Trump begins repealing national park declarations.

[airlocksniffer]

These guys think that liberals somehow have hunters and sportsmen best interests in mind. They are beyond delusional.

So true, I mean the look at this excerpt from the Dem platform:

Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to states.

Oh shoot, sorry, that was the R platform. Definitely have my best interests in mind as a hunter and sportsman though.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Anyone that thinks support of hunting and fishing is strictly a partisan issue is beyond delusional. There are good Rs and bad Rs, and good Ds and bad Ds. A little critical thinking can go a long ways.

 

[Murdy]

These guys think that liberals somehow have hunters and sportsmen best interests in mind. They are beyond delusional. "National Monuments?" Wake up, guys, we are the enemy to these people!
Pawns, all....

I don't think many of us believe that the folks that have come to be known as liberals have hunters' best interests at heart. Many are anti-gun; some pro-animal rights. The old labor-left blue collar core of the Democratic party was different, but the party isn't very responsive to that wing.

Don't mistake having concerns about what the Republicans and Trump are doing with approving of the wing of the Dems that is not our friends. It seems to me that the Republicans and Trump also don't have our best interests in mind. I doubt that Trump was thinking he was improving hunting access when he issue the executive order about National Monuments. Remember, one of the first things the Republican congress did after it took power in January is change the rules about valuation of federal land to make a transfer to the states easier. So, its quite natural that some of us view this move with extreme skepticism.

It is true that anyone that thinks the Dems are friends of hunting needs to wake up (I doubt many fall into this category); however, it is also true that anyone that thinks the Republican party has our best interests at heart need to wake up too (and I think this category may have a few more members).

 

[Murdy]

Anyone that thinks support of hunting and fishing is strictly a partisan issue is beyond delusional. There are good Rs and bad Rs, and good Ds and bad Ds. A little critical thinking can go a long ways.

This.
For example, in my state, the concealed-carry law was spearheaded by rural Dems.

 

[cuerro viejo]

This.
For example, in my state, the concealed-carry law was spearheaded by rural Dems.

There are a few conservative blue dogs left, but they are very isolated

 

[Shooter19802003]

They all suck. If you think any politician has your best interest in mind, you are a fool. All they care about is keeping their job and then moving on to k street to make some real bank. They stick their finger in the wind and back whatever is popular at the time. People are idiots for putting any faith in our political system, it is self serving at best.

 

[Broomd]

Anyone that thinks support of hunting and fishing is strictly a partisan issue is beyond delusional. There are good Rs and bad Rs, and good Ds and bad Ds. A little critical thinking can go a long ways.

Agreed.

I'm an independent these days, I refuse to be aligned with either side D or R....and notice I stated statists and liberals in my postings, not Democrats.

But....unlike some in the R party, the D"s will NOT stand up against their own party. Manchin is one of the few, and it's because it's politically expedient for him to do so.
The fact that Pelosi is still in leadership shows the ballessness of the party for what it really is.

 

[Broomd]

So true, I mean the look at this excerpt from the Dem platform:


Oh shoot, sorry, that was the R platform. Definitely have my best interests in mind as a hunter and sportsman though.

Keep telling yourself that if it's comfort food...if you think the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has your best interests in mind you're nuts (respectfully.) This is the same government that brought us "cash for clunkers" ....Obamacare, etc.

I'd love to see the states have control over that land. The government has NO RIGHT to usurp authority over sovereign states land rights, that ship went aground long ago. And O's use of the Antiquities Act for Monuments was simply more of the same. US Government = control. Good luck trying to manage game, wolves etc, with the feds involved.

 

[541hunter]

I'd love to see the states have control over that land. The government has NO RIGHT to usurp authority over sovereign states land rights, that ship went aground long ago. And O's use of the Antiquities Act for Monuments was simply more of the same. US Government = control. Good luck trying to manage game, wolves etc, with the feds involved.[/QUOTE]

Usurp land from states??

1. Look at the history of public ands and how they came to be.
2. Read what states agreed to when being brought into the union.
3. Read the damn constitution.

I am a staunch conservative and probably on most topics normally agree with you. But as far as I know the lands in question never belonged to the states. In essence you can not usurp something that already belongs to you.

I largely do not agree with how the Feds manage land, but I know first hand that state management would be worse for everyone one all levels.

I will also say I am not opposed the this being reviewed, as long as the land stays in public hands. If there is ground in the monuments that would be better suited as multiple use then good. I take restrictions on public land use seriously and believe the government should have to have very good reasons to give a parcel monument status. I do not believe Obama gave his final designations the due diligence they deserve.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[airlocksniffer]

I'd love to see the states have control over that land. The government has NO RIGHT to usurp authority over sovereign states land rights, that ship went aground long ago. And O's use of the Antiquities Act for Monuments was simply more of the same. US Government = control. Good luck trying to manage game, wolves etc, with the feds involved.

Umm, these are federal lands and have been since Idaho became a state. There is no usurping of any state land rights. Idaho has their own state land, which by the way has sold off 33% of state land granted since statehood. So Idaho takes control of the land, either strips it clean of anything of value or has to sell it off because it can't foot the wildfire bills and you lose access to your favorite public land.

Also each state manages it's own wildlife. Idaho has been managing the wolf population since their management plan was approved under the ESA, which is kind of how it is supposed to work.

And the monument thing, geez, you act like that Bear's Ears, etc was designated on a whim by Obama. It has been considered for NM status before you or I were even born (assuming your not over 80 . What it comes down to is if Obama did it, it must be bad. I can tell you are factually challenged so keep shaking your fist at the clouds and sticking your head in the sand (respectfully).

 

[Broomd]

Who said anything about Idaho?
And I get it, 541, the states relinquished those/that land and rights a long time ago, I think I emphasized that. (I utilize our local national forest and it's a national treasure.) My point is that nowadays when the feds get involved it typically ain't going to end well for the little guy or for the hunter.
Check out the millions of acres in the Wrangels lost to the little guy via ANILCA circa Congress in '80. Greenies here on the "slide will love it.
Federal land? Yes. Much of it gone forever to the average sportsman? Yes. Now, the feds may deem one "subsistence" if one meets their qualifications. Good luck with that.
Airlock, if you think the feds are properly managing national forest/wilderness timber for wildfires, you're crazy. (respectfully.) Hike the Frank Church sometime. I realize Congress designated it "wilderness" so what? Much of it is a wasteland of burned timber anymore.

A bit off topic and I have ranch chores to do...always fun to banter....

 

[Shooter19802003]

I think it is funny on how many folks these days just flat out hate freedom. They look to the gov't like Santa clause when they get things they want. Then turn around and scourn it like the boogie man when things don't go their way. The feds aren't your friends and you can't have it both ways. Once the feds are involved....its all downhill and you have no control. Because with the feds.....there is zero accountability.

 

[Shooter19802003]

Since you bring up the Frank church. What a dump, look at the loss of game there. In another 10 years it will be a barren wasteland. What a shame.

 

[BroodBuster]

So if I take a hike on public lands I hate freedom? The only thing I've ever asked from the Feds is a place to go set up a tent. If that's not freedom what is it? Slavery??

This may be the most nonsensical thread of all time!

 

[airlocksniffer]

Who said anything about Idaho?
And I get it, 541, the states relinquished those/that land and rights a long time ago, I think I emphasized that. (I utilize our local national forest and it's a national treasure.) My point is that nowadays when the feds get involved it typically ain't going to end well for the little guy or for the hunter.
Check out the millions of acres in the Wrangels lost to the little guy via ANILCA circa Congress in '80. Greenies here on the "slide will love it.
Federal land? Yes. Much of it gone forever to the average sportsman? Yes. Now, the feds may deem one "subsistence" if one meets their qualifications. Good luck with that.
Airlock, if you think the feds are properly managing national forest/wilderness timber for wildfires, you're crazy. (respectfully.) Hike the Frank Church sometime. I realize Congress designated it "wilderness" so what? Much of it is a wasteland of burned timber anymore.

A bit off topic and I have ranch chores to do...always fun to banter....

I guess we have different views on what a forest should look like. I have hiked across the Bob Marshall over Memorial Day going on 3 years and there are seas of burned out timber, just like there have been for thousands of years. Wildfires are good for the forest and good for wildlife. Not so much for timber companies but I digress. I agree with you that our forests need better management, however, when wildfire continues to take up a larger chunk of the budget and our R friends in Congress continue to cut the budget, what do you really expect? Are the feds closing roads to lock out the locals or because they don't have the budget to maintain them? I would love to hit the FC sometime, spent a bit of time in the Bitterroots years ago and always planned on doing a large traverse.

And I think "the feds" is just a dog whistle. Many of those folks who work for the federal government are perhaps your friends and neighbors. So many public comment periods and meetings held for planning just flat out aren't attended. Then people get pissed and claim it's some politician in DC calling the shots. And now Congress has killed planning 2.0, which would enable more participation of folks in the planning process for BLM lands.

And Shooter, enough with that BS about hating freedom/America. People from all sides love this country and being able to work together and compromise (something both parties seem to have forgotten about) is the best path forward. I claim neither D nor R and can take or leave ideas from both sides. I think most folks feel the same way, if only they'd turn off the damn news.

 

[topher89]

\ I agree with you that our forests need better management, however, when wildfire continues to take up a larger chunk of the budget and our R friends in Congress continue to cut the budget, what do you really expect? Are the feds closing roads to lock out the locals or because they don't have the budget to maintain them?

This quote is so great.

I also love when people talk about "people in Washington DC making decisions". The land managers who make the day to day decisions are the ones who live locally.

 

[Shooter19802003]

Really, so the decision was made locally here in bonners ferry to introduce the feral Canadian wolf to idaho? I think your facts are wrong.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Really, so the decision was made locally here in bonners ferry to introduce the feral Canadian wolf to idaho? I think your facts are wrong.

 

[topher89]

Really, so the decision was made locally here in bonners ferry to introduce the feral Canadian wolf to idaho? I think your facts are wrong.

Ummm, Read what I said.

I am talking about land managers and land decisions. The ESA, wolf and grizzly decisions are a separate issue. You can't judge the "feds" by every federal decision ever made. I am not going to judge the fire department because of a decision the police department made.

 

[Broomd]

Since you bring up the Frank church. What a dump, look at the loss of game there. In another 10 years it will be a barren wasteland. What a shame.

Wolves, fire and heavy snow (especially this year) have really hammered a precious piece of Idaho and America.

And be advised, they'll cite and boot you if you ride a bicycle in there, walk-in and pull a small game cart, or use a mechanical saw, yet the place can burn to a crisp and little will be done about it.
Welcome to the Federal Government's management.