# Cause for optimism?:Ryan Zinke



## Kwalk3

https://medium.com/@SecretaryZinke/letter-from-secretary-ryan-zinke-2c3b40570a79#.sidbh66d2

"_I cherish our public lands. I have absolutely and unequivocally opposed any attempts to transfer, sell, or privatize our public lands, and serving as their top steward is not a job a take lightly_."

Typo aside, I can appreciate how unequivocal he is about his opposition to transfer or sale of public lands. Hopefully this mindset rubs off on some of his (r)counterparts.

He certainly says many of the right things. I know some left-leaning environmental groups are concerned he's too much of the "drill baby drill" mentality, but that's certainly not the vibe I get from his letter. Actions are what really matter so I guess we'll wait and see. For now, I'm optimistic.

Hopefully he is successful in his position and is able to maintain a healthy multiple-use balance for the public lands we all cherish.


----------



## DallanC

On top of everything else, the guy rode a horse to his first day at work, two thumbs up from me!










-DallanC


----------



## swampfox

I too am optimistic. It's been a while since I've felt that way on public land issues, but lately I've felt like we can win this fight. And I think Zinke will be an important part of that. Not to mention Trump has stated he will keep public lands public, and we all know he's been doing everything he said he would during his campaign.


----------



## rjefre

I am cautiously optimistic. The Utah politicians seem to think he will help them take public lands from the Federal Govt and give them to the state, but I hope he won't go along with it. It's a bad deal for sportsmen and women to allow Utah to get their grubby hands on America's lands.
R


----------



## gdog

Not so fast....

http://mtpr.org/post/zinke-votes-yes-lands-transfer-rules-change


----------



## rjefre

We just don't know what to expect...He says one thing and then votes the other. Oh, wait, he is a politician.
R


----------



## wyogoob

Words alone can not express how excited I am. 

Uh...the National Forests are under the Department of Agriculture, not Interior. Governor of Georgia Sonny Perdue will be running the National Forests making sure that all outdoor enthusiasts will get to share the new logging and oil n gas roads in our National Forests. 

.


----------



## OriginalOscar

wyogoob said:


> Words alone can not express how excited I am.
> 
> Uh...the National Forests are under the Department of Agriculture, not Interior. Governor of Georgia Sonny Perdue will be running the National Forests making sure that all outdoor enthusiasts will get to share the new logging and oil n gas roads in our National Forests.
> 
> .


Ya gonna lock yourself for political posturing?


----------



## paddler

wyogoob said:


> Words alone can not express how excited I am.
> 
> Uh...the National Forests are under the Department of Agriculture, not Interior. Governor of Georgia Sonny Perdue will be running the National Forests making sure that all outdoor enthusiasts will get to share the new logging and oil n gas roads in our National Forests.
> 
> .


Hey, didn't you hear? Roads are good for habitat. Ask stimmie78:

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/1793170-post127.html


----------



## wyogoob

wyogoob said:


> Words alone can not express how excited I am.
> 
> Uh...the National Forests are under the Department of Agriculture, not Interior. Governor of Georgia Sonny Perdue will be running the National Forests making sure that all outdoor enthusiasts will get to share the new logging and oil n gas roads in our National Forests.
> 
> .


I was just kiddin'. Usually new logging and oil n gas roads in the National Forests are locked up.

.


----------



## wyogoob

*Wasn't Sonny Perdue a Quarterback for the Houston Oilers?*



wyogoob said:


> Words alone can not express how excited I am.
> 
> Uh...the National Forests are under the Department of Agriculture, not Interior. Governor of Georgia Sonny Perdue will be running the National Forests making sure that all outdoor enthusiasts will get to share the new logging and oil n gas roads in our National Forests.
> 
> .


I was just kiddin'. Usually new logging and oil n gas roads in the National Forests are locked up.

Hey, top of the page!

.


----------



## Kwalk3

Zinke was vocal today in support of the repeal of BLM Planning 2.0. When the Sec. of Interior is using the hashtag #EnergyIndependence and heralds the repeal of a planning mechanism allowing for more public input as sound policy, I'm beginning to think my optimism would have been better served elsewhere.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/846450280107577345
Energy is extremely important. I understand that, but there are plenty of voices and $$ to speak for energy. In my opinion, there are too few that are willing to speak out in support of preservation of public lands. The balance can be struck somewhere in the middle. I'm now afraid the middle may have moved a long way away from where I hoped it was.


----------



## OriginalOscar

Kwalk3 said:


> Zinke was vocal today in support of the repeal of BLM Planning 2.0. When the Sec. of Interior is using the hashtag #EnergyIndependence and heralds the repeal of a planning mechanism allowing for more public input as sound policy, I'm beginning to think my optimism would have been better served elsewhere.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/846450280107577345
> Energy is extremely important. I understand that, but there are plenty of voices and $$ to speak for energy. In my opinion, there are too few that are willing to speak out in support of preservation of public lands. The balance can be struck somewhere in the middle. I'm now afraid the middle may have moved a long way away from where I hoped it was.


Zinke isn't extreme; he's reasonable. We are finally back to reasonable after 8 years of America hating Do Gooders in government. Yeah want to know how I really feel?


----------



## Kwalk3

I would rather discuss the actual issue than revert to team sport politics and rhetoric. Do you have specific concerns about BLM 2.0 that have been alleviated now that it has been repealed? 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## OriginalOscar

Kwalk3 said:


> Energy is extremely important. I understand that, but there are plenty of voices and $$ to speak for energy. In my opinion, there are too few that are willing to speak out in support of preservation of public lands.  The balance can be struck somewhere in the middle. I'm now afraid the middle may have moved a long way away from where I hoped it was.


You first. Two part question.

-Does your idea of preservation allow for energy development?

-What does your middle look like?


----------



## Kwalk3

OriginalOscar said:


> You first. Two part question.
> 
> -Does your idea of preservation allow for energy development?
> 
> -What does your middle look like?


1. Responsible energy development is important. Absolutely.

2. My middle involves a real understanding that while energy development is an integral part of multiple use, it's not the only use.

I would prefer there be more emphasis placed on public input on blm lands. I think energy development should be carefully considered and planned to create as little lasting effect on our landscapes as possible.

I think Zinke believes a lot of this and I'm not implying that he is extreme. Im certainly not extreme either.

I started this thread optimistically. I am still hopeful he will truly be an advocate for preservation of access and public lands. I would rather he advocated for those things than energy independence. Energy development has plenty of advocates and money driving it. In stark contrast, support for the preservation of public lands appears to be waning/nonexistent on the right.

Toeing the party line and reducing regulations and public input doesn't do much to assure that energy development is done responsibly going forward. That's where my concern is, and I think it's reasonable.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

I talked with someone with the Farm Bureau. When I asked why he didn't support 2.0, his basic response was it gave the public too much power in the planning process. Then he said that now that it is repealed we can give more power back to AUM holders and industries on the lands. Bad answer. BLM planning 2.0 was not perfect, but it was a revision in planning that was a step in the right direction. My guess is any sportsman who is against it didn't read the rule. It took more power away from special interests and gave it to the public. Like I said it wasn't perfect, but instead of rolling it completely back it should have been fine tweaked. Instead the way this rule was repealed another similar rule cannot be re-written. So now we have went back 34 years to the same planning process that everyone complains about. The repeal of 2.0 was bad for the public and bad for public lands. It further entrenches the frustrations that fuel the land transfer movement. I would rather take a few steps forward and stumble once or twice than not try to move forward at all or worse take two steps back. At some point you need to move forward and improve things even if they aren't perfect. Hopefully we can see a new planning process within this administration that will simplify and involve the publics voice better, but as of now repealing 2.0 was a step backward. I like Ryan Zinke and have high hopes that he will improve things in his time at the DOI, time will tell if he truly means what he says.


----------



## BPturkeys

After killing 2.0 Trump said this, "we are going to remove every job-killing regulation we can find".
Now, read that very slowly, doesn't that really say "corporate growth and profits are the only test we will use"??
"Job killing", "job creating", "job this, job that"...these are all code for corporate growth and higher profits...code to confuse the great unwashed. Corporations aren't interested in creating jobs for lord sakes. Employees are a liability that every corporation in the world wishes they could reduce.
Zinke works for Trump...this mentality will be put forward or Zinke will be gone in the morning. Don't be fooled for a minute that we don't have a fox guarding the hen house.


----------



## rjefre

As a guy that enjoys the outdoors (hunting, fishing, hiking, biking), I realize that these federal decisions will have a *direct impact* on my ability to enjoy our lands. Reading these posts from a variety of perspectives is valuable to me...please accept my gratitude for offering your voices...I learn a lot from these forums! Somewhere in the middle, there has to be a way to mange America's lands for the benefit of ALL of us, which would entail some compromises. I am still cautiously optimistic.
R


----------



## Kwalk3

http://utahwildlife.net/forum/21-great-outdoors/173161-blm-planning-2-0-repealed.html

Started a new thread about Planning 2.0 Repeal not specific to Secretary Zinke. Would love to hear where everyone's coming from in regards to this rule being repealed and why it is a good or bad thing.


----------



## Vanilla

On the main topic of the thread here, I'm still very optimistic about Zinke running the DOI. This guy is an advocate for sportsmen. That does not mean that sportsmen will get everything they want along the way. That just isn't how politics (or the world) works. 

But make no mistake, this is the best case scenario in this administration for this position. I truly believe that.


----------



## Kwalk3

Vanilla said:


> On the main topic of the thread here, I'm still very optimistic about Zinke running the DOI. This guy is an advocate for sportsmen. That does not mean that sportsmen will get everything they want along the way. That just isn't how politics (or the world) works.
> 
> But make no mistake, this is the best case scenario in this administration for this position. I truly believe that.


I agree with this sentiment. Given the administration Zinke is a win.

I still don't think it's a bad thing to point out when Zinke does something unfavorable, as ive done here in this thread, but given the alternatives, having a guy who is on record against land transfer and sale is a good thing.

My own vitriol should be tempered by what could have been a lose lose scenario for sportsmen should any of the other options have received the nomination.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla

I've got no issue with anyone pointing out mis-steps. But they should also realize that it may not be Zinke or anything he can do about some of it. 

I just really wanted to point out that Zinke is a win for us as sportsmen. He gets it. He is on our side.


----------



## Kwalk3

Agreed. I am still generally optimistic about zinke. I think a certain amount of toeing the company line is to be expected from a cabinet member. 

Ultimately he hasn't done anything egregious enough to cause me to think hes shifted his stance on the most important issues. Thanks for bringing things in the conversation back into perspective.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## paddler

So, Zinke has ordered a review of sage grouse protections. Still optimistic?


----------



## LostLouisianian

paddler said:


> So, Zinke has ordered a review of sage grouse protections. Still optimistic?


Absolutely!!!!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

paddler said:


> So, Zinke has ordered a review of sage grouse protections. Still optimistic?


Not at all, how about we leave something settled that took years of work, effort , and collaboration rather than play politics and rehash the entire process and plan depending on what type of politics are being played from year to year.


----------



## Kwalk3

paddler said:


> So, Zinke has ordered a review of sage grouse protections. Still optimistic?


 Nope.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## OriginalOscar

If they did go extinct what's the downside? Guilt?

We saved Bald Eagles, Whooping Cranes, California Condors, Grizzlies and several other species. Can't we lose one and move on?


----------



## Kwalk3

OriginalOscar said:


> If they did go extinct what's the downside? Guilt?
> 
> We saved Bald Eagles, Whooping Cranes, California Condors, Grizzlies and several other species. Can't we lose one and move on?


 I'm glad most sportsmen don't share your mindset.

Ive never hunted sage grouse and may not ever in the future, but I'm glad they are on the landscape. Nevermind the implications for other species many of us are passionate about pursuing.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## OriginalOscar

Kwalk3 said:


> I'm glad most sportsmen don't share your mindset.
> 
> Ive never hunted sage grouse and may not ever in the future, but I'm glad they are on the landscape. Nevermind the implications for other species many of us are passionate about pursuing.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Get off the soapbox. Passenger pigeons went extinct; but ECD seem to be on the uptick and fun to blast. Pheasant filled a niche created by man. Manly men hunt chukars which filled a void. Mtn Goats not native but seem to have adapted nicely to Utah.

Some critters are just delicate and might not be worth the investment, time and commitment to save. I'd imagine you wearing a Save Snail Darter tee to the next Dem Protest.

So what is the downside if we let them go?


----------



## Kwalk3

OriginalOscar said:


> Get off the soapbox. Passenger pigeons went extinct; but ECD seem to be on the uptick and fun to blast. Pheasant filled a niche created by man. Manly men hunt chukars which filled a void. Mtn Goats not native but seem to have adapted nicely to Utah.
> 
> Some critters are just delicate and might not be worth the investment, time and commitment to save. I'd imagine you wearing a Save Snail Darter tee to the next Dem Protest.
> 
> So what is the downside if we let them go?


No thanks. I'm fine where I stand, and it's hardly a soapbox.

It seems that being prone to name calling and overly assumptive of another's political leanings is more of a soapbox than preferring that an iconic western species not be allowed to disappear.

Your logic is antithetical to true conservation. Let's just do away with mule deer while we are at it eh? Whitetail are much more resilient. I daresay you and I envision a different future for wildlife conservation and how that pertains to hunting.

Once again, I'm glad most don't share your sentiment.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

OriginalOscar said:


> If they did go extinct what's the downside? Guilt?
> 
> We saved Bald Eagles, Whooping Cranes, California Condors, Grizzlies and several other species. Can't we lose one and move on?


Glad you posted this, now I can understand the short sighted and selfish ways you think so I can disregard your opinions about wildlife and hunting in the future. As Fred Bear said, "if you are not fighting for hunting, then you are fighting against it." Gotta fight for the wildlife and wild places that make them possible even if you don't think a dumb sage chicken is worth your time, they share the same habitat and needs as many of the animals you would deem special enough to be cared about. Mule deer and pronghorn rely on many of the exact same things as sage grouse, and if they start to go the way of the dodo bird, the animals suitable for your high class will go that way too. See OO, the entire problem is, mule deer are also facing a dim future. The point of the sage grouse is the fact they are a good indication that something is wrong, and if it's wrong for them, it's likely wrong for many other species as well. Destroying the sage brush sea will not save the sage grouse, will not keep mule deer with us, and will not ensure hunting or wildlife in these places a future and neither will the careless thoughts like the post you put up. If people thought like you in the past, we would have NO wildlife today. There was a time when whitetail deer and Canada geese were in such low numbers they would have been on the ESA if it existed. But there were people who didn't care if they went extinct either, luckily forward thinking people who can see value in things beyond their own small world or understanding took the steps to save American wildlife for ungreatful people who have come after like yourself.


----------



## Kwalk3

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Glad you posted this, now I can understand the short sighted and selfish ways you think so I can disregard your opinions about wildlife and hunting in the future. As Fred Bear said, "if you are not fighting for hunting, then you are fighting against it." Gotta fight for the wildlife and wild places that make them possible even if you don't think a dumb sage chicken is worth your time, they share the same habitat and needs as many of the animals you would deem special enough to be cared about. Mule deer and pronghorn rely on many of the exact same things as sage grouse, and if they start to go the way of the dodo bird, the animals suitable for your high class will go that way too.


Its okay. Oscar says that something fun will take the place of the sage grouse. Nothing to worry about!

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## paddler

I think Oscar is having you on a bit. Back to the original theme, I'm not optimistic about anything Trump says or does, including his appointees. Expect the worst.


----------



## Kwalk3

paddler said:


> I think Oscar is having you on a bit. Back to the original theme, I'm not optimistic about anything Trump says or does, including his appointees. Expect the worst.


I hope he's being hyperbolic, but given his post history I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he honestly believes what he posted. Either way, not super productive addition to the conversation.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Catherder

Is it premature to speculate on Zinkes role in a Pence administration?


----------



## Kwalk3

Catherder said:


> Is it premature to speculate on Zinkes role in a Pence administration?


I think that the only thing premature may be the likelihood of a pence administration.

As for Zinke, he hasn't don't much to be an advocate for public land, wildlife, or sportsmen yet. Its all we got though. Here's to hoping it doesn't get screwed up too bad.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## paddler

Maybe 2018 may bring positive change. Not here in Utah, of course. We should probably change our state bird to the ostrich, so many here seem to keep their heads buried in sand.

Pence seems maybe even more dangerous than the orange pumpkin. He clearly lied about Flynn, and sure is a sanctimonious sonofagun. He's smarter, too, but that's not saying much.


----------



## Vanilla

Catherder said:


> Is it premature to speculate on Zinkes role in a Pence administration?


^^^This made me chuckle. Well played!


----------



## Vanilla

Looks like the recommendation from Zinke on Bears Ears is that the monument should be reduced in size to actually follow the law. 

Of course, there are a lot of negatives that can come, but I always appreciate when government officials actually follow the law. I support the recommendation highlights that I've seen so far. I'll have to dig into it a little deeper to see if I support it fully or not.


----------



## Catherder

While it appears that reduction will be the recommendation, it seemed to me that Zinkes results/reccs. were more measured than what I was kind of expecting. It appears that our congressional delegation did not get what they wanted, which was rescission.

I suppose the devil is in the details, as is usually the case and those will be released later. Trump could also go an entirely different direction on his own.

News outlets have released a document that is apparently the interim report.

https://www.scribd.com/document/351066813/Interim-Report-EO-13792


----------



## Kwalk3

I didn't expressly disagree with anything in the interim recommendation. I still have questions about who/what spurred the review here.

Ultimately I favor protection of public land and preservation of access. Period. If the final recommendation comes out with proper usage of National Conservation Areas or National Recreation Areas that adequately protect the area comprising the current monument, then I see no reason to complain. 

I was encouraged to see that Zinke mentioned the vehicles available to Congress to be able to ensure conservation of the land. I don't care if the land is protected under the antiquities act or by other congressional/BLM/USFS designations, so long as it's not left up to our State politicians.


----------



## paddler

I expect any change to be challenged in court, as reductions or other changes in status to national monuments have never previously been contentious issues. I also expect that I'll be contributing to the cause. I see this as just more effort on the part of Trump and the Republicans to destroy Obama's legacy.

Kwalk, why in the world are you encouraged that Congress has the ability to preserve the area? I'm confused. Our Republican Congress has shown absolutely no interest in protecting the environment or conservation of any kind. Drill, Baby, Drill, pollute our air and water is their goal. Not to be critical, but have you been paying attention? Do you remember the congressional inactivity that led to Obama's designation? Have you been paying attention to the current administration's actions in this arena? Any comments Zinke makes are just more smoke and mirrors. Or, if want to more direct, pure BS.


----------



## Kwalk3

Is it possible to have a discussion about a singular issue without it being an R vs D team contest or nah? Do we care more about the preservation of lands or that our team wins? 

I don't disagree that any change will likely be challenged in court. I also recognize that there is more than one way to ensure the lands are protected. I supported the monument protections, but I will also support proper protections through congressional/agency channels if it yields the same result, i.e. hunting/fishing/recreational access in perpetuity. 

I'm not yet sure if those protections proposed by the current administration will be satisfactory or not. I'm not jumping out the window today, but I'm also not assuming that things are fine either.

I don't have a team, and go back and forth on Zinke. I've been critical of him numerous times in this thread. However, the constant partisan bashing doesn't seem to be super helpful.


----------



## Kwalk3

paddler said:


> Kwalk, why in the world are you encouraged that Congress has the ability to preserve the area? I'm confused. Our Republican Congress has shown absolutely no interest in protecting the environment or conservation of any kind. Drill, Baby, Drill, pollute our air and water is their goal. Not to be critical, but have you been paying attention? Do you remember the congressional inactivity that led to Obama's designation? Have you been paying attention to the current administration's actions in this arena? Any comments Zinke makes are just more smoke and mirrors. Or, if want to more direct, pure BS.


I pay attention. I'm aware. I'm not necessarily optimistic.

I'm also willing to listen and take each individual action at face value irrespective of the letter next to a name. Are you implying that given the current administration's proclivities, you wouldn't want other protections in place of the monument when it is reduced/rescinded? Given the current climate, the discussion of how to protect the lands in place of a monument designation was encouraging to me.

I still favored the level of protection that the monument provided above the other alternatives, precisely because I am unsure that the current congress is capable of signing off on satisfactory protections, even given the mechanisms to do so.

I'm trying to look for the productive talking points here instead of just screaming that the sky is falling. Maybe don't accuse other people of not paying attention without attempting to understand the nuance of their position, not to be critical though......


----------



## paddler

It's not about the Democrats winning for winnings sake. It's about the environment, protecting our wildlands, etc. The Democrats by and large are in favor, Republicans are by and large against. To insist otherwise is naive, perhaps even foolish. "By their works ye shall know them".

I have seen and heard enough from the Dumpster to realize that the most rational approach is to regard everything that comes out of his mouth is either a lie, self serving, or both. I have seen and heard enough to know that every policy to come out of his administration is half baked, subject to flip flop, short sighted, and against the best interests of the vulnerable, the working class, the country and the world.

I will not wait around hoping for a few crumbs to fall our way, but will resist unceasingly. I suggest you adopt the same approach.


----------



## middlefork

It look to me like the basic recommendation is to let congress figure it out and make the changes. Good luck with that!

How long have the WSA's been studied? And why are they not already wilderness areas? Because congress couldn't get them passed before and I doubt they can now.

Now throw in NCA's and NRA's which were proposed in congress with the PLI and it is a simple recipe for continued gridlock.

It wouldn't bother me if it was rescinded or not, the publicity is well on the way of ruining it as it is now.


----------



## Vanilla

Again, and most importantly, the most encouraging thing to me out of this is Zinke suggesting that the law actually be followed. If the previous administration had done just that, we likely wouldn't be here. Yes, many would still be upset at the designation, but you're never going to make everyone happy. But alas, it's refreshing to hear governmemt officials talking about actually following the law. 

I too support the protection of and access to public lands. But as I've said many times, the alternative to the Bears Ears designation was not "no access" or sold lands or "drill baby drill," no matter how many times do say that's the case. That area has been public forever. I did not anticipate that changing even without the monument designation. 

This thread is about whether there is reason for optimism about Zinke. I think that today's announcement shows there is reason for optimism. He did not recommend rescission, but his review shows that the monument is much more broad than the law allowed. I agree with that 100%. I think any other feeling other than optimism on how Zinke himself views these things is just partisan whining.


----------



## paddler

I disagree that the designation was unlawful, and that's not what this is about. Trump wants to destroy Obama's legacy because Obama was thoughtful, honest, intelligent, farsighted and eloquent. In short, everything that Trump is not now or ever will be. Calling for the review was motivated by his jealousy and the desire to help his supporters, who wish only to exploit our lands. Zinke has no choice but to please the boss, which makes him no friend of outdoorsmen. Messing with the Bears Ears is bad for sportsmen, outdoorsmen, native Americans, and anybody interested in preservation.


----------



## DallanC

paddler said:


> I disagree that the designation was unlawful, and that's not what this is about.


Oh hogwash.

By law a monument has to be the absolute minimum size needed to protect the area. The fact that the governor and many members of congress had issue with, and this rightly warranted a look at the potential problems.

It has nothing to do with "destroying obama's" legacy (and you seriously think a monument created by Obama in the tail end of his 8 year presidency is his legacy? LMAO). If it were so important why not make it a priority earlier.

I agree with the recommendation. Keep it but reduce its size to the minimum needed. Heck Bears Ears boundry as is currently contains over 100,000 acres of PRIVATE property. That seems.... excessive.

-DallanC


----------



## paddler

DallanC said:


> Oh hogwash.
> 
> By law a monument has to be the absolute minimum size needed to protect the area. The fact that the governor and many members of congress had issue with, and this rightly warranted a look at the potential problems.
> 
> It has nothing to do with "destroying obama's" legacy (and you seriously think a monument created by Obama in the tail end of his 8 year presidency is his legacy? LMAO). If it were so important why not make it a priority earlier.
> 
> I agree with the recommendation. Keep it but reduce its size to the minimum needed. Heck Bears Ears boundry as is currently contains over 100,000 acres of PRIVATE property. That seems.... excessive.
> 
> -DallanC


The question of whether or not the designation is lawful or not is a determination only the courts could make. Not Zinke's call, his statement is unfounded. There is plenty of precedent for the size of this designation, and one could easily make the argument that the size was necessary to protect all of the artifacts.

Your other argument is also weak. Obama made the designation late because he waited for Congress to act. That fact has been well documented. Trump wants to shove him aside in order to be in the spotlight, just as he did the PM from Montenegro. He doesn't realize that such actions diminish only himself. That lack of insight is part of the narcissistic personality disorder.

Trump's presidency may very well not survive the full four years. We just need to minimize the damage he can wreak in the meantime.


----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> Obama's legacy because Obama was thoughtful, honest, intelligent, farsighted and eloquent.


 Wow that is beyond man crush!

"Elections have results" (President Barack Hussein Obama)

p.s Watched this documentary last night. History won't judge your guy well. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/hell-on-earth/


----------



## Vanilla

We should be okay with the size of the monument because there is precedent for monuments that size? But there is also precedent to reduce the size of a national monument through executive authority. But then again, some say they will contribute to fighting that action. So are we going off precedent, or personal bias here? 

Go read the interim report. My guess is many haven't. I just did this morning. Of course, things can change in the final report where the "official" recommendations will be made. I think anyone that does not have their team sport politics pom poms out and reads the report objectively will have a really hard time disagreeing with anything in there. One thing that was stated above is actually correct for a change is that this is not Zinke's call. That is correct, even the final report will only be a recommendation. Others that have the statutory authority to make the call will do so. It's like the RACs for our wildlife management here in Utah. They can recommend anything they see fit to the Wildlife Board, but the Board doesn't have to follow it. 

But when the RACs make solid recommendations, they should be commended regardless of what the Board decides to do. And as this thread is about optimism with regards to Zinke, it's tough to not have optimism after reading the interim report, especially considering it is asking the government to follow the law. Always a good thing, from my perspective. If the laws are bad, then you change them. You don't just get to disregard them. Something the previous administration was very fond of, unfortunately.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

So much political bias on both sides. I think it reasonable to shrink Bears Ears, however I think it is just as reasonable to leave it as is and ensure a proper managment plan with local input. People like to point out the size of these monuments and the fact the antiquities act says the "smallest area" but at no point does it specify what size it should stay under, and it is really lawfully under the discretion of the President that designates it what he sees as needed to preserve an area. The monument is absolutely lawful, it just depends what the motives you feel drove the designation that cause your reactions. My basic opinion is, leave it be and work on managment, and do not rescind or significantly reduce any of our NM. Instead of looking in the rear view, look forward. If the problem with monument designations are they are too large sometimes, leave what's done alone and change the antiquities act to need congressional approval for a monument over 100,000 acres. If the worst thing that could happen to Bears Ears was be labeled a NM, well, that's really not so bad and ensures it for future generations as a pristine landscape. I'm open to Bears Ears being scaled back because it's so new, but digging 20 years back into our NM, which in most cases are working perfectly is bad precedent and nothing more than party payback politics. Look at the road in front of us, not what's behind us.


----------



## Vanilla

1-Eye,

This interim report is only dealing with Bears Ears, not Grand Staircase. That may come in the near future, but the topic at hand is only dealing with Bears Ears. While it was designated in December, literally nothing has been done with this. To scale the size back would not change anything at all. The management plans have not even been submitted or approved for the monument, as far as I understand it. But changing the Antiquities Act would be just fine by me. I've said many times how I don't think the president should have this power. It certainly was not granted in the constitution, but I realize that I am one of the few that still believes that document is worth something. 

But I digress...You are misreading the law if you think it allows the president to decide what is the smallest area possible for designation. It actually just says the smallest area possible, not what the president thinks is best. This language is not granting power to the president to do whatever they want, as has been alleged by paddler on more than one occasion. It is limiting language, and limiting language which has been totally ignored by prior presidents at times. So the statement that the monument designation is lawful just because President Obama said so is not correct. In fact, it could not be more incorrect, if the law is read on its face and plain language. 

I would not be heart broken if it remained as is, so long as the management plans clearly allow for public use and recreation down there to continue as has been the case for longer than any of us have been alive. My interest in public lands is to keep them public. But we should follow the law in the process.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> 1-Eye,
> 
> This interim report is only dealing with Bears Ears, not Grand Staircase. That may come in the near future, but the topic at hand is only dealing with Bears Ears. While it was designated in December, literally nothing has been done with this. To scale the size back would not change anything at all. The management plans have not even been submitted or approved for the monument, as far as I understand it. But changing the Antiquities Act would be just fine by me. I've said many times how I don't think the president should have this power. It certainly was not granted in the constitution, but I realize that I am one of the few that still believes that document is worth something.
> 
> But I digress...You are misreading the law if you think it allows the president to decide what is the smallest area possible for designation. It actually just says the smallest area possible, not what the president thinks is best. This language is not granting power to the president to do whatever they want, as has been alleged by paddler on more than one occasion. It is limiting language, and limiting language which has been totally ignored by prior presidents at times. So the statement that the monument designation is lawful just because President Obama said so is not correct. In fact, it could not be more incorrect, if the law is read on its face and plain language.
> 
> I would not be heart broken if it remained as is, so long as the management plans clearly allow for public use and recreation down there to continue as has been the case for longer than any of us have been alive. My interest in public lands is to keep them public. But we should follow the law in the process.


I get what you're saying but this law ABSOLUTELY gives the president the power to designate what he deems the smallest area to his discretion. You don't have to like it, but there is no acre limit on what that "smallest area" can be. As I said the more productive conversation should be as your last paragraph says, ensuring access and use of the land remains open to multiple recreational use, grazing use, and access is unchanged. I said I agree with you that changing the boundaries will not affect anything at this point and that would be fine. GS is the other monument this order specifically targets. I realize we are discussing BE but GS is definetly the more sore spot with me. It's been 20 years, there is plenty of unchanged access. Leave it alone, including its boundaries. Look forward, and if we need to change the antiquities act to not allow such giant designations then do it, but let's get over the 20 year old bitterness of Utah politicians.


----------



## Vanilla

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I get what you're saying but this law ABSOLUTELY gives the president the power to designate what he deems the smallest area to his discretion.


Herein lies the problem: This statement is not true. And I think it's where I will never be able to buy into this Act like many on here have. The Act does not in any way, shape, or form give the president discretion to determine what the "smallest area" is. The president has been delegated broad authority to designate national monuments, I agree. But the "smallest area" language is not enabling language, it is limiting language. Basically, "Sure Mr/Mrs President, we'll let you do this. But you have to utilize the absolute smallest area possible to accomplish your purposes, and nothing more."

If a president designates a monument that is larger than needs to designated to protect whatever historical or scientific treasure they are trying to protect, are they following the law?

(spoiler alert----the answer is no)


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> Herein lies the problem: This statement is not true. And I think it's where I will never be able to buy into this Act like many on here have. The Act does not in any way, shape, or form give the president discretion to determine what the "smallest area" is. The president has been delegated broad authority to designate national monuments, I agree. But the "smallest area" language is not enabling language, it is limiting language. Basically, "Sure Mr/Mrs President, we'll let you do this. But you have to utilize the absolute smallest area possible to accomplish your purposes, and nothing more."
> 
> If a president designates a monument that is larger than needs to designated to protect whatever historical or scientific treasure they are trying to protect, are they following the law?
> 
> (spoiler alert----the answer is no)


There are no specific acres or terms as to the exact size of any given designation. It says smallest area, I understand that, but if the president that designated it expresses they felt this was the smallest area, then they were within their lawful boundaries. Your opinion is that it is not the smallest area, but if the person who has the power to designate it sees it differently, that is an argument of opinions. In the Bears Ears area there are a lot of historical and cultural artifacts and sites across those 1.3 million acres. You could likely designate several dozen smaller monuments, but instead it is just one large monument. I'm not going to argue that all 1.3 million acres as monument characteristics, but to protect all the areas that do deserve monument designation within that 1.3 million acres is an argument that can be made. Anything that happens will likely be met in court. Scale back Bears Ears, but the attack on 20 years of monuments is beyond where this order should have went.


----------



## DallanC

Monuments designated by Pres Obama total over 550,000,000 acres. More than *twice* what Teddy Roosevelt set aside. That's a whole lot of surface area of planet earth.


-DallanC


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

You are selectively reading the antiquities act, I just want you to read the first part:

"Sec. 2. That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected"

It specifically states to the discretion of the president. Yes it says the smallest area but it is giving full discretion to the president designating it. Whether your opinion and his of the "smallest area" differ are irrelevant.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

DallanC said:


> Monuments designated by Pres Obama total over 550,000,000 acres. More than *twice* what Teddy Roosevelt set aside. That's a whole lot of surface area of planet earth.
> 
> -DallanC


Truthfully it is not. Most of it is oceanic monument acreage, and only around 12% of America's land is protected as wilderness, monuments,wildlife refuges or conservation areas. 88% of our land is available for use, and the large majority of federal land is multiple use and multiple industry use. The argument there is too many protected places doesn't wash because it plain and simply isn't true.


----------



## paddler

There is no language in the Act that permits a subsequent president to reduce or rescind any existing monument designation. There is no statutory authority to do so. No legal challenge based on the language in the Act will succeed, as it awards broad discretion to the President. The truth is, many monuments have been changed to National Parks, while some other out-of-the-way, underutilized monuments have been rescinded or reduced simply based on those criteria. They were not controversial so were not challenged in court. Any action taken against Bears Ears by Trump will be tied up in court until long after he leaves office.

Four out of five of our National Parks were first National Monuments, and Grand Staircase has been a boost to the local economy. The order to review was a vicious swipe at Obama and conservation in general, Zinke's trip was simply a dog and pony show with a predetermined outcome, as payback for our morally "flexible" congressional delegation's spineless support of the Liar in Chief. Make no mistake, this entire exercise is unnecessary and a very bad idea.


----------



## Vanilla

1-eye, with all due respect, you're wrong on your interpretation. When a statute says "shall" there is no discretion. The discretion is for the designation itself. The size is limited by a "shall" and is supposed to be confined to the smallest area compatible with the necessary protections. 

The only reason the president can do this is because Congress passed a law delegating its constitutional authority to the president. The power is subject only to the authority delegated, which is not limitless. I don't know how much more clear I can be on that. There are many provisions that reasonable people can disagree on or have differing opinions, but this is plain as day in regards to statutory construction. 

Let's wait and see what happens with regards to GSNM before we interject it here. All we know is the recommendation for Bears Ears at this point. Reviewing national monuments for appropriateness, even after 20 years, is not new. Multiple presidents have done this in the past. A review should not scare people, especially considering that you all feared the worst that Zinke would recommend rescission. He did not do so. The only reason to be scared is if you think the law may not be on your side of the fight.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Vanilla said:


> 1-eye, with all due respect, you're wrong on your interpretation. When a statute says "shall" there is no discretion. The discretion is for the designation itself. The size is limited by a "shall" and is supposed to be confined to the smallest area compatible with the necessary protections.
> 
> The only reason the president can do this is because Congress passed a law delegating its constitutional authority to the president. The power is subject only to the authority delegated, which is not limitless. I don't know how much more clear I can be on that. There are many provisions that reasonable people can disagree on or have differing opinions, but this is plain as day in regards to statutory construction.
> 
> Let's wait and see what happens with regards to GSNM before we interject it here. All we know is the recommendation for Bears Ears at this point. Reviewing national monuments for appropriateness, even after 20 years, is not new. Multiple presidents have done this in the past. A review should not scare people, especially considering that you all feared the worst that Zinke would recommend rescission. He did not do so. The only reason to be scared is if you think the law may not be on your side of the fight.


Wrong. I have no doubt this will be tied up in court, and I do believe that congress has the authority to shrink a monument, the president does not. It says "shall" you are correct but you want to conveniently ignore the fact it also plainly states that the area that "shall" be designated is at the discretion of the president that designates it. Like I said your opinion and his of that "small area" may differ, by he may have designated the smallest area he felt was applicable. You don't get to say what the smallest possible area is because it is partly based in opinion, and since you aren't the one who had the power to designate you really can't say if it's right or wrong. There is no specific guidelines as to what that areas size actually can be. Zinke isn't recommending rescission because there are absolutely things there that deserve monument status, and he also knows the president has no legal authority to completely overturn a national monument. The AA gives the president the authority to designate the smallest possible area as a monument at their discretion and it is plainly spelled out in the Act that the presidents discretion of that "small area" is open to just that, that presidents discretion. If "shall" leaves no room for discretion of the president both words would not be right in the same paragraph. It is right in the same breath that discretion of the president is part of the power this act grants.


----------



## Vanilla

You can only tell someone the sky is blue so many times before you give up and move on. I'm moving on.


----------



## paddler

Discussion on KUER, 90.1 now, with Brian Maffley and Judy Fahys.

V, there is no case law supporting your position, it's unlikely that you know much about public lands law or national monument law, so your moving on is a very good idea.


----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> Discussion on KUER, 90.1 now, with Brian Maffley and Judy Fahys.
> 
> V, there is no case law supporting your position, it's unlikely that you know much about public lands law or national monument law, so your moving on is a very good idea.


V's out I'll tag in.

90.1 = socialist radio. Not a source worthy of mention.

Agreed we are in new legal territory; however Obama, Clinton, Carter all exceeded the clearly stated scope of the Antiquities Act and it's a fight worth taking to the Supreme Court.

P, Can you outline your qualifications regarding public lands law or national monument law? (is this even a thing?) Quick to deride Vanilla so let's see your cred.


----------



## paddler

OriginalOscar said:


> V's out I'll tag in.
> 
> 90.1 = socialist radio. Not a source worthy of mention.
> 
> Agreed we are in new legal territory; however Obama, Clinton, Carter all exceeded the clearly stated scope of the Antiquities Act and it's a fight worth taking to the Supreme Court.
> 
> P, Can you outline your qualifications regarding public lands law or national monument law? (is this even a thing?) Quick to deride Vanilla so let's see your cred.


You should probably have listened to the discussion. They interviewed actual experts on public land law and national monument law from the University of Colorado. So, it really is a thing, which means I have a choice as to who to listen to regarding altering Bears Ears. The expert said they discussed the issue among a group of experts in the field, the unanimous opinion was that no president can reduce or rescind a monument. So, it's not a matter of my qualifications in comparison to V. It's a matter of who one should listen to. 
Do you think I should listen to experts in the field or V? You may as well tap out now as well. You have contributed absolutely nothing positive in any of your posts on any thread on which I have participated. I'm starting to lose confidence you ever will.


----------



## OriginalOscar

paddler said:


> You should probably have listened to the discussion. They interviewed actual experts on public land law and national monument law from the University of Colorado. So, it really is a thing, which means I have a choice as to who to listen to regarding altering Bears Ears. The expert said they discussed the issue among a group of experts in the field, the unanimous opinion was that no president can reduce or rescind a monument. So, it's not a matter of my qualifications in comparison to V. It's a matter of who one should listen to.
> Do you think I should listen to experts in the field or V? You may as well tap out now as well. You have contributed absolutely nothing positive in any of your posts on any thread on which I have participated. I'm starting to lose confidence you ever will.


I find the hysteria from you and others as laughable. Your positions are based on environmental radical positions and not multiple use positions. Having a president who actually is interested in including local interests and using the legislative process is a welcome change. Zinke is credible and his balanced decision; didn't recommend complete repeal as many in Utah wanted; and he didn't agree to leave the misuse of the Antiquities Act in place. He's sending to congress for the legislative process to review, debate and put forth a recommendation. We live in a republic; and this is how our great country has succeeded for over 200 years.

If you want to earn credibility; read to learn about the subject, engage in your local politics, talk to people who don't share your opinion, don't get your feelings hurt and apply labels as defense. We were all young once and while I respect conviction of purpose; if you can't make a credible statement and just repeat; Obama was wonderful you'll earn no respect. You'll get some "likes" which leads you to believe you're right. Just as your experts on KUER all spout the same position; you and others on this forum just offer each other affirmations when someone makes a quippy statement.

Elections have results and we have now restored legislative process and local input into the Bears Ears issue.


----------



## Kwalk3

Oscar,

While I don't agree with paddler's overt partisanship, your biases are equally as blatant, whether you recognize that or not. 

You blanket anyone who favors the monument as a liberal hippie do gooder without attempting to understand the logic or nuance of their position. 

I think it's hilarious that you are lecturing paddler about applying labels when you repeatedly are dismissively and condescendingly labeling those who have divergent opinions as radical environmentalists, do- gooders, etc. Next time you feel the need to hop on the high horse, practice your lecture in the mirror first.

Zinkes recommendations aren't necessarily negative, nor are the proposed monument protections.

I have issues with the ever expanding power of the executive branch, and if you think zinkes recommendations are restorative of some kind of order or some display of executive restraint, I would disagree.

For now, I'll wait and see and make my determination about Zinke and the Bears Ears as the pieces come together.






Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## paddler

Kwalk3 said:


> Oscar,
> 
> While I don't agree with paddler's overt partisanship, your biases are equally as blatant, whether you recognize that or not.
> 
> You blanket anyone who favors the monument as a liberal hippie do gooder without attempting to understand the logic or nuance of their position.
> 
> I think it's hilarious that you are lecturing paddler about applying labels when you repeatedly are dismissively and condescendingly labeling those who have divergent opinions as radical environmentalists, do- gooders, etc. Next time you feel the need to hop on the high horse, practice your lecture in the mirror first.
> 
> Zinkes recommendations aren't necessarily negative, nor are the proposed monument protections.
> 
> I have issues with the ever expanding power of the executive branch, and if you think zinkes recommendations are restorative of some kind of order or some display of executive restraint, I would disagree.
> 
> For now, I'll wait and see and make my determination about Zinke and the Bears Ears as the pieces come together.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


One small area of disagreement. Zinke's recommendation will lead to a reduction in the size of Bears Ears, as he has recommended it, and so is definitely negative. That's if Congress can get its act together. Much like their attempts to repeal and replace the ACA, they'll have a tough time. Seems all across the country people consider our National Parks and Monuments treasures, just as people seem to like healthcare security. It's unclear that they'll be able to muster the necessary votes, just as they are having trouble in the Senate getting votes to pass what Trump himself has termed a "mean" bill.

The designation was entirely legal, and the result of a very long process inclusive of all stakeholders, and taken only after Congress failed to act. Trump has no legal authority to act alone. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Right now the administration is pretty busy with other more pressing matters.

I wouldn't pay to much attention to OO's comments, he's clearly a far right hack. Not worth responding to his utterances. Maybe he'll go away.


----------



## Vanilla

The funny thing is the point being made has absolutely nothing to do with public lands law or national monument law. So what I know about those two areas is completely irrelevant. The point I'm making has everything to do with statutory construction and constitutional law. But since paddler doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, he misses that reality. 

It's funny I'm told that there isn't a single bit of case law that supports my position (which couldn't be further from the truth...there are volumes upon volumes on how courts interpret statutes), but let's just say for the sake of argument that my point was actually about national monuments in general. The assertion that there is no case law to support a president reducing the size of a monument would be correct. (Which again, is not my point and I never said there was case law to support that, oddly enough. But I digress again...) It would also be correct to say that there is not a single bit of case law to support paddler's position either. This will be a case of first impression, and there are just as many "experts" on the other side saying the president does have authority to reduce the size of a national monument, as has been done many times now already by multiple presidents in the past. But then again, when you're playing team sport politics, it only matters what the "other guys" do, right? 

We'll see where this goes. I'm interested to see Secretary Zinke's final report and the specific recommendations. At this point, nobody reading this has any idea what the outcome will be. (Including me)


----------



## paddler

I thought you left. Couldn't resist posting more BS that actually contradicts itself. There is neither one iota of language in the Act itself nor any case law that supports a president rescinding or reducing a national monument. You could have and should have just left it at that instead of trying to muddy the waters.

There is no statutory basis for Zinke even reviewing the monuments, either. He has no standing here. Trump has no legal right to review these monuments, Zinke's BS review carries no weight. This will be years in court. Hopefully Trump's lawyers will be as dense as V. Maybe he can get Kasowitz to do it.


----------



## Vanilla

I never said I was leaving, I said I was moving on trying to convince 1-Eye. You're salty, Jon. Anyone can talk big on the internet. Put down the smart phone and take a deep breath. 

You really have no idea what you're talking about here, and it shows. We all are just guessing at this point. A review and a recommendation is just that, it's meaningless until action happens. There are lots of actions that could come from this that are entirely lawful and wouldn't even facilitate a legal challenge. Part of the review is encouraging congress to act. While there may be a dispute with regards to the president's power to reduce a monument, even though it has happened multiple times before, there is absolutely no argument against congress reducing or even fully rescinding a national monument. 

I have said it before, I'll say it again. Ultimately, I don't really care what happens to BENM at this point so long as we all get to continue using the area in the ways we have in the past. But if nothing else comes from this whole mess, I think at a minimum congress will take a much closer look at the Antiquities Act and the power it has delegated to the president. Hopefully a good change will be coming, and if so, we will be able to thank those presidents that overstepped their bounds. So if that happens, I will personally thank President Obama for his actions on this one. So maybe this will all end up being a huge positive in the end after all.


----------



## rjefre

To address the original intent of this thread, I will have to change my opinion of cautiously optimistic to a bit disappointed in some of his positions on public lands so far. Time will tell, but I hope for the best. As I've said before (and will say again), I learn a lot from reading the different opinions on this forum. Thanks for sharing. 
Oh...and I also learn a lot from public radio (KUER 91 FM), I always feel a little smarter after listening to a radio station that tries hard to bring divergent political views to the public programming (as well as science programs, agriculture programs, health programs, etc) . An open mind is ripe for learning!
R


----------



## Kwalk3

rjefre said:


> To address the original intent of this thread, I will have to change my opinion of cautiously optimistic to a bit disappointed in some of his positions on public lands so far. Time will tell, but I hope for the best. As I've said before (and will say again), I learn a lot from reading the different opinions on this forum. Thanks for sharing.
> Oh...and I also learn a lot from public radio (KUER 91 FM), I always feel a little smarter after listening to a radio station that tries hard to bring divergent political views to the public programming (as well as science programs, agriculture programs, health programs, etc) . An open mind is ripe for learning!
> R


Well said!

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## paddler

rjefre said:


> To address the original intent of this thread, I will have to change my opinion of cautiously optimistic to a bit disappointed in some of his positions on public lands so far. Time will tell, but I hope for the best. As I've said before (and will say again), I learn a lot from reading the different opinions on this forum. Thanks for sharing.
> Oh...and I also learn a lot from public radio (KUER 91 FM), I always feel a little smarter after listening to a radio station that tries hard to bring divergent political views to the public programming (as well as science programs, agriculture programs, health programs, etc) . An open mind is ripe for learning!
> R


Optimism is good in general, R, but unfortunately misplaced in Zinke's case. If he had any balls or was a friend of conservation and outdoorsmen he'd have recommended that the the monument be left alone. I'm fairly confident that Congress won't act, Trump cannot legally act, and hopefully the monument will stand. Editorial in the Trib this morning:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/5398312-155/tribune-editorial-zinke-leaves-bears-ears

Of course, if the Republicans in Congress damage the monument, they will hopefully pay a price similar to that if they pass the AHCA, better known as Tax Breaks for the Rich, Screw Everybody Else. And I expect that Democrats will gain seats in 2018, though gerrymandering may prevent taking full control. If they do, however, things will get better.


----------



## Kwalk3

paddler said:


> Optimism is good in general, R, but unfortunately misplaced in Zinke's case. If he had any balls or was a friend of conservation and outdoorsmen he'd have recommended that the the monument be left alone. I'm fairly confident that Congress won't act, Trump cannot legally act, and hopefully the monument will stand. Editorial in the Trib this morning:
> 
> http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/5398312-155/tribune-editorial-zinke-leaves-bears-ears
> 
> Of course, if the Republicans in Congress damage the monument, they will hopefully pay a price similar to that if they pass the AHCA, better known as Tax Breaks for the Rich, Screw Everybody Else. And I expect that Democrats will gain seats in 2018, though gerrymandering may prevent taking full control. If they do, however, things will get better.


I find both extremes equally aggravating.

I respect your opinion, and even understand where you are coming from, but bringing in other tangential partisan issues seems to be more divisive than actually uniting folks of all political persuasions to fight for public land protection and access, whatever that ends up looking like.

I can be almost certain that a majority of this forum wants to see Bears Ears and all the other currently public land preserved and open for hunting and fishing.

Ultimately, I would prefer that the monument protections remain in place because I don't see it as the true threat to our enjoyment of public lands as sportsmen. However, if there are adequate protections ACTUALLY implemented by congress(which may be unlikely, as has been mentioned), then I don't think it's unreasonable to maintain a shred of cautious optimism towards Zinke regarding our future relationship with public lands as sportsmen.

I don't think he's the true ally that I had hoped he would be regarding public lands, but I'm also not sure he's our sworn enemy either. You and Oscar keep it up with the partisan jabs though.

You are painting this issue as if there isn't a conversation to be had regarding an alternative way for protection. It may not end up being feasible or likely given our lawmakers' history, but the unwillingness to engage in conversation with those whom you disagree with doesn't sway anyone over to your viewpoint.


----------



## paddler

Kwalk3 said:


> I find both extremes equally aggravating.
> 
> I respect your opinion, and even understand where you are coming from, but bringing in other tangential partisan issues seems to be more divisive than actually uniting folks of all political persuasions to fight for public land protection and access, whatever that ends up looking like.
> 
> I can be almost certain that a majority of this forum wants to see Bears Ears and all the other currently public land preserved and open for hunting and fishing.
> 
> Ultimately, I would prefer that the monument protections remain in place because I don't see it as the true threat to our enjoyment of public lands as sportsmen. However, if there are adequate protections ACTUALLY implemented by congress(which may be unlikely, as has been mentioned), then I don't think it's unreasonable to maintain a shred of cautious optimism towards Zinke regarding our future relationship with public lands as sportsmen.
> 
> I don't think he's the true ally that I had hoped he would be regarding public lands, but I'm also not sure he's our sworn enemy either. You and Oscar keep it up with the partisan jabs though.
> 
> You are painting this issue as if there isn't a conversation to be had regarding an alternative way for protection. It may not end up being feasible or likely given our lawmakers' history, but the unwillingness to engage in conversation with those whom you disagree with doesn't sway anyone over to your viewpoint.


Pardon me if I find your attitude somewhat Pollyanna. The bottom line is that the Bears Ears designation was entirely legal, the result of exhaustive efforts by the Obama administration after Congress failed miserably to protect the area. There is absolutely no rational justification for the review, reduction or recission. This is a purely political act on the part of the Republicans to allow extraction industries to despoil the region and to appease our local, shortsighted politicians. The arc of history has proven over and over that monument designations turn out well. The Grand Canyon designation was also controversial and the local politicians screamed bloody murder. History teaches that conservation bears fruit far into the future.

Unfortunately, this is a partisan issue. But, the Republicans must bear sole responsibility for the fiasco. To assert otherwise is just discordant with fact. I don't expect to sway anyone with my posts, fellows like OO and V are beyond hope, just as those whose only news source is Fox. I'm here just to provide factual information and assign credit and blame where due. Don't blame me when people mess with public lands, rather address the offenders.


----------



## LostLouisianian

Just because someone wants to allow multiple use of some of the vast multitude of public lands doesn't make them an enemy of conservation, regardless of what some idiots on here say.


----------



## Kwalk3

paddler said:


> Pardon me if I find your attitude somewhat Pollyanna. The bottom line is that the Bears Ears designation was entirely legal, the result of exhaustive efforts by the Obama administration after Congress failed miserably to protect the area. There is absolutely no rational justification for the review, reduction or recission. This is a purely political act on the part of the Republicans to allow extraction industries to despoil the region and to appease our local, shortsighted politicians. The arc of history has proven over and over that monument designations turn out well. The Grand
> Canyon designation was also controversial and the local politicians screamed bloody murder. History teaches that conservation bears fruit far into the future.
> 
> Unfortunately, this is a partisan issue. But, the Republicans must bear sole responsibility for the fiasco. To assert otherwise is just discordant with fact. I don't expect to sway anyone with my posts, fellows like OO and V are beyond hope, just as those whose only news source is Fox. I'm here just to provide factual information and assign credit and blame where due. Don't blame me when people mess with public lands, rather address the offenders.


I've never seen you assign blame for any problem to anyone other than the Republicans. Weird.

-I agree the Republican house and senate are problematic on public land issues.

-I have stated that I favor the protections afforded by the designation. I agree that congress failed to properly designate it and am unsure if they will be able to going forward.

-I never said it wasn't legal to designate the area.

I do believe that the executive branch has too much power and that the size of this designation may be beyond the scope of the intent of the Antiquities Act. Not saying it's illegal, just that it might be being abused a bit. Legislating from the Oval Office just makes the Do/Undo cycle and increased polarization more likely going forward. Both parties are guilty.

Maybe the designation forces congress's hand to actual ensure proper protections are put in place after so much inaction. I'm not saying that's what's going to happen, but discussing how that could work would seem to be more productive than yelling at a wall.

We probably agree on a lot as far as actual conservation ethic goes. However I find your approach to discussion be wholly partisan and off-putting. It's one thing to be factual, it's another thing entirely to be selectively factual to paint a picture of what's going on that is neither persuasive nor unifying.

Call my attitude what you will, but overt partisanship shuts down debate and discussion rather than encourages it, whether your position is factual or not.


----------



## paddler

Kwalk3 said:


> I've never seen you assign blame for any problem to anyone other than the Republicans. Weird.


Okay. Can you provide any instance in which Democrats have acted against protecting our public lands, our air or our water? The reason I blame Republicans for assaulting the environment is because they are the guilty party. In the case of the Bears Ears, our entire congressional delegation asked Trump to rescind or reduce it, along with GSNM. No Democrat has done so. The current head of the EPA sued the agency he now leads on behalf of the Koch brothers a dozen times. He's a Republican, appointed by a Republican. Trump has also repeatedly vowed to roll back environmental regulations. You say it's weird that I blame only Republicans, I say that blaming anyone but Republicans would be baseless.

If you can provide any information that reveals a pattern of behavior among Democrats that threatens our public lands or environment, I'm listening. There is no justification for assigning a false equivalence to the parties on these issues. I have a difficult time with your position as an apologist for Trump and his ilk. True, not all Republicans are anti public land preservation and the environment, but an extremely high percentage of the antis just happen to be Republicans.


----------



## Kwalk3

paddler said:


> Okay. Can you provide any instance in which Democrats have acted against protecting our public lands, our air or our water? The reason I blame Republicans for assaulting the environment is because they are the guilty party. In the case of the Bears Ears, our entire congressional delegation asked Trump to rescind or reduce it, along with GSNM. No Democrat has done so. The current head of the EPA sued the agency he now leads on behalf of the Koch brothers a dozen times. He's a Republican, appointed by a Republican. Trump has also repeatedly vowed to roll back environmental regulations. You say it's weird that I blame only Republicans, I say that blaming anyone but Republicans would be baseless.
> 
> If you can provide any information that reveals a pattern of behavior among Democrats that threatens our public lands or environment, I'm listening. There is no justification for assigning a false equivalence to the parties on these issues. I have a difficult time with your position as an apologist for Trump and his ilk. True, not all Republicans are anti public land preservation and the environment, but an extremely high percentage of the antis just happen to be Republicans.


Like I said, I don't disagree with you about the public lands issue. Notice in my quote where I said I've never seen you blame anyone other than Republicans for ANY issue. You keep bringing those "any" issues up, so I thought I'd throw that out there. That is what I think is more divisive than helpful in this particular discussion on this particular forum.

I've spent a fair amount of time expressing disgust over our state Reps and what others in congress are doing regarding attacking our public lands. The Republican congress poses the most imminent threat to hunting and fishing on public lands. Hence, why I support the protections afforded in the designation. However, liking the level of protection and disliking the method of designation aren't mutually exclusive propostitions.

Importantly, to imply that there are no foreseeable threats to hunting and fishing on public lands on the Democratic side of the aisle is short-sighted. It's not the immediate threat, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to jump on the D-train full speed ahead.

I'm certainly no Trump apologist. You clearly misunderstand me. 
I'm simply trying to approach an individual issue here with as little emotion as possible as it pertains to our ability to hunt and fish and otherwise recreate on public land. I'm not sure(neither are you) that's likely to change either way this designation ends up. Hence, I'm not jumping out the window yet. I'm on the ground floor anyway.

Re: executive branch legislation. This specific monument isn't problematic to me because hunting and fishing are allowed for by the designation documents. However, each expansion of executive authority also increases the likelihood that future designations could be made for larger tracts of land that expressly limit or prohibit hunting on a given monument. I'd hate for the pendulum to swing very far in either direction.


----------



## paddler

Kwalk3 said:


> Like I said, I don't disagree with you about the public lands issue. Notice in my quote where I said I've never seen you blame anyone other than Republicans for ANY issue. You keep bringing those "any" issues up, so I thought I'd throw that out there. That is what I think is more divisive than helpful in this particular discussion on this particular forum.


Well, this thread is about public lands. If you wish to talk about healthcare, or global warming, or the budget, or Flint's water, you are correct, I disagree with the Republican agenda. Beyond the scope of this forum, however.



Kwalk3 said:


> I've spent a fair amount of time expressing disgust over our state Reps and what others in congress are doing regarding attacking our public lands. The Republican congress poses the most imminent threat to hunting and fishing on public lands. Hence, why I support the protections afforded in the designation. However, liking the level of protection and disliking the method of designation aren't mutually exclusive propostitions.


I will reiterate that the monument designation was legal and should remain as designated. Any change would be for the worse.



Kwalk3 said:


> Importantly, to imply that there are no foreseeable threats to hunting and fishing on public lands on the Democratic side of the aisle is short-sighted. It's not the immediate threat, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to jump on the D-train full speed ahead.


I asked you for current or past examples. You have provided none. To postulate some hypothetical threat in the far distant future is rubbish.



Kwalk3 said:


> I'm certainly no Trump apologist. You clearly misunderstand me.
> I'm simply trying to approach an individual issue here with as little emotion as possible as it pertains to our ability to hunt and fish and otherwise recreate on public land. I'm not sure(neither are you) that's likely to change either way this designation ends up. Hence, I'm not jumping out the window yet. I'm on the ground floor anyway.


No, I do understand you. We have a different approach. I will call out the review and reduction as complete BS. Outrage is entirely appropriate and even helpful.



Kwalk3 said:


> Re: executive branch legislation. This specific monument isn't problematic to me because hunting and fishing are allowed for by the designation documents. However, each expansion of executive authority also increases the likelihood that future designations could be made for larger tracts of land that expressly limit or prohibit hunting on a given monument. I'd hate for the pendulum to swing very far in either direction.


Incorrect on the face of it. There was no legislation involved or "expansion of executive authority". This was simply an exercise of the power vested in the president by the Antiquities Act to protect artifacts and unique landscapes.


----------



## Kingfisher

I appreciate democrats pushing forward. I appreciate republicans pushing back. somewhere in the middle... for me... is a good place to be. the antiquities act vests too much power in one individual. I oppose the designation of that much land as enabled by the act and equally oppose the recision by any one individual. tho messy, convoluted and long, I believe that public land management should take the time necessary to hammer out a centrist position leaving no one happy and everyone happy. those who support this monument do so because your values have been rewarded, those who oppose it are crying foul because their values have been superceded. accusing republicans of stalling is disingenuous because democrats are equally guilty re the wilderness process - could have been settled years ago but the stalling tactics employed by environmental groups (democrat support) knew the longer the process, the more likely larger tracts of land could be won as attitudes and values changed over time from ranching/logging to recreation tourism. both sides have employed tactics to accomplish their goals and values. let the process continue on. its messy. its maddeningly slow. so what? I believe that the end result will be better than allowing one person to reward/penalize or build legacy or whatever only to have a subsequent one person to rescind/revise.


----------



## Kwalk3

paddler said:


> Well, this thread is about public lands. If you wish to talk about healthcare, or global warming, or the budget, or Flint's water, you are correct, I disagree with the Republican agenda. Beyond the scope of this forum, however. LOL Read your responses on this thread and you'll see that you have thrown in external issues or petty name calling numerous times. Like you said, beyond the scope of this forum.
> 
> I will reiterate that the monument designation was legal and should remain as designated. Any change would be for the worse. Maybe, or maybe not. Neither you or I can authoritatively say that at this point.
> 
> I asked you for current or past examples. You have provided none. To postulate some hypothetical threat in the far distant future is rubbish.
> 
> Rubbish to you, reality to a lot of others. There were numerous bills introduced last year in the West to limit trapping on public land. No matter what your ethic is regarding trapping, to say that it's far-fetched that a president could wield a pen and close hunting in an area is short-sighted. Go ahead and skip the part where I said the Republicans were the imminent threat currently though. It doesn't fit your narrative/criticism.
> 
> No, I do understand you. We have a different approach. I will call out the review and reduction as complete BS. Outrage is entirely appropriate and even helpful. You are clearly and willfully misunderstanding me to make it seem as if I'm apologizing for the Republican legislature and administration. I'm not. I just want to play the cards we're dealt to ensure the area is protected.
> 
> Incorrect on the face of it. There was no legislation involved or "expansion of executive authority". This was simply an exercise of the power vested in the president by the Antiquities Act to protect artifacts and unique landscapes.


Our world is so full of outrage that I think it is at times counterproductive. Sometimes a measured response can be more effective. We'll have to agree to disagree there.

"Executive legislation" is more of a figure of speech. Executive power is expanded with every presidency. I don't like that. Period. Didn't say anything about legality. I think it contributes to the overly polarized nature of our political climate when a stroke of a pen is capable of determining so much.

I'm glad we agree that the monument protections are generally a good thing. I'm fine with the fact that you won't accept that not all D's are on our side as it pertains to hunting and fishing.

I'm just trying to reason my way through the path forward as someone who supports the protections of the monument but can also see the other side of the argument.

Furthering this discussion isn't likely to change either one of our viewpoints especially since they aren't as disparate as you seem to believe. Thanks for the discussion.

Keep doing you.


----------



## paddler

Kingfisher said:


> I appreciate democrats pushing forward. I appreciate republicans pushing back. somewhere in the middle... for me... is a good place to be. the antiquities act vests too much power in one individual. I oppose the designation of that much land as enabled by the act and equally oppose the recision by any one individual. tho messy, convoluted and long, I believe that public land management should take the time necessary to hammer out a centrist position leaving no one happy and everyone happy. those who support this monument do so because your values have been rewarded, those who oppose it are crying foul because their values have been superceded. accusing republicans of stalling is disingenuous because democrats are equally guilty re the wilderness process - could have been settled years ago but the stalling tactics employed by environmental groups (democrat support) knew the longer the process, the more likely larger tracts of land could be won as attitudes and values changed over time from ranching/logging to recreation tourism. both sides have employed tactics to accomplish their goals and values. let the process continue on. its messy. its maddeningly slow. so what? I believe that the end result will be better than allowing one person to reward/penalize or build legacy or whatever only to have a subsequent one person to rescind/revise.


How long was the PLI in process? What tangible result did it produce? Do you think the Antiquities Act was a frivolous thing, or a necessary response to lack of action by Congress to protect artifacts that had suffered decades of theft and destruction?


----------



## Vanilla

Hey paddler, 

Have you ever even been to the BENM area? Because it's not exactly like the designation has opened up any opportunities for the public on those lands. They were always public, and will remain so even without a designation. The vast majority of those supporting this designation have never even been there. I did appreciate the Tribune link you posted though. I actually agreed with much of it. I especially liked the part that concedes that President Obama waiting as long as he did was in part to avoid negative election results. If these monuments are as popular as you claim, why would that have to be the case? 

You can continue to sling as much mud at me as you'd like, but there is only one of two of us that has ever actively colluded with other individuals to try and restrict other hunters from hunting the areas you wanted to hunt yourself on public lands. And spoiler alert for those following along at home: that person was not me! In fact, you even put the plan in writing and tried to keep it secret by threatening people with legal action if they disclosed it to others without your permission. Yep, I remember those days well...

You say you only want facts, well, there you have some facts. 

I will continue to advocate for the public's ability to utilize public lands. That has been a fight I've been involved with for many years. I will also advocate for the proper constitutional powers and restraints with the government. It just so happens those two subjects intersect on this one. And luckily, they are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## colorcountrygunner

Vanilla said:


> Hey paddler,
> 
> Have you ever even been to the BENM area? Because it's not exactly like the designation has opened up any opportunities for the public on those lands. They were always public, and will remain so even without a designation. The vast majority of those supporting this designation have never even been there. I did appreciate the Tribune link you posted though. I actually agreed with much of it. I especially liked the part that concedes that President Obama waiting as long as he did was in part to avoid negative election results. If these monuments are as popular as you claim, why would that have to be the case?
> 
> You can continue to sling as much mud at me as you'd like, but there is only one of two of us that has ever actively colluded with other individuals to try and restrict other hunters from hunting the areas you wanted to hunt yourself on public lands. And spoiler alert for those following along at home: that person was not me! In fact, you even put the plan in writing and tried to keep it secret by threatening people with legal action if they disclosed it to others without your permission. Yep, I remember those days well...
> 
> You say you only want facts, well, there you have some facts.
> 
> I will continue to advocate for the public's ability to utilize public lands. That has been a fight I've been involved with for many years. I will also advocate for the proper constitutional powers and restraints with the government. It just so happens those two subjects intersect on this one. And luckily, they are not mutually exclusive.


Be right back! I'm off to stock up on some Orville Redenbacher!


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> Hey paddler,
> 
> Have you ever even been to the BENM area? Because it's not exactly like the designation has opened up any opportunities for the public on those lands. They were always public, and will remain so even without a designation. The vast majority of those supporting this designation have never even been there. I did appreciate the Tribune link you posted though. I actually agreed with much of it. I especially liked the part that concedes that President Obama waiting as long as he did was in part to avoid negative election results. If these monuments are as popular as you claim, why would that have to be the case?
> 
> You can continue to sling as much mud at me as you'd like, but there is only one of two of us that has ever actively colluded with other individuals to try and restrict other hunters from hunting the areas you wanted to hunt yourself on public lands. And spoiler alert for those following along at home: that person was not me! In fact, you even put the plan in writing and tried to keep it secret by threatening people with legal action if they disclosed it to others without your permission. Yep, I remember those days well...
> 
> You say you only want facts, well, there you have some facts.
> 
> I will continue to advocate for the public's ability to utilize public lands. That has been a fight I've been involved with for many years. I will also advocate for the proper constitutional powers and restraints with the government. It just so happens those two subjects intersect on this one. And luckily, they are not mutually exclusive.


Yep, spent some time in that area many years ago on a limited entry deer hunt. Camped in the shadow of the Ears. I just don't understand why you use straw man arguments so frequently, maybe you watched "The Wizard of Oz" too many times combined with repetitive head trauma? NM designation merely prevents further development while preserving traditional uses of the land. Your saying that the designation hasn't "opened up any opportunities for the public on those lands" is apropos of absolutely nothing.

The assertion in your second paragraph is stretching the truth a bit, don't you think? Since you brought it up, I'll allow you to elaborate so that others may judge its veracity for themselves. I don't remember threatening anybody with legal action, not my style. I was threatened with legal action over my proposal and the ensuing debate, which I thought humorous. I'm pretty sure I still have the document you referenced. Perhaps we should revisit the topic? Should I post it up for further discussion?

Opinion polls are all over the place on Bears Ears, and have fluctuated over time. Not sure what the current numbers are, in Utah and nationally. History tells us that approval will only increase over time, much as has happened in the GSNM. Do you have any reliable, recent data?


----------



## paddler

Seems like any optimism for the Trump administration was unfounded. Four articles in the Trib today. First is about Drill, Baby, Drill:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/5445173-155/trumps-blm-plans-oil-and-gas

Next up is about the environment, and pesticides that can adversely affect the young, and Scott Pruitt:

http://www.sltrib.com/home/5450482-155/epa-chief-met-with-dow-ceo

Next is action by the White House to allow pollution of our streams:

http://www.sltrib.com/home/5450647-155/trump-administration-moves-to-withdraw-clean-water

Deleted story not related to the outdoors. Administrator


----------



## LostLouisianian

Hmmmm an ultra liberal quoting news stories out of the ultra liberal Salt Lake Trib.....now there's a shocker.


----------



## bowgy

LostLouisianian said:


> Hmmmm an ultra liberal quoting news stories out of the ultra liberal Salt Lake Trib.....now there's a shocker.


Hey now, I trust the Trib as much as I do CNN....... oh wait..... uuuhhh.. never mind:-?


----------



## paddler

So, are you saying the reports are false? The story about leasing near Dinosaur NM and the San Rafael Swell are by Brian Maffley, the others are from the Washington Post and the AP. Looks like y'all prefer Fox? You'll be in good company with Hair Boy now. Or is Briebart your paragon of journalistic integrity?


----------



## Kwalk3

Paddler, the 1st 3 links you posted are relevant and concerning. Maffly is a pretty straight shooter and has been a good voice for sportsmen on several different issues regarding public land, water, and access.

The last link, comments, and "hair boy" retort, while amusing, do absolutely nothing to further constructive discussion with folks who disagree with you politically on many OTHER issues not pertaining to the outdoors. This SHOULD be common ground for sportsmen. Why not focus on that?

Or did I miss something and the story about the false _Time_ covers is actually about a covert ploy to further pillage our public lands by the evil(TIC) republicans?

It's ok though. I honestly don't think you can help yourself.

Anyways, thanks for posting the 1st 3 links. Always good to stay apprised of issues with potential to harm our ability to enjoy public lands and waters.

Also, to the others that are dismissing the information found in the links above due to them being from the Trib, I also think that is an incorrect way of approaching an issue.

Take each article for what it's worth instead of just assuming it's a partisan hit piece. To me, Maffly has been pretty fair, and it's good to have a voice that is willing to relay information regarding public lands and access.

Clean air, water, conservation of wildlife and wild places are not partisan issues. They affect all of us and no matter where you fall on other issues.


----------



## paddler

We'll just have to agree to disagree, Kwalk. The dishonesty exhibited by Trump with his fake Time cover tells us all we need to know about his lack of character. He is absolutely devoid of integrity, and that flaw influences his actions in all aspects of his life. He values nothing that doesn't benefit him directly, it's no wonder that his attempts to erase Obama's legacy will include listing areas for oil and gas leasing that were taken off the table by his predecessor, and undoing the rules protecting our streams that Obama enacted.

As for Hair Boy, you'll remember he was part of our congressional delegation that unanimously wrote Trump asking him to reduce or rescind Bears Ears, and while in office did absolutely nothing to protect our public lands. Good riddance. These good ol boys, Lost and bowgy, insulted the Trib's verity, it's ironic that Chaffetz is now going to Fox, whose credibility is zero except in the far right bubble. Nothing happens in a vacuum, I just provide context.


----------



## wyogoob

LostLouisianian said:


> Hmmmm an ultra liberal quoting news stories out of the ultra liberal Salt Lake Trib.....now there's a shocker.


Shouldn't "ultra liberal" be hyphanated?

Keep the discussion outdoor related or I'll move this to the Recipe Section.

thanks

.


----------



## Kwalk3

wyogoob said:


> Shouldn't "ultra liberal" be hyphanated?
> 
> Keep the discussion outdoor related or I'll move this to the Recipe Section.
> 
> thanks
> 
> .


Speaking of recipes, what's for dinner?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Daisy

*The latest from Zinke*

http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...cle_b23c88b3-b109-5bff-a580-ac52f802ba43.html


----------



## Kwalk3

Not Zinke's most Teddy-like moment here......






Background information for the Wilderness area which would be gaining access for the first time.

http://www.trcp.org/2017/07/20/sportsmen-remain-locked-thousands-acres-public-land-new-mexico/


----------



## #1DEER 1-I

Kwalk3 said:


> Not Zinke's most Teddy-like moment here......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Background information for the Wilderness area which would be gaining access for the first time.
> 
> http://www.trcp.org/2017/07/20/sportsmen-remain-locked-thousands-acres-public-land-new-mexico/


It actually stands quite in opposition of everything Roosevelt stood for. I love that an Administration and guy who said local voices would be heard is asked "have you been there?......" and Zinke turns up crickets. So far Zinke has had very selective hearing and only heard the voices he's wanted to hear. And they've all whispered in his ear....development, money, oil, gas, mining, to hell with wildlife, wilderness and habitat. Zinke stance and blubbering on this is inexcusable. This is being DONATED to you, the ones donating such a valuable asset should be able to set the terms of the donation. Zinke makes no sense here, a parking lot? Really Zinke? Obviously a parking lot can happen but it's inexcusable to keep this area landlocked for no reason whatsoever.


----------



## Daisy

*Politics are ugly*

https://www.adn.com/politics/2017/0...e-could-have-energy-repercussions-for-alaska/


----------



## paddler

Daisy said:


> https://www.adn.com/politics/2017/0...e-could-have-energy-repercussions-for-alaska/


Yep. Anybody still optimistic about Zinke? That's coercion, abuse of power, etc. Zinke, "Lisa, I know you need help from the administration with those projects we talked about. No can do, babe, given your refusal to harm your constituents." Not sure I see a connection between Interior Department cooperation with Alaska and health care..........................................................................................


----------



## wyogoob

paddler said:


> Yep. Anybody still optimistic about Zinke? That's coercion, abuse of power, etc. Zinke, "Lisa, I know you need help from the administration with those projects we talked about. No can do, babe, given your refusal to harm your constituents." Not sure I see a connection between Interior Department cooperation with Alaska and health care................................................................................


Stay on course please. Keep it outdoor related.

.


----------



## paddler

wyogoob said:


> Stay on course please. Keep it outdoor related.
> 
> .


Ahh, that was the best part! Now everybody's going to wonder what I said.

Zinke's part of this administration and his call to Murkowski was doing Trump's bidding. ............................ That's just weird, even unprecedented. No cause for optimism, IMO.


----------



## wyogoob

paddler said:


> Ahh, that was the best part! Now everybody's going to wonder what I said.
> 
> Zinke's part of this administration and his call to Murkowski was doing Trump's bidding. ............................ That's just weird, even unprecedented. No cause for optimism, IMO.


For the last time; keep it outdoor related.

If you feel the need to piss and moan about a moderator's decision please do it in a PM as dictated in the forum rules.

A bit of advice Jon: the worst thing you can do on the forum is to post back up that a moderator has edited.

.


----------



## paddler

Goob, I wasn't being critical of your edit, that's your call and I respect that. I was just saying that others might have enjoyed the rest of that post.

The original question posed by the OP asked if we had any cause for optimism regarding Zinke's appointment. I will remind folks here that I responded early on in the negative. Actions speak louder than platitudes.


----------



## wyogoob

*RUCrazy?*



paddler said:


> Goob, I wasn't being critical of your edit, that's your call and I respect that. I was just saying that others might have enjoyed the rest of that post.
> 
> The original question posed by the OP asked if we had any cause for optimism regarding Zinke's appointment. I will remind folks here that I responded early on in the negative. Actions speak louder than platitudes.


OK, thanks for the feedback. I'm picking on Teddy Roosevelt Progressives this week so please follow the rules.

Uh...are you a car salesman or real estate broker? nevermind

.


----------



## paddler

Zinke's calls to Alaska's senators merited mention in Colbert's monologue tonight. Funny stuff.

I'm not either of the professions mentioned above. Just a small town guy trying to do good.


----------



## paddler

*Jewel's Op Ed*

Anybody see this? Cause for optimism. Note the difference in Jewell's approach to the monument compared to Zinke's. Glad he's gone, what a jerk.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2019/03/22/tribes-will-win-their/


----------

