Trumps murky stance on public land

[Oneye]

http://www.hcn.org/articles/trump-met-with-a-leader-of-the-land-transfer-movement

"Dahl said Trump told him he’d consider putting the commissioner on a transition team, where he could push for the land transfer agenda through strategic recommendations for appointments. (That would be Dahl’s second time on a presidential transition team; he assisted George W. Bush in recommending appointments for the Department of Interior in 2000.)"


Idk about most of us, but I don't care to have someone undermining the DOI from within. That has been what has gotten us to this point of an underfunded BLM and Forest Service who can't adequately do their jobs. Considering someone as part of your team that is full bore for the transfer is not about to get my vote or me on board with your candidacy, that among 1,000 other reasons at this point. Consideration of this terrible idea is just another strike against Trump for me. Voting locally is more important at this point anyway, we are 22 days away from a Clinton presidency anyway and the brightest way I can look at that is there will be a veto pen at the presidents desk for this terrible idea.

 

[sbhooper]

If she wins, this is the least of our worries.

 

[Irrelevant]

I don't care if the devil himself (herself) wins, this will always be the most of my worries.

 

[Oneye]

If she wins, this is the least of our worries.

It amazes me how some have their blinders on for the other candidate in this race who is just as frightening in every way if not more. Public lands are the most of my worries, aside from that the two current mainstream candidates share many of the same views according to their basic history and not what they said 5 minutes ago to get a vote.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Im equally scared of both in different ways. I'd be ashamed to be happy with my options. If you think one is substantially better than the other than you are choosing to ignore a lot.
Can anyone find Micmullen's stance on anything? Anything at all!?

 

[Southwind]

Here we go again

 

[Oneye]

Im equally scared of both in different ways. I'd be ashamed to be happy with my options. If you think one is substantially better than the other than you are choosing to ignore a lot.
Can anyone find Micmullen's stance on anything? Anything at all!?

I've looked for Mcmullins stance and haven't found anything. As for your other comments I think you are wrong as to the legitimacy of one candidate or the other and what rhetorics we want to believe or turn a blind eye at. I won't turn a blind eye at the fact he isn't a sure thing when it comes to public lands and he's sliding through the topic like a slimy fish. You don't say you might appoint Mike Lee to the Supreme Court and give one of the founders of the ALC a spot at the table for the planning of the DOI and tell me you won't dispose of or raid our public lands at all costs for resources. So far everythimg he's said has been more towards damaging public land than keeping it in good conditions.

 

[MoGreen]

It amazes me how some have their blinders on for the other candidate in this race who is just as frightening in every way if not more. Public lands are the most of my worries, aside from that the two current mainstream candidates share many of the same views according to their basic history and not what they said 5 minutes ago to get a vote.

Because:

1. The chances of Utah grabbing the land are far less than Hillary putting 2-4 judges on the Supreme Court
2. She will change her stance on anything if you pay her enough money.
3. She'll go after the 2nd Amendment - first thing - with executive order.

You have a far higher chance of winning the fight over public land - if a fight happens - than stopping any of the above.

 

[MoGreen]

Im equally scared of both in different ways. I'd be ashamed to be happy with my options. If you think one is substantially better than the other than you are choosing to ignore a lot.
Can anyone find Micmullen's stance on anything? Anything at all!?

Sure. To help Hillary.

 

[Oneye]

Because:

1. The chances of Utah grabbing the land are far less than Hillary putting 2-4 judges on the Supreme Court
2. She will change her stance on anything if you pay her enough money.
3. She'll go after the 2nd Amendment - first thing - with executive order.

You have a far higher chance of winning the fight over public land - if a fight happens - than stopping any of the above.

Your absolutely wrong on this and I don't care what you say. The judges on the Supreme Court should be determining law not leaning left or right and the basic law of our country is the second amendment and that amendment is exactly why Hillary taking your guns is a far less likely scenario than federal lands being transferred and sold because there is no law protecting those lands from that if congress decides to do so. Your sources for your fear are right wing politicians wanting your vote for getting elected and the NRA (which is a good organization) that wants your membership. Nothing musters up votes and membership fees like scaring millions of people into believing the same fear they've been harnessing to grab your vote for years. Obama was going to take your guns...right? 8 years later (4 of which had a democratic congress) and Obama never took one of my guns. In fact Obama made gun manufacturers and the NRA more money over his tenure than any president in the history of this nation. Americans broadly oppose the idea of giving up our firearms and there will be far more resistance to that ridiculous fear you have than if public lands are put on the auction block. As for executive order, one of these candidates resembles a dictator by their actions more than the other and I think we both know which candidate that is. That's probabaly where we should leave this discussion and not take it farther than this before this thread takes a turn way off topic.

 

[katqanna]

I don't care if the devil himself (herself) wins, this will always be the most of my worries.

Agreed, especially with the "cultural shift" that keeps coming across my news feeds, which just transpired here in MT this summer, pieces of another puzzle I need to lay out after the election. By hook or by crook they say. The hunting and angling community needs to be more proactive.

I got pissed after some news articles came on my feed the other morning and started venting, still tweaking it.

When was the last time a moutain bike group published an ugulate count? Any ungulate, pick one. Or how about ATV clubs auditing wildlife habitat security? What about the extreme mountain climbers surveying Mountain Goat numbers? I can point to numerous hunting/angling organizations and independents that regularly participate in fish & wildlife conservation efforts. Why? Because they are invested in the resources, not just the geographical terrain as a playground or park.

In 1882 George Bird Grinnell wrote – “No woods, no game; no woods, no water; and no water, no fish.” I would add, “No hunting/angling public access, no conservation oversight.”

There is an adage that those who fail to learn the lessons from history are doomed to repeat it. In America, our wildlife and habitat conservation movement is inextricably linked with hunting and angling.

John Reiger, author of American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation, expressed, those who hunted and fished for pleasure, rather than commerce, were the spearhead of a conservation movement originating in the 1870's. Yet, it would do little good to conserve wildlife if it's habitat continued to shrink – eventually both would become extinct.

With the conservation movement came the vision of preserving large swaths of habitat for the preservation of fish and wildlife for “generations yet unborn”, not some small amount of animals in a zoo, but real habitat!

Forest and Stream magazine was founded in 1873, soon after purchased by George Bird Grinnell, to be a vehicle to educate and inspire the public. Their motto, “A weekly journal of field and aquatic sports, practical natural history, fish culture, protection of game, preservation of forests, and the inculcation of men and women of a healthy interest in out-door recreation and study.” They became one of the earliest wildlife conservation voices in the United States, influencing it's hunting, angling and camping readers.

George Bird Grinnell, a scientist, naturalist, hunter & angler, organizer of the first Audubon Society, considered one of the early fathers of America's conservation, desired to focus on habitat conservation and game laws. He became an editor of Forest and Stream in 1876, rising to senior editor, then publisher, purchased Forest and Stream in 1880, remaining until 1911. “Grinnell would use his unique position to wage one editorial crusade after another in behalf of 'conservation', a term that he was one of the first to use in regard to natural resources.”

Reiger wrote of Grinnell, “What tied together all of his editorial campaigns, and his extensive private efforts, was his earnest belief that Americans must take responsibility for the natural world upon which they depended, not only in a practical, economic sense, but in a spiritual one as well...Through his insightful editorials, Grinnell influenced, for the better, the thinking of countless hunters and fishermen, among them Theodore Roosevelt.”

In an 1882 Forest and Stream editorial, Grinnell wrote to his readers a recruiting call to arms of protecting forests, the understanding of how land, forests, wildlife, and water were intimately interconnected - “Here is a field for missionary work...” Closing the editorial, he stated, “No woods, no game; no woods, no water; and no water, no fish.” Yet, for the majority of hunters, anglers, hikers and campers, this missionary call might as well be pointless if there is not public access to our public lands and waters. As the “public”, your investment in these public natural resources is not just an ideology, it is your public boots on the ground; your eyes and ears on the landscape; your ensuring our public resources are available to the “generations yet unborn”.

While privatizers are stepping up their efforts to rob the public of their public lands and their outdoor opportunities, it is the hunter & angler that has the most at stake. The habitat is not just a sterile park you take your dog for a walk on; it is not just a trail to race your mountain bike or atv on to post on social media; nor is it just an extreme adventure adrenaline junkies destination. It is the wild and with that wildness comes fish & wildlife – fish & wildlife dependent on habitat, healthy habitat!

For the public hunting and angling North American Model to continue we need the wildness tripartate: habitat, resources and access. With access you can continue to enjoy your “healthy interest in out-door recreation and study” while answering Grinnell's 132 year old conservation call.

 

[MoGreen]

Your absolutely wrong on this and I don't care what you say. The judges on the Supreme Court should be determining law not leaning left or right and the basic law of our country is the second amendment and that amendment is exactly why Hillary taking your guns is a far less likely scenario than federal lands being transferred and sold because there is no law protecting those lands from that if congress decides to do so. Your sources for your fear are right wing politicians wanting your vote for getting elected and the NRA (which is a good organization) that wants your membership. Nothing musters up votes and membership fees like scaring millions of people into believing the same fear they've been harnessing to grab your vote for years. Obama was going to take your guns...right? 8 years later (4 of which had a democratic congress) and Obama never took one of my guns. In fact Obama made gun manufacturers and the NRA more money over his tenure than any president in the history of this nation. Americans broadly oppose the idea of giving up our firearms and there will be far more resistance to that ridiculous fear you have than if public lands are put on the auction block. As for executive order, one of these candidates resembles a dictator by their actions more than the other and I think we both know which candidate that is. That's probabaly where we should leave this discussion and not take it farther than this before this thread takes a turn way off topic.

WRONG! It is all about how they interpret the constitution. The Supreme Court is there to resolve gray areas or judge the constitutionality of existing/new law. It has nothing to do with upholding law. It has to do with whether or not those laws fall within the constitution. And that is up to "strict constructionists" (the right) vs. loose constructionists (the left).

They're not the police or lower courts. They never say, "we vote 5-4 that this person is guilty.". They say "We vote 5-4 that the Montana State Police violated so-and-so's civil rights".

 

[Oneye]

WRONG! It is all about how they interpret the constitution. The Supreme Court is there to resolve gray areas or judge the constitutionality of existing/new law. It has nothing to do with upholding law. It has to do with whether or not those laws fall within the constitution. And that is up to "strict constructionists" (the right) vs. loose constructionists (the left).

They're not the police or lower courts. They never say, "we vote 5-4 that this person is guilty.". They say "We vote 5-4 that the Montana State Police violated so-and-so's civil rights".

Theres a difference in voting off fear rather than logic, and losing our guns is based more off of fear than logic. Your signature line gives me all I need to know about the logic of your vote. Past that I'm not furthering this argument with you, let's talk about the subject at hand.

 

[MoGreen]

Well, wouldn't you be voting off fear of the land? I mean, they have not taken any federal land yet. They sure as hell have disrupted the gun industry and the 2nd amendment. And now they want to allow gun manufacturers to be sued? Can you say "Made in Mexico"?

 

[James Riley]

WRONG! It is all about how they interpret the constitution. The Supreme Court is there to resolve gray areas or judge the constitutionality of existing/new law. It has nothing to do with upholding law. It has to do with whether or not those laws fall within the constitution. And that is up to "strict constructionists" (the right) vs. loose constructionists (the left).

They're not the police or lower courts. They never say, "we vote 5-4 that this person is guilty.". They say "We vote 5-4 that the Montana State Police violated so-and-so's civil rights".

The left is strict when it suits them and the right is loose when it suits them. The only difference is, the right has convinced their useful idiots that they are more Constitutional, patriotic and 'merican than the left.

I wish you'd get edjumacated and quit peddling this pseudo-legal poly sci con law stuff. It's especially revealing when preceded by a zealous scream of WRONG! LOL!

 

[MoGreen]

Whatever then. Let em take all your rights. They already have you 20 trillion dollars in debt and control your health care.

 

[Oneye]

Well, wouldn't you be voting off fear of the land? I mean, they have not taken any federal land yet. They sure as hell have disrupted the gun industry and the 2nd amendment. And now they want to allow gun manufacturers to be sued? Can you say "Made in Mexico"?

No im voting off the logic of which has a MUCH greater chance of happening in a realistic world that isnt driven off fear mongering. Sure I'm scared our public lands might be dumped, sure I'm scared of losing every firearm, but you have to use the logical reasoning to sift through what fears are more likely to happen and which ones are not. Stop for a second and look at what is protected by a plain statement in the constitution and which one is at the will of congress of what to do with them. Guns are obviously protected under the second amendment and no matter how broad someone tries to interpret that clause there is no way it can be interrupted in a way to take all our firearms nor would the general public accept that. There is no clause protecting public lands or giving our nations public an absolute right to have public lands, they can easily be taken away or sold with a simple shift of the political environment to a body of government that fully supports dumping federal lands. You will never get them back, they are not protected, and with a republican congress and willing president to sign off on it, public lands could be transferred or sold with ease because there is no legal argument against it if congress decides to dump them and the president decides to approve it. One is an absolute legal right spelled out clearly in our constitution the other is not.

 

[schmalts]

Your absolutely wrong on this and I don't care what you say. The judges on the Supreme Court should be determining law not leaning left or right

But they don't. If they did the NRA would have been out of business a long time ago.

 

[Carnage2011]

Oh look another political thread that won't go anywhere or change anyone's mind. Hopefully it's locked by morning so we can get back to hunting season.

 

[Elkmagnet]

I've looked for Mcmullins stance and haven't found anything. As for your other comments I think you are wrong as to the legitimacy of one candidate or the other and what rhetorics we want to believe or turn a blind eye at. I won't turn a blind eye at the fact he isn't a sure thing when it comes to public lands and he's sliding through the topic like a slimy fish. You don't say you might appoint Mike Lee to the Supreme Court and give one of the founders of the ALC a spot at the table for the planning of the DOI and tell me you won't dispose of or raid our public lands at all costs for resources. So far everythimg he's said has been more towards damaging public land than keeping it in good conditions.

Fair enough

Sincerely
Undecided in Idaho