• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Bear Ears National Monument a good name?

Is Bear Ears National Monument a good name?

  • Total voters
    12
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
No public lands are "owned by the government", other than where government offices or military installation sit. National Forests and Parks are owned by the public just like BLM Lands, and subject to public comment with every management plan, just like BLM lands.

Public lands are a big issue with me because I grew up on land bordering National Forest and I go on backcountry fishing and backpacking trips every chance I can get. To be honest, its the only issue I really care that much about.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against everything. I am for pipelines as I think they are the safest way to transport oil and gas. I am ok with natural gas fracking as its much cleaner than coal. I am fine with many timber sales on public land as its a crucial component of forest management in many forests. However, with over 300 million people in this country, we need to be protecting as much wilderness as we have left before we end up developing everything like most of Europe has.
Click to expand...

So all he did was make a promise that these lands will never be sold, and maybe some promise to protect them very well, which Future America might well change their minds about?

Where exactly is the problem that has some folks so upset? I mean I dont like how it was done, and I dont like the name of one of them, but I am not seeing who gets hurt here.

tyvm
 
Hawkeye10 said:
So all he did was make a promise that these lands will never be sold, and maybe some promise to protect them very well, which Future America might well change their minds about?

Where exactly is the problem that has some folks so upset? I mean I dont like how it was done, and I dont like the name of one of them, but I am not seeing who gets hurt here.

tyvm
Click to expand...

Who gets hurt would be any mining, oil, or other industrial interests that would want to develop that land.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Who gets hurt would be any mining, oil, or other industrial interests that would want to develop that land.
Click to expand...

We can still take the timber, is there some proof that there is something else of value there?
 
Taylor said:
Given what they're scoring - seems rather irrelevant.
Click to expand...


They are scoring how he votes in on various bills impacting public lands. Why don't you just admit it, be honest here, you don't give a **** about protecting public lands right? If you did, you would be against a bill that allowed timber harvesting on public land to bypass environmental review: Forest Management | League of Conservation Voters Scorecard

You would be against a bill that virtually eliminated public review of mining on public lands: Hardrock Mining | League of Conservation Voters Scorecard

To list a couple of examples. Personally, I would think that a congressman that was for balancing conservation and economic use would say has a scorecard of 50% where half the time they voted in favor of industry interests and half the time they voted in favor of conservation. Maybe even if they voted just 25% of the time in favor of conservation, i could be convinced that actually cared about it. However, when your down in the single digits, its obvious what you care about.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
We can still take the timber, is there some proof that there is something else of value there?
Click to expand...


It depends upon what was designated a monument. You would have to ask the companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year lobbying congress, why they want it.
 
The off roaders get hurt I am sure.....
 
This looks right:

But studies have established that there would be substantial administrative costs for states if they took over. And the federal government transfers a lot of its leasing revenue back to states to compensate for the taxes the states might have collected if the land were in private hands. If they owned the land, the states would have to collect rents and administer permits themselves.

An economic study from Utah in 2012 found that taking over land management would cost the state government a substantial sum: $275 million a year.

It may turn out that if the states own it, the ranchers will just be angry at another level of government for a different set of reasons.
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/upshot/why-the-government-owns-so-much-land-in-the-west.html?_r=0
 
Who cares what it is called?

As long as it is not called Bear F*ck Park...what difference does it make?

All the huge number of problems in the world...children dying of preventable illnesses, starvation, political persecution and on and on...and this is important to some people?

Okaaaay.

What's next?

Outrage over the nickname of your bowling team?

The shade of red on your fav college's football uniform?

Whether your last Big Mac had a little less lettuce than usual?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
So all he did was make a promise that these lands will never be sold, and maybe some promise to protect them very well, which Future America might well change their minds about?

Where exactly is the problem that has some folks so upset? I mean I dont like how it was done, and I dont like the name of one of them, but I am not seeing who gets hurt here.

tyvm
Click to expand...

People are dumb and will get mad at anything Obama did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom