Thoughts from the Middle of Nowhere

There was an interesting story in the Gazette about a week ago about how if the candidates for Governor of the state don't have a primary challenger, they will have to give some of the campaign contributions they have received so far back. As of last reporting Gov. Brian Schweitzer had over $200,000 at risk if he didn't have a primary challenger.

It's looking like Schweitzer is going to luck out though. Two complete political unknowns are set to enter the race and challenge Gov. Brian Schweitzer in the primary.

Did Schweitzer and the Democrat party put these guys up to this to save the big load of campaign cash Brian Schweitzer is carrying? No, I really don't think so, but it is a very effective way for two people to contribute a very large amount of money to the Schweitzer campaign. Over $100,000 a piece contribution to Schweitzer's campaign just for simply filing as a candidate. That's well above the $1,000 normally an individual can contribute so it is quite the campaign contribution.

Pogreba and Neiffer say they can bring a significant debate about education issues and how the Governor is weak in this area to the front burner. Maybe they can, and maybe they can't, I don't know. What I do know is that these two individuals have to know that people are going to look at their run with a very cynical eye and a lot of criticism with the campaign cash issue in play. If they didn't realize this, I think they are in for a rude awakening.

The whole art of teaching is only the art of awakening the natural curiosity of young minds for the purpose of satisfying it afterwards. Anatole France

I guess I'm not the only one that thinks Gov. Brian Schweitzer needs to get off his duff and do something with the Otter Creek coal tracts. So, will he do something about it? Maybe but I kind of doubt it.

Do something wonderful, people may imitate it. Albert Schweitzer

Gov. Brian Schweitzer got it right here at least. I know earlier he was considering accepting the deal but the pressure must have been too great. Believe me, I don't think a court case is the best thing but what else is there to do?

Next to doing the right thing, the most important thing is to let people know you are doing the right thing. John D. Rockefeller

Source: Big Horn County News

Tester sides with state over jail

by Daniel Person
Big Horn County News

U.S. Sen. Jon Tester Tuesday said he has not encouraged federal agencies to contract with the detention center in Hardin because of the state’s stance on using the jail to house out-of-state prisoners.

He made the comments during his regular conference call with Montana reporters. When asked if had worked with any federal agencies to promote the jail, which currently is empty and losing money, he responded, “no.”

“That’s bad news, on the one had,” he continued. “On the other hand, whenever you start shipping people in from out of the state, the state needs to be part of the equation.”

Currently, the Montana Department of Corrections has not contracted with the jail to house its prisoners. David Ewer, the governor’s budget director, said the state considers the jail a private prison and that the Schweitzer administration stands opposed to using private jails in Montana.

Backers of the prison refute the contention that the jail is private, pointing out that the Two Rivers Trade Port Authority, an entity of the city of Hardin, owns the detention center.

Most recently, Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath had decided Montana law does not allow detention centers like to one in Hardin to house out-of-state prisoners. That decision, which carries the weight of law, has prompted a lawsuit from the city of Hardin against the state of Montana.

“Out-of-state prisoners have been a bone of contention” in Montana, Tester said. “We’ve really got to make sure the state is fully supportive of it.”

Well, we find out how one of our Senators feel about the Prison in Hardin. Senator Jon Tester falling in lock step with Gov. Brian Schweitzer, what a surprise (sarcasm intended). This is the first time in print that I have really seen it spelled out that the governor opposes private prisons. That must explain why our local Legislators are keeping silent about it. They don't want to cross the Governor.

Will this prison ever open? Will the Governor allow it to open? I guess economic development near Indian Reservations isn't important to our states Leaders. All questions that will be answered down the road.

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein

I see there is a new proposal out there to use some of the Otter Creek coal that the state of Montana is sitting on. Sounds interesting to say the least.

Why is it necessary to transport the coal almost 500 miles from Ashland to Butte to do this? Why can't they build the plant at Ashland and save all the expense of moving the coal? I wonder if the carbon cost of moving this coal is figured into the calculations of this plant?

In no way am I sold on this coal to gas to algae to ethanol idea this dude, William Bruce, is proposing. It sounds awful far fetched to me. It might work, I don't know. I would just like to know why Butte instead of closer to the coal like Ashland.

I would also like to know when the Governor is going to actually lease out the coal in the Otter Creek tracts. I keep hearing proposals on how the coal is to be used but there still is not an operational coal mine there.

A little hint Gov. Brian Schweitzer, to utilize the coal in the Otter Creek tracts, you have to have an operational coal mine. An operational coal mine requires you to lease these tracts out for development. Since you are on the Land Board, maybe you should do something about this Governor. Then maybe we can consider what to do with the coal. Trying to have a use for the coal before there is a mine in operation is like putting the cart before the horse, it just doesn't work.

I'm not convinced this new proposal is a good one or not. I don't know enough about it. I would just like to see the state lease the tracts out so there would be some kind of movement on the ground. Then we can worry about maybe using the coal in state instead of shipping it to the East Coast. One step at a time though. The tracts need leased first.

If you're climbing the ladder of life, you go rung by rung, one step at a time. Don't look too far up, set your goals high but take one step at a time. Sometimes you don't think you're progressing until you step back and see how high you've really gone. Donny Osmond

"We threw them a life rope," he said. "They said 'We don't want any life ropes.' That's what their position is."

Bullshit!!!!! The Governor didn't throw a life rope for God's sake. He threw an unworkable proposal that was designed to take our focus away from the real issue. How to control brucellosis in the wildlife under the Federal governments control. His proposal was a band aid designed to make people feel like he was doing something so he would look good. Now this comment leaves him looking like a pouting little kid who didn't get his way. Glad to see he is dropping th ill-conceived plan thought.

Now will he put as much effort into solving the problem or will he ignore it in hopes it will go away? I know which I think he will do.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull. W. C. Fields

I see the Board of Livestock has decided against split state status for Brucellosis here in Montana. The Governor decided to let the ranching community decide and they let their feelings be known to the Board of Livestock yesterday.

After hours of rancorous debate punctuated by yelling and boos from the audience, the Montana Board of Livestock on Tuesday stepped away from a plan to split Montana into two zones to manage a dreaded cattle disease.

On a 6-1 vote, the seven-member panel that governs the Montana Department of Livestock decided to pursue other ways of preventing the spread of brucellosis from infected bison and elk in Yellowstone National Park into Montana's neighboring cattle.

I kind of have to laugh, the Governor said he would let the ranching community decide but then complains when they do.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer said the decision represented "misinformation" spread by the lobbyist of the Montana Stockgrowers Association. The group's lobbyist ought to be personally blamed when or if another case brucellosis comes up and all of Montana is saddled with the stiffer restrictions that brucellosis brings, the governor said.

"They were misled by the lobbyist of Montana Stockgrowers Association," he said of the outspoken group of ranchers who testified at Tuesday's meeting. "They were given faulty information by the lobbyist who knew it would get people excited."

Errol Rice, executive director of the Montana Stockgrowers Association and one of the group's registered lobbyists, applauded the board's decision to stand up to Schweitzer, who appointed five of the board's seven members.

"The industry spoke today, and the board grudgingly put to rest the governor's marching orders," Rice said.

Whether people like it or not, the Stockgrowers represent a large portion of the ranching community so they had a legitimate role in this whole thing, just like the Montana Cattlemans Association (MCA) did who was on the opposite side and wanted split state status. I really hate to tell the MCA, but I have personally spoken to quite a few memebers of MCA and most of them opposed sp[lit state status even though MCA was for it. People can be part of an orginazation and have an opinion other than the one the organization wants them to have.

Now that this is behind us, we need to miove forward and figure out how to control the brucellosis problem in Yellowstone National Park. There is no easy answers for it but they need to be found.

There ain't no answer. There ain't gonna be any answer. There never has been an answer. That's the answer. Gertrude Stein

I told you the other day that Gov. Brian Schweitzer knew he couldn't help the Morgans and Karen but just didn't want to tell them to their face. Today's article about the situation just confirms that.

A Bridger ranching family that had to slaughter all its stock because of a cattle disease won't get additional money from the state as reimbursement.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Friday that he cannot legally give the couple any state money.

"I am not sure how I can indemnify them beyond what they've already been paid," Schweitzer said.

I'm fully convinced the Governor knew this going into the meeting but just didn't want to have to tell the Morgans that. I can understand not wanting to give people bad news to their face, but the Governor should have been a man and gave them the real facts at the meeting instead of leaving them dangle.

Something else interesting in the article. If the state reimburses somebody for a brucellosis infected herd, the Feds just reduce the amount they pay by the amount the states pay.

There is a catch: If a state chooses to pay a rancher some money for the loss of a herd, APHIS will subtract that amount from the sum the agency offers, said Marty Zaluski, the Montana state veterinarian.

So in a way you can't fault the Governor for all of this. The Feds have it set up to hobble the states in this. Even if Montana were to set up a special fund to pay ranchers for their loss, the Feds would just pay less for the herd so the rancher would get less. As usual the Government gets you coming and going.

I said from the very beginning of this, how much do you pay for a herd of cows? How do you value it? How do you value the intangibles like good breeding that you have been working on for years? By market value they got a fair price.

The amount the Morgans received works out to about $1,600 per cow-calf pair.

That same week, similar cow-calf pairs sold for $1,300, according to information from the Billings Livestock Commission.

But, like Sandy Morgan says:

But that comparison isn't fair, Sandy Morgan said. Typically, ranchers sell their calves in October or November. They don't sell quality cows nor quality calves in the middle of the summer.

When all this happened it is not the time of year somebody would liquidate their herd so it's hard to compare the price they received with true market value of the herd, but again I ask, how can you value the intangibles fairly? Was Karen's intangible value more or less than the Morgan's and should one or the other receive more money for their cows? Tough questions if you ask me.

I guess I turn my thoughts back to another point I made in the very beginning. Why is it necessary to slaughter the whole herd for a few infected animals? Why couldn't we just get rid of the infected animals and do follow up monitoring on the rest of the herd that was all ready vaccinated for Brucellosis? There was only I believe 6 cows in the herd infected. That's all the loss would have been as long as no other critters showed up. Why slaughter a whole herd when it isn't necessary is beyond me. Slaughtering a whole herd is not how Brucellosis was wiped out in the state. Getting rid of infected animals and retesting herds is how Montana became brucellosis free. Why can't the same strategy be used now? This dumb cowboy will never know.

The goal of modern propaganda is no longer to transform opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief. Jacques Ellul

I would be really curious to know how much of my tax money the Governor has convinced the Air Force to spend on this Coal to Fuel project at Malmstrom. Why is it necessary for the Air Force to get into making fuel? I know planes take a lot of fuel but is it really necessary for them to make their own at a base they keep pulling flying missions from?

The Governor states that "the carbon dioxide generated by the process could be injected into the ground in Eastern Montana oil fields to enhance oil recovery." I note the big could in this statement. In politics that means it's probable not going happen but lets assume it does. How are they going to transport and inject this CO2 into the ground? How much CO2 does a plant this size produce? How big of a headache is transporting this stuff going to be? Some interesting questions.

More questions. Is the Air Force going to sell this fuel on the open market or transport it to other military bases? If they keep it for military use, how much will this fuel cost by the time they transport it to somewhere where they can use it? I'm not to sure about this CTL scheme the Air Force seems to be thinking of. Just doesn't seem to fit with their mission statement. Just because they have the land and money doesn't make it right for them to spend our tax money on it. If CTL is such a blessing for our country and our world it shouldn't take our tax money to get it started.

Before you do anything, you need to know if it's right or wrong. Andy Lau

As you may or may not know, Gov. Brian Schweitzer has proposed a buffer zone around Yellowstone National Park as an answer to the Brucellosis problem in the Park. I give him credit for trying to do something about the situation but I don't really think a buffer zone is the answer.

It doesn't look like North and South Dakota really like the idea either.

North Dakota does not recognize split-state status due to monitoring problems of the cattle coming from the state in this class. “Who monitors that?” Keller asked. “We need assurance that there are no violations with the movement of breeding cattle across that state.”

This concern was also addressed by Dr. Sam Holland, South Dakota state veterinarian. “It's hard enough with the state geographical boundaries as they are now,” he said. “A split-state status multiplies this difficulty and puts the cattle producers of South Dakota at risk.”

If this buffer zone is not acceptable to other states, what good is it doing us? None. I really think the buffer zone idea is dead in the water and needs to be thrown out. Placing the burden of Brucellosis in Yellowstone National Park on the few producers who would fall in the area is wrong. The burden of Brucellosis needs to be on the Federal government who controls the livestock, bison, where the problem resides.

The Feds need to get the Brucellosis under control in the Bison and they need to reduce the numbers of Bison in the park to control them wandering out of the Park. I find it interesting that if I as a private individual over graze my grass, environmentalist will scream bloody murder and want me to stop over grazing. If the Bison do it in YNP the environmentalist scream bloody murder that the Bison don't have more public lands to graze on. They don't seem to care about the over grazing. Interesting, isn't it.

A propensity to hope and joy is real riches; one to fear and sorrow real poverty. David Hume

The Montana Stockgrowers Association has a little beef with Gov. Schweitzer. How much of there problem with him is real and how much is sour grapes I'm not sure. It used to be members of the Montana Stockgrowers dominated the Livestock board but nowadays they don't so I think some sour grapes is involved.

For the record I don't like the Governor's idea for a "brucellosis buffer zone" around Yellowstone National Park. It's not a good answer for the Fed's problem. Also for the record I can believe that the Governor is putting pressure on the board. That is his style of leading.

I still think the Stockgrowers are showing some sour grapes here. Whining that the Governor is strong arming the livestock board just shows weakness. Show your strength and fight him head on.

It's human nature to gripe, but I'm going ahead and doing the best I can. Elvis Presley

When Gov. Brian Schweitzer announced a special session to pay for the fire fighting costs this year, the Montana Blogs started up. Depending on which blog you read, either the Republicans or the Democrats were to blame for this and that was the end of the story. As normal I didn't believe either side since they were only swinging for political advantage. Now I see a story that does tell a little more.

Plenty of blame with session

f you're a hard-core Democrat, the story behind this week's legislative special session goes like this: Gov. Brian Schweitzer this year wisely tried to set aside an extra $19 million to combat wildfires, but Republicans in the Legislature cut out the money.

If you're a devoted Republican, the story reads like this: Republicans tried to budget an extra $10 million for firefighting during the Legislature, but Democrats diverted that money on the last day to hire more tax collectors.

As in all things political, neither narrative is exactly right - nor exactly wrong. The more pertinent question might be, "What difference does it make?" And the answer is, not much.

No matter which political side had its way on firefighting funds during the regular legislative session this spring, it's quite likely we'd still find ourselves in a special session.

As of last week, the state had already run up a $35 million bill for fighting fires just this year - way more than either side had proposed to set aside for the next two years.

So it turns our neither side budgeted enough so both are to blame. I know both the left and the right will argue with the above stated positions but it's the truth. Let's quit playing the blame game and get the job done. Everybody and their dog knows that fire seasons have been getting worse so why not try to budget enough for them instead of ignoring the situation in hopes it will go away. If both sides would have done the job right in the first place they wouldn't need to be spending my money for this special session to fix the problem.

Just so this is clear, the Republicans and the Democrats in the Legislature did not budget enough money for fire fighting and neither did Gov. Brian Schweitzer. The costs for this year are all ready higher than than all concerned budgeted for two years. Quit pointing fingers and fix the problem.

You don't fix the problem until you define it. John W. Snow