Is the current administration good or bad for public lands and hunting?

[N2TRKYS]

I see no slant, i have given no opinion except all choices wag the dog to appear to support whatever is currently carrying the votes.

When your best conversation piece is "what about the other guy?" That distracts from what should be the meat if the conversation-- these pros are important and should be supported -- these are the cons and support of these policies should be discontinued.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

If you’d stop assuming and reading into something that isn’t there, you’d probably be better off.
I’ll try writing it slower for you this time. There are two candidates right now for President. I simply asked which one do folks think would be better for public lands(ie the discussion at hand). If you have a hard time seeing that without a slant, then that’s your issue.

 

[OXN939]

Oh man that’s like asking me which venereal disease I wanna catch...both terrible choices. Do you vote for the old bumbling charlatan or the old bumbling career politician? Both very similar by definition

Maybe the one silver lining of 2020... ever since things have started getting weird, more and more people are starting to see things this way. In the ten-ish years I've been advocating for some kind of third party interaction, generally of the Libertarian persuasion, NEVER have I had such a receptive audience that is sick of the status quo as I have in the past few months.

I think the Biden vs. Trump debate makes it hard to ignore how pitifully broken our two party system is. I literally have never heard one of their supporters say that either is a good candidate; just that you avoid the calamity of their opponent by voting for them. Look back through this thread. The only support for either of them is "Well, the other guy is WAY WORSE!"

 

[NDGuy]

"Well, the other guy is WAY WORSE!"

Reminds me of the South Park episode where they vote if they want a Giant Douche or a Turd Sandwich as their new school mascot.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

If you’d stop assuming and reading into something that isn’t there, you’d probably be better off.
I’ll try writing it slower for you this time. There are two candidates right now for President. I simply asked which one do folks think would be better for public lands(ie the discussion at hand). If you have a hard time seeing that without a slant, then that’s your issue.

I was just looking for data...actual numbers like George Bush Sr Did X number of acres, Clinton did Y, Bush Jr. did Z, Obama did ?...Trump has done? in his first 3+ years? The original article I cited had these numbers and it didn't put our current administration in a good light. Perhaps it was a biased article of the "elite leftest deep state media". Or perhaps their numbers are factual. I haven't see anyone put up any links, any articles or any facts yet. I put up a link to a big bipartisan senate bill that seems promising, but I can't give any credit to our President because he hasn't touted, promoted or signed it yet. Currently based on the record of the Obama administration Biden appears more likely to continue to protect our public lands.

I'm guessing if we looked at the true data objectively without our personal bias about who is the worst person then one could determine who is the better candidate on the public lands issue. I need to see multiple sources. As its been said in this thread just adding more wilderness to our public land acreage isn't always a positive for hunting and fishing due to lack of access. Same goes for National Monuments. They are great and all but don't do a lot for recreation beyond looking at some cool feature or historical figure. Having more BLM or National Forest Land likely better due to accessibility. In general though having some care for our public land heritage is a nice quality in any candidate who wishes to hold public office at the Federal level. I certainly don't want someone that only see Natural resources as $$$ to be had by the wealthy capitalists and the corporations. Our public lands provide a lot more than just timber, grazing, mining, oil and gas. I don't mind that they provide that and hope they can be managed to sustain that for as long as possible. IMO that should be balanced with the rights of the other citizens to share in that wealth, as well as recreate in whatever capacity hunting, fishing, hiking, etc. they wish.

As far as thinking that maybe because Don Jr and Eric may hunt at times that the Donald might be more pro hunting well that may be, but seems like a stretch. There is a big difference between the regular Joe hunting public and Don Jr.
Don Jr can afford to pay for someone to hunt for him...essentially when you got that much $$ you can just go out and have a good time getting a trophy. I don't know that equates to having a love and respect for the American Public Land Heritage. Now don't get me wrong I'd do that too at times if I could, but my guess is someone raised jet setting in NYC doesn't have the same love of our public lands as us regular guys and gals. A lot of us were raised in the outdoors, taken hunting/fishing/camping in the forests from the beginning. Of course maybe I'm wrong...Maybe they cherish National parks, National Monuments, National Forests etc.??? Seems like they might cherish the $$$ that can be produced by public resources then had by them and their cronies. Biden might see it the same way though???
As far as the 2nd amendment which again I support. A well regulated militia can be interpreted many ways. Back in the late 1700s I don't think our forefathers contemplated tanks, F22 jets, and thermonuclear warheads. There will always be limits put on that particular constitutional right agreed on by both the citizens and the government. Or does the 2nd entitle me to have a stock of nukes and an A10 in a hangar out back?

 

[jfs82]

I was just looking for data...actual numbers like George Bush Sr Did X number of acres, Clinton did Y, Bush Jr. did Z, Obama did ?...Trump has done? in his first 3+ years? The original article I cited had these numbers and it didn't put our current administration in a good light. Perhaps it was a biased article of the "elite leftest deep state media". Or perhaps their numbers are factual. I haven't see anyone put up any links, any articles or any facts yet. I put up a link to a big bipartisan senate bill that seems promising, but I can't give any credit to our President because he hasn't touted, promoted or signed it yet. Currently based on the record of the Obama administration Biden appears more likely to continue to protect our public lands.

I'm guessing if we looked at the true data objectively without our personal bias about who is the worst person then one could determine who is the better candidate on the public lands issue. I need to see multiple sources. As its been said in this thread just adding more wilderness to our public land acreage isn't always a positive for hunting and fishing due to lack of access. Same goes for National Monuments. They are great and all but don't do a lot for recreation beyond looking at some cool feature or historical figure. Having more BLM or National Forest Land likely better due to accessibility. In general though having some care for our public land heritage is a nice quality in any candidate who wishes to hold public office at the Federal level. I certainly don't want someone that only see Natural resources as $$$ to be had by the wealthy capitalists and the corporations. Our public lands provide a lot more than just timber, grazing, mining, oil and gas. I don't mind that they provide that and hope they can be managed to sustain that for as long as possible. IMO that should be balanced with the rights of the other citizens to share in that wealth, as well as recreate in whatever capacity hunting, fishing, hiking, etc. they wish.

As far as thinking that maybe because Don Jr and Eric may hunt at times that the Donald might be more pro hunting well that may be, but seems like a stretch. There is a big difference between the regular Joe hunting public and Don Jr.
Don Jr can afford to pay for someone to hunt for him...essentially when you got that much $$ you can just go out and have a good time getting a trophy. I don't know that equates to having a love and respect for the American Public Land Heritage. Now don't get me wrong I'd do that too at times if I could, but my guess is someone raised jet setting in NYC doesn't have the same love of our public lands as us regular guys and gals. A lot of us were raised in the outdoors, taken hunting/fishing/camping in the forests from the beginning. Of course maybe I'm wrong...Maybe they cherish National parks, National Monuments, National Forests etc.??? Seems like they might cherish the $$$ that can be produced by public resources then had by them and their cronies. Biden might see it the same way though???
As far as the 2nd amendment which again I support. A well regulated militia can be interpreted many ways. Back in the late 1700s I don't think our forefathers contemplated tanks, F22 jets, and thermonuclear warheads. There will always be limits put on that particular constitutional right agreed on by both the citizens and the government. Or does the 2nd entitle me to have a stock of nukes and an A10 in a hangar out back?

People brought up politics, no room for facts left.

 

[Mosby]

Maybe the one silver lining of 2020... ever since things have started getting weird, more and more people are starting to see things this way. In the ten-ish years I've been advocating for some kind of third party interaction, generally of the Libertarian persuasion, NEVER have I had such a receptive audience that is sick of the status quo as I have in the past few months.

I think the Biden vs. Trump debate makes it hard to ignore how pitifully broken our two party system is. I literally have never heard one of their supporters say that either is a good candidate; just that you avoid the calamity of their opponent by voting for them. Look back through this thread. The only support for either of them is "Well, the other guy is WAY WORSE!"

Ross Perot was a third party candidate when Bill Clinton first ran for office. He was recruited to run for President by a close friend of the Gore family. The purpose? To split the vote on the Republican side by just enough to allow Bill Clinton and Al Gore to win. Why do you think Gore was Clinton's VP? Because he delivered Ross Perot. This stuff doesn't just happen. We are a two party system unless one side benefits from three. That is just the reality of it.

 

[jremmons]

As a public lands manager/wildlife biologist, this administration has made it far more difficult for me to do my job at peak effectiveness; this administration leans very much against science and data, which is the basis for the most appropriate wildlife management. Additionally, exploiting public lands for development will have a net negative effect on wildlife populations and hunting opportunities.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

As a public lands manager/wildlife biologist, this administration has made it far more difficult for me to do my job at peak effectiveness; this administration leans very much against science and data, which is the basis for the most appropriate wildlife management. Additionally, exploiting public lands for development will have a net negative effect on wildlife populations and hunting opportunities.

You make a very good point as Trump seems to push the general attitude that intelligence, science and data are somehow part of some elitist liberal deep state conspiracy to rob us of our freedoms. Experts, Scholars and career intelligence people shouldn’t be trusted. Ignore the recommendations of the career scientists and instead trust his unmatched wisdom on all subjects with zero credentials, experience or any objective evidence that he’s done any good work previously. Such a ruse.

 

[jremmons]

Yeah I mean I understand that as these are public lands/public resources, the general population should be able to voice their opinions, concerns, wants, etc. But, at the end of the day, I feel management actions should be driven by the best available data, research, methodology, etc. Most of us biologists/wildlife managers are also hunters ourselves, so we want to do the best we can to improve that aspect of the resources we manage as well.

 

[NDGuy]

Inactive Campaign

The admin has some good some bad but California is on a whole other level

 

[Huntindog45]

If they had their way they would be terrible for public land. Current admin sees no value in protecting anything, would rather, drill, mine or pave it all. I am very thankful there are good groups fighting to keep public lands protected right now.

 

[11boo]

of those who oppose energy development of our public lands, we can and have weaned ourselves off oil from people who mostly hate us. Why would you oppose that? We need the nat gas and oil, we have it here.

 

[String&stick]

Dont mind me, just trying to get my 10 posts

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

Dynamite drop in!

 

[OldGrayJB]

It seems impossible to find unbiased info on this subject.

If one group wants to sell a little bit of timber, the opposing party accuses them of raping all of the land. While they argue, the beetles kill the trees. Making them worthless and dangerous. New growth from timber harvest is good for wildlife.

This administration is definitely ok with some level of resources extraction but I don't see any evidence that they take it to an alarming level.