Letters to the editor Oct. 10

Cost of war

“Freedom isn’t free and you’ve got to buy it in Ukraine” is an argument only a politician could make. Marc Racicot and Bob Brown’s recent sales pitch for the war in Ukraine (Fighting for freedom or appeasing Putin: The choice is clear, Oct. 5) is one of the most pathetic attempts to convince us that our hard earned and reluctantly relinquished tax dollars are best spent overseas.

First, they try to draw comparison between the American Revolutionary War and Ukraine. The French provided funds to the colonies’ cause. Britain was big and the Continental Army was small. The nodding head reader is supposed to now feel that “they’re just like us!” Except they’re nothing like us, primarily because they aren’t us.

Next the writers tell us that we’re actually getting a heck of a deal! The U.S. has, thus far, sent $46 billion to Ukraine which amounts to a mere 0.7% of the federal budget. Congrats, you played yourself. You just made the argument that the federal budget is criminally out of control, not that this war is cheap.

Lastly, we’re told to care about a speech given by the ideologically pure U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. She waxed poetic about how bloody and expensive this war will be if we don’t put more quarters in the machine. They stated that if Russia wins, then “our mutual freedom and way of life” is in danger. I don’t live in Ukraine and domino theory died in Vietnam.

Have you seen the cost of everything around Montana? Has anyone tried to get a loan lately and encountered staggering interest rates? How about those getting laid off as corporate budgets tighten? All these are symptoms of runaway federal spending that has blown air in the bubble that we’re watching burst. We need more Mises and Hayek, not more Racicot and Brown.

— Dave Ritchey, Bigfork

Grizzly protections

Scrolling through my newsfeed, I saw the headline “It’s time for state control of grizzlies.” I was angered by what I read. Further fueling my anger is that the article is written by Republicans. I am a registered Republican, but I am beginning to question why? Grizzly bears must remain protected and not turned over to Montana.

There is a fear narrative being propagated about grizzlies. Proponents of delisting use fear to scare people. Have we not learned from Covid? If there was more respect than fear, humans and grizzlies can co-exist. Dominance is not a problem solver. Humans need to make better decisions and at the very least, be responsible and follow the guidelines and instructions currently in place for bear safety. And be held responsible for their actions.

The state of Montana cannot claim any conservation victory. For the state Legislature to pass bills anticipating and hoping for the removal of grizzlies from the Endangered Species List speaks volumes. The current legislative body in Montana is not pro grizzly.

The argument from the ranchers is interesting. They graze livestock on public land. Farmers I know bought their land, seeded, weeded and are taxed on the land. People have no idea how much it costs to grow a blade of grass! Before the animals go to market, the Montana rancher has a financial advantage.

This same public land is also grizzly habitat. Montana ranchers are compensated for livestock loss to grizzlies. Farmers I know are compensated for predator loss only if they have insurance. Death is death. Whether it be by a bear, coyote, or even someone’s dog. This is no reason to hunt grizzly bears and delist them.

Speak up and demand that grizzlies stay on the Endangered List and that their habitat be protected!

— Kimberly Smith, Ider, Alabama