Roadless confusion

The Flathead County Commissioners language for the "Roadless" question that they are placing on the June ballot is totally unclear and ambiguous. It is obvious that the motive behind creating the two questions was to elicit a preconceived response.

Gary Hall, et.al, wrote no clear choice as to the larger question, which is, should roadless areas remain roadless (yes or no)? Instead these officials confused the two ballot questions by using the term "multiple use" as a spurious attempt to approve motorized use and approve timber harvest.

Neither choice gives the voter a clear message as to whether they are voting for no timber production and no motorized use or for these uses. The second question includes the term non-motorized but leaves the question open as to whether the voter is also voting for motorized use as well. This total redundancy for anyone can use non-motorized travel on all public lands.

The Task Force, which was appointed by Hall to address the issues of the roadless question and forest planning, was itself conceived with duplicity in mind. There were four members who were of a conservation ethos, and six who were of a timber-and-motorized advocacy, setting up a bogus appearance of fairness.

Counties are not the centerpiece of deciding the fate of America's roadless lands. These roadless areas of our national forests are public lands, owned by all citizens of the nation, not just by those residing in a particular county, and thus should have the broadest possible input as to their management.

Roger Sherman

Whitefish