Thank Jock Cunningham for linking this on FB - US Congress Public Lands voting scorecard.

[44hunter45]

Alarmist? Maybe. Forget the BS in the their email blasts, web pages, and stump speeches. Here is how our Senators and Reps voted regarding public lands.

Even Martin Heinrich only scored a C. For me this means the reviewers and I are not entirely aligned. It is worth actually getting into the text of the 26 measurement points used in the scoring.

Congressional Public Lands Score

The first tool ever built to track how every member of Congress votes on your national parks, forests, wilderness, and wildlife refuges. Find your lawmakers. See their record. Hold them accountable.

morethanjustparks.com

 

[SAJ-99]

He voted to confirm Burgum. Seems like a good reason to lose some points.

 

[Bonasababy]

About right from what I see, all my states republicans score an F, Dems all A's except for one B (Klobuchar) for confirming Burgum and Rollins.

And our pubs don't even try to explain their votes...they routinely refuse to meet with constituents or take their calls.

Latest interesting one was my Rep...Pete Stauber. One of those publically accusing Canada of mismanaging forests leading to wildfires and smoke issues south of the border.

His response to multiple news sources asking him to comment on the latest discovery...that USFS had plans to clean up dead/dying fir to help minimize future fire problems adjacent to the BWCA...in the exact spot a wildfire started and is burning still today...leading to evacuations/ closures and major economic losses to his constituents--were axed by DOGE?

No comment.

 

[slatebuilder]

Maps like this are click bait and stir the pot but……….

This map does a great job of highlighting which states are welcoming to hunters and gun owners and which states are hostile towards hunting and gun owners

Heinrich could have scored a “C” due to his positions on solar and wind development on public land.

 

[wyflyguy]

While I think these things are interesting, I think they are often very misleading. My issue is that if you look into the bills that these people actually vote on, they are rarely, if ever, simple pieces of legislation that cover a single issue. A prime example of this is the "Big Beautiful Bill". Yes, there are provisions in there that deal with public lands, but the thing is absolutely massive. Even if a Senator/Congressman is a staunch supporter of public lands, they may have voted against legislation that is pro-public lands because they disagree with 90% or the rest of the bill. I think it often puts these guys and gals in really impossible situations. You can take their voting records at face value and pretty much tell any story you'd like with them.

Again, I think there is value here for sure. You just need to dig a bit deeper to actually understand what's going on in many cases. However, in other cases (looking at you, Mike Lee), it's not too tough to see the real story.