Fed Lands Transfer advocate Rosendale trying for MT State Auditor

[MooseCaboose]

That is a great question. It won't control the transfer itself, but the auditor has one of the five seats on the land board which regulates how state lands are used, bought, or sold.

Got it. I still don't see how this has any impact on more federal lands in state hands. Congress controls that.

Elsie Arnzten is up for OPI on the Republican side and she's ahead in the polls I think

 

[Ben Lamb]

It does give Rosendale, who is an outspoken proponent for Transfer a bully pulpit as he continues to try an run for larger office (most notably Congress). As a member of the Land Board, he would be making decisions about new FAS', Conservation Easements, Land Banking and Fee TItle Acquisitions like Wildlife Management Areas. He's been on record as opposed to the FWP access programs outside of Block Management and has voted repeatedly for "no net gain" bills that would have cratered programs like Habitat Montana and Land Banking.

So, it's important to note that his position on transfer in light of his ambitions, his possible voting record on the land board and his existing voting record as a legislator.

 

[RobG]

And if I may drift off the sportsmen connection, someone who hates the ACA as much as Rosendale does is not the person you want in charge of regulating health insurance. We need someone in there fighting to make what we have work as best as possible, not someone trying to convince you that it can't work.

 

[Ben Lamb]

With Rosendale, Artnzen, Stapleton, Gianforte & Fox on the land board, a resolution in support of transfer in some fashion would be easily passed on a 4-1 vote. That sends a message to the land transfer advocates that MT is theirs and that they will have the help of state land managers, regardless of legality and cost. It also tells our legislature that they should go a head and funnel money to some charlatan like Ken Ivory as Utah has done to go after the transfer. A land board that advocates for transfer would also put Zinke & Daines in a pretty bad spot.

So the land board does matter very much in the transfer movement, and from a sale of public land perspective, how long do we think the land banking program would stay when the top electeds in MT come in and advocate for no net gain, as ROsendale & Artnzen have voted in the past, or even straight up transfer, as Gianforte has funneled money too?

 

[RobG]

Straight from the horses mouth. You folks better get yer thinking caps on because voting has already started.

 

[MooseCaboose]

With Rosendale, Artnzen, Stapleton, Gianforte & Fox on the land board, a resolution in support of transfer in some fashion would be easily passed on a 4-1 vote.

You have to tell me what you classify under the "in some fashion" category since Fox and Gianforte have made clear they don't support transfer. Could be true for Elsie and Corey too I just don't follow them close enough to say.

 

[RobG]

I think the immediate issue is our existing and future public access sites are in jeopardy. This is also what lies in the not too distant future. http://www.sltrib.com/home/4485146-155/hunters-conservation-groups-decry-privatization-of

I'm looking into Stapleton and remembering why his name sits bad with me. He was the campaign treasurer (of Kennedy) that got in trouble for improper record keeping that conveniently hid some dark money. Kennedy beat Bonogofsky in Billings by using dark money. One of these days I'm going to get my head around that whole chain of events.

Anyway, as a campaign treasurer Stapleton couldn't keep track of where the money went, but now he feels he'd be a great addition to the land board via the Secretary of State office.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You have to tell me what you classify under the "in some fashion" category since Fox and Gianforte have made clear they don't support transfer. Could be true for Elsie and Corey too I just don't follow them close enough to say.

Schuyler,

Sorry for the delay. Been packing and getting ready for 10 days afield.

Fox has a track record against Transfer with his signing on of the Western AG report. He's the 1 vote against. Gianforte has qualified his opposition to transfer by saying "not at this time," so he's hedging his bets and not actually taking a stance. Given the opportunity and the calculus that there would be little blow-back, I'm not sure he'd vote against it (Remember, he's a big funder of PERC, proponent of Denowh's UPOM and funds Americans for Prosperity while also maxxing out to Transfer stalwarts).

The "of some fashion" would be expressing support for eliminating federal mgt plans for grouse (that's actually holding up defense spending) and replacing them with state plans, support of the Labrador transfer lite type of concept or simply passing resolutions designed to undermine public land mgt or a straight up vote in support of transfer. There are varying levels of transfer and the overall strategy is to continue to prove how bad federally managed public lands are by denying the land managers tools necessary to actually manage. It's a strategy that works, unfortunately.

The immediate threat though, as Rob pointed out, is how these individuals would vote on land board issues relative to access, fee title acquisition and conservation easements. Rosendale, Arntzen & Gianforte have all either voted against these programs or stated publicly that they don't like them. With both the access specialist position and Habitat Montana coming forward this session, I don't see much hope of either of those policies staying around under a Gianforte administration

 

[6mm Remington]

No matter what way we vote I would hope that the candidate elect would follow what the people want to have happen as we are who elected them in the first place and NOT vote however they want. That is why we elect people to be our voice, and we need to let them know how we feel on issues no matter who is elected.

 

[MooseCaboose]

Schuyler,

Sorry for the delay. Been packing and getting ready for 10 days afield.

Gianforte has qualified his opposition to transfer by saying "not at this time," so he's hedging his bets and not actually taking a stance. Given the opportunity and the calculus that there would be little blow-back, I'm not sure he'd vote against it (Remember, he's a big funder of PERC, proponent of Denowh's UPOM and funds Americans for Prosperity while also maxxing out to Transfer stalwarts).

I hope your conjecture about Greg is off. Property rights groups like UPOM have their place. But you are right, when they cross the line too far into being anti-public land it drives me away from the Republican party. But I'm hanging in there for now. Also isn't it your job and my job to assure there is always going to be a lot of blowback?

I hope you fill all your tags and have fun. 10 days in the wild sounds like a dream right now.

 

[RobG]

Interesting to look back to this thread. Rosendale has gone from someone people felt had no chance for Auditor to a U.S. Rep. Formerly the most despised person on the ballot, Gianforte bought his way to the Governorship. And this was the worst Legislature for hunting ever. Great job.