Took Romney a week to make his move

https://www.abc4.com/news/politics/...ll-designed-to-protect-utah-s-land/1696244449

Just remember before the usual BS. We hunters are the minority.

We saw how the "locals" feel about hunting up by park city this year.

See how the " locals" feel about Grizz hunting up in Jackson.

Pretty sure we can guess how the "locals" feel in Boulder and California.

Truth is "local" county commision and town councils are cheaper to buy than presidents.

Thanks to THE DON for parading this guy all over selling him as good for sportsmen.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.

R-M-J....




GOODWIN: Dems really do love Republicans -- when they're dead...

>R-M-J....
>
>
>
>
>GOODWIN: Dems really do love Republicans
>-- when they're dead...

Easy with the Racial Slurrs Homer!









I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!

I fail to see how recognizing that the Antiquities Act has been abused and trying to cull that abuse is bad for hunters?

>I fail to see how recognizing
>that the Antiquities Act has
>been abused and trying to
>cull that abuse is bad
>for hunters?

Will you feel the same if a republican president wants to create a monument that allows hunting but a den congress shoots it down using this proposal?


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.

The only "locals" who should have a say is hunters?

As a greedy hunter, I say don't screw around with a 1.3 million acre National Monument. Cut to the chase and make it all designated Wilderness. Then it's done.

>The only "locals" who should have
>a say is hunters?
>
>As a greedy hunter, I say
>don't screw around with a
>1.3 million acre National Monument.
>Cut to the chase and
>make it all designated Wilderness.
>Then it's done.


Hey Eel!

You'd Have Grown Men BAWLING Like Babies!

They Wouldn't be able to Destroy Mother Nature as the F'N eh Well Please!

They Wouldn't be able to Rip/Shred Mother Earth up like they want to!












I know so many people in so many places
They make allot of money but they got sad faces

It Ain't Easy being Me!

The Antiquities Act has its place. As long as it is used for its intended purpose it's a good thing. When done for special favors [for others], it's not.

Too many times people go around half-cocked and spout off about what monuments protect. Most of this rhetoric is based on false assumptions and the "Chicken Little" syndrome.

The antiquities act is to protect cultural/historical sites. It is not to circumvent industry harvest and extraction. That can just be a second benefit. Designating ground as wilderness is how you circumvent industry harvest and extraction...

Hoss, I couldn't care less about one?s party. The Antiquities Act has always bothered me. If presidents adhered to the original tenants of it, I would be less bothered, but still bothered nonetheless.

There is a certain thing called the Constitution, and I subscribe to it. I know, I'm old school and a dying breed, but those words still mean something to me. It was not intended by our founding fathers for the president to wield this much power, and these designations in Utah are proof of why.

Yes, I realize the Antiquites Act delegated this power from Congress to the president. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. And the Antiquities Act in its pure form has nothing to do with hunting or fishing or even public access to pubilc lands. In fact, a president could easily prohibit any of said actions in a designation if he/she so chose to do that. All with the swipe of a pen. Do you want one person carrying that much power? I don't.

If I were in Congress I'd run a bill to repeal the Antiquities Act over and over and over again until it passed or I was no longer in Congress. If someone wanted to compromise by SIGNIFICANTLY reducing the president's ability to do this to only the most emergency situations, I'd listen. But I don't like the law, have never liked the law, and won't ever like the law, no matter what party carries the pen of designation.

>Hoss, I couldn't care less about
>one?s party. The Antiquities Act
>has always bothered me. If
>presidents adhered to the original
>tenants of it, I would
>be less bothered, but still
>bothered nonetheless.
>
>There is a certain thing called
>the Constitution, and I subscribe
>to it. I know, I'm
>old school and a dying
>breed, but those words still
>mean something to me. It
>was not intended by our
>founding fathers for the president
>to wield this much power,
>and these designations in Utah
>are proof of why.
>
>Yes, I realize the Antiquites Act
>delegated this power from Congress
>to the president. That doesn't
>mean I have to agree
>with it. And the Antiquities
>Act in its pure form
>has nothing to do with
>hunting or fishing or even
>public access to pubilc lands.
>In fact, a president could
>easily prohibit any of said
>actions in a designation if
>he/she so chose to do
>that. All with the swipe
>of a pen. Do you
>want one person carrying that
>much power? I don't.
>
>If I were in Congress I'd
>run a bill to repeal
>the Antiquities Act over and
>over and over again until
>it passed or I was
>no longer in Congress. If
>someone wanted to compromise by
>SIGNIFICANTLY reducing the president's ability
>to do this to only
>the most emergency situations, I'd
>listen. But I don't like
>the law, have never liked
>the law, and won't ever
>like the law, no matter
>what party carries the pen
>of designation.

I truly don't disagree for the most part. I agree 100% that Obama used it to punish Utah. However, there are the Indian grounds. Which, in Bears Ears SHOULD have been protected better. Seems the Chair of Natural Resources and his ilk loved to choked finances from FS/BLM, then turn around and squeal about poor management, maintenance backlogs.

Having said that, if Mike Lee and Romney want to run bills abolishing the antiquities act, more power to them, that is a debate worth having.

This bill IS NOT THAT. This bill seeks to carve out power for senators. If you detest antiquities, its not better with Mike Lee having the power vs a trump.

You and I have debated these issues previous. I keep trying to point out the long game, you keep looking at each instance as seperate.

The goal is the same. Mike Lee wants to DISPOSE of public land. His goal IS NOT to create better management of it.

This bill isn't to make anything more than yet another avenue to chip away at that.

Lee and now Romney are outright hucksters. Like you said, why dont they just get it over with and run bills to dispose of all public(parks not included) land, over and over? That's what they want, so why not just do it?(hint, they both live power and getting tossed out of office doesn't give them any).

I agree. If the Antiquities Act is unconstitutional, we have courts. We also have congress. You'd think a great federalist like Lee would want to use the system the way it is set up.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.

And you keep trying to make my posts an argument about Mike Lee, when I never mentioned his name in any way, shape, or form.

The Antiquities Act is not unconstitutional. I never said that, and I don't believe it is. I think actions under the Act have violated the plain reading of the Act itself, but I don't believe the act itself is unconstitutional. Let Grizz explain that one to you at the next BHA meeting. It will give you guys something to talk about.