2016 GOP Platform?

[texashunting2015]

Saw this and can't help but wonder how far outside the fringes is this movement really? I know it will still need to be voted at convention, but it is gaining ground fast. Coming from a state with something like 97% private lands, I know the struggle once you go looking for a place to hunt or even just get outside unless you can afford a lease.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...nts-feds-to-turn-fed-lands-over-to-the-states

 

[Big Fin]

Such has been the goal since this entire debacle started - Get Congress to do the transfer and then there is no legal recourse to stop it. Congress absolves itself of the responsibility to do the work needed to manage land, western states replenish their inventory for sale, and if history and statute is any indicator, land access for recreation is changed forever. The lazy asses in the political world are happy and their political debts have been repaid; a win-win for the insiders, a royal screwing to us outsiders.

It will be interesting to see how it gets handled at the Convention.

 

[jzeck2]

I hate to say I told you so but I told you so. We either have to take back the republican party or abandon it. And I'm afraid there is no taking it back. Too many wingnut special interests. We'll see who are the true conservationists by their votes this November. Our 2 republican senators and our republican congresswoman here in South Dakota seem to support the transfer position as well.

 

[Southern Elk]

It will be interesting to see how it gets handled at the Convention.

How does that work? Trump and his son have said that he is against transfer. Does he have a say? And what exactly does it mean when something is part of the party platform? I'm
assuming that it's one of their stated legislative objectives?

 

[scotttgill]

From what I understand, the party platform vote is a formality, "a piece of jewelry" that may or may not ever be proposed for real law. It's still scary, because if it's part of the platform, the next step would be for someone to bring it up in one of the houses for a vote. Nevertheless, no politician
has to stick with carrying out the platform of the party, they pick and choose what their hobby horses will be. If Trump wins, hopefully his boys will have his ear (I've heard they are big public western lands supporters).

 

[scotttgill]

And being also from Texas (and knowing the struggle to find a good hunting place I can afford), and planning my first public land DIY elk hunt in the west in a couple of years, my heart dropped when I saw the same headline.

 

[James Riley]

If Trump had the balls people seem to think he has, and if he is the showman that people say he is, then here's the best thing that could happen to the United States of America: After that point in time when he is *the* Republican nominee, no longer "presumptive", then, at that time, he takes the stage at the convention and announces:

"Ladies and gentlemen of America, as the head of the Republican Party of these United States, and to your great chagrin and endless booing and cat-calling and tomato throwing, I now, happily, and proudly, in the face of all that, present to you the next Vice President of the United States: (rising on a platform from below the stage, wait for it, wait for it . . .) Senator Bernie Sanders!"

Crowd: BOO BOOOO BOOOOO!

Trump: LOL! ROTFLOLWPRDML!

Now, if only he could get Bernie to go along.

F the parties. F both of them. And F the corporate media whores.

Okay, then I woke up. Yes, madam president. :hump:

 

[texashunting2015]

I think what we need to keep in mind is that it does not matter who the President is. If it is in the platform, Congress can work to push through the agenda. My guess would be amendments onto bills that need to pass. Our best defense is to keep the amendments from even making it to the floor for discussion.

 

[Bowhunter60]

I hate to say I told you so but I told you so. We either have to take back the republican party or abandon it. And I'm afraid there is no taking it back. Too many wingnut special interests. We'll see who are the true conservationists by their votes this November. Our 2 republican senators and our republican congresswoman here in South Dakota seem to support the transfer position as well.

JZECK, You could not be more right! Most of us have not left the GOP, they left us! I'm frankly disgusted with them and their running from true conservatism.

 

[genesis273]

I have worked at a relatively large regional airport for 16 years, and over those years have met and become aquaintances with a lot of people. One being a NC Congressman who also loves to hunt, which that shared interest is how we started talking so often. I remember about 10 years ago NC was talking about selling off alot of our public land. So when I happen to see him, I brought it up, thinking that he would agree with me since he is an outdoorsman. He looked at me and said, "that land is doing nothing but costing us money with nothing much to show for it." I knew then that if a fellow outdoorsman doesn't see the need to keep it, there's little hope. I knew later that by them transferring the federal lands over to the states is only the first step in the whole plan to sell it all off. Which is obviously where we're at now.

 

[hank4elk]

The do nothing congress WILL DO THIS if we let them.

 

[PRM]

As mentioned, a platform may or may not reflect an individual candidate's position. Trump has stated he would not favor selling off lands. I would give that more weight than a GOP platform, but the differences are concerning nonetheless. It would be worthwhile to contact the policy staff directly and present them with what Trump said and an articulate letter as to why land transfer may be a bad idea.

As for the platform, it says both that "These are public lands, and the public should have access to them for appropriate activities like hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting", and that it must "convey certain federally controlled public lands to states." ...those lands are "those lands, identified in the review process, to all willing states for the benefit of the states and the nation as a whole." Be interested what this review process is what the criteria is.

Of note, in comparison to the 2012 platform, for 2016 they removed the entire section on private stewardship of land replacing it with what was quoted above (full text below).

From the 2016 GOP Platform:

https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf

"The federal government owns or controls over
640 million acres of land in the United States, most of
which is in the West. These are public lands, and the
public should have access to them for appropriate
activities like hunting, fishing, and recreational
shooting. Federal ownership or management of land
also places an economic burden on counties and
local communities in terms of lost revenue to pay
for things such as schools, police, and emergency
services. It is absurd to think that all that acreage
must remain under the absentee ownership or
management of official Washington. Congress shall
immediately pass universal legislation providing for
a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal
government to convey certain federally controlled
public lands to states. We call upon all national
and state leaders and representatives to exert their
utmost power and influence to urge the transfer of
those lands, identified in the review process, to all
willing states for the benefit of the states and the
nation as a whole. The residents of state and local
communities know best how to protect the land
where they work and live. They practice boots-on-
the-ground conservation in their states every day.
We support amending the Antiquities Act of 1906 to
establish Congress’ right to approve the designation
of national monuments and to further require the
approval of the state where a national monument is
designated or a national park is proposed. "

 

[James Riley]

If Trump dies then Pence is President. Might want to put that in the pipe and smoke it.

 

[PRM]

And if Hillary lives were stuck with her.

I think I can find adequate concern regarding any of the main Pres/VP players.

 

[Gr8bawana]

And if Hillary lives were stuck with her.

The Democratic party is not the one pushing the agenda for the land transfer.

 

[TheDudeAbides]

As mentioned, a platform may or may not reflect an individual candidate's position. Trump has stated he would not favor selling off lands. I would give that more weight than a GOP platform, but the differences are concerning nonetheless. It would be worthwhile to contact the policy staff directly and present them with what Trump said and an articulate letter as to why land transfer may be a bad idea.

As for the platform, it says both that "These are public lands, and the public should have access to them for appropriate activities like hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting", and that it must "convey certain federally controlled public lands to states." ...those lands are "those lands, identified in the review process, to all willing states for the benefit of the states and the nation as a whole." Be interested what this review process is what the criteria is.

Of note, in comparison to the 2012 platform, for 2016 they removed the entire section on private stewardship of land replacing it with what was quoted above (full text below).

From the 2016 GOP Platform:

https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf

"The federal government owns or controls over
640 million acres of land in the United States, most of
which is in the West. These are public lands, and the
public should have access to them for appropriate
activities like hunting, fishing, and recreational
shooting. Federal ownership or management of land
also places an economic burden on counties and
local communities in terms of lost revenue to pay
for things such as schools, police, and emergency
services. It is absurd to think that all that acreage
must remain under the absentee ownership or
management of official Washington. Congress shall
immediately pass universal legislation providing for
a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal
government to convey certain federally controlled
public lands to states. We call upon all national
and state leaders and representatives to exert their
utmost power and influence to urge the transfer of
those lands, identified in the review process, to all
willing states for the benefit of the states and the
nation as a whole. The residents of state and local
communities know best how to protect the land
where they work and live. They practice boots-on-
the-ground conservation in their states every day.
We support amending the Antiquities Act of 1906 to
establish Congress’ right to approve the designation
of national monuments and to further require the
approval of the state where a national monument is
designated or a national park is proposed. "

It is not the party of Reagan anymore.

"The preservation of parks, wilderness, and wildlife has also aided liberty by keeping alive the 19th century sense of adventure and awe with which our forefathers greeted the American West. Many laws protecting environmental quality have promoted liberty by securing property against the destructive trespass of pollution. In our own time, the nearly universal appreciation of these preserved landscapes, restored waters, and cleaner air through outdoor recreation is a modern expression of our freedom and leisure to enjoy the wonderful life that generations past have built for us." Ronald Reagan

 

[James Riley]

It is not the party of Reagan anymore.

"The preservation of parks, wilderness, and wildlife has also aided liberty by keeping alive the 19th century sense of adventure and awe with which our forefathers greeted the American West. Many laws protecting environmental quality have promoted liberty by securing property against the destructive trespass of pollution. In our own time, the nearly universal appreciation of these preserved landscapes, restored waters, and cleaner air through outdoor recreation is a modern expression of our freedom and leisure to enjoy the wonderful life that generations past have built for us." Ronald Reagan

Good quote. Thanks for sharing.

Dove-tailing off Reagan's "adventure" and character argument is the notion that every successful insurgency ever fought had a non-urban environment from which to operate. An argument could be made that undivided wild lands are a Second Amendment issue. Freedom ain't worth much if you don't have a place to be free in.

 

[PRM]

That's a great quote by Reagan. I hope this generation of politicians, D or R, can carry it on and sustain what TR and Pinchot gave us.

 

[Irrelevant]

Freedom ain't worth much if you don't have a place to be free in.

Quote of the week...

 

[James Riley]

Quote of the week...

Thanks; it's my simplified version of the words of a man infinitely more articulate than I: "Of what avail are forty freedoms without a blank spot on the map?" Aldo Leopold.