First off, I am not a hunter or a wolf activist. I believe the gentleman in Victor was replying to an earlier letter regarding a public vote (MT, ID, WY) that wolves be managed. He stated "he as well as others head into the woods to spot wolves.” I as well as others love to watch elk, deer and moose which I feel are being decimated by the unmanaged wolf packs.

He continued by stating the hunters are a minority in regards to voting numbers. He is failing to realize that there are people like myself (non-hunters) that are having a hard time understanding why my hard earned tax dollars are going to support his pleasures. He also does not take into account the family members of the 129,708 hunters that vote.

The continued lawsuits put forth by the activists are a burden on our court system and costing us considerable tax dollars. I agree with the person that stated we can use this money that is spent monitoring, controlling the wolves and lawsuits for more important needs.

The gentleman in Victor goes on to state "if the wolves were going to wipe out the elk, they would have long ago." He needs to do his homework. Elk were transplanted in numbers from various areas to Montana in the 1930s by the civil engineers and state biologists. At that time the wolf numbers were already depleted. His comment of "being wiped out before man entered the territory" holds no merit.

Last is his comment about "fair chase." Let the hunters chase them. Hunters pay to hunt which saves us tax dollars and manages wildlife. It’s a no brainer. If the wolves were managed (not wiped out) through hunting, and hunters were buying license/tags, bringing in thousands of dollars to the state that would save tax dollars, why not?

Why should I have to pay extra (taxes) for a someone else’s pleasure? Plain and simple – you pay for what you want but don’t expect me pay for what I don’t want. Bring it to a vote!

Letters to the Editor

People’s needs should take precedence over insurance companies

Dear Editor,

After 60 years of suffering the enormous, costly inequities in private health insurance, the Congress finally recognizes that only a common effort, led by the national government, can reform what is an obsolete, broken health insurance model. For the first time in many decades, Americans are experiencing reform impulses and once again have a healthy skepticism about the corporate-controlled market place. For the first time in 30 years the Congress has the winds of reform, change, at its back.

Nonetheless, both the U.S. Senate and House are choosing to accomplish reform not through an efficient, simple process such as single-payer but rather by layering onto the current private system.

Although most Americans want something far more direct and less costly, the insurance industry does not. Guess which group, thus far at least, has Congress’s ear?

Members of Congress believe, correctly, that single-payer does not have the votes to pass. That does not, however, absolve them from considering single-payer and conducting hearings dedicated to it or, at the very least, inviting experts of that system to testify at the general hearings on the issue.

I refer to this with some experience. When Pres. Clinton offered his plan for universal healthcare coverage in the fall of 1993, I was chairman of the House Committee on Labor Management - one of the three subcommittees in the U.S. House with jurisdiction over the issue. As chair, I knew full well that single-payer was unlikely to pass the House and would surely die in the Senate which, frankly, was cowed by reform opponents. Nonetheless, my committee and I decided to have hearings on both the President’s complex proposal and single-payer, both of which I sponsored. The dual process was very beneficial; each proposal informed the other. Our committee came to understand that there were benefits and liabilities in both plans and considering them together allowed us to improve each.

I managed to round up the votes to pass the two bills through both my committee and the full committee of Education and Labor. Unfortunately that was the end of the reform road. Suspecting that the Senate would not act, we held my bills. The Senate eventually refused to even consider reform.

Can single-payer pass this time? No. However, the champion of healthcare reform, Sen. Ted Kennedy, has the best idea about making something out of the current flawed efforts. He has proposed a version of single-payer as an integral piece of the current reform proposals. He has proposed to include within the overall legislation a separate, truly public healthcare option. No doubt because of Kennedy and out of respect for him and “the cause of his lifetime,” Pres. Obama recently wrote to both Sen. Kennedy, who chairs the Committee on Education and Labor, and to Sen. Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, “I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the healthcare market more competitive and keep insurance companies honest.”

A recent nationwide poll shows that 72% of Americans support the public option. Will we get one? Yes, but it is likely to be a watered down version that will be far more acceptable to the insurance companies than it will be to Sen. Kennedy. As New York’s Sen. Chuck Schumer recently said, “It’s pretty certain that Sen. Kennedy could not support the Baucus plan and Sen. Baucus could not support the Kennedy plan.”

With the gravely ill Ted Kennedy unable to put his full energy into passing his proposal, it will apparently be up to the House and the President to act as the public’s backstop in passing a bill that contains a good, competitive public healthcare option. That is, in fact, the sad predicament because the Senate Finance Committee is more interested in “consensus” and “bipartisanship” (i.e., agreeing with the insurance companies) than it is in fighting for full appropriate healthcare reform and wrangling the majority necessary to pass it - even if by only one vote.

Pat Williams
Missoula

Future Hamilton Council member introduction

Dear Editor,

My name is Lynette Helgeland and I have filed to represent the people of Ward 3 in Hamilton. I have lived in this Ward for 8 years with my son, Michael. I grew up and went to school here in this valley that I love.

Since I do not have an opponent in Ward 3, I will be your representative for the next four years. There are many problems in our city that need attention. I will work with you and represent you to the best of my ability.

When I take office on January 1, 2010, I will be able to serve all of you – the citizens of Hamilton.

Lynette Helgeland
Hamilton

Drivers, riders, need to anticipate all possibilities

Dear Editor,

I read Patricia Don Diego’s letter on “Bicycle riders face unsafe drivers” in the July 1 issue of the Bitterroot Star. While the death of any person on a bicycle, motorcycle or car in an accident is a tragedy to all concerned, the fact of the matter is that any person using any mode of transportation must continually anticipate, anticipate, and anticipate situations and the actions of all others using that road. Intersections, constructions, blind turns, obstructions, fast traffic and narrow roads are all situations that require absolute alertness and one’s complete attention in the act of riding or driving.

In 2003, I took a Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) course after almost a 30-year hiatus of not driving a motorcycle, in preparation of driving one again. The course, which is two and half days, teaches one central fact over and over again. In driving a motorcycle or any other mode of transportation, a person cannot count on the driver of another vehicle to see you in any situation. You must drive defensively at all times. You must anticipate that a driver with suddenly stop in front of you, pull out of a side street on you, cut you off while changing lanes, rear end you at a stop sign, open a door of a parked car, make a turn cutting into the left hand turning lane, etc, etc, etc. Moreover, a driver talking on a cell phone is a red flag to be extra aware of the need to take a sudden defensive driving action. You are taught to always be looking for a way out of an accident, another path to safety.

While I can understand Don Diego’s point of contention, the MSF course teaches that it is a motorcycle rider’s responsibility not to get into a accident with another vehicle that has more weight and momentum than it has because the outcome can be fatal. Thus, from my experience in driving both a motorcycle and a car, I must always drive defensively, assume nothing, anticipate everything and be prepared to take an alternate path to avoid an accident. This then is the best advice I can give any user of a bicycle, a motorcycle or a car, i.e. your life is your responsibility.

Joseph G. Gallagher, Jr
Stevensville

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Legals •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2009 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney