At The Risk of Another Ideological Chit Show...

Hey folks,

At the risk of starting another politically charged, unproductive argument, I was wondering if there are any ideas of how to find common ground with our PLT adversaries?

Obviously, there are people of all sorts of different ideals on this forum, and this forum is basically only pro-public land people, so pro-public land conservatives certainly do exist. In fact, I'd be wiling to bet the VAST majority of American's don't view public land negatively. So then why do we have issues?

Example: Bret lives in Chicago, and doesn't spend much time in the outdoors. Why would he care about some 3 million acres spread out throughout the west being sold off when he doesn't go there? If he ever makes it outdoors it's to a forest preserve nearby or once in a blue moon, to Yellowstone with a tour guide. As far as he sees, a transfer (sale) of these "expensive" lands means a positive for the federal budget and those who use it get control. A couple million "useless" acres for millions of savings each year in maintenance costs. How is that such a bad thing?

(Obviously that's not reality and the issue is SO much more complex than that, as you have all taught me.)

My point being, currently, ordinary people (not the rich folks behind the PLT movement) who don't use the lands likely aren't against the lands, they are against the expense of these lands. In their eyes, why should the country have to pay for something, that only a minority of people use. And I don't necessarily think that they're bad people for thinking that. I think anyone could relate to not wanting to pay for something you don't see as useful (right or wrong).

So are there any ideas of ways we could attack the expense that these lands hold? Any way of making them more sustainable budget-wise? Perhaps there's not and we'll simply have to rely on making people understand why these lands are so valuable. But IMO, any effort that helps these lands look better on a budget, will take away most of the fire-power our adversaries have.

Thanks,
Caleb

(And please, no bickering about who's political ideologies are better, that's not what this post is trying to figure out. At the end of the day, we're all DIY guys who live for the great outdoors and our hunting heritage. How could you argue with that??)

I agree with your assessment of how the average person views it.

I was hoping to see some great replies to this before commenting myself because of my lack of first hand experience with the issues.

From my perspective as an eastern hunter and farmer, grazing rights could and should be increased. From my understanding, states are commanding significantly higher rates than the feds. Also, guys here in the southeast are getting rich in the timber business. I know there are some trade issues to work through with Canada flooding the market, but surely with millions of acres of timber succumbed to wildfire every year more could be cut for a profit.

I think many people in the east particularly don't see transfer to the states as a bad thing. Most of our public land here in the east, at least in my state, is state owned and no one is selling it off. Certainly there are some issues with mixed use, mineral extraction, etc... but I don't believe that those are solely eastern problems. I think there is a lack of understanding about western state financials and how quickly things could go bad.

Good thread Wisco, and relevant. I've often heard eastern and Texas hunters give a big shrug, like who cares. As important a reason as I've ever heard for purchasing and land in the east via LWCF and opening it up for hunting. Also all those FWS refuges.

To the bigger question of paying for it... I've read articles of late in both the WSJ and Outside suggesting an 11% excise tax similar to what we all pay now, but on all outdoor related products. It would probably pay for most Parks and a good chunk of Forest Service.

I initially refrained from going down this road, but after reading this site for years without strongly weighing in, I think it's time I spoke up and pointed out what I consider the hypocrisy of some outspoken members on each side of the debates on this forum.

It's a shame in my opinion that a politically charged thread about a proposed budget that amounts to the level of insight of a pissing contest can grow 5 pages long in less time than this one asking for viable solutions gets a single reply. I know I'm the new guy with little experience in the west, but please- just reflect on that fact a minute.

Now I'm just a small town southern boy, and most of the rest of the country has never given us credit for anything intelligent (except our whiskey). Where I come from, we don't waste much time complaining about things unless we have a solution in mind to put forth. How about instead of all the bickering and childish name-calling about politics and the budget, we actually discussed helpful ways to enact positive change on the issues we all care about?

My ideas posted above may be garbage. I honestly don't know; but I care, and so do alot of others like me that silently read this forum and wish for the same as I do. I don't say this to garner support, but rather to speak up for a fairly large contingent of potential allies in the public land fight.

Helpful feedback to this is welcomed.
Thanks,
Jason

A few general observations for what it's worth. I grew up in a very conservative area in Virginia with a lot of public land. I now live in a VERY conservative area in NW Montana with a LOT of public land.

Back east whitetails are the main game. They are easily accessible for most people on private land. Lack of public access is not seen as big loss. Out west, most private land is not easily accessed and elk tend to be the focus. Bigger acreages are the rule and loss of public access is a big barrier to most hunters. Westerners tend to feel the hit and respond with alarm and protect their interests.

Difference in the social dynamic of political parties east and west. Back east to be Republican was to be rural, Judeo Christian values, fiscal conservative, . Democrats were urban, socially liberal, big government. The disparity of values was extreme.

Out west there is more of a mind your own business about he social values of your neighbors. Many Democrats are actually quite conservative socially and fiscally when compared to their counterparts back east. Individual liberty and rural lifestyle values are retained by Democrats. In this part of the west, the Republicans represent big business in the form of resource extraction despite the cost to environment and others affected by the effects of the industries they support. The conservative values of western Republicans tends to be Tea flavored.

Point being, apples and oranges look a bit different when you compare an eastern apple and a western apple and an eastern orange and a western orange.

Current political reality is that the Republican party as a whole is on the wrong side of this issue and the Democrats are on the right side. I say that as an extremely conservative, pro-life, small government, Christian.

While this issue transcends political parties, and affects everyone regardless of their political affiliation; I see no value in encouraging the Republican's willing collusion with business special interests. I think the answer to protection of our public land access is to first of all make people appreciate the incredible blessing we have with public lands. When you have someone passionate about the land, they are willing to work with anyone who shares their concern and appreciation for that land regardless of party affiliation.

When Republicans hear enough noise from their opposition and their constituents there will be an evolution of values and support for public lands. When that happens, myself and other pro-public lands advocates who share conservative values on other issues will be willing to support and elect deserving candidates who reflect their values.

Entrenched allegiance and entrenched opposition to a political party based on sentimental affiliation is not going to benefit any of us in the long run. It only establishes that we as individuals allow our identity to be defined by those who claim to "represent" our values and depend on us for political support, when in reality they are playing their supporters for their own benefit at the expense of the self-interests of the people they "represent."


Don't know if this helps the discussion but it's some viewpoints to wade through.

Gerald Martin said:

A few general observations for what it's worth. I grew up in a very conservative area in Virginia with a lot of public land. I now live in a VERY conservative area in NW Montana with a LOT of public land.

Back east whitetails are the main game. They are easily accessible for most people on private land. Lack of public access is not seen as big loss. Out west, most private land is not easily accessed and elk tend to be the focus. Bigger acreages are the rule and loss of public access is a big barrier to most hunters. Westerners tend to feel the hit and respond with alarm and protect their interests.

Difference in the social dynamic of political parties east and west. Back east to be Republican was to be rural, Judeo Christian values, fiscal conservative, . Democrats were urban, socially liberal, big government. The disparity of values was extreme.

Out west there is more of a mind your own business about he social values of your neighbors. Many Democrats are actually quite conservative socially and fiscally when compared to their counterparts back east. Individual liberty and rural lifestyle values are retained by Democrats. In this part of the west, the Republicans represent big business in the form of resource extraction despite the cost to environment and others affected by the effects of the industries they support. The conservative values of western Republicans tends to be a Tea Flavored.

Point being, apples and oranges look a bit different when you compare an eastern apple and a western apple and an eastern orange and a western orange.

Current political reality is that the Republican party as a whole is on the wrong side of this issue and the Democrats are on the right side. I say that as an extremely conservative, pro-life, small government, Christian.

While this issue transcends political parties, and affects everyone regardless of their political affiliation; I see no value in encouraging the Republican's willing collusion with business special interests. I think the answer to protection of our public land access is to first of all make people appreciate the incredible blessing we have with public lands. When you have someone passionate about the land, they are willing to work with anyone who shares their concern and appreciation for that land regardless of party affiliation.

When Republicans hear enough noise from their opposition and their constituents there will be an evolution of values and support for public lands. When that happens, myself and other pro-public lands who share conservative values on other issues will be willing to support and elect deserving candidates who reflect their values.

Entrenched allegiance and entrenched opposition to a political party based on sentimental affiliation is not going to benefit any of us in the long run. It only establishes that we as individuals allow our identity to be defined by those who claim to "represent" our values and depend on us for political support, when in reality they are playing their supporters for their own benefit at the expense of the self-interests of the people they "represent."


Don't know if this helps the discussion but it's some viewpoints to wade through.

Click to expand...

I think this would probably help a lot of people understand this forum. I know that the first few threads I read here made me think I was in the twilight zone. Great post.

Thanks Gerald. As always your insight is more than helpful. I think that's something I've subconsciously realized since joining this forum without ever putting into words. It definitely helps me understand the political dynamic west versus east a lot more.

Basically what I hoped this thread would show is that since public land isn't a hot topic issue in the east, I don't think many people think much about it nor do they treat it as a partisan issue (IMO). However, a budget in the red certainly can push one side, if not both, into looking for solutions to trim the fat. As we have seen, public lands often times have been part of that fat that's been trimmed. If we have to find some way to compromise so that to the everyday easterner doesn't see these lands as fat, I think it's something we should be open to. I really hope that's not seen as something the enemy would say, but rather a perspective from an ally that knows fair or not, sometimes we have to give a little to keep a lot.

I wish there was an obvious solution that the average Joe could get behind. Some way of raising revenue, some way to combat costs, and some way to garner more interest/support. But these issues are complex and I've only just begun to get involved.

Thanks,
Caleb

Looking at the national debt that we have as a nation, I can certainly understand the instinct that we should trim the fat off of unnecessary spending. For some reason I can't explain,some don't see public lands as a valuable asset and instead look at them as a frivolous excess that we can sell off to pay for excesses of the past. I think it may be due in part to a lack of feeling ownership of public lands. They see the federal government as "them" back in D.C., an amorphous blob of bureaucrats.

But giving a little to gain a lot in the sale of public lands to offset national debt and deficit spending is an exercise in futility. We spend less than 1% of our budget each year on public lands management. Even if we gave in to the insanity of sale of our national treasure to offset debt,it wouldn't eliminate the national debt.


At the national level there isn't a bit of difference between the fiscal irresponsibility of R's and D's in overall deficit spending. They only place they differ on is where they like to spend the money.

Those of us who were blessed to grow up in rural settings where clean water and air was the rule rather than the exception tend to take a healthy environment for granted and not place any monetary value on it. Conservatives tend to measure "value" in monetary terms of what they represent as commodities. Thus a tree has no value unless it is a log and the value of that tree is determined upon whether it's suitable for furniture or firewood. Wild places and unexploited areas are not valuable in and of themselves, unless we can exploit the resources found within them. The conservative mind tends not to consider the loss of value that is realized in environmental impacts of extraction industries and instead concentrates on "valuable" jobs and commodities. Because the value of commodities can be explicitly represented by dollars and cents and expenditure of that money brings relief and comfort in the form of providing needs and wants, there tends to be myoptic concentration on accessing more of that "value". A lump of coal is more "valuable" than a glass of clean water because the coal can be sold to pay for a cheeseburger. Water isn't valuable until it cost more to buy clean water than the lump of coal can be sold for. By the time the real value that was there all along is realized, it is too late to change the effects of careless exploitation.


There is a definite difference in the way that "conservatives" and "liberals" view the world and what they focus on. That difference in focus and varying world views is manifested in different political affiliation. By and large, conservatives and liberals have a lot more in common than they differ on, but an inordinate amount of attention on our differences and partisan pettiness ensures that it takes a serious effort in civility not to view the other side as the enemy.

Being a successful politician is like herding cats. If you can get 51% of the herd going one direction, you are doing good.

Gerald Martin said:

Looking at the national debt that we have as a nation, I can certainly understand the instinct that we should trim the fat off of unnecessary spending. For some reason I can't explain,some don't see public lands as a valuable asset and instead look at them as a frivolous excess that we can sell off to pay for excesses of the past. I think it may be due in part to a lack of feeling ownership of public lands. They see the federal government as "them" back in D.C., an amorphous blob of bureaucrats.

But giving a little to gain a lot in the sale of public lands to offset national debt and deficit spending is an exercise in futility. We spend less than 1% of our budget each year on public lands management. Even if we gave in to the insanity of sale of our national treasure to offset debt,it wouldn't eliminate the national debt.


At the national level there isn't a bit of difference between the fiscal irresponsibility of R's and D's in overall deficit spending. They only place they differ on is where they like to spend the money.

Those of us who were blessed to grow up in rural settings where clean water and air was the rule rather than the exception tend to take a healthy environment for granted and not place any monetary value on it. Conservatives tend to measure "value" in monetary terms of what they represent as commodities. Thus a tree has no value unless it is a log and the value of that tree is determined upon whether it's suitable for furniture or firewood. Wild places and unexploited areas are not valuable in and of themselves, unless we can exploit the resources found within them. The conservative mind tends not to consider the loss of value that is realized in environmental impacts of extraction industries and instead concentrates on "valuable" jobs and commodities. Because the value of commodities can be explicitly represented by dollars and cents and expenditure of that money brings relief and comfort in the form of providing needs and wants, there tends to be myoptic concentration on accessing more of that "value". A lump of coal is more "valuable" than a glass of clean water because the coal can be sold to pay for a cheeseburger. Water isn't valuable until it cost more to buy clean water than the lump of coal can be sold for. By the time the real value that was there all along is realized, it is too late to change the effects of careless exploitation.


There is a definite difference in the way that "conservatives" and "liberals" view the world and what they focus on. That difference in focus and varying world views is manifested in different political affiliation. By and large, conservatives and liberals have a lot more in common than they differ on, but an inordinate amount of attention on our differences and partisan pettiness ensures that it takes a serious effort in civility not to view the other side as the enemy.

Click to expand...

The problem is always that one man's fat is another man's filet. Sometimes it seems so simplistic on the surface. Lately many of my more liberal friends are up in arms about proposed budget cuts to the arts. I like the arts and public broadcasting and all that good stuff but I have to ask myself "how did we get to a point where the government has to fund the arts?" I'm sure other's ask "How is it that the government has to manage so much land?"