I deliberately made my title clickbait, sorry.
Hey, this is my first post, so I figured I would quickly introduce myself. I'm Geoff, and I am based in the capital city area. I'm a scientist in the field of environmental toxicology
I have a serious question for all of the Republican/Republican leaning sportsmen of this forum. I don't know if any of you have been following all of the resolutions that are being passed by Congress, but in my opinion, our Republican representatives are continually voting in a manner that is anti-sportsmen, anti-hunter, anti-outdoorsman, etc.
I encourage all of you to inform yourself (so that you can draw your own conclusions). My preferred way of doing this is looking up the actual resolutions that have been voted on using
And then looking at how elected officials have voted. You can track down what these bills are actually referring to if you go to the full text of the bill that has been voted on, and look at what specific portion of law it pertains to (I usually just google the actual law/pertinent section of law).
I have been doing this for almost all environment related resolutions, and I have seen a very consistent and disturbing trend. Republicans are continually voting against policies that safeguard our public lands from pollution, habitat loss, or other large environmental disturbances. They also seem to be anti-public land, and anti-public input on land use decisions.
I am going to list off a few of what I would consider the most important examples of what I am talking about. This might become a wall of text.
EXAMPLES:
H.R. 621
http://ift.tt/2k5pzRF
Thankfully, this was withdrawn by the Republican congressman who introduced it (after significant public outcry); However, he describes himself as an "outdoors-man". How can an outdoors-man be for the selling of public lands? Why would you voluntarily give up land that can be used for outdoor recreation?
H.J.R 44
This resolution was introduced by Republicans and it states that the following linked information will no longer be regulations regarding land management
In a nutshell H.J.R 44 wants to remove public engagement and transparency from the preparation of land management/use plans for federal land. To me, that says that our lawmakers are not interested in how we feel about what they do with our public lands. This was passed with only 4 Republicans voting against it.
H.J.R. 41
This next one isn't directly related to the environment, but it seems very suspicious to me.
H.J.R. 41 refers to the following linked information. It was introduced by a Republican from Michigan so that the following could be removed as a law/regulation
It basically states that resource extraction companies (minerals, oil/gas, etc) will no longer need to disclose the amount they have paid to the permit issuer (the person/entity who allows them to extract minerals, oil/gas, etc) or the federal government. The following is a direct quote: "The goal of such transparency is to help combat global corruption and empower citizens of resource-rich countries to hold their governments accountable for the wealth generated by those resources."
H.J.R. 38
This one removes the stream protection rule.
Once again, it was introduced by a Republican, and passed with almost exclusively republican votes
I could keep naming examples (and will if anyone asks), but I think I have made my point.
Also, if you are so inclined, I recently saw a pretty good youtube video about how federal land is important for outdoor recreation. You can find it below.
Personally, I consider myself an outdoors-man before I consider myself a republican or democrat. My priorities are 1. Family 2. Dogs 3. Hunting/Fishing 4. Work 5. Everything else. Are the republican sportsman of this forum ignorant of what seems to be happening, or do your opinions differ from mine?
How can Republicans call themselves sportsmen?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire