Letters of Support

Message of support from Western Institute, December 6, 2007

"The BSC holds promise. It’s grassroots, political, and the members are angry at the destruction of their local economies and landscapes. Congress should pay heed."

Read more...

###

Letter to the Editor, repost from the Ravalli Republic, 11/29/2007

Work together to overcome differences

Okay, okay, I’m an obstructionist. To me, it’s another word for conservative.

I’m conservative about conservation and the use of natural resources. I’m conservative about interfering with natural processes before we really understand how nature’s managed to live without our fiddling for billions of years.

So, I agree to wear the label obstructionist without rancor. Of course, when that label was spit out by an audience member at the Big Sky Coalition’s Nov. 4 meeting, it was meant to wound and polarize. For sure it wasn’t used in an effort to promote consensus.

I was surprised then, to find that the Robaks who initiated the meeting and the facilitator, Sonny LaSalle, were sincere and serious about keeping the lid on an audience that came loaded for bear (both sides n there were more than a few conservative conservationists in the audience). For that, I say “Thank you!” We need more community meetings with that objective. While they’re not nearly as much fun as gatherings where people get to yell and scream and call each other names, there is an upside. It may actually lead to discussion on how to deal with wildfire in the valley.

So here’s a common sense suggestion from an obstructionist. If the Big Sky Coalition really wants to get something done, the key phrase is “baby steps.”

Much of reaching consensus on wildfires requires building trust. There’s no way Congress is going to give us the money to thin 40,000 acres of forest/year in the near future. It certainly won’t if we aren’t speaking with one voice. So start small. Begin with what we agree on and can realistically do.

A problem with Bush’s forest management plan is that it pays for thinning by selling timber. I know that sounds reasonable to some but to others it’s a sneaky way to resume wholesale logging.

Again, if the coalition is truly interested in forest health and in accomplishing something; humor us. Let’s work together to get money appropriated to do thinning projects in low elevation areas adjacent to private lands without using timber sales to pay for it. There are more than enough of these areas to keep us busy for awhile. It’ll give us time to assess each other and see if we can reach common ground on a bigger scale.

Disparate groups throughout the state are putting together fuel reduction projects. We can do it here too. The question that’s yet to be answered is: Does the newly formed coalition really want to work together or is it just making conciliatory noises while attempting to shove a gag down our throats?

Lastly, what are we going to do with all the thinned material? One option is using it for manufacturing composite lumber. There’s a homegrown company ready to set up a mill in Darby but it lacks the capital to make it happen. Throwing our collective weight behind obtaining money for mutually agreeable thinning projects, as well as getting a company started that can use the product, just might make us feel good enough about ourselves that we won’t need to get in each other’s faces.

You can call me naïve (and I have been), but I know that working together for a common goal provides all of the pleasures of a good fight without raising blood pressure. What have we got to lose? I say, let’s give it a try.

Pat Tucker

Hamilton

###

Letter to the Editor, repost from the Ravalli Republic, 11/23/2007

Unbalanced reporting

For anyone who did not attend the Big Sky Coalition-Environmentalist[s] with common sense rally Sunday, Nov. 5 but who would like to know how it went, what it was about, who was there, what was presented, etc. I would like to suggest that you buy the Monday, Nov. 6 edition of the Missoulian. You certainly won’t get any of that information by reading the article by Kristin Knight in the Ravalli Republic on Tuesday.

What you will get by reading the 167 lines of Kristin Knight’s Ravalli article is 96 lines devoted to Jim Miller and the FOB’s opinion.

You will also read 36 lines of print devoted to stressing the stream setback issue (or in this case, non issue) as the subject did appear in some of the ads for the rally but was not discussed at the rally except by Tom Robak’s comment that it would not be discussed and was not going to be an issue dealt with by the Big Sky Coalition. Period.

I am very glad that I went to the rally and had the chance to hear Tom Robak, Sonny LaSalle, Mick Dezel, Jack Losenksy, Mark Jergens, Alan Thompson and Sen. Rick Laible present information and address issues.

They helped answer questions about how vegetation changes, what’s happened to our forests in the last 50 years, how Forest Service management affects our county and what are the health effects of wood smoke.

I’m glad that I did not depend on getting information about the rally from the Ravalli Republic coverage as, in this case, they failed miserably.

Shirley Maydole

Hamilton

###