Senator Daines credibility crisis
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
Two separate issues IMO being discussed.
Issue number 1 is keeping every acre of public land in this country, just that, public. On that I will not compromise either. No transfer to the State, no transfer of management, both accomplish the same goal.
Issue number 2 is how to designate the use of the public trust in an equitable way that can assure some kind of balance. That one I'm willing to sit down at the table and discuss...even find some compromise. At the end of the day, barring the respective use doesnt totally "nuke" the public trust...its still public land.
I'm more than willing to fight, compromise, negotiate over the use of public lands as long as they remain public.
What I'm not prepared to do is sell off public lands or put them at risk by transferring them to a State that is incapable of retaining them.
The art of the deal is knowing when and on what issues to draw the hard line, and those that need to be solved by legitimate and honest compromise by all interested parties.
Issue number 1 is keeping every acre of public land in this country, just that, public. On that I will not compromise either. No transfer to the State, no transfer of management, both accomplish the same goal.
Issue number 2 is how to designate the use of the public trust in an equitable way that can assure some kind of balance. That one I'm willing to sit down at the table and discuss...even find some compromise. At the end of the day, barring the respective use doesnt totally "nuke" the public trust...its still public land.
I'm more than willing to fight, compromise, negotiate over the use of public lands as long as they remain public.
What I'm not prepared to do is sell off public lands or put them at risk by transferring them to a State that is incapable of retaining them.
The art of the deal is knowing when and on what issues to draw the hard line, and those that need to be solved by legitimate and honest compromise by all interested parties.
Gotta agree with Buzz. I've spent my entire life, barring an unfortunate few years in Texas, in public land states and have always subscribed to the point of view that those lands belong to everyone, dirt-worshiper to earth-raper. I've stood at the edge of the Pinedale anticline before it was drilled and pleaded for responsible development based on industry rhetoric, I've also publically opposed NREPA.
When we look at what can be accomplished, like the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act, we see what we can achieve in terms of conservation and collaboration.
But that doesn't mean my heart isn't in Jame's camp either.
When we look at what can be accomplished, like the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act, we see what we can achieve in terms of conservation and collaboration.
But that doesn't mean my heart isn't in Jame's camp either.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,636
"But let's step back for a nano-second and just ask ourselves what would truly be the baseline in a true compromise? Let's look at the WHOLE pie, as we "received" it (or took it). It seems to me that any reasonable compromise would involve all the parties coming around the table and deciding how much of the U.S. we were all going to work on restoring to the condition in which we found it. After all, under RARE I and RARE II there is less than 2% of the land mass of the lower 48 in any kind of decent condition. Compromise would not split that 2%. It would work on moving back toward 50%. Impossible? Maybe, but never let the enemy define the terms of debate and never let him tell you he is not your enemy until he proves he is not. If you do, you have already lost."
I certainly appreciate your passion for preserving wild lands and public access James Riley. But are you going to step up to the plate and offer your private land up for public ownership as an example of how to get back to the way it was?
Most people proposing these types of ideas have a vision of other people offering up their private property not their own.
I certainly appreciate your passion for preserving wild lands and public access James Riley. But are you going to step up to the plate and offer your private land up for public ownership as an example of how to get back to the way it was?
Most people proposing these types of ideas have a vision of other people offering up their private property not their own.Big Foot
Active member
James,
I have been enjoying your commentary.
Thanks.
I have been enjoying your commentary.
Thanks.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
"But let's step back for a nano-second and just ask ourselves what would truly be the baseline in a true compromise? Let's look at the WHOLE pie, as we "received" it (or took it). It seems to me that any reasonable compromise would involve all the parties coming around the table and deciding how much of the U.S. we were all going to work on restoring to the condition in which we found it. After all, under RARE I and RARE II there is less than 2% of the land mass of the lower 48 in any kind of decent condition. Compromise would not split that 2%. It would work on moving back toward 50%. Impossible? Maybe, but never let the enemy define the terms of debate and never let him tell you he is not your enemy until he proves he is not. If you do, you have already lost."
I certainly appreciate your passion for preserving wild lands and public access James Riley. But are you going to step up to the plate and offer your private land up for public ownership as an example of how to get back to the way it was?
I would in a heart beat. But let me remind folks of a few things first: Somethings must be done collectively and, when attempted individually, actually work against the goal. In short, when we all agree to pull back, I'll go.
If I conserve a gallon of water, doesn't that just encourage them (people, population growth, land development, etc.)? We know it won't go to reserved water rights for fish, animals, etc. so . . . if I have a water right, why not waste it?
Likewise with gasoline: If I conserve a gallon of gas, doesn't that just increase supply, thus reducing price and encouraging Rush Limbaugh to laugh all the way down the road in his Hummer?
I know improving the life of the poverty-stricken, along with education, is supposed to reduce their rates of procreation. However, if the environmental footprint of a better-off person is so much larger than many poverty-stricken people combined, where is the net gain in shipping my money or energy or efforts to the poor to improve their life?
In short, doesn't helping people just encourage them, thus threatening them long term? Can't working against the perceived interests of people actually inure to their benefit? On Scalia's concentric circles of care, can't caring for those entities mid-way in on the circle (strangers) actually threaten entities which lie further out (species, water, air, space), thus threatening the necessities of life in the center (self) and those closer in (family, friends, loved ones)?
What is "good" and why should I endeavor to do it? I don't want to give 100%, holding nothing in reserve, unless I feel good about the investment and the risk. On the other hand, I don't want to wake up dead someday regretting that I never went balls out for a good reason.
Some call an enviro a hypocrite for driving a car but that same accuser didn't take daddy's '06 out of the closet and fly to Baghdad to fight Saddam all on his own. Nor is he over there fighting IS. Instead, he's here running his suck and suggesting big government do it for him and blaming Obama in failing to do so. Likewise with me: I'll give up my land when we all agree to go east of the Mississippi. Until then, I'll not leave it to someone who will do worse with it than I.
I don't have the sand to go to Harper's Ferry but I'll secretly admire those who do and I certainly won't pull them down from behind.
As to the opposition, a man can sincerely hold a belief that coincidentally, conveniently and comfortably happens to be safe, and that's fine. But I don't want to hear him bragging about the *courage* of his convictions. That is only seen when he tells the likes of Crapo to go to hell.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
Thanks Big Foot. I think I need to scat back over to the "Bragging Photo" thread and stare at the Fort Pierre National Grassland photo.
onpoint
Well-known member
Agreement with appreciating James' comments. Been off here for a long time, having spoke my mind directly about people acting as if they show up for this stuff but actually just paying lip service, and finding out that maybe I'm not quite so like minded as most on this site-with the exception of a very few.....
Thing is I've devoted my life, career, and most my time to these topics as it pertains to those of us lucky enough to live in Montana......I don't have much left in the way of communication skills most find acceptable. Comes from almost thirty years of watching and experiencing the public, the government agencies, and the folks that usually sit on the other side of these issues (the side in opposition for lack of better terms) use the word compromise to describe the path of least resistance.
Thus, I hope James Riley sticks around this site......I for one liked the rant.
Appreciated Oak's question about "can it be a signature", if I understood his context correctly.
I have always watched this site since I left active status...still informative as hell - and scary as hell, too.
Those fighting the good fight - keep it up.
Good to see ya , Shoots, at the Helena public lands rally.
Post Script.....
As I sat through watching, all the while trying to avoid vomiting, Daines' pathetic TV campaign ad in which he was "fishing" at a man made pond in Bozeman - casting his newly acquired Walmart $12.99 spincast combo - I was offended that he was attempting to pawn himself as a Montana Sportsman. Pretty much figured if anybody buys this crap, they want what he brings or deserves what they get if he gets elected. But, as Straight Arrow pointed out, I told you so is little consolation as the consequent damage is being done..........
Thing is I've devoted my life, career, and most my time to these topics as it pertains to those of us lucky enough to live in Montana......I don't have much left in the way of communication skills most find acceptable. Comes from almost thirty years of watching and experiencing the public, the government agencies, and the folks that usually sit on the other side of these issues (the side in opposition for lack of better terms) use the word compromise to describe the path of least resistance.
Thus, I hope James Riley sticks around this site......I for one liked the rant.
Appreciated Oak's question about "can it be a signature", if I understood his context correctly.
I have always watched this site since I left active status...still informative as hell - and scary as hell, too.
Those fighting the good fight - keep it up.
Good to see ya , Shoots, at the Helena public lands rally.
Post Script.....
As I sat through watching, all the while trying to avoid vomiting, Daines' pathetic TV campaign ad in which he was "fishing" at a man made pond in Bozeman - casting his newly acquired Walmart $12.99 spincast combo - I was offended that he was attempting to pawn himself as a Montana Sportsman. Pretty much figured if anybody buys this crap, they want what he brings or deserves what they get if he gets elected. But, as Straight Arrow pointed out, I told you so is little consolation as the consequent damage is being done..........
Last edited:
I'm essentially "A-Political"... but Daines' vote has changed that. I've written Mr. Daines office and let them know they now have a committed political opponent in me. I will do EVERYTHING I can do to make sure Mr. Daines serves ONE TERM ONLY.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
.
It was good seeing you too. Never is there enough time to catch up. Hope we have the opportunity again.
Its pretty sad to read isn't it
bigskyblueman
Member
The federal land swindle train has left the station , with trial votes along the way, and the eventual destination of early 2017 and a new President ready to sign the legislation being ginned up. Since land represents wealth, we Americans all own a part of this public wealth. The only vast , undeveloped tracts of land remaining , are these federal lands. Oil and mining corporations want to drill and mine it, developers want to build it, the water is prized, and on and on. The impending loss Americans will suffer is immense. The Montana congressional delegation and the White House know , and will continue to know how this citizen/voter feels about this theft of our heritage.
shootbrownelk
Well-known member
You are correct Buzz, I've e-mailed Barrasso & Enzi about this Federal land transfer. They both are for it. They said that it would be the best thing for Wyoming, meaning of course Wealthy ranchers and their outfitters, Oil & Gas industries and mining.
Sportspeople are on the outside looking in. If this ever goes through, DIY hunting will end. I said it before, The Democrats want your guns and the Republicans want to take away your places to use them. IMO it's tough to tell a donkey from an elephant these days.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
I understand the dilemma and revulsion of the donkey/elephant thing and the public lands/gun control thing. It's a tough nut to crack.
I'm going on a rant here again, so feel free to tune out or rip me a new one:
One unfortunate fact is that, along with urbanization, has come a human disconnect from what hunters cherish. Lot's of folks think all is good when they see a bird, a tree or a deer in the neighbor's azaleas.
I was back in D.C. lobbying for the Owyhee County one time and took a train through some "country" in Maryland to the beltway. I remember thinking how good the east looked with all those trees along the tracks. But trees hide things; like people. A map showed just how developed it all was. Nevertheless, it "looked" green and inviting. I thought how easy it would be for folks who lived back there to think all was well.
I then thought of the U.S.F.S. out west, particularly in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, and how they have landscape architects on staff who's job it is to create "view sheds" so that all the clear-cutting and nasty crap gets done out of sight from the highway travel corridors and general public. View Sheds were specifically designed to protect the view (hide the rape). Wherever you drove on the pavement you could see big old growth trees along the road and on hill- and mountain-sides. But if you got out of your car and walked ten meters through the trees you would find a desert of stumps. The hill and mountain sides were bare on back-sides and on angles where they were not visible from the road.
Now I think about myself and a million other people pounding away on a key board or cell phone or video game or watching the 24 hour news cycle and not getting out into the woods. Is this good for the woods? Maybe. Better a guy is on the couch than ripping through an elk meadow on a quad, right? But, conversely, does this deprive the woods of a constituency to defend them from development, rape, etc? Thus leaving big money free to exploit an area because no one is looking, or cares, or comments on the EIS anymore? This leaves a few hard corps folks on each side of an issue to push and litigate and beat up on the U.S.F.S. and B.L.M. while the rest of the country thinks every thing is fine: they went to Yellowstone and it looked good, so . . . what's everyone whining about?
I think, in the end, the only people who really care about the woods are hunters and environmentalists. To paraphrase (?) Aldo Leopold, those with an environmental consciousness live in a world of wounds. We come in different shades but we best hold our noses and get in bed together or it's all over. No one else gives a sh*t.
We better have numbers because our money won't stack up to real money. And we want to remember that the enemy of our enemy can be our friend. Thus, just because hunters and environmentalists don't have anything in common with, or even have a liking for some liberal urban types who never left the city or would want to, those same liberal urban types hate these land rapers for other, different reasons, and would love to take them down. And the land belongs to them too. So if some guy want to marry another guy, or some chick wants to whack her fetus, or some dirt bag wants a bigger welfare check, or etc. then is that a price worth paying to protect the land from privatization and abuse? Maybe, maybe not. I think it is.
But then I think about one of my pet issues which is the Second Amendment. Am I willing to vote for a liberal urban type who will protect my public lands but restrict my RTKBA? That's a tough call. I don't think so. What to do, what to do? What good is all the freedom in the world if you don't have a place to be free in ("Of what avail are forty freedoms without a blank spot on the map" A.L.)? Then again, what is my last line of defense, and what is the ultimate statement, by my government, of trust in me as a person?
I can't in good faith vote for a Republican; not even a good one, because his/her name, at the very least, lends a number to the party on partisan or perception votes. But I can't in good faith vote for anyone who would restrict my civil liberties in the SA. I don't trust anyone that doesn't trust me. Again, what to do, what to do?
I think in the end, this is how I come down: There is an Amendment to the United States Constitution (and hopefully a United States Supreme Court), which protects my RTKABA. Thus, regardless of legislation, laws, and States, I know I have the RTKABA and no one is going to take that away from me even if the Democrats rule the world. I will be an outlaw. So what? I'm in good company, with the criminal founding fathers. Besides, there is a well established infrastructure in place fighting for the RTKABA. Finally, just as lots of Democrats are not chicken hawks, so too many of them hunt.
Public lands protections? Not so much. It's not that the threat against them is any more dire or credible than gun control. Rather, it's the lack of Constitutional protections. Public lands are subject to the tyranny of the majority, and it's a majority that doesn't much care. It's a majority who's one redeeming feature is an unrelated opposition to Republicans. It can be perfectly legal and Constitutional to liquidate our public lands.
I have always deemed “wilderness” to be a strategic defense component which dovetails with the Second Amendment. Every single successful insurgency/guerrilla war in history has had an essential non-urban refuge from which to operate. All failures have relied solely on urban operations. I don't want to ever see our public lands used for or destroyed for that purpose but it's another selling point to keep them wild and free.
End rant.
Hunts
Member
Just wrote a letter to Daines detailing my outrage on his vote. Powerful moneyed interests want our public land as investments and will stop at nothing to get them. Daines and his ilk care nothing about Montanans. They serve a dark master who fills their secret bank accounts and promises them more power and influence for their patronage. Can our legacy of public lands be saved? We need to get off our collective asses and be heard.
jryoung
Well-known member
Amen.
I live in the land of nut jobs with an urban population that doesn't care much for guns. Regardless of what they attempt, I know I have the backstop of the 2nd, and better yet so many in Sacramento are willing to overreach they may get slapped with a SCOTUS decision. Additionally, as more and more urban hunters are taking to public lands in search of nonpareil there is potential to help change some opinions on gun ownership.
I don't have this protection/safety net with public lands and that scares me. Maybe though, and it might not take much, but if enough of us rise up, hit the phones and get the current republicans to change course on this issue we can pour a little water on this fire.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Smoke and mirrors...where in 838 did it give specifics to AK or anything else in his response?
What he should do is apologize to every Sportsman/woman in Montana for his vote and assure them he wont pull a stupid stunt like that again.
Instead, its a few hundred words, making excuses and spinning a yarn...
Hold him accountable...
What he should do is apologize to every Sportsman/woman in Montana for his vote and assure them he wont pull a stupid stunt like that again.
Instead, its a few hundred words, making excuses and spinning a yarn...
Hold him accountable...
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
I received the same canned response from Sen Daines. I agree it is "smoke and mirrors".
I take no satisfaction in saying "I told you so." to those voters I tried to sway from voting for Daines.
As a multi-generation Montanan and living in the Bozeman area since before Daines was born, I can readily distinguish Bozeman bred bovine defecation from sincere commitment to the best interests of Montanans. I am pretty certain his higher priorities and goals are not in the best interests of sportsmen & women and wildlife. Lip service is cheap ... but actions are clear indicators.
I take no satisfaction in saying "I told you so." to those voters I tried to sway from voting for Daines.
As a multi-generation Montanan and living in the Bozeman area since before Daines was born, I can readily distinguish Bozeman bred bovine defecation from sincere commitment to the best interests of Montanans. I am pretty certain his higher priorities and goals are not in the best interests of sportsmen & women and wildlife. Lip service is cheap ... but actions are clear indicators.
Similar threads
