RobertR
Member
Don't forget to vote for who represents Montana best and vote to support sports men and women's rights and freedoms.
Vote Montana Primary
- Thread starter RobertR
- Start date
I sure don't see any candidates that meet all that criteria - looks to me like you have to vote for the ones that will mess things up the least.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
We have some endorsed candidates that are sportsman friendly here:
http://pac.montanasportsmenalliance.com/endorsed-candidates/
shoots- is that list from 2012? A couple observations on candidates on that list, if I may. First, Brad Hamlett stated in an EQC meeting during a discussion on the Dana Ranch exchange that public access should not be a consideration in these exchanges, only acreage and value should be considered. Second, Clayton Fiscus adamantly opposed corner crossing as a takings. I wonder how many of the Rs running for office this year support disposal of federal land.
katqanna
Well-known member
On the federal senate front, Dirk Adams is a good candidate for sportsmen, wildlife and habitat.
"He supports the full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Adams recognizes that all the wildlife on his ranch - the wild turkeys, the roaming coyotes, and the trout in the river - are as much a part of the environment as the horses in the barn. Ensuring access to public land for hunters and anglers is important to Dirk Adams. More than two decades before it ever crossed his mind to run for the US Senate, his ranch, the Lazy SR, granted public access to the Crazy Mountain National Forest. He believes in the public trust model of wildlife and conservation. He supports the full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund."
"He supports the full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Adams recognizes that all the wildlife on his ranch - the wild turkeys, the roaming coyotes, and the trout in the river - are as much a part of the environment as the horses in the barn. Ensuring access to public land for hunters and anglers is important to Dirk Adams. More than two decades before it ever crossed his mind to run for the US Senate, his ranch, the Lazy SR, granted public access to the Crazy Mountain National Forest. He believes in the public trust model of wildlife and conservation. He supports the full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund."
Zach
Well-known member
No kidding, unfortunately if he wins he's a national problem.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Zach, you'll be glad to know he didn't win the primary.
It will be Wash vs Daines
It will be Wash vs Daines
Zach
Well-known member
Since you let me know, that race seems like a pretty easy choice for me, but again I'm not a MT resident so it's N/A to me.
RobG
Well-known member
Turns out former Wall Street Bankers/coal warring environmentalists have a small following in MT. But I'll be knocking on his door if allows hunting on his ranch.
And I will miss the emails from Champ in a smiley kind of way.
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I saw him give a talk in person. Didn't seem like a bad guy - certainly angry. He didn't have a chance vs Walsh's backing. I'm surprised Bohlinger had such a good showing.
What I'll miss most is the monthly youtube comedy videos from Matt "This is how I look from a Government Drooooon" Rosendale
What I'll miss most is the monthly youtube comedy videos from Matt "This is how I look from a Government Drooooon" Rosendale
Adams made the mistake of thinking he was running in California. A western Democrat is not a coastal dem. They're generally conservative and support extractive industries but also support real conservation efforts. Closest that come to them are other coal state dems.
katqanna
Well-known member
Ironic, I heard about Adams from other Montana hunters, who called me specifically about Adams, long before I ever saw an email from someone y'all would probably label an environmentalist.
From conversations last night and this morning, with other Montana hunters who also voted for Adams, we discussed the diversity of political views we have been hearing of late, different endorsements from different sportsmens groups. An example of which is on this thread of two candidates on MSA's list that, "First, Brad Hamlett stated in an EQC meeting during a discussion on the Dana Ranch exchange that public access should not be a consideration in these exchanges, only acreage and value should be considered." I would have to agree, especially after listening to the damn EQC SJ15 Federal lands phone meeting they had last week. Hamlett is pro Federal Lands transfer.
With all the internet technology and increased information/networking available to the average person, that wasnt as common decades ago, I dont think you are ever going to have one sportsmens group that would be representative of the majority of Montana sportsmen, as in years past. There is a lot of diversity of experience and opinions, not just political parties (for those that party politics is first and foremost), that come into play. "Sportsmen" dont just vote access and wildlife issues as their main criteria, as partly evidenced by the plethora of diverse conversations and debates that regularly appear on this forum.
RobG
Well-known member
Oh come on Kat, thems guys aren't your average MT hunters. Yes, Adams would be the best one for the environment, but too far left for most, Bozeman and Missoula notwithstanding. You're unelectable in MT if you are against coal. And he was also a banker with ties to the predatory loans of the housing crisis. He'd be destroyed against Daines.
Adams would have been extremely ineffective. NREPA, the big bill he was running on, has a 3% chance of passage. It's been introduced for the last 20 years and never gets beyond a Pyrrhic committee vote. It has no support in the vast majority of the hunting community and it wouldn't pass out of Senate ENR because no Rocky Mountain State senator that I'm aware of supports it.
All three dem candidates supported full funding for LWCF. All three have good ideas, but only Walsh has the political accumen to get something realistic moving forward, thanks in large part to his willingness to work with Montana hunting groups and his good decision to retain some of Baucus' staff (and steal some of Tester's).
katqanna
Well-known member
lol, Rob, I am not talking about "green", yuppie, eco hunters. I think you might be surprised at the conversations, perspectives of your "average" Montana hunters that are members of a number of sportsmens groups, that even you have associated with. Some of them include the "old guard" of Montana's conservation hunters. I am just more "vocal" than most on a lot of subjects.
This is what I am talking about. What exactly is "average MT hunter"?
As to coal, Id have to agree, that is a divisive issue here in MT. I was at a MWF board meeting last late spring, where they had a presentation by a woman working with farmers and ranchers in eastern MT, fighting against the coal companies that were affecting their land and hunting opportunities. They were reaching out to MWF for help and as of that meeting, MWF was looking to help. I stopped attending meetings after the elk brucellosis issue, so I dont know what came of that presentation and those conversations, if they signed on. I dont have time to search their site to see their positions on it - finishing a cartoon and the notes from the last EQC land grab meeting.
I am not as familiar with Adams banking background, but I lost my house in that housing crisis, partly due to a predatory loan. So while I dont agree with everybody all the time, or respect everything about them, being an issue voter, he had the most on access, wildlife and their habitat that I could get behind, which for me, is the most important issue. I am not interested in party politics, voting in legislators who will rule garbage dumps, pit mines, superfund clean up sites, oil spills, concrete jungles. Frick, if I wanted that, I would have stayed in Texas, where the votes are already bought and paid for, so I really didnt need to vote and had stopped for over a decade in disgust.
I am not going to be able to hunt or hike a coal mine, nor will sage grouse or ungulates be able to live on that landscape, farmers and ranchers are negatively affected, but as far as providing energy, there are cleaner sources that are longer term, would provide jobs, income and energy that dont muck with wildlife or their habitat than a finite resource that has some potentially toxic effects. If I am going to have to vote for a candidate that I dont 100% agree with, then I would rather vote for one that "errs" on the side of public access, wildlife/habitat and protecting Montana from the growing list of major oil spills and such.
I think you might be surprised at the conversations, perspectives of your "average" Montana hunters that are members of a number of sportsmens groups, that even you have associated with. Some of them include the "old guard" of Montana's conservation hunters. I am just more "vocal" than most on a lot of subjects.This is what I am talking about. What exactly is "average MT hunter"?
As to coal, Id have to agree, that is a divisive issue here in MT. I was at a MWF board meeting last late spring, where they had a presentation by a woman working with farmers and ranchers in eastern MT, fighting against the coal companies that were affecting their land and hunting opportunities. They were reaching out to MWF for help and as of that meeting, MWF was looking to help. I stopped attending meetings after the elk brucellosis issue, so I dont know what came of that presentation and those conversations, if they signed on. I dont have time to search their site to see their positions on it - finishing a cartoon and the notes from the last EQC land grab meeting.
I am not as familiar with Adams banking background, but I lost my house in that housing crisis, partly due to a predatory loan. So while I dont agree with everybody all the time, or respect everything about them, being an issue voter, he had the most on access, wildlife and their habitat that I could get behind, which for me, is the most important issue. I am not interested in party politics, voting in legislators who will rule garbage dumps, pit mines, superfund clean up sites, oil spills, concrete jungles. Frick, if I wanted that, I would have stayed in Texas, where the votes are already bought and paid for, so I really didnt need to vote and had stopped for over a decade in disgust.
I am not going to be able to hunt or hike a coal mine, nor will sage grouse or ungulates be able to live on that landscape, farmers and ranchers are negatively affected, but as far as providing energy, there are cleaner sources that are longer term, would provide jobs, income and energy that dont muck with wildlife or their habitat than a finite resource that has some potentially toxic effects. If I am going to have to vote for a candidate that I dont 100% agree with, then I would rather vote for one that "errs" on the side of public access, wildlife/habitat and protecting Montana from the growing list of major oil spills and such.
Similar threads
