Project 2025 impact

[cuerro viejo]

Well, that's thing. This thread started on the discussion of Project 2025 as it relates to hunting, public lands, conservation etc. Here's what happened

1. Some folks were critical of Project 2025 in general
2. Some folks were critical of Project 2025 as it relates to hunting/public lands/conservation
3. Some folks suggest want it known that Trump and Project 2025 are not one in the same
4. Some folks suggests that we shouldn't be critical of Project 2025 because the Left Wing ideas are comparably bad
5. Some folks suggests that members should not criticize Project 2025 because the border is not secure.
6. Some folks suggests that members should not criticize Project 2025 because by not supporting Project 2025, members are by default supporting WW3.
7. Some folks suggests that Project 2025 doesn't really matter and that members have bigger fish to fry.

If we strip everything that is is peripheral and we just take it back to Project 2025, specifically as it relates to hunting/fishing/conservation and public lands and we remove every other aspect of political complexities, many seem to agree that Project 2025 is bad for these things even if there is disagreement at the next tier.

So, let's just ask the simple question: Should hunters support or not support the ideas and goals as presented in Project 2025?

Project 25 is irrelevant and nothing more than media distraction, it’s a think tank publication, its no more relevant then deceased Modern Quarterly.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Trying to stay on topic.

Huge swaths of public land (however expertly or poorly managed they may be) are what makes America truly great for hunters.

Project 2025 is cagey about it, but contains enough language about returning land to states or other downstream political units, or just private citizens... to make me think we'd end up like Europe. Only the rich can hunt. Project 2025 is by the billionaires and for the billionaires... so I guess it makes sense.

Once public land turns private... the game is up. It ain't going back.

Kamala doesn't seem to have a whole lot of policy out there about public land hunting... and Don hasn't spoken to it either.

So Project 2025 is much of what we have to go on.

Billionaires don’t need public land to go private to hunt, think about that statement for a second. Micheal Dell needs public land to hunt? No and even if they did it would be Lewis bacon and Ted turners of the world that put them in to conservation easement protecting them from blue collar sub divisions and ranchettes.

Everyone wants to make the rich the scape goat, but it will be the average blue collar guy buying his dirt cheap 1-5 ac subdivided paradise that destroys it.

 

[Poser]

Project 25 is irrelevant and nothing more than media distraction, it’s a think tank publication, its no more relevant then deceased Modern Quarterly.

Trump announced today that Tom Homan, an author of Project 2025, will be on his transition team. While there is less to project 2025 than many people claim, there appears to be more to it than others claim.

 

[Wyo_hntr]

Trump announced today that Tom Homan, an author of Project 2025, will be on his transition team. While there is less to project 2025 than many people claim, there appears to be more to it than others claim.

What did he author in project 2025? Did it have anything to do with land ownership transfer?

Was he added to the transition team solely because of what he authored in project 2025? Or could his transition team appointment be because he was the director of I.C.E. during the Trump administration?

 

[cuerro viejo]

Trump announced today that Tom Homan, an author of Project 2025, will be on his transition team. While there is less to project 2025 than many people claim, there appears to be more to it than others claim.

what does that have to do with policy, what did he author and specifically which policy does he support that congress has to create and pass?

 

[Ozarkansas]

what does that have to do with policy, what did he author and specifically which policy does he support that congress has to create and pass?

He helped write the immigration piece, nothing about public land. But between that and Vance bringing up Project 2025 public land talking points in his debate, it’s safe to say that there is a connection between Project 2025 and Trump’s proposed administration.

It doesn’t mean they’ll do everything the document says but there’s a lot of “Trump has nothing to do with it”/“it’s irrelevant”/“Nobody has heard of it except liberals” going on in this thread, and that’s simply not true. Trump claims to have nothing to do with it, but he’s got a VP pick who clearly follows its ideas and he’s appointing (at least) one of its authors if he wins.

 

[cuerro viejo]

He helped write the immigration piece, nothing about public land. But between that and Vance bringing up Project 2025 public land talking points in his debate, it’s safe to say that there is a connection between Project 2025 and Trump’s proposed administration.

It doesn’t mean they’ll do everything the document says but there’s a lot of “Trump has nothing to do with it”/“it’s irrelevant”/“Nobody has heard of it except liberals” going on in this thread, and that’s simply not true. Trump claims to have nothing to do with it, but he’s got a VP pick who clearly follows its ideas and he’s appointing (at least) one of its authors if he wins.

Until congress is ripe with public land transfers, nothing happens.

I could be President of United States and even though I hate the National Parks use mandate/ideology , and strongly believe any NP over 1k acres should be designated Wilderness with Hunting with NFS control and use ideology , It won’t change because Congress won’t majority it.

It’s a dead issue but with that said what is different from what he said and Democrat public land green initiatives?

 

[Ozarkansas]

Until congress is ripe with public land transfers, nothing happens.

I could be President of United States and even though I hate the National Parks use mandate/ideology , and strongly believe any NP over 1k acres should be designated Wilderness with Hunting with NFS control and use ideology , It won’t change because Congress won’t majority it.

It’s a dead issue

Congress won’t vote to divest of public lands because not enough people that we elect want to. If we elect more anti-public land people, Congress will pass it. It’s only a “dead” issue until enough anti-public land politicians hold office.

Plus there’s still a lot of damage that can be done by an executive branch that wants to push Congress to turn public lands over to the states. Trump’s first term makes me hopeful that he wouldn’t do that, but a president definitely could do a lot of damage through executive orders.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Congress won’t vote to divest of public lands because not enough people that we elect want to. If we elect more anti-public land people, Congress will pass it. It’s only a “dead” issue until enough anti-public land politicians hold office.

Plus there’s still a lot of damage that can be done by an executive branch that wants to push Congress to turn public lands over to the states. Trump’s first term makes me hopeful that he wouldn’t do that, but a president definitely could do a lot of damage through executive orders.

All president really could due is veto agency funding, and Trump made some funding permanent with Great American outdoors act.

what is different from what JD said about use and Democratic green use initiatives?

 

[Jason Snyder]

Time for whataboutisms…