Backwards on bears

To the editor,

In his column about preparedness against bears, Larry Wilson asks (again), "What do you think?" Well, I think he has it all backwards. Regarding what deterrents to use if you encounter a bear, he talks about carrying his rifle (at the ready, I presume) in his hand, with his bear spray on his belt. A rifle shot can miss or wound a bear, especially one that is moving, and that is if you can get the rifle up in time. Bear spray can be quickly discharged by one hand, making a 15 foot diameter cloud. It is a proven deterrent. It makes more sense to me, then, if you are worried about bears, to carry the bear spray, at the ready, in your hand, and put the gun in the other hand. Now I will ask, "What do you think?"

Regarding the question of too many bears so that they are expanding their territory, it is not whether there are too many bears, but too many people, expanding their territory into the bears' territory. Where are they to go? What are they to do? If I came onto your property and settled and claimed it for mine, you would attack me in one way or another. Think about it.

Mary Smith

Priest River, Idaho

North Fork property owner

1964 was more like a 1,000-year flood

To the editor,

Are FEMA flood insurance representatives implying that 1964 was a 100-year flood? It was more like a 1,000-year flood, was it not?

Peak 1964 flow rates in the Flathead River at Columbia Falls were estimated at greater than 100,000 cubit feet per second. This is about equal to the average annual flow rate of the Columbia River in Columbia Gorge before emptying into the Pacific. Picture the Columbia River flowing past Columbia Falls. The town could have renamed itself "Columbia Rises."

A bit of river trivia that surprised me is that within Montana, the average flow rate of the Flathead River is slightly greater than that of the Missouri. It is high time for a song and a movie about the Flathead River.

Edwin Speelman

Kalispell

North Fork Road paving a point of contention

Chris Peterson's article is a good summary of the North Fork Neighborhood Plan, but it lightly and incompletely touches on a major issue: The North Fork Road. That all North Forkers want to keep the road "as is" is a conclusion that may be drawn from the article by the casual reader.

Because a few members of the North Fork Landowners Association (NFLA) see the deplorable condition of the North Fork Road as 'controversial and divisive' it chooses not to address this important issue. Out of reluctance of the NFLA to become involved in the most important issue in the North Fork community, and one which affects the well-being of all, the North Fork Road Coalition for Health and Safety (NFRCHS) was created.

The NFRCHS consists of 140 North Fork landowners who strongly feel the North Fork Road is a hazard to human health and safety, with road dust being a prime contributor.

The NFRCHS is organized to seek ways and means by which it can influence and urge county officials to exercise their responsibilities to the public with respect to North Fork Road maintenance and dust control. Toward that end, the NFRCHS has raised over $10,000 to fund studies by the University of Montana Center for Environmental Health Sciences to determine the amount and contents of dust disturbed along the North Fork Road and the potentially harmful effect. These studies will conclude in mid-March. County officials will be briefed on the results which will then be made public.

We can't be certain as to what the dust studies will reveal. However there is sufficient information at hand indicating road dust is a problem of a magnitude sufficient to cause concern. A recent re-issue of an Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) funded study conducted by the Pennsylvania State University Center for Dirt and Gravel Road Studies, under sponsorship of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, provides ample evidence that road dust from inadequately maintained gravel roads is harmful to the environment, to humans, and to road maintenance budgets. The EPA considers unpaved roads to be the largest source of particulate air pollution in the nation, producing almost five times as much particulate matter as construction activities and wind erosion, the next two leading sources. The NFRCHS firmly believes that the North Fork Road is an archetypical example of a poorly maintained dust generating road as defined by the EPA and identified in the Pennsylvania State University studies.

The subject of dust control can be discussed and dealt with without resorting to the use of the words 'pave' or 'paving' as Peterson chose to use in his article. These words tend to inflame passions and to promote irrational comment. There are other ways dust can be controlled without using the ultimate method. Because these few North Fork landowners defined North Fork Road conditions in terms of paving as the solution, they decided the issue should be outside the scope of the North Fork Neighborhood Plan. Since being organized in 2006, the NFRCHS has been characterized by NFLA leadership and the North Fork Preservation Association (NFPA) as a pro-paving organization; a characterization with no basis in fact and is purely an effort to discredit and disparage the NFRCHS and to rally anti-paving elements into opposing NFRCHS goals. The NFRCHS consists of members with a wide variety of views, opinions and sentiment in regard to what should be done to control dust on the road. All are unified in the belief that something must be done, and soon, to protect road users. Rather than partnering with the NFRCHS and becoming an effective voice for urging a solution, the NFLA, NFPA, and the North Fork Compact choose to ignore the long-standing problem of the poor condition of the North Fork Road out of fear that addressing the problem might lead to paving. Ultimately a decision on what to do about the North Fork Road and how best and most economically feasible to control road dust remains a decision for the county commissioners.

The North Fork Land Use Planning Advisory Committee (NFLUPAC), an arm of the NFLA and the NFPA, is unwilling to acknowledge or address the road issue to any great extent. While it is willing to include in the Neighborhood Plan a 2002 survey wherein 79% of 284 landowners responded that "a rustic lifestyle' as a reason for owning North Fork property, they were unwilling to utilize a 2007 survey conducted by the NFLA with 261 respondents providing the following:

? 76.2 percent supported dust abatement on portions of the North Fork Road remaining unpaved

? 66.7 percent are not satisfied with the level of road maintenance in seasons other than winter

? 55.6 percent support paving a notoriously dusty unpaved portion of the road

In closing we would like to briefly summarize the generally accepted benefits of dust control as determined by the cited EPA funded study. Dust control:

? Protects the environment

? Promotes better health and well-being

? Reduces respiratory problems

? Improves visibility and safety

? Reduces water and air pollution

? Stimulates healthier plants and foliage

? Reduces vehicle repair costs by 40 percent (Not only private vehicles, but government vehicles operated by state and federal agencies)

? Prolongs road life

? Improves public relations between public officials and the community

As Peterson so aptly put it, referring to the Neighborhood Plan, "But the document also does a big dance around whether or not to pave the North Fork Road." We contend that this "big dance" is because of a traditional and well-cultivated fear and that it is a gross disservice to the public. We have expressed this to the planning and zoning office during the public comment period. The Hungry Horse News has been provided with a copy of the comment.

Bob Grimaldi is the chairman of the North Fork Road Coalition for Health and Safety.