Consider calling your representative in Washington?

Bob said:
Lol ....... Hcn ......
Click to expand...
Again, so how about the National Review from Pendley himself: https://www.nationalreview.com/2016...should-sell-western-land-follow-constitution/

Just because libs are dumb and NYT and HCN are trash it’s still fine to admit that guys like Pendley have a worldview that is explicitly against the very idea of wilderness and public land. I mean if you think some statements in this thread are reactionary or over the top or whatever, fine, but the head of the BLM is saying that there should not be federally owned public land. Seems like on a outdoors forum it should be pretty easy to agree that’s a bad idea.

I mean I’ve see your appreciation for the wildness of Idaho, how about Pendley’s ideal of Illinois?

I know we are in times of people not listening to each other and being condescending assholes at times but it really is possible to agree that there are some powerful and wealthy people that don’t hold our best interests in mind.
 
Brendan S said:
Again, so how about the National Review from Pendley himself: https://www.nationalreview.com/2016...should-sell-western-land-follow-constitution/

Just because libs are dumb and NYT and HCN are trash it’s still fine to admit that guys like Pendley have a worldview that is explicitly against the very idea of wilderness and public land. I mean if you think some statements in this thread are reactionary or over the top or whatever, fine, but the head of the BLM is saying that there should not be federally owned public land. Seems like on a outdoors forum it should be pretty easy to agree that’s a bad idea.

I mean I’ve see your appreciation for the wildness of Idaho, how about Pendley’s ideal of Illinois?

I know we are in times of people not listening to each other and being condescending assholes at times but it really is possible to agree that there are some powerful and wealthy people that don’t hold our best interests in mind.
Click to expand...
Didn't say anything for or against Pendley.. comment was about hcn.....take it how you want it....I really don't care
 
Bob said:
Didn't say anything for or against Pendley.. comment was about hcn.....take it how you want it....I really don't care
Click to expand...
I guess I find it hard to believe you don’t care. Am I wrong that you like wild places? I feel like I have always resonated with your love of wilderness in trip reports and comments. If you are going to chime in with snarky mocking of people posting articles can you at least offer some thoughts? Again, it’s fine to think people are overreacting but I don’t think it’s too much to ask to explain why if you are already commenting (and I am genuinely curious because I like to think listening and thinking is worthwhile)

I’m just asking for some good-faith conversation. If this were a restaurant forum and some politician in charge of restaurants said he thought they should be banned it’s reasonable to expect some dissent. And if some restaurant lover kept chiming in that they didn’t care it’d be reasonable to ask for some honest thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Brendan S said:
I guess I find it hard to believe you don’t care. Am I wrong that you like wild places? I feel like I have always resonated with your love of wilderness in trip reports and comments. If you are going to chime in with snarky mocking of people posting articles can you at least offer some thoughts? Again, it’s fine to think people are overreacting but I don’t think it’s too much to ask to explain why if you are already commenting (and I am genuinely curious because I like to think listening and thinking is worthwhile)

I’m just asking for some good-faith conversation. If this were a restaurant forum and some politician in charge of restaurants said he thought they should be banned it’s reasonable to expect some dissent. And if some restaurant lover kept chiming in that they didn’t care it’d be reasonable to ask for some honest thoughts.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
Brendan S said:
I guess I find it hard to believe you don’t care. Am I wrong that you like wild places? I feel like I have always resonated with your love of wilderness in trip reports and comments. If you are going to chime in with snarky mocking of people posting articles can you at least offer some thoughts? Again, it’s fine to think people are overreacting but I don’t think it’s too much to ask to explain why if you are already commenting (and I am genuinely curious because I like to think listening and thinking is worthwhile)

I’m just asking for some good-faith conversation. If this were a restaurant forum and some politician in charge of restaurants said he thought they should be banned it’s reasonable to expect some dissent. And if some restaurant lover kept chiming in that they didn’t care it’d be reasonable to ask for some honest thoughts.
Click to expand...
You know whatever.... I posted a comment on my thoughts of hcn. If you take it as a attack so be it ... Next post was I don't care if you agree or not with my thought of hcn.... If you take that as an attack then so be it.. . Therein lies the problem ... Someone disaggrees then they say it's an attack..... I really don't care if you agree with me or not. Never once did my post address Pendley, what he does or doesn't do AND never once has my posts attacked anyone for their views.... People need to admit there are differing views and accept that fact....
 
Bob said:
You know whatever.... I posted a comment on my thoughts of hcn. If you take it as a attack so be it ... Next post was I don't care if you agree or not with my thought of hcn.... If you take that as an attack then so be it.. . Therein lies the problem ... Someone disaggrees then they say it's an attack..... I really don't care if you agree with me or not. Never once did my post address Pendley, what he does or doesn't do AND never once has my posts attacked anyone for their views.... People need to admit there are differing views and accept that fact....
Click to expand...
I’m probably being naive and expecting too much from internet discourse. I wasn’t taking anything as an “attack” and I know people have different views. I was genuinely suggesting offering some thoughtful discussion. I mistook your I don’t care comment as directed to the larger issue rather than what one things of hcn (apologies).

I’m totally down with differing views. I have lots of close family and friends and coworkers with differing views. I can totally respect where they are coming from because for the most part it’s in good faith and they have been thoughtful about things rather than just pure tribalism.

Anyway, carry on. I’m guilty of the occasional snark and it just pisses people off more. Disagreeing is a-ok, I’m just suggesting if we are going to participate in a discussion to actually try to thoughtfully participate. Just trying to keep the level of discussion above the garbage on Twitter or Facebook or whatever.
 
:thumbsup:
 
I would hope that a blanket dismissal of a source versus the content of an article, especially from someone with your stature and history on this site, doesn’t discourage others from reading the article and judging it on its own merits.
 
Pianomover said:
I would hope that a blanket dismissal of a source versus the content of an article, especially from someone with your stature and history on this site, doesn’t discourage others from reading the article and judging it on its own merits.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't, if people want to investigate things.....should be looking at mixed sources from both sides in this and all things ...... All I'll say about it so I don't get people more riled up...
 
Last edited:
Bob said:
Shouldn't, if people want to investigate things.....should be looking at mixed sources from both sides in this and all things ...... All I'll say about it so I don't get people more riled up...
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
The sole optimistic thing about Pendley is he's acting head, so technically he still requires Senate confirmation. A whole lot of people across the political spectrum have a lot to lose over his actions and confirmation. His office has already overridden draft BLM management plans that were the result of bipartisan, multi-user consensus.

@Bob, you may wholly dismiss HCN for "libtard bias" or whatever reason without looking at the content, but their articles link original source material or other media sources from across the spectrum, including the National Review in the one I referenced. That's far more than I can say for many conservative outlets.
 
Last edited:
fossana said:
The sole optimistic thing about Pendley is he's acting head, so technically he still requires Senate confirmation. A whole lot of people across the political spectrum have a lot to lose over his actions and confirmation. His office has already overridden draft BLM management plans that were the result of bipartisan, multi-users consensus.

@Bob, you may wholly dismiss HCN for "libtard bias" or whatever reason without looking at the content, but their articles link original source material or other media sources from across the spectrum, including the National Review in the one I referenced. That's far more than I can say for many conservative outlets.
Click to expand...
My worry about this administration is the lack of respect for working within the basic channels of law and government. The feel beholden solely to their worldview.
 
Adding that it isn't just the BLM management plans, but changes to federal laws in general are being fast tracked solely to benefit oil, gas and mining industries. This should be no surprise since David Bernhardt was a lobbyist for oil, gas, and water rights. Some of these changes include eliminating the requirement for an environmental impact assessment or environmental review. Center for Western Priorities published a scorecard back in in July. If you look at the Appendix of the full report, it lists the industry organization or company that requested the change.
 
fossana said:
Adding that it isn't just the BLM management plans, but changes to federal laws in general are being fast tracked solely to benefit oil, gas and mining industries. This should be no surprise since David Bernhardt was a lobbyist for oil, gas, and water rights. Some of these changes include eliminating the requirement for an environmental impact assessment or environmental review. Center for Western Priorities published a scorecard back in in July. If you look at the Appendix of the full report, it lists the industry organization or company that requested the change.
Click to expand...
That report is depressing. Obviously the president serves solely as a distraction while the real dirty work is all backroom deals directed by lobbyists working at the behest of the super-wealthy.
 
Pianomover said:
That report is depressing. Obviously the president serves solely as a distraction while the real dirty work is all backroom deals directed by lobbyists working at the behest of the super-wealthy.
Click to expand...

That's been the MO of the GOP and affiliated organizations for years (e.g. NRA, marketing to make abortion a wedge issue), but things are getting worse in recent years with the shift toward populism and nativism. The number of ethics waivers for the Trump admin is unprecedented, that is when they bother to file them. By today's standards George W is a moderate. Think about that for a moment.
 
That the more damage that is done, the easier it is to push road building, logging, and oil and gas development is not a coincidence. This is a perfidious scheme executed with maximum ecological destruction.


www.nationalgeographic.com

Forests on Utah’s public lands may soon be torn out. Here’s why.

The U.S. is moving forward with a plan to create new cattle pasture and prevent fires despite what scientists say is meager environmental review.
www.nationalgeographic.com www.nationalgeographic.com
 
Pianomover said:
That the more damage that is done, the easier it is to push road building, logging, and oil and gas development is not a coincidence. This is a perfidious scheme executed with maximum ecological destruction.


www.nationalgeographic.com

Forests on Utah’s public lands may soon be torn out. Here’s why.

The U.S. is moving forward with a plan to create new cattle pasture and prevent fires despite what scientists say is meager environmental review.
www.nationalgeographic.com www.nationalgeographic.com
Click to expand...
A reasonable summation of the above article. https://www.thewildlifenews.com/2019/09/03/juniper-removal-red-herring/
 
I always find it disappointing to find cows and cow byproducts in sensitive Wilderness Areas (e.g. Grand Gulch, Ruby Mountains). I thought this was illegal, but looked it up after my last trip and found out that grazing is allowed in some Wilderness Areas. I've almost entirely stopped eating beef for climate change reasons, yet this is one more reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top