Federal government approx. 30% It is a large portion of Montana’s land mass, and many state residents use this land for hunting, fishing, boating, hiking and other forms of recreation.

So it’s no surprise that public lands are one of the top issues in the close Senate contest in Montana between incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester and his Republican challenger Tim Sheehy. in 2024 questionnaireUniversity of Montana to create 47 percent of state voters called “clean water, clean air, open spaces and public lands” “very important” and a “primary factor” in determining their vote, while 36 percent said it would be one of the factors.

Tester on August 20 Published on X“We value our public lands in Montana. But Tim Sheehy demanded they be turned over so the ultra-rich could buy them.”

X

Tester, who faces a tough race for a fourth term in an increasingly Republican state, continued to attack Sheehy over the issue. on October 24 x postTester called Sheehy a “wealthy outsider” who would “transfer public lands.”

Did Sheehy, a retired U.S. Navy SEAL who also runs an aerial firefighting company, support the transfer of public lands to wealthy buyers?

That’s essentially what the Tester campaign did, he said. But Sheehy says it’s not like that.

In a statement PolitiFact“Public lands are federally managed, which means the federal government assumes the costs of maintaining those lands. When lands are transferred from federal government to state and local government, the state cannot assume the costs, and the lands are ultimately sold to private entities,” Tester’s campaign said.

We reviewed Sheehy’s comments and did not find that he said he wanted to transfer the lands to other entities, whether to the government or wealthy private buyers.

Instead, Sheehy called for local residents and local groups to be given more say in how federal lands are used and managed within a permanent federal ownership structure.

The testers’ camp argues that this position opens the door to a free-for-all sale of public lands. But reaching this conclusion requires leaps in logic rather than solid evidence.

What Sheehy said about public lands policy

Sheehy’s campaign website He says: “I believe strongly that public lands are in public hands. As your next U.S. Senator, I will work to protect and expand access to our public lands and listen to the voices of local communities when evaluating public lands policy. I will oppose any federal transfer or sale of our public lands. Any federal transfer or sale of our public lands.” “First and foremost, I want to keep Montana special for my children and your children, and that’s why I will always protect our right to hunt, fish and recreate on our public lands.”

In a statement to PolitiFact, Sheehy’s campaign said it “opposes any federal transfer or sale of our public lands,” adding that Sheehy “will stand up to radical environmentalists who lock up our forests and prevent us from managing our lands and creating good things.” – I pay the lumber works.”

Public lands were the center of attention for several minutes during the candidates’ selection ceremony on September 30. contention“The bottom line: Public lands are in public hands,” says Sheehy.

Sheehy repeated this view in a speech on October 1. column Locals are better positioned to manage the land than federal officials 2,000 miles from the nation’s capital, he writes for the Bozeman Daily Chronicle.

“I believe Montanans, not Washington bureaucrats, know best how to govern our land,” he wrote in the op-ed. “That’s why we need more local input and collaboration. It’s critical that we listen to local voices when evaluating public lands policy, and when it comes to our farmers, they deserve to have their voices heard on grazing leases.”

Sheehy attempted to draw a distinction between ownership of land, which he said should be federal, and management, which he said should have a broader role for local people.

The closest Sheehy came to supporting the land transfer came in an interview in October 2023. “Working Farm Radio Program.” In it he said: “Local control needs to be returned; does that mean, you know, turning over some of these public lands to state agencies, or even counties, or are these decisions being made by a local homeowner? You know, federal orders a few thousand miles away , local control will almost always produce better results than federal powers of bureaucrats who are ultimately unaccountable to the people subject to those regulations.”

It’s unclear whether Sheehy meant the lands to be “turned over to state agencies, or even counties,” or to have them managed locally under federal leadership. In either case, it is not clear that he intended for the “ultra-rich” to purchase these lands.

Why does Tester think Sheehy will go beyond what he promises?

The Tester campaign’s assumption that Sheehy would move to cede federal lands and sell them to the “ultra-rich” is based on circumstantial evidence. The Tester campaign suggested the following points to connect Sheehy to the sales policy:

Sheehy was on the board of the “free market” environmental policy group.

Tester includes: mentioned the Property and Environment Research CenterA national group specializing in free market approaches to the environment. The organization reported in its own report 2022 IRS Form 990Sheehy, who publicly discloses information about nonprofits, served on the board as an unsalaried member, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle reported in June. web archives from the band’s website listed it as a board member.

Sheehy is no longer on the group’s board of directors, and it is unclear whether full privatization of public lands is on the group’s agenda.

In 1999, the group’s former chief executive wrote that he wanted to auction off “all public lands for 20 to 40 years,” the Daily Chronicle reported. And in 2016, the group’s founder, Terry Anderson, called for each national park to be managed as an independent business. Outside Magazine reported. But Kat Dwyer, a spokeswoman for the centre, told the Daily Chronicle these stances were outdated and written by people no longer affiliated with the group.

The band’s website today says “explores innovative ways to better fund public lands, such as user fees retained for maintenance and operational needs, or other ‘pay-to-play’ financing mechanisms similar to the successful model used by hunters and fishermen to fund wildlife conservation.”

Sheehy is a large private land owner.

Sheehy has operated Little Belt Cattle Co. in central Montana since 2020. It borders federal lands. According to NBC Newsand one of their jobs is selling access to hunters. New York magazine.

The federal government and private landowners negotiated land swaps.

Land swaps involve shifting federal land into private hands through the exchange of different parcels of land. These are swaps rather than one-way transfers.

In the Crazy Mountains of Montana, the U.S. Forest Service has been involved in years of negotiations and a lawsuit. swap A similar amount of 3,435 acres of existing federal land is owned by a few private landowners. 2019 in public Comment The Property and Environmental Research Center supported the proposal, which was submitted to the Forest Service.

Critics of the transaction say the Forest Service land is much more accessible for recreational use than the high-elevation lands that private landowners would give up. “They’re taking all the good stuff and giving us dirt,” says Brad Wilson, founder of Friends of the Crazy Mountains. He told New York magazine.

Critics say demand for and investment in Montana federal land by private entities will increase, especially given the attention to wide-open spaces in the Paramount TV series “Yellowstone.” Large landowners with holdings in Montana add pioneer of cable television Ted Turner; Farris and Dan Wilks of Texas, who are interested in energy; and Missouri native Stan Kroenke, owner of the NFL’s Los Angeles Rams and the NBA’s Denver Nuggets.

The Montana Republican Party platform supports federal land transfers.

state party platform It states: “We support the development of a transition plan for the timely and orderly transfer of federally managed public lands to the state. Any land transferred from the federal government to the state will be managed for the purpose for which it was transferred, while preserving public access and use.”

But the platform is not binding on any Montana Republican candidate, and Sheehy’s stated position contradicts that.

Sheehy relatively recently added language against land transfer to his website.

Tester’s campaign told PolitiFact in a statement that Sheehy added a public lands section to his website’s “Get the Facts” page last April and added a dedicated public lands page last July. “Sheehy is clearly trying to cover this up by saying what voters want to hear about an important voting issue,” Tester said in his campaign statement.

Our decision

“We value our public lands in Montana. But Tim Sheehy demanded they be turned over so the ultra-rich could buy them,” Tester said.

Sheehy has consistently said local interests should have more say in managing federal lands and has said he opposes federal transfers or sales of federal lands.

Tester’s campaign says Sheehy’s stance should not be taken at face value, citing his affiliation with the Montana Republican Party (which supports the transfer of land to the state for public use) and his past board position with a group that supports auctioning off federal lands.

But none of these factors support what Tester claims. We found no evidence that Sheehy tried to turn over federal lands so the “ultra-wealthy” could seize them.

We evaluate his statement as False.