I'm voting for Greg Gianforte. He actually hunts and loves Montana and utilizes public lands. Bullock might hunt for show and talk a big game about his love of public lands, but it's nothing more than political opportunism. Democrats have long used scare tactics to attempt to steal the hunting vote.
Bullock has had the same hunting camp for the last 20 years with a group of old friends. He grew up in Montana, has been a public lands advocate since before his time in any elected office, defending our stream access in court as well as the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (All th way to the Supreme Court), fought to keep access open on the Tenderfoot Creek Road and has a solid background of working on public lands (He was a tour boat guide at Gates of the Mountain). He has a pretty good track record on these issues and works across the aisle for better management. Gianforte has surrounded himself with people who advocate for transfer, he funds groups that actively push for transfer and sale of public lands (PERC, UPOM, Americans for Prosperity). Gianforte may hunt, but he's put people in his camp that do not share the valuies of most Montanans when it comes to public lands, and his own track record of giving to groups who oppose public lands and public wildlife is well documented. It's clear that Gianforte is being the opportunist while Bullock has the actual meat in the freezer when it comes to defending public lands and access.
I'll admit, there are some wingnuts on the right side of the aisle who want to transfer lands to the state. Greg is not one of those people. He's pragmatic and knows that this would do far more harm than good. Empathize with the man for a minute, he has to be careful in his public stances so as not to alienate the far-right of the party because he needs those votes to get elected. He has never given any indication that he would support a land transfer, and has, on Randy's podcast among other places, expressly made clear he would not support a land transfer.
He has, on Randy's podcast and elsewhere, claimed that FWP is at war with landowners, proposed some concepts that have little support outside of the anti-public wildlife crowd and again, surrounded himself with the same legislators who try to set seasons legislatively, want to end our access programs like Habitat Montana, Access Montana and others. You bring up the Legislature, which is very important. We've faced roughly 200 anti-wildlife or anti-sportsman bills from the 2011 legislature, 150 in the 2013 legislature and over 100 in the 2015 legislature. Wildlife is a political cudgel for the Gianforte's wing of the Republican party in this state. If elected, I'm pretty sure that we'll see a lot of bills that would bankrupt our agencies or deny the state our share of PR/DJ funds.
On land transfer, he has all of the land transfer proponents stumping for him. He's made it clear that he doesn't support transfer "at this time," but he's never closed the door to it. Again, Gianforte surrounds himself with people who are advocates for Transfer, and even his LT Gov pick has voted for transfer as a leader within the National Associaton of Counties. He's given thousands of dollars to anti-public land, pro-transfer groups. He hasn't shut the door on transfer, like some of the other Republicans in Montana, and in fact is actively courting the pro-transfer vote. Bullock has also helped work across the aisle to improve management on federal lands through the authority given to him in the Farm Bill, has vetoed bills designed to pave the way for transfer and is working to increase access to landlocked public land while maintaining private property rights.
If you a conservative, DON'T BE DECEIVED by the smoke and mirrors and scare tactics surrounding an alleged land transfer that Gianforte does not support and ignore that Bullock has pledged his support to Hillary. If you are a Democrat in your other positions, then vote your beliefs. However, if you fall on the conservative side of the spectrum, remember the bigger picture. The state is on the precipice of financial troubles. We have overspent and added new Medicaid obligations that will impact future budgets. The government has grown 20% since Bullock entered office. The employment numbers have been good but the average wage is horrendous. Democrats would just as soon transfer the public lands if the political winds changed in that favor. The only land advocates who fear Gianforte supports a land transfer are the ones who are already solidly on the left side of aisle in their other positions and would vote for Bullock regardless of what Gianforte has to say about Pubilc lands or anything else. Don't fall into this folly and political opportunism.
The Legislature sets the budget. If you think we're overspending, then quit sending a Republican majority to the legislature who sends a budget that large to the Governor. Governor's can't tell people what to pay employees, beyond enforcing minimum wage laws and labor laws.
Democrats aren't the ones who put land transfer in their state & national platforms, or have the track record of introducing anti-wildlife and anti-conservation bills designed to eliminate protections for elk & deer or access funding for sportsmen. That's squarely on the GOP side of the coin. The GOP is the one who has tried for 3 sessions to hand wildlife management decisions over to County Commissions, stripping them away from our state game agency. The GOP has tried to eliminate hunting opportunities legislatively, when the FWP Commission didn't bow to political pressure, and the GOP has, for as long as most of us who volunteer & work on conservation issues, been antagonistic to access, stuffing bills that would alleviate illegally closed roads, corner crossing and many, many other issues.
So, just because some of us lean left on some issues, I think it's pretty ignorant of the facts to say that Gianforte would be good for sportsmen or wildlife by ignoring the onslaught of bad bills & ideas from our friends at the MT GOP while trying to undermine the actual record of Bullock.
