DT Jr. on Meateater

[Irrelevant]

So you're making a thread with serious accusations simply because of who his dad is? I can remember a few things that have been done to benefit public lands and access, but maybe I'm remembering wrong because his last name is Trump.

Sorry John ifit came across that way. I was actually trying to speak to the opposite. I made the thread because there's this idea, right or wrong, that he's a very influential person with the current administration that just pushed a really strong narrative in support of our lifestyle, and that there are people in this word that are so biased and close minded that when they'd listen to that podcast they'd write it all off as lying. As I tried to allude I think he was being pretty honest and sincere but with a strong bias. That's all.

 

[SAJ-99]

Obviously, speaking on the podcast is a good thing. I don't think it moved the needle one iota due to how entrenched politics are now, but that isn't exactly his fault. The guy has made more appearances on Fox News that pre-lubed catheters mailed directly directly to your door and has spent most of that time trolling the libs rather than talking about conservation, so I still find it hard to prop DT Jr. up as a conservationist and friend of hunters.

^ This
I give him credit for speaking out on Pebble Mine. It doesn't change my view of him. He never saw a camera he didn't like, retweets racist imagery, and touts conspiracy theories. I think I can find a candidate that that thinks the same way on Pebble Mine but doesn't bring the other negative baggage.

In that statement he admits that mining is a dirty operation and it will dump waste into Bristol Bay, thereby having a negative impact on the fishery. However, he had no problem with the removal of protections on Bears Ears or millions of other acres. I would like to see some consistency. The current RNC path seems to be 1) remove limitations on O&G and Mining on some public lands. 2) Remove EPA regulatory burden that would make development cost prohibitive 3) cut leasing rates on those lands to benefit production and profitability, but hurt state revenues, with the "jobs,jobs,jobs" claim. That got us to where we are now.
https://www.usnews.com/news/busines...ration-cuts-oil-gas-fees-in-hundreds-of-cases.

So where does this go? The GOP has a stated policy that federal public land should be transferred to states. The states don't want it because they don't have the money or resources to manage the land, but they want/need the revenue from the leases. If you cut the revenue, it might eventually make states more willing to accept the transfer so they can re-raise the lease rates. Some states (looking at you Utah) would probably just try to sell the land outright, and eventually all would once the wells go dry and revenues stop. O&G and mining companies have figured out it is better (i.e. CHEAPER) to chip away at regulations and permitting on public lands than to fight to try to acquire the land for drilling. They can't afford the land anyway with commodity prices where they are. I guess this is not all bad for hunters, in the short term. But eventually you end up in a position you hate because you never replied what was happening.

Here are some maps. Dispute the source all you want, but the numbers are irrefutable.
https://www.wilderness.org/articles/article/trumps-land-grab-7-maps

 

[wa_archer]

Maybe its just me but I don't care what party you are. If you support public lands, wildlife, environment regulation and hunting I support them. Out of all the party lines its the one that affect my way of life the most outside of some major shift in gun control which would be extremely hard for either side. I don't care who they are (Rogan, DT J. or the like) if they are going to go on rants that support what I do and put it in a positive light to people that don't have a clue, I support it. I don't hate just because they are able to afford high end hunts.

 

[44hunter45]

Do you guys think the Passing of the GAOA will significantly help those that voted yes for this bill including trump signing it? Hunters generally lean right but we are often caught in the middle.

Will a Republican senator that voted no to this bill lose hunter votes this fall?

Will trump gain votes from hunters for him supporting and passing this bill?

I know some Idaho Republicans who will not get my vote again. This is a big deal. I have never, ever voted for a Democrat. I came to Idaho to get away from such things.

(deleted morose diatribe about how pissed I am the my party is driving me to this. )

 

[BWALKER77]

If DJT interferes with the Pebble mine permitting process like Obama did I will not vote for him.

 

[BuzzH]

If DJT interferes with the Pebble mine permitting process like Obama did I will not vote for him.

Its all a calculated risk...if Trump figures it will gain/buy him more votes than it costs him, he'll interfere all day long with pebble, and twice on Sunday.

 

[BWALKER77]

Its all a calculated risk...if Trump figures it will gain/buy him more votes than it costs him, he'll interfere all day long with pebble, and twice on Sunday.

It was the same for Obama and in both cases its wrong.
We have a rule of law, a permitting process. Let's follow it.

 

[Big Fin]

It was the same for Obama and in both cases its wrong.
We have a rule of law, a permitting process. Let's follow it.

Agree. Unfortunately, every administration I know of has intervened in those processes, either to expedite or derail, when it can help them acquire votes or repay political favors. This administration is no different and has done a ton of it already, either through executive action, administrative rule, or inclusion in legislation that changes the existing laws.

No matter who wins in November, I am sure the next administration will be meddling one direction or another.

 

[SAJ-99]

If DJT interferes with the Pebble mine permitting process like Obama did I will not vote for him.

Depending on your view, that has already happened. The Obama administration blocked the mine through the EPA using rules from the Clean Water Act (debate: did Obama block it or the EPA block it? see how word choice matters?). Trump rolled back a lot of the protections of the Clean Water Act early this year. This led to his decision to green-light the Pebble Mine.
Completely agree with Big Fin in that every administration will try this kind of stuff to varying degrees. I guess I just prefer that this stuff be based on science and rather than political whims and there be some consistency toward clean water, clean air, and some respect for the environment rather than the almighty $ (which is what EVERYTHING comes down to eventually). DJT Jr is basically saying the original EPA ruling during the Obama administration was correct, although he would never say that. That is what concerns me. I am naive in believing facts are facts and can stand on their own, not subject to the whims of whomever is in charge. Stupid, stupid, me.

 

[88man]

I have two friends that shared a camp with JR a few years ago and they had nothing but good things to say about him.

 

[BWALKER77]

Depending on your view, that has already happened. The Obama administration blocked the mine through the EPA using rules from the Clean Water Act (debate: did Obama block it or the EPA block it? see how word choice matters?). Trump rolled back a lot of the protections of the Clean Water Act early this year. This led to his decision to green-light the Pebble Mine.
Completely agree with Big Fin in that every administration will try this kind of stuff to varying degrees. I guess I just prefer that this stuff be based on science and rather than political whims and there be some consistency toward clean water, clean air, and some respect for the environment rather than the almighty $ (which is what EVERYTHING comes down to eventually). DJT Jr is basically saying the original EPA ruling during the Obama administration was correct, although he would never say that. That is what concerns me. I am naive in believing facts are facts and can stand on their own, not subject to the whims of whomever is in charge. Stupid, stupid, me.

The Obama admin blocked it via preemptive veto. If you think the EPA head would enter in to such a veto without the presidents permission you are crazy.

 

[SAJ-99]

The Obama admin blocked it via preemptive veto. If you think the EPA head would enter in to such a veto without the presidents permission you are crazy.

Not sure your point, but I might be crazy either way. The EPA should do its job regardless of who is in charge. A preemptive veto just allows the organization to make a conclusion based on the knowledge the president would veto any approval. Was it over reach by Obama? yes. Even if I like the decision I don't like the procedure. Do we see the same thing with the Trump administration? Yes. And I both don't like the decisions and don't like the procedure. Did DJT statement implicitly support the case for the original veto? Yes.
Presidential permission shouldn't be required for any of these agency decisions. It locks up the federal government because every agency is asking for permission. In case you don't study history (or the present), we have had some dumb presidents. Most typically put knowledgable people in charge of these agencies so they don't have to do the work.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Some states (looking at you Utah) would probably just try to sell the land outright, and eventually all would once the wells go dry and revenues stop. O&G and mining companies have figured out it is better (i.e. CHEAPER) to chip away at regulations and permitting on public lands than to fight to try to acquire the land for drilling. They can't afford the land anyway with commodity prices where they are.

Utah OG development is going to be dead well into the next administration. Paradox basin was pretty sketchy to begin with, none of the majors will touch it right now, Elk who bought Resolute's assets, who I believe had the biggest position, just filed for bankruptcy.

I don't agree with your chip away v fight, that hasn't been my experience. Though I don't think we should incentivize drilling with sub-market prices.

 

[SAJ-99]

I don't agree with your chip away v fight, that hasn't been my experience. Though I don't think we should incentivize drilling with sub-market prices.

I guess my point is that you will never see a bill that says "Give all Federal Land to the State" pass through Congress because the vast majority of Americans are against the idea. It doesn't mean the GOP will remove it from its platform or stop trying to accomplish it. It will happen incrementally. The first step is to change the structure of the arrangement so it will provide incentive for the change. I fear that one day Outdoors people wake up and say "What the hell just happened"? when they realize they didn't get a say in the future of public lands, how they are used, and the price to use them.

 

[44hunter45]

I guess my point is that you will never see a bill that says "Give all Federal Land to the State" pass through Congress because the vast majority of Americans are against the idea. It doesn't mean the GOP will remove it from its platform or stop trying to accomplish it. It will happen incrementally. The first step is to change the structure of the arrangement so it will provide incentive for the change. I fear that one day Outdoors people wake up and say "What the hell just happened"? when they realize they didn't get a say in the future of public lands, how they are used, and the price to use them.

The RNC calls us regularly asking for money. The callers are incredulous when I say I do not have a dime for the party as long as that plank is in the platform. The paid fundraising callers have no idea, they are just trying to make a buck.
If the caller says they are a volunteer, I give them the full pitch on why I won't open my wallet.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I guess my point is that you will never see a bill that says "Give all Federal Land to the State" pass through Congress because the vast majority of Americans are against the idea. It doesn't mean the GOP will remove it from its platform or stop trying to accomplish it. It will happen incrementally. The first step is to change the structure of the arrangement so it will provide incentive for the change. I fear that one day Outdoors people wake up and say "What the hell just happened"? when they realize they didn't get a say in the future of public lands, how they are used, and the price to use them.

I fully agree, I think the politicization of various issues blinds people what's happening.

To your point about incrementalism, I was very concerned about BHA supporting H.R. 3794, S. 2666. The bill among other things prioritized and "shall develop" language for green energy on public lands. The bill was cosponsored by all the usual offenders.

My feeling was Bishop et al. thought, "hey solar fields and turbines are huge permanent, privately owned industrial assets on public land, that's exactly what were going for, Oil well or Turbine widgets are widgets, that public land is no being exclusively used and occupied by a large corporation."

I'm not anti renewables by any means but the left side of the aisle has blinders on just as much as the right.

I mean... it's not like companies have undergone massive landscape changing projects, gone bankrupt, and the left society to clean them up. eye roll

 

[44hunter45]

Depending on your view, that has already happened. The Obama administration blocked the mine through the EPA using rules from the Clean Water Act (debate: did Obama block it or the EPA block it? see how word choice matters?). Trump rolled back a lot of the protections of the Clean Water Act early this year. This led to his decision to green-light the Pebble Mine.
Completely agree with Big Fin in that every administration will try this kind of stuff to varying degrees. I guess I just prefer that this stuff be based on science and rather than political whims and there be some consistency toward clean water, clean air, and some respect for the environment rather than the almighty $ (which is what EVERYTHING comes down to eventually). DJT Jr is basically saying the original EPA ruling during the Obama administration was correct, although he would never say that. That is what concerns me. I am naive in believing facts are facts and can stand on their own, not subject to the whims of whomever is in charge. Stupid, stupid, me.

When scientists can flood the capitols of the nation with lobbyists armed with liquor, money, and trips to fantasy island, you will see politicians start paying attention.

Foreign mining companies have the budget for it.

 

[SAJ-99]

I fully agree, I think the politicization of various issues blinds people what's happening.

To your point about incrementalism, I was very concerned about BHA supporting H.R. 3794, S. 2666. The bill among other things prioritized and "shall develop" language for green energy on public lands. The bill was cosponsored by all the usual offenders.

My feeling was Bishop et al. thought, "hey solar fields and turbines are huge permanent, privately owned industrial assets on public land, that's exactly what were going for, Oil well or Turbine widgets are widgets, that public land is no being exclusively used and occupied by a large corporation."

I'm not anti renewables by any means but the left side of the aisle has blinders on just as much as the right.

I mean... it's not like companies have undergone massive landscape changing projects, gone bankrupt, and the left society to clean them up. eye roll

You mean you don't want to camp under a solar panel? The solar industry is realizing they have a lot of available space on the tops of buildings. Its just a matter of incentives. Hopefully we all figure it out soon or Miami is going to be a swamp.

 

[Dougfirtree]

It was the same for Obama and in both cases its wrong.
We have a rule of law, a permitting process. Let's follow it.

Honestly, I think meddling is the right thing to do on this issue. We act like these resources (salmon, rivers, etc) just go on and on and we'll get it right eventually. Nope. They're almost gone and we should thank our lucky stars that this one still exists. It's a world treasure. If I were president, I'd meddle so much in that one that you wouldn't even be able to think about mines near Bristol Bay headwaters. It's just a bad idea. Period. I'm pretty open-minded about seeing the shades of grey out there, too. No grey for me on Pebble.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

You mean you don't want to camp under a solar panel? The solar industry is realizing they have a lot of available space on the tops of buildings. Its just a matter of incentives. Hopefully we all figure it out soon or Miami is going to be a swamp.

I guess we wouldn’t have to worry about “best ultra light tent” questions anymore.

Yeah though as we've noted, currently it's way cheaper to destroy public lands (OG, mines,whatever).