Letters to the editor Dec. 22

Outdoor freedoms

If you hunt, fish, or just enjoy big open country of northwestern Montana, it’s time to thank the Montana State Land Board for voting to approve the Montana Great Outdoors Project.

At least most of them.

I’ve been enjoying the outdoors of northwestern Montana for more than 30 years. Many of us can point to dozens of favorite spots that are now locked away forever behind trophy homes and no-trespassing signs. The Montana Great Outdoors Project is a voluntary conservation easement between Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and Green Diamond Resource Co. to make sure 33,000 acres between Kalispell and Libby remain in active management and open for hunting and fishing.

This year I took a four-by-four muley buck on Green Diamond land. To tell the truth, that spot has provided other deer and a couple elk over the years. It’s well managed timber land and wildlife habitat.

Most of us only worry about lost access when we suddenly face a new gate or barbed wire. But FWP, Green Diamond, Trust for Public Lands are trying to get ahead of the problem, providing both a supply of timber and protecting our outdoor freedoms.

This month, their agreement was formally approved by the Land Board. This should have been a slam dunk. Gov. Greg Gianforte, Secretary of State Christi Jacobson and Commissioner Troy Downing voted in favor. 

But Superintendent of Public Instruction Elsie Arntzen and Attorney General Austin Knudsen opposed it. Perhaps Knudsen and Arntzen haven’t spent enough time in northwestern Montana to understand how important forest management, timber jobs and our outdoor traditions are to those of us who live here.

Knudsen complained the agreement is “perpetual.” But no one ever seems to mind that land liquidation is perpetual, that lost winter range and lost access is perpetual, or that when mills close, it’s generally closed for good.   

Thanks to the majority of the Land Board who have the foresight to think about the future and keep Montana, Montana. Those who voted no, I hope you have a chance to do better next time.

— Ben Long, Kalispell

State Supreme Court

Why, after our Legislature presented the governor with several bills which were signed into law, does our state Supreme Court feels that it has any right to circumvent the will of the people (via our Legislature) by deciding that someone’s right of privacy might be invaded? 

Not that the bills were unconstitutional mind you, but simply based on a privacy issue that they had to misconstrue. Article II, Section 10 refers to the right of privacy: “...unless a compelling state interest can be shown....” I submit that the life of an unborn child is clearly a compelling state interest, as it absolutely should be. 

Instead of speaking about the viability of a pre-born child, let’s refer to the life of an unborn child as ...being at some stage of development — for this is what is happening. With its own civil rights and protections, no less. Our Supreme Court has zero right to ignore any child’s rights or to be protected by our laws. 

It is my opinion that our state Supreme Court, in these instances, has but one issue to consider. That would be whether some new law created by our citizens via the legislative process was constitutional or not. Not that it might violate someone’s privacy. 

For heaven’s sake, using this excuse to override a law that the people got through the legislative process, got the governor’s signature, etc., to make it a law — give me a break.

Using privacy as an issue in this way would even kill the state’s right to submit citizens to a questionnaire to get a driver’s license or buy a piece of property. The court has no right to dismiss our legislative processes in such an arrogant manner. 

— Russell Sias, Columbia Falls