Hunting And Fishing Groups Are Starting To Turn On Trump’s Interior Secretary
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Wow Senator Heinrich was 100% correct and seemed much more like a TR descendent. Zinkes mumbling is embarrassing, shows he doesn't care about public lands but cares about the unfettered access and development of public land. When someone's donating something, especially of this magnitude, you don't get to make the terms. It is theirs and they are offering it up to you, but on their terms as it rightfully should be. That video made me lose even more faith in Zinke. Hunters and anglers are the very reason he holds that position, and he has done exactly nothing for wildlife, habitat, or keeping things balanced. He has been swinging the anvil of development since the beginning. All I can say is 2018 will have consequences that are coming to those who didn't keep their promises. Kudos Senator Heinrich, shame on you Zinke. Theodore Roosevelt should not be muttered from your mouth until you show even the slightest sign of resemblance to his legacy you now oversee.
HSi-ESi
Well-known member
It's sad to think that such a great deal could be squandered over Zinke's ego. Not impressed.
And his supporters will continue to support him.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Zinke is clearly not for the broad general idea of public access. He's for specific types of public access, and only those certain types. It is particularly disappointing to hear someone claim the Monuments needs additional public review, but deals like this, that were derived from the public- based on local support, can't be supported because they don't meet his (DC knows best) criteria.
It pleases me to know that there is at least one well spoken public land hunter within the senate, even if he's not my senator.
It pleases me to know that there is at least one well spoken public land hunter within the senate, even if he's not my senator.
More from the same hearing. I like the little jab at 1:45.
https://youtu.be/aZUXvc19Oj0
https://youtu.be/aZUXvc19Oj0
jzeck2
Member
Unfortunately, a lot of folks like to see themselves as TR proteges but never bother to move beyond lip service to his actions. Or worse, act in a way that completely contradicts TR's legacy. Being one of the gun toting, hunting, fishing, backpacking liberal minority I would have to say that old TR made a very wise choice in breaking away from the Republican Party and forming the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party. Maybe it's time to reconsider our political affiliations and stand for what is right even if it isn't followed by an "R" or a "D". maybe we need to insert a 
instead.
As far as Fin's video, is Mr. Zinke serious, it's either motorized access to an area that doesn't allow the use of vehicles or I guess we'll just say no to access?
instead.As far as Fin's video, is Mr. Zinke serious, it's either motorized access to an area that doesn't allow the use of vehicles or I guess we'll just say no to access?
airlocksniffer
Member
Beyond this, Sen Heinrich described the area unsuitable to even build a road. So accepting a donation to allow what would be a good amount of access for many constituents (many who supported his nomination) or not because you can't build a road there. SMH
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/06/pit...anley-cup-young-fan-cries-autograph-video/amp
Unbelievable and pathetic comments from Zinke. How awesome would it be to have Mr. Heinrich as SOI
Unbelievable and pathetic comments from Zinke. How awesome would it be to have Mr. Heinrich as SOI
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
I wish there were more Senators like Heinrich. I am thoroughly impressed with his public land ethic and acumen. If someone from the DOI is indeed watching, they should take note of Senator Heinrich's position, and realize he likely represents a much bigger cross section of Americana than does SOI Zinke.
Last edited by a moderator:
LopeHunter
Well-known member
Utah has been the source of several really bad ideas. Stream access taken away. That alone is a good indicator of what would happen if lands are transferred then sold. Why would the lands be sold? Past behavior is the best indication of future behavior. Joe Sixpack has seen stream access taken, 100s of tags taken to promote a trade show and 100s of tags taken to auction. In each case, private parties getting control of previously public items and access. Slush funds created with the proceeds that fund friends of friends, travel, etc, beyond the scrutiny of Joe Sixpack. The UT deer herd is in terrible shape after all these tag diversions, millions of dollars pocketed with minimal accountability yet plenty of chest-thumping by SFW. The screw up with wolves is documented as well. No other western state has been as big a threat to Joe Sixpack.
Not quite following the lots of fellow citizens logic. Lots of fellow citizens here in America supported taking U.S. citizens and putting them in camps during WWII because there were Asian. We were wrong. Did not matter that lots of us were in agreement. Sometimes takes a bit of time to see our best intentions were seriously flawed and lots of us at the time thought we were doing the right thing. We were wrong.
elkduds
Well-known member
Petty President's personal puppet prefers political payback, punishing people.
[video=youtube;C_Kh7nLplWo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo[/video]
[video=youtube;C_Kh7nLplWo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo[/video]
Last edited:
Wha? Not for broader access? This is Wilderness. Wilderness where it restricts access - and in my opinion, rightfully so! There are many opposed to this restrictive access. It's a line between many outdoors people. It limits pretty much only those able to backpack or animal pack. It rejects people who want to drive, cycle, etc as moderately regulated in typical National Forests. I support Wilderness area's restrictive access even w/ rejecting my reasonable accommodation to permit my use of a simple game cart while I was disabled. That was b.s. though overall, restrictive access in select areas is valuable, imo.
As Senator Heinrich noted, as of now there is NO access. Somehow Zinke tried to blubber about somehow no access would be better than restrictive access of that of wilderness. It's an absolutely anti-public access stance to take. He's essentially saying no access is better than restricted access. This guy is just as big of a joke as any other person that could have been nominated. This administration overall has proven it is a development first and conservation never type of administration so far. We are shrinking national monuments, attempting to tear up sage grouse plans, denying public access, and swinging the anvil of development in the name of any costs for short term economic benefit. Zinke is no Roosevelt and he should be ashamed of himself by likening himself to someone who gave us so much.
That video Fin posted is hard to watch. I am very impressed by Sen Heinrich and very disappointed in Sec Zinke. Zinke hardly answered Sen Heinrich in a manner in which I would expect the new age TR to have answered.... "Define public access" You've got to be $hitting me!
To the new member from the US DOI Secretary's Office, welcome to the forum.
To the new member from the US DOI Secretary's Office, welcome to the forum.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
He clearly isn't. You tell me how having zero access is greater than some access? Sure wilderness is restrictive but a heck of a lot less restrictive than zero public access. While I understand the opposition to new wilderness that is apples to oranges compared to this. When we the public have no legal access to a piece of public land and through a local effort there is an option to gain access, even if it's wilderness restricted, that's a no-brainer clearly greater public good decision.
Last edited:
Frenchy
Well-known member
Access to currently inaccessible Federal lands, that matches the current use of those federal lands just makes sense!
I could see raising a stink over the wilderness designation mandate on the gift, if the use of the federal lands they were providing access too had a less restrictive use. That's not the case here.
Take the gift. Purchase the 1400 other acres and score a big win for public access.
I could see raising a stink over the wilderness designation mandate on the gift, if the use of the federal lands they were providing access too had a less restrictive use. That's not the case here.
Take the gift. Purchase the 1400 other acres and score a big win for public access.
