In the beginning I liked Trump, I thought I could vote for Trump, but the closer we get to the election, I cannot vote for Trump. Despite what his son has said, it is a game of politics and it will be once he's elected whether you want to believe he is a politician or not. He has backtracked on issues, changes his opinions, contradicted himself at every turn, and has released news after news that shows just how bad for sportsmen he will be. Instead of making this thread about "he's better than Hillary" argument sit back and use some actual knowledge, common sense, and reasoning. Trumps plans would give away public lands to industry, sidetracking environmental laws helping keep our wildlife safe and ensuring we have clean water and air. With his choices of Supreme Court justices, a Trump presidency scares me with a republican congress. You will see public lands,hunters, and wildlife have to answer to the almighty dollar and not good management. If you want to trust the guy that he won't give your public lands away to states, be my guest but common sense and research shows just how much he lies. Hillary sucks, I'll admit that, but this post isn't about her, so don't bring up arguments of who sucks less. You should be voting for someone, if you vote for Trump, it may very well be a give away of our public lands and wildlife to industry and states. I just needed to vent a little.
Trump will hurt public lands
- Thread starter Oneye
- Start date
- Status
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
The biggest issues are national security and the economy. Without an improvement in those two things, our public lands are irrelevant. With Hillary we may not even have a country anymore. She supports open borders, sanctuary cities, amnesty for illegal immigrants, etc. I know you didn't want to discuss Hillary, but she's the opposite of Trump. People who are anti-gun and anti-hunting hate Trump. Think about that, are you on the same side as the anti-gun, anti-hunting, PETA and HSUS people?
Look at how much some people hate Donald Trump junior because he's a hunter and a member of several hunting message boards:
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/that-idiot-on-your-hunting-message-board-might-be-donal-1786882492
Look at how much some people hate Donald Trump junior because he's a hunter and a member of several hunting message boards:
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/that-idiot-on-your-hunting-message-board-might-be-donal-1786882492
Goatshoes
Active member
- Joined
- May 18, 2016
- Messages
- 514
I hate to discus politics on a forum but since this seems to be keeping relevant to hunting and since hunting in all its various forms is such a big part of who I am I must argue in favor of Trump if only because he is not Hillary. Much like Washington Hunter said, if we don't have the freedom to hunt (own firearms and ammo) then I care very little about public lands. I like to hike with a purpose.
This thread will be on a very tight leash. Keep it on topic and with some value to the discussion of public land hunting or it will get toasted and may take a few folks with it.
Elkmagnet
Well-known member
Ill say I'm the exact opposite. There is soooo much more to public lands than just hunting.
For what its worth.. which isn't that much -as he's not running for president - recently on Jason Hairston's (Owner of Kuiu and friend of Trump Jr.) instagram, a few people were giving Jason a hard time about supporting Trump and brough up the public lands issue.
Trump Jr. personally responded to several of them and reiterated that they support public lands, don't support transfer and aren't 'traditional GOP'.
Take that or leave that with a grain of salt.
I have several aquaintances that have personally spent time with Trump Jr and a little with Eric and they are all adamant that the Trump boys are sincere, legitimate hunters, just like us and that its not for show.
You can support domestic energy production and still support wilderness, public lands etc..
Since this thread is about Clinton, I would be interested to see any evidence anyone has that she's a supporter of public lands or more specifically any evidence that she isn't vehemently anti-hunting as she is anti-gun.
Sure, you can turn up statements from her where she 'says' she supports public lands, but I can show you statements where she supports a border wall/fence and is against gay rights, as well as hundreds of references of her being loyal to the deepest pockets, instead of whatever her supposed values are. The Clintons have proven for 25 years they are for sale to the highest bidder. I doubt thsi issue is much more than a blip on her (and most who reside in the East) radar, at the moment, but if a vote were ever up for presidential approval, Clinton will be found on the side of what benefits Clinton the most.
Unfortunately in the big picture of the land issue, you and I and the organizations we support don't have the money on our side.
In short, I think they're both a gamble.
I'll reiterate The Clintons have proven for 25 years they are for sale to the highest bidder. That is an undeniable, indisputable fact.
Trump Jr. personally responded to several of them and reiterated that they support public lands, don't support transfer and aren't 'traditional GOP'.
Take that or leave that with a grain of salt.
I have several aquaintances that have personally spent time with Trump Jr and a little with Eric and they are all adamant that the Trump boys are sincere, legitimate hunters, just like us and that its not for show.
You can support domestic energy production and still support wilderness, public lands etc..
Since this thread is about Clinton, I would be interested to see any evidence anyone has that she's a supporter of public lands or more specifically any evidence that she isn't vehemently anti-hunting as she is anti-gun.
Sure, you can turn up statements from her where she 'says' she supports public lands, but I can show you statements where she supports a border wall/fence and is against gay rights, as well as hundreds of references of her being loyal to the deepest pockets, instead of whatever her supposed values are. The Clintons have proven for 25 years they are for sale to the highest bidder. I doubt thsi issue is much more than a blip on her (and most who reside in the East) radar, at the moment, but if a vote were ever up for presidential approval, Clinton will be found on the side of what benefits Clinton the most.
Unfortunately in the big picture of the land issue, you and I and the organizations we support don't have the money on our side.
In short, I think they're both a gamble.
I'll reiterate The Clintons have proven for 25 years they are for sale to the highest bidder. That is an undeniable, indisputable fact.
Last edited:
jryoung
Well-known member
The problem with Trump is I have no idea what I am going to get. The problem with Clinton is I know what I am going to get.
Southern Elk
Well-known member
How so? As someone mentioned above, she has flip flopped on several big issues.
As Shane Mahoney has said, I would rather live in a world with people who care about animals and are anti-hunting, than live in a society that doesn't give a damn about wildlife and wild places. I would rather vote for somone who will protect this places than someone who sees them as nothing more than a place industry has the right to destroy in the name of economic good.
sbhooper
Well-known member
On the money. If the country is shot, who cares if there is public land? It will not matter at that point. Think about the big picture and not just one issue. The fight for public lands can be done in congress, as it becomes an issue.
Speaking of Shane Mahoney. He is speaking tomorrow night at the WildSheep Foundation in Bozeman. Wish I could attend, but its too early to make it.
With all due respect here, you are talking about the fringes of the left, not the left in general. There's a reason 80% of Americans support hunting and it is because they are not all the extreme leftists like you're trying to paint all democrats and liberals as. Just like everyone who Trump appeals to are not racists or stupid. As for national security and our economy, to me that's a joke. Here's what I'll tell you for sure, or economy will crash in the future and we will be never be nationally secure no matter how much you want to believe a law will ensure so. You're argument is basically what the anti-gun people use. They believe a simple new law or rule will fix gun problems. Just like new gun laws won't fix crazy people with guns, a new law will not stop a terrorist group from threatening our national security. National security and our economy will always do what they have always done through the entire history of our nation. I agree they are very important, but neither side is going to change things like you believe.
I would say just the opposite, if I have no public land then my firearms are much less useful. There is a second amendment protecting your right to bear arms. If you honestly believe Hillary has a better chance of taking all your guns than the GOP transferring and selling your public lands you aren't using common sense and logic. You are buying into the fears the GOP has fed you. If Hillary really wants my assault rifle, she can have it, I don't need and assault rifle to hunt, I can use other guns to protect myself and hunt with. If you really believe you're AR-15 can protect you from a government that spends over $700 billion a year on military and has drones, missles, and the whole works I can't help you. Losing our public lands to the GOP is far more of a reality than losing all your guns to Hillary.
Goatshoes
Active member
- Joined
- May 18, 2016
- Messages
- 514
All those positions that are contrary to mine are valid positions and I make no argument against them. I only put forth how I arrived at mine. We are each entitled to our own and I will gamble, if you will, that we are more likely to have both hunting privileges and gun rights alongside access to public lands with a Trump presidency.
Quite honestly I think that the President on his or her own has little power to effect change without the will of the people and neither of these candidates in my opinion have a significant share of the will of the people. I hope and pray for political gridlock.
Quite honestly I think that the President on his or her own has little power to effect change without the will of the people and neither of these candidates in my opinion have a significant share of the will of the people. I hope and pray for political gridlock.
I agree with your position in a lot of ways and can absolutely see where you are coming from. This election has come down to picking the lesser of two evils. The power of the president is the veto pen, Obama would never sign something that was a broad whole scale give away of public lands, and congress will never allow him to take gun rights at the moment. Gridlock as terrible as it is, I would embrace for 4 more years. At least a congress not getting anything done isn't taking anything away from us either. If we have a republican congress(which is likely at this point) with Trump as a president, I wouldn't put my life savings on him vetoing a land transfer if it reached his desk, despite what his son says. This game of politics even with Trump has gotten to where he will have to give in on some issues and one he personally knows very little about I think may be one of those issues. With a Trump presidency I would put loss of public lands at 50/50. With a Clinton presidency I feel the loss of assault weapons at about 70% chance of not happening and 30% of happening during her presidency and losing the second amendment as a whole in 4 years at a 99% of not happening and 1% chance of happening. Like you, I've weighed my options and neither of them are certain, but I think there are more and less likely events that will actually take place in the next 4 years, and PS I'm not voting for Clinton, I simply can't vote for Trump either.
Last edited:
It's easy to locked in to just the Presidency, especially in this cycle, but if you are truly worried about your public lands and the hunting heritage that goes along with it, as well as every other issue, you have think multi-dimension-ally. For example:
Trump wins, with the GOP maintaining majority in both houses. Rob Bishop & crew are ready to drop transfer legislation, and if it's attached to other must-pass bills like the National Defense Authorization Act or a continuing resolution to keep the Gov't open, what would Trump do? Are your public lands a negotiating tool for him, or are they truly inviolate? Same goes for Supreme Court nominatons - will he appoint judges who have a firm grasp of public land law over the last 200 years, or will he appoint Transfer supporters like Mike Lee of UT?
Trump wins - Senate goes blue - nothing happens either way. No appointments get voted on regarding SUPCO, no legislation gets passed on transfer, yet we will continue to have the repeated attacks from the House on public lands and agency funding.
Clinton Wins, Senate goes blue - Land management budgets get increased, multiple use remains in place, and land management would likely be better due to the need for the GOP to compromise to move anything for another 4-8 years. 8 years of obstruction on domestic issues under Obama have proven that their strategy is a long term party killer, so they move to the middle, and find that common ground. Clinton appoints liberal judges, who could influence the 2nd, but not very much since congress will not pass restrictive gun control, having learned the lessons of 94 and what mid-term stupidity can cause for a majority. Senate confirms appointments, setting the stage for different fights on the second, but public lands are safe.
Clinton wins, Congress stays red: Gridlock with no incentive for anyone to move anything positive forward so we get 8 more years of malarkey. Appointments to SUPCO will have to be moderate if any chance of seating them is to be had, leading to more conservative choices for SUPCO than if she had congress to do her bidding.
Trump has said repeatedly that he'd put people in cabinet positions for interior and ag that represent industry, rather than a balanced approach. He's also had surrogates talking about selling off assets to reduce national debt. One hand doesn't seem to know what the other is thinking, and with Trump, I don't think we'll ever really know what he wants to do until he does it, and then reverses himself a few times.
With Clinton, we know that she's not as friendly to the second amendment, but she does have a lot of support from the broader conservation community, is working with a number of groups who do have hunting as part of their mission, and has a track record as a senator of supporting public lands and the management thereof. Billy Jeff also had a pretty spotty record on public lands, as he was fairly fond of fracking and increased domestic production on those lands, and helped usher in the boom of the early 2000's in the west by relaxing regulations.
To me, the edge is to Clinton. I do know what we'll get, it's not going to be radically different than what we've had for the last 8 years, which for public lands was pretty good at the executive level. Trump is an unknown, and his inability to put forth a cohesive public land message is troubling.
However, the bigger issue, IMO, is congress. Congress sets the budget, passes the laws and creates our biggest problems. 535 people making some pretty poor decisions based on a system that rewards insider trading and corrupt practices. If you want to protect your public land heritage, then focus on making congress work. Moderate and thoughtful conservatives and liberals are like neutrons and protons in an atom - you have to have both in order to have a functioning Atom that isn't dead set on just eating itself alive and exploding, causing a chain reaction that makes us all glow in the dark.
Trump wins, with the GOP maintaining majority in both houses. Rob Bishop & crew are ready to drop transfer legislation, and if it's attached to other must-pass bills like the National Defense Authorization Act or a continuing resolution to keep the Gov't open, what would Trump do? Are your public lands a negotiating tool for him, or are they truly inviolate? Same goes for Supreme Court nominatons - will he appoint judges who have a firm grasp of public land law over the last 200 years, or will he appoint Transfer supporters like Mike Lee of UT?
Trump wins - Senate goes blue - nothing happens either way. No appointments get voted on regarding SUPCO, no legislation gets passed on transfer, yet we will continue to have the repeated attacks from the House on public lands and agency funding.
Clinton Wins, Senate goes blue - Land management budgets get increased, multiple use remains in place, and land management would likely be better due to the need for the GOP to compromise to move anything for another 4-8 years. 8 years of obstruction on domestic issues under Obama have proven that their strategy is a long term party killer, so they move to the middle, and find that common ground. Clinton appoints liberal judges, who could influence the 2nd, but not very much since congress will not pass restrictive gun control, having learned the lessons of 94 and what mid-term stupidity can cause for a majority. Senate confirms appointments, setting the stage for different fights on the second, but public lands are safe.
Clinton wins, Congress stays red: Gridlock with no incentive for anyone to move anything positive forward so we get 8 more years of malarkey. Appointments to SUPCO will have to be moderate if any chance of seating them is to be had, leading to more conservative choices for SUPCO than if she had congress to do her bidding.
Trump has said repeatedly that he'd put people in cabinet positions for interior and ag that represent industry, rather than a balanced approach. He's also had surrogates talking about selling off assets to reduce national debt. One hand doesn't seem to know what the other is thinking, and with Trump, I don't think we'll ever really know what he wants to do until he does it, and then reverses himself a few times.
With Clinton, we know that she's not as friendly to the second amendment, but she does have a lot of support from the broader conservation community, is working with a number of groups who do have hunting as part of their mission, and has a track record as a senator of supporting public lands and the management thereof. Billy Jeff also had a pretty spotty record on public lands, as he was fairly fond of fracking and increased domestic production on those lands, and helped usher in the boom of the early 2000's in the west by relaxing regulations.
To me, the edge is to Clinton. I do know what we'll get, it's not going to be radically different than what we've had for the last 8 years, which for public lands was pretty good at the executive level. Trump is an unknown, and his inability to put forth a cohesive public land message is troubling.
However, the bigger issue, IMO, is congress. Congress sets the budget, passes the laws and creates our biggest problems. 535 people making some pretty poor decisions based on a system that rewards insider trading and corrupt practices. If you want to protect your public land heritage, then focus on making congress work. Moderate and thoughtful conservatives and liberals are like neutrons and protons in an atom - you have to have both in order to have a functioning Atom that isn't dead set on just eating itself alive and exploding, causing a chain reaction that makes us all glow in the dark.
RockyDog
Member
i am pretty much the opposite of you. I like to be out in the woods. Without public lands, i have little use for firearms and ammo.
This is the single best post respecting the issue of public lands, firearms, and conservation on this presidency I've seen. Great explanation and layout.
katqanna
Well-known member
- Status
Similar threads
