New York Times on Zinke
- Thread starter Southern Elk
- Start date
Hatchie Dawg
Well-known member
Socialist rags, but I agree with some of the sentiment in this case.
HD
HD
elkduds
Well-known member
Spot on. Got me thinking of who the Centennial State has contributed to the nation as Secretaries of the interior. Worst so far was James Watt/Reagan. Next worst Gale Norton for GW Bush, went straight to work for big oil/gas when unappointed, as did Watt. Most invisible was Ken Salazar. Don't know about Worth for Harding.
Last edited:
Northwoods Labs
Well-known member
The guy who wrote this is a pretty solid writer in terms of conservation. I know many have recommended his book and it is a great read: https://www.amazon.com/Big-Burn-Teddy-Roosevelt-America/dp/0547394608/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1516467184&sr=8-1&keywords=timothy+egan+the+big+burn
Lonesome_God_outdoors
Active member
That's a good book
rtraverdavis
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2016
- Messages
- 4,078
I mostly agree with you, but it's often the stuff that draws people in nowadays. We live in the age of hyperbole. But, maybe, appropriately so. Hyperbole seems needed to grab the attention of many people, as so much is competing for it. I mean, think of everything that's happening in the world, and the fact that we, on these glowing machines, can be exposed to it all in an instant. It's overwhelming.
If it takes an article like that to bring more folks to take an interest in our public lands, so be it.
Drama sells. I believe this type of adverse rant style "opinion" pieces (typical opinion column style) pulls in the people who are already in opposition of Zinke ---> Trump ---> Republican and also those who are mindless, internet info is always right. I also believe to those who have chosen to stay off the partisan R or D tickets... they do so because they lack trust in such hyperbole. These people are usually put off by such with deep confirmed suspicion.
I believe the purpose of opinion columns and the Mark style thread pieces on this forum are classic political means to keep tbe "troops" excited / on course. Prime examples, NRA Obama will take all your guns if elected... PETA, etc. The reason "KoolAid" became a popular term.
rtraverdavis
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2016
- Messages
- 4,078
I know, and drama usually makes me sceptical. I’m just saying that, with all the noise out there I’m not surprised that someone advocating for public lands would raise their voice to the banshee level of that kind of drama. It’s annoying to me, but seems like the only thing resonates with some people—not all of whom I believe are mindless.
You have a point. Some people, I imagine, who are rather intelligent, may not really be on the side of public lands, for one reason or another. Those people might just have not yet realized the implications of the land transfer notion and when they come across more charged and widely circulated opinion pieces might take a second or two to think about it more. The end result being good in this case, hopefully.
Though, even for good causes, it can be a slippery slope to compromise the means to the end, in terms of the total context of ethics and complete truthfulness.
Absolutely! The only place to get REAL unbiased opinions is from FOX News or Breitbart News.
OriginalOscar
Active member
Absolutely! The only place to get REAL unbiased opinions is from FOX News or Breitbart News.
New year miracle. You now get it!!
PaulRevere
Well-known member
I'm a little late to the party here..but as a big fan of public lands and a fan of Tim Egan, I thought his opinion article was exactly the kind of thing people need to be reading. I especially appreciated his honest and blunt assessment of Zinke. He's trash and Tim Egan spelled it out nicely for folks that might not know otherwise.
So am I the odd man out being pro public lands and multiple use of these same public lands? I like coal power plants that take up one square mile, and hunting sharptails on reclaimed coal mine lands vs all these miles and miles of windmills on the eastern plains that are popping up everywhere. I like heating my home with natural gas and shooting one of my best bucks of a well pad in GMU 21. Sorry but I've been to the middle east in the Army and would much rather see oil produced at home. I'd like to see Americans logging the forest and letting some sunlight hit the ground rather bringing in wood from Canada. But to a lot of folks here all that is the wrong way of thinking, even though they use these products produced on public lands.
I'd rather not loose any public land acreage, keep it all and buy more I say!, but I also would rather not lock it all up either. And seeing so many hunters get in bed with groups and/or politicians that absolutely hate the idea of hunting because they believe in such extreme "no use" or very limited use of public lands is something I just cant comprehend
I'd rather not loose any public land acreage, keep it all and buy more I say!, but I also would rather not lock it all up either. And seeing so many hunters get in bed with groups and/or politicians that absolutely hate the idea of hunting because they believe in such extreme "no use" or very limited use of public lands is something I just cant comprehend
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Why is it so hard to realize that we can't simply drill our way to energy independence? Oil is a global commodity and if you like this whole free market thing, and don't want to go all commie like Venezuela, then you have to realize that if Saudi Arabia wants to under sell us they will, and it doesn't matter how many more wells you drill the market will still decide where the oil comes from.
True it is a global commodity, but if we let OPEC remain the primary producers we remain under they’re thumb. Now when OPEC meets to cut production it has little affect on the market because we can pick up the slack in production which is where I feel we should be.
Sorry, but my time in uniform spent in “shithole” countries that produce oil formed my opinion on this and you won’t be able to convince me otherwise issue
Sorry, but my time in uniform spent in “shithole” countries that produce oil formed my opinion on this and you won’t be able to convince me otherwise issue
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
The quantity and influence of entities who believe in "extreme 'no use' or very limited use" is miniscule in comparison to the quantity and influence of entities who believe in maximum resource extraction, development, and/or privatization of public lands. 'Just sayin'.
Zach
Well-known member
I think perspective dictates your theory, just sayin...
Similar threads
