No headline

Critique of park found wanting

In his July 27 Inter Lake letter concerning overcrowding in Glacier National Park, P. David Myerowitz defended his advocacy for parking area expansion at Bowman Lake. He did so primarily by disparaging Bob Muth’s fact-based letter of June 8. In an attempt to illustrate that there are no constraints in the 1916 National Park Service Establishment Act, Myerowitz invoked outdated policy options — logging and grazing — from the Act. In reality, the Act merely gave authority to consider logging and grazing. Those activities have long since been considered incompatible with the purpose of national parks. Many national park management policies have changed since 1916 as a result of evolving scientific understanding of natural ecosystems. In contrast, as Muth pointed out, the congressionally enacted purpose of national parks has remained constant through the years. Our understanding of how to achieve it has grown.

Basing his arguments on ideology, personal opinions, and absence of any historical perspective leads Myerowitz to support the so-called “dual mandate” (preservation vs. use) management dichotomy myth. The requirement to “balance” visitor use with ecosystem preservation often is invoked by those who advocate building more roads and parking lots in parks. As Muth pointed out, there is no end to parking lot expansion based on potential recreation demand.

Claiming that the dual mandate is inherent in the 1916 Act can be seen as valid only by ignoring decades of congressional clarifications and amplifications (e.g., the 1970 General Authorities Act), court decisions (e.g., the 1978 Redwoods case), and recommendations from numerous scientific committees. In a Report from the Science Committee, National Park System Advisory Board (2012), M. H. Ross wrote, regarding Resource Stewardship in the National Parks:

“The fundamental purpose of all parks also includes providing for the enjoyment of park resources and values by the people of the United States. The enjoyment that is contemplated by the statute is broad; it is the enjoyment of all the people of the United States and includes enjoyment both by people who visit parks and by those who appreciate them from afar. It also includes deriving benefit (including scientific knowledge) and inspiration from parks, as well as other forms of enjoyment and inspiration. Congress, recognizing that the enjoyment by future generations of the national parks can be ensured only if the superb quality of park resources and values is left unimpaired, has provided that when there is a conflict between conserving resources and values and providing for enjoyment of them, conservation is to be predominant. This is how courts have consistently interpreted the Organic Act.”

Historian Robert Utley described the priority in the 1916 Act: “Indisputably, preservation comes first in law, indisputably it comes first in logic — without preservation the rest is utterly pointless.” Those who desire to contribute to solutions of GNP’s management problems first need to develop an understanding of the purpose of national parks as well as the history and evolution of national park standards and policies.

In addition to overcrowding, major current threats to quality national park management are coming from Congress, the president, and Secretary of Interior Zinke. Their rejections of science and their increasingly ideological policies threaten us with a modern version of the Dark Ages. —Riley McClelland, West Glacier

Legislative strategy shocking

Suppose you live in the city and your water line breaks. You can’t take a shower or flush your toilet and your street is flooded. You call the public works department and the supervisor says, “Well, I’ll send a crew out to fix your problem if you’ll join my church.”

Can you imagine how shocked and outraged you would be at that? That’s how I feel about Montana’s Legislature. As reported in the Daily Inter Lake, the majority leaders told the governor they would approve bonds to repair the state’s crumbling infrastructure if the governor would sign their anti-abortion bills. That’s not much different than the crazy scenario I just described.

I don’t claim to know where the Lord Almighty stands on the issue of abortion. I do know that a lot of recently proposed anti-abortion legislation is based on religious beliefs held by people who think they know exactly and all about what God wants. But to refuse to repair our roads, our water and sewer systems, our school heating systems, because other people have a different opinion? That is using the power of the Legislature to twist arms, to force people to submit to laws based on religion as a requirement to receive the basic services to which all taxpayers are entitled. In other words, you join my church and I’ll fix your infrastructure. In my book that is a flagrant subversion and violation of both the letter and the spirit of our Constitution. —Michael Merchant, Kalispell

Frank Garner is ‘great guy’

On the Opinion page of the Aug. 6 Daily Inter Lake, Mr. Matthew Relles endorsed and complimented a previous letter to the editor by Rep. Matt Regier and in addition calling Frank Garner compromising and corrupt. A nasty and mindless character assassination. I missed Mr. Regier’s comments in the paper and Mr. Relles didn’t make specific reference, so I don’t know what all the fuss is about. but I certainly do know Frank Garner.

Mr. Relles commented that he is a new resident to Montana and refuge from California. Welcome to our state, Mr. Relles, but I suggest more caution when making such radical remarks about anyone, especially a great guy like Frank Garner. Most of the people in our community are really good and it’s a great place to live, so don’t contaminate it with hate language.

I have lived in this area for 43 years and known Frank Garner for many years. I’m proud to call him a friend. Frank was an outstanding chief of the Kalispell Police Department. Upon retirement he served our country with a tour in Afghanistan training their law enforcement people. He is a fine young man of absolute honesty and integrity and lives an exemplary life.

I am also proud to be an independent voter because I vote for people, not political parties. I may tilt a little more Democratic in some elections, but always voted for Republican Frank Garner and eagerly did so. We are fortunate to have honest, straightforward and intelligent people like Mr. Garner willing to put up with a lot of political nonsense and contribute his service to our state. So, Mr. Relles don’t be misguided by whatever personal vendetta Mr. Regier is spewing out. When you know more about Frank Garner I guarantee you will like him. —Phil Iversen, Kalispell

Garner takes another hit

First I would like to applaud the courage of freshman Rep. Matt Regier in his expose of the venality of RINO Reps. Frank Garner and Rob Cook. Too often members of the two parties are loath to pull back the curtain on the machinations of their fellow partisans. The fact that Mr. Regier has done so in his freshman year says much about his pluck and mettle.

Shame on Frank Garner! Not only did he hold party “leadership” up for the ransom of furthering his personal ambition, but he betrayed his constituents by voting as and with his “opponents” across that (obviously, very narrow) aisle. Passing yet another gas tax is very likely the last thing that was expected by those who marked an X for Frank (interesting name for someone so disingenuous — but how could his parents have known?). Perhaps Frank misread the party platforms when he first decided to belly up to the trough of “public service” and its many perks. He seems highly suited to serve at the behest of tax-and-spend progressives and their ilk. It’s tough enough to weed out the Big Gov supporters at the general election — much less have to worry about them in the primaries.

Shame on the so-called leadership of the Republican Party in Montana! To allow these wolves (Garner, Cook et al.) to mingle freely and unopposed (much less reprimanded) with the flock is a serious breach of their responsibilities. We need to cast a much more critical eye at their loyalties and aims. In general, we need to pay more attention to the designs of those we send to Helena and hold their feet to the fire when they stray from their oaths and promises. If we do NOT — then we deserve the government that we get as a result of our inaction and apathy. Pray that we awaken to the dangerous and dire straits we navigate. —John Embry, Kalispell