Thursday, October 10, 2013

Protect the protectors

Posted on Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:00 AM

In Montana, we take care of our veterans—the men and women who were willing to give so much for us. The sad truth is that many veterans in Montana don’t have access to the health care they need. Montana has the highest percentage of veterans without health insurance in the nation. All of the men and women who have served our country deserve access to health care. Medicaid expansion would allow almost 7,000 Montana veterans and 3,000 of their family members to gain access to quality affordable care coverage.

Many people assume that all of the nation’s 12.5 million non-elderly veterans receive health benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs. But in reality, one in ten veterans neither has health insurance nor is able to use the VA for care. Expanding Medicaid would give these men and women an opportunity to receive the care they need.

Right now in Montana, there are approximately 7,000 veterans who would benefit from Medicaid expansion. Despite serving our country, many veterans do not meet the length of service time, income, or disability requirements necessary to qualify for VA service. For example, members of the Montana National Guard or the military services’ reserves who were not called up for federal active duty may fall into this category. These men and women completed the necessary training, spent months away from their families and homes, received proper discharges, and always stood ready to answer the call to serve their country. These veterans who were willing to give everything they had to protect our liberties should be able to access the health care they need.

Approximately 2,600 of these veterans do qualify for VA coverage, yet still lack access to health care. With only one VA hospital in the state and a limited number of outpatient clinics, many VA-eligible veterans simply live too far away to receive care. Medicaid expansion would allow these veterans who served on the other side of the world to go to the doctor next door.

We now have an opportunity to help thousands of these veterans gain access to health care, and we shouldn’t turn our back on them.

Medicaid expansion would provide vital health care coverage to childless adults under the age of 65, as well as to uninsured families near the poverty line, making lifesaving health services, including mental health care, available to those veterans who may need it the most. In addition to the veterans who would gain coverage, nearly 3,000 spouses and family members who also made sacrifices for their country would also gain coverage.

Despite these well-deserved benefits for veterans, there are those who are fighting against expanding Medicaid. The 2013 Legislature failed to accept federal funds to provide this critical care, instead sending it to cover veterans and other citizens in states like California and New Jersey. Despite knowing the benefits of expansion—and the costs to our families, communities and economy if we fail to expand—the legislature simply said “no.”

We ask that the Montana Legislature reconsider its position. Come back to Helena and take advantage of this opportunity to say “thank you” to the men and women who once wore our nation’s uniform. Let’s protect those who so proudly protected us.

Ed Croucher


Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States

Department of Montana.


James W Higgins

Brig. Gen.(ret)

Board of Directors

Montana National Guard Association

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Alternate view

Posted on Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 2:48 PM

I wish to offer an alternative perspective to the ideas portrayed in the recent Independent article, "Scary Prognosis" (Sept. 19). I was glad to see that Lolo Forest fire manager John Waverek was careful to avoid pejorative language like "unhealthy" or "sick" to describe the forests of western Montana. Waverek rightly noted that such term are too simplistic and value laden.

However, the attitude of the Forest Service in general still displays a lack of ecological understanding and a hostile attitude towards natural forest processes like beetle kill or wildfire. Dead trees do not indicate an "unhealthy" forest. Indeed, dead trees are critical to future forest ecosystems and a sign that our forests are actually ecologically healthy because the natural ecological processes that work to maintain forest integrity like beetles and wildfire are intact.

What we see today is an expansion of the acreage of trees killed by either pine beetle and/or wildfire. Both of these factors are natural components of our forest ecosystems and a natural response to changing climatic conditions. And indeed, our forests are adapted to them.

These changes in forest response are symptomatic of human-caused climatic change. In other words, we are treating the symptoms instead of treating the ultimate cause of these changes.

That the acreage affected is larger than in the recent past does not necessarily mean our forests are unnatural, out of balance or, dare I use the term, "sick. These ecological processes can be thought of like wolves to a deer herd. They are thinning our forests, bringing them into balance with the available nutrients, moisture and space now dictated by a warming climate. (Bear in mind that we don't have to spend money to fight fires or beetle outbreaks—that is a mistaken effort to thwart natural thinning processes). These ecological processes are restoring our forests—and doing the restoration at absolutely no cost to taxpayers.

It's important to point out that even in the more severe beetle events, many trees survive to go on to form the next generation of forest. And even though the acreage of forest burned has expanded, the percentage of stand replacement blazes is still a small. For instance, one recent analysis of the 2012 fires in Idaho that charred 1.75 million acres of the state's forests found only 13 percent of the tree-covered lands were severely burned. The vast majority of acreage burned were classified as low severity.

Indeed, there are some ecologists who insist we do not have enough large stand replacement blazes or what are called severe fires. The snag forests that result from such forests are temporally rare and spatially infrequent and critical to many wildlife species. We may need more of them.

We have seen these kinds of episodic natural forest thinning events in the past. If you review Paleo ecology of forests in the Rockies, there are many examples of warmer climatic periods where conditions were as warm as or even warmer than at present. It was during the Medieval Warm Spell when the Anasazi Indians abandoned their pueblos in the Southwest due to massive drought and the Vikings were able to colonize Greenland due to High Arctic Warming.

During this warm spell, large wildfires and beetle expansion occurred throughout the West. And contrary to popular myth that ponderosa pine never experience stand replacement burns, during this warm period, even low elevation ponderosa pine forests experienced significant stand replacement blazes. The forests of this period were "restored" by these natural thinning agents to the carrying capacity dictated by the new climatic conditions.

Since that time, cooler, moister climatic conditions combined with forest mismanagement (logging of large fire resistant trees, overgrazing of vegetation, fire suppression, forest fragmentation, etc.) have allowed forest density to increase. Despite these human-caused issues, the forests are perfectly capable of restoration without more human interference.

Our forests are now responding to human-caused climatic change, which is creating warmer, drier conditions. These conditions are promoting expansion of natural thinning agents like beetles and wildfires. However, instead of viewing these as "negative" factors that we must "save" the forest from, we should see them as critical to forest ecosystem integrity. Fires and beetles are far superior at "restoring" forests than foresters and loggers. They, like wolves do to deer, pick the most vulnerable individuals and remove them from the population. The end result is a stronger, healthier forest (or deer herd).

Furthermore, logging is not benign. Logging creates "unhealthy" forests. It is virtually impossible to log without significant ecological impacts. For one thing, logging removes biomass—the live and dead trees which are the biological legacy or biological capital that is invested in the next generation of forests. Dead trees are also important for many wildlife species with one estimate suggesting that two-thirds of all vertebrate wildlife species rely upon dead trees/down wood at some point in their lives. Dead trees are also critical to aquatic ecosystems, providing both structures to streams as well as nutrients.

Suggesting that we need to log our forests to fix them is both self-serving to the timber industry as well as the federal land management agencies whose budgets depend on getting the cut out. Beware of any prescriptions that suggest we need to log our forests to "restore" them.

What we need to do is leave our forests alone to self-restore and self-regenerate themselves. To make human communities comfortable with such a prescription the Forest Service should emphasize reducing the flammability of homes and removal of flammable materials, including trees near homes.

When I see the dead trees from beetle kill or wildfires I'm thankful that our forests are still healthy and actively being restored by natural processes. It's time for our federal agencies to adopt a similar viewpoint.

George Wuerthner


Today | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun | Mon
Artist Lecture: Patrick Zentz, bi/cycle/extrapolated

Artist Lecture: Patrick Zentz, bi/cycle/extrapolated @ Missoula Art Museum

Tue., Oct. 17, 7-8 p.m.

All of today's events | Staff Picks

© 2017 Missoula News/Independent Publishing | Powered by Foundation