The article, “Scotchman issue heading to ballot,” (Jan. 10, 2018, Daily Bee) is void of valuable and complete information.

Is a deceitful quid-pro-quo a condition of interest to conservative Republicans?

Is the weighted exclusion of conservative participation during the “federal” wilderness discussions of interest to Republicans?

Do Bonner County Republicans want more Idaho lands unconstitutionally seized and controlled by federal land locking process, into perpetuity, through a disingenuous process … aka the quid pro quo?

Bonner County Commissioner Dan McDonald outlines the quid pro quo “deal,” as stated by Bob Boeh, Panhandle Forest Collaborative board member. Environmentalists (Friends of Scotchman Peaks) are willing to forego challenge to certain timber cutting in the western part of the county, in exchange for public support and approval of the “wilderness designation.” The PFC and by extension, commissioners Glen Bailey and Jeff Connolly, as the article confirms, favor this un-stately consecration.

Commissioner Connolly, a current PFC board member, made his living in the timber industry, thus a conflict of interest is abundantly obvious considering the “timber-revenue for wilderness” conspiracy.

Prior to Connolly, Commissioner Baily sat on the PFC board. Bailey recently drafted two separate invitations to help create the ballot question, predominantly leaving off the invitation list the most knowledgeable opponents to the “wilderness designation” issue. Bailey’s partiality toward the ballot question design suggests support for a timber-revenue for wilderness conspiracy?

Pine pitch covers the hands of several. Clean hands have been excluded from the federal “wilderness designation” discussion process for years.

Please, vote against Sen. James Risch’s Scotchman Peaks federal “wilderness designation.”

DANIEL ROSE

Samuels