Category Archives: Commentary

The road. With humor.

Heavens! We’ve let two weeks go by without mentioning the road — in particular, the infamous Montana Department of Transportation’s North Fork Road Corridor Study (recent posts here, here and here). The Corridor Study has generated hundreds of public comments on all aspects of the issue — some carefully reasoned, many less so — but very little humor. The following letter by North Fork landowner Paul Edwards is an exception. He was, I am told, a professional writer in Hollywood. Personally, I think he is channeling Mark Twain, here. In any event, enjoy the read while I polish up my collection of 19th Century adjectives . . .

Members of the MDT:

What insanity is this, sirs?  Is there any rational purpose whatever behind a study of the merits of paving an already perfectly adequate gravel road into a tiny, remote, isolated rural community adjacent to a Wild and Scenic River and one of America’s crown jewel National Parks, whose few year-round residents are overwhelmingly content with that road as it is?

Is there any basis in logic or practicality for spending money to determine whether the public should bear the appalling costs of creating a blacktop highway into de facto wilderness, to an end point where no one lives and beyond which no one can go, through prime habitat for many precious and endangered species that the American people want protected from just such incursions, and that are, due to its present character, largely so protected?

Can there be, in the fevered imaginations of a cadre of delusional boomers and bureaucrats, some intelligible justification for asking the public to finance an absurd highway to nowhere that virtually no one wants, when the all the rest of developed, inhabited, commercially active Flathead Country makes do with its network of badly kept, poorly maintained roads?

Surely, sirs, you by now apprehend the lunacy of this scheme.  Surely you would be embarrassed, nay, shamed, to put your imprimatur on such a monument to utter folly.

Relying, as I do, on the persistent capacity of the human mind, when presented with irrefutable facts and compelling argument, to make the right decisions, even in the face of baldfaced imbecility, I am confident that you will dismiss this piece of egregious foolery out of hand.

You will, of course, recall the episode of the bizarre and redoubtable Sarah Palin and her “bridge to nowhere”, and its outcome.  Enough said…

With tentative respect, pending your decision, I am,

Paul Edwards

Please include my letter in the official record.

Protecting the North Fork must be a team effort

Dave Hadden, Executive Director of Headwaters Montana, had a letter to the editor published in today’s Flathead Beacon . . .

The North Fork of the Flathead River (a.k.a. the Transboundary Flathead) continues to play in the news of late. The news media report that Gov. Brian Schweitzer and Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester are at odds over how to best protect our river, Glacier Park and Flathead Lake from upstream industrial activity. While a bit confusing to the reader, we think it’s important to keep the North Fork in the news for one simple reason: Our fabulous North Fork ain’t protected yet.

Read the complete letter . . .

Schweitzer says feds ‘let us down’ on protecting North Fork

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer is annoyed at the slow progress retiring mining leases in the Canadian Flathead — not because the Canadians are dragging their feet, but because he feels the U.S. government is not doing their part. However, there seems to be two sides to this story.

Here’s an AP article from the 4th of June providing a good overview of Schweitzer’s stance:

Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Thursday that he’s disappointed the federal government hasn’t come up with about $17 million needed to compensate mining companies as part of a deal with Canada to protect the area surrounding Glacier National Park.

The joint U.S.-Canada deal seeks to halt ongoing exploration and calls for a stop to future development of gold, coal, oil and gas in much of the Flathead River Basin. The basin sprawls across some 9,000 square miles and straddles the border.

Schweitzer and British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell signed the memorandum of understanding in February. It lays out several goals, including the compensation of two small companies that will have to walk away from their mines.

Read the entire article . . .

And here’s an editorial by Kellyn Brown of the Flathead Beacon questioning Schweitzer’s view:

It’s hard to know what to make of Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s recent criticism of his “federal partners” for, according to him, failing to secure $17 million to compensate Canadian mining companies so they will abandon their mining leases near Glacier National Park.

Read the full editorial . . .

The road in the 50’s

Seems the humble North Fork Road has gotten way more than its share of attention for an inordinate length of time. From an editorial entry in the October 23, 2008 online edition of the Hungry Horse News titled “Looking back to ’54, ’55” . . .

Future of the North Fork Road, millions of feet of lumber shipped, Anaconda Aluminum Co. plant construction and Columbia Falls post office increases highlighted front page stories in the Hungry Horse News in November and December, 1954.

Continual maintenance and improvement of the North Fork road plus a new bridge at Polebridge were issues discussed. It was pointed out virtually all North Fork road construction had been through the Forest Service with some maintenance shared with Flathead County.

Read the entire article . . .

Keep heli-skiing out of North Fork

John Frederick’s letter to Nicole Stickney of the Montana DNRC regarding the proposal to conduct heli-skiing on state lands in the Whitefish Range appeared in today’s Hungry Horse News in the Letters section . . .

I can sympathize with the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation in trying to find money through the school trust lands for Montana schools. It is not easy to balance environmental and social concerns while trying to get big bucks for the schools.

The two proposed locations for heli-skiing in Coal Creek State Forest are rather close to Polebridge. Winona Ridge, one of the proposed landing/skiing sites, is a little less than three and a half miles from Polebridge and roughly parallels the North Fork Road at a distance of 3/8 of a mile to almost a mile away. It is also not a high mountain which means more noise from helicopters. The other proposed, nearby skiing location is Coal Ridge which at the closest point is only four miles southwest of Polebridge.

I hope you can now understand why people become upset about heli-skiing or any frequent use of helicopters any time of the year when it is not an emergency. Most people, both residents and visitors, come to the North Fork for solitude and quiet.

Others have e-mailed you about the strong probability of people and wildlife being harassed by helicopters bringing skiers to places such as Winona Ridge in Coal Creek State Forest. Many other questions remain unanswered about the possibility of local heli-skiing.

What are the models, sizes and occupancies of the helicopters to be used? What are the decibels created by such machines? How far will the sound travel and be heard?

How many flights a day will be allowed? How many skiers? Triple X, one of the applicant helicopter companies, said they flew 260 helicopter flights over Whitefish during the fourth of July weekend. Hardly anyone wants that kind of activity in our state forests.

Would DNRC give permits to other companies who requested a similar permit?

What are the flight patterns? Do the helicopters go directly to the skiing location or do they swing over to Glacier Park for a scenic tour?

Has anyone at DNRC researched the location of bear dens in the vicinity of the flight paths?

How do the skiers return? By snowmobile or helicopter? And what is their route?

How much would you charge the operators of the helicopter skiing for a permit?

Has DNRC researched other locations in Alaska or British Columbia where heli-skiing has already taken place? Are there problems?

Heli-skiing has never been done in the Flathead Valley. Therefore, it might be a good idea to leave the comment period open for a while longer. There is a definite lack of information on the subject at this time.

Look at the Hungry Horse News article last week by Chris Peterson as it reflects the opinions of many North Forkers. There is a link to the article on the North Fork Preservation Association Web site (with new format) at www.gravel.org.

John Frederick of Polebridge is the North Fork Preservation Association president.

DOW not happy with heli-skiing proposal

The deadline for public comments on the proposal to allow helicopter skiing on state lands in the Whitefish Range expired today. Overall attitudes appear to range from cautious skepticism to outright hostility. One of the lengthier responses was an 18-page missive submitted by the Rocky Mountain Region Office of Defenders of Wildlife, covering everything from the applicable regulations and agreements to wildlife impact and the potential disturbance to nearby federal and private holdings. The real meat is in the last paragraph:

This letter has described the complex and varied potential effects of the proposed helicopter skiing operations. In order to completely and carefully examine these effects, we believe the preparation of an environmental impact statement is justified and required. We are also concerned that many interested members of the public may not be aware of these proposals. If it were not for an article in the Kalispell newspaper, we would not know about it ourselves. We found no mention of it on the NDRC website, for example. For these reasons, we look forward to participating in the public review component of an EIS process.

They seem annoyed.

Bad ideas for the North Fork

Chris Peterson, photographer for the Hungry Horse News, doesn’t think much of the recent proposal to allow heli-skiing in the North Fork.

From the Thursday, October 9, 2008 online edition of the Hungry Horse News . . .

It seems like once a week someone comes up with a bad idea for the North Fork of the Flathead.

Our friends in Canada propose coal mines in the headwaters (the latest scuttle is that a company is now doing test drilling for gold in Howell Creek, a main tributary of the river).

Down in our neck of the woods the annual (no, weekly) debate is on whether to pave the road and how rough the road is and blah, blah, blah.

Lemme just say this: Folks down here haven’t even seen a rough road until they’ve driven the roads in the Canadian Flathead. They are rough with a capital “R.” Rough enough to jar the fillings right out of Larry Wilson and Bob Grimaldi’s teeth.

But the latest and truly bad idea for the North Fork comes from the fine folks at Triple-X helicopter, who propose heli-skiing up on Coal and Winona ridges just outside of Glacier National Park.

Read the entire article . . .

Road dust litigation ill-advised

The following editorial commentary by Pat Cole of the North Fork Landowners’ Association appeared in this week’s Hungry Horse News . . .

In an Aug. 28 letter to the editor, Mr. Dennis Groebe stated, “at the last meeting of the North Fork Landowners’ Association, it became very clear that a ‘small vocal minority’ has decided to portray the position that the North Fork property owners do not want any steps taken to control the road dust, while the NFLA Board acknowledged that in their own recent poll, 77 percent of the respondents stated that they desired the road to be maintained and some form of ‘dust control measures’ to be implemented.”

As a full-time resident in the North Fork and secretary/treasurer of the NFLA for the past eight years, I have maintained all the minutes of the Association’s business meetings. At no time during the Aug. 2 meeting of the NFLA, nor any of the other meetings that I attended, have I heard the position put forth either by the NFLA board members or association members that North Fork property owners do not want any steps taken to control the road dust. To state that this position has been portrayed is simply not factual.

Continue reading Road dust litigation ill-advised

The Road. Again.

Last week, a couple of rather pointed letters to the editor appeared in local newspapers in response to Commissioner Gary Hall’s missive that appeared in the April 24 edition of the Hungry Horse News. The full text of Hall’s letter is available here. Hall is in favor of paving the North Fork Road as far as the Camas Creek entrance to Glacier Park. He also announced a couple of meetings related to this issue. The first is on May 21st. It was originally scheduled to be held in the conference room at Freedom Bank, but has since been moved to the North Valley Hospital Community Center, which is a couple of blocks north of Smith’s in Columbia Falls. The second meeting is the “reveal” of the short-term North Fork Road dust study conducted last summer and paid for by the NFRCHS. It will be held in the County Commissioner’s meeting room on June 9th.

Both letters take a jaundiced view of spending big money on a section of the North Fork Road when the need is so much greater elsewhere. The full text of the letters follows…

Continue reading The Road. Again.