Get screened - It may just save your life

To the editor,

March is Colorectal Cancer Screening Awareness Month and I'd like to share with your readers these interesting facts:

? Colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer in the U.S.

? Colorectal cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death in the United States.

? When colorectal cancer is diagnosed at an early stage the five-year survival rate is 90 percent. However, when it isn't diagnosed until after it spreads to distant organs, the five-year survival rate is just 10 percent.

? Today only 39 percent of colon cancers are diagnosed in the early stages, despite the fact that colon cancer can be prevented if precancerous polyps are found during screening and removed.

In light of these facts, I encourage everyone to talk to their doctor and come up with a plan of action that works best for them. The American Cancer Society has screening guidelines and other information available at www.cancer.org. Educate yourself and then talk to your doctor. It may just save your life!

Crystal Stipe

Moiese

Thanks for support of Wildcat hoop team

To the editor,

As senior parents of the boys Wildcat basketball team, we would like to express our heartfelt thanks to our wonderful community. The support you showed throughout the season and Divisional tournament was tremendous. Even though our season was cut short, the memories of a great season and your support will not be forgotten.

We also want to thank our fantastic coaching staff for giving their time and talents to our boys, and we wish the upcoming teams great success to carry on the Wildcat Pride and Wildcat Country. Go Wildcats!

Troy and Kristine Bowman

Bill and Mary Grilley

Dan and Kathi Fairbank

Tom and Vicki Ridings

Don't weaken national park gun rules

National parks are special places that enjoy the highest level of protection provided to public lands by Congress. Originally, the U.S. Army, and since its creation in 1916, the National Park Service (NPS), have continually worked to protect park resources, including wildlife, and to inspire park visitors.

The Bush Administration, in response to intense political pressure orchestrated by the National Rifle Association, has just announced it will re-open the regulations governing firearms in our national parks. This brings up serious issues for park rangers, visitors, and wildlife.

Poaching and resource degradation have been problems since Yellowstone was set aside as the world's first national park in 1872. In 1936, to address this issue, the Secretary of the Interior issued the first rules regarding firearms in national parks. The regulations prohibited anyone from carrying a gun within the parks unless they obtained written permission from a park officer and the weapon was sealed. The main objective of this rule was to protect park wildlife from poaching and to provide rangers with tools for enforcement.

In 1970, Congress declared that superlative natural, historic, and recreation areas should be managed as one seamless National Park System. In 1983, during the Reagan Administration, park regulations were modified to apply to all park areas in the system. Firearms were allowed in national park areas as long as they were unloaded and stored out of easy reach. In those 60 park units where hunting is authorized, hunters are permitted to carry firearms during open hunting season.

The current firearm regulations have been in place now for 25 years; in my over 38 years as a park ranger and a park manager, they have worked very well. They were developed with full public input and the only clamor for change has been lately from the political arena. Crime in national park areas remains considerably lower than in surrounding communities, but when poachers, drug traffickers, and other serious offenders are caught inside the parks, the current firearms restrictions add further weight to the government's prosecution of criminals. A person's failure to comply with the simple requirement of properly stowing a weapon can be an indication to rangers that something might be amiss.

Changing the regulations could open up some of the most remote parkland in the contiguous 48 states — such as backcountry in Yellowstone, Glacier, and Grand Teton — where guns are not allowed, to people with any type of legal firearm. Increasingly, visitors to our national parks are urban based and often out of their comfort zone while enjoying their national parks. As it stands, the wildlife is protected and reasonable precautions such as bear awareness programs, food storage enforcement, and the carrying of pepper spray by backcountry users have reduced bear encounters. If firearms are added to these measures, there could easily be unintended results that could be devastating to the individual, other backcountry users, and the wildlife involved.

Like our military reservations, veteran's hospital grounds and other controlled federal installations, firearms and their use have long been restricted in our nearly 400 national park areas. To travel through the entrance station of a national park is to enter a special place. Long time NPS employee Bill Brown in his book, Islands of Hope (1971), characterized national parks in several ways: "As sanctuaries of nature, as landmarks of history and culture, and as places of contemplation, discovery and adventure." He goes on to say that there is another quality, an ambiance of shared sociability and pleasure in these welcoming, neutral lands. Relaxing firearms regulations in the parks will be detrimental to this refuge ideal that national parks have come to signify for American families over the last century.

Our national park sites vary from Yellowstone to Independence Hall and from Glacier to the Lincoln Memorial and Shiloh battlefield. They are meant to be special places of inspiration and education with a sense of tranquility, history, and beauty. The current regulations, which allow guns in parks with reasonable restrictions on how they are carried, have been working for many years. They protect the safety of humans and wildlife but do not unduly infringe on gun ownership rights. The existing regulations do not limit the rights of law-abiding citizens any more than luggage searches or metal detectors at airports or federal buildings. Re-opening them for review is unnecessary, and any proposed relaxation of these rules should be shot down.

Pete Hart has served as a protection ranger, chief ranger and superintendent of some 17 national park areas from Grand Teton and Glacier to Cape Cod and Great Smoky Mountains for over 38 years. He is currently a member of the Northern Rockies Regional Council of the National Parks and Conservation Association and lives in Livingston.

Doing people's work with an open ear

In Helena, Democrats and Republicans are getting along nicely to mitigate the effects of the 2009 property tax reappraisal in a cooperative manner. The Revenue and Transportation Committee is entrusted with finding solutions for local businesses and homeowners to the property tax reappraisal. As one of the legislators on this committee, I see folks rolling up sleeves to do the people's work with an open ear.

On our farmstead, barn cats and farm dogs sometimes spat. Likewise cynics say that it's not possible for politicians to be trusted to work on behalf of people. But legislators, unlike farmyard pets, are coming together as people, not partisans, with a common interest in assuring that property taxes do not rise due to reappraisals. Our common bonds as Montanans are strong, a refreshing change and lesson from the bullying majority of the 2007 Montana House.

Our Constitution requires that Montana "appraise, assess and equalize the valuation of all property." The next reappraisal should be implemented in 2009. By law, every six years the Revenue Department establishes and equalizes property values.

It's understandable why homeowners and local businesses are saying that property taxes are unpredictable or too high; I agree. We are burdened by near $4 per gallon gas prices, overly high health insurance costs, skyrocketing interest debt, and home heating prices that have run amok; all causing elderly and folks to choose between gas, medicine, food or heat. Given this scenario, the people's government is an easy target; at least some of us listen and act accordingly, which is more that we can say about unregulated insurance costs or gas prices.

It's refreshing to see that there will be neighborhood modeling in the 2009 reappraisal. This will help to assure that tax valuations are equitably applied, and not by comparing "mc-mansions" to regular homes. Traditional homes should be valued next to other traditional homes.

We are beginning to see tax valuations in high growth areas slowing and even decreasing, while tax valuations in low growth areas have escalated more than expected. This is good, for tax purposes, because equalization is much easier when there are not wild differentials between the low and high growth areas of Montana. It allows for simpler and more equitable tax rate reductions and increased homestead and comstead exemptions from valuation.

We need more and better circuit breakers for anomalies in the system. Sometimes odd situations require targeted relief. There will be molding of concrete ideas in the coming days including expanded caps, and better income bracket relief.

But most exciting, is the Committee agreed to look at what other states have done in terms of reform. To model other states strategies upon Montana's system using 2003 reappraisal numbers and real, new construction growth. This is good news for many of us looking to reform property taxes of Montana homeowners and local businesses. Other states have had great successes and there is no reason why we cannot utilize these successes.

We'll see a lot more material in April, then again as the crop season advances. The Revenue and Transportation Committee meets all the way to the snow season of 2008, giving us the needed time to forge bonds and fully vet solutions to property taxes, and honor local businesses and homeowners with the deserved respect.

I've talked and listened to enough folks to know that if it looks like our optimism is too fancy, we have plenty of time to delay property tax reappraisal implementation in the 2009 session. Some may find there is no urgency or willingness to change the present tax structure and decide to pass the ball onto following session, thought the climate is right today for reforming the property tax reappraisal system.

I'll continue to work with our governor and any willing legislator or citizen to assure that all Montanans are fairly represented in the process. Some of our best solutions are coming from the folks back home; this work would not proceed without continued good input. Keep the ideas coming as listening is the precursor to solutions.

Only a handful of hard-heads still doubt that the 2009 property tax solutions should target Montanans and not out-of-state corporations making record profit at the pumps. Democrats and Republicans can agree to do right by Montanans. Our common bond should be our farmers, local businesses and homeowners; the elderly, retirees and families striving to do right by our children.

Civility and respect go along way in politics, and hope is still stronger and more vibrant than fear. It's common values, which will reform our statewide property tax system and assure no-increases due to reappraisals.

Rep. Mike Jopek is an independent minded farmer representing the Whitefish area in the Legislature currently as a Democrat. He serves on the Revenue and Transportation Committee charged with mitigating property tax reappraisals under HB 488 and can be e-mailed at mjopek@mt.gov.

Climate debate enters new phase

The debate about climate change in Montana is entering a new phase. Thanks to the hard work of the Montana Climate Change Action Committee, when Montanans, and their lawmakers, talk about ways to minimize the profound consequences that global warming could have on the economy, they can do so based on a comprehensive, well-supported plan which recommends 54 ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

For the state's Environmental Quality Council (EQC), the interim legislative committee deciding whether to propose legislation for the 2009 legislature on the issue of climate change, the plan provides a great starting point for the discussions that will undoubtedly continue as Montana's legislators consider their options on this very important issue at a very pivotal time.

Everyone has a chance to weigh in on this significant topic. The EQC encourages Montanans to review these climate change recommendations on-line, offer feedback, and to submit new ideas for consideration. Please take time to complete the EQC's online survey at www.leg.mt.gov/css/climate_survey.asp.

As a public appointee to the EQC, and someone who does not deal with climate change issues on a daily basis, I confess that it took me time to get up to speed on greenhouse gas/carbon emission/energy terminology.

It also took time to become familiar with the elements and structure of the climate change recommendations offered by the Montana Climate Change Action Committee, and to understand the technical legislative solutions outlined in the survey. But, when I think about what is at stake for future Montanans, it feels like a small price to pay to be able to meaningfully join in working together toward thoughtful solutions to complex problems.

Results of the plan make clear that things have changed in Montana over the last fifteen years. As recently as 1995, Montana was a carbon "sink," or an area that actually traps and holds carbon from the atmosphere in trees, grasses, soils and water. In a few short years, that has all changed and Montana is now a net greenhouse gas emitter. In fact, according to the report, Montanans currently emit greenhouse gases at twice the national average, a rate projected to rise every year if we take no action.

Some of these solutions focus on how Montana farms, ranches, families and businesses can reduce their consumption of energy to reduce energy production. For example, by just improving energy efficiency of new and existing buildings with increased insulation, recycled and local materials, and more efficient appliances, Montanans can significantly reduce emissions and save money on energy bills. But if we wanted to achieve the maximum reduction for the least cost, we could adopt a "clean car" standard like one implemented in California.

Other solutions focus on the complex issue of energy production. Since Montana exports more power than we use in our state, the plan also considers how to best approach this disparity and how to determine how much electricity we should generate in Montana.

For example, should we develop our extensive coal resources which are considered the single largest contributing factor to global warming? Should we consider increasing the role of renewable energy sources in our state-wide energy portfolio, increasing the efficiency of existing Montana power plants, and even storing excess CO2 deep underground (sequestration)? Some of these good ideas have been discussed for many years, but may not be easily implemented today because they are technologically infeasible, prohibitively expensive, or would further benefit from federal legislation to create a 50-state cap on carbon emissions.

How the 2009 Montana state legislature may act on climate change recommendations remains to be seen. But two things are certain: The dialogue about how to address climate change within Montana state government has begun, and the Montana Climate Change Action Committee Plan provides a solid foundation for those discussions.

Note: The views expressed herein this are those of Diane Conradi, as an individual, and are not made on behalf of the Environmental Quality Council (EQC).

Diane Conradi serves as a public member of the EQC, a legislative committee created in 1971 to study the state's environmental activities and oversee its natural resource agencies. She is currently practicing law in Whitefish.