Congressional Western Caucus - Public Land Transfer

[Nameless Range]

From their website:

"The Congressional Western Caucus is the voice for local communities, pursuing the interests of the folks on the ground and people who feel betrayed by a federal government out of touch with our values. The Caucus consistently reminds Members of Congress while they were elected in the first place, fighting for the priorities of the American people in the process. "

They are often sharing things on social media like the post above, written by the infamous Jennifer Fielder.

Their membership is a long list of political players in the west, including Greg Gianforte, who is running for governor of Montana. I suppose it is a reminder that even though PLT was soundly defeated as an idea a few years back, embers still burn.

 

[Irrelevant]

PLT is an idea that will never die. Reminds me of an Edward Abby quote, "One man alone can be pretty dumb, but for real bona fide stupidity, nothing beats teamwork."

 

[Straight Arrow]

What the real message is:
"Western states should be allowed to do the same thing that Eastern states can ... develop, pave, sell and fully occupy their local public lands.
States can fiscally manage their own environment and they're better at exploiting and selling it than the federal government."

 

[Sytes]

States manage wildlife? Absolutely!
I am 100% opposed to the PLT effort and a central point IF we are faced w/ a Montana vote w/ Jersey G representing MT Republicans... I just wish it was a single issue world we face... Would make voting easy peazy!
I am very supportive of the Stewardship ideas that have floated and think that would be a GREAT medium to accept. However, the two Boss Parties make this almost a distant reality.

 

[Big Fin]

This stuff is interesting to follow. Some lessons are learned harder than others.

I get heat from some who claim I, and Hunting Collective, are responsible for Tester beating Rosendale in the MT Senate race, because Tester was on our podcasts. Rosendale was invited but failed to come on.

As much as I would like to take credit for that, such is not why it turned out the way it did. It turned out the way it did because Rosendale was pals with the core Congressional Western Caucus members. He was the hand-picked RNC dude who took a lot of marching orders from Utah and the PLT crowd. He was a puppet and the strings led to Utah and the DC think tanks. Not a partisan statement, just a fact.

We saw the result. Even with four visits from the President, Rosendale and his anti-public land pro-PLT message got defeated in a state that is considered RED. A state where public lands are a huge voting issue, just like is the case in Colorado, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and Nevada.

If this Caucus wants to continue pushing this kind of stupidity and using their clout to influence western state Republican primary outcomes in a way that results in more Rosendale-type candidates, they best get prepared to lose the Senate and lose more western seats in the House. Just a reality of where the electorate is in these states and how high of a voting priority the topic is among those electorates. Not that DC-based RNC types understand that intuitively, but one would hope they would heed some lessons from the Rosendale outcome and drop the stupidity.

There are some really good Republicans on public land and conservation issues. The Congressional Western Caucus, the Utah delegation, the anti-public land think tanks funded by despoiler money, and some of the crazies who have zero understanding of western public land issues are trying to eliminate these pro-public land Republicans. Their effort leads to further polarization of the the public land and conservation issues and more partisan division on the topics that historically were party-agnostic.

I want more support for Republicans who are good on public lands and conservation. Anyone who thinks it is all good on one side and all bad on the other is drinking tainted juice. The DNC, if opportunity presented/required, would use public lands and conservation as bargaining chips to secure some of their higher priority agenda. Just a reality and the reason why we need advocates on both sides. Progress ceases and defeats are guaranteed when our issues only have advocates on one side or the other.

The next two election cycles will have some really big influence on public land and conservation issues. Odds are that Senator Burr (R-NC) is going to retire rather than run for re-election in 2022. He is a very conservative guy who can be counted on for public land and conservation issues. If he steps aside, we lose a huge advocate on that side.

Who in that caucus is going to take his place when we need support for these issues? I don't know, but I sure hope some of the pro-public land Rs can press back against the crazies that are well-funded. If candidate selection is left to the groups promoting to the UT Doctrine, the outlook is not good.

I hate to see it going this way. Hopefully some sanity will be injected, learned from the Rosendale fiasco, to counter the groups like the Congressional Western Caucus, ALC, ALEC, AFP, and the others intent on ridding the Republican party of any candidate that is pro-public land or conservation. If those crazies succeed, wild places and wild things will lose. We lose. Hunting loses.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I am 100% opposed to the PLT effort and a central point IF we are faced w/ a Montana vote w/ Jersey G representing MT Republicans... I just wish it was a single issue world we face... Would make voting easy peazy!

Actually the situation we face with regard to public lands makes the vote "easy peazy"! Even if you believe half the alternative facts presented by political ads supporting Maryland Matt and Jersey Gianforte, your love of public lands, wildlife, and the hunting legacy, especially in view of the PLT effort supported by both of those candidates, will help you vote otherwise. Their potential negative impact allows you to hold your right wing nose and vote in favor of Montana more left-oriented candidates who will do significantly less damage to degradation of those Montana values you hold dear.

 

[Trial153]

The punishment for being pro PLT has to be greater then monetary benefits these candidates are receiving from money behind this movement.

 

[MattK]

I believe that Rosendale lost due to his stance on Public land transfer, I truly do. However, when I listened to people who are big in the Montana Republican party, they blamed the loss purely on the third party candidate. It seems those who head up the Republican party have no desire to see that PLT is not wanted and is actively voted against in MT as well as other states. Until they figure that out and drop it from their platform, I don't think I can vote R while looking at my kids future of enjoying public lands.

Big Fin says that the Democrats are willing to possibly use PLT as a bargaining chip in negotiating some of their bigger issues...my response is that Republicans have already put PLT as one of their major issues and they want it to happen. Unless there is a track record from an R that shows they are against PLT, they will never get my vote.

 

[BigHornRam]

A lot of analysis paralysis here. When all was said and done and money spent, Rosendale lost because Tester sucked less than Rosendale. Just like Gianforte sucked less than Quist and Williams.

 

[Sytes]

Actually the situation we face with regard to public lands makes the vote "easy peazy"! Even if you believe half the alternative facts presented by political ads supporting Maryland Matt and Jersey Gianforte, your love of public lands, wildlife, and the hunting legacy, especially in view of the PLT effort supported by both of those candidates, will help you vote otherwise. Their potential negative impact allows you to hold your right wing nose and vote in favor of Montana more left-oriented candidates who will do significantly less damage to degradation of those Montana values you hold dear.

You missed my post.

I just wish it was a single issue world we face... Would make voting easy peazy!

If this world rotated on a single issue... My nose would vote based on my opposition to fed transfer to state.
Unfortunately, it's not a single issue world, is it? If it is for you... Cheers.
My nose is straight. It smells both piles of dung and finds the issues most tolerable within the political dung fest.

 

[Straight Arrow]

You missed my post.


If this world rotated on a single issue... My nose would vote based on my opposition to fed transfer to state.
Unfortunately, it's not a single issue world, is it? If it is for you... Cheers.
My nose is straight. It smells both piles of dung and finds the issues most tolerable within the political dung fest.

Nope, your post was not missed. Please read carefully the sentence regarding voting for Rosendale or Gianforte. Issues such as a stance or platform supporting PLT are not a matter of "most tolerable" but conversely a matter of unacceptable.