I was not surprised by Gary Marbut’s long discourse regarding predators (wolves) and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (see Letters, Jan. 26). Marbut’s ideology has always been extremely far to the right, and he is vehemently opposed to wolves in the northern Rockies. He has long promoted hysteria about wolves attacking humans and turning Montana into a “biological desert.” Sadly, Marbut also supports political causes and candidates that work their hardest to destroy and degrade Montana’s wildlands, thus ruining the prime elk habitat so desperately needed. Sort of “shooting oneself in the foot,” in my opinion.

Since the late 1970s, the elk population of Montana has nearly tripled. But, of course, Marbut accuses FWP of lying (“fudging”) to come up with such optimistic numbers. He goes on to ridicule the “professionals” in FWP and their “green” ideas such as “biological diversity.” Apparently, in Marbut’s view, FWP’s job is to manage for a monoculture of elk, to the detriment of other species, making our forests an elk farm. That way, he can have an easier time getting “his elk” for the tiny fee FWP charges for a license. He prefers hearsay to scientific studies and disregards evidence that conflicts with his beliefs—a dangerous trait.

Now, funding is down and Marbut claims FWP will want to raise revenue from “the general public to pay the bills.” That’s actually a good concept, as all Montana residents enjoy wildlife, not just hunters, and we should all be willing to pay the bill. Perhaps it’s time FWP gets their funding from the state’s general fund, and doesn’t have to rely on one group. That way, we’d all have a say in how Montana’s wildlife is managed.

Wolves and other predators are here to stay. Close-minded attitudes and ideological straightjackets won’t help solve the complex wildlife management issues we have today. They only cause divisiveness.

Mike Koeppen

Florence

Montana’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act again came close to passage last month. The bill aimed at creating jobs and improving forest management enjoys strong support in Montana and has earned crucial support in the U.S. Senate.

But as FJRA gains momentum, opponents appear to be shifting tactics. They can no longer pretend the bill doesn’t exist. And because so many Montanans have united around FJRA’s collaborative approach to creating jobs and resolving national-forest conflicts, outright opposition has become politically imprudent.

Instead, we now hear proposals to change the forest jobs bill by requiring completion of the logging and thinning before resource-protection provisions take effect. Known as “trigger language,” this suggestion is a red herring—a made-in-Washington poison-pill provision that Congress has rejected time and again.

In other words, if you can’t stop FJRA on the merits, attach a provision that would effectively kill it.

The whole idea of trigger language is borrowed from epic forest fights of the past, the same fights that many of us have left behind. The most important thing everybody needs to know about the bill is that the many Montanans who’ve had a hand in writing it are focused on Montana’s future, not its past.

We want a future that guarantees 100,000 acres of timber harvest over 15 years. We want a future where forest restoration projects are judged in court not just by short-term impacts to the land, but also by the long-term benefit to the land. We want a future that ensures our clean water and wildlife won’t be held hostage by partisan politics. FJRA suggests that we advance these solutions now instead of wasting more time fighting over trigger language.

For decades, Montanans fought to stalemate over how to manage our national forests. Some wanted more logging, others more designated wilderness. Off-road vehicle enthusiasts wanted more places to ride, while hikers pushed for more areas closed to machines. No interest group or industry in Montana has enough clout to overwhelm the others, but they all have the ability to say no. So the us-versus-them, conflict-ridden forest politics produce nothing but gridlock and failure.

Stalemate translates to lost opportunity for all of us who depend on the forests for our livelihoods and quality of life. Stalemate robs us of any real ability to shape the destiny of our communities. Stalemate produces the same answer to every need, desire and opportunity in the woods: “No.”

That’s so frustrating.

Frustration is what brought together Montanans from diverse interests in communities from Troy to Seeley Lake to Deer Lodge and beyond. We weren’t sure at first whether we could find a better way, but we knew we could do better than the unacceptable status quo.

When Montanans stopped shouting and started talking—and listening—we found that the common ground was bigger than anyone had imagined. Why is this such a surprise? Loggers like to hunt and fish on the weekend as much as anyone. Wilderness wanderers need paychecks, too. We all need clean water. The fact is, most of us make use of our national forests in several different ways.

By talking, we learned that many things that people and groups want from the forest aren’t mutually exclusive. We also found that not everything should boil down to election-year partisan politics. Also, it turns out we don’t have to agree on everything to agree on many things.

We found agreement in collaborative proposals for forest management in the Yaak, the Blackfoot-Clearwater region and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National forest. The proposals are tailored to specific areas but include a combination of timber harvest, forest restoration, recreation—motorized and non-motorized—and wildland protections.

The agreements strike balance—and not just between timber production and wilderness protection. For example, fewer than 45 miles of roads or trails would be closed to motorized vehicles under FJRA, leaving thousands of miles open to off-road-vehicle enthusiasts. In fact, for the first time, FJRA would establish permanent recreation areas for snowmobilers, including boundaries suggested by local snowmobilers. That’s just an example of giving up a little to gain a lot.

Most important, by working together, we developed trust in one another. Trust was the catalyst for FJRA. Trust is the glue that holds us together and helps the FJRA coalition grow. Trust creates hope for the future.

That trust translates into a commitment by a broad coalition of Montanans to continue working together—in our communities, in court when necessary and in the forests—well after this forest jobs bill becomes law. Montanans who support this partnership trust one another and our ability to teach Washington, D.C. a thing or two about solving problems rather than exploiting them.

Anybody who tries to undermine this trust creates peril for Montana’s struggling timber industry and the good jobs it provides. FJRA will create logging and forest-restoration jobs. Trust the leaders of our timber industry when they tell you that.

Loggers, hunters and anglers, business owners, wilderness users, community leaders and so many others united behind FJRA are working on far more than a piece of legislation. We’re working to create a better future for Montana.

Won’t you join us? We welcome your support.

Robyn King

Yaak Valley Forest Council

Gordy Sanders

Pyramid Mountain Lumber

Tom France

National Wildlife Federation

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks is reported to be running out of money because of decreased hunting license purchases, and is considering asking the legislature for license fee increases. This is the first obvious symptom of something known as agency “death spiral” for FWP.

Over the past two decades, FWP has come to focus on wildlife and biology when it should have been focused on fish and game. This includes FWP’s shocking tolerance and support for large predators. FWP’s total, willing, even eager cooperation with fostering excessive populations of large predators has long been predicted to end in a financial crash for the agency as word unavoidably spreads that there is no game left to hunt so there is no reason to buy a license.

For too long, FWP leaders have leaned on the scales of public policy by making excuses for the devastation wrought upon game herds by large predators, by fudging game counts and census numbers and by blaming any game population declines that could not be covered up on climate change, sunspots, lazy hunters or aliens—anything but the truth. This cover-up culture has been fostered by senior staff, always near retirement, who knew they’d be long gone from the hot seat when the FWP financial bus blundered off a cliff.

If the overall FWP attitude had not been so hell-bent on “ecosystem management,” “biological diversity,” “natural balance” and other similar catchy but terminal “green” ideas destined to end hunting, FWP managers would have predicted the current agency financial crisis years ago. Nobody at FWP noticed or cared several years ago when the editor of the NRA’s nationwide American Hunter magazine published a feature article about his fruitless elk-hunting trip to southwest Montana, a trip where the only tracks he saw were wolf tracks. Nobody at FWP noticed or cared about the other hundreds of warnings from Montana citizens. Worse, those warnings were even ridiculed by FWP in mad pursuit of its own agenda.

The stock mantra from FWP managers has been: “We’re the professionals. We know best. The outcome that concerned citizens predict will never come to pass.” The “evidence” of crashing game herds that citizens offer is just “campfire stories” and is without merit because it doesn’t come from paid FWP “professionals.”

Yet when retired FWP employees, freed from the institutional FWP muzzle, tell that FWP-tolerated wolves are turning the Montana landscape into a “biological desert,” FWP dismisses such comments summarily.

For the last two decades, FWP has been busy digging a hole for itself. As it sees daylight disappearing around the edges of the hole, it still won’t quit digging.

Of course, the obvious solution for the bureaucratic-bound and reality-disconnected FWP will be to announce, “We’ve been managing wildlife for the general public (including the non-Montana public) for years. Now we need the general public to pay the bills.” FWP has so fouled its nest by wasting the Montana hunting resource on predators and inadvisably removing hunters from the economic equation that it will now go to the legislature asking for relief, including increased fees that hunters simply won’t pay to access a vanishing resource, and, ultimately, tax increases on the general taxpayer, seeking a bailout from the results of its bad decisions.

You can bet that when FWP approaches the legislature demanding an allowance increase as a reward for having flunked Econ 101, the Montana Shooting Sports Association and thousands of Montana hunters will be there to say “Absolutely no way.” FWP has not only ignored the many warnings from Montana hunters, it has mocked and disrespected them. Also ignoring a state law requiring it to control large predators to protect game herds, FWP has bulled its way down a path surrounded with warning signs.

What FWP needs are not more or alternate sources of money, but a total change in attitude and culture. Until that happens, let FWP starve. It is not serving Montana.

Gary Marbut

Montana Shooting Sports Association

Missoula

The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act balances timber harvests with conservation of the most scenic and wild places in Montana. Intended to promote cooperation and collaboration in the management of national forests, it is the result of just that.

The bill already has the backing of timber interests from the Montana Wood Products Association to the Montana Logging Association, as well as local timber mills like Sun Mountain Lumber and RY Timber. It also has the backing of conservation groups, from Montana Trout Unlimited to the Montana Wilderness Association.

For seven years, these partners and many others have worked tirelessly to balance their interests and create more certainty for all. Rep. Denny Rehberg has been in office the entire time. Now, in the eleventh hour and in an election year, he is proposing massive changes that would replace certainties with contingencies. With so many Montanans in agreement, why would Rehberg not support a bill that accomplishes so much?

The idea that the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act won’t create jobs is absurd. It requires the government to sign logging contracts for at least 7,000 acres in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai national forests every year. Most of the areas proposed as wilderness are already managed as wilderness, and these exceptional places will entice people to live, work and play in Montana for many generations.

Creating opportunities to responsibly harvest timber while ensuing that our most scenic and wild places remain vibrant is a step in the right direction, and one that I urge Rehberg to take with us.

Jason T. Brown

Helena

Rep. Denny Rehberg is running for senator on the slogan “get the federal government out of our lives.” I’m sure the taxpayers in the rest of the nation would appreciate his efforts, since Montanans receive $1.47 back in federal dollars for every dollar we send to Washington. And Montana’s rural communities, Rehberg’s core supporters, get an even larger per capita percentage of the federal largess, including things like federal highway funds, federal fire fighting, federal flood insurance and disaster relief, FAA’s Airport Improvement Program for rural communities and many other federal programs worth cutting.

However, the greatest percentage of federal dollars on a per capita basis goes to Montana’s welfare farmers and ranchers, who have received $5.89 billion in subsidies between 1995 and 2010. To name a few ag subsides and not give a comprehensive list, there are federal price supports for wheat, corn and other crops, the Market Loss Assistance Program, loan deficiency payments, Hard Winter Wheat Incentive payments, the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payment Program, hail insurance, drought insurance, the Livestock Compensation Program, the Emergency Livestock Feed Program, the Livestock Indemnity Program, the Livestock Emergency Assistance Program, wool subsidies, the Milk Income Loss Contract Program, Dairy Market Loss Assistance, the Milk Income Loss Transitional Payment, the Dairy Economic Loss Assistance Program, the Sugar Beet Diversion Program, the Sugar Beet Disaster Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, the federal Conservation Reserve Program, the Livestock Forage Disaster Program, federal marketing support, ag research stations, the Conservation Security Program, Counter Cyclical Payments, the Marketing Loan Program, export subsidies and the Risk Management Agency.

The best way to save money and get the government off our backs is to stop government assistance to Montana’s welfare ranchers and farmers.

George Wuerthner

Helena

I don’t mind saying that we’re in the “Dawg House.” Our family was transferred from Texas to the Flathead Valley last June. Prior to our move, I spent a week here, driving the valley, wondering where we were going to settle. My husband works on Reserve in Kalispell, leaving north Kalispell and Whitefish as our options. I decided to let the choice in high schools be my deciding factor. I went to Glacier High and was shown the campus by a student who did a great job. I was only somewhat impressed with the school. We came from a school district that boasted state-of-the-art facilities. My bar was set pretty high.

The following day, I went to Whitefish High. Wow, anything I had ever seen that looked like the high school was torn down. I prayed that what I was to find on the inside betrayed what the outside revealed.

Was it the beautiful entry/cafeteria that betrayed its façade? No, it was the people, the front office staff, the student guide, the athletic director. Clearly, Whitefish was our home. I am not an analytical person; I married an engineer for that. I go by feel. And, despite the low ceilings, the poor lighting and the out-of-date everything, the “Dawg House” was where our six children were to attend. I can’t help but think how amazing that new school is going to be when you combine the fabulous teachers, the hospitable office staff and the excellent coaches with a school building that exceeds every academic, technological and physical need of our students and athletes. The word “unbeatable” comes to mind!

Catherine Owens

Whitefish

Molly Laich is funny, fearless, honest, original and always interesting (see “Abracadabra,” Jan. 5). What more could we want from a writer than that? And Jonathan Marquis’ illustrations are, well, magical. Let us know when you get that ukulele, Molly.

Jan Killian

Hamilton

I would like to apologize for my comments made in the “Street Talk” segment in the most recent edition of the Independent. There was a lengthy dialogue that took place with my friends and me and the compressed dialogue, out of context, may give an inaccurate presentation about the establishment Charlie B’s. I have never been, or witnessed anyone being, “over served” at the establishment. Its employees conduct themselves with a high sense of professionalism, responsibility and genuine care when dealing with their customers and when interacting within the community. All comments about drinking were about myself personally and were not meant to be connected with the establishment. Charlie B’s is one of the greatest bars in Missoula. Its philanthropic efforts, long history and character make it so. I apologize for any and all comments that would make anyone think otherwise.

Douglas K. Shappee

Missoula

Recent news about victims of forced sterilization in North Carolina during the 20th century should give us pause as we commemorate another anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. From the 1930s to the 1970s, more than 1,000 women in North Carolina were inhumanely sterilized without their consent or knowledge in some cases, an atrocity depriving them of the chance and joy of children. Shockingly, at least 30 other states conducted forced sterilizations, including Indian boarding schools in Montana.

Whatever side you take in the vicious debate over abortion, consider this: Roe v. Wade gave women free will over our own bodies. While the decision did not specifically address forced sterilization, it marked a milestone for reproductive justice.

No one likes the idea of abortion. I serve on the board of NARAL Pro-Choice Montana not because I advocate abortion but because I promote reproductive justice, which assures women the right to choose what happens to them. While I believe that every woman has the right to access a safe, legal abortion, I believe strongly in reducing the number of abortions, to live in a world where they’re not needed. This is a goal shared by all sides of the abortion debate.

Imagine no division, just a sure way to reach our collective goal. The way to get there is through prevention and comprehensive health education, access to contraception and family planning clinics, funding for it all and choice.

Mary Ann Dunwell

Helena

Ari LeVaux’s column [“Milk is murder,” Dec. 29] appears simultaneously schizophrenic and intentionally provocative—but his apparent ignorance of any milk other than animal-derived calls for a response. Why should humans steal animals’ milk and lives when delicious, nutritious, plant-based options exist—coconut, rice, soy, and almond? Answer: Because the dairy industry has been brainwashing consumers and raking in subsidies for decades.

True, factory farm-produced milk is murder, and cows and calves grieve when separated. Not only do animals lead emotional lives, they also value their own lives. In fact, our forebears, the animals, want pretty much what we human animals want—life, liberty and the pursuit of their own interests. The doe and fawn wanted that, but LeVaux was okay blowing them away because they were “spared the grief of losing one another.” An ounce of compassion doesn’t negate the forcible robbery of life—call it murder if you want.

“The inherent tragedy of consuming animals”? Oh please! Since consuming animals isn’t necessary for human health (despite decades of the livestock industry brainwashing consumers and raking in subsidies), it’s an elective tragedy of human appetite. I agree with LeVaux that meat-eaters who kill their own are more honest about the violence and death they’re consuming than are those who eat factory-farmed misery (letting Tyson Foods do the dirty work). But “more honest” is damning with faint praise. Total honesty would be admitting that you’ve made a decision of conscience to submit to “savage hormones” and kill for mere appetite.

Kathleen Stachowski

Lolo