NRA stance on sale of Public Lands?
- Thread starter hank4elk
- Start date
tailchasers
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,307
Guess I don't see any reason why the NRA would care about this issue but I am curious of any responses to your inquiry.
"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."
"Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyway."
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,598
The NRA has been avid in protecting the rights to shoot guns on public land and to fight closures of non-official target ranges on BLM land, so they have a history of straying from a direct "gun only agenda" to also protect the available "use" of guns.
It is that precedent that I quote when I ask them, "Where do you think we're going to shoot once all the land is sold?"
I actually canceled my membership in the NRA because of their failure to defend public lands and sent them an email saying as such... they didn't respond.
The have magazines such as American Hunter, so they are well-aware of the relationship between hunting and gun owners. I'd like them to translate that relationship into protecting the rights of hunters outside the minimal scope of actually shooting a gun at a public shooting range... which is where we could potentially end up.
Ultimately, I feel the threat of losing public lands will have a greater negative impact on my daily life than the threat of losing guns or having increased background checks. We have the Constitution to protect our guns and various Supreme Court rulings as well, we have nothing to protect public lands and I chose not to support a group that is funding people like Rob Bishop, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz.
I know that isn't the position that everybody would take, but its the right one for me.
Grizzly
It is that precedent that I quote when I ask them, "Where do you think we're going to shoot once all the land is sold?"
I actually canceled my membership in the NRA because of their failure to defend public lands and sent them an email saying as such... they didn't respond.
The have magazines such as American Hunter, so they are well-aware of the relationship between hunting and gun owners. I'd like them to translate that relationship into protecting the rights of hunters outside the minimal scope of actually shooting a gun at a public shooting range... which is where we could potentially end up.
Ultimately, I feel the threat of losing public lands will have a greater negative impact on my daily life than the threat of losing guns or having increased background checks. We have the Constitution to protect our guns and various Supreme Court rulings as well, we have nothing to protect public lands and I chose not to support a group that is funding people like Rob Bishop, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz.
I know that isn't the position that everybody would take, but its the right one for me.
Grizzly
>Guess I don't see any reason
>why the NRA would care
>about this issue but I
>am curious of any responses
>to your inquiry.
>
>"Courage is being scared to death
>but
>saddling up anyway."
I believe one reason for 2nd amendment rights still is for hunting for food.
Seems to be a topic with Ryan,he claims to be a hunter.
>why the NRA would care
>about this issue but I
>am curious of any responses
>to your inquiry.
>
>"Courage is being scared to death
>but
>saddling up anyway."
I believe one reason for 2nd amendment rights still is for hunting for food.
Seems to be a topic with Ryan,he claims to be a hunter.
Stonefly
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,195
LAST EDITED ON Jan-13-16 AT 08:05PM (MST)[p]It was my understanding that. the NRA puts all available resources into protecting our 2nd amendment Rights. As a Hunter Education Instructor,we are told to teach, that Hunting is Not a Right but a privilege. I have heard Texas just made it a Right... Don't know how that works, or if it true or not. Point is the NRA is for the protection of our RIGHT to have Firearms and IMO not to "protect" privileges where we might happen to use firearms. Also IMO I think Personal Defense and defense of others would hold closer along the lines of the 2nd amendment. The transfer of public lands from BLM And Forrest land, to a State that CAN NOT maintain it, will lead to the selling of the land to private interests. It will be told to us that "its for the children"or "a great job creator"or some such gobbly gook. If the Granola libs in Washington took a good look at it, and saw the groups that would be affected (negatively) like us Sportsmen (clinging to our guns) they probably wouldn't mind as much letting the States have the land. More than likely speed up their gun grabbing agenda without Sportsmen to voice a pro gun opinion.
llamapacker
Moderator
- Messages
- 1,068
The NRA is about preserving the second amendment. I want them to stay focused on that, and am comfortable with their support of hunting and the shooting sports.
It is petty and ridiculous to expect them to take a stand on every related political issue. There are plenty of groups specifically focused on public lands issues. Support those if you like, but abandoning NRA because they don't support every other agenda you hold dear is childish.
Bill
It is petty and ridiculous to expect them to take a stand on every related political issue. There are plenty of groups specifically focused on public lands issues. Support those if you like, but abandoning NRA because they don't support every other agenda you hold dear is childish.
Bill
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,598
LAST EDITED ON Jan-14-16 AT 06:38AM (MST)[p]
>The NRA is about preserving the
>second amendment. I want them
>to stay focused on that,
>and am comfortable with their
>support of hunting and the
>shooting sports.
>It is petty and ridiculous to
>expect them to take a
>stand on every related political
>issue. There are plenty of
>groups specifically focused on public
>lands issues. Support those if
>you like, but abandoning NRA
>because they don't support every
>other agenda you hold dear
>is childish.
>Bill
Which is more childish... Having an opinion and stating it, with justification, or calling people childish because they disagree with you?
Your NRA money was used to elect Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Rob Bishop, and Harry Reid. How's that going for you?
How about you support the single most important issue for you (guns), I'll support the single most important issue to me (hunting) and we just agree to disagree?
I give my money to groups like BHA, RMEF, B&C, and TRCP, but like I said, that's just the right choice for me.
Grizzly
>The NRA is about preserving the
>second amendment. I want them
>to stay focused on that,
>and am comfortable with their
>support of hunting and the
>shooting sports.
>It is petty and ridiculous to
>expect them to take a
>stand on every related political
>issue. There are plenty of
>groups specifically focused on public
>lands issues. Support those if
>you like, but abandoning NRA
>because they don't support every
>other agenda you hold dear
>is childish.
>Bill
Which is more childish... Having an opinion and stating it, with justification, or calling people childish because they disagree with you?
Your NRA money was used to elect Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Rob Bishop, and Harry Reid. How's that going for you?
How about you support the single most important issue for you (guns), I'll support the single most important issue to me (hunting) and we just agree to disagree?
I give my money to groups like BHA, RMEF, B&C, and TRCP, but like I said, that's just the right choice for me.
Grizzly
Castnshoot
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,113
>I believe one reason for 2nd
>amendment rights still is for
>hunting for food.
>Seems to be a topic with
>Ryan,he claims to be a
>hunter.
The NRA was first formed to protect ex-slave's right to own and carry a fire arm for protection and hunting.
The second amendment is in place for all citizen's self protection from a corrupt government.
The NRA is pretty much the only reason we still have access to fire arms in this country.
>amendment rights still is for
>hunting for food.
>Seems to be a topic with
>Ryan,he claims to be a
>hunter.
The NRA was first formed to protect ex-slave's right to own and carry a fire arm for protection and hunting.
The second amendment is in place for all citizen's self protection from a corrupt government.
The NRA is pretty much the only reason we still have access to fire arms in this country.
The NRA is a single-issue organization, but it is not preserving the Second Amendment. It is all about preserving the firearm manufacturing, selling, and training.
Evidenced by this: Last year in Idaho NRA OPPOSED Permitless Concealed Carry, and instead wrote their own legislation that requires NRA firearms training for the Enhanced Carry Permit. The only purpose for this was NRA instructor bob security.
Evidenced by this: Last year in Idaho NRA OPPOSED Permitless Concealed Carry, and instead wrote their own legislation that requires NRA firearms training for the Enhanced Carry Permit. The only purpose for this was NRA instructor bob security.
ElevenBravo
Active Member
- Messages
- 524
>I would like to know the
>NRA's official stance on the
>sale outright and or
>transfer to states of Our
>Public Lands?
>Can't seem to find any.
If you look at donations to the NRA, NRA-ILA and NRA's backing of particular pieces of legislature, you will see a conflict of interest. Despite the NRA constituency's interest in preserving public lands so they remain unspoiled and accessible to hunters, the NRA has taken in millions of dollars from oil and energy companies and has backed legislation to allow energy companies to extract resources on protected public lands. The NRA has also backed several politicians that are in favor of selling public land to private interests.
While the stated focus of the NRA is firearm ownership and preservation of the 2nd Amendment, it has involved itself in tangential topics such as wildlife conservation as they are important issues to firearm owners. I'm still trying to reconcile why they're acting against the wishes of their members, though.
>NRA's official stance on the
>sale outright and or
>transfer to states of Our
>Public Lands?
>Can't seem to find any.
If you look at donations to the NRA, NRA-ILA and NRA's backing of particular pieces of legislature, you will see a conflict of interest. Despite the NRA constituency's interest in preserving public lands so they remain unspoiled and accessible to hunters, the NRA has taken in millions of dollars from oil and energy companies and has backed legislation to allow energy companies to extract resources on protected public lands. The NRA has also backed several politicians that are in favor of selling public land to private interests.
While the stated focus of the NRA is firearm ownership and preservation of the 2nd Amendment, it has involved itself in tangential topics such as wildlife conservation as they are important issues to firearm owners. I'm still trying to reconcile why they're acting against the wishes of their members, though.
Castnshoot
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,113
" NRA has taken in millions of dollars from oil"
SO,, Don't drive your car if you have problem with oil.
SO,, Don't drive your car if you have problem with oil.
Once again, the reason they don't follow the wishes of their members is because they don't give a FF.
The NRA works for the manufacturers and selling guns is all they care about.
The reason we still have guns is the constitution not the NRA. I will cite the Heller case decision as proof. the NRA just works to insure crazy people and terror watch list folks can still buy guns.
Stay Thirsty My Friends
The NRA works for the manufacturers and selling guns is all they care about.
The reason we still have guns is the constitution not the NRA. I will cite the Heller case decision as proof. the NRA just works to insure crazy people and terror watch list folks can still buy guns.
Stay Thirsty My Friends
ElevenBravo
Active Member
- Messages
- 524
>" NRA has taken in millions
>of dollars from oil"
>
>SO,, Don't drive your car if
>you have problem with oil.
Way to miss the point.
>of dollars from oil"
>
>SO,, Don't drive your car if
>you have problem with oil.
Way to miss the point.
llamapacker
Moderator
- Messages
- 1,068
:7
The NRA is basically a political organization that use fear mongering to ptomote rightwing candidates and causes. Grover Norquist sit on the board of directors, that should tell you something.
I don't have a problem with them being mum on the public land sales scheme. I find it ironic though. I remember when they came out against the creation of federal wilderness areas. Anyone else remember that?
I guess that's part of protecting second amendment rights? LOL
I don't have a problem with them being mum on the public land sales scheme. I find it ironic though. I remember when they came out against the creation of federal wilderness areas. Anyone else remember that?
I guess that's part of protecting second amendment rights? LOL
>The NRA is basically a political
>organization that use fear mongering
>to ptomote rightwing candidates and
>causes. Grover Norquist sit
>on the board of directors,
>that should tell you something.
>
>
>I don't have a problem with
>them being mum on the
>public land sales scheme.
>I find it ironic though.
>I remember when they came
>out against the creation of
>federal wilderness areas. Anyone
>else remember that?
>I guess that's part of protecting
>second amendment rights? LOL
>
Thanx for remindin me to renew my membership in the NRA piper. If you say it's wrong then I know it's gotta be right!
>organization that use fear mongering
>to ptomote rightwing candidates and
>causes. Grover Norquist sit
>on the board of directors,
>that should tell you something.
>
>
>I don't have a problem with
>them being mum on the
>public land sales scheme.
>I find it ironic though.
>I remember when they came
>out against the creation of
>federal wilderness areas. Anyone
>else remember that?
>I guess that's part of protecting
>second amendment rights? LOL
>
Thanx for remindin me to renew my membership in the NRA piper. If you say it's wrong then I know it's gotta be right!
llamapacker
Moderator
- Messages
- 1,068
Amaing to see the left wing rants on this site. Makes one wonder about the future of this country when a group as focused and single minded as the NRA can be misconstrued.
While I'm not surprised there are gun grabbers and anti hunters on this site, some of the crap above from supposed hunters is mind boggling. Stop reading the left wing bloggers and do a little research for yourself. You might even start with the NRA website. You don't have to agree with every position they take, but at least get informed....
Bill
While I'm not surprised there are gun grabbers and anti hunters on this site, some of the crap above from supposed hunters is mind boggling. Stop reading the left wing bloggers and do a little research for yourself. You might even start with the NRA website. You don't have to agree with every position they take, but at least get informed....
Bill
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,598
llamapacker, help me get a grasp on your thesis of this thread. First, those who disagree with you are childish and now they're anti-hunters and gun grabbers?
I'm gonna recommend reading some information from sources other than just the NRA website. Apparently you believe there is one, and only one, threat to our way of life... and it is strictly based on the 2nd Amendment.
Those of us with a complex and sophisticated understanding of the paradox of threats against us understand the 2nd Amendment is only one part of what is important to the quality of life we hope to pass onto our posterity.
You claim to give your money and support to the NRA (who gave $4,950 to Harry Reid's 2010 reelection campaign against Tea Party-backed Sharon Angle). If you gave to the NRA, you gave to Harry Reid... that's a fact. I'm glad you stand by it.
By giving to the NRA you also are giving to Ted Cruz, Rob Bishop, Mike Lee, and others who are avidly working to sell (or just give away) public land to the highest bidder. By donating to these people, you are claiming the Bundy militia is correct and National Wildlife Refuges should be given to owners of adjacent land, with no other legal or monetary claim to that land. This land was purchased through duck stamp proceeds, but Cruz, Bishop and Lee think it should be taken from you and me and just given to the nearest, loudest, gun-toting rancher who is already suckling off the largest government-subsidized welfare industry in America. Where are you gonna hunt when that happens? And you call me anti-hunting?
In fact, I could make a much stronger argument than you that those who support the NRA are pro-gun, but anti-hunter, as their position is actively leading to a world without public land on which to hunt.
I give money every year to Boone & Crockett Club, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. These are all pro-hunting groups that have officially released statements trying to protect public land hunting. Not just public land access, but public land hunting.
To be sure, a lot of the Legislators receiving funds from these groups are also receiving money from the NRA, because there's not many pro-hunting officials that are anti-gun. But my choice is simple, yet calculated. My money goes to pro-hunting people first and the fact that they tend to be pro-gun is an intended consequence.
I would be an idiot to believe the way I do and then donate money to a group that turns around and gives it to people that I feel pose the single largest threat to hunting. (This is a hunting website, right?)
Due to recent Supreme Court rulings (Heller and McDonald), the threat against guns has been severely diminished, regardless of what the NRA has been telling you right before asking for your generous donation. Any significant gun-control laws would quickly be overturned due to precedence. Not to mention, any gun-control laws that are passed could be reversed in as few as 4 years (see the expiration of the Clinton gun ban). If the land grab passes, even for only one 2-year term, that land will be gone forever. There is no tool available to reverse the sale of public property. That mistake is 100% final and therefore far more crucial to defend than the threat of gun control.
That is my opinion, I clearly stated that it may not be yours, but I have fully explained why I have it. You are welcome to disagree and keep giving money to people that are trying to take your right to hunt on public land, but I'll stand toe-to-toe with anybody that attacks others for their opinions... regardless of what they may be.
Grizzly
I'm gonna recommend reading some information from sources other than just the NRA website. Apparently you believe there is one, and only one, threat to our way of life... and it is strictly based on the 2nd Amendment.
Those of us with a complex and sophisticated understanding of the paradox of threats against us understand the 2nd Amendment is only one part of what is important to the quality of life we hope to pass onto our posterity.
You claim to give your money and support to the NRA (who gave $4,950 to Harry Reid's 2010 reelection campaign against Tea Party-backed Sharon Angle). If you gave to the NRA, you gave to Harry Reid... that's a fact. I'm glad you stand by it.
By giving to the NRA you also are giving to Ted Cruz, Rob Bishop, Mike Lee, and others who are avidly working to sell (or just give away) public land to the highest bidder. By donating to these people, you are claiming the Bundy militia is correct and National Wildlife Refuges should be given to owners of adjacent land, with no other legal or monetary claim to that land. This land was purchased through duck stamp proceeds, but Cruz, Bishop and Lee think it should be taken from you and me and just given to the nearest, loudest, gun-toting rancher who is already suckling off the largest government-subsidized welfare industry in America. Where are you gonna hunt when that happens? And you call me anti-hunting?
In fact, I could make a much stronger argument than you that those who support the NRA are pro-gun, but anti-hunter, as their position is actively leading to a world without public land on which to hunt.
I give money every year to Boone & Crockett Club, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. These are all pro-hunting groups that have officially released statements trying to protect public land hunting. Not just public land access, but public land hunting.
To be sure, a lot of the Legislators receiving funds from these groups are also receiving money from the NRA, because there's not many pro-hunting officials that are anti-gun. But my choice is simple, yet calculated. My money goes to pro-hunting people first and the fact that they tend to be pro-gun is an intended consequence.
I would be an idiot to believe the way I do and then donate money to a group that turns around and gives it to people that I feel pose the single largest threat to hunting. (This is a hunting website, right?)
Due to recent Supreme Court rulings (Heller and McDonald), the threat against guns has been severely diminished, regardless of what the NRA has been telling you right before asking for your generous donation. Any significant gun-control laws would quickly be overturned due to precedence. Not to mention, any gun-control laws that are passed could be reversed in as few as 4 years (see the expiration of the Clinton gun ban). If the land grab passes, even for only one 2-year term, that land will be gone forever. There is no tool available to reverse the sale of public property. That mistake is 100% final and therefore far more crucial to defend than the threat of gun control.
That is my opinion, I clearly stated that it may not be yours, but I have fully explained why I have it. You are welcome to disagree and keep giving money to people that are trying to take your right to hunt on public land, but I'll stand toe-to-toe with anybody that attacks others for their opinions... regardless of what they may be.
Grizzly
Griz,
I agree to disagree with you and am not attacking you for your opinions.
The NRA, 5 million strong has and is by far the main force that is feared by the liberal progressive gun grabbers, and is the leading protector of our 2nd Amendment rights.
Whether they support anything else is secondary.
You also state and I quote"....the largest government-subsidized welfare industry in America", referring to the publio lands rancher, is a widely held myth that is absolutely not founded in truth or facts to back it up. Yes you can spout a lot of figures that are being promoted by the radical environmentalists and all the while you are propping up the very enemies that want to take us all off the public land. You might rethink whom the real enemies are. The Biological Diversity Center, The Wild Earth Guardians and Western Watersheds are amang the many whom we need to be fighting. Not the NRA for God's sake.
I agree to disagree with you and am not attacking you for your opinions.
The NRA, 5 million strong has and is by far the main force that is feared by the liberal progressive gun grabbers, and is the leading protector of our 2nd Amendment rights.
Whether they support anything else is secondary.
You also state and I quote"....the largest government-subsidized welfare industry in America", referring to the publio lands rancher, is a widely held myth that is absolutely not founded in truth or facts to back it up. Yes you can spout a lot of figures that are being promoted by the radical environmentalists and all the while you are propping up the very enemies that want to take us all off the public land. You might rethink whom the real enemies are. The Biological Diversity Center, The Wild Earth Guardians and Western Watersheds are amang the many whom we need to be fighting. Not the NRA for God's sake.
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,598
LAST EDITED ON Jan-17-16 AT 03:35PM (MST)[p]stoney, thanks for keeping the discussion substantive. It's always good to have discussions with people who can respectfully have different viewpoints.
I will totally agree that the NRA is an extremely powerful lobby, maybe the strongest. I will also totally agree they have done much good to keep guns legal in the USA.
My point, and it was enhanced by subsequent posts from others, is that the NRA has historically taken stands that were not narrowly "pro-gun". They have taken access and habitat positions in the past and will likely do so again in the future.
Their idleness on this issue frankly smells similar to SFW being impartial on the land grab, and officially impartial, on the Utah Stream Access bill... however we all know darn well what that impartiality really means. (I'm not saying NRA is pro-land grab, just that being impartial can have negative repercussions as well, including a perceived position, whether it is real or not.)
------------
For the record, my comment about "the largest government-subsidized welfare industry in America" refers to more than public land ranching. And none of my information comes from the environmentalist groups you mentioned, I've literally never been to their websites or facebook pages or anything. Getting my information from them would be as stupid as forming my opinion of the NRA from the NRA webpage.
I am referring to the entire agriculture industrial complex. Reference everything from Farm Aid Concerts to the omnibus Farm Bills. The 2014 Farm Bill alone cost taxpayers $879 Million due to the corn lobby spending $187 Million to get their ethanol requirements passed, among other items. (Why spend $187 Million lobbying if what they want is in the best interest of Americans in the first place?)
Did you know the whole reason our soft drinks are made with high fructose corn syrup is because the corn lobby wanted it decades ago. They also got a sugar tariff passed to prevent competition? Here's a quote for you, "Since the turn of the millennium, Americans have paid an average of 79 percent more for raw sugar and 87 percent more for refined sugar compared to the average world price".
The Supreme Court just ruled this past year in favor of a raisin farmer because a USDA program seizes raisins from farmers to artificially prop up raisin prices. That's right, the government had been going onto private property and taking raisin farmers crops so that everybody could charge more for raisins. Nearly every produce item you name has an artificial government component that is controlling the prices and subsidizing farmers for it. Taxpayers literally pay more in income taxes to give it to farmers so that they can then turn-around and charge us more for the food they grow and thus have higher profits. How freaking stupid is that? Our taxes being raised so that we can pay MORE for food?
Thousands of farmers are paid to NOT farm every year to help keep prices artificially high for everybody else, which we all pay for in everything from increased food prices on fruits/vegys/grains, to fuel prices (ethanol gas requirements), to meat and dairy prices.
Plus our tariffs have been met with competing tariffs/excise taxes imposed on us by countries that want to be able to sell America their goods at fair market prices, but can't due to the Federal government propping up the local agriculture industry. So even the stuff we import, we pay more for.
Yes, the public land rancher (a Forbes article states only 3% of cattle in the USA ever graze on public land) are also a major use of this welfare. From special loans through Farm Housing Act, to reduced AUM's running less than 1/10 the cost of private property, to "drought relief" funds in the millions for rain not falling on land the rancher doesn't even own, to national price controls keeping beef prices artificially high, to billions spent on range management and improvement for land the rancher isn't even paying fair market value for and doesn't own, to predator control and the killing of elk to keep competition from cattle on public land.
I'm referring to the whole darn subsidized industry.
One more point... I own a real estate brokerage in Utah and Idaho. I have a client that just received an inheritance in the millions of dollars. His financial planner has him looking for, with my help, a large ranch which he will buy for millions of dollars. The reason his advisers have him buying this land is the same reason people like Ted Turner own ranches and the same reason wealthy people are pushing for the land grab so they too can buy large ranches. Owning a working cattle ranch is one of the best tax shelters that money can buy. There are ways to literally hide/write-off millions of dollars every year, and then you can actually get a check from taxpayers on years when you don't even pay any taxes in the first place. The entire industry, especially the cattle industry, is a government-subsidized sham and the wealthy few know how to exploit it.
---------------
This discussion however was about the NRA and public lands. I think I've made myself clear on why I won't support a group, especially one we agree is as powerful as the NRA, that would give my donations to individuals who want to lock the gate and keep me from hunting on my own National Forest and BLM land. And it's all so they can pass on the same taxpayer-subsidized BS to the next round of wealthy lobbyists and donors.
I'll take my chances with guns... I have the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court, the Utah Constitution, and a greater trust in my politicians to protect guns than I do they'll protect my land.
If the NRA won't stand up for our public lands and gives money to those who want to take it... they'll get nothing but contempt from me.
PS. For the record, I never said I wanted to fight the NRA. I said I wouldn't support them. I feel there is a difference.
Grizzly
I will totally agree that the NRA is an extremely powerful lobby, maybe the strongest. I will also totally agree they have done much good to keep guns legal in the USA.
My point, and it was enhanced by subsequent posts from others, is that the NRA has historically taken stands that were not narrowly "pro-gun". They have taken access and habitat positions in the past and will likely do so again in the future.
Their idleness on this issue frankly smells similar to SFW being impartial on the land grab, and officially impartial, on the Utah Stream Access bill... however we all know darn well what that impartiality really means. (I'm not saying NRA is pro-land grab, just that being impartial can have negative repercussions as well, including a perceived position, whether it is real or not.)
------------
For the record, my comment about "the largest government-subsidized welfare industry in America" refers to more than public land ranching. And none of my information comes from the environmentalist groups you mentioned, I've literally never been to their websites or facebook pages or anything. Getting my information from them would be as stupid as forming my opinion of the NRA from the NRA webpage.
I am referring to the entire agriculture industrial complex. Reference everything from Farm Aid Concerts to the omnibus Farm Bills. The 2014 Farm Bill alone cost taxpayers $879 Million due to the corn lobby spending $187 Million to get their ethanol requirements passed, among other items. (Why spend $187 Million lobbying if what they want is in the best interest of Americans in the first place?)
Did you know the whole reason our soft drinks are made with high fructose corn syrup is because the corn lobby wanted it decades ago. They also got a sugar tariff passed to prevent competition? Here's a quote for you, "Since the turn of the millennium, Americans have paid an average of 79 percent more for raw sugar and 87 percent more for refined sugar compared to the average world price".
The Supreme Court just ruled this past year in favor of a raisin farmer because a USDA program seizes raisins from farmers to artificially prop up raisin prices. That's right, the government had been going onto private property and taking raisin farmers crops so that everybody could charge more for raisins. Nearly every produce item you name has an artificial government component that is controlling the prices and subsidizing farmers for it. Taxpayers literally pay more in income taxes to give it to farmers so that they can then turn-around and charge us more for the food they grow and thus have higher profits. How freaking stupid is that? Our taxes being raised so that we can pay MORE for food?
Thousands of farmers are paid to NOT farm every year to help keep prices artificially high for everybody else, which we all pay for in everything from increased food prices on fruits/vegys/grains, to fuel prices (ethanol gas requirements), to meat and dairy prices.
Plus our tariffs have been met with competing tariffs/excise taxes imposed on us by countries that want to be able to sell America their goods at fair market prices, but can't due to the Federal government propping up the local agriculture industry. So even the stuff we import, we pay more for.
Yes, the public land rancher (a Forbes article states only 3% of cattle in the USA ever graze on public land) are also a major use of this welfare. From special loans through Farm Housing Act, to reduced AUM's running less than 1/10 the cost of private property, to "drought relief" funds in the millions for rain not falling on land the rancher doesn't even own, to national price controls keeping beef prices artificially high, to billions spent on range management and improvement for land the rancher isn't even paying fair market value for and doesn't own, to predator control and the killing of elk to keep competition from cattle on public land.
I'm referring to the whole darn subsidized industry.
One more point... I own a real estate brokerage in Utah and Idaho. I have a client that just received an inheritance in the millions of dollars. His financial planner has him looking for, with my help, a large ranch which he will buy for millions of dollars. The reason his advisers have him buying this land is the same reason people like Ted Turner own ranches and the same reason wealthy people are pushing for the land grab so they too can buy large ranches. Owning a working cattle ranch is one of the best tax shelters that money can buy. There are ways to literally hide/write-off millions of dollars every year, and then you can actually get a check from taxpayers on years when you don't even pay any taxes in the first place. The entire industry, especially the cattle industry, is a government-subsidized sham and the wealthy few know how to exploit it.
---------------
This discussion however was about the NRA and public lands. I think I've made myself clear on why I won't support a group, especially one we agree is as powerful as the NRA, that would give my donations to individuals who want to lock the gate and keep me from hunting on my own National Forest and BLM land. And it's all so they can pass on the same taxpayer-subsidized BS to the next round of wealthy lobbyists and donors.
I'll take my chances with guns... I have the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court, the Utah Constitution, and a greater trust in my politicians to protect guns than I do they'll protect my land.
If the NRA won't stand up for our public lands and gives money to those who want to take it... they'll get nothing but contempt from me.
PS. For the record, I never said I wanted to fight the NRA. I said I wouldn't support them. I feel there is a difference.
Grizzly
I don't think the NRA has an official position on states getting control of the public land.
I think that for you not supporting NRA is a mistake but I guess you feel strongly that the NRA doesn't help you as a hunter.
Look at The RMEF and how during the initial years of the timber wolf introduction into the northern states how they refused or side stepped on taking a position and it wasn't until recently when the new CEO took over and a change in some of the board members that they finally started to support the hunting industry against wolf proliferation. They buy up large tracts of land and turn it back to the BLM or Forest Service. I whole disagree with that. I think the RMEF should keep at least some control on the land. What good is all of this land if someday we can't hunt it. The RMEF has always been more about elk habitat and much less emphasis on hunting, although they have made a turn around somewhat the last few years.
The Federal Government and many State Governments are buying up huge chunks of prime land and the federal and government largesse keeps growing, all the while thay can't afford to manage what they already own. The Constitution strictly limits what the Government can own and has never been amended, but FLPMA and other congressional laws gave the authority for the Government to take control of the land.
I don't think the Feds or the people will ever let the public land to be turned over to the states. I know there is a growing movement for state control but personally don't see it happening.
I didn't mean you got any information from the radicals, but you do take some positions that fall right into and support their mantra.
You are right the US has had a cheap food policy for many a year and hasn't slowed down much. I have always questioned farm subsidies and being on the State Board of Directors of NM Farm and Livestock Bureau for many years I always had a big problem with many of the subsidies.
I would disagree with you again on the public lands grazers in that everything being equal what they pay in added expenses make the costs very close to private lands grazing. In most of the western states the amount of cattle spending some time on the federal lands rates up to as high as 40-97% of the cattle produced in those states. It makes a huge difference to the ranchers in the western 11 states and the local economies. Look at and especially the BLM lands where they are checkerboarded along with private and state and many ranchers depend at least to some degree on these checkerboarded federal parcels.
Are you familiar with a real estate company that used to be based out of Phoenix called the Federal Land Exchange? They put together land trades with isolated public lands ranches for their private property putting those lands back into Federal hands in exchange for Federal lands around some towns and cities. The XXX Ranch on the Blue River in AZ was retired from grazing and the private land turned back to the US Forest Service whereby they tore down all of the ranch headquarters, corrals and improvements and put in government buildings. The FS traded some land on the outskirts of Showlow, AZ on that trade. They made many trades throughout AZ. I think that between the government getting control of more land all of the time and making more and more Federal preserves and National Monuments, further consternates the rural public here against government encroachment.
I think there is much more going on that will affect your hunting rights than the threat of states taking the Federal land back. California and Colorado with their citizen ballot initiatives is a grave threat to hunting as well as other states. We have a big job of educating the masses to protect our right to hunt.
I think that for you not supporting NRA is a mistake but I guess you feel strongly that the NRA doesn't help you as a hunter.
Look at The RMEF and how during the initial years of the timber wolf introduction into the northern states how they refused or side stepped on taking a position and it wasn't until recently when the new CEO took over and a change in some of the board members that they finally started to support the hunting industry against wolf proliferation. They buy up large tracts of land and turn it back to the BLM or Forest Service. I whole disagree with that. I think the RMEF should keep at least some control on the land. What good is all of this land if someday we can't hunt it. The RMEF has always been more about elk habitat and much less emphasis on hunting, although they have made a turn around somewhat the last few years.
The Federal Government and many State Governments are buying up huge chunks of prime land and the federal and government largesse keeps growing, all the while thay can't afford to manage what they already own. The Constitution strictly limits what the Government can own and has never been amended, but FLPMA and other congressional laws gave the authority for the Government to take control of the land.
I don't think the Feds or the people will ever let the public land to be turned over to the states. I know there is a growing movement for state control but personally don't see it happening.
I didn't mean you got any information from the radicals, but you do take some positions that fall right into and support their mantra.
You are right the US has had a cheap food policy for many a year and hasn't slowed down much. I have always questioned farm subsidies and being on the State Board of Directors of NM Farm and Livestock Bureau for many years I always had a big problem with many of the subsidies.
I would disagree with you again on the public lands grazers in that everything being equal what they pay in added expenses make the costs very close to private lands grazing. In most of the western states the amount of cattle spending some time on the federal lands rates up to as high as 40-97% of the cattle produced in those states. It makes a huge difference to the ranchers in the western 11 states and the local economies. Look at and especially the BLM lands where they are checkerboarded along with private and state and many ranchers depend at least to some degree on these checkerboarded federal parcels.
Are you familiar with a real estate company that used to be based out of Phoenix called the Federal Land Exchange? They put together land trades with isolated public lands ranches for their private property putting those lands back into Federal hands in exchange for Federal lands around some towns and cities. The XXX Ranch on the Blue River in AZ was retired from grazing and the private land turned back to the US Forest Service whereby they tore down all of the ranch headquarters, corrals and improvements and put in government buildings. The FS traded some land on the outskirts of Showlow, AZ on that trade. They made many trades throughout AZ. I think that between the government getting control of more land all of the time and making more and more Federal preserves and National Monuments, further consternates the rural public here against government encroachment.
I think there is much more going on that will affect your hunting rights than the threat of states taking the Federal land back. California and Colorado with their citizen ballot initiatives is a grave threat to hunting as well as other states. We have a big job of educating the masses to protect our right to hunt.
cannonball
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,266
I am speaking to those gun toting hunter Democrats. Hillary will most likely be your nomination for president. Bill, her husband, is on record as wanting the same gun regulations as Australia. Better watch who you vote for or you will watch your guns cut up into small pieces, including some older collector guns, both rifles and hand guns.
The NRA stands between the gun owners and the Clinton's. The next President of the United States will most likely appoint three or four Supreme Justices. If they are progress liberal justices there is not much honor among them when it comes to guns. They will make the laws, not interpret them as they should be doing.
The NRA stands between the gun owners and the Clinton's. The next President of the United States will most likely appoint three or four Supreme Justices. If they are progress liberal justices there is not much honor among them when it comes to guns. They will make the laws, not interpret them as they should be doing.
I can understand and sympathise with people who live in urban areas having a problem with the proliferation of guns, especially assault weapons ..
I cannot however sympathise with greedy politicians and citizens who are determined to sell off the great American heritage of public land.
Access denial affects much more than a few fall hunting trips, and many more people.
I cannot however sympathise with greedy politicians and citizens who are determined to sell off the great American heritage of public land.
Access denial affects much more than a few fall hunting trips, and many more people.
The rural population are the ones living here and seeing all of the government waste and mismanagement and suffering the overreach of government federal agencies and their do nothing host of government so called workers. We live here and suffer the consequences on a daily basis. A few of the urban folks only come and visit once in a while.
Don't get me wrong I am a fan and a supporter of the public lands and make my living off of them. I just want to be able to do so into the future. I for one don't see the states land grabs ever getting much support from the majority of congress people in DC.
I belong to many organizations and NRA is one of my top priorities and feel they have more influence on the political races than any other organization. After all if we don't keep our 2nd amendment we will never be able to protect the rest of the Constitution. If one of the liberal's are elected to the POTUS, they will no doubt appoint enough Supreme Court Justices to take our 2nd amendment from us. This makes the work of the NRA even more important.
Don't get me wrong I am a fan and a supporter of the public lands and make my living off of them. I just want to be able to do so into the future. I for one don't see the states land grabs ever getting much support from the majority of congress people in DC.
I belong to many organizations and NRA is one of my top priorities and feel they have more influence on the political races than any other organization. After all if we don't keep our 2nd amendment we will never be able to protect the rest of the Constitution. If one of the liberal's are elected to the POTUS, they will no doubt appoint enough Supreme Court Justices to take our 2nd amendment from us. This makes the work of the NRA even more important.
cannonball
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,266
The little guy surely needs some help somewhere. Put the "libs" in power and you loose your guns. Put any of the "conservs" in power, who are the elected individuals that are usually the ones who have all of the land and money - - you loose access to the federal land. OH WHAT TO DO - WHAT TO DO?
I guess keep them fighting among them selves is the only answer. Ya know like SFW and RMEF or the supporter there of. For sure nothing is going to get solved on this forum, if you know what I mean.
As long as people don't try and find a solution for all and keep their little greedy quest we will be going around in a circle forever.
I guess keep them fighting among them selves is the only answer. Ya know like SFW and RMEF or the supporter there of. For sure nothing is going to get solved on this forum, if you know what I mean.
As long as people don't try and find a solution for all and keep their little greedy quest we will be going around in a circle forever.
Your paranoia about losing guns is laughable. It's not going to happen, I don't care how many supreme court justices the next president appoints.
But the paranoia keeps a lot of money flowing, that's for sure, I have heard this same talk for 40 years myself. There coming to take my guns away. Yea right,
It reminds me of some landlord we used to have, he wouldn't respond to a census asking the size of his house. He swore it was the government and they wanted to know how to get in his house.
But the paranoia keeps a lot of money flowing, that's for sure, I have heard this same talk for 40 years myself. There coming to take my guns away. Yea right,
It reminds me of some landlord we used to have, he wouldn't respond to a census asking the size of his house. He swore it was the government and they wanted to know how to get in his house.
Paranoia, perhaps, realistic, yes. You are ignoring the real and credible threat to all gun owners. Talk to the people of Canada, Australia, England, Mexico and all of the other disarmed countries.
We will more than likely keep our guns, as the only way they will get them away from us would be for a total revolution to fail, or for the sheeple to lay down and let the bureaucrats run over the top of them.
The stand off in Oregon and the 2014 Bundy stand off in Nevada are only the tip of the iceberg. As long as we the people have our guns the bureaucrats will respect us.
For you to try and tell us any different is laughable and at the same time your right to speak your opinion is accepted by your 1st Amendment right. I darn sure don't agree with you.
We will more than likely keep our guns, as the only way they will get them away from us would be for a total revolution to fail, or for the sheeple to lay down and let the bureaucrats run over the top of them.
The stand off in Oregon and the 2014 Bundy stand off in Nevada are only the tip of the iceberg. As long as we the people have our guns the bureaucrats will respect us.
For you to try and tell us any different is laughable and at the same time your right to speak your opinion is accepted by your 1st Amendment right. I darn sure don't agree with you.
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,598
I've done some more research over the last few days and my independent findings are scary, to say the least.
This ultimately comes down to one basic question...
Does, or should, the NRA take official positions on non-gun related legislation, even if it protects the hunting heritage?
A handful of you (5 or 6) have stated that the NRA is a single-issue organization and is not involved in protecting our hunting traditions, they are purely a 2nd Amendment organization.
I pointed out how the NRA takes positions regarding shooting ranges and target shooting on public land and how they have a magazine called American Hunter, which shows an acknowledgement of the relationship between hunters and gun-owners. Piper also pointed out how they have previously taken positions on wilderness areas. This all makes it very clear that the NRA has chosen to weigh in on land/hunting related issues in the past.
Here is a quote for you that should put that debate to rest... ?Anti-hunting and animal rights extremists seek to incrementally destroy America?s hunting heritage,? said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA?s Institute for Legislative Action. ?The NRA and SCI's filing for intervenor status seeks to ensure that American hunters and their interests are represented in this case, as we continue to fight for the complete delisting of gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act.? Basically, this states the NRA was active in the judicial battle over wolf-delisting (hardly a 2nd Amendment fight).
Thus, it is very clear that the NRA is willing to take up fights to protect hunters from "extremists" that "seek to incrementally destroy America's hunting heritage" (I read that as Rob Bishop and his ilk, but that's just me). The NRA even calls itself "the number-one hunter's organization in America" (hservices.nra.org).
The NRA-ILA states that it aspires to "be involved in any issue that directly or indirectly affects firearms ownership and use. These involve such topics as hunting and access to hunting lands, wilderness, and wildlife conservation."
Somehow, the NRA either supports, or at least failed to oppose, the selling of federal lands in the Western US. How can this be, when a poll of hunters found 73% oppose the sale of public lands? (http://www.bullmoosesportsmen.org/hunters-see-value-in-federal-tracts-oppose-selling-them-poll)
Hmmm... I wonder why they are mum on protecting public lands then? Could it be the massive contributions they take from the energy industries?
Here's a few examples...
In 2010, after the NRA received a $1 Million donation from CWE (an oil company), Kevin McCarthy introduced the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act. "It posed a very real threat to backcountry areas around the country," says Matt Lee-Ashley, a CAP senior fellow and the author of the think tank's report referenced below. It would have allowed mining, road building, logging, and oil and gas extraction on protected federal lands. More than 200 wildlife managers, identified as "dedicated hunters and anglers" wrote a letter to Congress denouncing the bill. Eight Colorado hunting organizations said the bill was "an affront to a long-standing public process and our outdoor heritage." The NRA then teamed up with the American Petroleum Institute and the National Mining Association in support of the bill. Does this sound like the self-proclaimed "number-one hunter's organization in America"?
After the previous bill failed to pass, Dan Benishek introduced the bill again, but renamed it the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act. The National Wildlife Federation called it "nothing more than the sportsmen community being used as a cover to hide an attack on Wilderness, National Monuments, and National Wildlife Refuges." Susan Recce, NRA Director of Conservation, Wildlife, and Natural Resources, testified before Congress in support of the bill. It failed to gain traction, but was ultimately attached to HR3590 so it would pass Congress.
In 2012 alone, six oil and gas companies contributed a total of between $1.3 million and $5.6 million apiece to the NRA, according to CAP. (The companies are Clayton Williams Energy, J.L. Davis Gas Consulting, Kamps Propane, Barrett Brothers Oil and Gas, Saulsbury Energy Services, and KS Industries.)
CWE is the 6th largest NRA donor overall and the largest donor outside of the firearm industry. These aren't small donations. It is obvious the energy industry is a major financial contributor to the NRA. Why would energy companies donate to the NRA if it didn't benefit them financially?
If you haven't uncovered the answer by putting the pieces together yet, or you want more info for your own personal research... See the report titled "Oil and Gas Industry Investments in the National Rifle Association and Safari Club International: Reshaping American Energy, Land and Wildlife Policy" published in April 2014 (written by Matt Lee-Ashley, director of public lands, CAP). Here is one excerpt...
"The positions that are being advanced by oil- and gas-funded sportsmen groups appear to be out of step with the basic principles for wildlife and natural resource management that American sportsmen have been advocating for more than a century. Instead, these groups? efforts align with the oil and gas industry?s longstanding campaigns to expand drilling activities in national forests and public lands; sell off federal public lands with high mineral value to private interests; block efforts to protect public lands for their backcountry or wilderness characteristics; and fight the nation?s most effective wildlife recovery law, the Endangered Species Act.?
I've spent a lot of time researching this and could provide even more information and evidence, but if this doesn't do it then you probably are just not willing to consider a reality outside what you want to believe.
I'll admit that I was skeptical of the claims by previous posts that the NRA was too involved with the oil industry. I felt the NRA was probably neutral on the public lands sell, but they were remaining silent due to loyalty to the Republican Party. It now appears the NRA is likely an actual player in the push to sell public lands to the energy companies (which is also why the Koch Brothers are the single-largest donor to the American Lands Council, the main instigator of this fraud on the American people).
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck... well, you get the picture.
Grizzly
This ultimately comes down to one basic question...
Does, or should, the NRA take official positions on non-gun related legislation, even if it protects the hunting heritage?
A handful of you (5 or 6) have stated that the NRA is a single-issue organization and is not involved in protecting our hunting traditions, they are purely a 2nd Amendment organization.
I pointed out how the NRA takes positions regarding shooting ranges and target shooting on public land and how they have a magazine called American Hunter, which shows an acknowledgement of the relationship between hunters and gun-owners. Piper also pointed out how they have previously taken positions on wilderness areas. This all makes it very clear that the NRA has chosen to weigh in on land/hunting related issues in the past.
Here is a quote for you that should put that debate to rest... ?Anti-hunting and animal rights extremists seek to incrementally destroy America?s hunting heritage,? said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA?s Institute for Legislative Action. ?The NRA and SCI's filing for intervenor status seeks to ensure that American hunters and their interests are represented in this case, as we continue to fight for the complete delisting of gray wolves from the Endangered Species Act.? Basically, this states the NRA was active in the judicial battle over wolf-delisting (hardly a 2nd Amendment fight).
Thus, it is very clear that the NRA is willing to take up fights to protect hunters from "extremists" that "seek to incrementally destroy America's hunting heritage" (I read that as Rob Bishop and his ilk, but that's just me). The NRA even calls itself "the number-one hunter's organization in America" (hservices.nra.org).
The NRA-ILA states that it aspires to "be involved in any issue that directly or indirectly affects firearms ownership and use. These involve such topics as hunting and access to hunting lands, wilderness, and wildlife conservation."
Somehow, the NRA either supports, or at least failed to oppose, the selling of federal lands in the Western US. How can this be, when a poll of hunters found 73% oppose the sale of public lands? (http://www.bullmoosesportsmen.org/hunters-see-value-in-federal-tracts-oppose-selling-them-poll)
Hmmm... I wonder why they are mum on protecting public lands then? Could it be the massive contributions they take from the energy industries?
Here's a few examples...
In 2010, after the NRA received a $1 Million donation from CWE (an oil company), Kevin McCarthy introduced the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act. "It posed a very real threat to backcountry areas around the country," says Matt Lee-Ashley, a CAP senior fellow and the author of the think tank's report referenced below. It would have allowed mining, road building, logging, and oil and gas extraction on protected federal lands. More than 200 wildlife managers, identified as "dedicated hunters and anglers" wrote a letter to Congress denouncing the bill. Eight Colorado hunting organizations said the bill was "an affront to a long-standing public process and our outdoor heritage." The NRA then teamed up with the American Petroleum Institute and the National Mining Association in support of the bill. Does this sound like the self-proclaimed "number-one hunter's organization in America"?
After the previous bill failed to pass, Dan Benishek introduced the bill again, but renamed it the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act. The National Wildlife Federation called it "nothing more than the sportsmen community being used as a cover to hide an attack on Wilderness, National Monuments, and National Wildlife Refuges." Susan Recce, NRA Director of Conservation, Wildlife, and Natural Resources, testified before Congress in support of the bill. It failed to gain traction, but was ultimately attached to HR3590 so it would pass Congress.
In 2012 alone, six oil and gas companies contributed a total of between $1.3 million and $5.6 million apiece to the NRA, according to CAP. (The companies are Clayton Williams Energy, J.L. Davis Gas Consulting, Kamps Propane, Barrett Brothers Oil and Gas, Saulsbury Energy Services, and KS Industries.)
CWE is the 6th largest NRA donor overall and the largest donor outside of the firearm industry. These aren't small donations. It is obvious the energy industry is a major financial contributor to the NRA. Why would energy companies donate to the NRA if it didn't benefit them financially?
If you haven't uncovered the answer by putting the pieces together yet, or you want more info for your own personal research... See the report titled "Oil and Gas Industry Investments in the National Rifle Association and Safari Club International: Reshaping American Energy, Land and Wildlife Policy" published in April 2014 (written by Matt Lee-Ashley, director of public lands, CAP). Here is one excerpt...
"The positions that are being advanced by oil- and gas-funded sportsmen groups appear to be out of step with the basic principles for wildlife and natural resource management that American sportsmen have been advocating for more than a century. Instead, these groups? efforts align with the oil and gas industry?s longstanding campaigns to expand drilling activities in national forests and public lands; sell off federal public lands with high mineral value to private interests; block efforts to protect public lands for their backcountry or wilderness characteristics; and fight the nation?s most effective wildlife recovery law, the Endangered Species Act.?
I've spent a lot of time researching this and could provide even more information and evidence, but if this doesn't do it then you probably are just not willing to consider a reality outside what you want to believe.
I'll admit that I was skeptical of the claims by previous posts that the NRA was too involved with the oil industry. I felt the NRA was probably neutral on the public lands sell, but they were remaining silent due to loyalty to the Republican Party. It now appears the NRA is likely an actual player in the push to sell public lands to the energy companies (which is also why the Koch Brothers are the single-largest donor to the American Lands Council, the main instigator of this fraud on the American people).
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck... well, you get the picture.
Grizzly
Castnshoot
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,113
Grizzly, I appreciate your love of public lands,, but if you could please explain to me how every drop or cubic foot of carbon on this planet is not going to be used by us all, please do.
Do you understand that 80% of the planet would starve within a few years with out natural gas?
Do you realize that everything you use to sustain your family is brought to you by the oil industry in one way or another?
I just don't get your equating any dealings with the energy sector as if it is a deal with the devil.
I also don't get your portrayal of the NRA as a minion of that same devil.
Do you understand that 80% of the planet would starve within a few years with out natural gas?
Do you realize that everything you use to sustain your family is brought to you by the oil industry in one way or another?
I just don't get your equating any dealings with the energy sector as if it is a deal with the devil.
I also don't get your portrayal of the NRA as a minion of that same devil.
>Grizzly, I appreciate your love of
>public lands,, but if you
>could please explain to me
>how every drop or cubic
>foot of carbon on this
>planet is not going to
>be used by us all,
>please do.
>
>Do you understand that 80% of
>the planet would starve within
>a few years with out
>natural gas?
>
>Do you realize that everything you
>use to sustain your family
>is brought to you by
>the oil industry in one
>way or another?
>
>I just don't get your equating
>any dealings with the energy
>sector as if it is
>a deal with the devil.
>
>
>I also don't get your portrayal
>of the NRA as a
>minion of that same devil.
>
>
>
+1 Stoney. Couldn't have said it better myself.
I think those are great questions for Griz. I'd like to hear Griz answers tose questions myself.
>public lands,, but if you
>could please explain to me
>how every drop or cubic
>foot of carbon on this
>planet is not going to
>be used by us all,
>please do.
>
>Do you understand that 80% of
>the planet would starve within
>a few years with out
>natural gas?
>
>Do you realize that everything you
>use to sustain your family
>is brought to you by
>the oil industry in one
>way or another?
>
>I just don't get your equating
>any dealings with the energy
>sector as if it is
>a deal with the devil.
>
>
>I also don't get your portrayal
>of the NRA as a
>minion of that same devil.
>
>
>
+1 Stoney. Couldn't have said it better myself.
I think those are great questions for Griz. I'd like to hear Griz answers tose questions myself.
In defense of the NRA's land use policies let me bring out some of the following.
The National Wildlife Federation and its state affiliates and radical NGO environmental partners are all operating on the Marxist Socialist doctrine, where the Federal Government controls everything and all lands including private lands will eventually become under public domain, especially in the Western USA.
It appears the RMEF is sitting precipitously on the edge of falling in this doctrine also. Trout Unlimited, TRCP and other conservation organizations are solidly behind this ever growing movement to do away with all extractive uses on the federal land.
Here are some know facts concerning the Eco-socialist anti-capitalistic philosophy of the NWF and many of the radical so called conservation organizations. They opposed the XL-pipeline, including most all expansion projects in the oil and gas industry that would create thousands of jobs. They worked closely with the Obama Administration to kill the coal industry, timber industry, the copper industry, sand and gravel operations, gold and silver mines, new power lines and power plants, the potash industry, the WIPP site, all disposal facilities and just about any extraction industry that has high paying jobs.
They have consistently pushed the Forest Service for ""Roadless Areas" on all public lands, which basically prohibits and or severally restricts the average person from using these areas, which were accessible in the past. Great family ties and lifetime memories were created on these public lands, but now people are denied access and it is against the law to re-enter these areas. Much of the Federal actions taking place our making de facto wilderness areas out of our public lands we have come to enjoy over the last 100 years.
Castnshoot,
You are so right in your analogy that these organizations liken anybody dealing with the energy sector to be dealing with the devil.
Not only public lands grazers but many private lands ranchers are under constant attack by these same groups.
Many of us see a much bigger threat to everyone's way of life than the small chance that the states will regain possession of the unappropriated lands not given to them at statehood. I don't think the Feds will ever let that happen as it is highly unpopular with the majority of the US citizens.
Griz,
The ESA has recovered very few species and has become a tool of the radical enviro groups to get the people and all consumptive uses off the land. It had well meaning intentions but has been an absolute nightmare for most of its tenure and not only to private landowners but most multiple uses of the public lands. For one to praise the ESA is liken to dealing with the devil for darn sure.
What is NRA's position on the ESA?
The National Wildlife Federation and its state affiliates and radical NGO environmental partners are all operating on the Marxist Socialist doctrine, where the Federal Government controls everything and all lands including private lands will eventually become under public domain, especially in the Western USA.
It appears the RMEF is sitting precipitously on the edge of falling in this doctrine also. Trout Unlimited, TRCP and other conservation organizations are solidly behind this ever growing movement to do away with all extractive uses on the federal land.
Here are some know facts concerning the Eco-socialist anti-capitalistic philosophy of the NWF and many of the radical so called conservation organizations. They opposed the XL-pipeline, including most all expansion projects in the oil and gas industry that would create thousands of jobs. They worked closely with the Obama Administration to kill the coal industry, timber industry, the copper industry, sand and gravel operations, gold and silver mines, new power lines and power plants, the potash industry, the WIPP site, all disposal facilities and just about any extraction industry that has high paying jobs.
They have consistently pushed the Forest Service for ""Roadless Areas" on all public lands, which basically prohibits and or severally restricts the average person from using these areas, which were accessible in the past. Great family ties and lifetime memories were created on these public lands, but now people are denied access and it is against the law to re-enter these areas. Much of the Federal actions taking place our making de facto wilderness areas out of our public lands we have come to enjoy over the last 100 years.
Castnshoot,
You are so right in your analogy that these organizations liken anybody dealing with the energy sector to be dealing with the devil.
Not only public lands grazers but many private lands ranchers are under constant attack by these same groups.
Many of us see a much bigger threat to everyone's way of life than the small chance that the states will regain possession of the unappropriated lands not given to them at statehood. I don't think the Feds will ever let that happen as it is highly unpopular with the majority of the US citizens.
Griz,
The ESA has recovered very few species and has become a tool of the radical enviro groups to get the people and all consumptive uses off the land. It had well meaning intentions but has been an absolute nightmare for most of its tenure and not only to private landowners but most multiple uses of the public lands. For one to praise the ESA is liken to dealing with the devil for darn sure.
What is NRA's position on the ESA?
A couple of your posts are almost reasonable Stoney. And then you go off in some psychological babble like this one. Yea socialism, Marxist, all public lands are going to be roadless, RMEF is becoming a commie organization? On and on, where do you get this stuff? Or are you just drinking when you post?
If I have ever seen anyone who needs to see the world it's you? I remember talking to this retired biologist from Nevada once, he says it's the isolation and fear of our ever changing world that creates paranoia like you have, i
think he may be right. Especially when he relates some of his experience.
If I have ever seen anyone who needs to see the world it's you? I remember talking to this retired biologist from Nevada once, he says it's the isolation and fear of our ever changing world that creates paranoia like you have, i
think he may be right. Especially when he relates some of his experience.
Stoney,
Again, +1 to your post. Your spot on again.
However, be careful inferring that RMEF is an environmental group. I did that and GRIZ said he wouldn't play with me anymore until I apologized. well, I didn't apologize.
Sounds like Piper is going to throw a tantrum just like GRIZ.
Again, +1 to your post. Your spot on again.
However, be careful inferring that RMEF is an environmental group. I did that and GRIZ said he wouldn't play with me anymore until I apologized. well, I didn't apologize.
Sounds like Piper is going to throw a tantrum just like GRIZ.
Paranoia, I don't think so. Reality and many years of experiences in the hot bed of the onslaught against the natural resource users on the public land have taught me and my friends and neighbors very well. My experience with most biologists are that they fall in love with the species they represent and turn a blind eye to everything else around them. Isolation and fear never. Amazement at the gullibility and dumb downed ness of the sheeple such as your self seems to be the norm in your so called enlightened state.
Piper,
You seem to think I live an isolation and am not worldly. I admit I love where I live, almost totally surrounded by National Forest here in SW NM, and when I go throughout the lower 48 states, Mexico, Canada and up to Alaska, it is always great to get home. In my profession I have met and know many of the world's top outfitters and many of my clients are worldly and or from foreign countries. I think I have a well rounded perspective of the nation and our neighboring countries and some pretty good insight on other countries throughout the world, due to my ties and relationships with these outfitters and hunters.
Regarding the RMEF, I am a Medallion Level 2 donor outfitter member, and have been for years. I judged the bugling championship contests for many years all the way from Denver to Albuquerque to Reno to Ft. Worth. I have always argued with their leadership since the beginning. RMEF has made a big turn around since David Allen became President and CEO along with some new board members. Now they have become more hunter oriented and not just habitat. I as a hunter have always told them what good are all of the elk and the habitat if we can't hunt them.
My feelings are just as strong in favor of the NRA.
You seem to think I live an isolation and am not worldly. I admit I love where I live, almost totally surrounded by National Forest here in SW NM, and when I go throughout the lower 48 states, Mexico, Canada and up to Alaska, it is always great to get home. In my profession I have met and know many of the world's top outfitters and many of my clients are worldly and or from foreign countries. I think I have a well rounded perspective of the nation and our neighboring countries and some pretty good insight on other countries throughout the world, due to my ties and relationships with these outfitters and hunters.
Regarding the RMEF, I am a Medallion Level 2 donor outfitter member, and have been for years. I judged the bugling championship contests for many years all the way from Denver to Albuquerque to Reno to Ft. Worth. I have always argued with their leadership since the beginning. RMEF has made a big turn around since David Allen became President and CEO along with some new board members. Now they have become more hunter oriented and not just habitat. I as a hunter have always told them what good are all of the elk and the habitat if we can't hunt them.
My feelings are just as strong in favor of the NRA.
grizzly
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 5,598
They don't even pretend it's a transfer anymore. At least they're calling it like they see it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-should-sell-western-land-follow-constitution
Grizzly
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-should-sell-western-land-follow-constitution
Grizzly
