Today Trump is expected to announce the reduction (destruction) of two national monuments...

And nothing of value was lost.
 
Perhaps the wishes of the locals should be respected, over the desires of environmental activists a thousand miles away that will never even lay eyes on this rock.

This seems to be a rolling back of a previous regulatory overreach, more than the destruction of some sort of pristine environment.

Orrin hatch is bought and paid for, and those grass roots locals supporting this, are as real as BLM is.
 
No local aren't necessarily the best stewards because they can destroy an eco-system for short term material gain. It happens all the time all over the world. Deforestation, poaching, logging, overfishing, overgrazing, chemical run-offs affecting the water downstream.

Locals may not give a dam if a tortoise or owl or some other species that provides no visible benefit goes extinct, if they benefit monetarily from utilizing the land.
I maintain a large stretch of forest as primarily a hunting property. I've done more to preserve natural ecosystems and species than any environmentalist in my state could ever hope to.

I could easily have this entire Forest leveled, disc everything up, and start farming it.

I choose not to because I understand its value beyond productive Acres. This property is also where the monarch butterflies stop for a day and a half during their migration. I don't tell people in my own Community or in my home state about it, because God only knows what would happen to my property rights if the environmentalist wackos ever found out about that.

In regards to problems like overfishing, what you've highlighted is more of a problem of the commons, then a problem of private property. If large swaths of the ocean were to be privately owned, this would actually incentivize aquaculture, and the cultivation of fish populations. Instead, the ocean is considered a common resource, so there is no incentive for any individual to invest anything back into the ocean at all.

Re. the beach issue
If beaches were privatized, only the rich and those fortunate enough to own waterfront land get to enjoy it. People in cali and elsewhere would find it impossible to enjoy the stretches of beaches, if the rich had the right to shut off access. You will be left with access to beaches a long ways from home, or stretches of beach that are not suitable for most activities.
My ownership of a forest shuts off access to other people being able to use said Forest. However, there is lots of public land that people are free to use to hunt or for recreational activity. There's no justifiable reason why beachfront should be treated any different. Some beachfront should stay public, but it's not the end of the world if some beach front is bought, sold, and possessed privately
 
Last edited:
Props to Yvon Chouinard for doing the right thing. Utah deserved to lose the outdoor show too.
 
Corporations and republicans would turn this entire county into a wasteland if it meant Profits.

America would be one giant paved over mini mall.
 
Last edited:
Orrin hatch is bought and paid for, and those grass roots locals supporting this, are as real as BLM is.
It's still there home.

You and I have no business telling them how they should live, or how they should use their own natural resources.
 
Corporations and republicans would turn this entire county into a waste land if it meant Profits.

America would be one giant paved over mini mall.
How much profit would they get if the entire country was a wasteland?
 
So are these places getting flattened or what? Is one of those everything is holy to the indians things?
 
And do what once every drop is sucked?


Move on to the next.

They would pave the amazon rainforest over in a split second if they got the green light to do so. Corporations would ravage America if they could.
 
Back
Top