The Environment

I know it is a little hard to agree with if you are conservation-minded, like myself, but there actually is an argument that can be made for trophy hunting being beneficial for promoting the conservation of these animals. (if done responsibly)  It creates a powerful monetary incentive to keep populations healthy.  Much more money than could have been made through poaching.

With that being said, Trump has not commissioned any study on the subject, or done any research whatsoever.  All he knows is that the NRA opposed the ban, and Obama created the ban.  Those two reasons alone are enough for him to act.

There are all kinds of red flags with regard to these two countries in terms of governmental corruption, and past failure to regulate poaching, etc.  This was the wrong way to "see if it works"

oops, I guess it didn't work after all - all the elephants are dead.  Oh, well.

 
Kiyoat Husker said:
I know it is a little hard to agree with if you are conservation-minded, like myself, but there actually is an argument that can be made for trophy hunting being beneficial for promoting the conservation of these animals. (if done responsibly)  It creates a powerful monetary incentive to keep populations healthy.  Much more money than could have been made through poaching.

With that being said, Trump has not commissioned any study on the subject, or done any research whatsoever.  All he knows is that the NRA opposed the ban, and Obama created the ban.  Those two reasons alone are enough for him to act.

There are all kinds of red flags with regard to these two countries in terms of governmental corruption, and past failure to regulate poaching, etc.  This was the wrong way to "see if it works"

oops, I guess it didn't work after all - all the elephants are dead.  Oh, well.
Click to expand...


I agree.  I am a hunter that promotes conservation and truly believes in what the hunting community does to enable this.  However, that's in the US.

However, like you implied......

I have absolutely zero faith in either of these countries being able to regulate this and turn it into something positive.

 
Fru said:
Click to expand...


While this picture is rather shocking, and for most famous people would be a serious scandal, I have no faith that it would ever be held against Jr or Trump by the right.

 Obviously there are many who would just think it is fine, regardless of context.  There are many who would love this image because they are simply vehemently anti-conservation.  But mostly because FOX News will defend anything Trump and his family does without question, and rationalizes it somehow.  And all the zombies parrot the rhetoric they hear.

A picture of Trump spraying toxic waste in the backyard of a daycare probably wouldn't affect his approval ratings much one way or the other, at this point.

 
Kiyoat Husker said:
While this picture is rather shocking, and for most famous people would be a serious scandal, I have no faith that it would ever be held against Jr or Trump by the right.

 Obviously there are many who would just think it is fine, regardless of context.  There are many who would love this image because they are simply vehemently anti-conservation.  But mostly because FOX News will defend anything Trump and his family does without question, and rationalizes it somehow.  And all the zombies parrot the rhetoric they hear.

A picture of Trump spraying toxic waste in the backyard of a daycare probably wouldn't affect his approval ratings much one way or the other, at this point.
Click to expand...




 
If you care about the environment - not as a secondary issue, but as a pressing one that we must address to leave a healthy planet for our children and our children's children - you CANNOT support this administration. 

Scott Pruitt as the head of the EPA is a destructive force selling us out for kickbacks from his friends in Big Energy.


 
Here's a bit of a problem.  Trump doesn't even have to shut down the EPA. By appointing deniers to run the agency, he's driving out the people we need to protect our environment.

Big business wins because there won't be anyone left to protect the environment.  In the name of limiting regulations, we're going to kill our natural resources. 

E.P.A. Officials, Disheartened by Agency’s Direction, Are Leaving in Droves

WASHINGTON — More than 700 people have left the Environmental Protection Agency since President Trump took office, a wave of departures that puts the administration nearly a quarter of the way toward its goal of shrinking the agency to levels last seen during the Reagan administration.

Of the employees who have quit, retired or taken a buyout package since the beginning of the year, more than 200 are scientists. An additional 96 are environmental protection specialists, a broad category that includes scientists as well as others experienced in investigating and analyzing pollution levels. Nine department directors have departed the agency as well as dozens of attorneys and program managers. Most of the employees who have left are not being replaced.

The departures reflect poor morale and a sense of grievance at the agency, which has been criticized by President Trump and top Republicans in Congress as bloated and guilty of regulatory overreach. That unease is likely to deepen following revelations that Republican campaign operatives were using the Freedom of Information Act to request copies of emails from E.P.A. officials suspected of opposing Mr. Trump and his agenda.

The cuts deepen a downward trend at the agency that began under the Obama administration in response to Republican-led budget constraints that left the agency with about 15,000 employees at the end of his term. The reductions have accelerated under President Trump, who campaigned on a promise to dramatically scale back the E.P.A., leaving only what he called “little tidbits” in place. Current and former employees say unlike during the Obama years, the agency has no plans to replace workers, and they expect deeper cuts to come.

“The reason E.P.A. went down to 15,000 employees under Obama is because of pressure from Republicans. This is the effort of the Republicans under the Obama administration on steroids,” said John J. O’Grady, president of American Federation of Government Employees Council 238, a union representing E.P.A. employees.
Click to expand...

 
121126_a16995_g2048.jpg


“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment

in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”

https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

 
knapplc said:
Here's a bit of a problem.  Trump doesn't even have to shut down the EPA. By appointing deniers to run the agency, he's driving out the people we need to protect our environment.

Big business wins because there won't be anyone left to protect the environment.  In the name of limiting regulations, we're going to kill our natural resources. 
Click to expand...


There has to be a limit to how far this administration can go in NOT enforcing federal laws (i.e. the Clean Water Act/Clean Air Act).  At some point citizen lawsuits or states' attorneys suits could force their hands, right?

 
no documents produced by 107 board members in only 30 days with only their final report to show for their work.   

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_EPA_TOXIC_SITES?SITE=COBOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

"Pruitt's plan for cleaning up toxic sites was apparently immaculately conceived, without the usual trappings of human parentage," Ruch said. "It stretches credulity that 107 EPA staff members with no agenda or reference materials somehow wrote an intricate plan in 30 days."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top