Ken Holmlund's Public Lands Vote HJ 19
Posted by Mary Catherine Dunphy (+2897) 2 years ago
If the public lands remaining public is an important issue to you, consider Ken Holmlund’s ‘no’ vote on HJ 19. I believe by this vote, Ken Holmlund has clearly demonstrated that he is no friend of the public lands remaining public – in other words “this land remaining your land.”

In the 2015 Legislature, HJ 19 was “A Joint Resolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the State of Montana Emphasizing the Value of Public Lands in Montana to the State’s Economy, Recreation, Heritage, and Quality of Life; and Opposing any Effort to Claim, Take Over, Litigate for, or Sell off Federal Lands within the State of Montana.”

So, just to be clear, the HJ 19 resolution opposed any effort to claim, take over, litigate for, or sell off Federal Lands within the State of Montana.
Ken Holmlund voted ‘no’ which meant he was not opposed to any effort to claim, take over, litigate for, or sell off Federal Lands within the State of Montana.

Here’s the link to HJ 19:
http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2...0019_1.pdf

And, here is the link to Holmlund’s vote on HJ 19

http://laws.leg.mt.gov/le...SESS=20151

If this issue is important to you, please vote for Steve Muggli. He is for the public lands remaining your land –- the public’s land for the people of Montana to use and enjoy.

And, next time you see Ken Holmlund, ask him why he voted 'no' on HJ 19 and was not opposed to any effort to claim, take over, litigate for, or sell off Federal Lands within the State of Montana.
Top
+6
-5
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+13997) 2 years ago
So in other words, you'd rather not have the state control those lands, in which case the could remain public, but without some of the NEPA requirements, or become private and generate tax revenue? You'd rather take the paltry PLT and watch counties like Prairie and Custer with lots of federal land struggle to provide services? You'd rather take the coming Clinton land grab which will force Livestock grazing to end and the current path of environmental destruction to continue, because BLM can make sound ecosystem decision to save their lives?

There is a lot more to this decision than the political sound bite on which you are focused.

[Edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (10/26/2016 3:16:22 PM)]
Top
+8
-2
Posted by Jesse Smith (+420) 2 years ago
Federal land that becomes State land, is STILL public land.

But I guess that doesn't fit your agenda.
Top
+4
-3
Posted by Dwayne Rude (+291) 2 years ago
So public lands are up for bid to thr highest bidder. State control only entails the lands the have money to control. The free market approach is to sell to the highest bidder. Short term unempathathetic appraoch. Hoewever not unexped belief for the short sighted amongst us. I do empathize.
Top
+1
-2
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6174) 2 years ago
Reply to Jesse Smith (#368971)
Jesse Smith wrote:
Federal land that becomes State land, is STILL public land.

But I guess that doesn't fit your agenda.


That is true but in many states the driving force behind acquiring federal lands is so they can be sold to private parties. I live in Utah and this is exactly what the proponents of these transfers want to do. If you think that state governments intend to maintain these lands as public with the same access and conservation you are blind and naive.
Top
+7
-2
Posted by Mary Catherine Dunphy (+2897) 2 years ago
I agree with Ms. Wilson's comment above. I think that individual states do not have the financial resources to properly manage the public lands and, the potential exists for the public lands being sold off to the highest bidders -- either individuals or corporations.
Top
-3
Posted by gunsngold (-2413) 2 years ago


This is a little off subject, but is a little bit relevant.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+13637) 2 years ago
Reply to gunsngold (#368992)
The video isn't working, GNG.
Top
Posted by Mary Catherine Dunphy (+2897) 2 years ago


Steve Muggli will not vote to sell the public lands!
Top
+3
-1