Ah, you get my point. You are EXACTLY correct Ben (regarding R and D). That's the whole point of my previous response. Maybe in the future on this site we will not see the R and D when it comes to these issues. (as so many have done in the past). These people know who they are.
Not being a Montanan I have a question Ben: Do the R's not work with hunters and sportsmens also (as they have been chastised so much in Montana)?
This issue is not about "R" and "D" politics, as you seem to imply with your first post. It is about how this gets paid and not a single person on this site wants the settlement paid with land. If someone does, I missed it in their post.
To your effort to frame this as "R" and "D" politics, I give some MT examples that show it is hard to do that classification and generalization in Montana.
An example of MT voters is to look at how we voted overwhelmingly for Romney, an "R", yet in our statewide Senate race, we voted just the opposite by giving Tester, a "D", a double digit win. Hard to pin the "R" or "D" tags in MT.
A very interesting example of the land ethic in MT that permeates our delegates in DC. Senator Conrad Burns was elected to the Senate on a "No net gain" policy. He was considered very "R" on land issues. He was defeated by Tester in 2006.
In a recent interview, Burns was asked what he sees as his legacy from his terms in teh Senate. He pointed to the many public land acquisitions he helped get funded - Taylors Fork, Gallatin Land Exchanges, Royal Teton.
Yeah, a "No net gainer" when he went to DC, becomes another one of the many MT delegates who listens to hunters and others concerned about public lands. He does a lot of good work on our behalf. And now, he looks at his public land projects as legacy-type work that he did. Hard to pin the "R" or "D" idealogical coat on even those who many thought were far right. I liked Conrad. He was there when we needed him.
It is for that same reason you don't see many Montanan hunters throwing Tester to the wolves on this topic, rather trying to work on a better deal with him. Tester has done a ton of good for hunters in his first seven years in the Senate. No one cares if he is "R" or "D". They care if work is done to our benefit and who is willing to listen and try make changes when things are not to our benefit.
I am a pretty good distance right of center. I don't really care if the person is an "R" or "D". If it is a close on all other aspects, the "R" is gonna get my vote. But, I am most concered about the person and how they represent hunters, with "R" or "D" way down the list. That is how most MT voters are and that is why you see things where a "R" Presidential candidate can win in a landslide and a "D" Senate candidate can win a statewide election by turning so many of those who had voted for the "R" President.
For evidence of how our legislature has been hijacked, on needs to watch the Frontline documentary about the American Traditiona Partnership and their illegal activities in Montana. A fringe group that has come to Montana and targeted every sane "R" in the primaries and funded extremely fringe candidates. It has had a big impact on MT politics, though illegal and in violation of the Montana election rules.
Guys like me who used to participate in the "R" system are told we are no longer welcome. We would go and press hunting and fishing issues. We were told we are not "R" enough. I suspect I am more fiscally conservative and more libertarian in my views than many of the counterfiets who told me I am not "R" enough.
Another example of bloody knuckle politics on far "R" fringe in MT. Last session I helped craft a bill with a guy I consider a good friend who happens to be an "R". When his party leadership got ahold of it, they told him it was going to be a different kind of bill. It was a train wreck, and all due to the fringe leadership not wanting one of their members working on reasonable solutions.
I wish I could tell you that the "R" group represented Montana hunters the way they did years ago. Some of the individual candidates do. But as a whole, party leadership views the hunter and angler as a pain in their arse and they go out of their way to appoint the "fringe of the fringe" within their group to represent the party on hunting, fishing, and land issues.
So to answer your question - Do "R"s not work with hunter and anglers? Some as individuals do and try to keep some sanity to the discussion. Since these older guard "R"s are the minority in their party and have been replaced by the American Traditions Partnership puppets, these guys no longer in party leadership, thus when they attempt work with hunters and anglers, they are often taken to the woodshed and "straightened out." Yet, we have a few very independent "R"s who will tell party leadership to take a hike. If not for a few of those types on the House FWP Committee last session, hunters would have been abused beyond belief.
It wasn't always that way. It started that way about a dozen years ago.
Your original post made it sound as though you are upset that MT doesn't really get too carried away with categorization of "R" and "D" and "Liberal" or "Conservative." As a general rule lumping people into categories that allows one to vilvify a person due to some sort of "He's with the bad guys" thought process doesn't work well in MT and is a big part of why I like living here.
The end .........
So after all that, the question still remains, "How do we change this proposed settlement and get the Feds to pay this in cash, not in land?" We aren't making any more land, but as pointingdog stated, we are making a lot more cash in DC. Just fire up the presses.
