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

FlyingDutchman

Junior Member
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
38
I read an article recently in outside magazine which is a backpacker magazine stating the current US administration has protected the least amount of public lands than just about any President, and has also opened up more or our current public lands and monuments to oil and gas corporations than any other. That doesn't sound like a good thing, but I haven't looked deep enough into this yet. That got me thinking that I need to look at the real record of what's been going on the last few years.
What say you? I do appreciate the need for energy dependency and run gasoline vehicles and tools so I won't knock oil and gas. I also care about the protection of the habitat and wildlife on our public lands. What do we think about how things have gone these last 3 years for our public lands and the future of hunting and fishing opportunities on those lands in the future. Anyone have any legit stats/info? I know people are going to want to make ridiculous statements knocking the leftist/liberal agenda and bringing up the last administration, but please refrain. I am independent/apolitical and have no party leanings. I just want data and opinions on the data for our current state of affairs.
 
Last edited:
OP
F

FlyingDutchman

Junior Member
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
38
Ahhem.

I'd say good luck. You want opinions, plenty out there. Do your own research. Come to your own opinion.
I will certainly do my own research and read what I find. I figured someone on here might have some links to articles or legit data sources on the subject of public lands.
It’s also nice to get a feel for the collective perceptions/opinions of my fellow hunters.
 

Jim Carr

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
156
Location
North Idaho
One thing just like the news is some of these publications are very left leaning . And just like the news your going to get a lof of bs. Some of it they just put thier spin on it which leads you away from the truth. Some of it is strait propaganda. Don't ever take anything with a political twist from a news or publication source as actually meaning anything.
 

realunlucky

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
9,637
Location
Eastern Utah
One thing just like the news is some of these publications are very left leaning . And just like the news your going to get a lof of bs. Some of it they just put thier spin on it which leads you away from the truth. Some of it is strait propaganda. Don't ever take anything with a political twist from a news or publication source as actually meaning anything.
The only thing that's absolutely true is politics is all about slanting the narrative while doing as little as possible?

Without a doubt this thread is going to go sideways
 
Last edited:

Jim Carr

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
156
Location
North Idaho
I said some of these publications. Outside magazine and highcountry news are ran in a very political manner to the left just like the American rifle man or a gun magizine would be polticaly right leaning. As far as saying the news I thought that was common knowledge watch any of them except one which goes the other way for 20 seconds and they will tip thier hand. Im just saying you get your information from a news source involving poltics or a publication with a political agenda involving poltics you are getting a spin from the person giving it. And the information is next to worthless if your looking for the truth.
 

rsager8970

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
14
Location
MT
We are 3 years in and I don't see any huge sweeping changes. I think perhaps some of the government agencies may be becoming more practical. Remember forest service was meant to be a land of many uses not just ones own favorite use.
 

robby denning

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
9,786
Location
SE Idaho
Without a doubt this thread is going to go sideways
Then we’ll delete it. But so far it’s just discussion on topics that do affect our public lands. It’s not that we don’t want to have those kind of discussions on the site, but as @Ryan Avery said, if that’s all people are coming here for, We’re going to “help them leave“
 

bigdesert10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2016
Messages
276
Location
Idaho
It's a mixed bag regardless of who is in office. Living in an agricultural area with limited water supply that is heavily dependent on irrigation, I can see both sides of the clean water act deal. I have no illusions that there are big money donors that have the administration's ear on some of these deals, but overall I have been happy with the current administration. They have prioritized improving access to land-locked public lands, have intimated support for permanently funding the LWCF and, despite all the warnings from left-leaning idealogues, have not initiated a mining and drilling free-for-all across the land.
 
OP
F

FlyingDutchman

Junior Member
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
38
The Senate did just pass a massive public lands bill with expansion of wilderness and funding for conservation 2 weeks ago. So that seems like a good start. I realize this is the Media’s pandemic parade right now but it would nice if news outlets would cover this more. Seems like a pretty massive bill that’s positive and passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. They need to tout and report this stuff to get everyone back together.
 

Nickofthewoods

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
405
Location
Colorado
Sure beats what I'm seeing from the Dems. Public land doesn't do me a lot of
good if I don't have any ammo/guns., or if they decide hunting shouldn't exist.
That's a pretty narrow minded statement. Not that I want to see any more firearm restrictions implemented but Public Land has a lot more value than just shooting and hunting. Maybe not to you but there are a lot of people who enjoy things like backpacking, biking, hiking and fishing - who don't bring guns every time out.
 

FLAK

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
1,235
Location
Daphne, AL.
That's a pretty narrow minded statement. Not that I want to see any more firearm restrictions implemented but Public Land has a lot more value than just shooting and hunting. Maybe not to you but there are a lot of people who enjoy things like backpacking, biking, hiking and fishing - who don't bring guns every time out.

I like guns. Hows that for narrow minded?
 

Poser

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
2,854
Location
Durango CO
Haven’t much of anything good about the BLM office move from DC to GJ. Apparently, there are quite a few job vacancies that have not been filled due to lack of qualified applicants.
 

Rich M

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Messages
1,108
Location
Orlando
That's a pretty narrow minded statement. Not that I want to see any more firearm restrictions implemented but Public Land has a lot more value than just shooting and hunting. Maybe not to you but there are a lot of people who enjoy things like - who don't bring guns every time out.
Then we don't need guns or hunting if all we are doing is backpacking, biking, hiking and fishing. Grab your bear spray & hit the trail!


As to the OPs original question - doesn't seem to be a lot of change - didn't he did appoint Zinke? Wasn't that a big deal? You can tell how hard I follow that stuff - I supported his removal of the prior drainage basin mapping effort/land grab preparation.
 

OXN939

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2018
Messages
882
Location
VA
From a guy who belongs to neither political party, this administration has rolled back protections of wild areas more aggressively than any other in recent memory. Trump just appointed William Pendley to run the BLM, which is a little like putting Diane Feinstein in charge of the ATF (Pendley has a career-long track record of trying to sell off public lands to be used for drilling and resource exploitation, and then calling sportsmen and conservationists radicals or terrorists for opposing him).

Also, there's Pebble Mine. Basically, Trump met with Alaska's governor, Dunleavy, and told him to push it through. For anyone unfamiliar with the situation, Pebble Mine would significantly degrade or destroy one of the largest salmon runs left in the world in southcentral AK. After getting a ton of pushback from local groups, other AK residents and the public in general, the company tried to bribe the local community to garner support. In the worlds of Steve Rinella, "If they allow Pebble Mine to be permitted, nothing is sacred."

I actually don't worry that much about how brusque and unpolished Trump is- I agree that it's refreshing to have a leader who says what he thinks. But I think he doesn't understand that America's natural beauty is one of the big ticket items that makes it the best country on earth. I definitely don't want Europe's socialism, but I sure as shit don't want my country to be sold off to corporate interests and end up with literally thousands of people competing for every pitiful, overcrowded opportunity to hunt and fish, either.
 

BuzzH

Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
829
Location
Wyoming
That's a pretty narrow minded statement. Not that I want to see any more firearm restrictions implemented but Public Land has a lot more value than just shooting and hunting. Maybe not to you but there are a lot of people who enjoy things like backpacking, biking, hiking and fishing - who don't bring guns every time out.
Correct, and with outdoor recreation in most Western States, where a majority of the public land exists, being the number 2-3 economic driver in those states...the many businesses from the local gas station to hotels, restaurants, etc. etc. sure see the value of public lands.

Be tough to maintain outdoor recreation in the number 2 position of economic importance without public lands to recreate on.

In the case of Wyoming, mineral development/oil gas are not sustainable long term for our economic future...outdoor recreation is sustainable into perpetuity.

As to the original question, its a mixed bag...some good things, some bad things as per most administrations. Its easy to cherry pick to "prove" confirmation bias either way.
 
Top