Hunter's and sportsmen need to unite to get rid of congresswoman Barbara Cubin. She previously signed on with President Bush to sell off significant amounts of federal lands in our state and others. As soon as she started taking heat, she claimed to have signed onto the issue by mistake. Rest assured this matter will surface again after the election is over. I'd encourage my fellow Republicans to recognize it's time for a change and vote for Gary Trauner. For those of you who aren't aware, the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to sell off all land administered by them in Goshen County and a large chunk of what they have in Platte County. Yet you haven't heard our congressional representatives say so much as a word about the matter. Remain silent and you'll continue to lose access to your public grounds. I believe in many Republican values, but I can't support a candidate who would limit my rights to our great outdoors. Don't forget to vote, it's time for a change...
Voter help in Wyoming
- Thread starter Triple_BB
- Start date
...and Trauner will sell out your 2nd ammendment rights in a second. I agree that Cubin is a narcisistic, self serving parasite. To bad the Dems can't find someone more in the middle to run against her. As much as I hate Cubin, the alternative scares me more.
Perhaps and as a person, I expect he has it all over Cubin. I don't know that he will be able to beat her, the GOP is putting alot of money and publicity into her race. If elected, I surely hope that he would live up to his pledges and not just go party line once in Washington.
>Typical scare tactics! Trauner has consistently
>pledged to support the rights
>of gun owners; the issue
>is nothing more than a
>GOP bugaboo.
True story. He has been very consistent on gun rights. The Casper Star Tribune had an interesting argument on voting for Trauner. They stated the GOP hierarchy in this state will never try to unseat an incumbent no matter how bad she is. They noted that if Trauner wins, it will make it much easier to run a quality Republican candidate in two years and unseat Trauner. That made an excellent selling point for me. Cubin is no friend to the sportsmen and hunter's of Wyoming...
>pledged to support the rights
>of gun owners; the issue
>is nothing more than a
>GOP bugaboo.
True story. He has been very consistent on gun rights. The Casper Star Tribune had an interesting argument on voting for Trauner. They stated the GOP hierarchy in this state will never try to unseat an incumbent no matter how bad she is. They noted that if Trauner wins, it will make it much easier to run a quality Republican candidate in two years and unseat Trauner. That made an excellent selling point for me. Cubin is no friend to the sportsmen and hunter's of Wyoming...
R
Recon15
Guest
As of 10:22 PM, Cubin is loosing but it's close. This is more exciting than checking the internet every five minutes to see if Wyoming's draw results are out. I sure hope that hag looses, but Campbell County is the only county not reporting numbers yet, so it could easily go either way. It's official... The fate of Cubin/Trauner is in the hands of CCCS'rs.
R
Recon15
Guest
They (other than the rich) won't.
Never mind, the site I was at had the wrong figures. As of 11:38, she was leading by 4200 votes or so, with two counties out. Natrona could swing toward Trauner.
http://soswy.state.wy.us/election/2006/results/06gen-sw.pdf
http://soswy.state.wy.us/election/2006/results/06gen-sw.pdf
HuntElk4Fun_
Active Member
- Messages
- 502
Natrona's Website (100% Reporting):
BARBARA CUBIN (REP) . . . . . . . 10,672 42.23
GARY TRAUNER (DEM) . . . . . . . 13,768 54.48
Carbon County doesn't have results, posted. Looks close-
ODDNUT1
Kirt C.
Hunt Odds.com
BARBARA CUBIN (REP) . . . . . . . 10,672 42.23
GARY TRAUNER (DEM) . . . . . . . 13,768 54.48
Carbon County doesn't have results, posted. Looks close-
ODDNUT1
Kirt C.
Hunt Odds.com
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
You guys have it wrong. Cubin has been the most supportive of Sportsmen with regards to the wolf issue than either Thomas or Enzi. She has at least tried to help.
As far the the selling off of BLM lands goes, she changed her position after I spoke with her about our concerns. Since speaking with her I have wondered if we shouldn't be selling off some of the BLM lands and blocking up the rest. This might be our chance to eliminate the checker-board patterns that allow some landowners to almost have exclussive rights to our Federal lands. Perhaps we should be selling and trading off some of these lands in order to block it up. While in the process of blocking it up, we could guarantee that access is provided to those blocks.
No one, including Representative Cubin, wants to see public lands sold off. However, do any of you like the checker-board patterns that exist today. Perhaps this could be an opportunity to ensure that we will have access to our public lands. The BLM could better manage their lands if they were blocked up rather than the checker-board patterns that currently exist.
How many of you would support land swaps to block up our BLM lands?
As far the the selling off of BLM lands goes, she changed her position after I spoke with her about our concerns. Since speaking with her I have wondered if we shouldn't be selling off some of the BLM lands and blocking up the rest. This might be our chance to eliminate the checker-board patterns that allow some landowners to almost have exclussive rights to our Federal lands. Perhaps we should be selling and trading off some of these lands in order to block it up. While in the process of blocking it up, we could guarantee that access is provided to those blocks.
No one, including Representative Cubin, wants to see public lands sold off. However, do any of you like the checker-board patterns that exist today. Perhaps this could be an opportunity to ensure that we will have access to our public lands. The BLM could better manage their lands if they were blocked up rather than the checker-board patterns that currently exist.
How many of you would support land swaps to block up our BLM lands?
LAST EDITED ON Nov-09-06 AT 02:24AM (MST)[p]>No one, including Representative Cubin, wants
>to see public lands sold
>off.
You might want to read the bill she cosponsored again (along with 13 other R's).
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3855
>to see public lands sold
>off.
You might want to read the bill she cosponsored again (along with 13 other R's).
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-3855
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
Not only have I read the bill, I have spoken directly with Rep. Cubin in regards to that bill. I believe she and probably the majority of those that supported the bill didn't see the potential for that bill to be twisted into something none of them had thought about. As soon as I pointed out our concerns, she acted upon those concerns. She asked why I hadn't commented on it before the bill passed the house and I told her that I was not following the mining legislation in Washington and that I focus more on state laws then on National stuff.
My whole point was that she changed her position once she heard from a constituency which she knew to be from Wyoming as we have had meetings with her in D.C. to discuss the Bush Administrations decision to reject Wyoming's wolf management plan. She at least tried to help us. I can not say that about either of our Senators.
Back to the point.....
Do you or anyone else believe we should try and block up the BLM by selling and trading some sections to eliminate the checker-board patterns that exist today?
My whole point was that she changed her position once she heard from a constituency which she knew to be from Wyoming as we have had meetings with her in D.C. to discuss the Bush Administrations decision to reject Wyoming's wolf management plan. She at least tried to help us. I can not say that about either of our Senators.
Back to the point.....
Do you or anyone else believe we should try and block up the BLM by selling and trading some sections to eliminate the checker-board patterns that exist today?
>Back to the point.....
>
>Do you or anyone else believe
>we should try and block
>up the BLM by selling
>and trading some sections to
>eliminate the checker-board patterns that
>exist today?
Smoke, if you're group thinks they have some stroke with Babs, then convince her trading of BLM lands is the only option. I'd call it no net loss. They want to sell 600 acres of landlocked ground, then have them be required to purchase or trade for 600 acres somewhere else in the state.
>
>Do you or anyone else believe
>we should try and block
>up the BLM by selling
>and trading some sections to
>eliminate the checker-board patterns that
>exist today?
Smoke, if you're group thinks they have some stroke with Babs, then convince her trading of BLM lands is the only option. I'd call it no net loss. They want to sell 600 acres of landlocked ground, then have them be required to purchase or trade for 600 acres somewhere else in the state.
Smokestick, I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with defending Cubin on this issue.
> I
>believe she and probably the
>majority of those that supported
>the bill didn't see the
>potential for that bill to
>be twisted into something none
>of them had thought about.
I would want my representative to be on top of the issues of a bill they co-sponsored and not expect her constituents to have her pull her head out.
> As soon as I
>pointed out our concerns, she
>acted upon those concerns.
>She asked why I hadn't
>commented on it before the
>bill passed the house and
>I told her that I
>was not following the mining
>legislation in Washington and that
>I focus more on state
>laws then on National stuff.
My answer to her would have been completely different, in fact she may want to do some of her own homework.
>Back to the point.....
>
>Do you or anyone else believe
>we should try and block
>up the BLM by selling
>and trading some sections to
>eliminate the checker-board patterns that
>exist today?
Actually, BLM checkerboard patterns was not the point of this thread, but OK. BLM already does this, but as with most government endeavors, there are many, many hoops to jump through before exchanges or acquisitions can occur. Just because a parcel of land is land locked doesn't not mean there is no value to the public by not exchanging. I wish we (the public) had access to all public land, but that is impossible.
> I
>believe she and probably the
>majority of those that supported
>the bill didn't see the
>potential for that bill to
>be twisted into something none
>of them had thought about.
I would want my representative to be on top of the issues of a bill they co-sponsored and not expect her constituents to have her pull her head out.
> As soon as I
>pointed out our concerns, she
>acted upon those concerns.
>She asked why I hadn't
>commented on it before the
>bill passed the house and
>I told her that I
>was not following the mining
>legislation in Washington and that
>I focus more on state
>laws then on National stuff.
My answer to her would have been completely different, in fact she may want to do some of her own homework.
>Back to the point.....
>
>Do you or anyone else believe
>we should try and block
>up the BLM by selling
>and trading some sections to
>eliminate the checker-board patterns that
>exist today?
Actually, BLM checkerboard patterns was not the point of this thread, but OK. BLM already does this, but as with most government endeavors, there are many, many hoops to jump through before exchanges or acquisitions can occur. Just because a parcel of land is land locked doesn't not mean there is no value to the public by not exchanging. I wish we (the public) had access to all public land, but that is impossible.
SMOKESTICK
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
I was thinking along the lines of Triple_BB; selling would be okay as long as no net loss occurred. In other words if 200 acres were sold to private interests, 200 acres of private would have to be purchased as public lands. Areas were large blocks occur could be centralized with smaller parcel's being sold or traded.
The devil is always in the details. Furthermore, each area would need to be identified and approved. You could have large blocks of BLM just like we do US Forests. Congress created them by purchasing and swapping lands. Why can't we achieve the same thing?
It wasn't just Cubin either. Others also failed to see the loop holes that could have been exploited. My point was that Rep. Cubin does listen to her constituents and works hard to represents Wyoming's interest. I believe most have heard the saying that sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. I believe most were focused on a complex bill and simply thought they had covered everything. She never once told me that we were wrong. In fact she thanked me for contacting her. As I stated earlier she chided me for not commenting prior to the House taking action. She was; however, very gracious and appreciative of our participation. How many of you that are throwing rocks at her even attempted to contact her and discuss your concerns? You don't believe me contact her yourself. You will find that she will listen and try to help address your concerns. If it wasn't for her, we never would have been able to present V.P. Chenney with letters from our President of the State Senate, State Speaker of the House, and our entire Congressional Delegation. It was Rep. Cubin and her staff that made it happen in D.C.
The devil is always in the details. Furthermore, each area would need to be identified and approved. You could have large blocks of BLM just like we do US Forests. Congress created them by purchasing and swapping lands. Why can't we achieve the same thing?
It wasn't just Cubin either. Others also failed to see the loop holes that could have been exploited. My point was that Rep. Cubin does listen to her constituents and works hard to represents Wyoming's interest. I believe most have heard the saying that sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. I believe most were focused on a complex bill and simply thought they had covered everything. She never once told me that we were wrong. In fact she thanked me for contacting her. As I stated earlier she chided me for not commenting prior to the House taking action. She was; however, very gracious and appreciative of our participation. How many of you that are throwing rocks at her even attempted to contact her and discuss your concerns? You don't believe me contact her yourself. You will find that she will listen and try to help address your concerns. If it wasn't for her, we never would have been able to present V.P. Chenney with letters from our President of the State Senate, State Speaker of the House, and our entire Congressional Delegation. It was Rep. Cubin and her staff that made it happen in D.C.
>I was thinking along the lines
>of Triple_BB; selling would be
>okay as long as no
>net loss occurred. In
>other words if 200 acres
>were sold to private interests,
>200 acres of private would
>have to be purchased as
>public lands. Areas were
>large blocks occur could be
>centralized with smaller parcel's being
>sold or traded.
>
I agree 100%. Obviously the value of these sales would rarely, if ever be equal in value. Not many cases where the government could purchase 200 acres that may create access to another 10,000 acres. Government not willing to pay what private individuals would be willing to pay for their own "public land" playground.
>of Triple_BB; selling would be
>okay as long as no
>net loss occurred. In
>other words if 200 acres
>were sold to private interests,
>200 acres of private would
>have to be purchased as
>public lands. Areas were
>large blocks occur could be
>centralized with smaller parcel's being
>sold or traded.
>
I agree 100%. Obviously the value of these sales would rarely, if ever be equal in value. Not many cases where the government could purchase 200 acres that may create access to another 10,000 acres. Government not willing to pay what private individuals would be willing to pay for their own "public land" playground.
