Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Opinion & Editorial

BZ to Picnic Committee

Dear Editor,

Now that a couple weeks have passed and I have had some time to think about and absorb the changes we saw at the 2007 Stevensville Creamery Picnic, I would very much like to thank the Chairman, the Committee and the workers for an exceptionally well done job. It was so much more comfortable and enjoyable in the park, from the people relaxing with their families on the lawn to the ease of moving around despite the large crowds. Of course, there are lessons to be learned but I have no doubt that the Committee is already discussing those for next year. A picnic in the park is just as it should be...

Bravo Zulu to all involved.

Mel Walters
Stevensville

Praise for Creamery Picnic move

Dear Editor,

The Creamery Picnic's new location is excellent. We are very fortunate to have a facility as nice as Lewis & Clark Park to hold this event. The grass sure beats the blacktop and one can even feel a breeze.

Those who complain about the move either haven't been involved or have forgotten the turmoil of setting up in a Main Street highway environment.

Hats off to Tim and Beth Schreiber and their committee, and the Town of Stevensville (especially Ed Sutherlin and his crew) who made this possible. With some fine tuning it will even be better.

Bill Lyon
Stevensville

Thanks from American Legion

Dear Editor,

I wish to thank all those who helped out during the funeral of Homer Holland. To V.F.W. Post 1507 & 1430, thank you for your contribution to the Honor Guard. To the American Legion Unit 94 for a wonderful lunch for the Holland family, and finally to the American Legion Auxiliary District 5 President for her help in the organization at the post home.

Russell C. Vogel, Post 94 Commander
First Vice Commander Dist. 5

Dear Editor,

As a committed Republican for more years than I want to confess, I was distressed to read the recent state-wide announcement by the Montana Republican State Central Committee of their intent to pursue establishment of a Republican caucus as a means to select Montana’s Republican candidate for President. This idea is well intentioned, but wrong-headed as it unacceptably nibbles away at the democratic foundation of our Republic—the right to vote. In the plan, conceived by the party rules committee on August 3, 2007, Montana’s Presidential choice for the national ticket would be decided by a caucus vote of local party officials from each county as well as sitting Republican office holders (legislators, County Commissioners, etc.). Using this formula, our candidate would be selected by a cabal of a scant 3,000 Montanans as opposed to the approximate 105,000 Republicans who exercised their right to vote in our last Presidential primary.

Curiously, the party’s announcement of their intent to pursue this initiative states, “This proposal will be a great way to help build up our grassroots and include more Republicans in the Presidential primary process.” Nonsense, or perhaps a less flattering barnyard term would be more appropriate. Disenfranchising upward of 102,000 state-wide Republicans from the right to express their preference at the ballot box for this most important position in our nation is not the way to revitalize the party.

The proposal does contain the modest improvement that would bind delegates elected under the state convention process to vote for the caucus winner on at least the first ballot of the national convention. Under our current system, Montana’s Republican convention delegates are not required to vote for the Presidential primary winner though I have yet to meet anyone who can cite an example of when a delegate has failed to do so, let alone an example of where a delegate has had an impact on an election based on such a lack of fidelity. Thus, the caucus proposal would close a minuscule loophole, but one which could be better addressed by changing state law on Presidential primaries such that delegates would be bound by their party’s primary election choice on at least the first national convention ballot.

Timing of the Presidential nomination process is another area addressed by the caucus proposal. Whereby most other states hold their primary election or caucus process in February, or even earlier, there is considerable concern in a number of circles that our June primary occurs too late in the process to have any impact on the national race. Of the fifty states, only South Dakota and New Mexico select their party nominee for President as late as we do—scheduled for June 3, 2008. Thus, in those years that a Presidential nomination is at stake, it is pretty much “game, set, match” in terms of the national parties’ choice for their Presidential candidates long before Montanans go to the polls.

Our legislature had a crack at resolving this issue during the 2007 session when Duane Ankney (Rep, Colstrip) introduced a bill to hold our Presidential primary generally consistent with those in other states--February or March of a Presidential election year. It was a good bill that would have timed Montana’s Presidential primary such that we actually got our oar in the political water before the party candidates were chosen—not after. After passing the House, the bill was killed in committee by Senate Democrats ostensibly due to the one-million dollar price tag associated with conducting such an election. While I am tempted to applaud this solitary example of Democratic fiscal conservatism, some argue that it seems a small price to pay to give Montana a greater voice in selecting our President. Frankly, though I think the bill was a good one, I feel this way more because it would make us feel better than any delusion that it would elevate us to major player status in the process of selecting a party Presidential candidate. Let’s face it, with only .32% of the nation’s population of 300 million people and only 3 of 538 electoral votes (.56%), we do not loom large on the radar screens of Presidential candidates.

Aside from the caucus idea, there are a number of other suggestions out there on how Montana could best leverage its influence in the Presidential selection process. Perhaps the most reasonable has national primaries timed regionally on a rotating basis, thereby granting a grouping of western states the sequenced opportunity to go first and give greater emphasis to their regional issues. Yes, it would be an improvement, but let’s face it, the sum of a jackalope, a potato and a mountain goat do not add up to much on the national political stage. Perhaps we should just be relatively content with the fact that for every $1.00 of federal tax Montanans pay, we receive $1.83 in return.

What should happen here is really less important than what should not happen. For a Republican, Democrat or an “also ran” for that matter, the right to vote is a sacred trust wisely granted us by our Founding Fathers. And yes, to those of you out there with nothing better to do than remind me we are not a Greek City/State of ancient times where everyone voted on everything, I do not believe our world, or our Republic, has gotten so complex that we need to sacrifice our right to vote for our party’s choice to hold the nation’s, indeed the world’s, most powerful position. Where do they store the tea?

If you agree, contact the chairman of your county’s Republican Central Committee and register your “vote” as the Montana Republican State Central Committee is slated to decide this issue on August 25th. Alternatively, register your view directly with the Montana Republican State Central Committee in Helena (406-442-6469).

Don Loranger Bigfork

Out of sight, out of mind

Dear Editor,

Most laws are not born out of thin air but are written to address a particular problem. The irony is that once the problem is successfully dealt with it is soon forgotten and the law is viewed as either antiquated or burdensome.

A good example is the body of law written to address environmental concerns. When rivers ran red from industrial pollution it seemed like it would be a good idea to clean them up, and not just because red is not a nice color for rivers. Vegetation died, animal life was decimated and there were terrific health problems among the people who lived near them.

Those laws were successful—so successful that few people remember the problems they addressed—and the need to keep them on the books gets questioned. It is questioned especially by the industry that has to comply with them and which tries to weaken them. They might argue that complying with the laws puts an added cost to their operation and inhibits economic development. I’m sure they’re right, but does that make the law unreasonable?

Any cost saved by a company means a more profitable company, but what does it mean for the public? For the most part industry did not foot the bill for cleaning up the toxic waste that was common in the 1950s, the American taxpayer did. This has not changed a lot. In Libby W. R. Grace is not paying for the health costs of those men and women who were poisoned by the tremolite asbestos in the product W. R. Grace produced; and they are not paying to clean up the land and buildings in Libby that are contaminated. The American taxpayer is.

Yes, ARCO is paying for the Upper Clark’s Fork Superfund project, but they’re not doing it out of a sense of responsibility; the Court ordered them to do it.

We do not remember the many elderly who lived out their golden years in the poverty and sickness that was common before Medicare, so the laws that provide health care for the elderly and poor are being questioned as well, and the opinion of some is that the private sector could do better. I suppose it could, even though the government had to address the issue because the private sector wouldn’t, so I’m skeptical at best of their desire or ability to do the job.

Any law that regulates industry has a cost to it. The cost is borne by the industry for the benefit of the general public—the same public that would pay to fix the problem the regulation addresses. In a sense, the cost of regulation is borne by the general public when they consume the product, but it’s still cheaper than paying for the cleanup.

It goes without question that it is cheaper to prevent a problem than it is to fix it later; the old saw, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is a greybeard if ever there was one. Why, then, is there such reluctance to cover the up front cost of prevention? Well, I guess it depends on who’s footing the bill. If you can get someone else to clean up after you, why worry? When we are not held accountable for our actions we tend to take advantage of the situation.

I am a firm believer in giving self regulation a shot, and if it works, fine. The American Bar Association and the American Medical Association seem to do a reasonable job of it, I’m not so sure about the airlines and railroads. I am also a firm believer in significant governmental regulation if the industry won’t regulate itself adequately.

So before we go about weakening or eliminating a law which seems outdated or too onerous we have to remember that there was a reason it was written in the first place, and until we understand that reason, we can’t make an informed decision. I know that hasn’t stopped us before, but we should give it a try. After all, if we don’t regulate ourselves…

Sen. Jim Elliott
Trout Creek

Working together, forest restoration and wildfire protection possible

Dear Editor,

As predicable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, some people are again using wildfire season as an excuse for more logging and roadbuilding in our national forests.

And just like attempts in year's past, such claims ignore the fact that many of the most significant fires threatening homes and communities are burning through heavily logged and roaded landscapes and even grasslands.

The Jocko Lakes Fire near Seeley Lake has ripped through Plum Creek Timber Company lands that are among the most heavily logged and roaded in western Montana. Likewise for Montana's largest wildfire, the Chippy Creek Fire north of Plains, burning on lands managed by Plum Creek, Forest Service, Montana DNRC and the Salish and Kootenai Tribes.

Furthermore, much of the total acreage burned in the northern Rockies isn't even forested, such as the 653,000 acre Murphy Complex that earlier this year raced through southwestern Idaho's sagebrush and grassland country with nary a tree in sight. Clearly more logging would have had zero impact on this, the nation's largest fire.

It's also important to recognize that fires are an important part of our fire-dependent ecosystems and with prolonged drought and record-shattering temperatures it didn't exactly take a genius to see the potential for an active fire season.

Add to this millions of new homes built in the wildland urban interface, the fact that the west's typical fire season has been extended nearly three months due to global warming and sprinkle in past - and in some cases current - land-management abuses and clearly we have all the ingredients for wildfire's equivalent of a "perfect storm."

In fact, as I write in mid-August, it's amazing to see the success our firefighters have had keeping home loses in Montana remarkably low, and for that we all owe our gratitude and sincere thanks.

While it's no secret that national forest logging levels have rightfully decreased since the record high cut levels of the late 1980s – a direct result of the Forest Service and logging industry's wholly unsustainable practices – the extensive ecological damage caused during the logging frenzy still remains on the landscape, having never been addressed.

For example, here in Montana we have 32,000 miles of roads on our national forests with a regional maintenance backlog over $1 billion. An estimated 50% of riparian areas on national forests require restoration due to logging, road building, grazing, mining, and off-road vehicles and regionally the Forest Service estimates that 85% of culverts are currently impassible to fish due to mismanagement.

Fortunately, these problems create a tremendous opportunity. That's why the WildWest Institute is working with community members, county commissioners and business leaders from Lincoln County to Lemhi County, Idaho to help craft positive, sustainable solutions that create jobs in the woods restoring watersheds and forests while also protecting our communities from wildfire through careful and strategic fuel reduction projects.

Our efforts don't end there, though. This past year WildWest helped form FireSafe Montana, which serves as a clearinghouse for homeowners seeking information, resources and assistance on community wildfire protection. And for the past two years we have literally rolled up our sleeves and joined forces with the West End Volunteer Fire Department in DeBorgia for successful community wildfire protection workweeks that created defensible space around the homes of elderly members of the community and along key roads in town.

While some people will continue using every wildfire season to perpetuate the "blame game," I'm confident that working together we can and will create jobs in the woods restoring our forests and watersheds and protecting our communities from wildfire.

Matthew Koehler, Executive Director
WildWest Institute

The gift that gives life

Dear Editor,

In order to stay alive, I received kidney dialysis for over five years. The process involved four hours of treatment three times per week. I returned home from the 7-mile trip usually so tired that I could barely function clearly until midmorning of the next day.

Last August I finally received a cadaver kidney through the transplant donor program. Thanks to that donor, I now have a new lease on life.

I was lucky that I had not been in urgent need of receiving a transplant. However, there are many people waiting on the list who run out of time and die.

Statistics from the Living Legacy Foundation guide provide the following data:

• One organ and tissue donor can save or enhance the lives of over 50 people;

• Over 95,000 people in the Untied States of America are waiting for a life saving organ transplant;

• Sadly, over 18 people die each day waiting for a transplant.

What can you do to become a cadaver donor?

• Register online at www.livinglegacyregistry.org

• Call toll free at 1-877-275-5269

• Say "yes" to organ donation when renewing your driver's license.

There is no cost to the donor's family for organ and tissue transplant. Although it is not legally necessary, make your family aware of your decision to help prevent more stress during their time of loss. Persons of all ages can become donors.

Why not sign up now so that someday you could possibly extend the lives of some people waiting for a transplant? Your doing so might help your family know that part of you is still allowing others to live. Once you are dead you certainly do not need your organs and tissues - but others need them.

I greatly encourage all of you to register now to help others live.

Jim Barsotti
Big Sandy

©2006 Bitterroot Star
This site was Done By Dooney