Letters to the editor Jan. 9

Cost of dams

I am a Flathead Electric member and I am writing to express my concern about the statements that have been made by some of the Montana utilities in regards to the proposal to consider removing four of the dams on the Snake River. 

I am concerned that the utilities are going to use the same fear based messaging they used when the proposal was made to close the two generating plants at Colstrip. The utilities implied that our access to electricity was in danger. What happened was quite different. It appears that no customer lost power as a result of this action. 

I propose that the utilities take a different approach to this new proposal. I have not seen one mention that anyone is proposing the removal of a dam until there is replacement generating power in place. I too want desperately to keep my home electrified and to have that occur at an affordable cost. 

The utilities mention that the cost of maintenance and operation of these dams is low and this enables BPA to charge less for this power. 

Unfortunately this is not the true cost of dams. How do you put a dollar figure on the loss of over 16 million salmon in the Columbia and Snake rivers and their tributaries? What is the cost of a loss of 17 million fish spawning in the streams and the loss of fish carcasses that feed animals, bugs (that fish eat), nutrients left in the streams? How do you put a cost on the ending of traditions that occurred for thousands of years of the Native Americans who every year journeyed to the shores of the Columbia and tributaries? 

This is just a few of the “true costs” of dams that the utilities ignore.

I ask that the utilities take a more positive stance and work with this proposal to see if it is possible to accomplish with the guarantee of adequate power generation at a reasonable cost. If it is not possible to accomplish so be it. 

Addressing this proposal by suggesting there may not be adequate power generation at a reasonable cost without any concrete plan to study is simply trying to use fear to avoid change because change is hard and can be scary.

— John Powell, Columbia Falls

Retract the sportsmen act

I identify as many things, but two things that are true of me is that I am a conservationist and a Republican. 

From these two perspectives I’d like to share my take on a bill Sen. Steve Daines is working to move through Congress called the Montana Sportsmen Conservation Act. The name of this bill suggests that it was created with the hunters and anglers of Montana in mind and would protect our wild lands and waters.

This bill, however, would remove land and water protections from three wilderness study areas around our state totaling over 100,000 acres. These areas are valuable destinations for our sportsmen precisely because they are wilderness study areas. This bill would not introduce new protections or conservation measures for these places but would instead place them in general management where the Forest Service will gain more discretion to pursue resource extraction and the potential for development will increase.

Development pressure is a major issue across our state currently and is sure to only grow over time. I’m concerned about how development and recreation pressure is affecting wildlife across a lot of our public lands too. I think these issues have not been adequately considered in the drafting of this bill. 

For these reasons, I encourage Daines to retract the Montana Sportsmen Conservation Act and ask Montanans for help in crafting a vision for how our wilderness study areas should be managed in the spirit of maintaining the current fabric of our communities.

— Nicholas Gistaro, Bigfork

Judaical system

Just wondering if anyone has ever thought about questioning the practices of our local judiciary system about how many women have been killed by men here and had previously been denied an order of protection? 

Seems like there have been a few here. Why is this? Are these men being given leniency because of their association? 

I can think of one who wanted to be a cop, another who was a local attorney, and from what was released it sounds like both orders should have been granted.  I also recall a local attorney getting arrested for assaulting his spouse and then the judge at that same night allowed him to be released.   

As the current Supreme Court has shown through accepting gifts and bribes, maybe we need new judges?

— Jeremy Phillips, Kalispell