Roadless task force is diverse

I must respond to Montana Wilderness Association member Roger Sherman's letter criticizing the Flathead County Roadless Task Force and the upcoming ballot question on roadless areas.

To begin, the task force was not, as Mr. Sherman alleges, formed with "duplicity" in mind by Flathead County Commissioner Gary Hall. Hall, along with state Sens. Barkus and Weinberg, bent over backwards to select a group that was "diverse" — five versus seven — quite a lot more "diverse" than the two-for-versus-eight-against roadless makeup of Flathead County voters as expressed in the 2000 primary.

I agree with Mr. Sherman that the ballot language is unclear, however. A child could have done better.

But as someone who attended most task force meetings as an observer only, including the one where the ballot language was voted upon, let me tell you why the language stinks: The ballot language is a mess because those who Sherman says represent the "conservation ethos" engaged in just a skosh of, um, "duplicity."

The environmentalist faction wanted the ballot language to reek. Period. In fact, the "conservation ethos" faction didn't want any language, question or vote ever again, not after what happened in 2000.

That year, Flathead County had a clear choice (which of course the environmentalists slammed wrongly for being incorrect — it was in fact absolutely correct) on the question of "roadless areas," and 80 percent voted they were not interested in President Clinton's proposal.

Unable to block the roadless question from the ballot, the "ethos" faction then tried with all their might to murk up the language used, specifically so the voters of Flathead County would be denied a clear choice.

Take it from me, it was masterful political gamesmanship. But it was also a slap in the face to Flathead County citizens who deserve better.

Dave Skinner

Whitefish