Land Grab Bill

Rackster

Active Member
Messages
309
LAST EDITED ON Feb-23-10 AT 08:48AM (MST)[p]Senators Hatch and Bennett are introducing a bill to stop Executive Branch from creating National Monuments within the State of Utah behind closed doors and without local or State input. The bill trys to prevent what Clinton did to Utahns in the 90's with the Grand StairCase Escalante Monument. Wyoming was successful with a similar bill in the 1950's. It was leaked out that the Obama administration was looking at doing something similar to what Clinton did. The article is below.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...ek-to-block-more-Utah-national-monuments.html
 
Sounds like a great idea and i hope it works. However I dont think Obama gives a rats a$$ for people in utah or anyone in utah's state and local governments, and what input they might have on the matter. If they want another monument they will get it but I hope not. Since the creation of the GSENM in so. Utah it has been nothing but new laws and regs every year and according to clinton nothing was supposed to change. Other than he just gave it a name. Now you cant even ride an ATV on a dirt road in many places out there. But you can drive a truck.WTH??? The wing nuts that come up with these stupid laws oblivously wipe before they poop.
 
The reason for the big push is because Obama is trying to do the same thing right now on the San Rafael. If they do this you won't be hunting goats or riding ATV's down there anymore. Gov. Herbert was supposed to be going to Washington to try and derail this attempt. I think that Sierra Club or somebody like that is behind the back door push.

It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
February 19. 2010 Excerpts from the Salt Lake Tribune

Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff says Secretary Ken Salazar asked the department's bureaus to identify areas that might be worth further study as possible management areas or spots for Congress to step in and designate as protected.

"The preliminary internal discussion draft reflects some brainstorming discussions within [Bureau of Land Management], but no decisions have been made about which areas, if any, might merit more serious review and consideration," Barkoff said. "Secretary Salazar believes new designations and conservation initiatives work best when they build on local efforts to better manage places that are important to nearby communities."

Bennett, who sent a stern letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, said he hopes that's true."What I'm hoping is that Secretary Salazar calls me and says this was just preliminary examinations of what was possible, and we're not going to drop it on you," Bennett said. "I hope he will call back and say, 'I understand how successful the Washington County process was, and we're delighted you're moving forward with San Juan County.' "

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, released the seven-page Interior memo Thursday and warned that the Obama White House may attempt to use the 1906 Antiquities Act to bypass Congress and designate monuments. The seven-page document states that "further evaluations should be completed prior to any final decision," including gauging congressional and public support.

In 2002 Former Gov. Mike Leavitt once pushed to designate a large swath of south-central Utah as a national monument but said Friday any attempt by President Barack Obama to do so unilaterally would be a mistake.

Leavitt's 2002 proposal to protect 620,000 acres of the San Rafael Swell was generated locally, he noted, unlike what critics fear the Obama administration might do, based on a leaked Interior Department document outlining 14 potential new monuments in the West (including Utah's San Rafael Swell and, farther south, Cedar Mesa).

"There are significant portions of the San Rafael Swell that should be protected," Leavitt said in a statement Friday, noting that his plan would have included local, state and federal officials in a transparent process.

He argued such an approach would lead to better land use than the "ambush strategy" President Bill Clinton employed in 1996 to set aside the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
Meanwhile, Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, said he already is working with leaders in San Juan County on legislation that would preserve Cedar Mesa and urged the administration to back off.

"Given the attention Congress gives to Utah wilderness, it should come as no surprise that the administration is considering protections for Utah's incomparable landscapes such as the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa," said Richard Peterson-Cremer, legislative director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

AP Excerpt Feb. 23, 2010 / SLTribune Excerpt Feb 19, 2010

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar met with Western governors over the weekend in Washington to assure them that President Barack Obama's administration doesn't intend to repeat Clinton's actions.

Republican Utah Gov. Gary Herbert said he doesn't have any reason not to trust Salazar, but it's a harder sell among some state residents.

Bennett joined with Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, in recent years to break a logjam among stakeholders about how to preserve land in Washington County. That bill preserved 256,000 acres while allowing the government to sell up to 9,000 non-sensitive acres to developers in the burgeoning St. George area. Obama signed the Washington County bill last year, and Salazar praised it as a sound approach.

"I don't trust the present administration at all," said Gerry Williams, a Midvale man who was one of scores of off-road vehicle enthusiasts at the Capitol. "There are lots of us that physically aren't capable of hiking three or four days to a monument, but I can take my Jeep out ... and we can enjoy the beautiful scenery."

"It's sort of a spectacular scenic landscape. It's not surprising that the administration would try to protect it," said Heidi McIntosh, associate director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. "The main conflict, generally speaking in both Cedar Mesa and the San Rafael Swell, is the out-of-control off-road vehicle use."

Interesting observation by Heidi McIntosh. On a personal note: My experience with gangs of Utah ATV riders with 2-way radios group hunting bucks and going off-road in Wyoming was eye-opening to say the least. When I spoke with several of the Wyoming locals about what I had witnessed their responses were quite candid. Excluding their descriptive expletives, they said it has become a yearly event for the Utahan ATV'ers during rifle opener.

So if Herbert says he trusts Salazar and the Washington County issues was resolved with respect to state representation and public input ending with Obama's signature, what's the issue?
 
The issue is, if they make it a "National Monument" then the only thing you will be able to do on it is walk. They can even limit that if the federal government has the ownership. I'm all for preserving land and watching over our natural resources but I'm not at all for federal control.

And by the way, the only reason the Wyoming guys are mad at the "Utah ATVers" is because they can get cross country faster than those boys can travel in their trucks! Give me a break! Lame statement doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
So who owns the majority of the land in question? Does it belong to the citizens of Utah or is the bulk of it federal land? If it's federal land doesn't it belong to every American? Do you feel that only the citizens of Utah should dictate the use of federally owned land in their home state?

In 2002 when former Gov. Leavitt proposed 620,000 acres of the San Rafael Swell become a national monument did you oppose that?
Isn't former Gov. Leavitt from Utah?

If you are all for preserving land and watching over natural resources do you disagree with Richard Peterson-Cremer, legislative director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance when he says, "Given the attention Congress gives to Utah wilderness, it should come as no surprise that the administration is considering protections for Utah's incomparable landscapes such as the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa."? Isn't he from Utah?

If you are all for preserving land and watching over natural resources wouldn't you agree with the statement made by Assoc. Director of the of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance Heidi McIntosh when she said, "The main conflict, generally speaking in both Cedar Mesa and the San Rafael Swell, is the out-of-control off-road vehicle use."? Isn't she from Utah? I would say Heidi McIntosh's statement only supports my personal observation and is quite pertinent to the topic.

Yet your only response is, "And by the way, the only reason the Wyoming guys are mad at the "Utah ATVers" is because they can get cross country faster than those boys can travel in their trucks!"
How lame is that?
 
Yah, he's from Utah but you're obviously not if you are siding with SUWA!!!!! They are the equivilant of the Sierra Club. A bunch of green bean, hairy legged women (that goes for the men too) that want everything closed off to anything other than hikers with day packs. They only use off road vehicles (not just ATV's) as an excuse. Any idiot can see through that bullshi++. So tell me again what Wyoming opening day of hunting has to do with this topic?

Did you really just quoate 2 people from SUWA? Damn dude! Are you hiding a PETA card in your wallet too?


It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
Easy bull, I was just messing around with you! :) I read the link and decided to read up on the subject. Although my experiences in Wyoming really did happen.

In all honesty, from what I read it does seem that the Feds worked along side the residents of Utah in Washington County to everbody's satisfaction.

As well, Salazar did come out and meet with all the western Gov's and reps to assure them that the 9 sites involved were simply preliminary findings.

You gotta admit...I had you going didn't I?
 
I'm someone *(from Colorado)* Who uses the San Rafael Swell a couple of times a year. I've found IMHO that it is already pretty well protected, Granted the Sids Mountain and a couple of otehr areas are'only' wilderness study areas. I haven't noticed a lot of off road damage in the Devils Racetrack/ Swayze's cabin areas. I do know that that if you go west near Ferron etc. it appears as if it might be dangerous to stand near a road sign though. They must get used instead of targets when site in day comes.
 
No-its a state, and if Brigham would have gotten his way it would be an even larger mess. There are lots of Utahns that support protection for wild country. What confuses me is you almost never hear some of these guys criticize the lazy overweight young people that think everything should be an open playground for motorized recreation. At least the hairy legged women and men have heart and some leg muscle to boot. Growing up in Northeastern Nevada, and watching public land politics play out over the years, the heros were much more the sierra club types and the villians were the local government haters.
 
You know what's so ironic is if Teddy Roosevelt were president today 90% of the people on this forum would call him a land grabber and hate him. sometimes you just have to laugh.
 
I thought I smelt something rotten....and sure enough I open this thread and there's pipeup with another stupid comment. You're an idiot if you think these land grab bills are "protecting wildlife". There are a lot of other ways to do this besides making them national monuments. No hunting on the San Rafael will eliminate one of the best trophy goat hunts in Utah. You stay in Nevada pipeup. You and Harry Reid are a match made in heaven.


It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
Talk about your buddies piper as heroes they are the same people who put sand in your gas tank, pop hole in water troughs which by the way not only cattle use but the local wildlife. They Cut your fences, Lock up public land so no one can see it, use it, hunt on it or fart for that matter. Your idea of a hero is off the map. Ive never seen the damn bunny huggers do a thing for wildlife. All they do is call for all of us to be removed from their play ground. The Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument is a prime example little by little they lock it up and take away priviledges everyone once enjoyed. But im a villian because Im a local who never ate granola and shouted earth first. You cant ride a fourwheeler on the same dirt piss poor road you can drive a truck down the world is upside down.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-10 AT 09:10AM (MST)[p]Its so nice to hear from two well rounded boys. Roads never have done anything good for wildlife, and its usually bad, if you haven't lost any quality hunting areas to motorized recreation you haven't been around much. People aren't villians because they don't eat grainola, In my book they become that way by not giving a crap about anyone but themselves and not caring about those that come later. Anza Borrego recreation area was the first place I noted that allowed 4 wheel drive vehicles but not 4 wheelers, I wasn't that offended, a lot of people have strong feelings about the modern ATV craze, Its the biggest complaint land managers hear about. I remember a rancher that opened his land to a public elk hunt in Wyoming, after the hunt he said to me that "if he were to open it up again next year, I can tell you one thing there aren't going to be any more of those SOBs" (4 wheelers). The people that put sand in gas tanks are on par with those that drive in wilderness areas illegaly, ruining peoples long planned and expensive hunting trips, thats happened to me, the other stuff never has. Bunny huggers, Rebar huggers, I don't get this immmature name calling, I have plenty of friends that like to hike and recreate in roadless areas, just because they don't hunt doesn't make them the enemy of people that do. The people pressure put on public land increases every year, everybody can't do everything everywhere and still have any kind of a quality experence, maybe you think so, but I dont.
 
National parks and monuments you can't hunt in are one thing, I think we need all the ones we have but I'm not sure we need more. roadless and wilderness areas are another thing, real hunters love them and road hunters hate them.

I come from a ranching and timber background so I can see both sides of the issue in land preservation, and there are two sides that's what everyone has to remember with these issues.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-10 AT 10:08AM (MST)[p]

glad to see a few of you phucks are all for shutting down the states best antelope unit..I swear to god sometimes I want to puke reading ##### down here.

piper, I sure hope stupid hurts
 
Reddog- do you have any brains at all? no one has talked about shutting down the worlds best antelope area, no one has said anything about no hunting even if it were made into a monument. Ive hunted antelope there and wasn't born yesterday. show me where it says they are shutting down hunting? please not your imaginary speculation.
 
You dont get it piper so let me explain it. The more access they close off in already mostly inaccessable country the more they shut us all out. Im all for wilderness and I hate jackasses that off road anywhere legal or not all vehicles should stay on the road. What Im not for is making everything a park which is what is happening on the GSENM. And it will happen on the other monuments that are being proposed. But you dont care you live in Nevada it really hasnt affected you or your friends like it has me and mine.
 
OK I'll admit I'm not up to speed on this particular proposal I'm not even familiar with the area so is hunting really going to be banned for sure or is it on the table? is it hunters who are at risk or road hunters?

Another question is if it doesn't happen what will the alternative be? is leaving it the way it is an option and if so will it be destroyed or not? like I said this isn't my back yard and I don't know but the facts make a better debate than the emotions.
 
Ok history shows that most National monuments became national parks. Most National monuments created before Clinton started his national monument making via the antiquities act followed the exact same guidelines as National parks which means no hunting. Clinton said in so many words nothing would change other than it had a name. Since then its been nothing but more rules and regs each year. Though its slowly moving it will get to the point it will become a park, and become locked up completly I have no doubt of this. So kiss the lower Pauns goodbye as far a deer hunting goes.
 
I don't live in Nevada, I grew up there and watched as many of my favorite areas got ruined (in my opinion). I won't ever go in many of those places again, its just too heartbreaking, and I like my memories as they are. Things never stay the same, new pressures all the time, thats the way in the modern west. I don't think everything should be designated as parks either, although eventually it will head in that direction, but thats mostly from our exploding population. I still remember when you could hunt deer above SLC with a rifle, when there were way less than three quarters of a million residents in Utah, When Anderson taxidermy in SLC was packed with big beautiful bucks after the general hunt. The biggest buck muley Ive ever seen was on trail ridge looking down at the san rafael, that was 1972 and its darn sad to see whats happened to my old summer stomping grounds. If you have concerns about whats going on, do your best to let them be heard and be smart about it, because getting mad and ranting about the government won't usually help, things will change one way or the other, with or without you.
 
Just because national monuments are managed by the park service doesnt mean they are national parks, everything has a different set of rules when created, and I don't believe its that easy to change them. Other than not using the modern ATV on some roads, what is going on? Maybe Im wrong but I really don't see the GSENM becoming a national park, this country is too broke for much of anything and will be for a long time. Devils tower created by TR in 1906, the first national monument is still just that.
 
And all Hunting is banned in devils tower National Monument. I see it as a stone throw away with a signature. Given there are far more important matters the Government should address before this kind of stuff.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-10 AT 11:56AM (MST)[p]I've seen Teddy Roosevelts name thrown out several times on not just this thread, but on this forum, and the comments are usually geared toward how Teddy was a sort of Environmentalist. He was in fact a "Conservationist" not a "Preservationist or Environmentalist". If you read history, you will soon see that he was all for "wise use" of the land and not for locking it up with a "no touch" policy. A prime example is hunting in Yellowstone NP.......it used to be allowed.....Teddy even participated in hunts there. Another good example is the Panama Canal. He pushed for it and saw it thorugh. If he was so concerned about preserving everything and keeping everything in its so called natural state, do you really believe he would have pushed for so much environmental degradation? He also chose Gifford Pinchot over John Muir to be the first Chief of the Forest Service, which is another great example of his conservationist mind instead of a preservationist mind. The Forest Service was also created as a multiple use agency, not a "preserve and no touch agency". He was smart in a lot of ways and was smart enough to know that locking up land and preserving it for no use......is nothing more than a waste.

I don't care for what some of his domestic policies were, but the environmental side of things, he was right on. He did establish a Park or two and a monument or two, but he did not mandate that everything in the Park was locked up and so regulated that you could not get any use out of it.
 
Rackster hit this one right on the head.

Teddy would have despised people like Piper and 440. Teddy hunted more than most of us ever will in our lifetime. As a young boy he would kill animals and stuff them in his bedroom (much to the dismay of his mother). As a president he went on countless hunting trips and spent months in areas like Yellowstonne and the Grand Canyon. He wasn't counting roads and trails to close. He was hunting and harvesting anything he could and much of it is now in the Smithsonian Museum.

Thanks Teddy.


"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
You must have had a restless night, so you got up and started spouting off. The whole country was a far different place in TRs day, I don't see how you can honestly think like that. So are you really that narrow minded or just trying to stir the pot?
 
Narrow minded all the way!!!!!!!! Also, very opinionated. Ha, I don't even think I spelled that right. So I am a bad speller too. What about you piper?
 
TR was a hunter, he was also a dispised conservationist to many. he is the one who preserved the majority of our public lands and quite a few of our national parks, only someone as slow as slow on the draw as aspen could say he would have hated anyone who could go along with protecting lands because he was a hunter. brilliant.

This bill needs to be looked at as to what's being preserved and what impact it will have on hunting, recreation and economics, I don't know. I do know TR would have looked at it with an open mind and if he felt it was an important place he would have made it a monument, and like many others hunting might be on the table it wouldn't have been the first time. a true hunter is a conservationist first and foremost, if I knew more about the area I'd have an opinion one way or another.

,
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-09-10 AT 06:58PM (MST)[p]Its interesting to note that three times as many people visited Yellowstone last August as did the whole time period of 1900 to 1914. You are reducing the complex opinions of people to a few phrases like conservationist, preservationist or environmentalist. I guess thats what some books and teachers do, but Im sure its not so simple. I for one think it would have been amazing to visit the Sierras when grizzly bears were running around, and see it like Teddy, Gifford, and John did, we never will, but I think of those people and a few others quite a bit when Im out running around in the hills. I live ten miles from three quarters of a million acres of wilderness, and I love it, its definitely not the "land of no use", despite what some bumper stickers might say. There is room for parks,refuges, wilderness areas, and still have plenty of areas for motorized recreation,and renewable and even nonrenewable recource extraction. There is lots of fighting still to come, and its upsetting to lose no matter where you stand on these issues, but its still worth the fight. Rackster- Not only am I a bad speller, I miss entire words sometimes.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-09-10 AT 07:28PM (MST)[p]440, need I remind you of the damming of the Hetch Hetchy Valley?

If you are as astute as you claim to be then please refrain from reference a narrow minded claim I have made and attacking those who disagree with you thoruh ad hominim arguments.

Instead use examples of fact.

Roosevelt allowed the damming of the Hetch Hetchy Valley because he understood that man must exist. With limits, but exist. The reason he would hate you is that you know no limit to your hatred of yourself. You do not believe you deserve to harvest wealth, resources, or much of anything for that matter.

Good day sir.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Piper, if I am to understand you I would like to rephrase what you so eloquently failed to explain.

You are saying that any land grab is justified in the name of preservation?

Is this what you are saying?


"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
Here's an example. A friend of mine works for the Kansas DWR. He told me that they have done surveys at Kansas State University in their Forestry and Wildlife management majors with regards to how many of those people actually hunt. As of last years graduating class, less than 50% of those individuals that will be managing your wildlife and forest lands hunt. If that's the trend all over the country then we are in trouble. I'm not against closing areas off to MV's allowing only foot and horse traffic but allowing people in Washington to dictate how we use public lands is a big mistake IMO. It has proven to evolve over time into a huge granola factory where only you and your hydration pack are allowed to go. Losing an antelope area is the worse case scenario, as far as hunters are concerned, but there are a lot of multiple use issues that the public stands to lose. If you have never been on a 4-wheeler ride around the Devils Racetrack or Swasey's Cabin you're missing out on a golden opportunity. I have yet to see anything destructive down there. It just seems that when the government gets their foot in the door the majority of the general public loses.

It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
Hey pooper,

Wolves once were running wild in Tennessee. Lets reintroduce them there. Let's do a land grab in Masachusetts because they have some nice forest in western Mass. Lets take back Boston....wolves once ran wild there....let's introduce wolves in Boston.

Where does the madness stop?

Why is the focus on the west?
Why does this map of wolf territory focus on the west?
http://www.sightline.org/maps/maps/Wildlife-Wolf-CS06m

Why is 67.1% of Utah (a soverign state) owned and operated by Washington DC?

And you support more land grabs......you enviros are starting to act like horny school boys at your first school dance.


"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
I'll say it again, Piper and 440 = DUMBASSES




Piper, how's your period?

Zigga, don't forget the knee pads!

Hdude, Lil' Jimmy wants his share!
 
Aspen- your wolves in new york or whatever is too stupid to respond to. The madness or whatever you think when land use desisions are being made is, that isn't going to stop until its finished. And personally I like the idea of saving wildlife habitat, and saving wild areas all that we can. Its been my experence that local land use decisions aren't always friendly to that end. It seems things are getting better in the west, many times locals are starting to see whats coming down the road, and they are starting to look forward. But in my opinion local countrol, county supremecy, state control, whatever they want to call it, would be mostly a disaster, again thats because of what I like. Its not the feds that propose a massive taxpayer funded highway ripping through the heart of the book cliffs every decade or so, its not the feds that dream of a huge dirty coal mine in the middle of some of the best semi wild country in the southwest, and its not the feds that carved roads all over the once wild country in more than half the places I used to enjoy growing up. Whoever plans things that I dislike, thats who I am against, period. and whoever does things I like, Im for.
 
Piper,

The madness in land use decisions will never be finished. A good example is SUWA. SUWA said they were satisfied with amount of land they got in the Grand Staircase Escalante NM. They said that was all the pushed for and that they would not push for any special designations of public land in Utah. I laughed when I heard them say it on the news and laughed again when I read it in the paper. As we can see their fight continues on to lock up as much land as possible in Utah. I have my own ideas as to their reasons why they will never be happy.......and they all have to do with selfishness, greed, and environmental arrogance. Don't try and tell me different. I have worked with some of these wackos and the truth is that they actually don't care about the environment......in fact one statement that was made to me was this........"I hope the cattle operators nuke this entire mountain, because then it would force the government to cancel their permits and keep livestock off public lands" So you see, in this case the beef is not caring about the environment, but rather they had personal agenda to get grazing off public lands, because they did not feel it was right that someone was makeing a $$ off of it. Now that was only one case, but nearly all environmental groups have the same mentality......its not caring about the environment, but rather some other personal agenda.
 
+1 Rackster!!! You hit the nail on head with that one. I do think there are some environmentalists that legitmately care about their hiking places but most are in it to lock up as much land as possible so nobody can use it. Especially hunters!!!

It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
You guys echo the excat same thoughts those against Yellowstone, Grand Teton , The Grand Canyon and even the formation of the USFS had. the sky has always been falling and the land has always been grabbed from the people if any of these things came to pass, I'm glad they did.

Like I said I'm not informed on this case so I'm not going to pretend I do, but from the outside looking in I haven't heard many facts just a lot of conjecture as to how this MIGHT be bad for hunters . I've heard little to what may happen if it isn't protected, will it become a race track for ORV's if left alone? what compromise is there between protecting it but leaving it multiple use?

Nobody cares about your thoughts Californiahorn, but those are some deep ones for you.
 
I agree, it would be nice to know the facts, the changes, the threats to the area, I hunted antelope there 17 years ago, and ran around there some in the past, but its been a while. I guess the howling was deafening and the threats were powerful against TR when he "locked up" all that forest service land. I say, god bless him for doing that.
 
Obama is no TR


67.1% is enough....go play somewhere else....we've had enough....rackster kicked your trash on this one....


If you think wolves are okay in Yellowstone and Utah then lets put them in Acadia National Park in Maine. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.


if you figure over 1000 wolves in yellerstone then lets put the same amount of wolves per acre in acadia.....that would be 25 wolves....


you want land grabs here.....we want land grabs there......you want wolves here......we want wolves there.....

Hypocrits






"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
That's just it boys. There has been no environmental impact studies done except for the ones done be SUWA and the likes. I will try and find the study if it's posted on line. They say that MV traffic, be it ATV or OHV is ruining the land. Fact is, the only roads that are being used ar existing wagon train roads that have existed there for 150 years. It doesn't seem to bother the wild horses and the pull outs and staging areas for ATV riders are very rarely messy. And don't kid yourself 440, if you don't think locking up land will eventualy have a negative affect on the hunting down there you're out of your mind. I'm telling you, that's the end result these people want. Not only no hunting, but no riding, no mountain biking, no horseback riding. Only foot traffic. It will do wonders for the wildlife and the vegitation. Too bad nobody will get to see the vast majority of it.

It's always an adventure!!!
www.awholelottabull.com
 
PIPER, I really don't want to take this thread off topic but you are amazingly.....well....lets just say amazing.

YOU SAID:

Its interesting to note that three times as many people visited Yellowstone last August as did the whole time period of 1900 to 1914.

REEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYY!?!?!

Why do you think that is!!!!!!

1. The population of the US is HHHHHHUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEE compared to what it was in 1900.

2. Trains, Cars, Planes, etc....Have all been invented since then.....DO YOU THINK THIS MIGHT MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE MILLIONS OF INCREASED POPULATION IN THIS COUNTRY TO GET THERE?

3. The park has been made famous through advertising in magazines, TV's, radio, inthernet, and word of mouth. DO YOU THINK THIS HAD ANY AFFECT ON ATTENDANCE.

4. With the invention of JETS people from JAPAN can visit Yellowstone. DO YOU THINK THERE WERE A LOT OF INTERNATIONAL VISITORS IN 1900?


Your logic SUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKS so bad I can barely even stay in my seat while typing a response. If this is the type of crap you think then no wonder you voted for One Big Ace Mistake America (OBAMA).


"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
You got that right, its a different place now, I think thats the point I was making. I was responding to # 25 and 26
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom