MT Senator race: Public Lands

[VikingsGuy]

Given the stated purpose of this website it is easy to see how a Republican platform plank of pro-PLT sets up a simple pro-Dem narrative, but I wonder how this forum will align when the greens get “no hunting large mammals on federal land” plank in the Dem platform? It will happen in our lifetime. That is the problem with single issue voting when more that one outcome must be true. Public land hunters require BOTH public lands and the right to hunt there. Both concepts are at risk. I agree that PLT is more imminent, but if the coasts get their way, hunting bans are just as likely over the next 25 years.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Just an FYI, when Montana had a initiative on the ballot (I-143) to ban the hunting of pen raised animals on game farms for a fee, the NRA came out and supported the game farmers attempts to stop that effort. They worked pretty hard against the sportsmen interests of this state. That was the day I ended my support of the NRA.

Why is banning a pheasant reserve a pro sportsman move? I hunt both public lands and private fair chase lands, but find our local pheasant farm/reserve a great place to train my dog and to introduce new hunters to the sport in a safe, local and comfortable setting. So that from there they can move on to fair chase. Banning that seems a little “elitist Hunter” and hinders broadening interest in a sport that is shedding participants at an ever quickening pace.

 

[TheJason]

Why is banning a pheasant reserve a pro sportsman move? I hunt both public lands and private fair chase lands, but find our local pheasant farm/reserve a great place to train my dog and to introduce new hunters to the sport in a safe, local and comfortable setting. So that from there they can move on to fair chase. Banning that seems a little “elitist Hunter” and hinders broadening interest in a sport that is shedding participants at an ever quickening pace.

The initiative was to ban captive elk and deer farms, and was a pretty huge win that unfortunately did not ultimately prevent CWD from being found in Montana. There was nothing elitist whatsoever about it. Shooting preserves are still very much legal.

 

[MTGomer]

If I recall, I 143 came to be after CWD was found on the Kessler elk farm at Black Pine near Philipsburg. There’s no telling what would be the state of CWD if that were not stopped.

 

[TheJason]

If I recall, I 143 came to be after CWD was found on the Kessler elk farm at Black Pine near Philipsburg. There’s no telling what would be the state of CWD if that were not stopped.

You are correct, I should have worded it "found in wild ungulates".

 

[elkduds]

when the greens get “no hunting large mammals on federal land” plank in the Dem platform? It will happen in our lifetime.

Stated as fact, not opinion. Feel free to share evidence that proves this.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The initiative was to ban captive elk and deer farms, and was a pretty huge win that unfortunately did not ultimately prevent CWD from being found in Montana. There was nothing elitist whatsoever about it. Shooting preserves are still very much legal.

Thanks for clarification. Makes sense from a cwd perspective for ungulates, I read the original comment as broader.

 

[Straight Arrow]

... hunting bans are just as likely over the next 25 years.

Then we'll have to fight that fight. PLT is right here, right now, all day, everyday.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Given the stated purpose of this website it is easy to see how a Republican platform plank of pro-PLT sets up a simple pro-Dem narrative, but I wonder how this forum will align when the greens get “no hunting large mammals on federal land” plank in the Dem platform? It will happen in our lifetime. That is the problem with single issue voting when more that one outcome must be true. Public land hunters require BOTH public lands and the right to hunt there. Both concepts are at risk. I agree that PLT is more imminent, but if the coasts get their way, hunting bans are just as likely over the next 25 years.

Rosendale voted to shut down sage grouse hunting in 2015. He's already on board with legislating what you can & can't hunt.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Stated as fact, not opinion. Feel free to share evidence that proves this.

Predictions about political outcomes in 2035 are inherently and self evidently opinions. But I have been heavily involved in lobbying on both sides of the aisle for many years and it is not a stretch of the imagination if you carefully watch the progressive movement’s efforts to remap the traditional Democratic Party. Just as the tea party drove the GOP to a place a 1980 republican couldn’t recognize, so too are “greens”, Soros and SJWs driving a new Democratic party that will be no friend of hunters, public or private (warning, the proceeding was opinion).

 

[VikingsGuy]

Then we'll have to fight that fight. PLT is right here, right now, all day, everyday.

Not so simple. A 40 year gop plan for a 30 year conservative Supreme Court has just become a reality - these things play out over decades. Choices of governance between 2018-2028 are not just simply unwound by a change of heart in 2030.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Predictions about political outcomes in 2035 are inherently and self evidently opinions. But I have been heavily involved in lobbying on both sides of the aisle for many years and it is not a stretch of the imagination if you carefully watch the progressive movement’s efforts to remap the traditional Democratic Party. Just as the tea party drove the GOP to a place a 1980 republican couldn’t recognize, so too are “greens”, Soros and SJWs driving a new Democratic party that will be no friend of hunters, public or private (warning, the proceeding was opinion).

I think there's a kernel of truth here, but t would note that the Democratic party has done a lot of work to curry favor with hunters and turning their backs on such a segment of the population, especially in rural districts & states would be difficult.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Rosendale voted to shut down sage grouse hunting in 2015. He's already on board with legislating what you can & can't hunt.

I have no opinion on the MT race, just reacting to single issue voting - it doesn’t always work out in folks’ best interests in the long run and is a major problem with our current political situation. One of my favorite posts on HT was somebody who said they wished they could see how much better things would be if the last 50 yers hadn’t been shaped by single issue voting on Roe and the 2nd amendment by such large voting blocks. Adding another single issue item doesn’t move us forward.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think there's a kernel of truth here, but t would note that the Democratic party has done a lot of work to curry favor with hunters and turning their backs on such a segment of the population, especially in rural districts & states would be difficult.

I don't disagree under current calculus, but two other forces are at work - the progressives may need public land hunters in 2018 in MT and some other rural states to help make them "purple", but they are counting on immigration, continued movement of folks from CA and WA into western states, increasing women influence in politics and age demographics to help switch balance in rural states in 20 years - if that happens, will be easy to say goodbye to the hunters. A second item to watch is that big democrat money is starting to demand more "compliance" with progressive standards nationwide and big costal contributors are pushing the party to stop trying to meet rural moderates half way - too early to tell how this plays out. (warning - opinion)

 

[Straight Arrow]

Predictions about political outcomes in 2035 are inherently and self evidently opinions. But I have been heavily involved in lobbying on both sides of the aisle for many years and it is not a stretch of the imagination if you carefully watch the progressive movement’s efforts to remap the traditional Democratic Party. Just as the tea party drove the GOP to a place a 1980 republican couldn’t recognize, so too are “greens”, Soros and SJWs driving a new Democratic party that will be no friend of hunters, public or private (warning, the proceeding was opinion).

More opinion: Commercialization, privatization, and "de-wilding" of federal public lands is more likely to adversely affect hunting and wildlife during your lifetime than any conspiracy by a particular political faction to ban or significantly curtail hunting or to repeal or drastically alter the Second Amendment. PLT is the imminent first step threat and is right now today a political party agenda item.

What you can already see is that development during the past several decades has altered and reduced wildlife habitat, public access has been diminished and/or closed by private property owners, and federal public lands protections are seriously threatened by current policies and proposed policy changes. So ... back to today's decisions; I'll say it again. " ... both Rosendale and Gianforte would vote favoring PLT in a heartbeat. "Both Tester and Williams are a certainty when it comes to protecting public lands."

 

[Big Fin]

In a past podcast I gave an open invitation to any national candidate who wanted to be on the Hunt Talk podcast to talk about public lands, policy, and politics that affect hunters that visit this site and follow our platforms. Only one taker to that invite, Senator Tester. This morning he has about a half hour to talk public lands, hunting, and conservation, so I think we can fit him in a window of our normal two-hour gig. Might create some editing challenges, but we'll make it work.

I gave a lost of topics that will be applicable to any candidate that will be running for national office, no matter what state the person lives in. Before/after his interview, we will talk about how media platforms need to get on the stick with these issues and start using the platforms to advocate for the cause.

Offer still stands for Rosendale, but radio silence from his camp.

 

[VikingsGuy]

More opinion: Commercialization, privatization, and "de-wilding" of federal public lands is more likely to adversely affect hunting and wildlife during your lifetime than any conspiracy by a particular political faction to ban or significantly curtail hunting or to repeal or drastically alter the Second Amendment. PLT is the imminent first step threat and is right now today a political party agenda item.

What you can already see is that development during the past several decades has altered and reduced wildlife habitat, public access has been diminished and/or closed by private property owners, and federal public lands protections are seriously threatened by current policies and proposed policy changes. So ... back to today's decisions; I'll say it again. " ... both Rosendale and Gianforte would vote favoring PLT in a heartbeat. "Both Tester and Williams are a certainty when it comes to protecting public lands."

I don't disagree with your assessment of the current state, all though I am not sure how much of the possible problem will become worst case reality, these things tend to find a balance over time. I do however think single issue voting is a mistake from a broader "what's good for the country" stand point, and even when moderate politicians (if that isn't an oxymoron) seem to suggest a vote for them is an independent vote for the middle, the parties control much more behind the scenes than is always obvious. If you are already aligned with Dem approach to other issues and would likely vote Dem anyway then PLT issues are icing on the cake. If you tend to find yourself wavering between the two party's platforms and PLT is important to you then PLT probably seals the deal. But if on most other issues you find yourself aligning GOP and you single issue vote Dem due to PLT under the theory the candidate is a moderate Dem, you would be surprised at how much harm you do to all the other issues you cared about. That is the downside reality of our current two party state of being.

But let's be clear, I support public lands in public hands and definitely respect the view of those on this forum that take a harder line on this issue than I do.

 

[VikingsGuy]

In a past podcast I gave an open invitation to any national candidate who wanted to be on the Hunt Talk podcast to talk about public lands, policy, and politics that affect hunters that visit this site and follow our platforms. Only one taker to that invite, Senator Tester. This morning he has about a half hour to talk public lands, hunting, and conservation, so I think we can fit him in a window of our normal two-hour gig. Might create some editing challenges, but we'll make it work.

I gave a lost of topics that will be applicable to any candidate that will be running for national office, no matter what state the person lives in. Before/after his interview, we will talk about how media platforms need to get on the stick with these issues and start using the platforms to advocate for the cause.

Offer still stands for Rosendale, but radio silence from his camp.

Super cool. Did you ever imagine in your wildest dreams when you started down the road of sharing your love of public land hunting all those years ago that you would be such an impactful voice? Thanks for all you do in keeping this issues on the table and educating the broader community.

 

[Straight Arrow]

But let's be clear, I support public lands in public hands and definitely respect the view of those on this forum that take a harder line on this issue than I do.

Thank-you for the clarification and the preceding explanation of your view on the political landscape today. I am a "hard-line" guy, especially with regard to Montana's public lands. As a Montanan for seventy-some years, i have watched the changes to protections of this state's very special and even not-so-special wild places ... places which are the draw to the top economic driver, tourism. But as you may ascertain from my rhetoric, protection and preservation of these special "last best places" is an advocacy deeply felt. 'Unabashedly opposed to PLT and/or the dismantling of protections and preservation of public lands and those who advocate for PLT, sincerely.

 

[widnert]

I don't disagree with your assessment of the current state, all though I am not sure how much of the possible problem will become worst case reality, these things tend to find a balance over time. I do however think single issue voting is a mistake from a broader "what's good for the country" stand point, and even when moderate politicians (if that isn't an oxymoron) seem to suggest a vote for them is an independent vote for the middle, the parties control much more behind the scenes than is always obvious. If you are already aligned with Dem approach to other issues and would likely vote Dem anyway then PLT issues are icing on the cake. If you tend to find yourself wavering between the two party's platforms and PLT is important to you then PLT probably seals the deal. But if on most other issues you find yourself aligning GOP and you single issue vote Dem due to PLT under the theory the candidate is a moderate Dem, you would be surprised at how much harm you do to all the other issues you cared about. That is the downside reality of our current two party state of being.

But let's be clear, I support public lands in public hands and definitely respect the view of those on this forum that take a harder line on this issue than I do.

^^^This is pretty much my thinking here. I want to vote for Tester for his stance on PLT - very strong position. However, when you review his entire voting record, aligning directly with A LOT of views I strongly disagree with, it makes for a conundrum. Tester has sold-out Montana to the coasties on most of the other issues I find important. Doesn't align with my Montana beliefs. The GOP alternative basically sucks. Been reviewing the other option lately. I'm pretty much to the point of writing in Randy Newberg.