Project 2025 and public lands and environment

[PLhunter]

The whackadoodle Project 25 will be consistent with what the oligarchs are after this presidential term - to cut anything and everything to up the amount of tax cuts they can do for the top 1%. It’s cute that you think anyone gives two nickels about outdoorsmen or actual professional management as we’ve traditionally had. Don’t expect gravel roads to be worth a darn, or Forest Service shitters to be usable.

It amazes me that they have convinced so many people that they are looking out for our best interest. Food prices haven’t come down. Inflation is up already. WTF?

The irony is people will be so easily duped. Toilets will be locked. Shit will be everywhere. Rules will be ignored. Then those same people will use it as an example of why it needs private management. It’s a tried and true tactic. Become the government break something and then attribute its failure to government and then sell it off to donors.

MMW The wrong lesson is going to be learned once the shit starts piling up. They are banking on it. That’s why preventing the destruction is so important.

 

[Ozarkansas]

The irony is people will be so easily duped. Toilets will be locked. Shit will be everywhere. Rules will be ignored. Then those same people will use it as an example of why it needs private management. It’s a tried and true tactic. Become the government break something and then attribute its failure to government and then sell it off to donors.

“Starve the beast” is the name of the tactic, for the uninformed. Cut funding to the point that a department can’t function, then point to their inability to function as proof that the department should be eliminated. It happens sometimes in business too

 

[IdahoBeav]

The skating right over money printing and government waste is hilarious.

Thank God for these DOGE audits. I always wondered how the government managed to tax the hell out of the populace and could never cover their spending. The deflections from the TDS crowd are only going to intensify.

 

[PLhunter]

I’d recommend ignoring anyone using “label-based logical fallacies” in order to keep the thread open. It’s stayed fairly productive thus far.

 

[TaperPin]

The skating right over money printing and government waste is hilarious.

Thank God for these DOGE audits. I always wondered how the government managed to tax the hell out of the populace and could never cover their spending. The deflections from the TDS crowd are only going to intensify.

Tariffs are taxes, so only one month in you get to pay more taxes, not less. How is that ok? Your taxes literally haven’t gone down.

 

[huntcookwrite]

Absolutely! On the other hand: “If the majority of public land is sold off to private entities with no interest in the use of the land beyond Eco-Tourism.”

100% goes both ways — I just see far fewer private entities going that route.

(That being said, if we’re being honest, if the land HAS to be sold off, I’d rather it go that route than one of pure resource extraction.)

 

[PLhunter]

Tariffs are taxes, so only one month in you get to pay more taxes, not less. How is that ok?

Let’s keep this open. By going for TDS he’s stopped direct engagement and content of the argument. So ignore, I’d like this to stay open. If it closes let’s not be the reason.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Tariffs are taxes, so only one month in you get to pay more taxes, not less. How is that ok?

Yes, tariffs are a tax and always a bad idea. We had tariffs before January as well. We just didn't hear about them so much.

 

[PLhunter]

100% goes both ways — I just see far fewer private entities going that route.

(That being said, if we’re being honest, if the land HAS to be sold off, I’d rather it go that route than one of pure resource extraction.)

But by all means necessary prevent the sale. However, also prevent the complete destruction even if it’s still public property. Public property used only for private gain is the same beast by a different name. Fight it just as hard.

 

[huntcookwrite]

Bristol Bay seems like a giant can of worms that shouldn’t be touched, ie risk isn’t worth reward. As far as extraction. I’m not totally against it. Needs to be strictly managed but here in Co we have seen first hand on what happens when we just let forests rot with little to no logging. We get monster fires now that burn hotter and are more destructive to habitat instead of healing. I absolutely hate a lot of motorized recreation, but i understand that I don’t get everything I want. My final straw is when they start locking us out and mark it for sale. I think we have a ways to go before that and it’s not all one sided, the “left” is guilty of trying to throw solar panels all over winter range and that would effectively lock us out of all of it.

This is a conservation vs preservation issue — the stuff that we usually gloss over in hunters Ed classes.

 

[PLhunter]

This is a conservation vs preservation issue — the stuff that we usually gloss over in hunters Ed classes.

I’d argue balancing extraction with required rehabilitation and return to wild state in a tit for tat format is conservation. Preservation can be conservation. Not all conservation is preservation. They aren’t opposites.

 

[huntcookwrite]

But by all means necessary prevent the sale. However, also prevent the complete destruction even if it’s still public property. Public property used only for private gain is the same beast by a different name. Fight it just as hard.

Totally agree with you, I was just responding to the false binary.

 

[ncstatehunter]

Not sure why I’m wading into this but the answer and compromise for sportsman IMO lies in fighting fire with fire in the privatization game. Hear me out. We have roughly 40 million hunting licenses/tags/permits sold in this country, let’s just assume individual licenses number 30 million. Let’s also assume while not all hunt or utilize public lands, that when you factor in other consumptive users (i.e, hunters, trappers, fishermen and not lumping in recreational only I.e. climbers, hikers, bikers users) you have roughly 30 million people who would pay $100 a year averaged out between them all to be used towards public lands.

Now stay with me. If we the consumptive sportsmen and women in this country could create a non-profit or hell just any entity to pool those resources together to buy and manage lands to keep open to the public we’d have roughly 3 billion dollars each year to buy up acreage, open it to the public, manage it effectively and get around some of the litigation that the govt has to deal with when it comes to doing any cutting (based on my experience the NC mountains) and effectively be setup to combat any land sales that may arise in the future via purchase. Obviously administrative costs, taxes, management costs, etc would cut into that number but the answer as I see it is to use grassroots and capitalism to our advantage instead of being Don Quixote and chasing windmills. Lots of assumptions I know (no more than what’s already in this thread) and organizing and getting something like that off the ground would be difficult but you can’t tell me between the current non-profits that it can’t be done, hell looked at APR. RMEF has experience in the land acquisition realm, Safari Club is deep in the legislative realm. It can be done and in a way where it’s strictly focused on land acquisition for public use that is technically in private hands like a Land Trust. Except this focus would be for consumptive users to utilize and not just for the sake of saving land. Of course I can already tell that there would be issues because someone doesn’t want a forestry plan that includes logging or someone wants solar and not oil and gas leases, etc. Everyone would have to leave their own biases, wants and desires at the door as the mission statement would be for land open to and managed for consumptive users, it starts and ends there. Recreational users would be welcome of course but there would be no catering to them. Now back to your regularly scheduled twisting at windmills.

 

[Ten Bears]

oh look another post about the sky is falling because of "Trump"...from the usual posters that magically only posts liberal scare stories..

instead of caring about things that actually have happened to our land and hunting rights, these posters love to rant about things that haven't happened and didn't happen the last time they did this exact same routine during the first term.

last 4 years we had an administration ran by a woman that wanted to return land to "natives', cover the land with solar and wind power. we have had the epa weaponized and got lawfared to death to prevent science based predator and land management. we have lost bear seasons, mountain lion seasons, trapping, etc. you never hear a peep from these folks that are so concerned with hunting and conservation.

it's been a month and the constant whining is already old and unwanted. do everyone a favor and come back when something actually happens. if they actually sell some of our public land I am sure everyone will beat it down like we always do...

I really wish you would put the same energy spamming forums with rainbow bullshit into something useful like taking advantage of having a hunting/fishing/gardening friendly administration and get our rights codified on the federal level.

 

[JustSomeGuy35]

Growing up in Washington, my family was very poor. My father was against government hand outs, so we focused hard on hunting, fishing, and foraging. Even as a little boy, I did my part by fishing the local lakes I could ride my bike too and picking blackberries. We ate many meals consisting of bullheads and panfish.

The real deal was hunting though. After a few years of learning areas in Eastern WA, my dad got great at filling his deer and elk tags each season. Our summers were filled with camping/scouting trips in the vast public lands. I learned to forage berries for jelly and wine-making, and mushrooms. When I turned 14, I was finally able to hunt big game and provide for our family too.

In the city, we were poor as hell. In the public lands of Eastern WA, we felt like royalty. Perched on top of mountains, wild land sprawling as far as our eyes could see, fresh air to breathe, and actual quiet. True freedom. Going back to the city after a week in the mountains was like a descent into hell. Noise, pollution, gangs, trash and people everywhere.

I live in the Midwest now, temporarily, but travel back to WA to hunt every couple years. I still get an adrenalin rush when I get back into the mountains and the feeling of freedom sets back in.

None of my story would've been possible without public lands. I don't even want to think about how different my life would be if I never got to escape into the mountains 2-3 months of every year. The city eats you alive.

Public lands allow the poor and wealthy alike to feel like kings. They allow anyone, even city boys, the chance to go have grand adventures for the price of a hunting license and a tank of gas. They allow people to provide healthy and delicious meals for their families for a fraction of the cost of supermarkets.

I sincerely hope that those opportunities remain available for future generations. I hate to think that public lands would be reduced just so the money/profits can be misused elsewhere.

 

[huntcookwrite]

I’d argue balancing extraction with required rehabilitation and return to wild state in a tit for tat format is conservation. Preservation can be conservation. Not all conservation is preservation. They aren’t opposites.

Strictly speaking they are different — conservation is the managed use of natural resources with human uses with the explicit purpose of protecting the resources with a sustainable model; preservation is protecting the natural resources at all costs with no human uses.

 

[PLhunter]

Strictly speaking they are different — conservation is the managed use of natural resources with human uses with the explicit purpose of protecting the resources with a sustainable model; preservation is protecting the natural resources at all costs with no human uses.

That’s not really the definition of conservation. That’s an interpretation but in reality the true definition includes preservation as a means to conserve. You can conserve 1000 acres by using preservation methods and then use sustainable land management conservation for the surrounding area. By the text book definition it’s all conservation.

 

[PLhunter]

Not sure why I’m wading into this but the answer and compromise for sportsman IMO lies in fighting fire with fire in the privatization game. Hear me out. We have roughly 40 million hunting licenses/tags/permits sold in this country, let’s just assume individual licenses number 30 million. Let’s also assume while not all hunt or utilize public lands, that when you factor in other consumptive users (i.e, hunters, trappers, fishermen and not lumping in recreational only I.e. climbers, hikers, bikers users) you have roughly 30 million people who would pay $100 a year averaged out between them all to be used towards public lands.

Now stay with me. If we the consumptive sportsmen and women in this country could create a non-profit or hell just any entity to pool those resources together to buy and manage lands to keep open to the public we’d have roughly 3 billion dollars each year to buy up acreage, open it to the public, manage it effectively and get around some of the litigation that the govt has to deal with when it comes to doing any cutting (based on my experience the NC mountains) and effectively be setup to combat any land sales that may arise in the future via purchase. Obviously administrative costs, taxes, management costs, etc would cut into that number but the answer as I see it is to use grassroots and capitalism to our advantage instead of being Don Quixote and chasing windmills. Lots of assumptions I know (no more than what’s already in this thread) and organizing and getting something like that off the ground would be difficult but you can’t tell me between the current non-profits that it can’t be done, hell looked at APR. RMEF has experience in the land acquisition realm, Safari Club is deep in the legislative realm. It can be done and in a way where it’s strictly focused on land acquisition for public use that is technically in private hands like a Land Trust. Except this focus would be for consumptive users to utilize and not just for the sake of saving land. Of course I can already tell that there would be issues because someone doesn’t want a forestry plan that includes logging or someone wants solar and not oil and gas leases, etc. Everyone would have to leave their own biases, wants and desires at the door as the mission statement would be for land open to and managed for consumptive users, it starts and ends there. Recreational users would be welcome of course but there would be no catering to them. Now back to your regularly scheduled twisting at windmills.

I honestly, don’t think our group purchase would be accepted. You’re undercutting the budget by a few billions that would need to be spent to just be in the room to propose our group purchase idea to the powers that be.

 

[PLhunter]

Strictly speaking they are different — conservation is the managed use of natural resources with human uses with the explicit purpose of protecting the resources with a sustainable model; preservation is protecting the natural resources at all costs with no human uses.

Also, none of what I proposed that was being considered preservation matches the strict no touching interpretation of preservation anyway so it’s a moot point.

 

[huntcookwrite]

That’s not really the definition of conservation. That’s an interpretation but in reality the true definition includes preservation as a means to conserve. You can conserve 1000 acres by using preservation methods and then use sustainable land management conservation for the surrounding area. By the text book definition it’s all conservation.

I think we’re all on the same side of this debate — and probably at this point splitting hairs — but I’m paraphrasing my definition from the actual hunters ed course: https://www.hunter-ed.com/pennsylvania/studyGuide/Conservation-and-Preservation/20103901_88718/

But regardless, there’s an implicit balance required, and there’s probably both definitions happening simultaneously. In general, though, there is fewer of either going on when the land is owned and managed by purely private entities with the primary use toward extraction.