senate bill for land grab

azbullhunter

azbullhunter

Active Member
Messages
386
I was reading in a Eastman's forum re: Senate bill 838 which was introduced as an amendment to allow the sale of federal lands. The bill passed on March 26, 2015. I was glad to see that three Republican senators voted against it. It passed 51-49 with all democrats opposing it and all but three republicans supporting it. There have been bills passed by the house trying to do it also. Fortunately, I am confident the president would veto such a bill since all democrats in the senate voted against it. I am glad Mitt is not president or this could happen. Read the bill and Eastmans for more details and learn what the Backcountry hunters and anglers organization is trying to do.
 
You're right this president will veto it should it get that far. I would doubt any of the republicans who seek to replace him would, I know some support it.

Real sportsmen should consider these things when they vote. the TR kind of republican died with TR.













Stay thirsty my friends
 
To add to that, do you really believe that Hillary would veto it since she goes with the money flow.

RELH
 
Yes I believe she would veto it. there is no reason whatsoever to question it.







Stay thirsty my friends
 
Like that do you giggles?

Explain why she would not veto it ? not your opinion that's worthless, what has she done or said to imply she would sell of public lands?








Stay thirsty my friends
 
She's a whore lennie. There's nothing she won't do for money. You really don't see that yet?
 
LAST EDITED ON May-04-15 AT 08:05PM (MST)[p]She allowed 20% of our uranium to be sold to the russians for a large financial windfall for herself....that's not my opinion, that's a fact.
 
That is not a fact whatsoever. did the money go to her? can you prove she wouldn't have approved it anyway?

Most important, and not considered by partisan hacks, was Hillary the only one required to sign off on the deal ? do tell , slanthead.


And what and how would republicans pay her to approve the land grab anyway?












Stay thirsty my friends
 
When less than 15% of her foundation dollars are applied to causes, and the rest go to fancy dinners, private jets, fancy hotels, and fat salaries, I'd say ya shes gettin paid. There were 9 groups that had to sign off on that deal and they should all be held accountable because any one of them could have canceled this treasonous deal including her! I don't worry about republicans payin her, I foresee the Chinese payin her. They need oil, coal, lumber and we have plenty that we could be utilizing and lowering our debt to avoid the looming crisis but instead we'll end up selling the ground to survive!
 
Azbullhunter since Hillary is your favorite person that you will probably vote for, you should do your own fact finding to determine if she is a saint as you feel she is. Don't be a another un-informed voter by listening to only CBS, ABC or NBC.

RELH
 
Those are not facts, they're not even accusations. they're " what if's " . are you not smart enough to know if there was any proof whatsoever they would have thrown this chit out there with it ? prove it, or STFU.

So Clinton convinced 9 other departments to sign off so she could get money for her charity? if that's true we need this woman as president. she can get world to do as she desires who can't admire that.

You people are stupid. you want a leader who sat in a sealed room until it was time to campaign. you show me any person who's ever done a dfamn thing in their life and I'll show you someone who you can raise questions about. no couple in modern history has had more exposure than the Clintons. it comes with the territory.

WTF does this have to do with the GOP land grab? you just won't talk about that will you?












Stay thirsty my friends
 
LAST EDITED ON May-07-15 AT 09:22AM (MST)[p]


Why do republicans even talk about this nonsense? they can't even get republicans beghind it. who gives a FF what the texicans and utards want they're not going to ever get it.

The MT governor just vetoed a bill to explore selling public lands.














Stay thirsty my friends
 
There is one big difference between Hillary and most GOP candidates concerning selling off public land. Since a liberal Democrat, Obama, more then doubled the national debt since Bush, selling off public land is one option to lower that debt or we all end up paying higher taxes. Just more money for the liberal Democrats to squander away in the future.

Some GOP politicians are for selling that land and the public majority will probably support them in that effort as opposed to having to pay higher taxes.

Hillary will end up supporting that sell off, but the difference between her and a GOP president, will be private corporations willing to buy that land will be giving her foundation big bucks making her and Bill that much richer when she leaves office.

RELH
 
If you don't care how the Clintons get their money for their foundation, you won't care who finances Backcountry Hunters and Anglers either.

Eel

It's written in the good Book that we'll never be asked to take more than we can. Sounds like a good plan, so bring it on!
 
As president Hillary will veto any attempt to sell off public lands, if she doesn't only republicans would vote for her in 2020. end of story, and this is not about Hillary.

Why do you think millionaires support her? because they know she's good for business just like Bill was. and she's not a moron like most of the GOP candidates, most rich people aren't morons and they don't want morons calling the shots. rather than focus on interest rates and healthcare costs a republican would focus on fags and christmas trees in the mall.

So back to the subject, are you morons in favor of your heroes selling the land? defend them or denounce them and stop deflecting.
















Stay thirsty my friends
 
You do realize slick willys policies gave us the housing crash and the current recession? Good for big business maybe, lousy for the common man, the ones she pretends she wants to be the champion of. Anyone with half a brain sees she won't give 2 chits about the common man, just look at her recent flip on immigration, the single most devastating thing to middle America the last 30yrs!
 
They have 77,000 unoccupied buildings and thousands of acres of undesirable land they could and should sell first. Let's see how many trillions that brings in and saves us taxpayers. Then let's start using the natural resources on our federal lands to reduce our debt.
 
Got a source for those numbers? How does one determine what land is undesirable?

Where are you going to sell all those natural resources and make all that money when the market for almost every kind of commodity produced is in the toilet right?

We have drilled baby drilled and now economics makes it unprofitable to drill most of those holes now. They are not even leasing mineral rights even in the Bakken.

Nemont
 
By the time it takes our government to begin to utilize our natural resources the markets will have turned and prices will b up. Remember "it'll take 10yrs to get that oil on market and help pricing"? Did waiting help?
 
Millionaires supporting Hillary yeah and I know why. They expect the economy to continue to grow and thrive as it is now. They do not want to go back into a recession as under Bush. Today unemployment lowest since 08 markets up construction jobs up things look positive except to the members here since they will find reasons to be negative.
 
I guess Reagan shouldn't have signed the bill that makes it have to offer used building to others first.

You have a funny way of looking at government spending. You believe spending more on our military than the rest of the world is justified but $8 billion a year is going to make a dent in our budget.

I am not saying wasting $8 billion a year is smart but out of a it is a rounding error in the Pentagon Budget.

Nemont
 
So you want the government to compete with private industry to bring more supply of resources to the market place?

Let me ask you this how much does the U.S. Treasury, by law, get from leasing mineral rights, selling timber, hard rock mining and other extractive industries off of Federal lands?

Here is a place to start.
http://statistics.onrr.gov/ReportTool.aspx


Now what politician is going to demand that we expect the market price for those resources on federal lands? We don't use the market price to determine grazing fees, timber sales, oil leases, hard rock mining concessions, water usage, or even hunting, bird watching, hiking, etc etc. There is political rent seeking done on behalf of every industry that wants to extract resources from the Federal Trust lands on the cheap.


Please explain how the current crop of politicians will escape the pressure to reduce the cost to users by using taxpayer money when that hasn't happened in our history.

Nemont
 
That's just the running cost of the properties, not there value. What's a half acre property on Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C. worth? Who knows what the total value of 77,000 federal buildings are, they don't even know for sure how many there are! If that doesn't prove our government has gotten to big and bloated I don't know what does.
 
I live in Oregon, probably the top timber state in the union, we don't have the timber anymore because of years of over harvest. this crap about they just won't let it be cut is BS.

Not to say more couldn't be cut it could, but not enough to make a difference. when I was a kid there were 4 mills in this county now there are none, because there's nothing to cut bigger than pecker poles on any volume. what sales there are leave the area to be cut.

So how does selling an improving growing forest to some outfit who'd put in a small log mill and scalp it help the public?












Stay thirsty my friends
 
On yer sheep hunt this fall check the browness. Colorado is way worse than Wyoming. That resource is lost for a couple generations, it may never comeback. Next drought you'll be able to roast weenies off yer Oregon front porch from the heat! The economic loss of not utilizing that resource is gone forever. Sure it needs to be a managed harvest with all the things that go with that. Now they've set up mills to make shavings out of the deadwood, how many bags of shavings do we need? Not 20 million acres worth. I've never been to Oregon but I thought that was where the spotted owl lived? Didn't that little bird have somethin to do with crippling the timber industry up there?
 
Yes the owl did, but it's not as major factor anymore. didn't effect the ponderosa or anything on my side of the state whatsoever. ESA listings effect everyone logging doesn't get a free pass. that's a whole other issue.

I have hunted CO and quite a lot in WY and MT. most of what I've seen aren't trees they're shrubs and pecker polls. I guess they call them trees but you couldn't get a 2x6 out of 99% of them. lets talk about dimension lumber if we're talking about logging.

If you want to talk about the chip market then yes more thinning could be done there. but a lot of it is so hard to get and so low yield it wouldn't pay if you got the stumpage for nothing.

I still see no justification for selling the USFS because of any of this.












Stay thirsty my friends
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

7DDC7ECC-58DF-46E8-9E86-482316AC1527.jpeg
Henry Mountains Management Buck
3F10D0BB-AB15-4C50-B136-C44D1CBB3B8A.jpeg
IMG_9781.jpeg
8610A34A-4B80-4398-ABE3-704C43D7E410.jpeg
329DC7AF-101A-44F3-AA4E-1489AAA153F9.jpeg
imagejpeg_0.jpeg
82E3DCB1-47AC-4DBA-99C9-70E2AFDB8E11.png
pwee8.jpg
1705510423662.png
DSCN1123 copy.jpg
Big Buck 2.jpg
Back
Top Bottom