This whole post is hypothetical at this point as nothing has passed into law.
(FYI- There is another page that didn't load. It has another BH-DL project)
Interior Secretary Order 3388 was actually implemented under Trump's previous admin. That was my point. I think it certainly makes it more possible than gun grabs or hunting bans on all public lands. There doesn't have to be a law if it is going to be done by order. Ironically, what you have to hope for is some left-leaning group to take it to court and have the judge, after reversal of the Chevron Deference, try to figure out how to interpret the Great American Outdoors Act. Politics makes strange bedfellows.
Are they not all ready doing hunting bans why do you ignore that so much colorado is going to loose cat hunting your home state lost spring bear from a anti hunting commision put in place by a Democrat governor
In any federalist system or the federalist system we live in? I can agree you make a decent point if things work as they should. But that is a bit of Fantasyland at this point. It seems willing buyer, willing seller should prevail.
State level. I have voiced my opinion on both issues in emails and with my pocketbook. But cougars are within the trust run for the citizens of Colorado. I fight the WA fight as best I can. I get another bite at that apple in November. Most of this isn't a "Democrat initiative". It's a few left-wing activist groups that have figured out a way to wiggle their way into the system because hunters weren't paying attention.
Maybe if the federal govt spent less time dictating from DC with coastal non-profits in their ear, and more time working with rural locals figuring out how to make the lives of rural folks better it wouldn't be so hard. Maybe there is a good reason the fed govt is hated in flyover country. I am not willing on this issue, or just about any other, to prefer dictating for personal preference expediency over building longterm social buy-in from the most effected.
That is all it takes .....& the rest of us are stuck with the result of a few "useful idiots" actions for years to come.
It cuts both ways. Party A wins with lots of "mainstream" support, but lots of shoe leather and donation$$ burned by smallish group of extremists that helped the win that results in administration positions rewarding those few - and as a needle in a bureaucracy haystack of 3 million they can make a lot of hay with little visibility or oversight. Same happens if Party B wins.
Nothing wrong with having state and local officials having their questions and concerns answered when doing these projects. It actually strengthens the project. Every Montana Forest Legacy project I was a committee member on, this was standard practice. Also why many of these projects were ranked number 1 priority in the nation.
I didn't spend much time on google, but the second item said it had been changed. Must be true if it is on the internet.
I strongly agree with what you are saying here, with the caveat that money also speaks very loudly and disproportionately in our politics and is reflected in our government, particularly in the wake of Citizen's United.
Again, we take this discussion well past the intent of the post. Enjoyable for you and I, but I should stay on topic. I don't think any governor or local board should have ultimate decision on whether the government can purchase, for permanent conservation, a piece of property. Too many politicians looking to make a name for themselves will subvert the process.
I'm not excusing anyone of anything. Stop trying to deflect blame. It's no different than citizens that didn't show up at the polls in 2016 and ended up with our current SCOTUS. Pay attention and keep paying attention. You have one outlet - Your VOTE. But even then, you probably aren't going to find someone that aligns with you 100%. I get it. It's hard. work, kids, etc. I have to sort through 11 candidates for (edited) Senator. One has an official name of Goodspaceguy (prefers republican) and has run for office 25 times. Says he is from Minnesota. Probably knows Vikingsguy.
How is it not a Democrat initiative your governor literally appointed anti hunters to your game commision and shut down spring bear even with plenty of science to back up the need to harvest bears. You will continue to lose hunting in Washington year after year and then say it's because not enough sportsman engaged which doesn't matter when you have a anti hunting governor in your state as washington and colorado do
There is no doubt money talks in all walks of life, but from a political fund raising perspective there is a lot more, party/candidate/advocates decide their positions and policy wish list, and after that becomes clear $$$ donors give to party/candidates/advocates that have already chosen issues aligned with $$$$'s preference, than the implied objection that folks are buying govt. i.e., party/advocates change their mind for a payoff. So, money doesn't shape positions, it flows to them. And for the most part it evens out on a left/right basis these days. But political fund raising deserves a whole other thread (which I will not start due to BF's ask).
Anti hunting is not, nor has ever been on the Democrat platform. Hunting still has a lot of public support in WA, which is heavily blue. I am well aware of the situation in WA. I have hope, but it will not come without some work.
But let's be honest - for those who are anti-hunting and get themselves appointed to govt positions, they are 95+% likely to be from one side of the aisle. On the other side of the problem, 75+% of the other side of the aisle will side with the anti-access crowd at the drop of a hat. We need both - access and the right to hunt - either is diminished without the other.
Had to tweak a couple of things above, but absolutely. I just don't think you should define a party (or any group) my a minority interest. The debate is what size is the minority. I think anti-hunters make up a much smaller % than anti-federal land crowd. You can't find much anti-hunting on the official Dem platform. Federal land transfer was explicitly stated on the GOP platform until Trump rewrote it into its 2024 form (which lacks a lot of detail).
To be clear, I am not trying to define a party (or any group). I am trying to predict actual policy choices likely to be taken by officials in office, legislative votes cast or bureaucratic decisions in the field. From that viewpoint the results of our votes for party A or party B have absolutely translated to fairly predictable outcomes for the last 20 years regardless of whether any DNC/RNC pundits typed it into a platform document almost no-one reads. Again, I have zero interest in defining either party or giving any attention to white papers and platform documents - the real world actions make the consequences of our votes much clearer than platform tea leave reading ever could.
