- Banned
- #1
Where's Bruce?
WKR
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2013
- Messages
- 6,389
Well, Zinke has already proposed shrinking Bear's Ears which is heading in the direction of more than just a 'simple review'. And just like the 2nd Amendment, if an inch is given, a mile will be taken.Yes how dare the current administration simply announce a review of the national monuments, or question man made global warming. Never wore patagucci, and never will.
Just radical liberals being radical liberals. Making noise about nothing.
Well, Zinke has already proposed shrinking Bear's Ears which is heading in the direction of more than just a 'simple review'. And just like the 2nd Amendment, if an inch is given, a mile will be taken.
If Bear's Ears is shrunk, do you think that the administration will be done? Just shrink one monument and leave all the other public land alone? My guess is if Bear's Ears is shrunk, everything else will follow
Well, Zinke has already proposed shrinking Bear's Ears which is heading in the direction of more than just a 'simple review'. And just like the 2nd Amendment, if an inch is given, a mile will be taken.
If Bear's Ears is shrunk, do you think that the administration will be done? Just shrink one monument and leave all the other public land alone? My guess is if Bear's Ears is shrunk, everything else will follow
Trump Administration Wants To Shrink Bears Ears National Monument : The Two-Way : NPRI've never bought a thing from the company and never will.
On a side note; topher, would you link something stating where Donald Trump threatens public lands?
Ah yes "proposed" "may" "could".
If shrunk doesn't it just go back to the federal public land status it previously had?
Shrunk doesn't mean sell, unless you have other proof that they plan to sell?
If that type of language is important to you then the Patagonia article stated they "will sue" if public lands are taken. So it seems like both sides are doing their due diligence to be prepared the future.
Does shrunk mean we lose the public land? or does it mean it becomes federal land that is still open to the public it just does not have the monument status attached to it?
Does shrunk mean we lose the public land?
Well only time can tell but if it loses the monument status it can be on the table for sale down the road.
I may have missed something but from what I understood Patagonia is prepared to sue to protect public lands. I don't know what all the pitchforks are about but good for them for standing up for public lands.
Standing up for public lands? Or towing the agenda of the left? There was much more to that article than just public land issues.
Then why aren't you attacking those points directly instead of a general attack against an effort to protect the monument.
Also, as someone already stated, why is it ok to give back a little on this issue but when its against a republican supported issue its screamed that if we give an inch they will take a mile.
I'm for protecting public lands as much as possible. Rolling back a monument is not a good place to start in todays political climate where our public lands are at this moment under threat. This has nothing to do with Trump. This is state governments trying to get their hands on these lands for profit. Sure its not the end of the public lands here but why let it be even a little bit closer? Especially here in Utah where the assault is never ending.