At first glance, Senators Steve Daines (R-MT) and Cory Gardner (R-CO) are cut from the same cloth: both are conservative Republican freshman Senators from Western states who replaced Democrats in the GOP’s 2014 midterm election blowout. And last year on the campaign trail, both candidates presented a moderate, middle-of-the-road approach to conservation and public lands issues.
But when they reached Washington—and it was time to turn rhetoric into reality—their conservation priorities proved to be miles apart.
It didn’t take long for Senator Daines to raise serious concerns about his support for balanced conservation policies. The Senator first sent a one-sided letter to conservation groups advocating for more development at the expense of Montana’s outdoor spaces. He then voted against reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund. LWCF, which directs revenue from offshore oil drilling into conservation projects across the country, has funded hundreds of projects in Montana and, as a February poll showed, is supported by 75 percent of Montanans.
After facing blowback from the anti-LWCF vote, Senator Daines’ replied, confusingly, “The vote I took was not in opposition to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.” In a move that made conservationists feel like they’d been “sucker-punched,” Senator Daines instead introduced his own toothless amendment merely stating that Congress should reauthorize the program, but not offering to actually do so.
During that same week, Senator Daines took aim at the Antiquities Act by introducing an amendment prohibiting national monument designations without state support, undercutting the purpose of the popular law. (Last week, he doubled down on this misguided approach by tacking on a similar resolution to the proposed federal budget.)
Finally, last week Senator Daines cast another misguided vote, this time to allow the federal government to sell off all public lands that are not national parks through a budget amendment. His vote helped the resolution pass, 51-49, despite the extreme unpopularity of the idea: the same February poll showed that 72 percent of Montana voters don’t want federal lands sold to reduce the deficit. In an attempt to walk back Senator Daines’ controversial vote, spokeswoman Alee Lockman replied that “Steve’s commitment to Montana’s conservation and outdoor heritage hasn’t wavered.”
Senator Gardner, on the other hand, has listened to his constituents and is taking a consensus-driven approach on land conservation policy thus far.
The freshman Colorado lawmaker voted for full LWCF authorization in January, saying at the time that “making this authorization permanent is common sense policy, supported by sportsmen, hunters, and countless Coloradans.” Although the measure failed, Gardner’s vote was a strong sign of support and appreciation for his conservation-minded constituents.
The following month, when President Obama designated Colorado’s Brown’s Canyon as a national monument, Senator Gardner not only praised the protection for its conservation merits, but also credited the victory to those who had long collaborated on the project—including Senator Mark Udall, whom he had defeated in the November election. This commitment to national monuments stands in stark contrast to Senator Daines’ attempts to undermine the Antiquities Act.
Finally, when last week’s budget amendment came around, Senator Gardner voted against selling off national public lands. While the proposal passed, he was one of only three Republicans to vote against it. Why? Because Senator Gardner is listening to his constituents on this issue: a full 70 percent are against selling national public lands to cut the deficit.
Protecting public lands is not just good policy ‚Äì it’s good politics. Senator Gardner seems to recognize this fact. Senator Daines would do well to recognize this, too, and put his votes in line with his rhetoric.