Fourteen months ago the citizens of Ravalli County voted us into office. We clearly stated that, if elected, our priority would be to develop local land planning regulations. We have diligently pursued that goal and continue to do so.

On August 13, we voted for and passed a resolution that will allow citizens a direct vote on any land regulations we implement. This citizen vote will take place during the November 2010 general election. After that, there will be an opportunity to vote every five years on changes made by future commissioners.

The reason for holding the vote in 2010 rather than this November is that we have not passed any regulations for citizens to vote on. Until the commission passes planning measures, a direct citizen vote makes no sense and we do not support it. We continue to listen to citizen comments on Draft C. We encourage you to obtain a copy from the Planning Department or find it online at HYPERLINK "http://www.co.ravalli.mt.us/planning/CountywideZoning.htm" http://www.co.ravalli.mt.us/planning/CountywideZoning.htm. Your suggestions have resulted in changes and will continue to do so. While the timeline may vary somewhat, the planning staff indicates they will have final maps and regulations ready for public hearings by mid-2009. These hearings will be followed by a commission vote. Based on the comments we have heard so far, it is likely that we will adopt a set of regulations similar to Draft C.

Between the time of the commissioners’ vote and the November 2010 election, the local regulations that we pass will be in place. If you choose to vote down our regulations in 2010, we will return to the state’s rules governing subdivision.

There is one thing that could prevent you from voting on whether you want local or state control. This November, at the behest of a group of citizens, there will be a ballot measure asking whether you want to repeal the Ravalli County Growth Policy. If voters repeal the Growth Policy, state law prohibits the commission from implementing local land planning regulations. Therefore, the state’s regulations will remain in place and voters will have no choice between locally developed policy and state regulations. It is our opinion that the state’s regulations favor land speculators and do not protect the average landowner’s property rights.

We believe the majority of citizens favor local land planning over state regulation. We urge you to be involved in planning our valley’s future and to vote against repealing the Growth Policy this November. Be assured that in November of 2010, you’ll be able to vote on any local planning measures that we have approved.

Letters to the Editor

Researcher way off base

Dear Editor,

How many thousands of logging jobs and the American families it supported have been decimated over the last 20-30 years due to the interference and blatant distortions by the disingenuous environmentalists? Chad Hanson who is an official at the John Muir Project and lives in the vast wasteland of California butts in that the logging industry (what’s left of it) is run by troglodytes bent on destroying the earth. He states in his column that the now diminished industry intentionally distorts, lies, exaggerates, misleads, falsely claims, makes numerous scientifically inaccurate assumptions, blah, blah, blah in order to provide a necessary product for our American market, namely cut lumber.

To read his diatribe of what a plague the logging industry is/was you get the distinct impression that he wrote his column from the sterile and stale air conditioned office insulated from the real world at the John Muir Offices in Cedar Ridge or from a tree house on the Berkeley campus. He trashes the only major industry that is/was available for those Americans who live in or near the forested areas of the Pacific Northwest. Like all the other leftists that intentionally distorted, lied, exaggerated, misled, falsely claimed and made numerous scientifically inaccurate assumptions about the spotted owl or the global warming hoax, he paints those he disagrees with as on the evolutionary scale with the first bipeds or in my opinion tort lawyers.

I challenge Mr. Hanson to actually come to the mountain Northwest where the “forest people” live, and the deer and the antelope play, and see for himself what damage has been done to our environment by the John Muir Project, Sierra Club, etc. and their lesser toadies like the Earth Liberation Front and Not-Friends of the Bitterroot. Or butt out and concentrate his efforts on solving California’s horrific annual super fires, such as the 1,400 so far this year. Reasoned logging and a yearly fuels reduction maintenance schedule, not courtroom obstructionism for profit, may very well be the answer to reduce the yearly super fires and provide jobs for decent Americans who would love the work. Through our tax dollars we are plank owners of the forests also. Stop obstructing progress for profit in court the well reasoned logging practices. It’s why we reload every time we see California plates on a passing vehicle. Open your mind and get educated about the logging industry, Chad. It only hurts for a little while.

Michael Lecznar
Sula

Wolves…again

Dear Editor,

I had hoped I wouldn’t have to talk about wolves again but their de-listing has put them back in the news and brought on a series of calls to me from reporters wanting to know “if Farm Bureau still hates wolves.” Most of the folks calling were still in school back when Farm Bureau went into federal court to try and stop wolf introduction, so their historical perspective is skewed by what they’ve heard from environmental groups like the Defenders of Wildlife, who get a lot of ink whenever the subject comes up, and have never appreciated Farm Bureau’s attempt to make them and the federal government accountable for their claims.

What’s often forgotten today is that we won our case in federal district court. The judge ruled the reintroduction of wolves was illegal (because they weren’t endangered to begin with) and that the transplanted wolves must be removed. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court, ruling that letter of the law is not important, only its intent.

During this period I pointed out several times that the wolf plan was a joke because groups like the Defenders would never be satisfied with numbers the government used to denote recovery of the species and would sue whenever the government moved to de-list. In an op-ed dated October 27, 1993 author Alston Chase cited Utah State University biologist Dr. Charles Kay, “Since packs contain, on average, 10 wolves of which only two- the alpha male and female- breed, this would imply that the animal would be deemed recovered after 100 wolves are established in each area. But to prevent harmful inbreeding and to protect against random environmental changes, most scientists believe that a minimum viable population is 1,500 individuals.

The recovery goals, he surmised, were political numbers without scientific basis fabricated to minimize opposition to wolf reintroduction. Yet when populations reach recovery goals and the government moves to de-list, Kay observed, activists, rightly claiming 100 is not enough, will sue to keep them protected, and win. Wolf numbers will grow and grow and grow.”

Wolf proponents both in and out of government howled over such mean-spirited assertions. I was frequently pilloried as an ignorant hate monger when I raised the same concerns in speeches and op-eds through the nineties.

We have 1500 wolves now and a pending lawsuit by the Defenders of Wildlife and a gaggle of other enviro groups claiming 1500 just aren’t enough. Of course, wolves have been a great source of revenue for Defenders over the years and it looks like they will be again.

Montana Farm Bureau’s livestock producer members don’t hate wolves and neither do I. Wolves are just another predator that have to be dealt with in a responsible and cost-effective way. The thing that sticks in my craw is the stereotyping by the media of who we are and what we do and the hypocrisy of the environmental movement as they recycle their tired predictions of eminent wolf slaughter by enraged cowboys shooting every furry critter that moves.

Jake Cummins, Executive Vice President,
Montana Farm Bureau Federation
Bozeman

Support for Obama

Dear Editor,

During this presidential campaign, we Montanans are going to hear some DC lobbyists and former elected officials saying some alarming things about guns. It’s time to call these people out – and tell them to stop distorting the facts to scare us into ignoring the real issues for Montana’s sportsmen and women.

The fact is, neither presidential candidate has any plans to change gun laws in Montana. Barack Obama has clearly stated that he will protect the rights of hunters and law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns. He supports an individual’s right to bear arms. And John McCain’s record is not nearly as perfect as some people would like you to believe; McCain has a “C” rating from the NRA. The point is, don’t be hoodwinked by falling skies and slippery slope arguments, in four years our gun safes will still be full.

Instead, we need an honest discussion about what is important to Montana gun owners. My family has lived in Montana for five generations. Hunting and fishing has been a way a life, and some of my favorite family pictures are Model-T’s loaded with majestic bull elk heads tied between the two front tires. Times have changed, but the world-class hunting and fishing remains.

Looking at the Presidential candidates, Barack is the clear choice to uphold our time-honored traditions. Barack admits he didn’t grow up hunting and fishing, yet clearly knows that our convictions run deep and our passion is true. Barack will be in Montana this week for the fifth time, and because he has asked Montana hunters and anglers for advice and listened to concerns, he has a platform that not only includes protection of our second amendment rights, but he also strongly supports wildlife habitat conservation and hunter-angler access.

One of my favorite bumper stickers says, “It’s the habitat stupid.” Montana has world-class hunting and fishing opportunities because we have world-class fish and wildlife habitat on private and public lands. Barack is solid on conserving fish and wildlife habitat. He believes oil and gas development should be done responsibly, balancing energy needs AND fish and wildlife habitat. Barack will fully fund the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, fulfilling the goal of “no net loss” of wetlands that maintain vast populations of ducks, upland birds and big game. Barack supports partnerships with private landowners to promote stewardship of land and water, and will fully fund the Farm Bill’s conservation programs. Finally, he understands the threat of climate change to fish and wildlife, and will include support for state agencies to protect fish and wildlife in climate change legislation.

Public lands provide vital opportunities for all Montanans to hunt and fish, and Barack believes we must keep public lands in public hands. Montanans enjoy access to hunting and fishing opportunities on both public and private land. Whether it’s a handshake agreement with a private landowner or Montana’s highly successful Block Management Program, Barack believes we should promote these partnerships. He supports the “Open Fields” legislation that will provide funding for voluntary public access to private land programs.

If you like to hunt and fish, Barack Obama is the clear choice. As Theodore Roosevelt said, "The movement for the conservation of wildlife, and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources, are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method." In November, you have a chance to exercise your democratic right. I’m excited to tell my newborn daughter that I cast my vote for someone who helped protect her opportunities to hunt and fish!

Land Tawney
MT Sportsmen for Obama

Thanks for animal adoptions

Dear Editor,

Recently, a local animal rescuer, Lin Taylor, died unexpectedly leaving many animals in need of new, loving homes. The community response has been overwhelming. All of the farm animals except nine roosters have found homes. Her 11 horses will be in their new homes within two weeks.

Lin’s two dogs are still waiting for their new home. These special dogs were adopted from rescue organizations and need a forever home together. Three of Lin’s cats have been adopted into great new homes; however, 22 cats are still waiting for permanent homes.

If you can help with re-homing some of these animals, please call 273-6007 or 381-0223.

Thank you to everyone who has fostered, adopted, and contributed to Lin's animals.

Marilynn Taylor
Florence

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2008 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney