Would you rather there be no outdoors for your grandchildren to hunt in? The “other party” isn’t at war with hunting, they just want a planet that’s livable for future generations.
Texas —> +85,267
North Carolina —> +82,288
South Carolina —> +68,043
Florida —> +64,017
Tennessee —> +48,476
These 5 states saw the biggest net domestic migration DECREASE between July 2023 and July 2024:
California —> -239,575
New York —> -120,917
Illinois —> -56,235
New Jersey —> -35,554
Massachusetts —> -27,480
Of course not. Thats the kind of lack of nuance that I object to.
I support high reward changes that protect or revitalize the environment. Banning several diesel boats instead of phasing them out at the end life/next upgrade isn't going to save the planet. It just makes the outdoors and environment inaccessible.
There are so many thoughtless and net negative policies.
At some point you have to draw a line and say, we're not going to allow something that spits out this much pollution just to make catching fish as cheap as it used to be.
There are clear benefits to banning diesel engines in freshwater. That's why so many places are doing it. Lots of people support these measures because it's a very clear benefit.
If a business can't afford to operate without being subsidized by the environment, they shouldn't be allowed to operate. When you use those diesel engines, you're taking out a loan using the environment. That loan needs to be repaid, and it gets repaid in the from of destruction rebuild costs. So when you complain about how "it would cost blah blah to do this safely", what you're really saying is "I want to destroy the environment for some cheap fun" which is deeply, deeply selfish. When you hear the total cost of disasters, think about it in the form of debt being repaid. That $1 billion because of so and so fire, that's the environment coming to collect the debt we racked up because we wanted cheap stuff and recreation.
Remember, your freedom ends where mine begins.
The benefits may be clear, but that still side steps the question of to whom the cost and benefits accrue.
>Remember, your freedom ends where mine begins.
Yes, and this boundary is perpetually in dispute. The question is always who draws the line and how change is managed.