Who says the Donald doesn't listen or know what his public wants. In his thank you tour tonight he made mention of protecting hunting and fishing for Americans and his boys as part of his agenda.........Hooyea He listened to us boys!! I'll bet the anti's are taking malox right now knowing that a lot of crap they've used to oppose us is over!!
Trump is going to protect hunting and fishing!
- Thread starter Boskee
- Start date
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
LAST EDITED ON Dec-06-16 AT 08:07PM (MST)[p]
Supposed he is going to protect public land from the GOP transfer plank in their platform led by the Utard congressional contingent? Highly doubtful he much understands public lands and what it means to hunters and the Uganda will lead straight to the transfer path. Doubt any Trump offspring ever slummed with public land hunters.
Nemont
Supposed he is going to protect public land from the GOP transfer plank in their platform led by the Utard congressional contingent? Highly doubtful he much understands public lands and what it means to hunters and the Uganda will lead straight to the transfer path. Doubt any Trump offspring ever slummed with public land hunters.
Nemont
Nemont you're becoming too biased.
The trump boys have hunted on public land and actually post on other forums. In fact Ivanka shoots a target bow. So let's be grateful that they actually recognize what's been going on and will take some steps to protect what we like to do. There's some folks already working on protecting our lands and working to give the states rights to manage & introduce fish & wildlife within their borders for recreational opportunity. This will allow stocking lakes and streams with nonnative species ( rainbow trout, small mouth bass etc) for more opportunity which should help improve the income streams for our state Fish and Game departments. I think this was a thank you from Trump to the deplorables that helped get him elected........
The trump boys have hunted on public land and actually post on other forums. In fact Ivanka shoots a target bow. So let's be grateful that they actually recognize what's been going on and will take some steps to protect what we like to do. There's some folks already working on protecting our lands and working to give the states rights to manage & introduce fish & wildlife within their borders for recreational opportunity. This will allow stocking lakes and streams with nonnative species ( rainbow trout, small mouth bass etc) for more opportunity which should help improve the income streams for our state Fish and Game departments. I think this was a thank you from Trump to the deplorables that helped get him elected........>Nemont you're becoming too biased. The
>trump boys have hunted on
>public land and actually post
>on other forums. In fact
>Ivanka shoots a target bow.
>So let's be grateful that
>they actually recognize what's been
>going on and will take
>some steps to protect what
>we like to do. There's
>some folks already working on
>protecting our lands and working
>to give the states rights
>to manage & introduce fish
>& wildlife within their borders
>for recreational opportunity. This will
>allow stocking lakes and streams
>with nonnative species ( rainbow
>trout, small mouth bass etc)
>for more opportunity which should
>help improve the income streams
>for our state Fish and
>Game departments. I think this
>was a thank you from
>Trump to the deplorables that
>helped get him elected........
+1
The >trump boys have hunted on
>public land and actually post
>on other forums. In fact
>Ivanka shoots a target bow.
>So let's be grateful that
>they actually recognize what's been
>going on and will take
>some steps to protect what
>we like to do. There's
>some folks already working on
>protecting our lands and working
>to give the states rights
>to manage & introduce fish
>& wildlife within their borders
>for recreational opportunity. This will
>allow stocking lakes and streams
>with nonnative species ( rainbow
>trout, small mouth bass etc)
>for more opportunity which should
>help improve the income streams
>for our state Fish and
>Game departments. I think this
>was a thank you from
>Trump to the deplorables that
>helped get him elected........
+1
Protect what? from who? where? WTF kind of promise are you buying? does this mean he'll fight to protect public lands? the environment? climate change? or is it just to get simpletons to cream their jean in excitement at the mear sound of his voice?
What did Obama do to harm hunting and fishing ?
Stay Thirsty My Friends
What did Obama do to harm hunting and fishing ?
Stay Thirsty My Friends
Tog if you ever did any research on anything before opening your illiterate mouth it would save you from looking like the damn drunken fool you are. It's obvious you have no knowledge about how the left has been getting things changed with our states F&G agencies and compliance to control their management by public opinion and other legal means. For once in your damn life realize that federal and states protection is in our best interests and shut your damn uneducated pie hole. There's a reason why states are passing this type of legislation (and the left is spending millions opposing it) it's not to protect your right of free speech although many on here would support the elimination of that right for you. Get serious you damn Jackazz. When you're not smart enough to realize how beneficial this can be for even you it's time to put down the damn bottle and STFU.
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
>Nemont you're becoming too biased. The
>trump boys have hunted on
>public land and actually post
>on other forums. In fact
>Ivanka shoots a target bow.
>So let's be grateful that
>they actually recognize what's been
>going on and will take
>some steps to protect what
>we like to do. There's
>some folks already working on
>protecting our lands and working
>to give the states rights
>to manage & introduce fish
>& wildlife within their borders
>for recreational opportunity. This will
>allow stocking lakes and streams
>with nonnative species ( rainbow
>trout, small mouth bass etc)
>for more opportunity which should
>help improve the income streams
>for our state Fish and
>Game departments. I think this
>was a thank you from
>Trump to the deplorables that
>helped get him elected........
Why would a hunter cheer on further releases of non native species into the wild? MILLIONS of dollars being spent to eradicate non native species all over the west including rainbow trout in areas where west slope cutthroat are endangered.
I guess as long a bubba gets a bass boat who cares what happens.
You can trust Trump to do all you want but it is in the party platform to transfer public lands to the states. The states cannot begin to pay for them or manage them which means transfer=sell off the land. period.
The Utard faction in congress is going to get their way because as you say the deplorables want their pay back and when the deplorables start seeing those no tresspassing signs on those lands they used to access for free it will be fun to listen to the whining. I guess Utards are a special breed of deplorable who are happy to screw over fellow deplorables.
Nemont
The >trump boys have hunted on
>public land and actually post
>on other forums. In fact
>Ivanka shoots a target bow.
>So let's be grateful that
>they actually recognize what's been
>going on and will take
>some steps to protect what
>we like to do. There's
>some folks already working on
>protecting our lands and working
>to give the states rights
>to manage & introduce fish
>& wildlife within their borders
>for recreational opportunity. This will
>allow stocking lakes and streams
>with nonnative species ( rainbow
>trout, small mouth bass etc)
>for more opportunity which should
>help improve the income streams
>for our state Fish and
>Game departments. I think this
>was a thank you from
>Trump to the deplorables that
>helped get him elected........
Why would a hunter cheer on further releases of non native species into the wild? MILLIONS of dollars being spent to eradicate non native species all over the west including rainbow trout in areas where west slope cutthroat are endangered.
I guess as long a bubba gets a bass boat who cares what happens.
You can trust Trump to do all you want but it is in the party platform to transfer public lands to the states. The states cannot begin to pay for them or manage them which means transfer=sell off the land. period.
The Utard faction in congress is going to get their way because as you say the deplorables want their pay back and when the deplorables start seeing those no tresspassing signs on those lands they used to access for free it will be fun to listen to the whining. I guess Utards are a special breed of deplorable who are happy to screw over fellow deplorables.
Nemont
Nemont for a hunter you're not real smart sometimes. How many huntable species have been relocated to other states. It's one of the reasons we have different species of sheep, antelope, elk, deer, turkeys and other birds in some states that were eradicated long ago. Now you're on a crusade to split hairs again. The state wildlife agencies have done a pretty good job of controlling our wildlife in hundreds of ways and reintroducing and protecting other species. Az has supplied desert big horn sheep to many other states and had some rocky mountain bighorns given to us along with your state giving us pronghorns in the past. Their jobs have been made difficult with all the actions of the anti's and many forms of litigation to tie their hands. Now since you claim to be informed why don't you tell us how protective legislation is such a bad thing because your department would love to see it implemented just like many other states.
Since you claim to be a hunter tell us if your department would benefit from protection to let them regulate free of the threats and costs of needless litigation that cost the departments hundreds of millions of dollars that could be better spent managing wildlife. If they were doing such a bad job you wouldn't be hunting anything today let alone be able to apply for some hunts for different species out of state. Many states have protected or trophy fisheries for the sole purpose of protecting endangered species so it's already being done in many cases. Why don't you call the director of your department and tell us if he supports protective legislation? Now what exactly was your beef again.....LOL
Since you claim to be a hunter tell us if your department would benefit from protection to let them regulate free of the threats and costs of needless litigation that cost the departments hundreds of millions of dollars that could be better spent managing wildlife. If they were doing such a bad job you wouldn't be hunting anything today let alone be able to apply for some hunts for different species out of state. Many states have protected or trophy fisheries for the sole purpose of protecting endangered species so it's already being done in many cases. Why don't you call the director of your department and tell us if he supports protective legislation? Now what exactly was your beef again.....LOL
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
LAST EDITED ON Dec-07-16 AT 03:13PM (MST)[p]
So the insult of me being a "so called hunter" is how this one goes. Well believe as you wish, jimmy crack corn.
So how exactly are states free of being litigated against? What does the MT Dept of Fish, Wildlife and Parks get sued for now that just changing the title holder's name from the Federal Gov. to the State Gov. would stop?
The Montana FWP already sets the season dates, the tag allocation, limits for everything on the all federal lands in our state that aren't located within boundaries of Yellowstone Park and Glacier Park or within the boundaries of the Indian Reservations. How does transfer enable them manage big game populations more? What additional tools are they going to have at their disposal if transfer happens?
Is translocation of species once endemic to a landscape the same thing as introduction of none native species? Kind of an apples to the moon comparison of the two.
The state of Montana has a world class big horn sheep population that is managed by the MTFWP and those herds exist almost entirely upon Federal Public lands. What does transfer do to bring more sheep hunting opportunity.
I get it you have drank the Koolaid but transferring those lands does NOT make them immune from some environmental group suing the states under all the existing Federal laws. Federal law still trump state law even with Trump sitting in the White House. Those cases would still be heard in Federal Courts if the States violated the ESA or other laws, given that those environmental groups have standing.
So be specific. You said in your post you supported introducing nonnative trout and then you did a flip flop and said native species translocated to parts of their historic habitat. Which is you support? As you pointed the states already have the power now to translocate species and rebuild herds to huntable populations. The feds have not tied the states hands in that. So how does tranfer increase the translocation of species?
Ask your department if they want to deal with more exotics to manage and how just holding title to those lands decreases litigation. I have spoken to our Commission members and to the local Region 6 honcho and they do not want to be responsible for managing the federal lands nor do they support transfer.
When you say protective legislation, what specific pieces of it are you talking about. The transfer of public lands to the states is short hand for sale to the highest bidder.
Nemont
So the insult of me being a "so called hunter" is how this one goes. Well believe as you wish, jimmy crack corn.
So how exactly are states free of being litigated against? What does the MT Dept of Fish, Wildlife and Parks get sued for now that just changing the title holder's name from the Federal Gov. to the State Gov. would stop?
The Montana FWP already sets the season dates, the tag allocation, limits for everything on the all federal lands in our state that aren't located within boundaries of Yellowstone Park and Glacier Park or within the boundaries of the Indian Reservations. How does transfer enable them manage big game populations more? What additional tools are they going to have at their disposal if transfer happens?
Is translocation of species once endemic to a landscape the same thing as introduction of none native species? Kind of an apples to the moon comparison of the two.
The state of Montana has a world class big horn sheep population that is managed by the MTFWP and those herds exist almost entirely upon Federal Public lands. What does transfer do to bring more sheep hunting opportunity.
I get it you have drank the Koolaid but transferring those lands does NOT make them immune from some environmental group suing the states under all the existing Federal laws. Federal law still trump state law even with Trump sitting in the White House. Those cases would still be heard in Federal Courts if the States violated the ESA or other laws, given that those environmental groups have standing.
So be specific. You said in your post you supported introducing nonnative trout and then you did a flip flop and said native species translocated to parts of their historic habitat. Which is you support? As you pointed the states already have the power now to translocate species and rebuild herds to huntable populations. The feds have not tied the states hands in that. So how does tranfer increase the translocation of species?
Ask your department if they want to deal with more exotics to manage and how just holding title to those lands decreases litigation. I have spoken to our Commission members and to the local Region 6 honcho and they do not want to be responsible for managing the federal lands nor do they support transfer.
When you say protective legislation, what specific pieces of it are you talking about. The transfer of public lands to the states is short hand for sale to the highest bidder.
Nemont
fin little
Active Member
- Messages
- 764
Boskee, your in way over your head.
Bosgeek has no facts or even a valid thought. just a big dumb mouth.
What hunting rights has Obama taken? what species has he taken off the list for sportsmen? what public lands did he remove from public use?
what will the orange one return to us? what will we gain ?
The Obama administration has advanced the delisting of the wolf and grizzly more than the Bush administration ever did. not nearly enough in my opinion but it's going in the right direction.
Stay Thirsty My Friends
What hunting rights has Obama taken? what species has he taken off the list for sportsmen? what public lands did he remove from public use?
what will the orange one return to us? what will we gain ?
The Obama administration has advanced the delisting of the wolf and grizzly more than the Bush administration ever did. not nearly enough in my opinion but it's going in the right direction.
Stay Thirsty My Friends
LAST EDITED ON Dec-07-16 AT 11:09PM (MST)[p]
Gee Nemont so now you think protective legislation is a bad thing? If it's bad why are other states passing it to protect the sportsman's rights. Gee Nemont how did a little federal legislation manage to completely remove an over zealous non resident guide and his chronies from telling the states how many tags they had to allocate to nonresidents? That's a form of protection Nemont are you opposed to that? Funny how all the western states were lined up like domino's when we got that passed to stop it..... Whew protection is bad. Guess what Nemont a little legislation and the states alleviated the issue and tons of lawsuits. They could still be sued but the judge would tell them they didn't have grounds.......
Think the folks have used the ESA and other legal mens to tie up our states resources. Why they managed to try to block our F&G from building water catchments in the desert that would benefit all wildlife. Why if they care about wildlife? Let's take a look at our Kofa wildlife refuge that has been used for planting sheep in other states . Why the do gooders managed to go to court and get an injunction against our F&G department to control predators that have developed a taste for sheep. We managed to go from 850 sheep down to around 400 animals since we are only allowed to take 1 lion out of there as opposed to being able to control the predators. We used to control them and trade sheep to other states and now we're working on trying to save the herd.... Think our state being able to control the predators may be beneficial in this instance. Gee imagine how a little protective legislation may work wonders there.
I could point out other examples of how the anti's want things controlled and if the state had the power we could save a lot of coin. If you question it see the first paragraph and the states got control in that instance by a few short sentences to protect your tag allocation process. Maybe knowing that they want mountain lion hunting curtailed in AZ like CA may open your eyes a bit. See Nemont contrary to what you believe they can create legislation that would allow the states to control the wildlife it's not an impossible task just difficult in some aspects.
After all they managed to write the legislation to enact the laws in the first place didn't they and in many cases things were done by executive orders and other layers of protection to make it harder to remove. How else do you think we got started on this merry go round. Laws that are written can be changed Nemont and that's the beauty of our system. Imagine how many millions we could save by defanging the anti's and making them pay for a lot of the costs they force the state to bear. They don't have those big fancy 200 office buildings that specialize in suing the states for nothing Nemont. They're in it to make money and the taxpayers are bearing the costs in a lot of those actions. Then we have the environmental lobby funding things to forward their agenda, gee wonder if the Dems, Clintons, Obama's, WWF, Peta, and a host of other entities had any impact on doing this.
As to your endemic comment there are quite a few species that weren't endemic that were planted to create recreational opportunity. I didn't say the states would put them everywhere that was your bubba with a boat reference. But lets not kid ourselves many types of fish could be planted in man made lakes that could provide a lot of recreational opportunity without disrupting the balance in many of our streams and waterways. Hey we have lakes go dry down here and they're restocked all the time. So yes I said I supported the states being able to being bring in non native species and accused you of splitting hairs like you love to do. But let's not deny the fact it has been wildly successful in many cases.
So cut the crap we have stocking programs down here in parks and lagoons that allows thousands upon thousands the ability to fish not to mention stocking programs in many of our lakes that couldn't sustain the populations without stocking and our department isn't placing endangered species at risk doing it. See Nemont we have more folks living in apartments than you have residing in your entire state, so maybe you can't fathom the concept do to the fact you have more wildlife than we do. But yet we have elk and antelope and sheep and deer that are the envy of hunters across the nation. That's a success story Nemont and contrary to your opinion one that our agency has handled in spite of growing population and the need for them to have recreational opportunity for folks. So you can get off the bandwagon about the feds not being able to afford the states some level of protection with legislation because that's pure unadulterated hogwash on your part.
Nobody said they'd tranfer ownership of federal lands, but let's be honest here the states are entrusted to manage many of the animals the feds ceded them the authority to manage and they do exist on federal lands that we hunt. The states would have control on whether or not they want other species or exotics (your idea not mine) and would have to manage for endangered species per federal guidelines but the states would retain the right to manage them not be told by bunny huggers using the courts telling them how they're supposed to do it. The anti's managed to wrestle control from the states on many species and we can see what a mess that's become and then they've managed use the USFWS to dangle the cash carrot in front of them to entice them to comply. Nobody mentioned selling any land in the equation that's conjecture on your part most likely to confuse the original intent. You introduced those variables not me and in no way did I advocate for selling off our lands.
By the way Nemont some pretty high priced legal firms have indicated that federal protection reinforced at the state level would be beneficial to future generations being able to continue to utilize our federal lands for hunting and fishing. So I guess I should defer to your expertise as an insurance broker when members of the US Attorneys office some US representatives and Senators and a few outside firms recommended the action years ago and we finally have a guy in the White House that's willing to make it happen.
Gee Nemont so now you think protective legislation is a bad thing? If it's bad why are other states passing it to protect the sportsman's rights. Gee Nemont how did a little federal legislation manage to completely remove an over zealous non resident guide and his chronies from telling the states how many tags they had to allocate to nonresidents? That's a form of protection Nemont are you opposed to that? Funny how all the western states were lined up like domino's when we got that passed to stop it..... Whew protection is bad. Guess what Nemont a little legislation and the states alleviated the issue and tons of lawsuits. They could still be sued but the judge would tell them they didn't have grounds.......
Think the folks have used the ESA and other legal mens to tie up our states resources. Why they managed to try to block our F&G from building water catchments in the desert that would benefit all wildlife. Why if they care about wildlife? Let's take a look at our Kofa wildlife refuge that has been used for planting sheep in other states . Why the do gooders managed to go to court and get an injunction against our F&G department to control predators that have developed a taste for sheep. We managed to go from 850 sheep down to around 400 animals since we are only allowed to take 1 lion out of there as opposed to being able to control the predators. We used to control them and trade sheep to other states and now we're working on trying to save the herd.... Think our state being able to control the predators may be beneficial in this instance. Gee imagine how a little protective legislation may work wonders there.
I could point out other examples of how the anti's want things controlled and if the state had the power we could save a lot of coin. If you question it see the first paragraph and the states got control in that instance by a few short sentences to protect your tag allocation process. Maybe knowing that they want mountain lion hunting curtailed in AZ like CA may open your eyes a bit. See Nemont contrary to what you believe they can create legislation that would allow the states to control the wildlife it's not an impossible task just difficult in some aspects.
After all they managed to write the legislation to enact the laws in the first place didn't they and in many cases things were done by executive orders and other layers of protection to make it harder to remove. How else do you think we got started on this merry go round. Laws that are written can be changed Nemont and that's the beauty of our system. Imagine how many millions we could save by defanging the anti's and making them pay for a lot of the costs they force the state to bear. They don't have those big fancy 200 office buildings that specialize in suing the states for nothing Nemont. They're in it to make money and the taxpayers are bearing the costs in a lot of those actions. Then we have the environmental lobby funding things to forward their agenda, gee wonder if the Dems, Clintons, Obama's, WWF, Peta, and a host of other entities had any impact on doing this.
As to your endemic comment there are quite a few species that weren't endemic that were planted to create recreational opportunity. I didn't say the states would put them everywhere that was your bubba with a boat reference. But lets not kid ourselves many types of fish could be planted in man made lakes that could provide a lot of recreational opportunity without disrupting the balance in many of our streams and waterways. Hey we have lakes go dry down here and they're restocked all the time. So yes I said I supported the states being able to being bring in non native species and accused you of splitting hairs like you love to do. But let's not deny the fact it has been wildly successful in many cases.
So cut the crap we have stocking programs down here in parks and lagoons that allows thousands upon thousands the ability to fish not to mention stocking programs in many of our lakes that couldn't sustain the populations without stocking and our department isn't placing endangered species at risk doing it. See Nemont we have more folks living in apartments than you have residing in your entire state, so maybe you can't fathom the concept do to the fact you have more wildlife than we do. But yet we have elk and antelope and sheep and deer that are the envy of hunters across the nation. That's a success story Nemont and contrary to your opinion one that our agency has handled in spite of growing population and the need for them to have recreational opportunity for folks. So you can get off the bandwagon about the feds not being able to afford the states some level of protection with legislation because that's pure unadulterated hogwash on your part.
Nobody said they'd tranfer ownership of federal lands, but let's be honest here the states are entrusted to manage many of the animals the feds ceded them the authority to manage and they do exist on federal lands that we hunt. The states would have control on whether or not they want other species or exotics (your idea not mine) and would have to manage for endangered species per federal guidelines but the states would retain the right to manage them not be told by bunny huggers using the courts telling them how they're supposed to do it. The anti's managed to wrestle control from the states on many species and we can see what a mess that's become and then they've managed use the USFWS to dangle the cash carrot in front of them to entice them to comply. Nobody mentioned selling any land in the equation that's conjecture on your part most likely to confuse the original intent. You introduced those variables not me and in no way did I advocate for selling off our lands.
By the way Nemont some pretty high priced legal firms have indicated that federal protection reinforced at the state level would be beneficial to future generations being able to continue to utilize our federal lands for hunting and fishing. So I guess I should defer to your expertise as an insurance broker when members of the US Attorneys office some US representatives and Senators and a few outside firms recommended the action years ago and we finally have a guy in the White House that's willing to make it happen.
Nemont, doesn't it seem a little more prudent to let them tell us what they have in mind before we employ your liberal fear mongering tactics where they're going to steal your kids and take your cow and sell them ritual. If the states are doing it I doubt they're selling off state lands and polluting our streams with trash fish on so many different fronts. But like usual you and Toggles want to jump the shark to stop things when in reality you may be opposing something that may be just fine. It's entirely possible they can do this and not sell 1 square inch of federal land and they won't mandate putting rainbow trout in your streams......and we won't need to consult Iran in the process.......imagine that....LOL
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
Boskee,
First you say you are all for non native introduction of species to increase opportunity, then you do the John Kerry hustle and say well look at all the translocation of endemic species that already have taken place.
Now you are looking at planting trout in ponds and lagoons to increase put and take fisheries and worried about consulting Iran about it. You and Manny must be on the same moon beam.
Can you show me where I opposed any "protective" legislation? I stated I oppose transfer, period. Protecting hunting would include protecting access.
As for whether I am qualified, makes little difference because I get a voice and opinion. Remember those same Senators and Lawyers are a major part of the reason we have a $20 Trillion debt. So before you put faith into them you may want to check their track record.
Can you explain what the transfer plank in the Republican Party platform is meant to be if it isn't about transferring public lands to the states? It was put in by Utards, for Utards and appease the Utard contingent in congress. Does the party not really believe in the platform it put together?
Nemont
First you say you are all for non native introduction of species to increase opportunity, then you do the John Kerry hustle and say well look at all the translocation of endemic species that already have taken place.
Now you are looking at planting trout in ponds and lagoons to increase put and take fisheries and worried about consulting Iran about it. You and Manny must be on the same moon beam.
Can you show me where I opposed any "protective" legislation? I stated I oppose transfer, period. Protecting hunting would include protecting access.
As for whether I am qualified, makes little difference because I get a voice and opinion. Remember those same Senators and Lawyers are a major part of the reason we have a $20 Trillion debt. So before you put faith into them you may want to check their track record.
Can you explain what the transfer plank in the Republican Party platform is meant to be if it isn't about transferring public lands to the states? It was put in by Utards, for Utards and appease the Utard contingent in congress. Does the party not really believe in the platform it put together?
Nemont
Nemont you have a right to be skeptical and with good reason. See Nemont what I was trying to show you was that different states have different needs and in spite of all that our departments have done a good job navigating the mine field. You keep bringing up the transfer of lands and while you feel it a necessity in many states it isn't. We have a mixture of federal & state lands down here and individuals can access them with a permit, a license and other means and in all cases it can be done legally and no legal full transfer takes place. But to your access issue the DEMONS are working very hard to curtail access by elimination of some forms of usage just like they're doing in our National Forests.
So you want to debate the plank issue when my guy tells me it's not being included in what they may propose. So given that he's a politician and legislation changes on the floor and in committee all the time, how do we know it won't get changed. How about you call your guy and tell him you're opposed to that and see what it buys you. In reality the left is going to oppose this tooth and nail so it may be a moot point. You want absolution Nemont and politics has never worked like that and I doubt it will in this case. I'm not going to pass on some levels of protection if in the long run it makes sense, especially when the other party routinely throws something toxic into legislation the other party wants to taint the water. If we oppose selling lands given what happened in the last election I think it may carry a little weight, but it's politics and being truthful isn't in their job description. So who knows, the one fact I do know if we don't find a way to unite hunters and fisherman we're playing a losing hand and it won't matter what caliber camera you shoot.
So you want to debate the plank issue when my guy tells me it's not being included in what they may propose. So given that he's a politician and legislation changes on the floor and in committee all the time, how do we know it won't get changed. How about you call your guy and tell him you're opposed to that and see what it buys you. In reality the left is going to oppose this tooth and nail so it may be a moot point. You want absolution Nemont and politics has never worked like that and I doubt it will in this case. I'm not going to pass on some levels of protection if in the long run it makes sense, especially when the other party routinely throws something toxic into legislation the other party wants to taint the water. If we oppose selling lands given what happened in the last election I think it may carry a little weight, but it's politics and being truthful isn't in their job description. So who knows, the one fact I do know if we don't find a way to unite hunters and fisherman we're playing a losing hand and it won't matter what caliber camera you shoot.
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
Boskee,
I don't oppose common sense laws that protect hunting and fish. I don't oppose increased opportunity for the hunting and fishing either. I oppose transfer because it is short hand for selling off public lands to private individuals, period. The pro transfer movement can claim all they want that states will keep these lands but that isn't the history in any western state. EVERY state in the Union was granted lands and EVERY state has sold of parts of those holdings when times get tough.
Federal funding to manage those lands goes away if the States take title. There is zero reason for a taxpayer in say, New Jersey, to pay into the federal treasury for managing lands in Montana. With a small population and large tracts of land, that is a recipe for losing access for the Average Joe.
Trying to unite hunters behind movements that divide them is a sure fire not get them united. The Utards pushing for this don't give two $hits about your access to recreate on public lands. They also don't read and understand what their predecessors agreed to in the enabling acts of the Western States.
Nemont
I don't oppose common sense laws that protect hunting and fish. I don't oppose increased opportunity for the hunting and fishing either. I oppose transfer because it is short hand for selling off public lands to private individuals, period. The pro transfer movement can claim all they want that states will keep these lands but that isn't the history in any western state. EVERY state in the Union was granted lands and EVERY state has sold of parts of those holdings when times get tough.
Federal funding to manage those lands goes away if the States take title. There is zero reason for a taxpayer in say, New Jersey, to pay into the federal treasury for managing lands in Montana. With a small population and large tracts of land, that is a recipe for losing access for the Average Joe.
Trying to unite hunters behind movements that divide them is a sure fire not get them united. The Utards pushing for this don't give two $hits about your access to recreate on public lands. They also don't read and understand what their predecessors agreed to in the enabling acts of the Western States.
Nemont
We're on exactly the same page Nemont. But for examples sake, we need the protection and if Harry Reid was involved he's devious enough to throw that in there to divide us and you know I'm right. I think the majority of the boys in UT. are smart enough to call their congressman and tell them to remove it. You and I both know the DEMS aren't going to let this go thru with a nice clean bill. Trump made his intentions clear and they're going to fight us since protection complicates their future plans to protect us from ourselves. Since we have no way in hell of knowing what they'll throw at us, we'll just have to wait and see.
NeMont
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 12,632
I know you don't believe it will happen but then why is Transfer of Public lands enshrined in the Republican guiding document of what they want to get done? Why don't you believe Republican goals when they state them in their platform but you believe Democrat goals when they state in their platform to increase gun control?
I don't trust either side and anyone in DC is a politician just by being there, including Trump. Wait and see is right because I suspect if Trump ever had a chance to make a "Great, Terrific, Amazing deal" to get something he wanted done, our public lands would be dealt away in a heart beat if that is what it took to get his deal done.
I am all for giving him a chance but not giving him a blank check. He was elected President not king. It may be case of enough rope to hang himself.
Nemont
I don't trust either side and anyone in DC is a politician just by being there, including Trump. Wait and see is right because I suspect if Trump ever had a chance to make a "Great, Terrific, Amazing deal" to get something he wanted done, our public lands would be dealt away in a heart beat if that is what it took to get his deal done.
I am all for giving him a chance but not giving him a blank check. He was elected President not king. It may be case of enough rope to hang himself.
Nemont
LAST EDITED ON Dec-09-16 AT 01:57PM (MST)[p]We'll have to wait and see but I can tell you if they want to sell off large blocks of public lands both of us will be making more than a few calls! I'm not going to debate the transfer issue with you because there's two schools of thought on that and there is some form of legal wrangling that may offer more protection depending on how it's structured.
Don't think for a minute that I don't suspect that they may try to sell off lands to get themselves out of the mess they created with our deficit. Time will tell but we are saying goodbye to the anointed one who really stretched the rules and has created some huge messes that were planned to fail. So forgive me for going with the guy that didn't do a damn thing to double our debt or write a healthcare law that was as bogus as his legacy will be, not giving a damn about all the people it effects, when he was gone. So I fully understand your king remark but in all fairness to Mr. Trump. We just got rid of one who was hailed as one yet in retrospect couldn't bear up under the weight of a shower cap let alone a crown.
Don't think for a minute that I don't suspect that they may try to sell off lands to get themselves out of the mess they created with our deficit. Time will tell but we are saying goodbye to the anointed one who really stretched the rules and has created some huge messes that were planned to fail. So forgive me for going with the guy that didn't do a damn thing to double our debt or write a healthcare law that was as bogus as his legacy will be, not giving a damn about all the people it effects, when he was gone. So I fully understand your king remark but in all fairness to Mr. Trump. We just got rid of one who was hailed as one yet in retrospect couldn't bear up under the weight of a shower cap let alone a crown.
You are an amazing moron Boskee. It was Gaorge Bush who just as he was going out of office threw a huge monkey wrench in the abillity of state wildlife managers to relocate bighorn sheep. Look it up if you don't believe me ?
The same people who are rabidly pushing the land transfer are the exact same ones who oppose Elk at any and every opportunity. Wolf's ain't nothing compared to sportmens loss compared to these guys.
What part of hunting is so threatened? It's all BS you r hyper exaggeration of the power of antis. The huge majority of America's citizens are non hunters, and sorry to bust your bubble but, that doesn't mean they are anti hunting, oh I know mountain lions and trappers. That's because non hunters are more sympathetic to the beauty of the big cats and the suffering of trapped animals. Totally understandable.
The same people who are rabidly pushing the land transfer are the exact same ones who oppose Elk at any and every opportunity. Wolf's ain't nothing compared to sportmens loss compared to these guys.
What part of hunting is so threatened? It's all BS you r hyper exaggeration of the power of antis. The huge majority of America's citizens are non hunters, and sorry to bust your bubble but, that doesn't mean they are anti hunting, oh I know mountain lions and trappers. That's because non hunters are more sympathetic to the beauty of the big cats and the suffering of trapped animals. Totally understandable.
Your Trump revolution isn't going to last, and if they push a radical agenda too far, I guarantee it will be worse for hunting afterwords.
I personally don't care if Trump does this and that, but I do Cate about the bottom line. That's the enhancement of outdoor opportunity for all Americans. Keeping federal lands for all Americans, and increasing wildlife populations and cutting the losses.
I personally don't care if Trump does this and that, but I do Cate about the bottom line. That's the enhancement of outdoor opportunity for all Americans. Keeping federal lands for all Americans, and increasing wildlife populations and cutting the losses.
Piper I suggest you sit this one out because you're a little too far away from AZ to understand what we've been dealing with. Notice I didn't comment on any other states sheep issues only mine. So given the fact I've attended more than a few meetings and have a personal relationship with some of the commissioners who our F & G department reports to I think I have a handle on what's been going on. I don't recall seeing you at any meetings let alone addressing the commission to protect sportsman's interests so spare me your feeble attempt at telling me what issues we face in AZ.
You're about as knowledgeable as DUD all talk and no real facts to back up a damn thing. See piper unlike you, I and many others like me along with Senator John McCain, the NRA, Safari Club, Sportman's Alliance and a few other fine organizations was one of bunch of guys writing checks to get hunting and fishing protection on our ballot down here Prop 109. No land sale, no abolishing the ESA, no mass takeover over of federal lands or sale proposal, no mutiny on our lakes just a little protection for our hunters and fisherman. Even had former commissioners supporting us.
Guess what Piper some of the fine folks in your esteemed party that support groups that oppose hunting and fishing spent 1.5 million dollars running false ads on TV telling folks their taxes were going to go up if it passed, they wouldn't be able to go in our forests, it was a land grab by hunters, and a host of other lies. Well Piper we lost so pat yourself on the back but there wasn't a single element of truth in the advertising that ran nonstop for 2 weeks on TV. The folks in Tucson at a PETA meeting were toasting their victory! So Piper it may be time for you to open your eyes since PETA isn't your buddy except when they deceive you to get your vote.
Now go crawl back under your rock and maybe some day in the future you'll gain some insight. Until then we simply can't wait for you to make another guest appearance. LOL
You're about as knowledgeable as DUD all talk and no real facts to back up a damn thing. See piper unlike you, I and many others like me along with Senator John McCain, the NRA, Safari Club, Sportman's Alliance and a few other fine organizations was one of bunch of guys writing checks to get hunting and fishing protection on our ballot down here Prop 109. No land sale, no abolishing the ESA, no mass takeover over of federal lands or sale proposal, no mutiny on our lakes just a little protection for our hunters and fisherman. Even had former commissioners supporting us.
Guess what Piper some of the fine folks in your esteemed party that support groups that oppose hunting and fishing spent 1.5 million dollars running false ads on TV telling folks their taxes were going to go up if it passed, they wouldn't be able to go in our forests, it was a land grab by hunters, and a host of other lies. Well Piper we lost so pat yourself on the back but there wasn't a single element of truth in the advertising that ran nonstop for 2 weeks on TV. The folks in Tucson at a PETA meeting were toasting their victory! So Piper it may be time for you to open your eyes since PETA isn't your buddy except when they deceive you to get your vote.
Now go crawl back under your rock and maybe some day in the future you'll gain some insight. Until then we simply can't wait for you to make another guest appearance. LOL
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,483
LAST EDITED ON Dec-09-16 AT 11:14PM (MST)[p]Piper it is the same here in CA. It is not the republicans that are screwing the hunters and running the Fish & Game commission, Opps I mean Fish & Wildlife as they changed the name also.
Cougars are protected and exploding in population, now they will allow no hunting of bears over bait or using dogs and they are also exploding in population and deer herds are on the decline.
The president of the Fish and Wildlife board goes on a legal out of state cougar hunt and they fire him for daring to pose in a photo with his legal taken cougar.
We got a bunch of Democrat law makers that would sell off public land in a heartbeat to fund their general fund and pet inner cities projects.
Our Democrat governor Jerry Brown would sell off public land in a New York minute to fund his bullet train for his legacy in office.
Our business taxes and regulations are so out of wack that today I learned two more major business are leaving for Texas and Tenn. Just two of many thousands that have left this state in the past 15-20 years.
The computer industry was founded here in CA. in the Silicon Valley and the many many millions of dollars they paid in taxes put CA. with a surplus in the general fund. Those Democrat lawmakers upped the taxes and regulations on them that most of that industry has moved to Texas and other states and 14,000 persons were laid off and CA. is now without a surplus and in the red on the budget. The Democrats answer to that, raise the taxes and fees.
yeah! Piper your favorite party is really looking out for the common man by jamming a sharp stick up his backside.
Piper since you are a die hard Democrat, you better hope that the "Trump revolution" as you called it, does not continue for the next two years. In 2018 75% of the Senate seats up for re-election are Democrat seats. If Trump raises the economy by just 3-5%, which is 2-4% more then it was under Obama, there is going to be even less Democrats in the Senate.
RELH
Cougars are protected and exploding in population, now they will allow no hunting of bears over bait or using dogs and they are also exploding in population and deer herds are on the decline.
The president of the Fish and Wildlife board goes on a legal out of state cougar hunt and they fire him for daring to pose in a photo with his legal taken cougar.
We got a bunch of Democrat law makers that would sell off public land in a heartbeat to fund their general fund and pet inner cities projects.
Our Democrat governor Jerry Brown would sell off public land in a New York minute to fund his bullet train for his legacy in office.
Our business taxes and regulations are so out of wack that today I learned two more major business are leaving for Texas and Tenn. Just two of many thousands that have left this state in the past 15-20 years.
The computer industry was founded here in CA. in the Silicon Valley and the many many millions of dollars they paid in taxes put CA. with a surplus in the general fund. Those Democrat lawmakers upped the taxes and regulations on them that most of that industry has moved to Texas and other states and 14,000 persons were laid off and CA. is now without a surplus and in the red on the budget. The Democrats answer to that, raise the taxes and fees.
yeah! Piper your favorite party is really looking out for the common man by jamming a sharp stick up his backside.
Piper since you are a die hard Democrat, you better hope that the "Trump revolution" as you called it, does not continue for the next two years. In 2018 75% of the Senate seats up for re-election are Democrat seats. If Trump raises the economy by just 3-5%, which is 2-4% more then it was under Obama, there is going to be even less Democrats in the Senate.
RELH
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,483
Piper it is already happening. 2018 may be a very bad year to be a Democrat running for the Senate. RELH
BATON ROUGE, La. ? Louisiana voters chose Saturday to send Republican state Treasurer John Kennedy to the U.S. Senate, filling the nation's last Senate seat and giving the GOP a 52-48 edge in the chamber when the new term begins in January
BATON ROUGE, La. ? Louisiana voters chose Saturday to send Republican state Treasurer John Kennedy to the U.S. Senate, filling the nation's last Senate seat and giving the GOP a 52-48 edge in the chamber when the new term begins in January
