Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Opinion & Editorial

by Jim Lynch, Director, Montana Department of Transportation

Recent headlines proclaiming Montana’s roads the most dangerous in the nation were prompted by the Hartgen Report. Unfortunately, the report made no attempt at meaningful comparisons. The report appears to use data from a 2005 Federal Highway Administration publication that clearly states comparisons of the data should be made among states with similar characteristics because not doing so will likely yield invalid results.

That is exactly how Montana was declared to have the “deadliest” roads while Massachusetts claimed the “safest” roads honor.

Comparing Montana, a rural state, to Massachusetts, an urban state, doesn’t make much sense. Montana's percentage of rural travel is about 77 percent, the highest in the country. Massachusetts’ rural travel is 8 percent, the lowest in the country.

Rural versus urban is significant because rural travel speeds are much higher than congested urban travel speeds. The consequences of higher speed crashes are often severe.

Making matters worse, it may take a considerable amount of time before a crash site is discovered in a rural area. Then, in spite of the tremendous efforts of Montana’s emergency response teams, critical time is taken to transport the injured long distances to trauma care.

Treatment during the first hour after trauma is widely accepted as critical. The statewide average time to transport a crash victim in Montana to a trauma center is an hour with remote areas taking much longer. In Massachusetts it takes about 15 minutes to get to a trauma center. In Montana, a crash may not even be discovered in 15 minutes. So, we have to understand that Montana is very rural, and there are risks associated with this.

Strategies to make Montana's roads safer are continually being advanced. The Montana Department of Transportation is taking the lead in auditing high crash corridors to find solutions that include enforcement, education and engineering. Local, county, state and tribal law enforcement are working overtime across the state targeting high risk drivers including impaired drivers. Seat belt education continues to yield positive results. MDT is supporting education to address an emerging trend of increased motorcycle fatalities. Legislation to curb impaired driving is showing promise with preliminary 2006 numbers indicating a decline in alcohol related fatalities.

Last year total crashes were down by 190. Injuries for vehicle occupants between the ages of zero to 14 were down and have been trending down for years. While a month ago we had 19 more fatalities than the same time last year, as of this week fatalities are about the same as this time last year.

Most Montanans understand that safe driving includes buckling their seatbelts, but we need everyone to buckle up. Consistently, 75 percent of people dying in crashes in Montana are not buckled. This has to change if we are going to save lives. Only one person in a hundred will get through life without being in a collision. This makes any argument against wearing a seatbelt weak at best.

Montana doesn’t have the deadliest roads in the nation, but we do have traffic safety issues that must be addressed. The Montana Comprehensive Highway Safety Plan (www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/brochures/safety/current_chsp.pdf) identifies those issues. The plan also identifies aggressive goals for reducing fatalities and crashes. MDT is working with law enforcement, emergency responders, tribal governments, public health agencies, local governments and other stakeholders to meet these goals.

It’s my job as the Governor’s Representative for Highway Safety, and your job as a wife, husband, mother, father, son, daughter, or friend to take an active role in staying safe on Montana’s roads. Always buckle up and insist everyone in the vehicle does the same. Never let someone who is impaired get behind the wheel. And please, take care when traveling on Montana’s roads. It isn’t a matter of statistics; it’s a matter of saving lives.

Governor's brucellosis plan flawed

Dear Editor,

Any Montanan who has been paying attention to state news knows that a herd in Bridger recently tested positive for brucellosis. What the same intelligent, well-read Montanan may not know is that, in response, Governor Schweitzer proposed the creation of a 50-mile zone around the park, within which all livestock producers would lose their brucellosis-free status.

What does that mean?

For decades, Montana has had brucellosis-free status, which has allowed producers to ship certified livestock outside the state without testing, a major market and economic advantage. When this status is revoked, states acquire Class A, B, or C labels, which all mandate certain levels of testing and disease containment at producer expense.

According to Governor Schweitzer's plan, the buffered area would lose its class free status and suffer the associated penalties, regardless of whether the required number of cases had been found within the boundary.

This plan is flawed for the following reasons.

Regionalization is a financial and logistical burden upon ranchers within the zone. While some federal and state leases are in the zone, the ownership type is predominantly private, with many ranchers running several hundred thousand head of cattle. Some ranchers within this area also own summer or winter pasture outside of the zone. These stewards would have to test their animals semi-annually, once when they left for pasture and again when they returned home. This becomes expensive and is labor intensive.

Regionalization is discriminatory. Restricted ranchers trying to sell their cattle will inevitably receive lower prices, regardless of whether they have proven themselves brucellosis-free. Additionally, blacklisting responsible stewards has the potential to impact the entire state. A "containment" zone may not convince individual states that Montana is brucellosis-free, and, as a result, bans may be placed on Montana cattle regardless of what part of the state they originated.

This plan is not a permanent solution because wildlife, particularly elk, that carry brucellosis do not stop at fence lines or imaginary boundaries. Governor Schweitzer's proposal avoids the issue of overpopulated wildlife that leave park boundaries in search of food. Once this disease is allowed to permeate the zone, does the incident area simply increase? In no time, another "containment" zone would have to be created around the first zone, and so on.

By failing to create a plan that addresses diseased wildlife, public health is threatened. Humans are susceptible to brucellosis through the transmission of bodily fluids. The human form of brucellosis, called undulant fever, is chronic and incurable. For sportsmen and hunters, this poses a dangerous threat.

The regionalization boundary is arbitrary. The governor has proposed a zone of 50 miles around Yellowstone Park. The state's cases of brucellosis, to date, have been outside this designated radius.

Regionalization would lead to the urban development of agricultural areas. The ranch lands within this zone have been in agricultural production for a very long time. Over the decades, population growth and the resulting demand for housing have increased the number of subdivisions in these beautiful areas. Now, instead of a neighbor's pasture or woodland, swimming pools and tennis courts are found on the other side of the barbed wire fence. If ranchers in this zone are subjected to the unfair financial burdens of testing, re-testing, and market penalties associated with regionalization, they may give up and make their money the only way available to them - development.

Finally, this zone has the potential to set a very dangerous precedent on an international scale. By accepting this zone, the United States is saying that they will accept cattle from disease-free areas if good-faith disease containment can be proven. What will happen when countries like Mexico create zones around brucellosis-positive areas just as Argentina is currently attempting with foot-and-mouth disease? Will the United States accept the influx in cattle that such a precedent would surely create? Such a policy measure would flood markets and forever change the face of agriculture in this country.

In the June 27th issue of The Livingston Enterprise, Melville rancher and Montana Democratic Party chairman Dennis McDonald called for a fresh approach to brucellosis prevention. While he correctly identified the need, the approach must be one that does not violate private property rights, ruin family businesses, or destroy the integrity of an area that has remained wide and open for centuries. Please, protect the livelihoods that have provided quality cattle and sustained wide open spaces for decades and say "no" to Governor Schweitzer's regionalization plan.

For more information on regionalization or for the contact information of state official's, please e-mail Rachel at ranchers_against_regions@hotmail.com.

Rachel Kinkie
Pray, MT

Keep the faith!

Dear Editor,

This comes as a fan letter to Dorinda Troutman. From one ol' peacenik to another, I want to let you know how delighted we are by your latest Bird Seed column in the BR Star. I'll be surprised if you don't get many comments on this one! Your memories and fine writing have magically put us right back in the Bay Area, where we also witnessed the dynamics of

The Summer of Love.

Keep it up, Dorinda . . .

Natalie and John Parker
Hamilton

Services in Stevi

Dear Editor,

I am writing to bring forth a few issues I feel must be addressed regarding the town of Stevensville, Montana.

1) Although there is a City Street Sweeper/Cleaner that the city crew runs (mostly up and down Main street), I wonder why it doesn't do other city streets? I've been a resident here for over two years and have yet to see one go down any residential streets. Why is that? Is our city budget so stretched that this cannot be done?

2) Why are city street lights so scarce in this town?. On some streets there are some lights, but on others, lights are posted just on one side (not on the other) and on some streets, no lights exist. Don't our property taxes pay for these services?

3) I read awhile back, where our local City Police Department was running low on funds to maintain the patrol vehicles (maintenance, gasoline, manpower, etc.) to keep our city streets and outlying areas safe and secure.

4) Lastly, when I went to dump my grass clippings in the designated area, I see it was closed due to a few individuals who abused this privilege given to us by the City of Stevensville.

In summary, my main concern is that if our city budget is that low and we cannot fulfill these and other basic needs that our tax dollars pay for, then why don't we either raise them so that we can feel safe knowing our patrol cars won't run out of gas during an emergency or lighting on our streets is adequate to see pedestrians when they cross the unlighted streets at night.

C'mon, Stevi, we can do better that this, can't we? These issues are pretty small compared to other towns in our area. If we have the tax base to do all of these things, where is it?

R. J. Michalson
Stevensville

No government for the people

Dear Editor,

Congratulations, Ravalli County Commissioners, the Planning Department and Clerk and Recorder - you managed to stop a subdivision!

Of course, not a major one, they have lawyers, but a single female senior citizen who wanted to sell some land to enjoy a few years before she died.

How powerful Commissioner Chilcott must feel to assert his power over this begging single female senior citizen's efforts to get herself out of poverty.

Never mind the breaking of the law done by the county. Of course, I guess the county is above the law.

It's no wonder for all the lawsuits. Gone is government "for the people."

DeAnn Johnson
Stevensville

©2006 Bitterroot Star
This site was Done By Dooney