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

[Southern Elk]

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.

I'm out of the loop with those groups. Do you know if they are doing anything to try to stop PLT?

 

[airlocksniffer]

I'm out of the loop with those groups. Do you know if they are doing anything to try to stop PLT?

I'm not sure what other user groups are publicly against PLT because I am a hunter and conservationist. Of course it would be great to have more non-hunter groups involved. When you boil it all down, it's about money. I would think money generated and jobs created by the outdoor recreation economy is beneficial to our side. Wouldn't a true proponent of the free market agree?

 

[Ben Lamb]

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ine-pit-thousands-die/?utm_term=.1591c1b921f6

 

[airlocksniffer]

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.

And environment regulations were not created for no reason. They were a response to terrible pollution and environmental degradation by large companies not so long ago. To think that allowing industry people run the very agencies tasked with keeping them from trashing the place is asinine.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

That's just flat wrong headed thinking from the guys you're talking about. I'm also getting sick and tired of the worn out
"federal over-reach" crap.

I would ask your buddies on that facebook page to share a few examples of the "federal over-reach" that they're constantly whining about. What I've routinely found from these types, is they don't have the first clue about what they're talking about in regard to land management nor the mandates that the FS and BLM are required to concern themselves with.

Many of the things the FS and BLM do, they're required to do via laws, regulations, and Acts passed by Congress. I wonder if the over-reach crowd would care to explain just what laws, regulations, and acts they feel the Federal Government is supposed to ignore?

Another one I hear a lot is, "well, those Washington D.C. bureaucrats locked me out by closing a road". Is it that, or does "locked out" mean it may require enough effort to pry my ass off the seat of a machine? Plus, its likely not the D.C. bureaucrats that shut the road down, it was probably in response to the majority of the comments they received for a travel management plan, etc.

Theres a huge misconceptions out there that the lands of a given area are not managed locally. That's bullshit of the highest order. The District Rangers, Forest Supervisors, Resource Planners, project managers, etc. all have a LOT of latitude on how they manage the forests/range.

They seek public input and beg for the public to comment and let them know what they want. Almost across the board, when I talk to these folks, they constantly say that they get very little, if any comments from the public on their decisions. Meaning, there are a lot of "concerned citizens" that are more concerned with regurgitating am radio over-reach talking points than engaging in productive input with their local District Ranger.

I've had great success in meeting, in person, as well as through the public input process to get some things changed as well as get clarification on the various projects that happen on our public lands.

The thing I hear, consistently across the board from elected officials, is that they don't get a whole lot of input from the public. Further, they go out of their way to talk to me, thank me profusely for taking the time to let them know what I'm thinking, and for being engaged in the process. Just a week ago, I had the ear of the Wyoming Secretary of State "for ten minutes" on an issue...45 minutes later we got off the phone after a great conversation.

I do believe about 99% of the people that say there is "over-reach" and "they don't listen"...mainly because I know for a fact, none of them have bothered to comment, make a phone call, or have a meeting.

That's not an over-reach problem, that's a get off your ass and do something other than complain problem.

These people you speak of better wise the hell up and in a hurry or they'll find out what "over-reach" and being "locked out" really mean...

 

[Straight Arrow]

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

Look around you; who do you see who is actually suffering from a depressed economy? Certainly there are segments who need a boost to begin earning a decent living and contributing, but there are far more doing pretty well. The weak versus strong economy is not only cyclical, but is also determined by economists and politicians desiring to push a certain agenda. Presently the perception seems more political than ever. My existence in this relatively "poor" state of Montana may be an isolated example, but it seems there are more new vehicles, high dollar eating establishments, retail outlets, and citizens appearing to do very well economically than at any earlier time in my lifetime.

There is a perspective that points to the motivation to throw out regulations and policies protecting the environment, clean water, and clean air as being derived from a myth that the economy needs to be much stronger for this nation to survive, when really the myth is perpetuated by those whose focus is on accumulating more and more wealth. It is difficult for me to relate to that focus since everyday those wealthy dudes are becoming unable to even enjoy spending the dollars due to health issues or are dying just like the rest of the peons. I just don't get it.

 

[HSi-ESi]

The coal industry has realized for years that it's market has been dying. I worked on Coal gasification plants (starting around 2008) - trying to turn coal into methane. While it is a feasible chemical reaction, the scale and industrialization of it run into market issues (most of the coal was Wyoming / Montana coal was desirable due to low sulfur properties).

The writing was on the wall for coal to die, and it's my opinion that folks waited for Clean Water/Clean Air to pass for "someone" to blame. Folks cashed in and ran with their money with a scape-goat they could explain away.

I don't care about political ideologies - I belong to the party of Fishing & Hunting. Obama did not kill coal. The democrats did not kill coal. The republicans did not kill coal. It was already dead, the only folks that didn't want to acknowledge that were the ones that had a paycheck coming.

 

[Southern Elk]

I'm not sure what other user groups are publicly against PLT because I am a hunter and conservationist. Of course it would be great to have more non-hunter groups involved. When you boil it all down, it's about money. I would think money generated and jobs created by the outdoor recreation economy is beneficial to our side. Wouldn't a true proponent of the free market agree?

I just wish other users would fight as hard as hunters are to protect public lands. I don't see that happening. Maybe I'm wrong, because like I said I don't run in those circles.

 

[u1299]

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.

I refuse to get into a political discussion with you because it serves no purpose now and I won't change your mind, but I am one of "those people" you refer to, an Obama supporter and I'm going to miss him dearly when he's no longer the President- just my opinion but I'm sticking to it... Right now I'm more pissed off about the battle we needlessly face to protect our public lands from the onslaught of legislation aimed at destroying them and I'm more resolute than any time in my life to see to it that any SOB who supports the Transfer regrets the day he or she made that mistake. No, I'm not making physical threats just to be clear.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I just wish other users would fight as hard as hunters are to protect public lands. I don't see that happening. Maybe I'm wrong, because like I said I don't run in those circles.

The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, National Audubon Society, Patagonia, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, NRDC, CBD, Issak Walton League and many other organizations are out there fighting against the seizure and sale of public lands.

The Wilderness Society in particular is doing very good work on it both on the ground and in D.C.

 

[Southern Elk]

The Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, National Audubon Society, Patagonia, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, NRDC, CBD, Issak Walton League and many other organizations are out there fighting against the seizure and sale of public lands.

The Wilderness Society in particular is doing very good work on it both on the ground and in D.C.

That is good to hear. Thanks for the info. I hope they feel as strongly about it as we do.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That is good to hear. Thanks for the info. I hope they feel as strongly about it as we do.

They do, and while we can all disagree on some issues, it's good to know we're not alone in this. Lots of support from the outdoor industry as well.

 

[BuzzH]

I just wish other users would fight as hard as hunters are to protect public lands. I don't see that happening. Maybe I'm wrong, because like I said I don't run in those circles.

It isn't like the average hunters are fighting that hard either...think of the people you know who hunt, and what they really do to help public lands.

Its a small, dedicated bunch of hunter and anglers that are doing the heavy lifting for the vast majority that don't do anything more than buy a license each year. Its pretty amazing what a few people can do.

The amount of influence we could wield if we could just get an honest 10% of hunters and anglers to write a letter/email, attend a meeting, or make a few phone calls...

 

[Southern Elk]

It isn't like the average hunters are fighting that hard either...think of the people you know who hunt, and what they really do to help public lands.

Its a small, dedicated bunch of hunter and anglers that are doing the heavy lifting for the vast majority that don't do anything more than buy a license each year. Its pretty amazing what a few people can do.

The amount of influence we could wield if we could just get an honest 10% of hunters and anglers to write a letter/email, attend a meeting, or make a few phone calls...

I agree Buzz. Thanks for all that you do.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Theres a huge misconceptions out there that the lands of a given area are not managed locally.

I agree with that statement concerning the misconception and the oft repeated talk show sound bite concerning land use decisions in your particular area being pushed down by bureaucrats in Wash DC. Those rangers, foresters, land managers who affect the decisions and policies and implement them in your neighborhood are also local youth sports coaches, school board trustees, PTA members, parents and grandparents of kids who attend school with your kids. Point is they are a part of your community and likely you don't even recognize their role in land use decisions and implementation. Rather than discuss issues with them or attend a hearing ... it's just much more convenient to drink the kool aid guvment hate spewed out over the radio shows by the politically motivated ideologues and vote for whomever they promote ... with the blind faith that those elected will go to Wash DC and straighten it all out.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The coal industry has realized for years that it's market has been dying. I worked on Coal gasification plants (starting around 2008) - trying to turn coal into methane. While it is a feasible chemical reaction, the scale and industrialization of it run into market issues (most of the coal was Wyoming / Montana coal was desirable due to low sulfur properties).

The writing was on the wall for coal to die, and it's my opinion that folks waited for Clean Water/Clean Air to pass for "someone" to blame. Folks cashed in and ran with their money with a scape-goat they could explain away.

I don't care about political ideologies - I belong to the party of Fishing & Hunting. Obama did not kill coal. The democrats did not kill coal. The republicans did not kill coal. It was already dead, the only folks that didn't want to acknowledge that were the ones that had a paycheck coming.

And now they want to try and bring back coal slurry pipelines as if that will solve any problems with coal. We've seen a lot of this before. Boom, bust, invest billions of tax dollars in technology that doesn't wash out and then repeat it all over again.

 

[Straight Arrow]

With all the discussions about the economy and market factors, it's surprising to me that one predominate market factor resulting in the downturn in the coal industry is seldom mentioned ... that is the abundance and current relatively low cost of natural gas. Instead the emphasis seems to be in politicizing the coal industry downturn and blaming it on climate change, a political party, Hillary, and a number of other factors more politically contentious, razing political hackles and making good talk show discussions.

 

[TheTone]

I agree with that statement concerning the misconception and the oft repeated talk show sound bite concerning land use decisions in your particular area being pushed down by bureaucrats in Wash DC. Those rangers, foresters, land managers who affect the decisions and policies and implement them in your neighborhood are also local youth sports coaches, school board trustees, PTA members, parents and grandparents of kids who attend school with your kids.

Yep and where do those people and jobs go if we get rid of public lands? That's one of the PLT arguments I've never seen discussed by those pushing it. There are a lot of small towns across the west with BLM or FS offices and the associated jobs; but yeah lets push it as a need to put people to work and get the economy going.

 

[Oneye]

And environment regulations were not created for no reason. They were a response to terrible pollution and environmental degradation by large companies not so long ago. To think that allowing industry people run the very agencies tasked with keeping them from trashing the place is asinine.

This is a point that absolutely is true. You do not allow the same people in the industry to regulate themself. It's ridiculous to even think that's a good idea. Regulation from within will end in very little regulation of all. Oil, gas, and the livestock industry are heavily subsidized in this country, and even more so on federal land. Both sides of this argument are subsidized by the government and oil, gas, and coal have been given the "favorite" card for 200 years. The last 8 years has been the first major shift. It all depends on your perspective from who you see as winners and losers. Industry trashed our air and water in many ways which is exactly why regulations are needed in place. Your full faith in corporations who have amped up climate change denial and scream bloody murder over regulatory issues, that basically want free reign is ridiculous. Theodore Roosevelt yet again had an amazing quote on this issue being discussed:

"There once was a time in history when the limitation of governmental power meant increasing liberty for the people. In the present day the limitation of governmental power, of governmental action, means the enslavement of the people by the great corporations who can only be held in check through the extension of governmental power"

Having the very corporations he's speaking of at the head of the EPA, the DOI, and DOA is asinine and you're the one picking winners and losers if you believe so and simply because you would rather be able to benefit fully, than keep this generation from trashing the very place we rely on to live for the next generation. Government is the check and balance between corporations and the public, and by implementing corporate individuals bought by their industry in charge of the government there is no check and balance anymore.

 

[Devil Diver Down]

That's just flat wrong headed thinking from the guys you're talking about. I'm also getting sick and tired of the worn out
"federal over-reach" crap.

I would ask your buddies on that facebook page to share a few examples of the "federal over-reach" that they're constantly whining about. What I've routinely found from these types, is they don't have the first clue about what they're talking about in regard to land management nor the mandates that the FS and BLM are required to concern themselves with.

These people you speak of better wise the hell up and in a hurry or they'll find out what "over-reach" and being "locked out" really mean...

Oh, you can be certain that they're mostly just parroting the overreach lines they've been hearing for 8 or so years from various sources - there was a sudden lack of specifics when we got deeper into the conversation. The "evidence" brought forth was mostly general talk of closed areas that used to be open, cattle guys talking about BLM screwing them (or people they know) over, etc. They're not my buddies, exactly, but I can tell you there wasn't a lot of support for my point of view. I don't get the feeling they're looking to be educated about the issue - they were actually advocating that AZ legislators (people who have passed some of the very stupidest laws in any state) be in charge of these lands. I wouldn't trust most of the AZ Leg to tie their own shoes with a 5-minute head start.

This was all before elk season, so I'm not sure if any of the squeeze put on by the Big Boquillas Ranch in AZ GMU 10 got any of them thinking what life would be like with a shortage of public lands. AZ has some good hunting-conservation groups, so hopefully they'll start making people aware that the issue is real and it affects them. And that they can parrot themselves right up to their butts in being careful what they wish for. Not too encouraging was that the emcee at last year's Arizona Elk Society's banquet hammered Hillary and the Dems about 2 dozen times, without mention what the Rs are trying to line up with TPL.