Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Conservation Beats Environmentalism

 

American Conservatism is conserving America. Conserving we the people and the land on which we live. Democrats have used environmentalism to give a generation of young voters a feeling of purpose, but it is time for Conservatives to demonstrate how conservation is something superior. People will sometimes use the terms synonymously but there are profound differences between the tradition of conservation and the religion of environmentalism.

Specifics vs. Abstractions

Conservation is a practical tradition of managing specific resources with specific goals in mind. Conservation is measuring the populations of animals, the conditions of habitats, the accessibility and utility of land, and actively managing it with a specific plan. When a species is threatened or endangered we make a plan to bring them back to a stable population so that we can enjoy that species in our ecosystems and our communities. The Bald Eagle, The Grizzle Bear, The Gray Wolf, only a few successes of looking at specific objectives and taking sensible goals to achieve them.

Environmentalism is an abstract exercise in virtue to the left. The Green New Deal is more about socialism than it is about the environment so why is that the “gold standard” of environmentalist ambition? Because the more vague environmentalism is the more regulatory power the government can demand and the more control regulators can wield. If the only thing Environmentalists care about is net carbon emissions they’d support a carbon tax as the one and only policy and push that 24/7. The socialism and the “environmental justice” and all the nonsense is not a sideshow of the movement but the point of the movement.

Outcomes vs Inputs

Conservation is an effort with an eye to outcomes. When a species is listed or an area designated as protected we are measuring that resource with an eye towards recovery. Conservation isn’t about passing pointless restrictions or arbitrary commands but making decisions that directly affect outcomes. If the duration of a hunting season is lengthened or shortened it is because that’ll change the number of animals killed and the number of animals left to move the population to the desired management level. The outcome and result of an action is the motivating factor for an action.

Environmentalism is about the inputs regardless of their effect and results. Banning straws made Starbucks use a new type of lid that has more plastic than the straw. It takes a gallon of fuel to farm a gallon of ethanol from corn. Banning plastic bags at the grocery store increases carbon emissions by producing reusable and makes consumers buy thicker plastic bags for trash bins. Do any of these undesirable outcomes matter to environmentalists? No. Environmentalism is not about what actually happens it is about signaling virtue and demonstrating how environmental someone is with symbolic gestures that have little to no impact on improving our natural world.

Activism vs. Protestation

Non-profit organizations have a long tradition of conserving our natural resources leading the way in front of the government. In 1942 there were as few as 200,000 turkeys in North America. Today, after the hard work of thousands of conservationists there are over 7 million turkeys in the United States. These turkeys didn’t come from conservationists storming football fields or shouting on college campuses. They came about because Americans rolled up their sleeves and got to work changing the world around them and making it a better place for the future.

Environmentalism is about protesting to demonstrate how noble you are. If environmentalists spent half the time they spend protesting actually working in the environment, they would do 100x more good than they are currently. Rallies and protests and marches and nonsense might feel good and feel like they are achieving things but the truth is that all the screeches of leftist environmentalists are not improving anything.

Concern vs. Catastrophe 

Conservation is about keeping a vigilant lookout for problems. When a new threat comes up like Chronic Wasting Disease in deer Conservationists act to study and understand the disease to find solutions to it. These concerns are taken seriously and worked towards being managed. It isn’t a crisis and people don’t run through the streets as though it were the last days of Rome. They look at the problems and with a level head tackle it.

Environmentalism is an apocalyptic religion of doomsayers. The sky is always falling and the only solution is, of course, to give up freedom and empowering our governmental betters to run our lives for us from Washington. What good is freedom when we’re all dead so might as well give the Democrat tyrants total control because you should be too terrified to think about anything else. Panic yourself into a frenzy and then give power to liberals. That’s the message of environmentalism and it’s one of the darkest aspects to the movement.

Admire vs. Worship

Finally, I would say that Conservation is about loving nature and wanting to take care of it and admire it. To realize that God (or chance if that’s your god) blessed us with the most incredible world and that we can interact with the natural world in a way that allows us to enjoy it, utilize it, and pass it on to our children better than we found it.

Environmentalism is the worship of the environment and the hatred of humanity that is but a plague upon it. NBC set up a “climate confessional” where people can confess their SINS against the environment. To the neo-pagan liberal, the environment is god, and man is just a destructive sack of meat blighting it.

Conclusion

In Close, the next time you hear someone say that they vote for Democrats because they care about the environment use the opportunity to showcase how Republicans, the Party of Teddy Roosevelt, The Part of the Clean Air Act, The Party of the Clean Water Act, The Party on Conservation, does more for the natural world than Democrats ever dream of. Republicans have a long and noble tradition of conservation and we need to put that front and center to win with young voters who aren’t lost and gone forever. As they get older and wiser we can help them see that voting Red is voting Green.

There are 75 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Barfly Member

    Environmentalists come from cities. Conservationists have skin in the game.

    • #1
    • November 26, 2019, at 5:15 PM PST
    • 8 likes
  2. Lilly B Coolidge

    I whole-heartedly agree that conservatives should do a better job of highlighting that we value stewardship of the environment. We let the left win the argument because environmental don’t get enough attention in conservative media.

    • #2
    • November 26, 2019, at 5:20 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  3. Barfly Member

    Lilly B (View Comment):

    I whole-heartedly agree that conservatives should do a better job of highlighting that we value stewardship of the environment. We let the left win the argument because environmental don’t get enough attention in conservative media.

    Not enough attention in conservative political media, but I bet more of us read American Hunter than National Review.

    • #3
    • November 26, 2019, at 5:50 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  4. Lilly B Coolidge

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Lilly B (View Comment):

    I whole-heartedly agree that conservatives should do a better job of highlighting that we value stewardship of the environment. We let the left win the argument because environmental don’t get enough attention in conservative media.

    Not enough attention in conservative political media, but I bet more of us read American Hunter than National Review.

    I’ll buy that. What I know is that if I research certain environmental issues, I can’t find a conservative take. Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Fund have professionals dedicated to monitoring and pushing their pet issues. They influence the views of the public among those on the left, as well as liberals and independents. And the left makes movies (see Erin Brockovich and the upcoming Dark Waters),

    Conservatives need better ways to answer left-leaning scientific and legal arguments in the popular imagination. There are some good conservative environmental takes, but in relative terms, not enough when compared to the liberal media-entertainment complex.

    Furthermore, environmental professionals are almost uniformly progressive/liberal. More government is always the answer. Look at what happened to Scott Pruitt. He was in enemy territory at EPA.

    • #4
    • November 26, 2019, at 6:06 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  5. Barfly Member

    Lilly B (View Comment):
    What I know is that if I research certain environmental issues, I can’t find a conservative take. Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Fund have professionals dedicated to monitoring and pushing their pet issues. They influence the views of the public among those on the left, as well as liberals and independents. And the left makes movies (see Erin Brockovich and the upcoming Dark Waters),

    You’re right. The fact that we have presence at the hands-on level doesn’t counter their ownership of the policy sphere, which is supported by their ownership of mainstream entertainment.

    • #5
    • November 26, 2019, at 6:14 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  6. Clifford A. Brown Contributor

    Barfly (View Comment):
    more of us read American Hunter than National Review.

    Very safe bet.

    • #6
    • November 26, 2019, at 6:23 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  7. The Reticulator Member

    I don’t think the dividing line is between conservation and environmentalism, but is rather in between some of the different types of environmentalists. (I’ve long called myself a right-wing, conservative environmentalist.) But aside from the labels, a quick read suggests that you are making good and important distinctions. Maybe sometime when I’m wider awake I’ll find some nits to pick.

    • #7
    • November 26, 2019, at 9:41 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  8. Bryce Carmony Inactive
    Bryce Carmony

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    I don’t think the dividing line is between conservation and environmentalism, but is rather in between some of the different types of environmentalists. (I’ve long called myself a right-wing, conservative environmentalist.) But aside from the labels, a quick read suggests that you are making good and important distinctions. Maybe sometime when I’m wider awake I’ll find some nits to pick.

    There’s a little overlap but when you look at the center of gravity for environmentalism it is AOC and Al Gore not whatever conservative environmentalism is. Maybe deep down in the hell-hole of Nazism there’s a good idea that “conservative nazism” could argue is really a great thing, but at some point you have to cut your losses and abandon ship. Environmentalism has been overrun by a cult of lunatics and conservatism is better off without it. Let Democrats be environmentalists and Republicans can be conservationists and when we save all the species and preserve and maintain an incredible world voters can decide if running around screaming about a 2 degree temperature increase killing all life on earth is a better hobby. 

    I want to conserve the atmosphere and if that means we come together to make ground rules on how we will live that’s great but that doesn’t make me an environmentalist anymore than thinking women and men are created equally makes me a feminist. 

    • #8
    • November 27, 2019, at 12:45 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  9. Bryce Carmony Inactive
    Bryce Carmony

    Barfly (View Comment):

    You’re right. The fact that we have presence at the hands-on level doesn’t counter their ownership of the policy sphere, which is supported by their ownership of mainstream entertainment.

    Which is why I think we need to make conservation a larger portion of the Republican Party Platform and the conservative conversation. There is a tendency of conservatives to do a lot of good but not market to people the good that they’re doing. In a perfect world we wouldn’t have to “market” conservatism but we find ourselves in a reality where if you ask a young person “What political party cares about the environment” they’re going to say Democrats. 

    Republicans are too quick to let libertarians say nonsense like “we can just privatize wildlife” and “sell the property and private owners will take better care of it” Which is [redacted] and when Republicans don’t keep a stern hand on our libertarian voters we get bogged down with their dumber ideas. 

     

     

    • #9
    • November 27, 2019, at 1:23 AM PST
    • Like
  10. Lilly B Coolidge

    Bryce Carmony (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    I don’t think the dividing line is between conservation and environmentalism, but is rather in between some of the different types of environmentalists. (I’ve long called myself a right-wing, conservative environmentalist.) But aside from the labels, a quick read suggests that you are making good and important distinctions. Maybe sometime when I’m wider awake I’ll find some nits to pick.

    There’s a little overlap but when you look at the center of gravity for environmentalism it is AOC and Al Gore not whatever conservative environmentalism is. Maybe deep down in the hell-hole of Nazism there’s a good idea that “conservative nazism” could argue is really a great thing, but at some point you have to cut your losses and abandon ship. Environmentalism has been overrun by a cult of lunatics and conservatism is better off without it. Let Democrats be environmentalists and Republicans can be conservationists and when we save all the species and preserve and maintain an incredible world voters can decide if running around screaming about a 2 degree temperature increase killing all life on earth is a better hobby.

    I want to conserve the atmosphere and if that means we come together to make ground rules on how we will live that’s great but that doesn’t make me an environmentalist anymore than thinking women and men are created equally makes me a feminist.

    I like much of what you’re saying here, but I’m wary of endorsing anything that includes the bit about nazism. You know how easily that can be intentionally misconstrued to condemn everything you say. I get that it’s your point, but this is my “like,” with caveat.

    • #10
    • November 27, 2019, at 2:53 AM PST
    • Like
  11. The Reticulator Member

    Bryce Carmony (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    I don’t think the dividing line is between conservation and environmentalism, but is rather in between some of the different types of environmentalists. (I’ve long called myself a right-wing, conservative environmentalist.) But aside from the labels, a quick read suggests that you are making good and important distinctions. Maybe sometime when I’m wider awake I’ll find some nits to pick.

    There’s a little overlap but when you look at the center of gravity for environmentalism it is AOC and Al Gore not whatever conservative environmentalism is. Maybe deep down in the hell-hole of Nazism there’s a good idea that “conservative nazism” could argue is really a great thing, but at some point you have to cut your losses and abandon ship. Environmentalism has been overrun by a cult of lunatics and conservatism is better off without it. Let Democrats be environmentalists and Republicans can be conservationists and when we save all the species and preserve and maintain an incredible world voters can decide if running around screaming about a 2 degree temperature increase killing all life on earth is a better hobby.

    I want to conserve the atmosphere and if that means we come together to make ground rules on how we will live that’s great but that doesn’t make me an environmentalist anymore than thinking women and men are created equally makes me a feminist.

    Sorry, but I’m going to continue to use my labels, despite the center of gravity being where you say it is. Conservationist, as the term is traditionally used, is not an adequate term to describe my views and actions, though I’m perhaps closer to that than are a lot of modern environmentalists. 

    • #11
    • November 27, 2019, at 5:30 AM PST
    • 1 like
  12. Bryce Carmony Inactive
    Bryce Carmony

    Lilly B (View Comment):

    I like much of what you’re saying here, but I’m wary of endorsing anything that includes the bit about nazism. You know how easily that can be intentionally misconstrued to condemn everything you say. I get that it’s your point, but this is my “like,” with caveat.

    To use less loaded term you could say “maybe social justice has a good idea here and there” not I wouldn’t want conservatives to call themselves social justice warriors.

    Some labels become so toxic it’s better to abandon them not try and reabilitate them. I’d say the Confederate flag is too far gone to save but the Betsy Ross flag isn’t.

    • #12
    • November 27, 2019, at 6:11 AM PST
    • 1 like
  13. Front Seat Cat Member

    The Green New Deal is a hoax to push socialistic policies said the boyfriend and assistant to Ocasio-Cortez, remember? Democrats with all their bellowing about the environment, don’t know how to clean it up. The Democratic-run cities (like Baltimore as Trump pointed out) have trash and abandoned buildings all over. The Obama EPA did a lousy job – remember the Michigan water nightmare? We have the most innovative in architecture, auto, etc. for creating energy friendly product. The little girl from Sweden needs to go spout off in India and China – have you seen the smog in India – pictures of people on bikes with face masks? Tax them.

    • #13
    • November 27, 2019, at 6:17 AM PST
    • 3 likes
  14. Bryce Carmony Inactive
    Bryce Carmony

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Sorry, but I’m going to continue to use my labels, despite the center of gravity being where you say it is. Conservationist, as the term is traditionally used, is not an adequate term to describe my views and actions, though I’m perhaps closer to that than are a lot of modern environmentalists. 

    No need to be sorry you and AOC do your thing we will do our thing. 

    • #14
    • November 27, 2019, at 6:30 AM PST
    • Like
  15. Michael Brehm Coolidge

    Bryce,

    I wish my father was still alive so I could send this to him, he would have loved it. He was the chief forester for a lumber company and I learned all about conservation sitting on his knee. He truly loved spending time in the woods, and also understood that if they were carefully harvested and maintained they can be an endless source of enrichment for everyone. Through conservation, the forest can be both a pleasant place to visit and also a reliable source of timber for all our needs. Your words echo his sentiments.

    Thank you!

    • #15
    • November 27, 2019, at 7:20 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  16. Bryce Carmony Inactive
    Bryce Carmony

    Michael Brehm (View Comment):

    Bryce,

    I wish my father was still alive so I could send this to him, he would have loved it. He was the chief forester for a lumber company and I learned all about conservation sitting on his knee. He truly loved spending time in the woods, and also understood that if they were carefully harvested and maintained they can be an endless source of enrichment for everyone. Through conservation, the forest can be both a pleasant place to visit and also a reliable source of timber for all our needs. Your words echo his sentiments.

    Thank you!

    Thanks to your father for providing a renewable resource that improves the lives of people every day. 

     

    • #16
    • November 27, 2019, at 7:24 AM PST
    • 1 like
  17. Phil Turmel Coolidge

    Great essay. Like @michaelbrehm, I grew up around and spent part of my career in the wood products industry (papermaking, specifically), so conservation was a really big deal, and practiced near-religiously by the companies involved. Especially beginning in the mid-80’s. I was constantly amazed at the vituperation directed at the lumber and paper industries, in spite of leaps and bounds made not just in forest management, but in air and water quality. The idea that workers in these fields somehow didn’t want healthy forests and clear air and clean water just astounds me.

    I would say that conservation is an aspect of environmentalism, but is distinct from preservation and restoration. The latter is particularly hostile to the continued existence of humanity on this world. One should note that environmentalist saint John Muir quite deliberately used “conservation” in his advocacy for establishing National Parks, in terms that conform well to your essay’s meaning.

    • #17
    • November 27, 2019, at 9:05 AM PST
    • 7 likes
  18. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Phil Turmel (View Comment):

    Great essay. Like @michaelbrehm, I grew up around and spent part of my career in the wood products industry (papermaking, specifically), so conservation was a really big deal, and practiced near-religiously by the companies involved. Especially beginning in the mid-80’s. I was constantly amazed at the vituperation directed at the lumber and paper industries, in spite of leaps and bounds made not just in forest management, but in air and water quality. The idea that workers in these fields somehow didn’t want healthy forests and clear air and clean water just astounds me.

    I would say that conservation is an aspect of environmentalism, but is distinct from preservation and restoration. The latter is particularly hostile to the continued existence of humanity on this world. One should note that environmentalist saint John Muir quite deliberately used “conservation” in his advocacy for establishing National Parks, in terms that conform well to your essay’s meaning.

    Yes. 

    The whole point to me of conservation is to have it later. Parks are meant to be used. Timber can be managed. Trees are the ultimate renewable resource. 

    • #18
    • November 27, 2019, at 10:02 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  19. El Colonel Contributor

    Conservatives are always associated with free markets, that is, capitalists. Unfortunately with intense capitalism comes competition and it is often too easy to compromise safety, fair dealing and the environment when faced with the relentless pressures of profit and economic survival. The choice becomes, ignore or bend the rules and gain some modicum of advantage, or face losses – loss of customers, loss of profits, loss of wages, etc. By painting conservatives as compromised capitalists, they become pariahs, destructive of our world, exploitative, corrupt and evil.

    We must acknowledge the fact that capitalism can, in fact, bring out the worst in human nature. That is something that conservatives must stand up against. Capitalists are risk takers and the risks in extremis that they take may well compromise the well-being of employees, customers, the environment and the public. That is where regulation and regulators come in. Look at the current controversy regarding the mega tech companies. Are they really considering the effect that their products have on developing young minds?

    Conservatives need to distance themselves subtly from the wholesale embrace of capitalism; it is by itself innocuous, but when we add people to the equation, we know what can happen and we must be vigilant in our affirmative role in ensuring that the health, rights and well being of the public and the environment are primary in our role in refereeing the marketplace and assessing the risks taken by capitalists.

    • #19
    • November 27, 2019, at 10:36 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  20. Gossamer Cat Coolidge

    El Colonel (View Comment):
    Conservatives need to distance themselves subtly from the wholesale embrace of capitalism;

    The conservatives I know understand that capitalism untethered from morality and ethics is subject to abuse. It’s why we tend to be supporters of religion, strong families and community engagement along with free markets.

    • #20
    • November 27, 2019, at 11:07 AM PST
    • 5 likes
  21. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Best I can tell capitalism does better, not perfect, but better than anything else. EPA turned a river orange. 

    • #21
    • November 27, 2019, at 11:13 AM PST
    • 4 likes
  22. The Reticulator Member

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    EPA turned a river orange. 

    Are you sure? Orange man is bad, so what about an orange river? 

    • #22
    • November 27, 2019, at 11:16 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  23. Bryce Carmony Inactive
    Bryce Carmony

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Best I can tell capitalism does better, not perfect, but better than anything else. EPA turned a river orange.

    Capitalism doesn’t do it better. If you want privately owned wildlife move to Europe where landed aristocrats own any wildlife on their land. 

    Capitalism hunted Bison to Extinction and removed Elk from 97% of their habitat. You can’t use “capitalism” to manage an estate that we and our children collectively own. 

    We had to ban market meat because capitalists decimated wildlife populations. We tried the libertarian solution and it was a disaster so if encourage you to study American exceptionalism a little and see why the North American model of wildlife conservation is the envy of the world.

    • #23
    • November 27, 2019, at 11:43 AM PST
    • Like
  24. The Reticulator Member

    Bryce Carmony (View Comment):
    Capitalism hunted Bison to Extinction and removed Elk from 97% of their habitat. You can’t use “capitalism” to manage an estate that we and our children collectively own. 

    I wouldn’t count on the Tragedy of the Commons to save us, either. 

    • #24
    • November 27, 2019, at 12:47 PM PST
    • 2 likes
  25. Barfly Member

    Bryce Carmony (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Best I can tell capitalism does better, not perfect, but better than anything else. EPA turned a river orange.

    Capitalism doesn’t do it better. If you want privately owned wildlife move to Europe where landed aristocrats own any wildlife on their land.

    Capitalism hunted Bison to Extinction and removed Elk from 97% of their habitat. You can’t use “capitalism” to manage an estate that we and our children collectively own.

    We had to ban market meat because capitalists decimated wildlife populations. We tried the libertarian solution and it was a disaster so if encourage you to study American exceptionalism a little and see why the North American model of wildlife conservation is the envy of the world.

    Excellent point regarding the failure of the solution from the libertarian end of the conservative spectrum. Capital ell Libertarianism is the political philosophy of the gifted adolescent – it’s mostly correct but critically incomplete, because it elides the fact that humans live in communities. One way to define political Conservativism is Libertarianism balanced with Communitarianism.

    North American wildlife and habitat conservation as practiced by those of us who get wet, cold, and dirty and shoot animals is the most successful environmental management regime in the history of the human race. Just one more thing that the U.S. of A. does best.

    @bryangstephens makes the point that collectivism, as manifested in the EPA, damn you Richard Nixon for the EPA, is where we go wrong every time. Collectivism has nothing to do with communities.

    • #25
    • November 27, 2019, at 12:51 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  26. Bryce Carmony Inactive
    Bryce Carmony

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    I wouldn’t count on the Tragedy of the Commons to save us, either.

    The tragedy of the commons is the libertarian dream. A free for all of anarchy with no pesky regulation to get in the way.

    If you get around to reading the Constitution you might notice that we are not only interested in securing the blessings of liberty for us but also future unborn generations. So the idiotic libertarian idea of selling the birthright of our children to people today is insanely myopic and is not fulfilling the Constitution. If libertarians hate the Constitution so much like I tell Democrats feel free to amend it. 

     

     

    • #26
    • November 27, 2019, at 1:16 PM PST
    • 1 like
  27. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Bryce Carmony (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Best I can tell capitalism does better, not perfect, but better than anything else. EPA turned a river orange.

    Capitalism doesn’t do it better. If you want privately owned wildlife move to Europe where landed aristocrats own any wildlife on their land.

    Capitalism hunted Bison to Extinction and removed Elk from 97% of their habitat. You can’t use “capitalism” to manage an estate that we and our children collectively own.

    We had to ban market meat because capitalists decimated wildlife populations. We tried the libertarian solution and it was a disaster so if encourage you to study American exceptionalism a little and see why the North American model of wildlife conservation is the envy of the world.

    Better than Socialism

    We are capitalist and we do a better job than any non capitalist society. The richer people get the more they care.

    But, you don’t want to understand, you want to be a jerk. I am a high fan of American Exceptional ism

    • #27
    • November 27, 2019, at 1:39 PM PST
    • Like
  28. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Which you would know if you wanted to get to know me.

    • #28
    • November 27, 2019, at 1:43 PM PST
    • 1 like
  29. Bryce Carmony Inactive
    Bryce Carmony

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Better than Socialism

    We are capitalist and we do a better job than any non capitalist society. The richer people get the more they care.

    But, you don’t want to understand, you want to be a jerk. I am a high fan of American Exceptional ism

    If you define the collective ownership of the means of production yes we have socialism in America. Wildlife is produced on land we collectively own and regulate if you’re going to obsess over labels let’s just call a spade a spade. We collectively control what you can do, how you can do it, how much you can take, when you can do it. It’s illegal to sell deer meat because we collectively control the production of wild game I don’t know what to tell you.

    The world isn’t black and white the fact we pay for minors to get an education doesn’t make us communist China. It’s a big country a lot of the property is privately owned a lot of the country is publicly owned. Are public lands socialism? No. Capitalism isn’t the point of life and it isn’t the point of the United States. We use markets to pursue our constitutional goals markets are only a means not an end unto themselves.

    • #29
    • November 27, 2019, at 2:05 PM PST
    • Like
  30. philo Member

    First of all, I want it to be crystal clear that I am a “Country First Conservationist.”

    [To be continued]

    • #30
    • November 27, 2019, at 3:09 PM PST
    • 2 likes

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.