People on the left are funny and constantly make me laugh.Vikings guy couldn't have put it any better.Unfortunately,liberals never consider compromise. They want everything their way or they cry like babies.
What qualifies as a "person on the left"? What makes someone a liberal? What does any of this have to do with a sage grouse plan that was crafted by people from all across the political spectrum? I am guessing there were liberals on the sage grouse committee, are you suggesting they did not compromise in any way? If so, do you have inside knowledge they did not? Please clarify how people on the left is germane to whether the sage grouse plan is a viable plan that allows for energy development and grazing, without compromising critical grouse habitat.
Is voicing opposition "crying like a baby"? What exactly constitutes this? Isn't voicing opposition part of the democratic process, whereby we voice our concerns to our Congressional Delegates and they in turn represent us in formulating law and policy? Please clarify.
They are so against oil,gas,timber industries that I sure hope Ben and company travel in horse and buggy and still heat their homes with cow pies.But the truth is they are as hypocritical as the meat eating anti hunters are.All the energy all you guys use must come from somewhere so where would that be OK with you guys cause I'm curious.That's the real issue.
I will proudly put myself in Ben's company. However, it's blatantly false to claim I am against oil, gas, and timber industries. Hypocrisy is telling someone else to do something you don't practice yourself. I heat my home with natural gas, drive petroleum burning automobiles, and use power from hydroelectric dams. I am not opposed to any of these, provided they are implemented and utilized responsibly. I am also willing to pay higher prices/rates in order to offset environmental concerns. Therefore, I am not asking anyone to do something I'm not, and your assertions of hypocrisy are invalid.
One can be supportive of natural resource use and development, but still expect it to be done in a responsible manner that does not degrade the environment. In a similar vein, one can support the sage grouse plan and support energy development across the west. To suggest otherwise makes me question whether you have read and/or understand the plan. Eating meat and being and anti hunter is completely irrelevant to this conversation. As the groups involved in the sage grouse plan have collaborated and compromised, they have shown prioritizing BOTH energy development and healthy populations of sage grouse are not necessarily mutually exclusive events.
You guys using a sage grouse as cover for what your true intentions are.Please post all you past sage grouse hunting photos for us all to enjoy
Speaking only for myself, my true intention is to support maintaining a healthy and robust sagebrush ecosystem across the West, where I have lived my entire life. Not only is it critical to the survival of sage grouse, it also provides many other ancillary benefits such as healthy mule deer, pronghorn, and elk herds to name a select few. The fact I have never killed a sage grouse has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on my intentions. I support bighorn sheep habitat, and don't even apply for permits. To suggest one must kill the species in order to truly care for it is disingenuous, at best.
Vikings guy is correct, it is entirely normal to want to utilize newly found leverage in negotiations. What bothers me is the blatant appearance that Utah is now calling all of the shots in the sandbox, despite being one of eight states who are players in this event. If some of you are not supportive of the sage grouse plan, I can agree to disagree and respect your opinion. Unfortunately, the likely outcome if the plan is significantly altered, will be a petition to list the grouse in the near future, and a shit ton of litigation where no one really wins. This collaborative plan really was a conservation success, and I hope Zinke and the DOI can recognize that.
