Page 34 - Flathead Beacon // 10.22.14

34 | OCTOBER 22, 2014 NOTES FROM
OPINION FLATHEADBEACON.COM
TWO FOR THOUGHT
Local Topics, Opposing Views
By Tim Baldwin
Ryan Zinke (R), John Lewis (D) and Mike Fellows (L) are competing for Montana’s only U.S. House seat. All three have seemingly good ideas. But (1) how many voters are really in- fluenced by their proposed plans; and (2) what kind of change can they really effect if elected?
(1) Third parties have little chance of get- ting elected, not because people do not want them but because the two major parties possess a duopoly of money and media. Most Ameri- cans feel they are the only choice, and our laws perpetuate this duopoly. Therefore, Fellows’ main effect is to syphon votes away from Zinke or Lewis. Every other voter typically votes on party label alone. Thus, Zinke and Lewis’ “plat- forms” are designed to stay within accepted party norms.
(2) On the issues, Zinke has a Republican answer and Lewis has a Democrat answer. They are ideals proposed to get elected. Experience shows us, however, that the more controlling bodies in Washington D.C. are unelected bu- reaucracies that regulate us without congres- sional control – not to mention foreign and in- ternational corporate interests whose expendi- tures and influence overshadow anything indi- viduals can fathom or compete against.
Vote for Zinke, Lewis or Fellows? You de- cide this November. Meanwhile, bigger policies must be addressed for us to have more mean- ingful representation in D.C. in the future.
By Joe Carbonari
The Lewis/Zinke race is encouraging. Both men have talent and decency. Both know a bit about power, and how to use it.
We have to guess, however, how they will act if elected. How close they will hold to the “party line” on critical issues, on what they might dis- sent. In their caucus, will they be leaders or fol- lowers, and if leaders, will others follow? Will ei- ther, if elected, actually be likely to make much of an impact on how things go?
With Lewis, the hope is that his grounded nature and common sense would help guide his colleagues to a more effective job of design- ing and implementing their policy proposals. He knows which levers to pull. Lewis feels like he’s one of us. He may disappoint us at worst, but he seems unlikely to ever sell us out or risk our lives rashly.
Zinke presents a different problem – and op- portunity. The hope with Zinke is that he would help speed the return of his party to a more pro- ductive place. We need both party’s insights and concerns. Stronger, more effective, leadership is required. If elected, the hope is that Zinke would help it emerge.
The downside risk is that Zinke might suc- cumb to the pressures and enticements of an insufficiently “sensitive” military or energy sec- tor. Mistakes could be very messy, in terms of both lives and land.
Who will you trust? How far?
The U.S. House Race
GUESTCOLUMN | MarySexton
THE HINTERLANDS Tristan Scott Trials of Miles
IFIRST MET BRIAN RHODES-DEVEY ON A GROUP trail run organized by the Flathead Beacon Running Club, our initial exchange defined by his rhythmic ban- ter, smooth and uninterrupted, with mine decidedly more monosyllabic, interspersed with sharp, convulsive gasping.
Most of us can’t keep up with Brian on a run, but, he be- ing a kind and social creature, doesn’t mind trotting along at a measured pace to engage in friendly conversation, enjoy- ing the camaraderie of the sport as much as the competitive- ness it naturally invokes.
I’ve never been a fast runner, but beginning in my mid- 20s I began running marathons and ultramarathons and found that I could run steadily for long distances and chalk up respectable finishing times. Brian, on the other hand, be- ing a cross-country runner, ran more traditional racing dis- tances at a break-neck pace.
On our first run together, he had just decided to take up the pastime after a long hiatus. Brian is a talented runner with a deeply ingrained competitive streak, having raced for more than half his life before graduating from The Univer- sity of Texas at Austin, withdrawing from the sport cold tur- key, moving to Washington and becoming a farmer.
It wasn’t until he moved to Montana with his girlfriend, Joanna, to apprentice at Two Bear Farm that he made his triumphant return to running and racing. And while he now approaches the sport very differently, when he toes the start line of a foot race he transforms into a competitive animal.
The nature of his competitiveness emerged in the months following that first run, when he began to routine- ly win or stand on the podium at a suite of local races. Bri- an makes these triumphs seem effortless, and yet nothing could be further from the truth.
This year, shortly after re-committing to life as a regu- lar runner, he ran a blistering time of 1 hour, 15 minutes at the Missoula half-marathon (his first time racing that dis- tance) and then shifted his focus to the Two Bear Marathon in Whitefish (also his first time racing that distance).
He won that trail race of 26.2 miles, setting a new course record with a smoldering time of 2 hours, 53 minutes and 19 seconds.
Earlier this month, Brian began his foray into ultrarun- ning and placed second overall in the Le Grizz 50-Mile Ul- tramarathon with a time of 6 hours, 28 minutes.
And while the numbers and empirical data that Brian has logged this past year are impressive, I’m far more in- trigued by his attitude about running and the connection it gives him to the world he lives in.
“I think that over the years, I lost my real connection with running,” he said. “While training and racing on the NCAA level, each day was just a number. Miles, minutes, pace, intervals, recordable data to show how fit I was. The running itself was just a necessity to prepare for the race. Like punching the clock at work. With my new journey in ul- tramarathons and trail running, I feel unrestricted by the pressure of times and competition. It’s more about enjoying the race, not the finishing time. Each run is a celebration in itself. I don’t wear a watch or keep a log. I will always be a racer, I love the competition and I think that ultras are going to be something I am not shabby at. But in my mind the rac- ing will be a byproduct of my day-to-day runs. I’m running for the views, the sore legs and most importantly, the beer afterwards.”
After running a couple dozen marathons and ultramara- thons while obsessively logging 100-mile weeks, I grew dis- enchanted from my own relationship with running. Gradu- ally, I stopped signing up for races, quit heading out for my daily runs. It wasn’t until I started running with my friends and colleagues at the Flathead Beacon, including Brian, that I realized how much fun the sport can be when approached more holistically.
Like Brian, I’ll always be competitive, but the beauty of the sport is that it is real, primal, raw. It sets us free.
What Transferring Lands Would Entail
In a recent op-ed, state senator Jennifer Fielder suggests that a Utah county commissioner, Nevada state legislators and a Canadian negotiator know what’s best for us here in Montana. I’d like to think Montanans know what’s best for Montana. While transferring federal lands into state hands may be of interest to some people outside the state, it’s cer- tainly not in our interest. Far from it.
While Montanans know that the BLM and For- est Service are by no means perfect at handling our federal lands, we also know that if the state were to take ownership of those 30 million acres, Montan- ans would be saddled with the $340 million bill it would cost to manage the land.
As a former director of the state’s Department of Resources and Conservation (DNRC), former coun- ty commissioner, and as a landowner in Teton Coun- ty, I do know a thing or two about land management, and I have a few questions for Fielder and other pro- ponents of this loony idea to transfer federal lands.
First, how would Montana afford the costs of fighting wildfires on the additional 30 million acres of land (costs that could reach over $100 million in some years), not to mention the costs of weed man- agement, road infrastructure, law enforcement, ad- ministrative oversight, fencing, trail maintenance and dozens of other responsibilities?
Second, how would ranchers, many of whom de- pend on public lands, be impacted? Right now, on federal lands, ranchers pay a grazing fee of $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM). On state lands, ranchers currently pay $11.14 and are projected to pay $14 by 2016, and the private lands market rate is $25 to $30 per AUM.
Third, what would happen to our recreational access? On state trust lands, we pay a $10 fee to rec- reate on state lands. If the amount of “state land” that Montana owns were to increase six times, as Fielder wishes, we might find ourselves paying fees like this one on millions of acres that we currently access for free.
Fourth, after taking over federal lands, would the state also be able to afford the $30 million our counties currently receive from the federal govern- ment in the form of payment in lieu of taxes (PILT)?
Finally, how much of our land could we expect to remain public or open to grazing and timber har- vest when Montana is faced with the huge financial burden of managing those lands? The state would almost certainly have no choice but to sell off most of those lands to the highest bidder. Our livelihoods, and our way of life, would be gone.
In her op-ed, Fielder also suggests that Mon- tanans have so far not formed an opinion on federal lands transfer. She refers to a legislative commit- tee that took up the issue this summer and says the committee received “some testimony.” According to the Helena Independent Record, the committee received 214 comments, 195 of which opposed the transfer. That’s not “some testimony” – that’s de- finitive feedback that she would be wise to acknowl- edge.
Please join me in letting Fielder and other legis- lators and candidates know that we fiercely oppose this dangerous, ill-conceived, fiscally irresponsible idea of transferring public lands into state and po- tentially private hands and that we want them to give up the idea now.