You nailed it "assume, I will give you that much.
It can be dangerous when dealing with the liberal mind, I know.
You nailed it "assume, I will give you that much.
If we are relying on only part of the information, we aren’t truly making accurate assessments.
The exact same thing could be said about the knee jerk P&Y guy that posted in this thread. He isn’t the only one in our nation that has become stoned eared when it comes to hearing what others have to say. It seems that too many people make up their mind with headlines and partial information. When presented the opportunity to actually have first hand knowledge, they turn their ears to stone, and yell louder in an attempt to drown out information that might not support their conclusions.
It never stated that 70% are Democrat and never said 60% are independent. It said 70% are republican, independent or non affiliated with 20% democrat.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Great illustration. When in doubt fall back on political tribalism, the default mode. Because that has gotten us so far over the last 60 years.It can be dangerous when dealing with the liberal mind, I know.
Great illustration. When in doubt fall back on political tribalism, the default mode. Because that has gotten us so far over the last 60 years.
The survey result representation also surprised me. I think a staff writer was given a little too much poetic license. I have always liked RMEF's stance that no matter who is in power over time they have to work with both side to move the core mission forward. Hence no party endorsement. I am excited about the BHA mission and will let this slide but they need some feedback.
That said, my P&Y membership is likely getting dumped after they booked Donald Jr. as speaker for the next gathering. I emailed whether they have a back up plan if he is in federal prison by then. Right or left thinking, these guys were trying to undermine our democracy, and still are.
The changes coming out of this administration are setting back conservation efforts and public land management 50 years. This wasn't a partisan issue until now. Whether you like or dislike the current president, don't turn a blind eye to what is going on if you love the outdoors.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Definitely a step in the right direction by Congress but the Trump administration appointees, Zinke and Pruitt in particular, have supported numerous measures that prioritize private interests over those of the public. Not surprising given the strong ties that these two have to the energy lobby. Bears ears monument was the most publicized. You can read emails from senator Orrin Hatch in March 2017 indicating that the new boundaries were designed to remove protections on oil and gas rich areas that would otherwise be protected if under federal management. The state wanted to use the funds from these deposits to bolster the public school system. Thats great PR but very short sighted, which is how politicians operate. Another example is the greenlight given to the pebble mine in Alaska. Too much for me to type but check it out. Like I said, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. It comes down to greed on the part of mainly 2 players; the energy lobby, and the states. The goals of the energy lobby are obvious. The goals of the states are to get ahold of public land to either profit from the resources or sell the land to help balance the budget (states have to run a balanced budget). The reality is that the states can't afford to steward the land so they end up selling it. Also, gutting the EPA and disregarding the scientific community has not helped things. When these public land and environmental decisions are not made in conjunction with the help of our country's biologists, ecologists, climatologists, and environmental scientists, we are in trouble. I would like for my children and grandchildren to have the same opportunities that you and I have to hunt, fish, camp, and hike on our unbelievably rich and unique public land.Interesting. Wonder if you’ve read about the Restore Our Parks and Public Lands Act in the House or the Restore Our Parks Act in the Senate?
Definitely a step in the right direction by Congress but the Trump administration appointees, Zinke and Pruitt in particular, have supported numerous measures that prioritize private interests over those of the public. Not surprising given the strong ties that these two have to the energy lobby. Bears ears monument was the most publicized. You can read emails from senator Orrin Hatch in March 2017 indicating that the new boundaries were designed to remove protections on oil and gas rich areas that would otherwise be protected if under federal management. The state wanted to use the funds from these deposits to bolster the public school system. Thats great PR but very short sighted, which is how politicians operate. Another example is the greenlight given to the pebble mine in Alaska. Too much for me to type but check it out. Like I said, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. It comes down to greed on the part of mainly 2 players; the energy lobby, and the states. The goals of the energy lobby are obvious. The goals of the states are to get ahold of public land to either profit from the resources or sell the land to help balance the budget (states have to run a balanced budget). The reality is that the states can't afford to steward the land so they end up selling it. Also, gutting the EPA and disregarding the scientific community has not helped things. When these public land and environmental decisions are not made in conjunction with the help of our country's biologists, ecologists, climatologists, and environmental scientists, we are in trouble. I would like for my children and grandchildren to have the same opportunities that you and I have to hunt, fish, camp, and hike on our unbelievably rich and unique public land.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Zinke's proposal was different in that he wanted to fund it through proceeds from lifting restrictions on offshore drilling. That died when he cut a deal with Florida's governor not to drill off the coast of Florida. I mention Pruitt because he was put in place by the Trump administration and embodies it's approach to conservation and the environment. Although his successor seems to be more capable of navigating the political minefield, I can't imagine that the policy direction of the department has shifted gears. The decision to lift restrictions on the pebble mine is just an example of the policy direction. It's just hard for me to fathom that expanded oil, gas, and mineral extraction on public land is good for the environment or the people who enjoy it. The inevitable expansion of renewable energy will eventually make some of these issues (not mining obviously) a thing of the past. I just don't want the environment, and public land in particular, to be irreversibly lost or damaged in the interim.This measure was suggested by Secretary Zinke as I understand it and Secretary Pruitt resigned in July.
I live in Alaska. Pebble is fun to debate about but it’s likelihood of happening is pretty slim.
I don’t like federal land passing to state control either. I used to think it was a good idea until the Nature Conservancy gobbled up a bunch of state land here in my home town. What was once public with decent access is now private with the trails gone back to alders and willows with very poor access.
Definitely a step in the right direction by Congress but the Trump administration appointees, Zinke and Pruitt in particular, have supported numerous measures that prioritize private interests over those of the public. Not surprising given the strong ties that these two have to the energy lobby. Bears ears monument was the most publicized. You can read emails from senator Orrin Hatch in March 2017 indicating that the new boundaries were designed to remove protections on oil and gas rich areas that would otherwise be protected if under federal management. The state wanted to use the funds from these deposits to bolster the public school system. Thats great PR but very short sighted, which is how politicians operate. Another example is the greenlight given to the pebble mine in Alaska. Too much for me to type but check it out. Like I said, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. It comes down to greed on the part of mainly 2 players; the energy lobby, and the states. The goals of the energy lobby are obvious. The goals of the states are to get ahold of public land to either profit from the resources or sell the land to help balance the budget (states have to run a balanced budget). The reality is that the states can't afford to steward the land so they end up selling it. Also, gutting the EPA and disregarding the scientific community has not helped things. When these public land and environmental decisions are not made in conjunction with the help of our country's biologists, ecologists, climatologists, and environmental scientists, we are in trouble. I would like for my children and grandchildren to have the same opportunities that you and I have to hunt, fish, camp, and hike on our unbelievably rich and unique public land.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk