Consider calling your representative in Washington?

Sorry, I think there should be very few. One... Not native. Two.... Where there are they tear up the land... Changing the vegetation and running out native wildlife....
I’m not sure what you’re saying.
 
The wild horses in the leading picture, heheh.
Ahh other than the lead photo there is zero mention of horses. The appointee is in favor of removing protections on most wildlife and feels that all national property should be sold.
 
“Pendley has sued the Interior Department on behalf of an oil and gas prospector, sought to undermine protections of endangered species such as the grizzly bear, and pressed to radically reduce the size of federal lands to make way for development.”
 
I’ll leave it with this:

In an appearance at the 2014 CPAC conference, Pendley said that “you can’t understand the battle against fossil fuels without understanding what is at the core of the environmental movement and the environmental extremists..... They don’t believe in human beings.”
 
I’m not sure what you’re saying.
I can only read about 10 sec then WP throws their add to pay.... Which I won't.... Saw wildlife and figured it was Roundup time.. whatever.... I still wouldn't get excited
 
I actually thought Zinke was a decent choice for the position, but of course he was run out of office over some sort of conspiracy, I can't even remember what it was. I figured he would be replaced with someone much less balanced and extreme, and it looks like I was right in thinking so.
 
I actually thought Zinke was a decent choice for the position, but of course he was run out of office over some sort of conspiracy, I can't even remember what it was. I figured he would be replaced with someone much less balanced and extreme, and it looks like I was right in thinking so.

Conspiracy? Zinke has a history of shady conflicts of interests throughout his political career that did not end with his Interior Dept appointment, not to mention his decision to sell out UT's monuments for mineral extraction in opposition to recommendations of his own staff and the vast majority of public comments. Zinke was replaced by lobbyist David Bernhardt, btw, not Pendley.
 
I actually thought Zinke was a decent choice for the position, but of course he was run out of office over some sort of conspiracy, I can't even remember what it was. I figured he would be replaced with someone much less balanced and extreme, and it looks like I was right in thinking so.
At the time Zinke was appointed I thought there were much worse possibilities but he ended up being awful and was run out of office for being massively corrupt and repeatedly using public funds for personal stuff.
 
Conspiracy? Zinke has a history of shady conflicts of interests throughout his political career that did not end with his Interior Dept appointment, not to mention his decision to sell out UT's monuments for mineral extraction in opposition to recommendations of his own staff and the vast majority of public comments. Zinke was replaced by lobbyist David Bernhardt, btw, not Pendley.
Pendley has been nominated as head of BLM land ripe for exploitation as it doesn’t get the attention that National parks and forests do.
 
I can only read about 10 sec then WP throws their add to pay.... Which I won't.... Saw wildlife and figured it was Roundup time.. whatever.... I still wouldn't get excited
I'm genuinely curious if you just think this is just another case of people overreacting, which would be fair if we didn't have much info on Pendley? Or that he doesn't have that much power? That there's too much bureaucracy for anything actually damaging to happen? Cause the dude has dedicated his career to a fundamental belief that there should be no federally owned land.

From the horse's mouth in a NR op-ed in 2016 (and no paywall!): The Federal Government Should Follow the Constitution and Sell Its Western Lands

"The Founding Fathers intended all lands owned by the federal government to be sold...

in 1829, “the West” was Illinois — where 99.9 percent of the land was federally owned; residents called that “oppressive” and unconstitutional, not unlike what is heard from the American West today. Within a few years, the United States performed its constitutional duty in Illinois where now it owns less than 2 percent of the Land of Lincoln. It is hardly surprising that westerners think they should be treated likewise."

I mean, if Illinois is the model we're striving for, I think it's fair to be concerned.
 
I'm genuinely curious if you just think this is just another case of people overreacting, which would be fair if we didn't have much info on Pendley? Or that he doesn't have that much power? That there's too much bureaucracy for anything actually damaging to happen? Cause the dude has dedicated his career to a fundamental belief that there should be no federally owned land.

From the horse's mouth in a NR op-ed in 2016 (and no paywall!): The Federal Government Should Follow the Constitution and Sell Its Western Lands

"The Founding Fathers intended all lands owned by the federal government to be sold...

in 1829, “the West” was Illinois — where 99.9 percent of the land was federally owned; residents called that “oppressive” and unconstitutional, not unlike what is heard from the American West today. Within a few years, the United States performed its constitutional duty in Illinois where now it owns less than 2 percent of the Land of Lincoln. It is hardly surprising that westerners think they should be treated likewise."

I mean, if Illinois is the model we're striving for, I think it's fair to be concerned.
Consider that in 1829 we also had slavery women weren’t allowed to vote child labor was taken for granted.
I agree we should definitely be concerned.
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
Pianomover Consider calling your congressperson. General Discussion 2

Similar threads

Back
Top