[Vision2020] Idaho Statesman: Otter and Wilderness bill

[Mark Solomon]

Agree or disagree with the actual bill, Otter owes us an explanation 
of his opposition: especially if he wants to be our governor.

Mark

*********
Idaho Statesman
Article published Jul 27, 2006

Our View: Shame on Otter for missing crucial vote

Is C.L. "Butch" Otter running for governor, or running from controversy?

The 1st District congressman was a no-show Monday on the most 
important Idaho public lands vote to hit the House floor in his six 
years on Capitol Hill. He missed the vote on 2nd District colleague 
Mike Simpson's bill to protect 312,000 acres of wilderness in Central 
Idaho's Boulder-White Clouds mountains - which passed, no thanks to 
Otter.

Two days later, Otter finally took a stand, but only after the 
Statesman asked. He said he would have opposed Idaho's first 
wilderness bill in 26 years - but refused to say why.
For a guy who markets himself, rather successfully, as a 
plain-talking, straight-shooting cowboy congressman, that's weak. 
Voters deserve some clear like-'em-or-not-answers from the Republican 
nominee for governor.

Instead, voters will have to settle for a saga of logistics - and a 
cryptic statement - from Mark Warbis, Otter's spokesman. First, the 
logistics.
Otter spends most weekends in Idaho and flies back Monday mornings. 
His itinerary usually puts him back in Washington, D.C., by 4:30 
p.m., and allows him to get to the Capitol in time for any recorded 
votes, which aren't scheduled before 6 p.m.

The Boulder-White Clouds bill - while a milestone for Idaho, and 
vitally important to communities such as Stanley, Challis and Ketchum 
- didn't merit a recorded vote. Some lawmakers criticized the bill, 
but no one demanded a recorded vote, somewhat to Otter's surprise. So 
on Monday afternoon, the bill passed on a voice vote, while Otter was 
on a plane.

Otter could have tried harder to be there. He'd booked his Monday 
flight about a week ago, before Simpson's bill was on the agenda, 
Warbis said. While Simpson's bill moved quickly - House leadership 
suspended its normal rules to pass the bill and move it to the Senate 
- leadership put out word Friday that Simpson's bill was on Monday's 
agenda. Changing flight plans to vote on an important Idaho issue was 
hardly out of the question.
So anyway, how would Otter have voted? "I don't know if I have heard 
a definitive answer on that," Warbis said Wednesday morning.

Five hours later, Warbis issued a less-than-definitive statement from 
his boss. "Had we followed the normal process with a recorded vote, I 
would have opposed the Boulder-White Clouds wilderness bill," Otter 
said. "While I admire and respect Congressman Simpson's effort, and 
it generally reflects great progress over previous wilderness 
legislation, there are elements of the compromise to which I cannot 
agree."
Which elements? New wilderness, off-limits to off-roaders, nearly 
half the size of Ada County? A motorized vehicle trail between the 
Boulders and the White Clouds? Federal lands that Custer County and 
Stanley can sell to bolster a slender tax base?

Otter won't say. His chief of staff, Jeff Malmen, listed several of 
Otter's general concerns last week, including release language for 
lands that aren't included as wilderness, water rights, and the fate 
of traditional uses in the area.

On Wednesday, Warbis said Otter has discussed his concerns with 
Simpson and Sen. Larry Craig, but doesn't want to get into a public 
debate about a bill that remains a work in progress. But because this 
is a work in progress, it's precisely the time for an open, public 
discussion.
Among many tasks, the governor sits on the state Land Board. Otter's 
Boulder-White Clouds position is an important harbinger of the 
approach he would take to public lands issues.

Otter is on the wrong side of a solid bill that protects wilderness, 
helps local governments meet the demands that follow wilderness use 
and balances competing interests in the Sawtooth Mountains. It's bad 
enough he didn't fit this vote into his schedule. But his evasive 
non-answer - to all Idahoans - is offensive.
This week, the man who could be Idaho's next governor has been a 
no-show, no-tell congressman.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060727/9dfc47e2/attachment.htm