# More Rollbacks



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

More good news for hunters and outdoorsmen:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2020/11/18/trump-pushes-new/

How can anybody hate sage grouse?:

https://www.opb.org/article/2020/11/20/ap-us-sage-grouse-protection/

Stupid is as stupid does.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

How can anyone hate constitutional amendments protecting hunting and fishing? Oh sorry, wrong thread. I got confused.

Yeah. I don't like these moves by the administration on their way out the door. 
Seems irresponsible and they are showing their true colors as far as a disregard for conservation in these instances. Hopefully, there won't be anything irreparably damaging happening before January......

Speaking of showing true colors, I also think when you post stuff like this it's kinda counterproductive. You've proven to be overtly partisan to the point that even when you post stuff that is important, it is so colored by your previous interactions and proven biases that I think people are turned off by it. I know I am, and I like to think I'm a pretty reasonable person.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Kwalk3 said:


> How can anyone hate constitutional amendments protecting hunting and fishing? Oh sorry, wrong thread. I got confused.
> 
> Yeah. I don't like these moves by the administration on their way out the door.
> Seems irresponsible and they are showing their true colors as far as a disregard for conservation in these instances. Hopefully, there won't be anything irreparably damaging happening before January......
> ...


I never said I hated that amendment, I said it was an empty gesture. I voted against it on those grounds. I voted against Trump in part because of his continuous and unrelenting assaults against our public lands and the environment. One would think all outdoorsmen would do the same, as doing so would do more to protect our interests than Amendment E.

I agree that you are confused. My posts aren't partisan, they are based on the policies of our elected representatives. It's illogical, and, despite your self-assessment, unreasonable, to say you support hunting and fishing rights and yet support administrations that deliberately roll back environmental protections, reduce monuments, advocate selling off public lands, allow coal ash dumping into our streams, allow drilling in the ANWR, threaten sage grouse, etc, etc. If the parties switched policies, I'd support the Republican agenda. I don't see that happening any time soon.

I will continue to point out the cognitive dissonance, even hypocrisy displayed on this site. You're welcome.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

-DallanC


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> I never said I hated that amendment, I said it was an empty gesture. I voted against it on those grounds. I voted against Trump in part because of his continuous and unrelenting assaults against our public lands and the environment. One would think all outdoorsmen would do the same, as doing so would do more to protect our interests than Amendment E.
> 
> I agree that you are confused. My posts aren't partisan, they are based on the policies of our elected representatives. It's illogical, and, despite your self-assessment, unreasonable, to say you support hunting and fishing rights and yet support administrations that deliberately roll back environmental protections, reduce monuments, advocate selling off public lands, allow coal ash dumping into our streams, threaten sage grouse, etc, etc. If the parties switched policies, I'd support the Republican agenda. I don't see that happening any time soon.
> 
> I will continue to point out the cognitive dissonance, even hypocrisy displayed on this site. You're welcome.


So long as you realize that the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy you are pointing out is staring right back at you in the mirror, I'm fine with that.

As far as being illogical and unreasonable, I must have missed the part where I said I supported the administration doing those things. That's kind of what I was getting at, your approach to these issues comes across as ENTIRELY partisan, regardless of what you tell yourself. You are consumed with asking posters who they voted for as if that is the purity test to determine a real conservationist or outdoorsman instead of delving into the nuance of the issues and seeking to understand why someone might possibly have different priorities or a different worldview than you.

Keep at it though. You're definitely winning folks over to your cause.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Kwalk3 said:


> So long as you realize that the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy you are pointing out is staring right back at you in the mirror, I'm fine with that.
> 
> As far as being illogical and unreasonable, I must have missed the part where I said I supported the administration doing those things. That's kind of what I was getting at, your approach to these issues comes across as ENTIRELY partisan, regardless of what you tell yourself. You are consumed with asking posters who they voted for as if that is the purity test to determine a real conservationist or outdoorsman instead of delving into the nuance of the issues and seeking to understand why someone might possibly have different priorities or a different worldview than you.
> 
> Keep at it though. You're definitely winning folks over to your cause.


This is an outdoor forum, so I confine myself to discussions that impact outdoorsmen. When I see something that impacts us as hunters and fishermen, I will post it up, positive or negative. Your perceptions that I am partisan are your own, I post based on issues. My asking about how people voted is an attempt to point out that things like Amendment E have little to no impact on us, but how one votes for President impacts us on a daily basis. It would be instructional to compile a list of actions taken by the current administration regarding public lands and the environment. Maybe some would change how they vote. Maybe not. Of course, many factors influence this, from 2A, abortion, immigration, tax policy, etc. But again, just looking at things from the point of view of an outdoorsmen, it's difficult to see how one can vote for another four years of this administration. I didn't say you support the latest round rollbacks from this administration, and if you didn't vote for Trump I'm not even talking to you. But if one voted for Trump last time or this time, it's impossible to say you don't support his anti-environment agenda. If I'm missing something here, I'm listening.

I look forward to Biden undoing much of what I see as damaging to our interests and will try to keep up with posting those things that benefit us. Hopefully we'll have good news soon, perhaps when I share it people won't accuse me of partisanship. I understand that posting up things that the Trump administration has done is hard for his supporters to hear, but there's no need to shoot the messenger. I'm just posting up facts, inconvenient truths, if you will. Facts and truth are not partisan.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Paddler......You bring up an accurate point. Both Dems & Republicans can and have done some real good things. But I don't think any party has really been a fan of the people 100% 


Because of the "RULES" of this Forum with subjects about politics, etc. I'll leave my political comments out of it and leave my above comment that neither favors the Red or Blue party. But hot dang...…….could I lite up the site like a wildfire if I did. 


God help us all and those that lead this great Nation. May it always stand as "One Nation" and not become divided AGAIN!!!


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Kwalk3 said:


> So long as you realize that the cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy you are pointing out is staring right back at you in the mirror, I'm fine with that.
> 
> As far as being illogical and unreasonable, I must have missed the part where I said I supported the administration doing those things. That's kind of what I was getting at, your approach to these issues comes across as ENTIRELY partisan, regardless of what you tell yourself. You are consumed with asking posters who they voted for as if that is the purity test to determine a real conservationist or outdoorsman instead of delving into the nuance of the issues and seeking to understand why someone might possibly have different priorities or a different worldview than you.
> 
> Keep at it though. You're definitely winning folks over to your cause.


 "cognitive dissonance" I'd like ta have a nickel for every time I heard that on the UWN.
.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> "cognitive dissonance" I'd like ta have a nickel for every time I heard that on the UWN.
> .


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

wyogoob said:


> "cognitive dissonance" I'd like ta have a nickel for every time I heard that on the UWN.
> .


Whenever I hear the phrase I get this funny feeling that something isn't right. But I eventually just move on like nothing happened.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

And here I thought that we were going to have a post about rollback wreckers.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

More Rollbacks?

-----SS


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

paddler said:


> This is an outdoor forum, so I confine myself to discussions that impact outdoorsmen. When I see something that impacts us as hunters and fishermen, I will post it up, positive or negative. Your perceptions that I am partisan are your own, I post based on issues. My asking about how people voted is an attempt to point out that things like Amendment E have little to no impact on us, but how one votes for President impacts us on a daily basis. It would be instructional to compile a list of actions taken by the current administration regarding public lands and the environment. Maybe some would change how they vote. Maybe not. Of course, many factors influence this, from 2A, abortion, immigration, tax policy, etc. But again, just looking at things from the point of view of an outdoorsmen, it's difficult to see how one can vote for another four years of this administration. I didn't say you support the latest round rollbacks from this administration, and if you didn't vote for Trump I'm not even talking to you. But if one voted for Trump last time or this time, it's impossible to say you don't support his anti-environment agenda. If I'm missing something here, I'm listening.
> 
> I look forward to Biden undoing much of what I see as damaging to our interests and will try to keep up with posting those things that benefit us. Hopefully we'll have good news soon, perhaps when I share it people won't accuse me of partisanship. I understand that posting up things that the Trump administration has done is hard for his supporters to hear, but there's no need to shoot the messenger. I'm just posting up facts, inconvenient truths, if you will. Facts and truth are not partisan.


Do not confuse policy in favor of outdoorsmen, hunting, and fishing with what is best for ecology as a whole. If it were managed in the spirit of ecology, humans would have absolutely no reason to have a presence in the wilds of America other than being a player or actor like all the other species involved and not for the mere pleasure of recreation.

You will never convince me that renewables *today *will have less an impact on the environment, as a whole, than the other forms of energy do *today*. The disconnect in the past is the irresponsible nature of energy, just like the irresponsible nature of other past best practices that have since been changed and updated. In order to keep up with today's demands of energy use, whether it be sun or wind, the footprint is enormous with very limited quantities of the elements required to sustain it. There's more at stake than a perceived understanding to "clean" air and water.

The sudden abandoning of proven forms of energy is irresponsible without phasing in a replacement that is both efficient and less obtrusive.

You post up what you claim to be "anti-environment" policy and the need for recompense, but there is far more at stake to whether or not you have a pleasant experience to a nature hike, because that is all you will have in the interest of ecology as a whole. You can forget about the need to fish and hunt, it isn't necessary if you prescribe to the agenda of the next administration you voted for supports.

Let's talk about economic policy and how that will affect 'The Great Outdoors'...


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> Do not confuse policy in favor of outdoorsmen, hunting, and fishing with what is best for ecology as a whole. If it were managed in the spirit of ecology, humans would have absolutely no reason to have a presence in the wilds of America other than being a player or actor like all the other species involved and not for the mere pleasure of recreation.
> 
> You will never convince me that renewables *today *will have less an impact on the environment, as a whole, than the other forms of energy do *today*. The disconnect in the past is the irresponsible nature of energy, just like the irresponsible nature of other past best practices that have since been changed and updated. In order to keep up with today's demands of energy use, whether it be sun or wind, the footprint is enormous with very limited quantities of the elements required to sustain it. There's more at stake than a perceived understanding to "clean" air and water.
> 
> ...


Your emphasis on *"today"* ignores the threats we face now and in the future. I have never advocated the "sudden" abandonment of oil and gas. I favor a science-based transition to less environmentally damaging forms of energy. This is a complex issue, no need to cloud it further by misrepresenting my positions.

As far as the economy goes, the Dow just now topped 30,000, which demonstrates the optimism with which the transition is being received. I'm relieved by the change and optimistic about the future. Our country and the world dodged a bullet.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

paddler said:


> As far as the economy goes, the Dow just now topped 30,000, which demonstrates the optimism with which the transition is being received. I'm relieved by the change and optimistic about the future. Our country and the world dodged a bullet.


The Dow ended at 19,804.72 the day before Trump took office. I remember the news outlets predicting major drops. Today, its over 30,000... Trump Presidency grew the economy more than any other president in history.

Now we're going back to the administration whos principles got us Trump in the first place? The pathological Lier in Chief? How many degrees did he graduate with again? LMAO... Americans are so dumb... or "played" maybe the better word.

Trump did and said alot of stupid stuff for sure, but he did a heck of alot of great stuff (prison reform for minorities, moving Israel Embassy)... he even deported less than HALF of the minorities than Obama did... dropped way less bombs than Obama on other countries. Operation "Warp Speed" is getting us the Corona Vaccine faster than anyone thought possible. All the while news "experts" kept contradicting Trump (and themselves) with mixed messaging (Facci... don't wear masks, wear masks! Covid isnt airborne, covid is airborne!)

I hope things are always improving in the US for the citizens... time will tell I guess how the Harris Presidency turns out.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

paddler said:


> Your emphasis on *"today"* ignores the threats we face now and in the future.


To bring this back to hunting and fishing...this is the EXACT notion you rejected in voting against Amendment E, just so we are clear. Consistency has never been your strong suit, though. Other than your consistency of not caring what happens to other hunters and fishermen as long as it doesn't negatively impact you.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> To bring this back to hunting and fishing...this is the EXACT notion you rejected in voting against Amendment E, just so we are clear. Consistency has never been your strong suit, though. Other than your consistency of not caring what happens to other hunters and fishermen as long as it doesn't negatively impact you.


"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...". Emerson. You have demonstrated consistently that your mind is small indeed.

There's a difference between transitioning to renewables and Amendment E. Anthropogenic climate is real, threats to our right to hunt are imaginary, a straw man, if you will. You're familiar with straw man arguments, right, V?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

It appears to me someone lacks an understanding between the difference in a strawman and a red herring.

Not to mention the problems in taking a quote out if it's full context. Emerson's quote isn't easily used a weapon in this case without cutting the one who wields it even deeper. The consistency he's discussing in Self-Reliance is an unforgiving issue to most humans. Not to mention it isn't kind to those who try to billy club people solely on how the individual assumes the other is being inconsistent, for example claiming a POTUS vote reveals a primal form of judgement on a hunter's values. I dare say the self-reliance essay is best used as a form of personal accountability and introspection. Transcendentalism is pretty fickle that way. 

Damnable hobgoblins and each of our affinities for them, to paraphrase Lincoln.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

What was the original topic on this:?:


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Dunkem said:


> What was the original topic on this:?:


Umm . . . I believe it was who we each voted for??


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Some real issues that affect game and wildlife but that got lost in the presentation.

I'm still conflicted on the "incidental take" rule change proposed. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act has been such a key structure for conservation and the incidental take issue has been relatively consistent for 45+ years until the recent administration. The rule change is legally justified (ie within legal prerogative of executive branch) but unlikely to be prudent for migratory birds. Given we hunt many of them it's a big deal.

Sadly the conversation is a classic partisan cluster. There are real nuances in the arguments of both sides but it is all too often boiled down to tribal identity. And to be honest, most of us lack the legal literacy needed to really dive into the details and fact check the claims. Fact checking just one of the USFWS documents would take days. 

I default to prosecuting the worst types of incidental take, ie against change, but wouldn't be able to defend that stance as well as I once could. Nasty little situation that's not likely to foster buy-in across partisan lines.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Speaking of which, it's now one step closer to finalized:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/trump-administration-moves-forward-with-gutting-bird-protections


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

It is always interesting when someone who isn't the same political persuasion as a poster that all they post are the negatives in their minds.

It is also interesting in that when the Army Corps of Engineers denied a permit here a week ago that it wasn't posted by those same people.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/25/politics/pebble-mine-alaska-permit-denied/index.html

I can't believe that I posted something from CNN but that is what came up first in my quick search.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Saw that news. It's good to see a process work and remind us and provide even more evidence that our civil servants are great folks. Despite the almost certain turnover every 4-8 years at the highest levels we are lucky to have citizens like these workers who follow the policies and try to make the best informed decisions in accordance with the letter and spirit of the law.

Our salmon fisheries are such an important resource that remain in uncertain condition. We truly need to conserve the ones that remain with the utmost priority. 

Sigh of relief for now.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Critter said:


> It is always interesting when someone who isn't the same political persuasion as a poster that all they post are the negatives in their minds.
> 
> It is also interesting in that when the Army Corps of Engineers denied a permit here a week ago that it wasn't posted by those same people.
> 
> ...


I saw that as well. Great news. Kinda funny back story, recorded incriminating conversations, etc. The sockeye thank the USACE. So do I.

Oh, and I also oppose the changes to the MBTA.


----------

