Vote Public Lands
- Thread starter mfb99
- Start date
onpoint
Well-known member
Is it OK with you, oh wise one, if Ben pat's himself on the back for his [thoughtful] reply?.................
Hope it wasn't an Eminence Front, Ben
Hope it wasn't an Eminence Front, Ben
JohnCushman
Well-known member
I'm kind of torn with my gubernatorial vote in Colorado. The D choice that's pro public lands goes against most of my values...sanctuary cities, funded abortions, and most everything he's pushing can only be paid for by raising taxes through the roof and is anti gun. The R candidate is a total shitbag that has screwed people his entire political career There's little to no information about the Libertarian candidate. So, what do I do? Vote public lands and against my values, vote for a shitbag? The Independant I really liked didn't make the primaries. Colorado has totally gone to hell since I've lived here and our votes out in the country don't seem to matter anyway since we can't outvote Denver and GJ and Boulder and the other population areas.
Last edited:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Ok, serious response time:
I'm voting for candidates who reflect my values. That's conservation as well as civility and basic common decency along with true economic opportunity for citizens, healthcare as a right and a backstop to a growing cancer in the executive branch that is intent on stealing more power.
I'm also pro-choice, but pro-life.
On Conservation: For the races I'm voting in, that means voting for Democrats at the congressional level. It also means voting for democrats at the state legislative level and on the ballot initiatives. I'm voting for medicaid expansion & clean water, and I'm voting for the 6 mill levy to continue funding for our state university system. All of these help people gain a foot up in the larger economic scheme of things. Public lands as an economic driver are one of Montana's biggest assets. From ranchers who graze cattle to outfitters who run on public to manufacturers like Sitka, Kenetrek, Adipose boats, etc that rely on vast expanses of public land & access to our rivers & land to create the number of hunters & anglers who demand their products - public lands are a great equalizer in the business world. Tech companies routinely use surrounding public lands to lure in new hires - all of whom come with attractive salaries & boost the overall GDP of the state. Healthcare is THE largest sector of the Montana economy, and public lands are, just as they are within the Tech industry, used to bring in top talent rather than let them go to urban centers with less quality of life.
Then there's the esoteric aspect to public lands. We all could live comfortably in air-conditioned houses and drive our cars to our jobs, playing golf on the weekend and eating factory beef and chicken, or we could remain predators in our own world. Public lands give me the opportunity to relive our past, and keep connected to nature. It keeps me grounded in that I know I'm not the top of the food chain, and that my own skills are lacking and need improvement. That drive to do better helps me in my business, and it helps me keep from having a heart attack and dying at the ripe age of 46. I don't get that from a gym, I hate gyms. I hate lifting weights, but put a mule deer 1/2 on me and I'll go. I get to hone my competitive skills on public lands, and they provide a quality of life that is far, far better on the freedom index than suburban cookie cutter houses and country clubs full of bastards who think a putting green is nature. I am a part of my surroundings, and that means the grizzly bear that's 10 miles from my house, or the lion that's 1 mile, are part of my life. Same with the elk within sight of the Capitol or the grouse that lives at the trailhead frequented by hikers, bikers and dog walkers. That kind of existence is the marrow of life that Thoreau talked about. Without it, we are all lesser people.
As for other issues, like pro-life, I vote for people who support healthcare for all because if people don't have the option of better healthcare, they choose bad options that lead to abortions. I want women to have free or low-cost birth control and I want sex education in school. I want women who make that decision to abort to not die because of it, I want safe, healthy medical procedures instead of back-alley coat-hanger jobs. Abortion is an awful, awful thing and the best way to reduce it is to provide better options up front, rather than simply take that choice away. Same goes for economic situations - when people feel like they can't afford a baby, they give it up through whatever means necessary. That's where public lands again prove their economic worth - with the kinds of jobs that public lands provide, economic certainty for lower income people becomes easier as our economy isn't tethered to the last century. The public land economy is the entirety of the economic swath - from entry level jobs to entrepreneurs that build businesses off of their bounty, providing jobs for people who feel similarly.
And then there's clean air, water and soil. Without all of these, we're all going to die or be held captive by those who control them. True freedom is contained in those public lands. Without them, we are tethered to concrete and asphalt. We are dependent upon the benevolence of masters to provide our basic necessities and we are held captive in urban cages, unable to roam freely and over great expanses of our birthright as Americans.
As for Marylin - I've always had a thing for women who have curves, and while that poster was on my wall 25 years after she died, she still inspired.
Ben, have always appreciated your thoughtful posts whether I agreed or disagreed. A sincere observation/question. If PTL issues weren't at issue (for example, if both candidates had equally good or bad PTL records) my hunch is that you would vote Dem anyway given your stated beliefs. It seems like the PTL question just gives you one more reason to confirm your already solid Dem viewpoint. So, the tough question is, if you had a pro-transfer Dem against a pro-public land GOP candidate for Senate which would you pick? That would give you the "Sophie's Choice" problem bushcreek (earlier reply) faces.
MNH20FowlHunter
Member
My two cents. I will preface this with that fact that i'm a firm believer in the KISS principle (keep it simple, stupid)
Abortion: done with Roe Vs Wade
Guns: Taken care of with the Second Amendment
Public lands: no constitutional or supreme court ruling protections (that i'm aware of, if others could inform me that would make me feel better)
So regardless a candidates camp I'm going for the candidate who's pro public land and access. That's the biggest thing right now that is up for grabs in my simple world.
Abortion: done with Roe Vs Wade
Guns: Taken care of with the Second Amendment
Public lands: no constitutional or supreme court ruling protections (that i'm aware of, if others could inform me that would make me feel better)
So regardless a candidates camp I'm going for the candidate who's pro public land and access. That's the biggest thing right now that is up for grabs in my simple world.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Winner winner winner chicken dinner. Thanks so much for the real common sense answer. So rare these days.
406LIFE
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2016
- Messages
- 3,112
Comments like these are divisive to the hunting community. If some of us choose a concern over public lands, you should honor that. By insinuating that those who will vote on abortion concerns over public lands have no common sense, you have drawn lines that are unnecessary. Instead focus on what can be done to unite us.
Sent my absentee ballot in last week.
Got to vote for some serious Pro Public Lands folks this year in NM....Senator,Congresspersons, Public Lands Commish & against the shithooks who would sell their mothers for a nickle.....a couple who are the usual two faced politicians ,but held my nose due to the choice.
Got to vote for some serious Pro Public Lands folks this year in NM....Senator,Congresspersons, Public Lands Commish & against the shithooks who would sell their mothers for a nickle.....a couple who are the usual two faced politicians ,but held my nose due to the choice.
onpoint
Well-known member
Any suggestions?
I won't budge on Public Land issues.
You probably won't budge on right to life issues.
I will vote for people who support choice because I have no dog in the fight regarding the abortion issue, and more importantly to me, those people do not have in their party platform the transfer of ownership of public lands.
You, I'm guessing, are a 180 from my views.
Thus we are divided.
What's your ideas for unity regarding this dilemma?
Whereas you may view me as opposed to the right to birth, I view your vote (for todays GOP party) as a threat to my - and millions of others' - birth right. American Public Lands.
Last edited:
BrentD
Well-known member
406life, those comments are not divisive. They are instructive in how some people are rationally choosing between two imperfect choices. How are YOU doing that?
BrentD
Well-known member
MTG, posing arbitrary hypotheticals are not really of much value. What are you going to do with very real choices?
Most of us do some sort of subconscious balancing act that weights the personal importance of an issue by the probability that it is at risk by a particular candidate.
If you think that public lands are very important to you, but they are unlikely to be at risk, then you are essentially going to ignore that issue.
onpoint
Well-known member
This whole public lands issue(s) began brewing well before it ever made it into the politics, headlines, and web forums.
Even though this juggernaut of a political foible was well underway a decade ago, it then barely was a blip on most American outdoorsmen/women's radar.
Divisiveness, questions with little or no good answers, vitriole, political partisanship, opinions, facts, unimaginable apathy, useless arbitrary hypotheticals and all.......
Too bad it had to come to the point we are currently at to wake up a sleeping giant. Will the giant shoot himself in the foot, go back to sleep when the danger "goes away", get his shit together???
Probably just grab a gun, or a gun and a dog - and disappear tomorrow into the very public lands this is all about. With gratitude............
Even though this juggernaut of a political foible was well underway a decade ago, it then barely was a blip on most American outdoorsmen/women's radar.
Divisiveness, questions with little or no good answers, vitriole, political partisanship, opinions, facts, unimaginable apathy, useless arbitrary hypotheticals and all.......
Too bad it had to come to the point we are currently at to wake up a sleeping giant. Will the giant shoot himself in the foot, go back to sleep when the danger "goes away", get his shit together???
Probably just grab a gun, or a gun and a dog - and disappear tomorrow into the very public lands this is all about. With gratitude............
BrentD
Well-known member
onpoint, it sounds like "unimaginable apathy" wins out in your opinion.
Not really sure what to make of your post.
Not really sure what to make of your post.
onpoint
Well-known member
Unimaginable apathy is what got us to where we are today.
Not sure what you mean by "wins out".
Not sure what you mean by "wins out".
I voted for John tester and Elinor Swanson, and a Democrat for my house district ( if you can call him that) and a republican for my open county commissioner seat.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Logical...
It's not just the Transfer and sale that drives my decision making process on public lands issue. It's how those lands would be managed, who would be appointed to key positions and what would the budgets look like for the agencies tasked with managing the public estate, but to answer the question -
If both candidates were the same on public lands and conservation, then it comes down to key issues on healthcare and the character of the person. I can think of several MT legislators who are Republican whom I would not only vote for, but campaign for and work for. While I am anti-GOP party structure, I remain steadfast in my belief that we must work together, regardless of party affiliation to pass good policy and push back against bad policy - democrat or republican sponsored. I've worked to kill Dem bills that would have harmed private property rights as well as bills that would go against good, long-standing policies on issues like habitat conservation. That work was generally jovial and well-met as I have long-standing relatonships with those legislators, and so an honest conversation got us both what we were looking for. I've done the same thing with Republican ideas that wouldn't be workable as they related to noxious weeds and access.
So, while I'm certainly on the more progressive end of the spectrum, I do not view myself as a partisan (I know that will elicit some howls, but the direction that the GOP has headed in state and nationally is not worth supporting, IMO and certainly isn't conservative in the classical sense). I tend to view the candidate for their positions and their character rather than their party first.
If there was an anti-public land dem, then I doubt I'd vote for them. I may not vote for the Republican based on the above criteria, but I wouldn't feel right voting for that person.
And to Gomer's question - it would be Matt Mead. Mead has proven himself to be a capable executive with a good head on his shoulders, a strong conservation ethic and a spine to stand up to either party in DC. His work on conservaton in Wyoming, as well as driving the debate on diversified economies, the economy of public lands, etc, show that he's not just a tool of the usual WY interests and that he thinks for himself. I've not had the pleasure to meet him personally, but everyone in WY I know and trust loves the man and based on his actions, he's someone I'd love to see rise through the ranks to one day run for President. I like Grijalva, and have met him and lobbied him once. I don't know where folks get the idea he's anti-hunting other than from the usual right wing hunting groups like SCI or the NRA over some African hunting stuff. He was extremely warm and receptive to a group of hunters who sat down with him to talk about LWCF & the National Landscape Conservation System, even asking one Arizonan how their deer hunt was. Grijalva has led the opposition to Bishop in House Natural Resources. He may not be 100% with us, but he's closer than Bishop by a mile.
