Project 2025 impact

[DeePow]

The Project 2025 Handbook is detailed here. With commentary on other pressing topics I’m surprised this hasn’t been posted yet.

• The discussion of federal agencies like the FDA, EPA, NOAA, and more can be found on pages 363-41
• Fire management on 308
• ⁠⁠climate protections are on. 417
• ⁠⁠Increase Arctic drilling on page363
• ⁠⁠Deregulate big business and the oil industry discussed on 363

What are people thinking about how this could impact public lands? Pros, cons, and everything in between.

 

[5MilesBack]

What are people thinking about how this could impact public lands? Pros, cons, and everything in between.

It came from a "think tank".......basically one groups opinion.......nothing more, nothing less.

 

[DeePow]

Yes they are a think tank but one that is funded by some of the most politically influential corporations out there. During President Trump’s first term Heritage foundation came out stating, “President Donald Trump and his administration have embraced nearly two-thirds of the policy recommendations from The Heritage Foundation’s “Mandate for Leadership.” If followed, Project 2025 could result in nearly 7,000 individuals being replaced if a similar percentage is followed. To me, this makes the ideas and practices more pertinent than other think tanks, especially considering the Heritage Foundation Received more than $150 million last year

 

[Bull_n_heat]

I think my mind goes to two different considerations. First, in any administration, it's not so much what the "plans" or policy of the administration is, it's more the who of appointments to carry out the policy of the administration. If, for instance, you take Deb Haaland and David Bernhardt, the last two appointees for the Secretary of the Interior (arguably the most relevant cabinet position for hunters and anglers, overseeing UWFWS and BLM), there are ample reasons to both applaud and be skeptical about them from the standpoint of hunters and anglers.

In the event of a new administration in 2025, we can almost be assured cabinet turnover. I guess the case I'm making is that hunters and anglers really need to pay attention to the appointment process and weigh in. It's not enough to just trust that "your candidate picked someone, I must agree", we need to dig in to the details and be sure they're going to uphold our values. If the Senate approves them, it becomes critical to make sure they continue to do so.

The second consideration that I think is both relevant and somewhat fuzzy as to the implications is the recent reversal of the Chevron doctrine (worth looking into in detail if you have a moment). Essentially, in the 1980s the Supreme Court ruled that agencies with expertise were in charge of filling in the particulars in the implementation of laws (as a crude example, the EPA would be in charge of making specific rules to implement the general law of Clean Water Act). In a recent case, this was reversed.

I don't think any of us yet know the particulars of what this will mean in practice. I think there is an equally compelling argument that this will mean courts will ultimately decide the particulars of policy, while others believe that it will allow specific administrations more latitude in directing policy with their appointees. In either case, I'm not a huge fan because one completely removes technical experts (differing instead to legal experts) and the other is subject to the whims of different administrations (pendulum swings). Time will tell how it ultimately plays out, but definitely curious to see what other folks think.

Please correct me if I've butchered any of these details too - I'm no legal nor policy scholar, so I could be wildly mistaken.

 

[5MilesBack]

Yes they are a think tank but one that is funded by some of the most politically influential corporations out there.

That's not unlike what happens through the halls of Congress every day......politicians are bought. How else do you think all these politicians become multimillionaires from being a "public servant"?

The bottom line to me is this: Every government decision made should always be what's best "for the nation as a whole", regardless where or who the recommendation came from. Decisions should never be made solely for the benefit of a special interest group. It should always be for the greater good and benefit of the nation as a whole. Some decisions may appear to be solely for one group, but by doing so actually is for the greater good of the nation as a whole.

An example: Abortion literally directly affects only a minute portion of our population. But legalized murder of the unborn negatively affects our nation as a whole in ways that aren't even recognizable to a lot of people. That's just one simple example, but every policy, law, and decision NEEDS to be deeply evaluated to fully understand the ramifications and consequences of those decisions. Most people only see what's on the surface, and ignore the rest......which is why we've seen so many bad decisions made over the centuries that our nation has been in existence. So whether the recommendations come from a think tank, or just one guy that actually thinks, it doesn't matter........the real question "should" always be whether it's what's best for the nation as a whole. Unfortunately, our government generally operates off of the highest bidder rather than doing what's right.

 

[Bhoops]

The artic drilling is low on my list of conservation concerns.

 

[TaperPin]

God help us all, when this looney tunes document is taken seriously.

You know it includes outlawing porn right?

 

[5MilesBack]

You know it includes outlawing porn right?

Everyone has ideas and opinions.

 

[TaperPin]

Everyone has ideas and opinions.

The 900 page document is so whack a doodle that even Trump has distanced himself from it and claims to not know the people who put it together or what’s in it, even though they were in his administration. He knows these ideas are a liability. It’s lipstick on a pig for maga to glance at and go rah rah rah.

 

[GreggB]

One of the plans is to dismantle the National Weather Service because they promote the existence of climate change. I took several semesters of meteorology. If anyone thinks man induced climate change isn’t happening, then they are believing people who have a different agenda which is to make more money with a complete lack of concern for the environment. They’ve been doing that since the cattle barons, the train barons and now the energy producing barons.
Has everyone been enjoying the weather lately? Seem perfectly normal? Has everyone in Texas got their electric on now from the earliest known category 5 hurricane since records have been kept. Get use to it. Everything my professors predicted many years ago is being seen today. I hope ( and think) President Trump will see what’s at stake.

 

[IdahoBeav]

One of the plans is to dismantle the National Weather Service because they promote the existence of climate change. I took several semesters of meteorology. If anyone thinks man induced climate change isn’t happening, then they are believing people who have a different agenda which is to make more money with a complete lack of concern for the environment. They’ve been doing that since the cattle barons, the train barons and now the energy producing barons.
Has everyone been enjoying the weather lately? Seem perfectly normal? Has everyone in Texas got their electric on now from the earliest known category 5 hurricane since records have been kept. Get use to it. Everything my professors predicted many years ago is being seen today. I hope ( and think) President Trump will see what’s at stake.

How about the green energy barons and politicians with an agenda which is to make more money with a complete lack of concern for the average person?

Can we question or refuse the proposed "solutions", or is it all climate change denial?

 

[Poser]

As I understand, part of dismantling weather includes dissolving NOAA and doing away with the "free" weather reporting as it exists. NOAA data would be privatized with Accuweather taking over on paid subscription access only. This would certainly trickle down to all of your relevant hunting apps that pull weather data. Kinda doesn't seem like a big deal on the surface, but weather as a civil service has been around for quite awhile, going back to Thomas Jefferson's day.

This whole 2025 is a steaming pile of hot, dystopian garbage. That being said, some or even many of the ideas as laid out would be difficult to implement by even the most aggressive actions of a single party in a short period of time. Other ideas, such as removing the executive branch level security clearance standards for the National Security Council so that they can stack favorable partisans are certainly red flags, though, one is left to wonder if such aggressive turnover in one compressed timeframe could result in any level of functionality.

Unsure if this project could even be practically implementing, but, to be certain, I won't be voting to find out.

 

[Joshua Chiles]

I don't think there is one positive benefit to wilderness, wildlife, hunters and fishers in Project 2025. This "project" should scare all of us outdoors people. I read it, if you didn't I don't see how you can comment on it.

 

[IdahoBeav]

. . .

Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk

 

[khunter]

I don't think there is one positive benefit to wilderness, wildlife, hunters and fishers in Project 2025. This "project" should scare all of us outdoors people. I read it, if you didn't I don't see how you can comment on it.

Fact. 100%