SD's Thune picked to head Senate

[Bonasababy]

What do folks that know him think--will he stand up to Trumps 2025 plan to decimate/sell public lands? From what I have seen from afar he may not be as loony as some in his party and is a classic politician but hasn't been terribly friendly to sportsmen or public lands.

 

[SAJ-99]

Looking less crazy is a pretty low bar these days. We will quickly find out. The time of just accusing the government of reckless spending is gone now that he has to increase the debt ceiling and vote on the budget.

 

[Djfan]

Not sure how I feel about this. He doesn't come across as a guy who is out to cooperate with the incoming administration.

 

[jimh406]

The majority leader's job is to help get the President's agenda passed. If he doesn't work on that, he's probably not going to keep his job.

That being said, Project 2025 is not Trump's platform. Trump's platform is posted on his website. Public land is not mentioned on it.

However, Trump has said in the past that he doesn't like the idea of public land sales in interviews.

 

[SAJ-99]

He doesn't come across as a guy who is out to cooperate with the incoming administration.

Cooperate in what way? He said publicly he is on board. Maybe he realizes he represents one of the least populated states by density. Lots of rural areas. This means schools and hospitals are spread out, resulting in a need for federal funds to keep them running. The national party is trying to shoot that cash cow. Again, talk is cheap, particularly when you know your ideas will never get implemented and you will never see any real consequences. Reality sucks.

 

[twodogs]

The majority leader's job is to help get the President's agenda passed. If he doesn't work on that, he's probably not going to keep his job.

That being said, Project 2025 is not Trump's platform. Trump's platform is posted on his website. Public land is not mentioned on it.

However, Trump has said in the past that he doesn't like the idea of public land sales in interviews.

Lordy. Project 2025 is alive and well, given that he's brought on many of the people that authored it. It may not be mentioned on his platform, but I can assure you the mechanics of it are already in motion. I'll be forever pleased to be proven wrong, but I have my doubts about it. Personally I believe that 100% tariffs, firing half the federal government, and selling off federal lands, are bad ideas, but the wisdom of the American people has decided otherwise, and who am I to argue with that?

 

[grizzly_]

but the wisdom of the American people has decided otherwise, and who am I to argue with that?

I feel like our country was built on arguing for your opinion, even if it's unpopular.

 

[WYelker]

Haha. I Yet to see anything at all from Trump over the last 8 years of his political career, suggesting that he is going to massively sell off public lands. Can anyone show me where this has been mentioned, hinted at by Trump?

As for the DOGE, I cant wait. There is so much waste in Government. I am not sure it will be 50% RIF. But there is a huge room for improvement. Hell just in education alone we can save a crap ton. Nothing would be better than seeing the department of education reduced by 70% and sending all the money wasted at the federal level to the states for hiring teachers, improving salaries, and allowing the local schools to meet the needs of local students.

 

[Carnage2011]

What do folks that know him think--will he stand up to Trumps 2025 plan to decimate/sell public lands? From what I have seen from afar he may not be as loony as some in his party and is a classic politician but hasn't been terribly friendly to sportsmen or public lands.

If I remember correctly Trump expanded hunting opportunities on federal lands during his first run. Trump has no plans to decimate/sell public lands. I know you have a hard time wrapping your head around that though.

 

[Ben Lamb]

If I remember correctly Trump expanded hunting opportunities on federal lands during his first run. Trump has no plans to decimate/sell public lands. I know you have a hard time wrapping your head around that though.

FYI, Most presidents have done this since Bush II. It's been SOP to open those refuges & such when called for and the resource could bear it.

The real issue here is management plans and monument reduction. If he follow suit from the previous term then we can expect far less wildlife habitat protection and more development of those lands, while reducing the conservation footprint substantially.


Out of the three, Thune was the best choice.

 

[SAJ-99]

Haha. I Yet to see anything at all from Trump over the last 8 years of his political career, suggesting that he is going to massively sell off public lands. Can anyone show me where this has been mentioned, hinted at by Trump?

As for the DOGE, I cant wait. There is so much waste in Government. I am not sure it will be 50% RIF. But there is a huge room for improvement. Hell just in education alone we save a crap ton. Nothing would be better than seeing the department of education reduced by 70% and sending all the money wasted at the federal level to the states for hiring teachers, improving salaries, and allowing the local schools to meet the needs of local students.

Trump isn't the immediate threat. The Utah case is in SCOTUS hands. But Trump rewrote the Republican Platform to include this. Selling off "limited portions" of Federal lands to build homes is the first step in creating a transactional system to further dispose of those lands to large natural resource producers.

1. Housing Affordability

To help new home buyers, Republicans will reduce mortgage rates by slashing Inflation, open limited portions of Federal Lands to allow for new home construction, promote homeownership through Tax Incentives and support for first-time buyers, and cut unnecessary Regulations that raise housing costs.


Honestly, I can't wait for DOGE too. Let's get at it. I can't wait to see the list of cuts and the machinations done to get to some semblance of balance in the budget. I will bet the tax cuts get done before the expense cuts, and the promise of no changes to SS or Medicare would need to be the first promise to be broken.

 

[WYelker]

FYI, Most presidents have done this since Bush II. It's been SOP to open those refuges & such when called for and the resource could bear it.

The real issue here is management plans and monument reduction. If he follow suit from the previous term then we can expect far less wildlife habitat protection and more development of those lands, while reducing the conservation footprint substantially.


Out of the three, Thune was the best choice.

HAHA. I am all for monument reduction. All federal lands should be multiuse. Best of all would be making a move to get ride of the WSA created by the dems. The vast majority of them are not wilderness areas and would never qualify as such. We have all sorts of good wildlife and great wildlands lands under multiuse designations. It does not take a wilderness or monument designation.

 

[Carnage2011]

FYI, Most presidents have done this since Bush II. It's been SOP to open those refuges & such when called for and the resource could bear it.

The real issue here is management plans and monument reduction. If he follow suit from the previous term then we can expect far less wildlife habitat protection and more development of those lands, while reducing the conservation footprint substantially.


Out of the three, Thune was the best choice.

I agree with most of your post. I also think that a lot of these actions come when one party acts in reverse. I.e. Bears ears declaration as Obama was headed out the door.

How do Hunttalkers feel about all the BS with the Feds (under the Biden admin) closing down hunting opportunities for sheep in AK even thought the state game agency disagreed with it?

Both sides suck in their own way. One thinks the Feds do a poor job of managing land, the other likes to overreach to achieve their agenda.

Im not a fan of the idea of the land transfer. However, if we look at Alaska, it seems as though most of their issues are directly related to the Feds being involved.

 

[elkduds]

I feel like our country was built on arguing for your opinion, even if it's unpopular.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I agree with most of your post. I also think that a lot of these actions come when one party acts in reverse. I.e. Bears ears declaration as Obama was headed out the door.

How do Hunttalkers feel about all the BS with the Feds (under the Biden admin) closing down hunting opportunities for sheep in AK even thought the state game agency disagreed with it?

Both sides suck in their own way. One thinks the Feds do a poor job of managing land, the other likes to overreach to achieve their agenda.

Im not a fan of the idea of the land transfer. However, if we look at Alaska, it seems as though most of their issues are directly related to the Feds being involved.

Agree with all of that.

The key is that we start acting like Americans instead of partisans and there has to be better coordination between agencies, etc. A big part of the issue w/federal land mgt is also longevity in place for employees rather than racing to get to the division administrator.

There are no shortages of problems with how we manage lands but I prefer an approach that lifts us all rather than one that just keeps us angry at each other.

 

[Ben Lamb]

HAHA. I am all for monument reduction. All federal lands should be multiuse. Best of all would be making a move to get ride of the WSA created by the dems. The vast majority of them are not wilderness areas and would never qualify as such. We have all sorts of good wildlife and great wildlands lands under multiuse designations. It does not take a wilderness or monument designation.

If that were the case, then Seedskadee would look like the anticline, and the Elk Refuge would look like Hoback Junction. Wyoming benefits significantly from her protected federal lands. Lord knows what the Pathfinder NWR would end up like.

 

[Carnage2011]

Agree with all of that.

The key is that we start acting like Americans instead of partisans and there has to be better coordination between agencies, etc. A big part of the issue w/federal land mgt is also longevity in place for employees rather than racing to get to the division administrator.

There are no shortages of problems with how we manage lands but I prefer an approach that lifts us all rather than one that just keeps us angry at each other.

Well said.