Comment Archives: stories: Blogs: Letters to the Editor
Re: “Circus act”
There are so many ways humans mistreat animals it is hard to decide where to start in fighting for better laws to protect them.
I have been made aware of many states passing laws to make documenting animal abuse against the law. In California, the law calls it TERRORISM to take pictures of industry abuse of animals, like puppy mills, or meat producers, such as the chicken ,pig or cattle industry, who confine animals in pens where they can not even turn around, Or egg producers, where chickens spend their lives packed in little cages. Or slaughter houses that use cruel methods on "downers" that cannot stand long enough to be killed properly.
Many pictures have been posted on Facebook lately of the treatment on "factory" farms . The abuse these animals endure for their short life, Is sickening. And the industry is being pressured to stop such cruelty. Their answer is to make it illegal to document the continuing abuse. The treatment of living, feeling, creatures. as if they were machines, kept and fed, in the smallest possible space, It increases the profit margins for the company. The feelings of the animal is of no concern to them. And they are fighting to prevent the public from seeing just how inhumane it really is.
I only hope we open our eyes and see some of the more pervasive cruel treatment done to millions of animals who are raised to die for our food. And work for their humane treatment. And not allow laws to be passed to protect the industry that treats animals as crops with out feelings.
Re: “Appalling testimony”
Mr Moe does not understand that Hospice is for PALITIVE care. If he wanted more than that he should have withdrawn his mom from their care. As for not receiving tube feeding. That should have been addressed with the doctor. The nurses and rest home cannot give or withhold treatment unless ordered to do so by a doctor. I am very sorry for your loss. But I fear you didn't understand the concept of hospice. We had my sister-in-law ,stepfather, mother, and brother . All in hospice during their last days from cancer. We were aware that only comfort measures, or PALITIVE care is offered. It is a end of life service. And a person can withdraw at any time if not satisfied.
I was very happy with the care my loved ones received, My mother and brother, (and his first wife) died at home, It was hospice that allowed this, Without their help, they would have died in either a hospital, or a rest home. I am sure that many people are able to care for their loved ones at home only with the help of hospice. But in the end, it is the doctor that decides what medications, treatments and tests and such that hospice nurses give.
Re: “New questions”
Better than the usual anti-gun rant one would expect in the Independent, but Ms. Mair tries a little too hard to put herself above the gun debate. Well, I don't understand how any reasonable person could ask gun owners to not respond to the rants of anti-gun radicals, although I for one would ask why so many of these shooters were on psychotropic drugs, when clearly, in hindsight, they should have been institutionalized for their own good and the good of society.
Re: “Appalling testimony”
Mr Moe signed the order to put his mom in hospice. If he was unsatisfied with their care, he could have withdrawn it, but he did not.
Re: “New questions”
A police officer told me a few years ago in a candid moment, everybody has a breaking point. My thought was ....even if that is so....inside a person's core there are some things they would never do. You cannot truly guess what is in someone's heart. Whether you are a progressive, conservative, or independent...you have to see that for at least a decade our society seems to be removing the glue that holds us together. Tradition is getting thrown out the window and tech and "anything goes" is the replacement. So even if you can't pinpoint the exact cause, there is plenty out there to make people come unglued.
Re: “Gunned down”
Nonsense, Paul. And a "one-armed drone"? Nice try, but it's stupid. I applaud Sen. Baucus for standing up for the Second Amendment right to own and carry firearms.
The 1994 Semi-Auto ban was successful in achieving its sponsors' real goals: scoring a political win for gun ban activists, and interfering with the right to keep and bear arms. But it was a failure in protecting public safety.
The Department of Justice sponsored multiple studies to measure the ban's impact on crime. In 1997, researchers concluded there was no evidence that the ban had any meaningful effect. A follow-up in 2004 concluded that the ban produced "no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."
Rifles of any type are used in only 2.5% of murders; murders are twice as likely to be committed by bare hands.
Even though the Second Amendment may no longer protect us from government tyranny, it protects us from home invaders and various other thugs, crooks, and criminals. The amount of violence in the USA could be considerably reduced by keeping serial felons locked up, since a large amount of crime is committed by convicted felons out on parole or probation.
Re: “Analyzing the analysis”
Oh, Nancy, do you really expect a mouthpiece for the "National Mining Association" to be taken seriously on anything to do with the health impacts of coal? With your letter, you've put yourself in the same category as the tobacco industry, i.e.,--tobacco is actually good for you, despite what the doctors say. Your flaccid, pathetic, and counter-factual input was, at best, comedy, and at worst, dangerous and criminal propaganda. Perhaps you need to find a job that doesn't demand selling your soul to an immoral industry....
Re: “Under attack”
This is a life changer in the Bitterroot! Please weigh in. So far there has not been a single person from the public speak in favor of Legacy City after several hundred attended and several dozens spoke at the several public comtment meetings. This does not mean you should not speak up because others are on it. Let's drive up the final score to see how many cirizens it takes to turn the Realty/development invested Commissioners around.
see Ravalli County website for contact numbers.
To: Ravalli County Planning Board and County Commissioners
From: Larry Campbell, Box 204, Darby, MT 59829
Re: Legacy ‘Ranch’ [City] subdivision review comments
Date: 3/18/13
I have many concerns about the Legacy City proposal. It would be hard to imagine a worse location, location, location for Ravalli County’s third largest city to be created: immediately adjacent and above the Metcalf Refuge, on prime agricultural land, perched above a very active aquifer, far from the source of law enforcement and other Ravalli County public services, close to the Bitterroot River, in the midst of some of the most biologically diverse wildlife habitat in our County.
But, I will narrowly focus my comments, trusting that many other residents will cover issues I leave aside. Specifically, I will advocate for Bull Trout. I do not know if there is a legal requirement to analyze and assess potential Legacy City threats to Bull Trout, an Endangered Species, but there is no doubt a moral requirement to do so, a covenant for some of us, inherited from Noah.
I ask that such an analysis be done by scientific experts. As a concerned individual it seems to me there could be a ‘perfect storm’ brewing in the background for Bull Trout.
The Bitterroot River is US Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical Bull Trout habitat.
The River is also listed as ‘impaired’ by the State of Montana because fails to support existing beneficial uses and fails to comply with the Clean Water Act. Therefore the State has imposed a ‘TMDL’ (Total Maximum Daily Load) prescription on the Bitterroot River that limits further degradation.
Very large volumes of Legacy City sewage would enter the ground and associated groundwater pollution would result, especially from solvents, pharmaceuticals, antifreeze, and other chemical compounds as well as phosphates and nitrates. The usual ‘dilution is the solution to pollution’ would be less effective in groundwater than in surface water
because of the lack of turbulence while flowing towards the river. There would be tremendous water drawdown from the hundreds of wells in Legacy City reducing the volume of clean water to dilute the pollution, especially in the fall.
I believe Bull Trout prefer to spawn in redds swished into clean gravel in areas with cool upwelling spring/groundwater at the bottom of the river. It seems reasonable to expect that polluted groundwater from Legacy City could be injected into the river, possibly directly into Bull Trout redds.
Bull Trout spawn in these redds in the fall. The groundwater pollution would likely be worst in fall when the groundwater is being pumped fastest (for lawn irrigation, kiddy pools, car washing, etc.) reducing dilution. This particularly potent groundwater pollution flush would reach the redds at a time when surface river water is also low and less able to dilute.
If the Legacy City proposal is permitted it will mean that there are no meaningful criteria to limit or prohibit subdivision damage to public interests in Ravalli County. Rational response to that situation would be to eliminate this sham of subdivision review and to enact stronger regulation of the reckless freedom for a few to irrevocably damage the greater public interests of our home land.
Sincerely, Larry Campbell
Re: “Under attack”
Does the Stevensville area really NEED a new development? Even if they need a new development why would it need to be right next to one of the few wildlife refuge??
The traffic alone should be enough to discourage the actualization of this nightmare, not to mention the added stress/damage to the economy, environment and quality of life in that spacious area. MONEY is not what life is about. Let them build next to their wildlife refuge in Wyoming!!!
Re: “Never has, never will”
Good letter - another thing that could be done to reduce criminal violence is to adopt a "three strikes and you're out" law, in which anyone racking up three felonies is locked up for life. This would help because a lot of violent crimes are committed by habitual criminals who will not stop until they're incarcerated. Such a law would also get habitual drunk drivers off the roads, and save more lives.
Re: “Unfair fight”
Krayton Kerns and his bunch are a disgrace to Montana for supporting dog fighting.
Re: “Unfair fight”
A slightly longer version of this piece--with links to the Crime Museum and the videos-- can be found at the Other Nations website http://www.othernationsjustice.org/?p=7390
Re: “Help me understand”
Hi Chris...thanks for writing. Trapping (foothold, body-gripping, snaring...) is barbaric and archaic and many Montanans are working to end it. We get the reasons for it, too--additional reasons being a vendetta against wolves (and all predators); the desire to eliminate "nuisance" animals; and the desire for a trophy. What we don't get is how anyone can be so abjectly cruel.
You are aware, aren't you, that Kentucky also allows trapping? http://kentuckytrappers.com/regs.html
Re: “"Montucky" offends”
I have been to Kentucky and in my opinion doesn't deserve to be in the same associated word as Montana, they can have it, there is nothing similar about them, especially the people. Sounds to me like some out of stater made that one up, unfortunately it stuck. Montana is getting washed out with non montanans. Its sad. Montanans are not welcoming unless you fit into the Montana ethos. Which is really rare when you are born and raised out of state. Montana is unique. What ever happened to the word "crick" anyway. You run around saying "creek" it just shows that your roots don't run very deep in this state.
Re: “Pass these, please”
RE: The Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act
Here's some more specific and substantive information about Sen Baucus' Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act. Suffice to say, the 'devil is in the details' and in the case of this piece of legislation there are some real, long-term management concerns.
It's worth pointing out that over the past few years I've tried to make these types of substantive comments about both the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act and the Rocky Mtn Front Heritage Act on blogs and social media sites run by Montana Wilderness Association, Montana Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Federation and Sportsmen for Montana. Unfortunately, these groups have censored and removed all these types of substantive, specific comments from their blogs and social media sites and have forever banned me from commenting again. These cowardly and anti-free speech tactics by these groups should be a pretty good indication that the fix is in and if you ain't on their happy bus they will run you over.
Anyway, below are comments about the Rocky Mtn Front Heritage Act, which were submitted to the Senate Committee in Spring 2012 and also submitted to Senator Baucus (who never bothered responding).
--------------
I'm writing today to seek important improvements to the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act (S. 1774). While the bill would protect some small portions of the world-class Rocky Mountain Front in Montana as Wilderness, as currently written the RMFHA protects only a paltry sum as Wilderness while leaving too much of the federal public lands along the Rocky Mountain Front open to private grazing, motorized use and other uses that compromise the ecological integrity of this American Serengeti, where grizzly bears, elk, antelope, bighorn sheep and deer roam as they have for centuries.
Specifically, I urge Senator Baucus and the US Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee to make the following changes and improvements to the RMFHA:
• The 67, 000 acres of Wilderness designations along the Rocky Mountain Front proposed by Senator Baucus is a paltry sum, given the world-class, and largely unprotected wildlands and wildlife habitat, currently found along the Rocky Mountain Front. Even the Forest Service has recommended more Wilderness protections in their forest plans for the area than what Senator Baucus is proposing. Unfortunately, last fall supporters of Baucus’ bill dropped almost 30,000 acres of proposed Wilderness from this bill at the request of snowmobilers and those who oppose Wilderness. I strongly urge Senator Baucus and the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee to include Wilderness protections for all the inventoried roadless wildlands along the Rocky Mountain Front.
• The Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act preserves existing motorized, grazing and logging uses on 208,160 acres of federal land, designated as the “Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Management Area." A serious question that should be posed to Senator Baucus is: How does preserving existing motorized use, grazing and logging on 208,160 acres along the Rocky Mountain Front actually result in eliminating the threats posed by motorized use, grazing and logging in these areas?
• Re: Grazing – This bill locks-in public lands grazing across the Front by stating that “The secretary shall permit grazing” where it currently exists. Under existing law, grazing may be allowed to continue, but it is not mandated that it must be allowed to continue. The current language of the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act ties the hands of the Forest Service and it is worse than a bail-out, as it mandates the federal government to keep a private, commercial enterprise operating on public land, regardless of the ecological consequences, both now and into perpetuity. This public lands grazing mandate MUST be removed from the RMFHA.
• This bill has special provisions for Wilderness management that should raise red flags to those who support Wilderness. This bill currently contains language for overflights, as it relates to commercial and general aviation, that is unprecedented in the history of the Wilderness Act and needs to go. The military overflights language, while bad, is pretty standard fare nowadays. But this language seems to preclude efforts to control or limit flightseeing or other overflights, which are incredibly disruptive to visitors, wildlife and Wilderness. Please REMOVE this language from the RMFHA.
• The language for maintaining existing facilities for livestock grazing is more liberal than previous Wilderness bills. The language incorporating State or local agencies for controlling fire, insects and disease promotes the trend toward devolution of federal public lands and is objectionable on that basis. Please REMOVE this language from the RMFHA.
• Much of the noxious weed stuff in the bill is all about taxpayer funding for dropping tons of poisons on the ground (while also mandating that all existing livestock grazing continue forever). If this were an effective strategy there wouldn’t be weeds in Montana. Given the complexities and unknowns of controlling weeds, especially with a rapidly changing climate and an escalating number of encroaching weed species, the called-for management strategy needs to focus on an assessment of existing weed infestations, the causes, potential controls, costs, likelihood of success, and clearly stated, measurable objectives to determine whether the controls are effective, and what will be done if they aren’t or if the funding doesn’t come through. At a minimum, this section of the bill should call for the plan to be written by an independent team of scientists.
Many substantive concerns regarding the Rocky Mountain Heritage Act have been expressed by a number of organizations and many experienced, dedicated wilderness and forest protection activists. Many Montana wilderness supporters remain disappointed that the Act would only designate a small fraction of Wilderness-deserving lands on the Rocky Mountain Front as Wilderness, while leaving too much of the Front open to logging and other forms of development.
We’ve tried to get the Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front to listen to our concerns and add more protections to the unparalleled wildlife habitat and wildlands on the Rocky Mountain Front, but, unfortunately, they seem more concerned with politics and the appeasing the opinions of the anti-wilderness crowd.
As with any piece of legislation, we’d encourage people to read the actual language of the bill (http://ncfp.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/s-…). In order to fully understanding the bill language, and what it would mean for future management of public lands, it also helps to have a solid working understanding of bedrock environmental laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, National Forest Management Act and certainly an understanding of the Wilderness Act. We’d put forth that perhaps there is more to the proposed Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act than simply taking the talking points of supporters at face value. The Rocky Mountain Front means a lot of things to lots of people and we will likely only get one chance to protect this world-class area.
Wilderness supporters should take action and let Montana's Congressional Delegation and the Senate's ENR Committee know about substantive concerns with the current bill language and how to make the bill better for Wilderness, for wildlife and for future generations.
Re: “Pass these, please”
I support completely protecting of our remaining roadless wildlands as Wilderness. I also support putting local people to work on bona-fide restoration projects to restore our national forests. I also have little doubt that the majority of people in Montana support Wilderness protection and keeping our public wildlands the way they are.
Over the past three year many Montanans – as well as Americans – have expressed serious, substantive concerns with Senator Tester’s FJRA. Concerns and opposition has come from not only the 50 plus conservation organizations that make up the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign, but also from conservation groups such as the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility – some of the most respected environmental groups in our nation. Concerns have also been expressed publicly from some of the former Chiefs of the Forest Service and a host of former Forest Service supervisors and district rangers.
If one looks beyond the flowery rhetoric and actually deals with the substance of the bill, one will clearly see that the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (FJRA) has one member of Congress – for the first time in America’s history – simply mandating how much logging should take place in our public National Forest lands. This dangerous precedent would open the door for other members of Congress to simply mandate more logging, oil & gas drilling, grazing or mining on federal public lands in their own states.
Senator Tester’s mandate to increase logging levels on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests comes at a time when the economic crisis has resulted in nearly a 75% reduction in new home/business construction in the U.S. and almost a 50% reduction in over all U.S. lumber consumption.
This is part of the economic reality that supporters of Tester’s FJRA never once have gotten around to responding to. Instead, the "collaborators" (with organizations such as the Montana Wilderness Association) pushing this mandated logging bill make it seem as if no logging is taking place on Montana's National Forests because of lawsuits and bickering. Well, you want to know the truth? Over the past five years the Forest Service in Region One (which includes all national forest in Montana, northern Idaho and the Black Hills in SD) has sold enough timber to fill 239,000 log trucks, which if lined up end-to-end, would stretch 2,048 miles, or nearly from Missoula, Montana to New York City.
Instead of admitting this reality we're told by politicians and collaborators that we need to have Congress step in to mandate more logging. Does that make economic sense? Ecological sense? Taxpayer sense?
Based on recent cost estimates from federal timber sales in Montana, Senator Tester’s mandate to log 100,000 acres (156 square miles) on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai National Forests could cost U.S. taxpayers $100 million over the lifetime of the bill. That’s why, during official Senate testimony, the head of the US Forest Service had this to say about the federal budget implications of Senator Tester’s logging mandates:
“We would urge you to consider the budgetary implications to meet the bill’s requirements. If we were to go forward with the FJRA it would require far greater resources to do that and it will require us to draw these monies from forests within Region One or from other Regions….My concern [with FJRA] is that there will be somewhat of a balkanization that occurs between the different Forest Service regions in the country. Those [National Forests] who are first in may get funded and those who come later may find there are less funds available. There will be certain ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ that result from this process. Then in someways there is no longer a national review, an effort to sift out what priorities ought to exist across the country.”
The FJRA would also turn some of Montana’s roadless wildlands – including Wilderness Study Areas protected by former Montana Senator Lee Metcalf – into permanent motorized recreation areas and would allow motors and other non-compatible uses in Wilderness. Again, this is something never acknowledged by bill supporters.
Take, for example, the 229,710 acre West Pioneers Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA), which includes the 151,00 acre Metcalf Wilderness Study Area (WSA). What Sen Tester’s bill does is turn 129,252 acres of this IRA into a permanent, motorized Recreation Management Area (RMA). Not even the “Beaverhead Partnership” supported this. Do we really want politicians ignoring the Forest Service’s travel plans to just legislate where they want motorized recreation permanently permitted?
Or take, for example, what Tester wants to do to the West Big Hole IRA, a 213,987 acre area along the crest of the continental divide that provides linkages and connectivity between the Greater Yellowstone area and forests to the west and north. Sen Tester’s bill turns just 44,084 acres of this IRA into two small, far-apart Wilderness Areas while turning much of the IRA into a single, large, permanent, motorized National Recreation Area (NRA) totaling 94,237 acres. The large NRA would be twice as large as the two proposed Wilderness areas together and access to these two proposed Wilderness areas would be forced to use the motorized NRA trails. Again, this extreme move by Senator Tester to mandate motorized recreation in our wildlands wasn’t even supported by the “Beaverhead Partnership” in their original proposal.
According to George Nickas – one of the nation’s leading experts on the Wilderness Act – from Wilderness Watch, “While the bill is improved in some areas due to the efforts of groups in the Last Best Place Wildlands Campaign as well as Senate committee staff, the FJRA still stands for the unacceptable proposition that local politicians should largely dictate management of national public lands. The FJRA, with its politically mandated logging levels, off-road vehicle and snowmachine playgrounds, and similar mandates, flies in the face of almost a century of public lands’ policy evolution that has made America’s public lands protections the envy of conservationists around the world.”
Unfortunately, Senator Tester has refused to accept the fact that the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act contains a number of irresponsible and unnecessarily risky provisions, which not only will cause negative impacts to Forest Service budgets in our region, but also threatens America’s national forest legacy by establishing a new precedent where DC politicians simply mandate resource extraction levels on our public lands.
These are the real reasons why Senator Tester’s bill never made it out of the Senate’s Dem-controlled Energy and Natural Resources Committee and why the FJRA can’t stand on it’s own merits. Therefore we see Senator Tester trying for the past two sessions of Congress to (unsuccessfully) attach the FJRA as a rider to must-pass legislation.
Finally, don't believe the hype from this letter writer and the "collaborators" that "recent polls show over 70% of Montanans support the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. The truth is that there has NEVER been one single independent poll EVER conducted about the FJRA. There have been two or three internal polls conducted, written and paid for by these very same "collaborator" organizations, who have spent millions of dollars running a campaign to try and pass this mandated logging bill. The questions used in these polls were written in such a way as to be very one-sided in favor of FJRA and represent more of a "push poll." Those polls are no more unbiased than internal polls conducted by Karl Rove and his Crossroads GPS group. In fact, early on, award-winning outdoors columnist Bill Schneider wrote this update about one of these secret, internal polls. (See "Question 7" here: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/teste…).
Of course, supporters of Senator Tester and his mandated logging bill don't much like these substantive facts about the specific language of the bill, or specific tactics of their campaign, to be made public. However, these federal public lands belong equally to all Americans and we all have a right to stand up and say "No thank you Senator Tester" if one politician, and a handful of timber mill owners and well-paid "collaborators" think they can forever change our national forest legacy by simply opening up the flood-gates for other politicians to start mandating a resource extraction level on national forests in their states. Thanks.
Re: “Prescribed suicide”
I can understand Dr Robertson's confusion, since she is trying to compare life circumstances that are entirely different, and doctor/patient relationship that couldn't be less similar.
When a patient is terminally ill, facing weeks or even months of untreatable agony, they have a right to get from their physician a realistic and honest prognosis. If the prognosis is negative, they have a right to consider their options, and to ask the physician for counseling on those options.
There is nothing in current or proposed practice that requires a physician to urge any particular course on the patient. There's no "steering people to suicide in Montana", and over 14 years of experience in Oregon with its 'Death with Dignity' law have provided ample proof that guidelines can be crafted that protect the patient and the doctor.
False comparisons, fabricated horror stories, and dire predictions of fictitious "abuse" don't serve to protect anyone.
If Dr Robertson is concerned about protecting terminally ill patients, her time and efforts might be better spent working to improve Montana's protection of the elderly in abusive home environments or poorly-monitored assisted living facilities. Perhaps she might question the adequacy of the Dept of Health and Human Services' budget for those protections. I'm sure there are members of the Legislature who would be glad to take part in such consideration.
Re: “Elder abuse”
Sen Hinkle has consistently repeated the exaggerations and fabricated horror stories of fundamentalist zealots in his determination to use government to impose their narrow dogma on people who don't share it.
Oregon has had their 'Death with Dignity' law in place for over 14 years. I've challenged Sen Hinkle before to provide credible detail of even ONE instance of abuse under that law. He has never done so, nor has any other of the people who are trying to interfere with the patient/doctor relationship.
Sen Hinkle is also being disingenuous when he claims that the Montana Supreme Court decision does not protect physicians from prosecution. That decision stated, clearly and definitely, that there is nothing in the Constitution nor in case law that prohibits such assistance by a physician. Certainly an ardent ideologue could initiate proceedings against a physician, but the Court decision is an absolute defense.
It's likely that the Legislature will discuss this issue again. Hopefully, they won't duck their responsibility yet again.
Re: “"Montucky" offends”
Seems if you spend enough time getting to know most of us you will find Montanans are as a whole a welcoming people. If you are very wealthy then there will be some who like you very much but that's the same everywhere. Montanans as a whole are a very friendly and trusting people. Most of us are not suckers and we can tell an honest person apart from one not so honest. If you are honest and friendly you will get the same back. Of course, like anywhere you will have some of the opposite. I always disliked that Montuckey word, just another term to describe the dumber sector of our citizens and every state has these same ****tucky's. And I'm sure Kentucky has a lot of good folk too. I wish they could do something about Mitch McConnel though.
Twitter
Facebook
RSS
Re: “Appalling testimony”
You are correct Mr. Moe did sign the hospice papers I was there I am his sister. My Mom was not denied anything, she made her own decisions and I am so very proud of her. The doctors did tell us at one point that our Mom maybe be able to live 6 months to two years however after the surgery it was evident that it was through out her body and our other brother asked how long she would have and the oncologist said 4 to 6 weeks. She died at 5 weeks. It is unfortunate that our brother continues to smear Hospice and my mothers care take carers. I am honored that they took care of my Little Mama and all of us as well. had my Mom gotten medical care before she nearly starved herself to death right in front of my brother she maybe just maybe would have lived that 6 months to two years. Hospice doesn't have the power to override any POA without taken legal action, which was never an issue. My Little Mama's last 5 weeks were spent with her children and we were able to Love and share so much, I am truely blest by the gifts I recieved from her during her last days and will always be thankful to Hospice and the nurses at Park Place. Very Sincerely, LeAnne (Moe) Neel