Category Archives: Commentary

Brian Sybert: Lessons from the Scapegoat Wilderness

Commentary, Environmental Issues, , , ,

Brian Sybert, executive director of the Montana Wilderness Association, has a pretty good op-ed in Hungry Horse News supporting the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act . . .

In 1972, nearly 240,000 acres of federal public land lying between Montana’s iconic Rocky Mountain Front and storied Blackfoot River Valley became the first acres in the nation to enter the wilderness system at the behest of ordinary citizens.

The story of the Scapegoat Wilderness has influenced every effort to protect wild country during the past 40-plus years in Montana and throughout the nation.

And it’s a great story, full of colorful characters and bugling elk. On some levels it is also a heartbreaking tale of sacrifice and the heavy emotional burden that comes with standing up for what you believe is right.

Read more . . .

Flathead Forest Plan collaboration thank-you

Commentary,

Several NFPA members were involved in the Flathead National Forest Plan revision meetings . . .

The Meridian Institute would like thank everyone who participated in the Flathead National Forest plan revision stakeholder collaboration meetings over the past eight months. It has been our pleasure to work with the forest staff and more than 165 people who attended up to 16 evening meetings to talk about how the forest should be managed.

Participants included wildlife experts, snowmobilers, wilderness advocates, mountain bike enthusiasts, timber company employees, horse packers, rafters, summer motorized users, aviators, county commissioners, students, people who simply care about the forest because it is in their back yard, and many others. Other interested stakeholders contributed comments electronically.

 

Read more . . .

John Muhlfield: Pass the North Fork Watershed Protection Act

Commentary, Environmental Issues, , ,

John Muhlfield, mayor of Whitefish, weighs in on the political foot-dragging delaying passage of the North Fork Watershed Protection Act . . .

Ever since the Great Northern Railway laid tracks through Whitefish in 1904, tourism has been the backbone of our local economy, creating good paying jobs and sustaining thousands of families over the years to put their kids through college, start small businesses, buy a home and retire in one of the most beautiful small towns in America.

Hard-working Americans from all over the country come to Whitefish year round. They spend their hard-earned money locally to buy hotel rooms, fill up gas tanks, eat out and support our local businesses – all because they are called to our amazing wild and scenic areas, access to public lands and clean water, and special places such as Glacier National Park and the fresh powder of Whitefish Mountain Resort. In 2013 alone, Whitefish welcomed over 558,000 out-of-state visitors; 65,000 traveled to Whitefish on Amtrak’s Empire Builder. Resort tax and bed tax revenues in Whitefish increased 10 percent and 16 percent respectively that same year.

In early April, three senators from Texas, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania blocked bipartisan legislation supported by Montana Sens. Jon Tester and John Walsh and Rep. Steve Daines – Montana’s full congressional delegation – to permanently protect the North Fork Flathead River from future energy development. The bill even has backing from major energy companies, like ConocoPhillips and local businesses, including F.H. Stoltze Land and Lumber Company. But it has stalled for no apparent reason. In a recent poll in the Missoulian, 73 percent said they support permanent protection of the North Fork Flathead River.

Read more . . .

Frank Vitale: Political shenanigans continue with North Fork bills

Commentary, Environmental Issues,

Frank Vitale is understandably annoyed with the political posturing holding up the North Fork Watershed Protection Act. This op-ed appeared May 14 on the Hungry Horse News website and has been submitted to a number of other regional newspapers . . .

My affiliation with the North Fork spans 35 years. As a North Fork landowner, I’ve worked, hunted, fished and cleared many miles of trails. For me, keeping the North Fork pristine is personal.

That’s why I’m so disappointed by the recent decision by Republicans in Congress to block a bipartisan bill to protect the North Fork.

Montanans have read conflicting information about how we reached this impasse (see Mac Minard’s April 19 op-ed in the Daily Inter Lake). I want to set the record straight.

Congressman Steve Daines recently told U.S. News that his strategy to win the Senate race this year is to pick off and neutralize constituents like advocates for the North Fork. His recent actions show why he can’t be trusted.

Sens. John Walsh and Jon Tester are pushing a bill, originally introduced in 2010, to withdraw the U.S. watershed from future development, following through on a deal between Montana and British Columbia to permanently protect the North Fork.

Montanans were hopeful when Congressman Daines introduced a companion bill last year, marking the first time in 30 years that the whole delegation supported a public lands bill. Our hopes rose further when on March 4 the House of Representatives passed the bill.

Unfortunately the North Fork has now run into the Tea Party gauntlet in the Senate. What is clear is that the game was rigged.

On April 3, three Republican Senators from other states — Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Texas — blocked our senators’ attempt to pass this made-in-Montana bill in the Senate. The Senator from Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey, recently donated $10,000 to Congressman Daines’ campaign.

As Congressman Daines knows, the vote in the Senate (by “unanimous consent”) was the Senate’s equivalent of how the House passed the bill. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, “Most noncontroversial measures are approved by ‘suspension of the rules’ in the House, and by unanimous consent in the Senate.”

In fact, all eight Senate public lands bills that have passed the chamber this Congress passed by unanimous consent. Those bills set aside 85,000 acres of new wilderness and 73 miles of Wild and Scenic River designation in eight different states.

So why is the North Fork bill so different for Senate Republicans?

The answer reminds me of another Senate race 26 years ago, when President Reagan pocket-vetoed the last Montana wilderness bill to pass Congress in order to jam then-Senator John Melcher in his race against Conrad Burns.

For example, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is insisting on the opportunity to offer controversial amendments to the North Fork that would have brought down the entire proposal. This is a familiar ploy. The same Republican demand last fall (supported by Congressman Daines) caused the shutdown of the federal government for 16 days, costing Montana upwards of $45 million in lost business from Glacier and Yellowstone national parks alone.

I am confident that our senators will find a way to protect the North Fork. But how can Montanans trust Steve Daines when he won’t even stand up to his own allies in the Senate who help finance his campaign?

Larry Wilson: Collaborative forest planning continues

Commentary, Environmental Issues, , ,

Larry’s column is nicely timed this week. A lengthy series of Flathead National Forest Plan revision “stakeholder collaboration” meetings winds up tonight. Several North Fork folks have been participating.

In the more than 60 years I have been on the North Fork, I have been involved in a lot of planning efforts. These involved six years on the Flathead Basin Commission, 20 years on the Montana Governors Team negotiating with British Columbia, the Flathead County Planning Board, the North Fork group that started the Interlocal, and then the North Fork Land-Use Advisory Committee, which guided the Flathead County Commissioners from no planning to adopting a North Fork plan.

In addition, I have spent countless hours and several decades on groups or committees involved directly or indirectly with Flathead National Forest planning. All of these were slow-moving and acting and at times very frustrating, and I had decided I had done all that I could and would withdraw to the sidelines where I could comment on the new generation without spending time in meetings.

Then the Whitefish Range Partnership came along. I didn’t just jump on board but drug my feet for a month or more and finally agreed to be on the group, representing no one but myself as a North Fork resident.

Read more . . .

George Wuerthner: Manage federal forest lands with all Americans in mind

Commentary, Environmental Issues, ,

In a Missoulian op-ed, George Wuerthner expresses misgivings about the impact of the forest restoration provisions in the new farm bill . . .

Recently the Bullock administration convened a committee to designate federal forest lands that could be logged under a special categorical exclusion provision of the recently passed Farm Bill.

This section of the Farm Bill repeals the National Environmental Policy Act to allow an unlimited number of commercial logging projects – up to 3,000 acres in size each – to be implemented on U.S. national forests without any environmental analysis of harmful effects to threatened/endangered or sensitive species. It would also eliminate administrative appeals, severely reducing public participation in forest management decisions.

Under the proposal, any lands outside of special set asides like wilderness areas and proposed wilderness deemed “threatened” by insects, disease or wildfire could be logged. Since insects, disease and wildfire are the major ecological processes that rejuvenate and restore forest ecosystems, and are found in all forested ecosystems, this means just about any federal forest lands could potentially be logged.

Read more . . .

See also: “Gov. Bullock lists 5.1 million acres of forest lands for restoration“

Mac Minard: North Fork protection needs straight vote

Commentary, Environmental Issues, ,

Mac Minard, executive director of the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association, is circulating a testy opinion piece on the legislative shenanigans hindering passage of the North Fork Watershed Protection Act . . .

North Fork protection passed the House but fell short in the Senate — for the wrong reasons.

The North Fork Watershed Protection Act is a bipartisan legislative effort that started with former Sen. Max Baucus in 1974, and represents locally driven efforts to protect the historic and majestic North Fork area in the Flathead Valley. The legislation has tremendous support within the outdoor community and has received endorsements from various groups concerned with land management decisions and conservation efforts.

Rep. Steve Daines joined the effort last year, and introduced a companion bill in the House. A few months ago, in what was nothing short of a herculean effort, freshman congressman Daines ushered the North Fork Watershed Protection Act through the House with strong bipartisan support — a huge milestone. The House passage of North Fork Watershed Protection Act, which has been around for several decades, represented the first time the bill passed either chamber of Congress.

However, two weeks ago, this important bill was blocked in the Senate by what can only be described as an election-year political stunt.

Read more . . .

Kellyn Brown: North Fork politics

Commentary, Environmental Issues,

Over at the Flathead Beacon, Kellyn Brown is not happy about the political process surrounding the North Fork Watershed Protection Act . . .

The real problem with the failure to pass the North Fork Watershed Protection Act is how it happened. Others can argue over the merits of the legislation, but let’s take a look at how the sausage was made. Or, in this case, not made.

Both Montana Sen. John Walsh and Rep. Steve Daines, who is challenging Walsh in the forthcoming U.S. Senate election, appeared eager to pass this bill and lay claim to protecting an area that conservation groups and energy companies alike agree should be off limits to new mineral development. To be clear, this is a rather noncontroversial bill. In a letter, ConocoPhillips’ vice president expressed support for the added protections.

Anymore, that matters very little, because Congress eagerly uses convoluted and preposterous rules in the name of politics. And this is just the latest perfect example of why many of us sit back dumbfounded by the ease at which this country’s governing bodies tie themselves into knots so they don’t have to do any real governing.

Read more . . .

Letter favoring North Fork protection

Commentary

The Flathead Beacon posted a nice reader letter in favor of the North Fork Watershed Protection Act . . .

There’s something liberating about slipping a raft into a river in Western Montana. We are fortunate to have so many clean, free-flowing rivers nearby to enjoy with friends and family. And in my mind, few rivers can match the North Fork Flathead River. Other rivers may have more thrilling whitewater or more fish per river mile, but few match the North Fork for clean, beautiful water and stunning, wild scenery.

Montana’s congressional delegation happens to agree with me on this point. Sens. John Walsh, Jon Tester and Rep. Steve Daines are all supporters of the North Fork Watershed Protection Act. For this reason, it is especially maddening to read news that the bill is being blocked in the Senate by three senators who – in the memorable words of Tester – “can’t even find the Flathead River on a map.”

Read more . . .

Missoulian editorial: Daines, Walsh should team up to pass North Fork bill

Commentary, Environmental Issues, ,

The Missoulian is not pleased with the political posturing holding up the North Fork Watershed Protection Act . . .

U.S. Rep. Steve Daines might want to have a little chat with some his Republican counterparts in the Senate.

Three of them in particular: Ted Cruz of Texas, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

These three U.S. Senators blocked passage of the no-nonsense, common-sense North Fork Watershed Protection Act through the Senate. A similar measure has already been passed by the House – thanks to Daines’ sponsorship.

Read more . . .