Okay, okay, I’m an obstructionist. To me, it’s another word for conservative. I’m conservative about conservation and the use of natural resources. I’m conservative about interfering with natural processes before we really understand how nature’s managed to live without our fiddling for billions of years. So, I agree to wear the label obstructionist without rancor. Of course, when that label was spit out by an audience member at the Big Sky Coalition’s November 4^th meeting, it was meant to wound and polarize. For sure it wasn’t used in an effort to promote consensus.

I was surprised then, to find that the Robak’s who initiated the meeting and the facilitator, Sonny LaSalle, were sincere and serious about keeping the lid on an audience that came loaded for bear (both sides – there were more than a few conservative conservationists in the audience). For that, I say “Thank you!”  We need more community meetings with that objective. While they’re not nearly as much fun as gatherings where people get to yell and scream and call each other names, there is an upside. It may actually lead to discussion on how to deal with wildfire in the valley.

If the Big Sky Coalition really wants to get something done, the key phrase is “baby steps.” Much of reaching consensus on wildfire requires building trust. There’s no way Congress is going to give us the money to thin 40,000 acres of forest/year in the near future. It certainly won’t if we aren’t speaking with one voice. So start small. Begin with what we can agree on and realistically get. A problem with Bush’s forest management plan is that it pays for thinning by selling timber. I know that sounds reasonable to some but to others it’s a sneaky way to resume wholesale logging. Again, if the Coalition is truly interested in forest health and in accomplishing something; humor us. Let’s work together to get money appropriated to do thinning projects in low elevation areas adjacent to private lands without using timber sales to pay for it. There are more than enough of these areas to keep us busy for awhile. It’ll give us time to assess each other and see if we can reach common ground on a bigger scale.

Disparate groups throughout the state are putting together fuel reduction projects. We can do it here too. The question that’s yet to be answered is: Does the newly formed Coalition really want to work together or is it just making conciliatory noises while attempting to shove a gag down our throats?

Lastly, what are we going to do with all the thinned material? One option is using it for manufacturing composite lumber. There’s a homegrown company ready to set up a mill in Darby but it lacks the capital to make it happen. Throwing our collective weight behind obtaining money for mutually agreeable thinning projects, as well as getting a  company started that can use the product, just might make us feel good enough about ourselves that we won’t need to get in each other’s faces. You can call me naïve (and I have been), but I know that working together for a common goal provides all of the pleasures of a good fight without raising blood pressure. What have we got to lose? I say, let’s give it a try.