- Position1 of 3›
- Donald Trump will be better for the environment
Trump has expanded hunting and fishing access on public lands during his first term.
The argument
The Department of the Interior has proposed to open more than a million acres across the country for expanded hunting and fishing access, ensuring that hunters, anglers, and outdoor enthusiasts are able to enjoy fully our Nation’s lands and waters.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Opening more than a million acres to hunting and fishing is a recreational-access measure, not an environmental-protection one. Expanding consumptive use of public land does nothing to address the substance of the question — emissions, pollution, habitat loss or climate — and can cut against conservation goals rather than advance them. A policy that widens where the public may shoot and fish says nothing about whether the administration protects the environment, so it cannot carry the claim that Trump is better for it.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Enjoying and extracting from public land is not the same as protecting the environment; recreational access is a separate matter from conservation. [Rejecting C] Broadening hunting and fishing access does not establish an environmental record on pollution, habitat or climate.