Everyone ‘transports.’ Yet when it comes to transportation in Montana there are three points to consider before any substantive discussion can take place.
1. Corporate and Government investment in infrastructure.
a. Corporate investment. In Montana we have a unique history with regards to railroad transportation. With the copper mines in Butte, rail road operators had a dilemma. They had full loads heading east to the manufacturing centers in the Great Lakes and east coast regions. Yet they generally had empty loads heading west. Any businessman would like to fill this void. This situation, I would argue, fostered a large impetus for the Montana Homestead boom when immigrants from Europe and elsewhere were lured into heading west to cultivate farms. Such a boom created the dozens of spur communities, most prevalently found in Eastern Montana, spaced 10-20 miles apart. Yet with the advent of the combustible engine the personal vehicle quickly replaced rail as the ideal means of individual transportation.
After this transition, fast forward approximately a hundred years and you find Montana now…lots of communities spread out over vast distances with declining or increasing populations in direct relation to the distance from major highway or interstates. The farther from a highway or interstate, the higher the population decline.
Check out Joseph Kinsey Howards, Montana: High Wide and Handsome, or Michael Malone’s, James J. Hill: Empire Builder of the Northwest, for an interesting look at the history.
b. Governmental investment. Montana gets $1.60 for every dollar sent to the federal government in 2003. That is seventh highest overall. Considering that New York City alone has a population almost 8.5 times that of the entire state of Montana, and New York State ranks 42nd in amount of federal transportation dollars returned, one feels pretty grateful for the state of our roads.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/article_82d23890-1c00-5986-a0ff-154ffbb13b1d.html
2. Vehicle as Identity.
a. Such vast distances between towns creates a large sense of identity in connection with vehicles. We rank fifth highest in the nation with respect to vanity license plates. And with good reason. When football playoffs can cover hundreds of miles from Ekalaka to Eureka, you get familiar with your vehicle.
3. Conflicting values
a. Bozeman and Missoula residents double the national average when it comes to desiring alternative modes of transportation (biking, walking, bike paths, walking districts, bus, etc.). In contrast, I lived about six miles from the Darby school system. A bike was out of the question.
With these three topics in mind we can begin to have a more nuanced discussion on transportation issues in Montana. Finally, the logical fallacy of the week is not a formal fallacy, rather a paradox. The claim is often made such that:
‘We must increase energy efficiency, so that we can mitigate our energy consumption.’
Yet William Stanley Jevons, after studying coal in industrial England concluded entirely the opposite:
‘When energy efficiency is increased, consumption increases.’
Therefore, energy efficiency alone is not the panacea for energy consumption. From this, appropriate energy policies need additional amendments in order to truly decrease energy consumption. Taken in context of transportation issues, look to Reserve Street in Missoula. The idea behind Reserve was to meet demand 20 years down the road by building a five lane road. Three years after it was constructed congestion had already met that 20 year mark. So the Jevons Paradox with respect to transportation is not:
‘In order to handle our transportation issues, we must increase efficiency, i.e. the most number of vehicles in the shortest possible time.’
But rather…
‘In order to handle our transportation issues, we must take into account not only efficiency, but also sufficiency. And our cultural values must provide a mediation of sorts between the two concepts.’
That’s it for now. Enjoy the week and see you Monday.
-Zack Rogala
Additional Information:

Jevons Paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Transportation for America Campaign
http://t4america.org/

Russell Street in Missoula Plan
http://www.russellstreet.org/

On Monday, Nov. 1, the group will convene from 5-6 p.m. at Liaisons Coffee Shop across from the Roxy Twin Theater in Hamilton to discuss ‘The Tragedy of the Commons: Overfishing on the Bitterroot?’ The presenter for that discussion will be none other than Mr. Zack Rogala, UM Philosophy Graduate Student.

First off, some numbers on our current constitution. It was adopted after the 1972 Constitutional Convention and was only the second time the State has met to create a new constitution, the first being the ratification of our state (there were numerous territorial constitutions and at least one constitution that was lost on the way to the print, which never made it to the public). The 1972 constitution was created by 81 men, 19 women, ranging in ages from mid-20’s to mid 70’s. There were 58 democrats, 36 republicans, and 6 independents (even an independent republican). In order to foster bi-partisanship, all delegates sat alphabetically. In addition, no one could be a delegate if they were presently holding office. The political climate at the time called for a convention due to the ineffectiveness of the old constitution. In 1889 when the previous constitution was written, delegates essentially ‘cut and pasted’ from other states constitution. This created, by some estimates, a constitution where only 48% of provisions where actually practical in 1970 Montana.
Yet one clause that was effective was one that stated every 20 years Montanan’s had the opportunity to call for a constitutional convention or not. Being 2010 we are on that 20 year mark and now have the opportunity to call for a convention. The question is, under what qualifications should one be called?
There are many reasons why a constitutional convention should be called. To begin, is the current constitution equitably treating all individuals regardless of creed, race, sex? Is the current constitution distributing justice by the same metric? Is the constitution overly vague or explicit, resulting in judicial controversies?
The first trap to avoid when discussing a new constitution is the appeal to cultural relativism. The Montana Constitution should be of the people, for the people. Yet it must also transcend time and place to a certain degree. I could see myself voting for a ‘Montanan’s have the right to an open and untracked powder field’ provision but that doesn’t mean it should be in the constitution. By way of a more poignant example, this years’ ‘Double Tax’ constitutional amendment could be seen as such a culturally relative provision. Regardless of your stance on the issue, is the constitution an appropriate place for such an issue?
One the other side of the coin, when creating a constitution you have the possibility of transcending place and time to a large enough degree that you distance yourself entirely from the populace. Such distance is a harbinger to civic apathy, I would argue. As new generations come up the ranks and encounter a transcendental document that doesn’t mesh with any of their cultural values, why bother?
So, one must weigh the issues of today with those of yesterday and tomorrow to create a document that allows for agreed upon rights and responsibilities. We in Montana have an incredible opportunity to do this ‘weighing’ every 20 years and it gives us more liberties and fosters more engagement than others. When looking to the US Constitution we sometimes find disenfranchisement due to the inherent inaccessibility of a document representing over 300 million citizens.
So, with this framework I’ll conclude with the preamble to our constitution:
“We the people of Montana, grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution.”
And finally, the logical fallacy of the week is that of a loaded question. This is a situation where more than one question is grouped into one question, where an answer to one unfairly responds to the others. Think of this like getting backed into a corner. Examples of loaded questions include:
‘Now listen here, are you trying to take away my guns or are you ramming health care down my throat?’
Or…
‘When did you stop beating your husband?’
That’s it for now. Enjoy the week and see you Monday.
-Zack Rogala

On Monday, Oct. 25, the group will meet again at the brewery from 5-6 p.m. to discuss “Transit Reform in Montana.” The presenter will be Mr. Patrick Rhea of the UM Transportation Board.

To begin we made an important distinction, that of the difference between disaster and developmental aid. In the case of disaster aid the problem of investing time and resources ineffectively is much less relevant then in developmental aid. When dealing with collapsed infrastructure of entire cultures, as in the case of the earthquake in Haiti or the Tsunami in Banda Aceh, sure there will be inefficiencies…but what are these inefficiencies compared to? It is hard to argue a claim along the lines of, “We should withhold significant amounts of resources to a Haiti-esque situation due to possible inefficiencies in implementation.” It is always necessary to look at the mechanisms for implementing disaster aid, but this has to be balanced with the fact the hundreds of thousands need food and water.

When we move on to developmental aid at times we find the opposite, that the immediacy has to be tempered with appropriate means for implementation. These mechanisms have to take into account the local knowledge of the situation, establish trust between community members and third parties, and communicate effectively between all (much along the concepts presented by 2009 Nobel Economics Laureate Elinor Ostrum). Understanding the local knowledge, establishing trust, and communicating effectively hinges almost entirely on time. Yet time is not on most groups’ side. It is much easier to infuse economies with capital, two week volunteer trips, or ‘gift baskets’ then it is to take a few years to understand what the community in question actually needs to improve its given situation.

Yet without this time, what results are projects such as what our presenter mentioned. One example was of an international agency who distributed food to under fed populations in rural Zimbabwe. This group would arrive with a truckload of food and unload it onto the local economy. This would dilute the marketplace and create a large glut. Farmers who were growing grain to feed the community now had no way to receive a return on their investment from the summer’s labor.

Another example was during the Rwandan Genocide where United Nations provided food and other necessities at such a discounted rate compared to local markets that rebel leaders would buy exclusively from these camps and use the saved revenue to purchase weapons and other supplies for their respected Hutu or Tutsi campaign.

Finally, the logical fallacy of the week is that of a hasty generalization. This is an argument from a special case that is inappropriately extended to a general rule. Otherwise known as ‘Chicken Little Syndrome, examples include:

“I know this hippy that never showers…Therefore all hippies must never shower.”
Or…

“I met a hunter who believes wolves were reintroduced by the government to take away our elk so that we wouldn’t have a reason to hunt so that they could take away our guns much more easily…Therefore all hunters must think this.”

That’s it for now. Enjoy the week and see you Monday.
-Zack Rogala

Interesting examples of aid:
Health Care by Philosophers
http://sciencestage.com/v/30836/prof.-thomas-pogge:-global-health.html http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/igh/

Toyota’s and Babies (5:02)
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_johnson_where_good_ideas_come_from.html

Microfinance
http://www.kiva.org/

Montana Students
http://www.ewb-msu.org/

This weeks discussion will be on ‘The Montana Constitution: Conflict Values?’
This weeks presenter will be Monday the 18th, from 5-6 pm, upstairs at the Bitterroot Brew Pub.
This weeks presenter will be Mr. John Semmens, 3rd year UM Law Student.

From Father Ravalli’s time in Stevensville till approximately the beginning of 1990’s, logging was in its heyday. Marcus Daly built a spur line down from Missoula which allowed for the valley to export its lumber products to the hungry smelting and mining operations in the Anaconda/Butte area. Yet from the 1990’s on an approximate 90% decline of the valley’s logging industry has taken place, with the recent culmination of the closing of Smurfit-Stone in Missoula and Plum Creek in Bonner. Such decline is due in part to global competition from Alaska, to Canada, to the Amazon.

In light of this decline across the state, Senator Tester has introduced the ‘Forest Jobs and Recreation Act’ in part to try and provide effective management of our wood products. The bill has gone through multiple revisions and is currently under committee. We had discussion on two aspects of this bill.

First, a provision of the bill mandates that a specific quota of lumber will be harvested from a given ecosystem over a time period of 10-15 years. Discussion was had over whether this provision is sustainable from two aspects, first that of what the given forest can handle, and second, what the market could reasonably distribute. With regards to the latter, it seems that the government would have to provide some sort of subsidy to make sure a glut would not result from such mandates.

Second, we discussed a provision that seeks to take advantage of Beetle kill timber and utilize it as fuel for Biomass boilers, much as the Fuels for Schools program currently implemented by Darby and Victor schools. While at first the idea seems to have merit, one point was brought up. First, with a mandated harvest for the production of fuel, communities could run into a situation where beetle kill becomes exhausted and green timber has to be utilized to continue to fuel the burners. In a situation like this, the energy required to harvest, dry and chip the lumber might not pencil out in Biomass’s favor.

From Tester’s bill the discussion bounced around to appropriate reduction of fuels in community areas, the glut in the market resulting in multiple timber sales in the valley currently without any open bids, to discussion on appropriate mechanisms to ensure all parties have a seat at the table when it comes to creating policies that take into account all interests.

And finally, the logical fallacy of the week is the appeal to authority. This fallacy holds that when an individual in a position of power makes a claim, that in fact the claim is true regardless of the merits of the claim. By way of example…

“Logging is the only way Bitterroot’ers can sustain our economy.”
“Why?”
“Because I worked as a logger for the past 30 years.”

Or…

“Logging is a crime to nature.”
“Why?”
“Because I have a PhD in forest ecology.”

Thanks again. Enjoy the day and see you at 5 this Monday at the Brewery. Grab a drink and a seat early so we can begin promptly at 5.

-Zack Rogala

The group will meet again on Monday, Oct. 11, at 5 p.m. to discuss “The Extents of International Aid?” with a presentation from first year Philosophy graduate student and Zimbabwean native Mr. Alexander Aston.

With approximately a dozen participants, we focused on three questions. First, what should proper management of the wolf populations in the Bitterroot ecosystem entail? Points were brought up that the more localized the management the better. This allows for real time field observations to be implemented into management strategies much quicker and avoids much red tape. On the opposing side, with too localized of management, policies can become myopic, where local managers lose sight of populations between jurisdictions…i.e. inter-county or inter-state.
The second question considered whether the wolf should be managed under the Endangered Species Act. The no’s felt that under the ESA wolf populations would continue on their assumed exponential population growth, therein creating a much bigger problem for the ecosystem as a whole. While it was acknowledged that managing under the ESA puts a stop to Wyoming’s ‘can be shot on sight’ policies, a more nuanced approach needs to be taken, much along the lines of the avenues the Ravalli County Commissioners, and Montana FWP and State Representatives are taking. The yes’s felt that at times estimates of sustainable carrying capacity for wolves have been grossly underestimated or conducted in a negligent manner. These instances create a desire for wolves to be managed under the ESA to prevent the decimation of a wolf population who may, or may not, be at or exceeding appropriate carrying capacity.
The third question dealt with dwindling ungulate populations. Specifically, what impact past FWP policies played in limiting elk populations as seen throughout the region during the past five years? With over the counter permits, what impact did these hunts have in relation to predation rates by wolves? Which caused more harm?
And finally, the logical fallacy of the week was that of overgeneralization. This fallacy deals with statements that make sweeping generalizations that exaggerate and oversimplify reality, ignoring important details. Generalizations are often useful in persuasion if they are worded carefully and if they are accompanied by clarifications and evidence. By way of example…
“Wolves are bad…”
Or…
“Wolves are good…”
That’s it for today. Thanks to all those who attended. Enjoy the afternoon and see you next Monday.

Next week’s discussion will be October 4th, from 5-6 upstairs at the Bitter Root Brewery.
The topic will be, ‘The Future of Logging in the Bitterroot.’

“Difficult,” she said.

Then she said “difficult” about five more times in a row.

I’ve been writing budget stories since I was a wee tyke and I don’t think I ever heard a finance manager, CFO, county manager or city manager describe the budget process as anything other than “difficult” and its immediate linguistic relatives.

And yet if any one of those was to be truly difficult, it would be Ravalli’s (or any county in Montana). Elsewhere in the world, if you need more money, mayors and commissioners can just raise taxes. Well, OK, it’s not quite that easy, but what I mean is municipalities can set the budget they want. In Montana the state statutorily limits a mill levy. That can change only through growth and inflation, but the inflation figure is where counties really get whacked: counties must take the December inflation rate — not an annual rate but the actual rate in December — for three years, average those three years … AND THEN DIVIDE THE NUMBER IN HALF.

Wow, I’ve never in my life used all caps.

I can see the state’s point in this: they want to take taxing authority from counties, who otherwise would build crystal palaces and buy each other Jaguars and tax residents accordingly. But the train rolls off the tracks in a year like 2010, when growth is flat, investment revenue is down, fee collection is down, and inflation is negative.

And so I’m left to simply nod along dumbly when Klarryse repeats “difficult” for like the 10th time.

Tax reform, anyone?

Anyway, here’s what the county adopted this afternoon. Note that while the overall mill is set, some of the departmental figures will adjust slightly. (Click to enlarge.)

Here’s a map showing what’s on tap. (Click to enlarge.)

I had little knowledge before of the fires of that summer, and found this rendition interesting. I think because the story is told as a series of reports from regional rangers you get a view that is both official and somewhat antiseptic as well as one which through the official language shows how serious the individual situations. The almost casual reference to a train full of refugees headed out of Wallace toward Lookout Pass is especially eerie/scary/interesting.

Good read. Copies are still available at the Hamilton forest office, and perhaps at other ranger stations.

The reason, of course, is because signs in driver sightlines can cause a safety hazard. But why is the letter coming from the road department and not the county commission?

“The road department is nonpartisan, nonpolitical,” the roads supervisor, Dave Ohnstad, told county commissioners Tuesday. With three of the five members of the county commission seeking re-election this November, commissioners and Ohnstad thought the letter was better if it came from an appointed official, not an elected one.

“Couldn’t we just ban them altogether?” asked one commissioner jokingly.

“Or make the size no more than 2 inches by 3 inches — and the writing only in Egyptian hieroglyphics?” asked another.

Not exactly, the professor said. “Inventive” in this case referred to the fresh, the uninhibited and the novel. He cited Baudelaire from memory.

But I think, too, good inventive language can also be simply made up language. We have Tristan Riddell, the county’s senior planner, for this morning’s excellent new word.

Riddell was describing to commissioners how roads in the proposed Canyon Breeze subdivision would be intergrated.

“What you have,” he said, “is interneighborhoodal.”

After a laugh, Commission Carlotta Grandstaff explained for him, “It’s a planning term.”