Agree. The I's have not found it's legs to walk, yet...
MT: Gianforte vs Quist
- Thread starter Sytes
- Start date
Agree. The I's have not found it's legs to walk, yet...
I come from a family of union workers, been pro union longer than a lot of folks have been alive and think I'm smart enough to understand the long term stupidity of voting for anti union Republicans. IMO the day will come sooner than later when the union folks come to their senses and say "Oh Shit" what the hell did we just do? Maybe not though, they supported a President who said he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot someone and wouldn't lose any votes, they cheered when he said it!
I think I like Gomer. He says a lot of what I think.....much better than I could. Would like to share a campfire with him if our paths ever cross.
OriginalOscar
Active member
That darn archaic constitution with checks-balances. All of us in the flyover states should accept the coastal majority knowing what's best.
Rural residents on the great plains need to leave. You all shouldn't be there. Your ancestors screwed up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Commons
My best hope for this country is one of the brave men/women who served since 2001 rise to national leadership.
2ski
Well-known member
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I think Amanda had no chance. Too many people staunchly opposed to her. I don't think this, but I think the way she's looked at by a lot of people is kind of the "Hilary of MT". Not the hatred, but there's a lot of dislike. I think she's "too liberal for MT" if you will.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Getting rid of the electoral collage is likely to be a case of be careful of what you wish for.
There is no guarantee that Gore and Clinton would have won. If the rules of the game were different the players would have not played the game the same way. It would have been likely the vote totals would have been similar and Gore and Clinton would have won but it also possible that things could have been different.
With the popular vote candidates would need to compete nation wide. In many ways this would good. It would also require a lot of money. If you think that the billion dollar campaigns of today are outrageous think about what kind of money it would take for a candidate to compete nation wide. Electing a president with the popular vote would give a lot more power to big money donors and supper pac's. The last thing we need is politicians in both party's more beholding to big money interests that would like to get their greedy fingers on public land.
The press would also have more power. Our elections work best when the press plays the role of referee. When the press tries to be king maker we end up with flawed candidates like Clinton and Trump.
Currently the Democrat party is the champion of public land. It may not be in the future. Take one look at the electoral map when broken down by county and you will see that the democrats voter base is concentrated in the big cities. Counties where 95% of the population has no clue what BLM is. Where getting out in the wild is a weekend at the Jersey Shore. I don't like how the demographics of the democratic party are shifting. It will have consequences for public land in the future. With the popular vote the democratic party will no longer need the sportsman's vote to win must win states like Colorado. This will a low the democrats to become even more dependent on the urban vote. A vote where 95 % have no use for public land.
I don't see a shift to the poplar vote working out well in the long run for public land or public land users
Last edited:
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Very well said. Can't disagree with any of this.
katqanna
Well-known member
I expect that some are not going to want to see or hear this, but the below chart showed the economic output by county, correlate to how the county voted in the presidential election.
I have seen the same data in a Montana map. I will have to find it after I get back from the fishing trip.
When people talk about divides, differences, demographics, I think the economics should be included in the conversation. So when people go getting all kinds of lippy about liberals, and liberals being in smaller concentrations in certain geographic locations and some want to gerrymander voting districts, think about this chart below.
On a national level, less than 500 US counties, liberal by some political standards, are economically carrying more than 2,600 counties.
I have seen the same data in a Montana map. I will have to find it after I get back from the fishing trip.
When people talk about divides, differences, demographics, I think the economics should be included in the conversation. So when people go getting all kinds of lippy about liberals, and liberals being in smaller concentrations in certain geographic locations and some want to gerrymander voting districts, think about this chart below.
On a national level, less than 500 US counties, liberal by some political standards, are economically carrying more than 2,600 counties.
OriginalOscar
Active member
Really Katqanna, LA County is leeching off the state and federal government. Provincial progressives feeling entitled to support from others.
[/url]
http://ceo.lacounty.gov/pdf/budget/20117-18/2017-18 Recommended Budget Charts.pdf
[/url]
http://ceo.lacounty.gov/pdf/budget/20117-18/2017-18 Recommended Budget Charts.pdf
BuzzH
Well-known member
Dukedaddy,
Don't get all high and mighty....California pays more in Federal tax than any other State, and buries Utah which is 36th on the list. For reference, Alabama pays more in federal taxes than Utah.
Wyoming is way down the list at 50th, but per capita, Wyoming residents pay about 30% more in Federal taxes than Utah residents.
The difference between you and me, is I don't bad-mouth the States that pay the lions share of federal taxes.
Don't get all high and mighty....California pays more in Federal tax than any other State, and buries Utah which is 36th on the list. For reference, Alabama pays more in federal taxes than Utah.
Wyoming is way down the list at 50th, but per capita, Wyoming residents pay about 30% more in Federal taxes than Utah residents.
The difference between you and me, is I don't bad-mouth the States that pay the lions share of federal taxes.
jryoung
Well-known member
Federal taxes paid via the states v. assistance received is pretty much pandora's box and ripe for cherry picking. I'd love to see the Tax Foundation update this study, but this is a great place to start.....going down from here get's very convoluted though.
Both charts above, for those reasons noted are incredibly misleading. You can't expect a county without a population base to be a major economic driver nor expect it to vote left of center. On the (slightly) flip side, California is widely recognized at one of the top 10 economies in the world should it be standing alone, there are a lot of successes here economically and we've seen tremendous growth despite our unbalanced politics.
Both charts above, for those reasons noted are incredibly misleading. You can't expect a county without a population base to be a major economic driver nor expect it to vote left of center. On the (slightly) flip side, California is widely recognized at one of the top 10 economies in the world should it be standing alone, there are a lot of successes here economically and we've seen tremendous growth despite our unbalanced politics.
Missed this... for this special election, no... they do not have open primaries.
katqanna
Well-known member
I went to a public lands and access conference last weekend in Red Lodge (got some beautiful shots of the Beartooth on the way). There was some scary sh*t going on at that meeting. I am waiting for their professional videographer to get his video up at their site so I don't have to spend time I am not getting paid for to process my video to point out what was brought up, like a guide, originally from Washington that kept saying we needed to limit the public going in, go to a permit system.
At any rate, Matt Haggerty, of the Headwaters Economics here in Bozeman, gave a presentation on public lands and the economics of the Montana counties. I am meeting with him to get the slides he presented because the average Montanan needs to hear this information, not just agency guys and other economists, which most people do not read.
The short of it is that counties with public lands economically do better than counties with smaller amounts and counties with protected public lands do the best.
I talked to Mike during one of the breaks, shared with him what I had seen in the game warden citation research I am doing. Counties with more public lands have the least dismissals than counties with the least public lands, where dismissals are higher. It is like the high public lands counties see the value of FWP, of the wardens doing the job to prevent the tragedy of the commons (did any of y'all see the massive haul at the FWP confiscated haul in Great Falls last weekend?); and show that value by prosecuting more of these cases and judicially following through. Haggerty's data connects with mine.
So while some conservatives on here like to dismiss "libruls", I feel there are data sets not entering into these discussions that need to. The ad hominem attacks are just that, they don't truthfully address the issues, where the money is coming from and where it is going.
I feel that Democrats talking about representing the people, yet not having committees in half of the Montana counties is deplorable. But likewise, I feel Republicans really knowing the value of our public lands, but wanting to privatize it on one hand, while the other is grabbing as many subsidies as it can (subsidizing the costs, while privatizing the profits) is also deplorable.
With that said, I have just been plied with an awesome shrimp scampi and wine dinner for a thank you for the PTD report; put in over 300 miles today; got alot of shots of public lands, stream access, outdoor recreation and such to help visually represent some of these conversations; so I am done for the evening. I will deal with the Montana maps tomorrow.
Dobreyeh vyehchuhr.
At any rate, Matt Haggerty, of the Headwaters Economics here in Bozeman, gave a presentation on public lands and the economics of the Montana counties. I am meeting with him to get the slides he presented because the average Montanan needs to hear this information, not just agency guys and other economists, which most people do not read.
The short of it is that counties with public lands economically do better than counties with smaller amounts and counties with protected public lands do the best.
I talked to Mike during one of the breaks, shared with him what I had seen in the game warden citation research I am doing. Counties with more public lands have the least dismissals than counties with the least public lands, where dismissals are higher. It is like the high public lands counties see the value of FWP, of the wardens doing the job to prevent the tragedy of the commons (did any of y'all see the massive haul at the FWP confiscated haul in Great Falls last weekend?); and show that value by prosecuting more of these cases and judicially following through. Haggerty's data connects with mine.
So while some conservatives on here like to dismiss "libruls", I feel there are data sets not entering into these discussions that need to. The ad hominem attacks are just that, they don't truthfully address the issues, where the money is coming from and where it is going.
I feel that Democrats talking about representing the people, yet not having committees in half of the Montana counties is deplorable. But likewise, I feel Republicans really knowing the value of our public lands, but wanting to privatize it on one hand, while the other is grabbing as many subsidies as it can (subsidizing the costs, while privatizing the profits) is also deplorable.
With that said, I have just been plied with an awesome shrimp scampi and wine dinner for a thank you for the PTD report; put in over 300 miles today; got alot of shots of public lands, stream access, outdoor recreation and such to help visually represent some of these conversations; so I am done for the evening. I will deal with the Montana maps tomorrow.
Dobreyeh vyehchuhr.
antlerradar
Well-known member
All this demographic, economic and tax info is interesting. Makes a good argument that the Democratic party does not yet have one foot in the grave. It would be interesting to see the counties listed according to GDP per person. Interesting stuff for sure but this is a hunting/public land forum. I took more than my share of economics back in collage.
I still go back to. Is the demographic changes in the Democratic party good for public land in the long term?
I don't think it is. It is not good when an ever increasing percentage of your voters have very little connection to public lands.
I still go back to. Is the demographic changes in the Democratic party good for public land in the long term?
I don't think it is. It is not good when an ever increasing percentage of your voters have very little connection to public lands.
Moving beyond which corporate owned, globalist party which is owned by the same people is worse than the other, you have my attention now about the Beartooth. Did there seem to be much agreement with that guide from Washington?
katqanna
Well-known member
Gomer, I became more and more riled at what was taking place at this meeting. There were 3 panels. The first comprised the state a federal agencies involved. The only disconcerting thing there was a statement by DNRC's Matt Wolcott about recreation. I wanted to stand up, pull out my FWP hunting/fishing conservation license and show him I DO have a right to recreate on state school trust lands and having completed that particular history this last fall, I know what is going on there.
The second panel comprised the Wilderness Association, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness Foundation, a rancher with land abutting Forest Service Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness, BLM and DNRC, and the 30 year old guide from Washington who also manages the ski shop at the Red Lodge Mountain Ski Resort in the winter, which by the way, the owner was on the third panel and had to answer that his business is on 1/4 of his own land and the other 3/4 is on our public lands. This panel was supposed to talk about outdoor recreation, stewardship and the evolving economics of gateway communities, but what they mostly talked about was "loving the public lands to death". When asked about the impacts on wildlife the GYC said what is happening to wildlife is deplorable, we all impact them, yet said they don't know what is happening. Wished I had all my ungulate and roadless area, habitat security studies with me. The AB Wilderness guy said of the many access points going into the areas, some of them need to be shut down to reduce the impacts by recreation. He also said that if people want to instill outdoor recreation in their kids, they could use their local parks and leave the wilderness be. When someone asked Noel Keogh of the Keogh Ranch what he thought about the permits, he was kind of quite saying he wouldn't want his access limited, he packs horses in. I can't remember if he said if he outfitted from his ranch, I will have to upload my video and check it out. But, he did say that people and atvs were the weed problem, he is a weed warrior. The Montana Wilderness Association brought up again about people loving the public lands to death.
Before I get with Mike Haggerty (not Matt in the previous post, mistake), I found this study at Headwaters, that has a couple of the slides presented by Haggerty. Today’s Economy & the Role of Federal Lands.
You can see a variety of comparisons and stats, like the "For each 100,000 acres of Wilderness, National Park, National Monument in a county the Per Capita Income increases $4,360"
katqanna
Well-known member
antlerradar
Well-known member
I don't think there was a winner in this election. The democrats lost the vote and the republicans got a loser.
That's interesting info. I've never much looked into what the AB Wilderness foundation does or believes.
With the exception of the pass, I have always thought access was fairly tough in the Beartooth. With almost all trailheads beginning at a pretty low elevation, compared to the 12,000 foot country they lead to. That country behind Red Lodge does see a lot of use, but like anywhere if you get more than a couple miles from the trailhead or beyond the first lake the trailhead serves you see very few people.
I have a few lakes I go to that are within 5 miles of the truck, that have no trail going to them that I have yet to see another human at, and can catch a cutthroat on almost every cast. And I'm a bad fisherman
Although the pass was a steady stream of cars yesterday, I went for an eight hour walk and didn't see another person.
And there are already pretty good rules about horses and campfires in certain places.
As you get west of red Lodge, into the rest of the mountain range that has fewer lakes there is almost nobody.
I can only think of one access point I would like to see shut down, but it is only for selfish reasons to improve the sheep hunting for the fit and motivated
Keep me posted on this if you don't mind?
With the exception of the pass, I have always thought access was fairly tough in the Beartooth. With almost all trailheads beginning at a pretty low elevation, compared to the 12,000 foot country they lead to. That country behind Red Lodge does see a lot of use, but like anywhere if you get more than a couple miles from the trailhead or beyond the first lake the trailhead serves you see very few people.
I have a few lakes I go to that are within 5 miles of the truck, that have no trail going to them that I have yet to see another human at, and can catch a cutthroat on almost every cast. And I'm a bad fisherman
Although the pass was a steady stream of cars yesterday, I went for an eight hour walk and didn't see another person.
And there are already pretty good rules about horses and campfires in certain places.
As you get west of red Lodge, into the rest of the mountain range that has fewer lakes there is almost nobody.
I can only think of one access point I would like to see shut down, but it is only for selfish reasons to improve the sheep hunting for the fit and motivated
Keep me posted on this if you don't mind?
