M. Koehler, do you ever get and tired of being a smartass? The sig is not a pseudonym and by quoting the entire paragraph you have demonstarted that I did not take the passage "out of context." Are you Ochenski's mother, that you have to rush to his defense whenever a discouraging word is posted?
Anyone who cannot "discern the differences between Tester and Rehberg" is being deliberately obfuscatory. Another "contribution: by Ochenski in his two-year trashing of Tester.
George Ochenski write a praise piece to wildernes and the mix of citizens who own it and use it. I read it with great appreciation and interest until I got to the last paragraphs where it appears Ochenski's real agenda was revealed. To rhapsodize on about wilderness in order to ultimately use the essay to slam Jon Testor's wilderness bill as "quid pro quo legislation that demands mandatory timber harvests as a condition of designating new wilderness" is misleading and bowlerizes a process that was long and arduous in the making. He then asks rhetorically, "Why not simply have the courage and commitment to formally designate wilderness for its own sake?" So Testor lacks commitment and courage in making this "deal", and contrasts him with those "men and women of conviction and foresight" who advocated for wilderness in the past. Maybe Ochenski should (re)read rick Bass's article of last summer written after publication of the Testor plan.
Missoula News/Independent Publishing |
Powered by Foundation