Episode 23 : Greg Gianforte

[katqanna]

Kat,

These documents blow a pretty large hole through the campaign's spin on what happened, what the Gianforte's knew, and what fabrications their lawyer spun up around the issue. It's incredibly damning stuff, especially about the existing easement being listed in the survey, which Gianforte & Wittich claimed didn't exist. I don't think I can understate how much this informaton changes the tone of the conversation.

Well, hail, had a reply typed, got a phone call and lost it all.

Ben, I think the public needs to see the documents for what they are, versus what the papers are promoting. Immediately after reading that Cowgirl article, I needed to see what the lawsuit actually said. Was it much ado about nothing or was it worse for the public? I did not want someone else's Cliff Notes version, especially when the two appeared quite diverse. But once I did get the lawsuit, from my perspective, it was the "much Worse" scenario.

I had a man call this morning that mentioned that sometimes you have to sue FWP to get them to do something. That may be. He also said that you have to go to the negotiation table asking for more so that you have some room to negotiate. I understand that as well. But, I dont think this was either of those cases and here's why.

If FWP was viewed as a bad neighbor, who was causing damage to the Gianforte's property, why does the filed Complaint not list all that? Where are all the statements about repeated attempts to work with FWP as a boundary neighbor to resolve weed, garbage, property damage, fencing issues, boundary disputes or encroachments?

Instead, the Gianfortes attack the easement with words like "Claims", "Not lawfully granted", and "alleged easement", casting dispersion on the existence of the easement itself. They also attack the Public's right to the easement saying it is "unnecessary", "demanding" FWP "voluntarily extinguish the easement" because they, the Gianfortes, are "entitled" to extinguish this "burdensome encumbrance, such as this alleged Easement."

From my perspective, this goes a long way towards determining motive. It appears they were trying to legally bully the Public's trustee into handing over our public land and access, simply because they felt they were "entitled" to do so. It is not FWP's fault if Gianforte's title company didnt provide them with the documentation concerning the easement, if that is even the case as they have publicly stated. Why sue FWP for it? Nor does it seem reasonable that they were truly unaware of the easement's existence for so long, since the Certificate of Survey, they kept referencing with each of their transfers, has it right there in a big circle.

On top of seeking to extinguish the "alleged easement", the Gianfortes sought attorney's fees and costs AND "For all other relief deemed proper and just". So they wanted to steal from the Public their land and access, as well as our sportsmen's dollars to pay for their bullying frivolous lawsuit (we had to do some of this anyway over the two years this was being dealt with) and then put the cherry on top with additional "relief deemed proper and just"? This is seriously messed up and that is not my first or second choice of words.

 

[kansasdad]

.......no dog in the fight........did the landowners call their attorney and ask him to help......and he went all F Lee Bailey in his filing? Seems as if the Montanans here know the attorney involved quite well.

 

[Hunting Wife]

.......no dog in the fight........did the landowners call their attorney and ask him to help......and he went all F Lee Bailey in his filing? Seems as if the Montanans here know the attorney involved quite well.

Where are they now....Wittich went on to great things.
www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2016/04/01/jury-deliberates-montana-lawmakers-dark-money-case/82536544/

 

[RobG]

Where are they now....Wittich went on to great things.
www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2016/04/01/jury-deliberates-montana-lawmakers-dark-money-case/82536544/

Yes, Wittich was found guilty by a jury. He is running for re-election anyway. The penalty will be decided after the June 7th primary election. The committee that will pick his replacement is just as wacky as he is, so we have to boot this guy in the primary.

Something people might find interesting... Two sessions ago Wittich was the majority leader of the MT Senate. Top of the world. Pretty hard to get more power than that. Then, last election, he decides to drop his Senate seat and run for the MT House. I thought it was really strange at the time. Well it turns out that one of the penalties for the crime he was convicted of is removal from office. Knowing this, he is making the argument that, since he no longer holds the Senate seat where he committed the crime, he can't be removed from office. Now I understand why he switched....

Maybe he will resign his seat and then have Gianforte re-appoint him, like his mentor William Clark.

The people who live in his district (west of Bozeman, south of I-90) need to vote him out in the primary. His republican opponent Bruce Grubbs is a decent man. Go to the courthouse tomorrow, pick up a ballot, and vote!

 

[RobG]

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.co...cle_4eacb91f-e2eb-5c9e-8745-f5c24490db8a.html

I would like to thank the Gianfortes for being such great supporters of public access along the East Gallatin River. I often use their easement for archery hunting and taking my grandsons fishing. We always have a great time catching trout, watching the wildlife, and enjoying the breathtaking scenery.

The Gianfortes have always been welcoming of us and other fishermen and hunters who use the easement on their property to access the river. In fact, during peak season there are multiple vehicles parked on their property nearly everyday at the access point. Never, at any time, have we ever seen any indication that they weren’t happy to have us there.

These attacks against Mr. Gianforte as somehow “anti-public access” are simply not true. In fact, it’s just the opposite. The Gianfortes have always been vocal supporters of our state’s stream access law and their actions as landowners more than prove it.


Bryan Hughes
Bozeman

 

[Shotgun1]

Its a facade

 

[shoots-straight]

This Bryan Hughes is Gianfortes pastor in Bozeman?

 

[RobG]

This Bryan Hughes is Gianfortes pastor in Bozeman?

Looks like someone needs to drop those court documents in his collection jar.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

When's that staffer going to come back on to make his 3rd post to refute the documents? Did he think we were all so stupid that we couldn't see who he was posting on behalf of? Poor attempt at infiltration IMO but gave me a good laugh.

 

[Shotgun1]

It's seems most everyone commenting can see the truth when it comes to Greg. Me and my family will be voting against him. I do not trust the man with our lands. There are other issues as well. Please spread the word this man is not good for sportman IMO

 

[katqanna]

I feel the Chronicle Letter to the Editor was a smoke and mirrors, an obfuscation, trying to deflect attention away from what was really transpiring.

Hughes wrote about his accessing the Gianforte's property as public access, but that is not access that is open to the general public. It is access available to the Gianforte's friends and family, with the Gianforte's permission, let's look at private access as oranges. That is not public access to all. No one is criticizing the Gianfortes for not being gracious hosts to their friends and family. Make no mistake, that is not public access for all. Lets clear the smoke and remove the distorting mirrors.

Public lands/waters and public easements, let's look at this as apples, are not dependent on a land owners graciousness or hospitality for permission each time we want to utilize the resources. We are landowners of these public resources. And while some acquired public access easements do require a gracious landowner to sell or give an easement initially, again, this is not the case with the Gianfortes. This perpetual Recreational Site access easement was provided to FWP years before the Gianfortes purchased their property. Two different situations like oranges and apples.

For whatever reason the Gianfortes chose to file a lawsuit, they decided to go after the public's access. An attempted taking. This was not welcoming, graciousness, nor hospitality, and most especially not an example of supporting public access, as Hughes tried to imply, just the opposite.

This "demanding" FWP "voluntarily extinguish the easement" was an "attack" against the Public, plain and simple.

 

[Shotgun1]

I feel the Chronicle Letter to the Editor was a smoke and mirrors, an obfuscation, trying to deflect attention away from what was really transpiring.

Hughes wrote about his accessing the Gianforte's property as public access, but that is not access that is open to the general public. It is access available to the Gianforte's friends and family, with the Gianforte's permission, let's look at private access as oranges. That is not public access to all. No one is criticizing the Gianfortes for not being gracious hosts to their friends and family. Make no mistake, that is not public access for all. Lets clear the smoke and remove the distorting mirrors.

Public lands/waters and public easements, let's look at this as apples, are not dependent on a land owners graciousness or hospitality for permission each time we want to utilize the resources. We are landowners of these public resources. And while some acquired public access easements do require a gracious landowner to sell or give an easement initially, again, this is not the case with the Gianfortes. This perpetual Recreational Site access easement was provided to FWP years before the Gianfortes purchased their property. Two different situations like oranges and apples.

For whatever reason the Gianfortes chose to file a lawsuit, they decided to go after the public's access. An attempted taking. This was not welcoming, graciousness, nor hospitality, and most especially not an example of supporting public access, as Hughes tried to imply, just the opposite.

This "demanding" FWP "voluntarily extinguish the easement" was an "attack" against the Public, plain and simple.

I agree, well said

 

[Ben Lamb]

Mr. Gianforte is holding a tele-town hall tonight to discuss his campaign.

If anyone is interested in asking him about the stream access easement lawsuit, or any of the other issues that have come up regarding his support of transfer lite or how he would handle the legislature, you can be a part of it by following the below instructions:

The call is tonight at 7 pm.

Text GREG4MT to 828282 to participate.

 

[Shotgun1]

Does anyone know how this went

 

[katqanna]

Gianforte: FWP 'at war with the landowners in the state'

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks is "at war with the landowners in the state, trying to extract access and they're using extortion to do it," Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Gianforte told a Malta gathering in February.

Gianforte's remarks came in response to a question from an audience member about what the businessman thought about FWP. The talk was held at Malta's First State Bank on Feb. 10. Recorded outtakes of Gianforte's comments were provided to The Billings Gazette by the Montana Democratic Party...

Gianforte said this latest effort didn't go far enough since it's not applicable to all regions of the state. Instead, he said he would have signed a bill allowing the reinstatement of a late cow elk hunt. Bullock vetoed that bill to allow FWP to create the more targeted elk shoulder seasons...

When questioned about where he stood on FWP's acquisition of land to provide public access — a policy that was strongly backed during Gov. Brian Schweitzer's administration but that has been limited to the purchase of conservation easements only under Gov. Bullock — Gianforte said he did not support the state purchase of large tracts of land.

"I do think there are some specific situations where, if we needed river access, or something where there's an easement that's necessary to put a river access in a certain place for access for sportsmen or something like that," Gianforte said.

He then recounted a story Sanders County commissioners communicated to him about FWP purchasing a private ranch and then locking the public out by creating a wilderness study area.

"Access has been cut off and it's out of the property bid. It's out of the tax base. They already have enough public land in Sanders County. They don't need any more public land out there. So that's a concern. I think this is indicative of the leadership we have in Helena right now," a leadership that is comprised of "political insiders" who are "environmental extremists."

 

[u1299]

Gianforte: FWP 'at war with the landowners in the state'

To the point, Gianforte is a damn creep, and I'll vote for that SOB when hell freezes over. I don't give a squat who that pi__es off either.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Every barroom biologist can sit back and throw stones. That's all GG is doing. No actual policies are advanced, no solutions put forward, just bash an agency that gets bashed from everyone.

I'm curious to hear his views on Ranching for Wildlife, landowner tags, Habitat Montana, Governor's tags, etc - but all we get is the same, tired rhetoric about how FWP is evil and we need do appease landowners. The conversation needs to be more informed than what his handlers are spinning. Especially since his handlers are big supporters of privatizing wildlife.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Gianforte: FWP 'at war with the landowners in the state'

Well, that along with believing the world is flat, probably cost his a few votes.

 

[katqanna]

Recently I sent out an oped on this issue to the major papers at 466 words, well under the oped max words limit, explaining the difference between permission for private lands and general public access to all. Two replied back that they would not run it as an oped, Bozeman Chronicle and Billings Gazette, even though I had not advocated a candidate by name, rather a principle that should be a stand of any representative of the public. I had to edit down to 300 and 250 words respectively. Chronicle still has not run it. The others are running it as an oped, with my EMWH.org info, so that people can check on the documentation, see for themselves. Not being a non-profit has a benefit to be able to address politics and candidates, one of the reasons I filed as such.

I must have hit a nerve because that "Real Sportsman" is out making comments, tossing red herrings and misinformation. He writes like PERC or that ALEC LTE guy, I forget his name at the moment. I may pull up all his comment history, dissect the vocabulary and writing style, comparing it to some of the PERC/ALEC writers. He is one of these that targets certain sportsmens groups as being "green decoys".

BTW, MSA is compiling their endorsed candidates list from the received surveys and interviews on their PAC web site.

Glenn Ferren, a moderate Republican running in SD 7, who believes in Public Lands, contacted me about a week ago and wrote a letter for me to publish. I like his perspective - Let's give Jennifer Fielder the opportunity to work full time for ALC - vote her out of office. I am putting his letter in the next newsletter.

 

[katqanna]

Video MTPR Gov. Bullock Ramps Up Attack Over Gianforte Lawsuit

SB: Corin, put the complaint that was filed in district court then on your website, let Montanans decide. I think that public lands — look, we have 11 million visitors to the state of Montana each and every year. Our outdoor economy is significant, and it's in part because of our stream access laws. So no, I think that's significant.