What presidential candidate would be most beneficial to the climbing community and land access?

In your opinion which presidential candidate in the current POTUS race would be the best choice to preserving and providing access our public lands and national parks? In the past some presidents have done great things and some have done terrible things to our public lands.

The last thing I want is someone who will restrict access to public lands or strip funding for national parks. This is not the top issue 'Merica is faced with, just an issue I feel deeply about.

Please stick to topic, otherwise GFY.

Oh, you want a political discussion? Great idea. Should remain civil for a minute or two.

FrankPS wrote:Oh, you want a political discussion? Great idea. Should remain civil for a minute or two.

It'll remain more civil than our climbing discussions

Lol. Climbing access will always be a strictly partisan thing because we like to do things on lands where they extract coal, oil, and natural gas. Take a big guess which party is going to support that...

Truth be told, though, the answer is none of them. Access is very much a state and local issue, and there's not much a president can do (thankfully) to help/harm the issue.

Tim Lutz wrote:Trump. He would stop regulations on Fed lands, including powerdrilling in the wilderness. drill baby drill!

Do you have a source for this? It is one thing to stop regulations but, giving access for energy exploration is only going to harm the environment and these preserved areas.

Ted Pinson wrote:Lol. Climbing access will always be a strictly partisan thing because we like to do things on lands where they extract coal, oil, and natural gas. Take a big guess which party is going to support that... Truth be told, though, the answer is none of them. Access is very much a state and local issue, and there's not much a president can do (thankfully) to help/harm the issue.

I agree, It must be local. but in Utah there is an ongoing battle for control of public land between local and federal government.

As inconvenient as federal wilderness/park/forest/etc. regulations may be for climbing, they likely pale in comparison to the forest of "No Trespassing" signs that would likely grow up in much of the west if land is sold off to private owners as many desire.

There is almost no public land in much of the south, and what part of country is most notorious for access issues?

J Marsella wrote:Think of the climbing possibilities on the mexico/america wall!

Hahahahaha

Well, this is a pretty good endorsement:

facebook.com/video.php?v=90…

J Marsella wrote:Think of the climbing possibilities on the mexico/america wall!

Especially as it keeps getting ten feet higher. Extensions ad-nauseum.

Any candidate that doesn't support the transfer of federal lands to the state level. In theory this might sound like a nice idea but the fact is that many states don't have the funds to manage that land and they will sell it to companies that don't give a shit about climber access. (i.e. logging, oil, mineral companies)

Out here in the Willamette Valley the big one is Weyerhauser.

I'm not going to get into parties here but this is a serious issue.

So far, Trump has been the only GOP candidate to go on record against the state seizure of federal lands (and it was with Field & Stream magazine, and I think hunters and fishermen will be the crucial stakeholders that keep federal lands federal).

There's still all the other things he's said, but if I was a republican, and a single-issue voter, and almost impossibly stupid and short-sighted, he'd have my support for that.

I've seen nothing to suggest that Hillary or Bernie would do anything to open up public lands for more development, so for the climbing access angle, I don't think either Democratic candidate is a bad choice.

Super Fluke wrote: Please stick to topic, otherwise GFY.

Apparently that's part of the topic.
Sounds like you are voting for Trump anyway.

Ted Pinson wrote:Lol. Climbing access will always be a strictly partisan thing because we like to do things on lands where they extract coal, oil, and natural gas. Take a big guess which party is going to support that... Truth be told, though, the answer is none of them. Access is very much a state and local issue, and there's not much a president can do (thankfully) to help/harm the issue.

It must be awful living in a part of the world where all of the Federal land is flat and bereft of climbing.

So, all of the climbing in National Parks (which is part and parcel of the federal lands heist) is managed at the Federal level. Likewise for anything on National Forest (Wind Rivers, most of the Sierras) or BLM (Indian Creek). While the management offices are staffed by locals, and the decisions are made by and with local input, they are still federal lands. This is true for virtually all the climbing west of the Mississippi River.

Even your beloved Red Rock Canyon Conservation Area is federally administered.

So, right, wrong or indifferent, the federal government (and therefore the president) can have a lot of say on the subject.

I've gotten rather political this year. I talk to a lot of people. Guess what, I have yet to meet someone that actually comes out and says "Trump". I talk to people who like Hillary, or Sanders. I occasionally talk to someone who likes Rubio or Cruz. More often than not, I talk to people who don't like any of them, and of the bunch are most critical of #1 Trump and #2 Clinton.

So what gives, are people publicly embarrassed to like him? Cause statistically, I've definitely talked to someone who likes him.

As far as who I like, I vote for the environment. Even if it limits certain areas, at least I know it's not turned into a strip mine.

Tony B wrote: Apparently that's part of the topic. Sounds like you are voting for Trump anyway.

I am not a Trump supporter, a Trump presidency actually scares the shit out of me, but he's a better choice than all the other Republicans and Clinton. If I was to choose a candidate today I would support Sanders, he shares most of my views and concerns.

Its important to me to gain some clarification about the candidates stance on this issue. I'm trying to find a solid 2nd choice if Sanders dose not win the nomination.

GFY is just a friendly reminder to stay on topic. I see a lot of threads on MP that get high jacked and go way off topic. I would like to see this thread stay on topic is all.

Super Fluke wrote: I am not a Trump supporter, a Trump presidency actually scares the shit out of me, but he's a better choice than all the other Republicans and Clinton. If I was to choose a candidate today I would support Sanders, he shares most of my views and concerns. Its important to me to gain some clarification about the candidates stance on this issue. I'm trying to find a solid 2nd choice if Sanders dose not win the nomination. GFY is just a friendly reminder to stay on topic. I see a lot of threads on MP that get high jacked and go way off topic. I would like to see this thread stay on topic is all.

Can you be specific on why you'd choose Trump over Hillary? I'm genuinely curious.

Generally speaking, our elected officials don't really make decisions. They are representatives of industries and corporations. Therefore, it is not an elected official that would seek to limit access or funding but rather the industries or particular corporations that would.

So the real question is "How are we (you and I) supporting industries and businesses that negatively impact our lives?"

In a capitalist economic system we vote with our money. This has been approved by the Supreme Court.

Bernie Sanders 'cause he will take all the money from those evil rich folks and give free education, health care and handouts to all of us that would rather go on the dole and become dirtbags and climb everyday instead of going to work

Super Fluke wrote: I'm trying to find a solid 2nd choice if Sanders dose not win the nomination.

I don't understand that line of reasoning. One way or another, your vote will not change the outcome of the election, so why legitimize the victor by voting for someone you don't believe in?

powhound84 wrote: If you believe in any politician, you are a not very smart. Voting is about picking the lesser of 2 evils.

Voting is about exercising your right. Your vote will not change the outcome of a presidential election, but that does not mean it has no impact. Sheeps pick the lesser of 2 evils.