Trump on Public Lands-Maybe Not the Ally You Thought Edition

[Big Fin]

I'm not counting on any one person to be the "backstop against stupidity." Maybe Trump will be that when it comes to keeping public lands public, even though his party has stated they want to privatize them. The privateers hope that we will focus on Trump, rather than the pinch points that exist in the Senate.

I am pretty good at math. My math tells me that with Republicans, the party promoting the idea in their Party Platform, holding 51 seats in the Senate, any such legislation cannot pass the Senate without Daines (R-MT) and Gardner (R-CO) voting for it. Both of them are from states with lots of public land, huge outdoor recreation economies, and some very active hunter/angler groups. Add that to a few eastern Republicans who have been good on public lands, who need to be supported and rewarded for their positions on public lands, and the battle to save the public lands comes down to the Senate.

When you analyze it to that level, beating this attack becomes far more manageable. Yes, we continue to put pressure on the House members and Trump, knowing the House could be a big waste of energy when Bishop (R-UT) holds so much sway with the western caucus. And with Trump, it is anyone's guess.

If you live in a state with a Republican Senator(s), I would ask you email, call, or visit with them a couple times each month about your feelings on public lands. The more you can make them aware of the negatives now and the more you can raise it as an issue they need to pay attention to, the better the odds of success when the time comes. As sure as the sun rises, they will be forced into a hard position on the public land issue within the next two years. There is a lot we can be doing now, even before the bills get introduced.

This can be defeated in the Senate. And for it to get to the Senate, a lot of people will have to show their cards as members in the House and within some agencies. When they do show their cards, they make themselves targets for every public land user to go after them in re-election or re-appointment. Some lay their cards out rather boldly, knowing they are in such comfortable Districts that they can be as crazy as they want. Yet, a lot of them are hoping that if forced by Bishop et al to vote on the issue, and they will surely be forced to do vote on it, that their vote will fly under the radar. It will be up to us as public land users, whether or not those votes fly under the radar or if those votes are the catalyst that helps send them packing.

If we lose what is a winnable battle on this issue then shame on us. I'm not good at losing and I don't plan to see this lost in the Senate. Most of you here are activists among the hunting world and I suspect you share the same view.

 

[Washington Hunter]

How is he going to over-come the hurdle of "protecting lands" when his party has a 180 degree vision of what they want for "all of us to enjoy the outdoors"???

Pretty tough to "protect lands for anglers and hunters and all who enjoy the outdoors" when YOUR party wants to privatize and sell off public lands...don't you think?

No, I certainly don't. Have confidence Buzz! His sons are avid hunters, they understand how we all feel about our public lands.

 

[BuzzH]

No, I certainly don't.

Discussion over then...your relationship with the reality/truth of PLT is suspect. Likely due to being too distant from the front lines. I can see the cozy level of over-confidence you have when you don't deal with this stuff daily...must be nice.

Reality just isn't that cozy of place for public lands and those that are in the battle for same.

Randy's post is worth reading again.

 

[Straight Arrow]

His sons are avid hunters...

However, his congressmen to collaborate with are avid Republicans with a clearly stated plank / goal of transferring public lands.

Hopefully his plan to save lands for hunters, anglers and all to enjoy outdoor recreation does not involve privatizing so outdoor recreation access becomes the biggest business in the country, as the wealthy one-percenters own and profit from the most special places and the prime wildlife habitat across the country. After all, basically he is a businessman ... not a hunter and outdoor recreationist. He is certainly not an advocate for special places and wildlife, with only the passion of most of us who have little to zero wealth, with not much emphasis on wealth accumulation .... at least in terms of money.

 

[Irrelevant]

Yeah let's do away with the EPA, then we can have a fast-track to polluted waters and Beijing air quality. When the EPA allows the states to handle their own environmental regulation all you get is the fox one step close to the hen house, the most recent example being WY and their ability to conclude the exact opposite of the one peer-reviewed scientific study, just so that industry isn't held accountable. I'd hate to live in Pavillion, not have any control over the quality of my drinking water, with a state that doesn't give a sh!t about me or my family health. http://www.wyofile.com/missing-science-disagreement-surrounds-deqs-final-pavillion-report/

Let's say Drumpf actually picks a moderate person for Interior, what's the point of having public lands if there's no clean water, no trout to chase, to mule deer left? The Wyoming Migration Initiative (and many others) are already showing how the existing impacts from energy development are hammering one of the most heralded mule deer herds we have. But we want to add more? We're already oil independent, but we want to drill more? Why, just so we can ship it to China and they can send it back as Mossyoak themed soap dispensers? Ducks to spontaneous appear out of corn fields. Trout can't survive in fracking fluid. Without clean water and clean air what hell is there?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Randy,

Read carefully what Daines has said to Trump in this letter regarding public land management. He's asking PEOTUS to effectively eliminate the BLM 2.0 planning process & sage grouse plans that put sportsmen on equal footing with livestock and minerals.

Daines will vote correctly on transfer & LWCF but he's still doing Bishop & CO's bidding on management.

 

[u1299]

Trump just keeps picking great people. Keep it up Donald. Finally someone who actually cares about the future of our country and who will put America first. I'm loving this, every time he chooses a person for his administration, liberal heads everywhere explode! LOL

Question Washington Hunter - Who are these Liberals you refer to? I didn't vote for Trump so are you referring to me or just about everyone who doesn't think or vote the same way you do? Seriously I'm so content with my life I could give a squat what you and or anyone else refer to me as, liberal if that's your choice is fine with me. I care about the future of this country as much as any conservative; I own guns (lots of them), been hunting and fishing for 60 years, and I'm as passionate about protecting our public lands for future generations as anyone out there. Dispense with the tired old talking points until you know, I mean really know about these (great)people he is picking. Up until now I've never heard of most of them and I doubt you have either, but I could be wrong, perhaps you're way smarter than I am. But I do educate myself as to what they do stand for and what they're priorities will most likely be once confirmed, once I do know who the hell he has picked. Personally if I were you I'd withhold judgement on whether these picks are great people until you know a little bit about them, you never know he may pick Al Gore.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I've never been too keen on the whole climate change thing honestly. I believe it is changing. I believe human actions influence it.
I also believe it is used as a political tool to tax and centralize power, without any meaningful gain in the war against global warming. I'm all for not polluting. I'm not for killing an industry, a tax source(that funds pensions and education), power source and thousands of jobs for symbolism of 'trying' to do the right thing. This is what I mean in the cost/benefit statement I made above.

I think it is the height of arrogance when a bunch of elites fly to a conference on private planes and agree to a set number that they will reduce emissions, or the temperature of the earth by, by signing their names to a piece of paper.
Can't keep the maggots out of a vet's wound or deliver the mail, but can alter global temperatures.

It doesn't matter what you think about Climate Change. The rest of the world is moving on with or without us. That means the U.S. loses market share in energy production and manufacturing if we put all of our eggs in the fossil fuels basket. It means we lose trillions of dollars in trade with India and China who are begging for American renewable technology and manufacturing capabilities and it means trillions lost in sanctions as other nations follow sit if we leave the Paris Accords.

The markets are killing coal and more importantly, natural gas is killing it because it is much cheaper and cleaner to burn Nat Gas than it is coal. Tax sources come and go. Standard oil is a great example. When electricity came around, John D. didn't try and kill it, he changed his business model to reflect the new reality. He started producing gasoline and other products instead of kerosene. He understood that times change. Same goes for carriage companies who originally thought that the motorcar was a fad, only to lose their entire industry while waiting for the horse and buggy to come back. The world and markets change. Those who can adapt survive and thrive. Those who can't - go bankrupt.

 

[Southern Elk]

Hey Randy, I think the Senate is going to end up 52-48 in favor of the Republicans. Louisiana is holding a runoff Saturday and the Republican candidate has a big lead in the polls. It doesn't change anything that you said, but likely means there's one more vote that we will need to get.

 

[Big Fin]

Randy,

Read carefully what Daines has said to Trump in this letter regarding public land management. He's asking PEOTUS to effectively eliminate the BLM 2.0 planning process & sage grouse plans that put sportsmen on equal footing with livestock and minerals.

Daines will vote correctly on transfer & LWCF but he's still doing Bishop & CO's bidding on management.

I had read that earlier. I would have added a few items to that list, if I were writing to the President-Elect, I would have dropped others, and changed a few.

As much as it might seem like shooting for a consolation prize, if Daines can be on the proper side of Public Land Transfer, I will consider it a short-term victory; a very big short-term victory.

Seeing the scale of the battle ahead, and having to prioritize the resources with the opportunity for some victory, I have one focus - Keeping public lands in public hands. That is a "cold dead hands," "over my dead body," "with my last breath" issue for me.

That does not mean I am in favor of rolling over on other conservation objectives. In addition to public lands, I have no exception to the topics of clean air, clean water, and better land/resource management. I will relent no step on clean air or clean water. Only the Flat Earth Society can rationalize an attack on clean air or water. If they do, they are walking into an ambush that will remove them from seats of power for a generation.

Knowing that if history repeats itself, and it always does, the party in control will overplay their hands, get drunk on the newfound power, overreach to a point that pisses off the American public, and as a result they will take a serious assbeating during mid-term elections. I might be wrong. Though, every election cycle of my adult life has shown that to be true, whether it be Rs or Ds. I suspect this time will be no different.

One thing for sure - For those who are an advocate for public lands, clean air, clean water, there will be no shortage of opportunity for one to "Put their shoulder to the wheel."

 

[Ben Lamb]

Don't get so focused you lose your peripheral vision. That's where the real attacks come from - the flanks.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Question Washington Hunter - Who are these Liberals you refer to? I didn't vote for Trump so are you referring to me or just about everyone who doesn't think or vote the same way you do? Seriously I'm so content with my life I could give a squat what you and or anyone else refer to me as, liberal if that's your choice is fine with me. I care about the future of this country as much as any conservative;

I'm referring to the people I see on CNN who freak out every night over the choices Trump makes, or the things he says. The people who think we should have open borders. The people who want to grant amnesty to all the illegal immigrants who are already here. The people who think we should allow hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees into our country. The people who don't have a problem with "sanctuary cities." The people who think it's a good idea to take money from people who work (taxes) and give it to those who don't work. The people who feel every person is entitled to a smart phone, even if taxpayers have to pay for them. The people who called Trump supporters "deplorable," "racist," "homophobic," etc. Those people. The Obama supporters. Call them what you want. I just use the term liberal because that seems to be the popular label for that type of person. Am I wrong?

And here's something to think about when you call the Republican Party Donald Trump's party- it's really not. He could have run as an Independent but he was smart enough to know that he couldn't win unless he was running as one of the two major parties. If you really think he's just a typical Republican, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Devil Diver Down]

If we lose what is a winnable battle on this issue then shame on us. I'm not good at losing and I don't plan to see this lost in the Senate. Most of you here are activists among the hunting world and I suspect you share the same view.

The problem, in my eyes, is that many more hunters do not share the same view. Peoples' trust of federal agencies like FS and BLM seems to be at a low water mark.

When the presidential primaries were still in full stride, one of the Western state's newspapers (Idaho, I think) had a video clip of Ted Cruz talking about federal land that should all be transferred to the states or, better yet, privatized (his thought, not mine). I shared that with one of the hunting groups I belong to (A facebook group of mostly Arizona bowhunters) and the overwhelming response was that they also thought transferring the land to the states was a good idea. When the debate churned up negatives about states selling off land, including a YouTube video or 2 from Randy, those were pretty roundly ignored. The crowd seemed tired of federal overreach - and land ownership being a part of that overreach, in their eyes - and the election results seem to echo that feeling. I realize that's not a very good sample size, but the personal conversations I've had with people on this topic is more or less the same.

I'm not saying it isn't a winnable battle, but having federal agencies out front on these issues is mighty unpopular these days.

 

[Straight Arrow]

If you really think he's just a typical Republican, you haven't been paying attention.

No, he is not ... but the reality is that he will have to concede to their ideology and agree to their bills if he wants to get anything done that he promotes. If you really think the powerful Congress is not Republican, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Washington Hunter]

No, he is not ... but the reality is that he will have to concede to their ideology and agree to their bills if he wants to get anything done that he promotes. If you really think the powerful Congress is not Republican, you haven't been paying attention.

No, I don't think that, and I think it's wonderful. This is exactly what we needed in order to improve our economy and make our country stronger. For those worried about clean air and water, you can't have that without first having a strong economy.

 

[MTGomer]

It doesn't matter what you think about Climate Change. The rest of the world is moving on with or without us. That means the U.S. loses market share in energy production and manufacturing if we put all of our eggs in the fossil fuels basket. It means we lose trillions of dollars in trade with India and China who are begging for American renewable technology and manufacturing capabilities and it means trillions lost in sanctions as other nations follow sit if we leave the Paris Accords.

The markets are killing coal and more importantly, natural gas is killing it because it is much cheaper and cleaner to burn Nat Gas than it is coal. Tax sources come and go. Standard oil is a great example. When electricity came around, John D. didn't try and kill it, he changed his business model to reflect the new reality. He started producing gasoline and other products instead of kerosene. He understood that times change. Same goes for carriage companies who originally thought that the motorcar was a fad, only to lose their entire industry while waiting for the horse and buggy to come back. The world and markets change. Those who can adapt survive and thrive. Those who can't - go bankrupt.

Let the market kill coal. What I'm opposed to is government hand-picking winners and losers in the energy industry. If India and China are begging for those things you mention, then along comes the greedy, but highly intelligent, entreprenuerial capitalist engineer, with his billionaire investor to provide that good/service to them. They don't need to be falsely propped up by government. (my money, your money) just like coal doesn't need to be killed by government. Which is what is happening(aided by market forces).

I hope you see the irony and downright hypocrisy in starting your post sounding like a planned economy marxist and ending it like a free-market libertarian. What you say you want is a government led mandate deciding energy sources and policy, and then you try to justify it by decisions and circumstances that took place in the free market with private capital.

Currently, solar and wind is a joke. A corporate welfare hole of waste. And its dirty. Far dirtier than gas, which you correctly state is clean.
Wind, and especially solar, are reliant upon rare earth mineral mining and fossil fuels. How long does a wind turbine have to spin before it cancels out the amount of fossil fuel used to get it there? I don't know, but the answer is ALONG TIME.
Rare Earth minerals are a whole 'nother thing. You should check out the strip mines in Asia that they come from. You'd think you're looking at the Athabascan (sp?) tar sands.

Your first sentence goes along way to my original point about climate change, as well. Its a racket to centralize power and wealth. Nobody in their right mind thinks that a government can tax us into changing the weather. Or into prosperity for that matter.

I think either Randy is correct above, that the R will overplay their hand, piss everyone off and lose big next time, or that Randy is wrong, but it will result in the same outcome- not do anything they campaigned on, making their supporters uninvigorated and feeling betrayed, causing them to lose big.

 

[TheTone]

For those worried about clean air and water, you can't have that without first having a strong economy.

Frightening!!! Yep, screw the future as long as I got a job plundering the earth now who cares!

 

[MTGomer]

you can't have that without first having a strong economy.

That is a fair point. People who don't know how to feed their kids aren't throwing a couple grand to BHA every year. Or probably taking the time to email their rep, for that matter.

You will not find a well protected environment in a poor nation.

 

[airlocksniffer]

The problem, in my eyes, is that many more hunters do not share the same view. Peoples' trust of federal agencies like FS and BLM seems to be at a low water mark.

Absolutely agree but we have public lands allies in plenty of user groups including hikers, bikers, bird watchers, etc. Together we can apply a lot more pressure against PLT. The economic power of outdoor recreation on clean public lands would hopefully give some politicians pause. Perhaps just not economic power from the right people.

EDIT: On another note, this thread has gone on a lot longer than some so let's keep it on topic and civil.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Let the market kill coal. What I'm opposed to is government hand-picking winners and losers in the energy industry. If India and China are begging for those things you mention, then along comes the greedy, but highly intelligent, entreprenuerial capitalist engineer, with his billionaire investor to provide that good/service to them. They don't need to be falsely propped up by government. (my money, your money) just like coal doesn't need to be killed by government. Which is what is happening(aided by market forces).

I hope you see the irony and downright hypocrisy in starting your post sounding like a planned economy marxist and ending it like a free-market libertarian. What you say you want is a government led mandate deciding energy sources and policy, and then you try to justify it by decisions and circumstances that took place in the free market with private capital.

Currently, solar and wind is a joke. A corporate welfare hole of waste. And its dirty. Far dirtier than gas, which you correctly state is clean.
Wind, and especially solar, are reliant upon rare earth mineral mining and fossil fuels. How long does a wind turbine have to spin before it cancels out the amount of fossil fuel used to get it there? I don't know, but the answer is ALONG TIME.
Rare Earth minerals are a whole 'nother thing. You should check out the strip mines in Asia that they come from. You'd think you're looking at the Athabascan (sp?) tar sands.

Your first sentence goes along way to my original point about climate change, as well. Its a racket to centralize power and wealth. Nobody in their right mind thinks that a government can tax us into changing the weather. Or into prosperity for that matter.

I think either Randy is correct above, that the R will overplay their hand, piss everyone off and lose big next time, or that Randy is wrong, but it will result in the same outcome- not do anything they campaigned on, making their supporters uninvigorated and feeling betrayed, causing them to lose big.

Respectfully, with exception to your last paragraph, I disagree.

We've propped up Oil, Gas and Coal for a century with tax incentives and subsidies. To the tune of over $20 billion per year by many estimates. When we eliminate those tax incentives and subsidies, then let's eliminate any that renewables get. Until then, the Gov't is picking winners and losers, and with Trump, you have a gigabit of statements on how he's going to use the power of government to revitalize those industries, including handing management of the EPA & BLM over to oil and gas execs. How is that not picking winners and losers?

The United States isn't a free market. It's a mix of socialism and capitalism. Has been for a very long time. We social the losses (Bank bailouts, auto bailouts, etc) while privatizing the profits. We subsidize agriculture so that we're not paying $8 a gallon for milk. Elderly have subsidized healthcare, utility bills, etc, because grandma dying from exposure in her apartment or not getting her insulin is unbearable to our collective conscience.

As for as a Gov't led mandate on energy, you bet. The United States Government is one of the largest purchasers of power in the world. They, as the customer, have every right to decide what the energy policy is as a consumer and as a producer(Those public lands you & I own produce a shit-ton of energy and as such, we have every right as citizens to have our representatives decide what energy policy looks like) they have every right to demand how that energy is produced.

Americans are the only people left in the world, free or otherwise, to think that climate change is some vast conspiracy led by the Illuminati to coalesce power and wealth by bringing in more clean air and water while reducing our carbon footprint. The economics of climate change alone will bury the United States and leave us behind unless we start understanding that the oil and gas companies who own our government are the ones desperately clinging to power and wealth.