New forest plan a travesty
To the east of the Palouse are 1.5 million acres of spectacular, wild, roadless country in the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest. This is scenic, rugged, isolated country with limitless outdoor opportunities for hunting big game, fishing clear cold waters, hiking, and other outdoor activities. What really sets it apart from other areas is the opportunity to get out there by yourself.
The Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest recently released a final draft of their new forest plan, which is a big disappointment over the previous 1987 plan. Of the 1.5 million roadless acres, this new plan recommends only 17% for permanent protection as wilderness. Thus, only 17% of that roadless land will be managed as wilderness — the optimal management for wildlife diversity. The proposed timber harvest levels approach the catastrophic levels of the 1990s, which saw the forest unraveling in massive landslides and blockages of drainages like Quartz Creek. The previous plan included measurable, enforceable standards for wildlife, fisheries and old growth to ensure the continued integrity of the forest. 10% of the forest was to be retained as old growth, and no-harvest, streamside buffer zones were required to protect fisheries. Most of these standards are now being eliminated or reduced.
The new plan is contradictory to federal directives to combat climate change and the extinction crisis by conserving at least 30% of U.S. lands and freshwater by 2030 and conserving and restoring old-growth forests across the National Forest system. This new plan preserves only 17% of roadless lands, allows harvest of old growth forests, and has no old growth retention standard. This is contradictory to federal directives. Please visit the Idaho Chapter of the Sierra Club’s Facebook page to send a letter to the president protesting this travesty.
Al Poplawsky
Moscow
Oppose militia bills
Two bills are moving through the Idaho Senate that would allow armed militias in the state and would decrease the penalties for any violence perpetrated by them. Senate Bill 1240 would abolish the prohibition against militias, and Senate Bill 1220 would redefine domestic terrorism to only apply to the perpetrator if foreign influence is involved. Currently, severe penalties apply to those accused of domestic terrorism regardless of foreign involvement.
The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, a year when the nation was still young and did not yet have the gigantic military complex it now hosts. In addition to the four main branches of our current armed forces, we also have the U.S. Coast Guard and the National Guard as formal, well-regulated entities. We also have the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security specifically established to help with natural disasters and terrorism threats, respectively. These all belie the need for any home-grown militias to be sanctioned by the state of Idaho.
Most states, including Idaho up to this point, prohibit militias, recognizing that they do not meet the definition of ‘well-regulated’ which does not mean efficiently run internally. It means regulated by a responsible government, with the infrastructure to do so, as with the National Guard which is currently the recognized militia in Idaho.
Both laws would basically encourage armed groups to form and gather with the knowledge that this is sanctioned by the state and that the penalties for violence would be decreased. It is one thing for a peaceable gathering to attract a crowd of those who disagree, even vocally. But for that opposing crowd to be armed and intimidate the gathering is something entirely different. We must all urge the senate to quash these bills for our collective safety.
David Ackley
Moscow
Forced childbirth
A government forcing citizens to birth children is a government engaged in child trafficking. Idaho Sen. Chuck Winder blames a lack of service workers on abortion. That whole forcing the birth of servants gives me a pre-civil war slave breeding vibe.
I get good mileage from imagining what a serious anti-abortion government would look like. One of several scenarios I entertain is a government willing to eliminate the single cause of unplanned pregnancies altogether: sperm. If a government is OK owning uterine contents, why not scrotal contents? Pre-puberty forced vasectomies may cause permanent sterilization just like post-puberty pregnancies, but such is the price of government reproductive control.
Insisting the government engage in child trafficking is not high moral ground for religious folks and their institutions. Personal religious beliefs do not necessarily make good public policy, especially when it’s child trafficking. The good news is that it’s not hard to stop being a human child trafficker: quit thinking about uterine contents.
Forced childbirth is Idaho’s government breaking their own human trafficking laws (Idaho Statute 18-8602) and dang it, this compels Idaho taxpayers (myself included) to financially support their illegal and immoral activity of child trafficking. Hashtag conscientious objection. Hashtag stop state-run child trafficking.
Janet Marugg
Clarkston
What she failed to mention
Julia Parker’s Jan. 27 letter expressed concern about a recent bill proposed by Sen. Dan Foreman to remove rape and incest exceptions from Idaho’s abortion law. Let’s add some context Parker chose not to provide.
Parker’s is not the cry of a concerned citizen, but rather a carefully crafted self-serving campaign pitch. It turns out Parker is a political candidate against Foreman in the 2024 general election. Oops, she failed to mention that.
I often listen to what my neighbors say about their elected officials, but I am suspicious of what politicians like Parker say about their opponents.
Parker omitted the status of the referenced legislation and shielded us from her ultra-radical version of abortion. According to the Idaho Legislature, this bill is dead. Idaho’s GOP Senate decided not even to give Foreman’s bill a hearing, just as they did last year.
So why all the fuss over nonviable legislation?
Julia stokes our fears with her warning of a ‘dangerous bill’ and she utilizes this as a distraction from those extremist views she holds.
You and I may believe that the government doesn’t belong in the doctor’s office, but that is exactly where Parker wants to put it. Her support for taxpayer-funded abortions is a prime example. It is one thing to believe abortion should be a personal choice, but it is another entirely to demand taxpayers shoulder the cost.
She also fails to mention who else she wants to keep from the doctor’s office: parents. Julia opposes parental rights with her wholesale opposition to parental notification laws for a minor seeking an abortion. Outrageous and fact-checked.
Parker the extremist doesn’t align with Idaho voters on good governance, and we see right through her efforts to whip up unwarranted fear.
Colton Bennett
Moscow
