Ted Cruz - Selling of Federal Land(s)
- Thread starter JMG
- Start date
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
hank4elk, I completely agree with your assessment of Cruz.
I do apologize if you are offended by the reference to "Clive".
However, as a Vietnam veteran, Montana Army Guard member, and military man for thirty years, when hearing rhetoric about homegrown militia "revolutions" characterized by 2nd amendment zealots taking up arms (mostly of the 30-06 variety) to "defeat" the US military and take back the country ... the naivety is appalling to me and significantly reduces respect for the source of the rhetoric.
Rhetoric such as
I do apologize if you are offended by the reference to "Clive".
However, as a Vietnam veteran, Montana Army Guard member, and military man for thirty years, when hearing rhetoric about homegrown militia "revolutions" characterized by 2nd amendment zealots taking up arms (mostly of the 30-06 variety) to "defeat" the US military and take back the country ... the naivety is appalling to me and significantly reduces respect for the source of the rhetoric.
Rhetoric such as
Nameless Range
Well-known member
I would agree that there is an inherent risk to being a one issue voter. The issue of abortion is surely a hot-button one that complicates things. In my experience however, when people are pushed to define words like "children" and "murder" and justify those definitions with compelling criteria, all we will ever find is a gray area, and definitions and criteria that, if allowed into thought experiments, lead to very disturbing conclusions.
But even if we grant the clear Deontological Ethics(often sourced in Divine Command Theory) of those vehemently opposed to abortion, things do not necessarily become clearer. What if a case can be made that more children worldwide would suffer or be "murdered" under one candidate as opposed to another regardless of those candidate's stances on abortion? What if one's moral code takes into account ethical decisions that will effect those humans who will exist generations from now? The issue of abortion becomes far less significant if we grant those two considerations. Ultimately, one can find abortion to be a bad thing, even an abhorrent thing, and still come to the conclusion that voting a candidate on that issue alone would be a worse thing.
To have such discussions pertaining to the controversial topic of abortion and to have those discussions be fruitful, individuals need to be able to define their own moral codes from the ground up, which I would argue: Most have not taken the time to do,and those that have would need thousands upon thousands of words to present, flesh out, and defend their premises. Philosophers get complicated on the issue, ultimately arriving in the gray area of life, which is not conducive to screaming "murder", or "my body, my rights".
But to the OP. Cruz is a tool. Plain and simple. I worry though, that those in the GOP who support the sale and/or transfer of public lands are in fact not the fringe, they are the base. When it comes to the electorate it is debatable I guess, but when it comes to those who are elected into office, it is the moderates who are the fringe now. We can base this largely on the structure of primaries. I hope there is a movement in the other direction from within the GOP, I just don't see any evidence of it yet.
But even if we grant the clear Deontological Ethics(often sourced in Divine Command Theory) of those vehemently opposed to abortion, things do not necessarily become clearer. What if a case can be made that more children worldwide would suffer or be "murdered" under one candidate as opposed to another regardless of those candidate's stances on abortion? What if one's moral code takes into account ethical decisions that will effect those humans who will exist generations from now? The issue of abortion becomes far less significant if we grant those two considerations. Ultimately, one can find abortion to be a bad thing, even an abhorrent thing, and still come to the conclusion that voting a candidate on that issue alone would be a worse thing.
To have such discussions pertaining to the controversial topic of abortion and to have those discussions be fruitful, individuals need to be able to define their own moral codes from the ground up, which I would argue: Most have not taken the time to do,and those that have would need thousands upon thousands of words to present, flesh out, and defend their premises. Philosophers get complicated on the issue, ultimately arriving in the gray area of life, which is not conducive to screaming "murder", or "my body, my rights".
But to the OP. Cruz is a tool. Plain and simple. I worry though, that those in the GOP who support the sale and/or transfer of public lands are in fact not the fringe, they are the base. When it comes to the electorate it is debatable I guess, but when it comes to those who are elected into office, it is the moderates who are the fringe now. We can base this largely on the structure of primaries. I hope there is a movement in the other direction from within the GOP, I just don't see any evidence of it yet.
Last edited:
None taken really,I'm a 74' graduate of the same school....
Thank you for your service! Funny,no one said that to me back then...
My comment was they know there are how many million weapons in the hands of millions of Americans and anyone with half a brain knows that's a force to be reconed with.
Bundy and those types he had there(he is welfare rancher and a coward) are nuts of the sort you describe.
Not entirely true. Congress has abdicated certain times when the executive can do so. The Durfee Hills land exchange, and many others, are done without congressional approval.
smarandr
Well-known member
Thought you were way out in left field on that one, but just did a little looking and was surprised to see he's what I would call a moderate on that issue.
Forerunner
New member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
- Messages
- 10
Gerald Martin, thanks for your honest and thoughtful contributions to this discussion. Your dilemma is the same as mine, and I would guess many others on this forum who appreciate the outdoors with the understanding of it having being created by God for man. The North American Model of conservation is quite unique, and I believe can only have come from a society which honored the Judeo-Christian understanding that we are created in God's image and are also to be faithful stewards of the land, for purposes which most-benefit mankind. On the current political scene we seem to now be faced with a choice between one group which will likely not make for the best stewards of the land, and the other which does not seem to regard unborn human life as valuable. It is truly a disordered world in which we live.
Forerunner
New member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
- Messages
- 10
Enough of my pontificating. I have a few questions that the better-informed might be able to answer.
1. Is it possible that the current push from those in the Republican party for state control/selling of public lands is primarily a response to such things as overreach by EPA, and the current administration’s stance against the development of natural resources on public lands? If so, perhaps there will not be a push to sell the lands if such policies can be amended?
2. Are there ways for private companies to responsibly extract valuable natural resources from public lands, or will such utilization always result in the irreversible destruction of those lands?
3. Are there any current examples of lands being utilized for natural resources that also keep in balance such things as current/future wildlife populations, habitat improvement projects, and the return of previously utilized lands to a natural setting?
1. Is it possible that the current push from those in the Republican party for state control/selling of public lands is primarily a response to such things as overreach by EPA, and the current administration’s stance against the development of natural resources on public lands? If so, perhaps there will not be a push to sell the lands if such policies can be amended?
2. Are there ways for private companies to responsibly extract valuable natural resources from public lands, or will such utilization always result in the irreversible destruction of those lands?
3. Are there any current examples of lands being utilized for natural resources that also keep in balance such things as current/future wildlife populations, habitat improvement projects, and the return of previously utilized lands to a natural setting?
jryoung
Well-known member
1. Energy development on Public land is at it's highest level since the 70's. Oil and Gas imports are at a 20 year low. Renewable energy installations have also expanded. I'm not sure how you formed the opinion that the current admin is against development of natural resources. The sounds bites might say that, but the statistics say different. One of the driving factors though for the GOP to push this was the very high cost of oil a couple of years ago that really kicked off the movement. The current price of oil changes the economics significantly.
2. Yes, proactive real time approaches to limit the impact can be implemented. However, it costs money to do that, money cuts into margins, and investors want margins. As an employee in the energy industry we are always seeking the biggest project possible, they yield the highest return. Further, setting aside funds for clean up afterwards would also be valuable to preserving the integrity of the landscape instead of the tax payer footing the bill.
3. Surely yes, but I don't have many off the top of my head.
2. Yes, proactive real time approaches to limit the impact can be implemented. However, it costs money to do that, money cuts into margins, and investors want margins. As an employee in the energy industry we are always seeking the biggest project possible, they yield the highest return. Further, setting aside funds for clean up afterwards would also be valuable to preserving the integrity of the landscape instead of the tax payer footing the bill.
3. Surely yes, but I don't have many off the top of my head.
Last edited:
The wording of this question, especially the last part, assumes that the land highly impacted by the extraction of the natural resources as in mining or oil and gas. That is not the case for all 'natural resources'. Taking that bias out of the question, I'd say the first portions of the question aptly describe a large portion of the federal lands in this country. Many do have extraction of natural resources occurring and have to account for wildlife populations and habitat quality. But, to answer what I think you were driving at, yes there are lands that have been highly impacted that are now in a "natural" setting. The Crawford Moutains on the UT/WY border was heavily mined in the past. It is now a hard to draw limited entry unit for mule deer. Much of the area elk inhabit in KY are reclaimed coal strip mines. They are a "natural setting", but are far different than what was there before the mining.
JWP58
Banned
That's cool.
He also believes in a $15 minimum wage
He believes in the Government providing FREE COLLEGE (well free for someone..)
He believes in allowing the 11 million illegals to become U.S. citizens
He voted for the 94 assault weapons ban.
He was in favor of a high capacity magazine ban
He wants to expand social security
He wants to TAX carbon emissions (I guess nobody has told this dipstick he exhales carbon emissions....or have they???) Oh and methane emissions...lookout cattle ranchers, your day to pay is coming.
Take a look at his "racial justice" bullet points. The man is a moron...a buffoon. But the trendys, tree huggers, folks with "white guilt", commies, and socialists are eating it up like candy.
Last edited:
Funny, he's still making more sense than the 16 fools on the right.
BTW - you can call those people "Fellow Americans" too.
Forerunner
New member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
- Messages
- 10
Jryoung, I’m aware that energy development on Public land has increased. My research has shown that it is largely because of state owned lands, not federally owned lands. So it is not merely a sound bite. That said, I generally do not think federal lands should be transferred to the states. Also, I offer no opinion as to whether federally lands ought to be managed for such development the way that state lands are. I have no expertise in these areas. I guess the main thought behind my first question was that this current push from Republicans for the transfer of federal ownership to state ownership has not historically been central to their platform, and might be abandoned or become less important if a balance can be struck between development of non-renewable resources from those lands, and healthy conservation of those resources which are renewable (Perhaps I am wrong about this assessment, as both parties seem ever-more beholden to their own financial interests than to patriotic interests) I do not know what that balance would look like, which is the point of my 3rd question. What are practical models that we as sportsmen can get behind and advocate?
1 Pointer, you are right about there being that bias to my question. It was unintended and I owe it to my naivete in these areas. I had in mind non-renewable resources which, if I understand you correctly, has a kind of advantage over renewable sources in that once the resource is utilized, operations can be cleaned up, and the land can be restored, provided wanton, irreparable damage has not been done.
Thank you both for your responses.
1 Pointer, you are right about there being that bias to my question. It was unintended and I owe it to my naivete in these areas. I had in mind non-renewable resources which, if I understand you correctly, has a kind of advantage over renewable sources in that once the resource is utilized, operations can be cleaned up, and the land can be restored, provided wanton, irreparable damage has not been done.
Thank you both for your responses.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Funny, he's still making more sense than the 16 fools on the right.
BTW - you can call those people "Fellow Americans" too.
"Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right..."
JWP58
Banned
Funny, he's still making more sense than the 16 fools on the right.
BTW - you can call those people "Fellow Americans" too.
Whatever you say comrade.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
I hope Bernie thoroughly embarrasses the repugnant prevaricating shrew he's gaining on.
#hildebeastmakebernieasammich
#hildebeastmakebernieasammich
BuzzH
Well-known member
Development on Federal lands has increased as well. The main part of energy development, IMO, that causes the biggest problems is the extensive foot-print of the miles and miles of roads. The well pads themselves are not that big of a deal, but the roads are, at least from a wildlife standpoint. Yeah, yeah, I hear it all the time we can just gate the roads. Not so much, in particular in areas where most energy development takes place. Plus, even if it could be gated, there is significant habitat loss just because of the road, not to mention the habitat lost to invasive plant species (cheat grass, knapweed, leafy spurge, etc. etc. etc.). Roads also increase easy access for hunters, as well as poachers.
Its just unfortunate that the road densities required are so high to recover gas and oil. Even with directional drilling, its still off the hook with the amount of roads that are required.
It breaks my heart to see the impacts that oil and gas development has on sagebrush/grassland habitats and the associated wildlife. Wish there was a way to develop oil and gas without such significant impacts.
Not sure how we balance wildlife and oil/gas development or mitigate the footprint enough to not impact wildlife.
Anyone have any ideas?
No joke. Unfortunately.
Similar threads
