Replies

Can someone explain something to me? Just about everything that the new Governor Dutton nixed in his first day in office were things approved or pushed through by the previous Governor Lynelle Perry. At least that's the way I've perceived the writers as having suggested in the first episode of the new season. In the first episode, John Dutton is speaking to two legislators about canceling a program I believe. One of the legislators says that "his predecessor had them push it through." To me that means Lynelle Perry created that specific problem...so why does Dutton then go have lunch with her afterwards, and at no time does he bring that subject up. He's said nothing to her in the last 7 episodes about issues he's having to deal with, that she specifically created.

If Perry created all the problems that Dutton is now having to deal with, and get rid of, I don't understand why he is being so polite to her. As the outgoing Governor at his inauguration, she's there in that capacity, but she's also the new U.S. Senator for the State. John Dutton introduces her to the crowd, and she says a few brief words. Beth Dutton who is also in attendance at the inauguration has been very kind to Perry as well, which is surprising, because Beth doesn't like anyone, and if Perry has been involved in creating the problems her father as Governor is having to deal with, I don't understand why there would be anything other than animosity between Beth and Perry.

If Governor Perry is responsible, as it has been hinted in the show, for the previous policy issues John Dutton is against, what the hell is going on? Did I miss something in the story? I never liked her character. She's an obvious politician, and willing to cut deals that aren't good. He's slept with her in the past, and in episode 6, when the ranch is hosting a get-together, she's there. There's a bit of a jealously problem when she realizes that the environmental activist Summer Higgins has been released from prison by John, and is staying at his ranch. The only cat fight that occurred was between Summer and Beth.

The program that you refer to is of a combined development of a new airport, new Indian casino and hotel, and massive residential housing, with the story running through a number of previous episodes. In essence, although politically attractive and economically lucrative, the combined development would have reduced the Dutton ranch physically and run up its taxes to the point of becoming financially nonviable. The larger impacts on the state would have put traditional Montana on the path to extinction.

As the story unfolded, a cascade of permits and approvals secured by a wealthy and politically savvy development company presented Governor Perry and the state government with little choice but to accept the project or face expensive court action and an eventual loss. John Dutton then emerges as a conservative, even openly reactionary opponent of progress. When elected, he undoes the entire chain of permits and approvals for the project, starting at the state level and extending to the key local county commission approval. In one episode that you may have missed, Governor Perry recruited John Dutton to run and succeed her in order to undo the project, so they had no need to discuss its merits and details in later episodes after Dutton became governor.

In broad terms, the Yellowstone plot line is plausible. Large development projects are commonly so hard to stop because of the political and economic power they have behind them and because, by the time organized opposition emerges, key early permits and approvals have usually been quietly secured.

My brother and I once beat a major toll road project in a fight that spanned more than ten years. A key stage in the toll road fight was when my brother got elected to the city council and as mayor of a small town in order to fight the project.

There was a victory in court on appeal that killed the project, with a fight then ensuing in the state legislature to block revival of the toll road at that level; there were dire threats of personal retaliation from development interests that backed the road; condign humbling of various public officials; and then a final revocation of local planning council approval that ended any prospect of it rising from the dead.

In sum, the machinations over the development project in Yellowstone are credible as storytelling. And so also is your point. My brother still grumbles at how I ended up on good terms with the trial judge who ruled against us and with a member of the US House who was politically treacherous as a state legislator. Unreliable judges and politicians are just part of the ecosystem and it serves no purpose to be forever angry at them.