MT Senator race: Public Lands

[Sytes]

Outside other issues facing these two...
For those undecided voters faced with the various issues:

What do we know about their public land stance?

I think it's safe to say, Jon Tester will counter PLT attempts.

Selling or transferring these lands would be devastating to the outdoor economy, and would trade one of our nation's greatest investments for short-term financial gain

Matt Rosendale also declares the same:

I’ve listened to the people of Montana and they mean business about protecting our public lands, opposing a federal lands transfer, and responsibly expanding access and recreational opportunities – and I completely agree.

An interesting objective evaluation of Jon Tester's campaign advertisement about public land and Matt Rosendale...

http://www.kpax.com/story/38554868/...k-ads-against-rosendale-how-do-claims-hold-up

 

[Ben Lamb]

Tester is a proven entity when it comes to public lands. He's a moderate, thoughtful person who has stood up to both fringes and works with local stakeholders to achieve desired results. He introduced & passed the Rocky Mtn Front Heritage Act, he's been a leader on LWCF, fire borrowing, better management of public land and even co-sponsored the Cottonwood amendment to help speed up collaborative projects that get lost int he fog of litigation, he worked to get the Farm Bill passed in 2015 that gave Governors the ability to pull together resources & recommendations to fast-track forest health projects and - he got wolves delisted.

Rosendale's record - not his rhetoric - is the opposite. His work on the Land board has been antagonistic to conservation, his record as a legislator was anti-sportsmen and anti-public lands, going so far as to be a vocal proponent of no net gain of public land, introducing bills to make trespass a larger criminal offense, attempts to undermine the NAM by legislating seasons, etc. As Majority Floor Leader, he helped set the tone & tenor on public land issues in 2015, which was the year we defeated over a dozen transfer of public land bills. His record is abysmal when it comes to public lands, public hunting, and conservation.

 

[RobG]

Promises during campaigns mean nothing. Rosendale's record from the legislature and the land board show he isn't on our side. Tester, on the other hand has a long history of supporting our public access and habitat. While there are many issues, on this one they aren't even comparable and when public land is lost it is basically gone forever.

rg
[edit - no surprise, Ben beat me to it and said it better.]

 

[Rancho Loco]

Rosendale is a moonbat. Who has the vid of him shooting down a government drone?

 

[mtmiller]

With a rifle IIRC.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vid...gressional-candidate-shoots-drone-ad-23365782

 

[RobG]

Rosendale is a moonbat. Who has the vid of him shooting down a government drone?

Tester and I actually identify with Matt when it comes to government overreach in surveillance. The outrage seemed to be more about Mat the nut instead of the bigger issue. JT's opposition to the fourth amendment issues in the Patriot Act was against the grain at the time, yet he beat Burns over the head with it and won. He ran on it again against Rehberg and HR 1505 and beat him.

However, instead of a scoped hunting rifle I'd use a shotgun or an open sight anti-aircraft gun... Can't speak to JT tactics though.

 

[Schaaf]

“The U.S. Constitution clearly defines the purpose for the federal government to retain land for post offices, batteries and things like that,” Rosendale said. “There is no call in the Constitution for the federal government to own national forests or BLM land and just to manage those additional lands. Both Congress and the Legislature would have to approve his proposal. Rosendale, a Republican state senator from Glendive, said he’s been working on the idea with the American Lands Council, a group in South Jordan, Utah.“


https://www.google.com/amp/s/billin...4ae4e88a-0d20-55db-95ec-72fb88fd1d20.amp.html

 

[Schaaf]

That was at the same time Rosendale was helping push SB 237, No Net Gain of State Land. He claimed the state couldn’t afford to manage the land it already owned.

 

[MTGomer]

On the issue of public lands and only public lands, Tester is the obvious choice. While Maryland Matt has used his position on the land board to actively oppose access, Tester has spent time expanding it.

Of course there are other issues to juggle but I would struggle to vote for a Maryland land developer that cannot pronounce Montana, over a farmer from Montana.

 

[Sytes]

Speaking land and only public lands how much a threat is Rosendale to our public lands? This is the big question for Indepent vote minded people that I have had an opportunity to speak with.

It's a matter of juggling those other issues and deciding the Threat Level. that's where I think Jon Tester will have a challenge especially if you review the objectives evaluation of Jon tester's allegations towards Matt Rosendale in his video.

It is interesting how many people still believe certain things that are absolutely false about Rosendale however that comes with political commercials that are approved by the politicians.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Charles,

Same can be said about Tester. Lots of lies about JT out there.

That's why you have to look at the record, not the rhetoric.

 

[Schaaf]

It is interesting how many people still believe certain things that are absolutely false about Rosendale however that comes with political commercials that are approved by the politicians.

It’s because people like myself believe he’s only saying that to get elected and it’s not what he believes. He watched Zinke run him into the ground and then watched Gianforte lose the Gubernatorial race in large part due to PLT. I don’t believe for a second he has changed his beliefs. One look at his most touted endorsements (Ted Cruz and Mike Lee) further solidify that belief.

In my opinion, where he would do the most damage is following right in line with his most coveted endorsements in Mike Lee and Ted Cruz.

 

[Sytes]

Charles,

Same can be said about Tester. Lots of lies about JT out there.

That's why you have to look at the record, not the rhetoric.

No doubt there, Ben. I thought that was kind of a given. My question still stands though I know where tester stand that's why I have voted for him two times in the past however this time there are other issues pressing and so it becomes a juggling Act or a threat assessment. Hence my question about Matt Rosendale. What threat does he hold considering his current position on public lands?

Don't mind the grammar Etc. I'm on speaker phone right now unfortunately.

 

[Ben Lamb]

No doubt there, Ben. I thought that was kind of a given. My question still stands though I know where tester stand that's why I have voted for him two times in the past however this time there are other issues pressing and so it becomes a juggling Act or a threat assessment. Hence my question about Matt Rosendale. What threat does he hold considering his current position on public lands?

Don't mind the grammar Etc. I'm on speaker phone right now unfortunately.

Got it.

Here's the threat: Rosendale's record indicates that he'd be antagonistic to LWCF, Local Collaboratives like the Blackfoot Clearwater, anti-funding for agencies to do the work necessary to manage public lands and his past, vigorous, support for PLT on top of his deference to oil and gas lobbyists on land board issues make him a distinct threat to public lands, wildlife and sportsmen & women. Especially if there is a republican majority in congress. Right now at the congressional level, Transfer bills are being drafted & Introduced (like Mike Lee, a big supporter of Rosendale), there are efforts to eliminate funding for endangered species protections, funding for farm bill conservation programs, NRCS efforts to work with landowners on conservation ,etc. Rosendale's main campaign theme is that he wants to go to Washington to kill federal funding for a host of programs he feels aren't worthy of taxpayer dollars, and given his record, we can draw a realistic conclusion on what those are. Especially when you consider how closely he's aligning himself to Trump & the budgets the administration is promoting that would zero out spending on access & conservation - or at least crater programs with little funding at all.

 

[Yellowstoner]

No doubt there, Ben. I thought that was kind of a given. My question still stands though I know where tester stand that's why I have voted for him two times in the past however this time there are other issues pressing and so it becomes a juggling Act or a threat assessment. Hence my question about Matt Rosendale. What threat does he hold considering his current position on public lands?

Don't mind the grammar Etc. I'm on speaker phone right now unfortunately.

Curious what the other issues are at stake here? Tester has been an adamant public-land advocate, and has the record to prove that he is one of the staunchest supporters of our public land and way of life. He has time and again stood for the second amendment, in the face of democratic criticism. In every political post here, you claim to have voted for Tester the past two times, which is great, but the way you constantly state it makes me think you're hiding behind that fact so you can attack him. How is it even a question when it comes to public lands?

"With regards to the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act, I believe it lacks a balanced approach. It designates 79,000 acres as new wilderness while only opening up 6,000 acres for recreation." -Rosendale

That's all I need to hear. Rosendale sees recreation as motorized access, which is simply not true.

 

[Sytes]

Curious what the other issues are at stake here? Tester has been an adamant public-land advocate, and has the record to prove that he is one of the staunchest supporters of our public land and way of life. He has time and again stood for the second amendment, in the face of democratic criticism. In every political post here, you claim to have voted for Tester the past two times, which is great, but the way you constantly state it makes me think you're hiding behind that fact so you can attack him. How is it even a question when it comes to public lands?

"With regards to the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act, I believe it lacks a balanced approach. It designates 79,000 acres as new wilderness while only opening up 6,000 acres for recreation." -Rosendale

That's all I need to hear. Rosendale sees recreation as motorized access, which is simply not true.

The various significant issues lead Independent, Libertarian, and Republican - voters who are strong supporters of public land yet are conservative more so than liberal to question if Rosendale is tolerable for public lands to vote for him and NOT have a Democrat partisan seat occupied for the various other issues.

Today's political climate is so extreme "toe the partisan line" that Congressional seats matter for conservative and liberal minded voters.

 

[jryoung]

For my personal voting, Tester would be such an easy choice....but I live in CA where my choices are these two tuckfards.

 

[Sytes]

California is in an entirely different world... I don't envy you! Ugh! Best to ya... Almost as bad as the options for our '16 election.

 

[Sytes]

It's pretty objective... It covers Rosendale's actions, prior positions, current positions, etc.

I believe he is not the threat to public lands as Democrats seek to express. Congressional seats that are up for grabs hold significant value for the positions shared by both liberal and conservative views over the significant topics present.

Tester’s campaign launched a pair of TV attack ads shortly after Rosendale won the GOP primary on June 5, calling him a “Maryland real-estate developer” – a label sure to be repeated many times during the contest.

The ads also attempt to paint Rosendale as an enemy of public lands and access to those lands – another line of attack likely to be employed often by Democrats and the Tester campaign.

To what extent are these ads telling the truth, or perhaps stretching it or omitting some information that doesn’t fit their narrative?

 

[Schaaf]

Sytes, can you provide one example of him being even halfway decent on public lands or wildlife management from his time in the legislature? I’m not looking for what he has said since his Senate campaign started.

I have known Matt personally since 2006. He is the absolute last person I wanted the GOP to nominate.

PM JCS, ask him about his interactions with Matt.