Dear Sir,
"Open Spaces." Pretty name. Pretty package. But "Open Spaces" is a rattlesnake, coiled and ready to strike.

I went to the Western Governors' Conference at Jackson in September not liking what I knew of "Open Spaces." Amidst references to critical game habitat, water quality, riparian areas, wetlands and migration corridors was talk of how agricultural land contributes to the tax base with minimal demands on infrastructure.

For an entire day, I was spoonfed the marvels and nuances of "Open Spaces." The available literature features "friends of agriculture" like The Jackson Hole Land Trust, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, and the Conservation Fund.

Transferring rights. Conservation easements. Transfer of title. Relinquishing rights. Enforcing contracts. The panel discussions were replete with these terms. At the opening reception, I sat across from a man from the Boulder County (Colo.) attorney's office who told me Boulder County landowners transfer 50 percent of their water rights when they are granted a conservation easement.

That reception featured two representatives of The Jackson Hole Land Trust. On October 4, I walked into the Sheridan Inn to listen to the Wyoming Stock Growers Association Open Dialogue on Open Spaces strategy planning conference. Again, The Jackson Hole Land Trust was highlighted.

Why is The Jackson Hole Land Trust being held up as a model to be emulated throughout the West? Isn't Teton County 98.5 percent open spaces? Isn't it also 98.5 percent shut down to building? Isn't it the home where the wolves, the grizzlies, and the brucellosis-infected elk and buffalo roam? People say, "But Teton County is federal land." So is much of the West. And federal mineral underlies private surface throughout the West.

The very uniform language coming from government agencies had niggled at me for some time. That same language comes from environmental groups, and interlaces "Open Spaces." What is its source? And why have the people who want wolves and grizzly bears become agriculture's strongest proponents? Or have they?

Finally, are the western states and agricultural organizations providing the rope to hang ourselves when we pick up the "Open Spaces" cry? To answer these questions, I dug into the UN Biodiversity Treaty and Agenda 21, and hit the mother lode.

Why are United States government agencies enforcing United Nations mandates? The Biodiversity Treaty decrees logging, mining, ranching, farming, fishing and hunting as now practiced to be "not sustainable." Listen to Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of Earth Summit II:

"Industrialized countries have developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of the affluent middle class — which involves high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air conditioning, and suburban housing — and are not sustainable."

These people don't need facts. Any imagined threat works to implement their juggernaut. The preamble of the UN Biodiversity Treaty states:

"Noting also that where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific evidence should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize a threat."

As a conservation district supervisor and an elected official, I took an oath swearing to uphold the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution. Every elected official takes a similar oath. Why are so many now subverting it? Did you put them in office to betray your trust, your property rights, your state and your nation?

"Open Spaces" is a land grab. Hop out of the pot, America! It is starting to boil!

Robin Reints
Secretary/Treasurer
Campbell County
Conservation District
Gillette, Wyoming

Dear Sir,
Many citizens have become skeptical about the ability of their local, state and federal governments to hear their concerns, pass laws that address these concerns, and then insure that the benefits of the new laws actually flow back to the people. But sometimes things happen the way they are supposed to, giving everyone renewed faith that this system we call Democracy, although far from perfect, is still the best system on earth.

The story of lawsuit reform in Texas, so far, is a textbook example of successful public policy. Just a few short years ago, Texas was known nationally and internationally for having a "wild west" reputation in our civil courts. If you were sued, even if you were innocent, your lawyer would often advise you to settle for virtually any amount of money rather than expose yourself to the extreme pro-plaintiff bias in Texas civil courts. The courthouses were filled with cases, many from out of state and many not even from the U.S. Lawyers were able to shop for their favorite courthouses in which to try their cases. Defendants were threatened with unlimited punitive damage claims. Many small businesses were bled financially with often meritless, nuisance cases.

Texans by the thousands spoke to their political representatives, and the Governor and the Legislature in 1993 and 1995 (and, to a much lesser extent, in 1997) enacted sweeping changes that have gone a long way in putting Texas back in the mainstream of American jurisprudence. Now a Texan can access his or her courts, whether as a plaintiff or a defendant, with greater assurance of a hearing and a result based on fairness and common sense.

Besides restoring confidence in our civil justice system, tort reform has also begun to repeal the "tort tax" that is hidden in the cost of the goods and services we Texans pay every day. The cost of a flawed justice system is reflected in everything from a bag of groceries to a filling at the dentist's office. As fewer meritless lawsuits are filed and more reasonable settlements are achieved, companies are able to lower prices, hire more people, and increase salaries and benefits for employees. Insurance rates can also be lowered, for both individuals and businesses.

Recently, Texas Insurance Commissioner Elton Bomer ordered $610 million in 1998 liability insurance rate cuts. This was on top of two previous cuts of $435 million for 1996 and $441 million for 1997. That's a "tort tax" cut of $1.5 billion in three years, all flowing directly to Texas consumers and businesses. No other state in the union has cut liability insurance rates for three consecutive years. Texans demanded action, their elected officials acted, and the benefits are being sent right back to the citizens — a prime example of democracy at work.

All the more astonishing, then, to read that certain "consumer" groups are calling the tort tax cut a "shell game." It's hard to imagine how anyone with any degree of intellectual honesty could interpret massive liability insurance rate reductions as anything other than a huge benefit to consumers, regardless of what the ultimate combined automobile insurance rate is (including collision insurance, uninsured motorists, etc.). Moreover, the poorest segment of our society, who may carry only the required liability coverage, will be helped the most.

It's somewhat humorous to review the number of times "consumer" groups have changed their tune. During past tort reform debates, they said that tort reform was a sham because no consumer savings would ever come from tort reform. Now that Commissioner Bomer has ordered another insurance rate cut of $610 million for 1998, the consumer groups are saying the reductions should be three times as much. While the consumer organizations are trying to figure out what they really think, Texas citizens are just thankful for the relief.

It would be great if all the problems of the civil justice system had been fixed in just a few legislative sessions, but that is not the case. Juries deciding on awards in lawsuits still cannot be told if a plaintiff has already been paid for their injuries. Often juries still are not allowed to assign blame in a lawsuit to all responsible parties. Class action lawsuits are still being abused so that plaintiff attorneys are able to make tens of millions of dollars while the injured parties sometimes receive only pennies. So much good has been done, but there is still more to do. But we now have irrefutable proof that when we fix our civil justice laws, Texans benefit.

Paul Howell
Board Member,
Texans for Lawsuit Reform