret ballot, and the actual tally was never revealed, it became obvious that the sitting members had discussed this in advance, when Vice Chairman Terry Nelson said, “They thought it better not to have a husband/wife team represent the same precinct.” Somehow they seemed to overlook the fact that Dallas and his wife represent the same precinct and the man they were willing to elect via telephone constituted a husband/wife team.

Nevertheless, they were installed as new members and as such, were allowed to vote on your behalf in the recent caucus. When I personally questioned Dallas about the ethics of this activity, his reply was "hey, there is nothing illegal about this, this is just politics." And wonder of wonders, Dallas's candidate won in Ravalli County. Thus, you can see that it is possible for one man to manipulate the election for the entire county. I am not saying that is what happened here, I am only reporting the evidence and the possibility. If it is possible in Ravalli County, it is possible in every county in Montana.

To all you Republicans at large who think you have a vote as to who you want to represent you in the general election, think again. Your own party has stolen your vote. There will still be a June primary, but it is meaningless. That issue has already been decided for you by a handful of committee. But hey, jump for joy and glory in your moment in the sun. Montana is now “relevant," our caucus results were shown on CNN and Fox News!

An interesting side note is that Ron Paul raised more money in Montana than Romney, Huckabee, and McCain combined, more than twice as much as Romney did. The caucus area was covered with people young and old, coming from one end of the valley to the other, braving the stiff breeze of a Montana winter, carrying Ron Paul signs. There was not another candidate's sign in sight. Having noted that, the question that begs to be answered here is with Ron Paul receiving only four votes, how can that possibly be representative of the people’s wishes? Predictable as it may be, Dallas's candidate got a whopping 32 votes, leaving 8 for McCain and 4 for Huckabee.

Dewey Baker
Florence

Zoning could limit agriculture production

Dear Editor,

If the county draft zoning regulations that are now up for comment (comments due Feb. 29) stay the same, commercial agricultural activities would not be permitted on parcels of land less than 10 acres. Small acreage ag production can be the heart and soul of a local food system. My organization, Sustainable Living Systems, is working to build a local food system in this valley. We are working on starting a food co-op and are gearing up to do a comprehensive community food assessment and valley wide food system planning project. We have ideas for increasing local markets for locally produced foods, including institutional markets and schools. We want people to put their good ag land that is so plentiful in this valley to use. I'm selling vegetables out of a half-acre garden. There should be no acreage size limits on crop production.

In the draft regs, there are two Ag definitions: "Ag Uses" refers to all ag production activities customarily engaged in and is allowed on 10 to 160+ acre parcels, but not ag industries such as food processing plants, which must be given a special permit, or located in the industrial district. "Ag Use, Limited" means ag activities for personal noncommercial use only, like having a kitchen garden, or having a horse(s), or some chickens. This is allowed on 5 to 10 acre parcels but only allowed conditionally on 1 to 5 acre parcels, meaning a person would have to apply for special permission to have a personal garden or some chickens.

I want to encourage folks to get involved in their community planning committees, or at least talk to those in your area who are involved and encourage changes be made in these rules so that we can have small acreage ag production flourishing in this valley. To learn more about our food system projects go to: www.sustainablelivingsystems.org or call me at 642-3601, and also, there is a great article titled "Conserving Communities" by Wendell Berry on our home page - good food for thought during this time of planning for the Bitterroot Valley.

Jill Davies
Victor

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2006 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney