Volume XXI, Number 22

Wednesday, January 5, 2006

By Senator Rick Laible, Victor

Dear Governor Schweitzer and Members of the Land Board:

First of all I would like to personally thank you for postponing the determination of the above land exchange until the January Land Board meeting. It would have been very easy for the Board to approve the land swap, but it required courage to wait with patience until further light was shed on the exchange.

I find myself on the horns of a dilemma, as the acquisition of the Lincoln property is in the best interest of the State, but the loss of those historic lands in the Sula basin sets a dangerous precedent.

The state is not receiving equal or greater value, but in fact subsidizing Mr. Miller, according to financial figures prepared by DNRC. The state is still subsidizing the sale by over $357,000, even after taking into consideration the $160,000 contribution by Mr. Miller. The DNRC's Fair Value Land Exchange figure represents what the real values would be if the Department would have valued the Sula land per the Department's own contracted appraisal. When this is factored in, the state, for the same amount of acres in the exchange, is now subsidizing the land exchange by almost $1,118,000.

DNRC has acted in good faith in this trade, which has been under consideration for some time, but the pressure from many factors has blurred the true facts of this exchange, and I believe if the Department were to start the process over the decision would be much different.

The trade for the Sula land makes no economic sense, especially with the State subsidizing the trade. The purchase of the Lincoln land, especially the original 1,850 acres, makes excellent sense. Why must we pit one community against another? Why is Sula's loss Lincoln's gain? Why must Lincoln gain public access at the expense of the citizens of Ravalli County? The simple answer is that no community's gain should be another's loss, and there is a solution to this dilemma. Forget the trade and just purchase the Lincoln land, all 1850 acres.

As you are aware there are two possible State funding sources for acquiring state land by fee title. First of all, DNRC can sell other land and place the funds in the Land Bank so that other targeted lands can be acquired as necessary. This system eliminates the need for land exchanges, and actually makes the process simpler. Unfortunately the Land Bank is probably a year away from having sufficient funds to acquire additional lands such as in Lincoln. The second option, "Habitat Montana", is another source of funding, administered by Fish, Wildlife and Parks for the acquisition of land, or the purchase of conservation easements. Habitat Montana is funded through a fee on hunting and fishing licenses. The Habitat Montana program produces approximately $3 million per year in revenues, and currently has a balance of between $9 and $10 million. The requirement of the Habitat Montana program is that the target land must have high wildlife value. The Lincoln land, as a designated area for grizzlies, lynx and bull trout, definitely qualifies as having high wildlife value.

The Land Board could use this Habitat Montana funding now to acquire all 1850 acres in Lincoln from Mr. Miller and the Nature Conservancy. When the Land Bank has sufficient funds, approximately in a year, the Habitat Montana fund would be repaid by funds from the Land Bank. Through this acquisition our State would gain access to critical public land in Lincoln and retain precious public lands in the Sula basin. This is a good use of public dollars, to protect our public lands, and to ensure access to these public lands for generations to come. Once we¹ve traded the land, it's gone and we can't get it back.

In closing we should be reminded of the spectacular Charlie Russell painting in our Montana House Chambers which depicts the Lewis and Clark meeting with the Salish Indians, at Ross's Hole, in the Sula Basin. These 800 Sula acres on the "for sale" block are not depicted in the painting, but are part of our heritage in this same area. Can we so easily sell our land, our history and our heritage? I hope not.

Let us together find a way to acquire the Lincoln land without giving away the precious public lands in Sula.

Councilor expulsion outrageous

The Hamilton City Council voted to remove Ward 2 representative Bob Scott from the council. This action was taken without Mr. Scott being judged guilty of any infraction or crime by any independent administrative or judicial body. There are presently grievances lodged and a complaint given to the Sheriff's Office but no charges have been filed against Councilman Scott.

The city council meeting on December 20th was an example of an irresponsible council using a pile of unsubstantiated allegations, innuendoes, and personal grievances to remove from office a duly elected representative of the people of Ward 2. This is a disgrace. It is anti-democratic and violates traditional concepts of due process and fair play. These actions are illegal, unconstitutional, and require a court challenge to protect the franchise of the voters of Hamilton, as well as the rights of the minority in any legislative body.

If these actions weren't bad enough, a board majority that was effectively voted out of power in the recent elections now uses the waning hours of their tenure to change back the council majority in an attempt to nullify the results of the recent election. The evidence that this is a power grab is confirmed by the fact that the council majority called a special council meeting for Friday, December 30th to replace councilman Scott with a person suitable to the old faction. They refused to wait until the new council was seated to decide who should replace councilman Scott.

Regardless of your opinion about the recent disputes within the city council, all who care about the democratic process and principles of fairness and decency should be outraged. Please contact the Bitterroot Human Rights Alliance to donate to a fund to fight the seating of a new member by the lame duck city council.

John Schneeberger, Coordinator
Bitterroot Human Rights Alliance

Good riddance to Scott

Dear Editor,

"I voted for a pit bull," said Ward 2 resident May Simmons. "I like what he does. If (voters) don't like it vote for somebody else."

No, I didn't create those stirring words. Those words stand as a signpost pointing to the future of Hamilton if Mr. Scott had not been booted. I expect Mr. Sutherland, his sole mate, to carry on for Mr. Scott but the darkness on the horizon of the future is a little less threatening. The terrible attitude of May Simmons with the bizarre performances by Mr. Olsen and his fellow members of the alleged Bitterroot Human Rights Alliance only exemplify the pitiful position taken by Mr. Scott.

Scott was not steamrollered out of office. He accomplished his own fate over a span of two years. He started with attempting to submit a fraudulent travel voucher shortly after being elected. I find it impossible to figure out who all the bad people are that are persecuting the man. He can't seem to settle on his tormentors because he hasn't looked at himself. The Alliance and Mr. Olsen are not honest in their claims that there was a rush to judgment. The justification for removal of Mr. Scott is well documented and has been available to the public item by item as they occurred for two years.

It's good riddance and I hope Mr. Sutherland reads the writing on the wall.

Earl Pollard
Hamilton

Democratic process in peril

Dear Editor,

Recently the Hamilton City Council voted to expel Bob Scott from the City Council. This is a serious matter. Any democracy that does not carefully guard and preserve the will of the electorate is in trouble. Other countries have found themselves on the road to an authoritarian government by letting this type of behavior go unchallenged.

If we are to have a democracy, we must have legislative bodies that cannot remove members simply because they don't agree with their positions or don't like them personally. So, the question is, did the Hamilton City Council follow a reasonable process for finding that Bob Scott acted improperly? Does the evidence justify the extraordinary step required to overrule the voters that elected him? The short answer is the City Council did a significant disservice to the principle of democracy.

• Neither the public nor Mr. Scott has had any opportunity to review evidence or answer the charges against him. The vote to expel him was based on a one inch bound book that he had never seen.
• The incident that Councilor LaSalle said was the "straw that broke the camel's back" is still under investigation. No charges filed, no findings published, no access to the information that now lies in front of the detective.

I don't see how any good conservative, liberal, or just plain citizen can see this as meeting the basic tenets of democratic governance: due process, innocent until proven guilty, and the ability to see the evidence against you and rebut it. But, this has an even more serious implication for democracy - Bob Scott, whether some people like it or not, was elected. So the voters have been disenfranchised without the evidence being presented.

If and when the evidence is substantiated on whether Bob really did engage in unlawful or unreasonable harassment of an employee, I will be pushing to the head of the line to hold him fully accountable. But, the evidence is not in and the evidence is not contained in the one-inch binder that was used as a basis to expel him. Go down to City Hall and ask for a copy. See for yourself.

This should not be about Mr. Scott personally. It is not about the policies that he advocates. But much of what he is being charged with amounts to policy disagreements. The contents of the binder includes a number of policy matters on which Mr. Scott is entitled to examine and express his position and which are in fact his job as city councilperson from Ward 2. The binder presented as evidence against Mr. Scott does include examples of people complaining about Bob Scott as well as the demeanor of the other councilors. I wish it included actual quotes from Mr. Scott, rather than characterizations of what was said, thereby allowing the reader to judge the incident. But, it does not. It also includes a union grievance that is yet unresolved and a Sheriff's Department incident report that has yet to be fully investigated.

Expelling an elected official based on a laundry list of allegations falls far short of what should be needed to justify overturning the will of the voters. Because Bob Scott and the Public were not provided with the evidence prior to this drastic action, the December 20 City Council meeting amounted to a show trial.

The Hamilton City Council and Mayor needs to fix this. A special meeting needs to be called and the vote to expel Bob Scott from the Council should be rescinded.

James Olsen
Hamilton

Thanks from Used Toy Drive

Dear Editor,

We'd like to say a huge thank you to all those wonderful people who worked this year to make our annual Christmas Used Toy Giveaway - for Florence, Stevensville and Victor families - go so smoothly. I am going to try to list some special elves who went beyond the call on this one: To Dan and Pat Williamson, who picked up toys and cleaned them all in the Florence area, and helped set up. A huge thank you, Dan and Pat!

To William Dewey, who gets roped into collecting and carting, organizing and whatever else needs to be done. Thank you, William!

To Kim Chaffin, for doing all the dolls' hair. Great job!

Thank you to all the following people for their special help and please forgive me if I forgot anyone: Jim & Nancy Kinsey, Jim & Leah Duke, Jim & Jeanine Fifield, Janet Armijo, Jason & Tiffani Gamad, Nathan & Jamie Jackson, Dan Grayson, The Elders, Casey¹s Store, Edman Family, Sally Hart, Cleta Reilly, Marc Durocher, Jeannie Willton, and all the girls at the LDS Activity Days.

Thank you to all the area schools: Florence, Stevensville and Victor.

Thank you to all the area businesses that allowed our collection boxes inside: Gary & Leo's IGA, Excentricity, A2Z Personnel, Fireside Pizza, Mail It & More, Bitterroot Star, Stevensville Hotel, Bitterroot Market, and the Victor Merc. Lastly, thank you to everyone who cleaned out your toy boxes and closets and donated. We were really blessed by all your contributions.

If anyone is interested, we will be collecting and storing toys year round to get ready for next year. Please call Ruth Dewey at 777-2005 if you are interested in helping with this project. God bless you.

Ruth Dewey
Stevensville

Water rights adjudication process revving up

Dear Editor,

Have you ever turned on your faucet and no water came out? Along with many folks in rural Montana, I had that experience in 2000 when my well went dry. The water shortage at my house was due to drought and nearby development in the aquifer. This experience taught me that water is, indeed, one of our most valued resources in the Treasure State.

Our state serves as the headwaters of both the Missouri and Columbia River systems, and we have more than 250,000 claims for beneficial use of water in Montana. It is essential that we establish strong legal rights to use this precious resource‹before it flows out of state or is claimed by someone else. The State of Montana is working to complete its water adjudication so that we all have a solid legal right to use the water we need everyday.

Given the importance of this issue, the legislature passed House Bill 22 in April of 2005, led by Representative Walter McNutt (R-Sidney). The bill had widespread support from interim legislative committee members, and passed the House 96-2 and the Senate 44-6. Organizations supporting the bill included the Montana Stockgrowers, the Montana Grain Growers, the Farm Bureau, the Farmers' Union, Trout Unlimited, Conservation Districts, the Montana Association of Counties, the Montana Chamber, and utility companies.

The legislation called for the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) to substantially beef up its staff for the review of water claims, so the adjudication process can be completed within 10 years‹about one-third the time it might have taken. We have hired 37 new employees who are assisting with the accelerated adjudication process. Once DNRC has examined claims for water, the examinations go to the Water Court, which will further analyze claims basin by basin and stream by stream. The end product, a "final decree," describes the rights that are valid in specific watersheds across Montana.

If you claim a right to use water in Montana, either for a well, irrigation use, or commercial or industrial use, you have probably received a letter and a bill for the expedited adjudication process. Fee assessments range from $20 every two years for a single water right to $400 per owner with multiple water rights to tens of thousands for very large water right holders like power generators and those holding instream flow rights for fisheries. General tax dollars are paying for a significant part of adjudication as well. Our staff at DNRC receives many phone inquiries about water rights, and we are happy to answer your questions. In fact, we have established a "hot line" for questions regarding billing. The number, (406) 444-9050, is available Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.. Alternatively, for more information you can visit our website at www.dnrc.mt.gov.

We are also cleaning up ownership records for water rights. As property has been bought and sold throughout Montana, the associated water rights have not always been correctly transferred. This is a good time to check your records. In fact, you may even get a call from DNRC staff about your right to further update our records. If you have a well for household use, you will be billed unless you have not filed on the well. If you have filed and are included in the adjudication process, your bill for $20 will help to ensure that you will have a solid legal right to use your well.

All Montanans‹homeowners, recreationists, irrigators, and commercial interests‹will benefit from a completed adjudication process. We can then protect our rights to use our water when other states or new users come knocking at our door wanting water! And, when a well goes dry, we have legal standing to find out what happened to our water and pursue legal avenues to protect our treasured resource.

Mary Sexton, Director
Montana DNRC

A senseless death

Dear Editor,

It is with heavy hearts that we are now able to put our feelings down on paper concerning the death of our beloved family dog, Deke. Deke was killed on Christmas morning, after being let outside to go potty, by our cold-hearted next door neighbor, with whom we have had no prior ill will. He claims that our gentle, arthritic, hard of hearing, 10-year-old Labrador buddy, was chasing his mules. Deke had been raised around horses, mules and other livestock his entire life and never chased them. Not only was he afraid of mules, he was terrified of electric fences, not even entering our pasture when we are in with our horses.

Our family and friends searched diligently for Deke, knowing he was hard of hearing and might not hear our shouts. As the day turned into night we worried about his safety and health. As the parents of a 1-1/2 year old and a 2 month old, we worried about our family pet just as lovingly. Was he cold? Was he hungry? Was he confused and wandering, looking for home? Sleep did not come easy, if at all for any of our family. We immediately distributed pictured flyers, the next day, begging neighbors and friends to help us find Deke. We personally searched ditches, fields and roadsides, looking for him, knowing that his aching joints would never take him as far as we were searching. The thought that he had never been away this long made us think he was hurt or trapped somewhere and this was heavy on our minds as we drove along the snow covered road in hopes of spotting him and hoping against all odds that he would recognize the truck and come walking to us with his tail wagging with happiness, as he always greeted us when we came home. Much to our horror, we later learned that the person who killed Deke, was the first neighbor we had contacted, and he had vehemently denied seeing our dog Christmas Day.

Three days later, on our wedding anniversary, we found Deke's body Iying at the bottom of our brushy creek bed. Deke had died from a gunshot wound to the intestines. It was reported that three shots had been fired, but it only took one to kill him. Our beloved dog lay there for possibly hours in indescribable pain before he passed away. Our hearts break at this point, because if his killer had put aside his rage and hatred of our dog or took the same time to come tell us, as it did to get his gun, or even called us after he shot him, perhaps a veterinarian could have saved him.

The Sheriff was called, questions were answered concerning the manner of Deke's death, each neighbor was questioned, and Deke's killer admitted his guilt. This killer robbed our family of a pet that we raised from a puppy, robbed our small children of a gentle, lovable pet and robbed us of taking care of our best hunting buddy during his retirement years. We had scheduled him to sire one last litter this spring, so we could have a puppy. We knew Deke had entered his senior years, but we could never imagine losing him like this.

You are probably asking yourself what this story could possibly have to do with you. We want it to be known that the senseless death of our dog was due to animal cruelty. The animal ordinance laws should be more specific so as not to create loopholes for animal cruelty. We also live in a small area of many homes. This man shot a firearm three times in a populated area, on Christmas Day when many people had guests visiting.

Nothing will bring Deke back, but perhaps this letter will inform other pet owners that this could happen to them, unless the laws are changed.

Eric and Amanda King and Family
Stevensville