Ben Sellers
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2018
- Messages
- 572
I hope this doesn’t go off the rails, but I was happy to see this earlier today. I think it is encouraging to see any politician pushing for the full funding of this program.
LWCF
- Thread starter Ben Sellers
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
I'll believe it when I see it...and give appropriate credit if due.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,987
Considering the reported level of funding that was called for in his budget, this seems like a great thing. Let’s hope it comes to fruition.
Ben Long
Well-known member
Methinks (hopes?) politicians are realizing in an election year that securing habitat and access actually pays off.
I like how 8 co-sponsors (S) all jumped on board in 2020. They all have one thing in common.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Daines, Tester react to Trump's call to fully fund conservation program
The Land and Water Conservation fund uses oil and gas revenue to purchase land for parks and funds a wide variety of conservation projects.
elkduds
Well-known member
Cory Gardner is @ huge risk of losing his senate seat to a Democrat here in CO this Nov, one of 3 key seats for Dems to take control of the Senate. Trump is about politics, not public lands. The LWCF has been in play for 2 years, why is Trump only getting around to it now?
rjthehunter
Well-known member
Trump, the gift that keeps on giving! Glad to see it!
jryoung
Well-known member
Glad to see it raised to awareness on his biggest platform, hopefully it counts for something and can get done.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Gee, I wonder that too...
BuzzH
Well-known member
Correct, because just doing the right thing is never a priority or viable option.
well, in one sense, partially that's democracy working properly right? wanna maintain majority? don't wanna get voted out? give the voters what they've been calling for.
if only senators seats were on the line more often - that's another discussion though
i dunno, i've always failed at being an optimist about anything, but has american politics every really been about doing what's right? maybe once upon a time, who knows when, but i surely wasn't alive, and i would assume it was still pretty nasty
Last edited:
Irrelevant
Well-known member
while I don't think Mr. Orange actually cares at all about public lands I will certainly take a W on this program! If it gets fully funded, and the BLM and FS are actively seeking public input regarding inaccessible lands, this could be quite the perfect storm for actually getting something done.
jryoung
Well-known member
Very true. I wish it was about doing the right thing, but it rarely is about that and likely will be a rare event in the future.
The good news is that the polling shows Republicans in statewide races of MT and CO are getting hammered about their lack of progress on many of these public land issues. It is one of their most vulnerable flanks in the upcoming Senate races. And, the public land sentiments are enough to sway close races in these mountain states. Just look at the Tester-Rosendale race.
So, if we get full AND PERMANENT funding of LWCF as a benefit of the pandering politics of the day, so be it. Kind of similar to how Grinnell used untasteful politics to keep a railroad from being built through the middle of Yellowstone National Park. Almost like how the Migratory Bird Act got passed. Same as with the Midnight Forests that Roosevelt and Pinchot pushed through.
It is always ugly and likely to never change. So, "How do we gain the most from that ugly process?" If the process of politics and elections causes an Administration to do a complete turn around on LWCF, I'll take it, no matter how disingenuous the motivations for such progress might be.
Let's face it, a budget is one of the biggest representations of the priorities of an Administration or a Congress. Public lands are not a priority at this time. But, if the political pressure of the time is public lands, culminating from decades of pressure by public land advocates, then we need to harvest the fruit borne from those efforts now, regardless of why/who there is an abrupt change in attitude.
But, anything less than FULL AND PERMANENT is a bullshit sellout. What ends up getting PASSED (if anyting) will be a true measure of the commitment the "new converts" have to the final goal of better public land access. A one-year full funding budget line item that can be reallocated in whatever manner doesn't mean chit. Well, it does mean chit; it means the tweet and the serenade of the "new converts" was worth the scrutiny and skepticism that exists when someone does a complete flip on a topic.
jryoung
Well-known member
If those in office need to move public lands a rung or two up one their issues ladder because their constituents are demanding it and if not it increases their vulnerability then I consider that a victory. And with LWCF funding locked in, we can move on to a host of several other issues with PL policy and hopefully get some wins there too.
It's hard for me to let go of my feelings of "you're only doing this because", most of the MFer's will never be sincere.
It's hard for me to let go of my feelings of "you're only doing this because", most of the MFer's will never be sincere.
