Republicans further attacks on public land in their new platform

[Oneye]

Well, the GOP has decided not to end the undermining of public lands and conservation but to double down it seems. The platform is set to take away and sell Americas public lands:

"Congress should reconsider whether parts of the federal government's enormous landholdings and control of water in the West could be better used for ranching, mining or forestry through private ownership."

.....mining, timber, ranching, and private ownership? I guess the $646 billion a year outdoor industry is of no significance to the GOP. Notice the fraise "private ownership," at least there is no sugar coating anymore. Along with that they attacked sage grouse and prairie chicken conservation.

The GOP from reports of their platform, just got even more out of touch with me as a voter for them. The GOP is burning themselves down. Hillary will take the presidency, and the dems will get the house, senate, and the most liberal Supreme Court justice we've ever seen.... And you know what the GOP deserves every bit of it. Sadly the American people who have to live with the GOPs stupidity, do not deserve it. RIP GOP, the next four years are going to take this nation hard left, and you only have yourselves to blame.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Quoted link?

 

[Oneye]

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/poli...latform-Privatize-public-lands-in-8376467.php

Here's where I got that quote from, there are several articles online about it.

 

[Nameless Range]

They couldn't make it any more clear. They want to take public lands and sell them off. Get rid of them. Reduce hunting and fishing opportunities for the masses.

And to say that more private control of water would be better for in the west, holy chit........

 

[Southwind]

Not saying it won't be in there but they don't release the platform until the convention. Most now is speculation.

I and anyone concerned can voice your opinion at the gop platform sight. Again not sure if it will do any good but I did voice my strong opposition to the transfer or sale of our public lands. I would encourage everyone to do the same.

https://www.platform.gop/

 

[Big Fin]

Not saying it won't be in there but they don't release the platform until the convention. Most now is speculation.

I and anyone concerned can voice your opinion at the gop platform sight. Again not sure if it will do any good but I did voice my strong opposition to the transfer or sale of our public lands. I would encourage everyone to do the same.

https://www.platform.gop/

Good advice. I did it by emailing the party leaders at the state level.

 

[hank4elk]

I have done so and they do not want to hear it.......Either party.
The cash has been delivered.

 

[Tikka06]

I have taken the approach of constantly reminding my congressman and senator's office that I am in fact watching how they vote, what legislation they are supporting, and networking those things to their constituents, esp the ones I know will not approve. It has gotten to the point where I even tell them if they support legislation I know is for the transfer of public lands, I will do everything in my power to see they are not re-elected. It's probably not helping, but it is all I can do and let's them know they are being watched.

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

I have seen other articles being circulated stating the same....and they were from 4 years ago when there was a "Sell Candidate". You can have all the planks you want, but it's the 2016 Candidate that would have to sign off on that and he said no transfer. Carry on. John

 

[Oneye]

I have seen other articles being circulated stating the same....and they were from 4 years ago when there was a "Sell Candidate". You can have all the planks you want, but it's the 2016 Candidate that would have to sign off on that and he said no transfer. Carry on. John

I liked what I heard at first from the Trump party. Listening to more recent interviews on public lands even with Trump Jr. It causes me to pause and be a little skeptical. When someone says Utah does a good job managing and making managment decision on land use, I really worry. It also sounds like resource extraction over conservation will be the focus of land managment. While I believe in using the land, I do not believe you can put an economic price on wildlife and wild places. Short term greed ending in the destruction of natural resources forever, is not something I can support. While I support Trump more than Hillary, I really am not a huge fan of either choice at this point.

 

[Zach]

They couldn't make it any more clear. They want to take public lands and sell them off. Get rid of them. Reduce hunting and fishing opportunities for the masses.

And to say that more private control of water would be better for in the west, holy chit........

When you refer to the masses, what number percent of the population are you talking about?

 

[James Riley]

When you refer to the masses, what number percent of the population are you talking about?

I can't speak for Nameless Range, but as for me, I'd say the 99%. The 1% will, of course, always have great hunting and fishing opportunities.

 

[Nameless Range]

When you refer to the masses, what number percent of the population are you talking about?

I wasn't thinking of a certain percentage. When garbage like the idea of public lands converting to private ownership is thrown around, you can bet that no one on this forum will be buying a chunk of that pie. Less access. Less possibility. Less freedom. So by the masses I mean:

Those who may not be able to afford thousands, hundreds, or even tens of acres.
Those who aren't buddies with the more fortunate among us.
The vast majority of Americans.
The working man and woman.
My friends and family.
Me.
My children.

 

[James Riley]

Regarding platform changes: I read the 2012 Platform. And I read the OP. They both say the same thing with different words. The 2012 Platform uses the old fashioned political shuck and jive that can be worked around, much like the letters from Congressmen that so many on here share with us. The 2016 proposal, on the other hand, is in your face (I respect that).

My point is this: IF there is a language change made at the convention, don't be comforted. If they revert to the 2012 Platform verbiage you can't honestly say "Oh, that's better! Thank God they stepped back from federal land transfer. Now I feel safe voting for them. Whew, that was close. I guess my contacting them really worked."

In order for that to happen they would have to have equally in-your-face language going the other direction: "The Republican Party affirmatively rejects any effort transfer federal lands out of federal hands."

(Nuances and grey areas about the old post office or an exchange of 40 acres here or there excepted.)

 

[Ben Lamb]

A recent HunterSurvey.com poll finds that out of those sportsmen surveyed, in the past 12 months, 38 percent of the respondents said they most often hunted on a friend’s or family member’s property for free. The next largest group, public land hunters, made up 28 percent of the surveyed sportsmen, and said that state and federal lands are where they most often hunted in the past 12 months. Eighteen percent hunt land they own, while only 11 percent belong to a hunt club or hunt land that they lease. Many hunters use multiple types of land.

http://www.southwickassociates.com/...-hunting-access-small-lands-remain-important/

 

[6mm Remington]

Keep them public for all of us!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXBxSc6pdfM