Hey folks,
At the risk of starting another politically charged, unproductive argument, I was wondering if there are any ideas of how to find common ground with our PLT adversaries?
Obviously, there are people of all sorts of different ideals on this forum, and this forum is basically only pro-public land people, so pro-public land conservatives certainly do exist. In fact, I'd be wiling to bet the VAST majority of American's don't view public land negatively. So then why do we have issues?
Example: Bret lives in Chicago, and doesn't spend much time in the outdoors. Why would he care about some 3 million acres spread out throughout the west being sold off when he doesn't go there? If he ever makes it outdoors it's to a forest preserve nearby or once in a blue moon, to Yellowstone with a tour guide. As far as he sees, a transfer (sale) of these "expensive" lands means a positive for the federal budget and those who use it get control. A couple million "useless" acres for millions of savings each year in maintenance costs. How is that such a bad thing?
(Obviously that's not reality and the issue is SO much more complex than that, as you have all taught me.)
My point being, currently, ordinary people (not the rich folks behind the PLT movement) who don't use the lands likely aren't against the lands, they are against the expense of these lands. In their eyes, why should the country have to pay for something, that only a minority of people use. And I don't necessarily think that they're bad people for thinking that. I think anyone could relate to not wanting to pay for something you don't see as useful (right or wrong).
So are there any ideas of ways we could attack the expense that these lands hold? Any way of making them more sustainable budget-wise? Perhaps there's not and we'll simply have to rely on making people understand why these lands are so valuable. But IMO, any effort that helps these lands look better on a budget, will take away most of the fire-power our adversaries have.
Thanks,
Caleb
(And please, no bickering about who's political ideologies are better, that's not what this post is trying to figure out. At the end of the day, we're all DIY guys who live for the great outdoors and our hunting heritage. How could you argue with that??)
At the risk of starting another politically charged, unproductive argument, I was wondering if there are any ideas of how to find common ground with our PLT adversaries?
Obviously, there are people of all sorts of different ideals on this forum, and this forum is basically only pro-public land people, so pro-public land conservatives certainly do exist. In fact, I'd be wiling to bet the VAST majority of American's don't view public land negatively. So then why do we have issues?
Example: Bret lives in Chicago, and doesn't spend much time in the outdoors. Why would he care about some 3 million acres spread out throughout the west being sold off when he doesn't go there? If he ever makes it outdoors it's to a forest preserve nearby or once in a blue moon, to Yellowstone with a tour guide. As far as he sees, a transfer (sale) of these "expensive" lands means a positive for the federal budget and those who use it get control. A couple million "useless" acres for millions of savings each year in maintenance costs. How is that such a bad thing?
(Obviously that's not reality and the issue is SO much more complex than that, as you have all taught me.)
My point being, currently, ordinary people (not the rich folks behind the PLT movement) who don't use the lands likely aren't against the lands, they are against the expense of these lands. In their eyes, why should the country have to pay for something, that only a minority of people use. And I don't necessarily think that they're bad people for thinking that. I think anyone could relate to not wanting to pay for something you don't see as useful (right or wrong).
So are there any ideas of ways we could attack the expense that these lands hold? Any way of making them more sustainable budget-wise? Perhaps there's not and we'll simply have to rely on making people understand why these lands are so valuable. But IMO, any effort that helps these lands look better on a budget, will take away most of the fire-power our adversaries have.
Thanks,
Caleb
(And please, no bickering about who's political ideologies are better, that's not what this post is trying to figure out. At the end of the day, we're all DIY guys who live for the great outdoors and our hunting heritage. How could you argue with that??)