Originally Posted by amv48
"I don't think there is any question that when Democrats are in charge they do a better job in this area, historically speaking."
Teddy Roosevelt? National park service? Nixon started the epa?
You may be right that more Dems have claimed to be pro environment, but they also tend to promote govt regulation of everything and anything they can tax and make money from. Less regulation means less bs w permits, licenses, user days... Whoever is more for hands off public land use is who you may want to look at. I honestly haven't heard any candidate talk about preserving wilderness or promoting access in this election, likely because our middle class production jobs have been outsourced and we have people in and trying to get into our country to blow is up. Just sayin
When I saw this post I figured someone would come along and set the record straight and appreciate Cayo2’s start. I'm not too thrilled to wade into partisan politics but...
As for the bit about Roosevelt, the NPS and Nixon and the EPA, sure, there are some great advances on the part of the Republicans from a century ago and from 40 years ago, but not much since then. Things have changed alot since the time when the EPA started, that was a "different period" in American politics, people were literally sick from pollution and other events like when the Cuyahoga River caught fire
, and the pressure to do something was so great that even Nixon did something positive.
Since then, there has generally been outright resistance and opposition by the Republicans to anything that would result in industry having to be responsible for their messes. And as for what real environmentalists think about the different parties, if you'll scroll down the League of Conservation Voters scorecard
on the issue some partisan trends become pretty apparent.
Another thing that I have to disagree with is the implied notion that "Less regulation means less bs w permits, licenses, user days... "
Having boated under administrations of both parties I have never felt that getting permits was any easier as a result of actions taken by either party. If it's more difficult to get permits these days, it's because increasing demand in the last decade of so and that we've been moving to automated systems like rec.gov. It's not because Obama said, "I want to impose regulation to make it harder for people to go enjoy nature." I'm no big fan of Rec.gov, but if you want to see a more efficient government “doing more with less,” you better get used to automated systems like this. And if you don’t want overcrowding and degradation of already over-used rivers and campsites, maybe you should think twice about whether you want to loosen up the regulations and restrictions on use. When I float from a permit section of river into a place that’s accessible from roads where anyone can come down and camp, there’s a pretty stark difference between what you’ll see in regulated and unregulated impacts on the campsites, and it doesn’t look good in the unregulated scene.
As for “Whoever is more for hands off public land use is who you may want to look at,” I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying there but can only infer you’d like to see fewer restrictions on public land use. So are you talking about just recreational use? Opening up wilderness areas to logging and OHV use? Petroleum and mining on public lands? Are you ready to see less regulation for high impact uses of public land that would loosen reclamation requirements and let companies vandalize the land we love?
Something to remember is that a lot of the regulations on boating are intended to preserve a "wilderness-type of setting” and prevent overcrowding and the kind of trashing that we see in the Grand Canyon thread here
. The majority of boaters, in the West at least, have adopted Leave no Trace
ethics required by the regulations and are OK with them. I personally like being able to come ashore at a beautiful campsite and find it clean with nothing but footprints and some trails and tentsites indicating another group was there the night before, and the night before that, and the night before that.
And the statement that:
Republicans turn the environment over to the mercy of industry, more times then not, and the democrats turn it over to Government agency's to basically screw up.
is baffling to me. I'll agree with the first part but where this notion that government agencies screw up everything they touch comes from I have no idea. Sure they're not perfect and you can always find anecdotes, but at least they have a mission to protect the resources rather than to maximize profits, all else be damned. If you want to point to the BLM issuing lots of drilling permits under the Democrats, just imagine what you'd get to see under the "hands off regulation and turn business loose" rule of a Republican administration. If you want to point to how the EPA screwed the pooch on the Animas, go for it, but remember they were making an effort to clean up a royal mess that had been left by unregulated
industry. I've been on other sites where the EPA actually did clean up messes that proper care would have prevented but would've cut the business's bottom line.
In general, if you're trying to figure out which party would do better with the environment, it's a pretty clear choice for anyone that's been paying attention during the last 20 or 30 years. And this BS that "the parties are all the same" is just that.