[#1DEER 1-I]

http://m.jhnewsandguide.com/news/el...b4f-a1be-5e86-abf4-1d130d22011d.html?mode=jqm

Just keep public land and conservation funding in your mind when it comes to our next president. Obama hasn't been a great president and you can hate him all you want, but some of these candidates will be bad for sportsmen. You can round about it all you want, but the Republican Party is bad for sportsmen especially on this issue. If you disagree, post the proof because they are the party trying to take your public lands and sale them to the highest bidder. This is a black and white issue between party lines. It's a deal breaker for me.

 

[Springville Shooter]

Well 1-I. The thousand other issues that liberals have wrong are deal breakers for me. I vote for individual candidates but it has been a long time since there has been a democrat that I would even consider voting for.

I'll take 'sold to the highest bidder' over made into a national monument, paid for with exhorbanent taxes, and closed to sportsmen anyway.

I grew up under decades of liberal control so I am not as easily fooled as thou art. I can understand fighting for policy revision within the conservative ranks, but suggesting that there is another party that is better for sportsman is simply asinine and shows the naivety of anyone who would make such a suggestion.

Do some research on the Sacramento River Bend area and the Battle Creek wildlife area. I'd be super glad to have a long conversation with you about what the liberal state and federal govt. did to sportsman in these cases.

Funny that the only politicians fighting for sportsmen were both Republicans?? That's the real world my friend.-----SS

 

[toasty]

I hate talking politics on wildlife forums, so I will comment on this (not that anyone cares what I think).

I've been studying the land issue for a year and have bounced back and forth on my position. I am extremely conservative, but I don't support the transfer of land to the state because I think every bit of it would be sold to the highest bidder and locked up for sportsmen. I have no faith that access will be preserved.

However, I like Cruz, I think he would be one of the best presidents we've had in a long time. I don't think a deal will ever get done that will transfer the land to the state. When is the last time the Fed government gave up control on anything. More important than that, there are a lot more important issues than hunting national forests and BLM land like appointing judges that can stop murdering unborn babies, preserving balance of power set forth in the constitution, and freedom to own and carry a gun.

1-I - you can't see the forest for the trees. Anyone that votes for a democrat as president or member of congress also casts a vote for the democratic policies and likewise for republicans. Lets stop killing unborn babies, balancing a national budget, reduce my taxes so I can afford to send my kids to college and then talk about loosing our public hunting lands.

 

[wyogoob]

Please keep the political posts about wildlife, outdoor, and "they're gonna take my gun away" issues.

thanks

 

[#1DEER 1-I]

I hate talking politics on wildlife forums, so I will comment on this (not that anyone cares what I think).

I've been studying the land issue for a year and have bounced back and forth on my position. I am extremely conservative, but I don't support the transfer of land to the state because I think every bit of it would be sold to the highest bidder and locked up for sportsmen. I have no faith that access will be preserved.

However, I like Cruz, I think he would be one of the best presidents we've had in a long time. I don't think a deal will ever get done that will transfer the land to the state. When is the last time the Fed government gave up control on anything. More important than that, there are a lot more important issues than hunting national forests and BLM land like appointing judges that can stop murdering unborn babies, preserving balance of power set forth in the constitution, and freedom to own and carry a gun.

1-I - you can't see the forest for the trees. Anyone that votes for a democrat as president or member of congress also casts a vote for the democratic policies and likewise for republicans. Lets stop killing unborn babies, balancing a national budget, reduce my taxes so I can afford to send my kids to college and then talk about loosing our public hunting lands.

You can't see the forest for the trees. I listen to Glenn Beck daily, I am more conservative than I ever would be liberal, and I actually like Ted Cruz more than any other candidate, but the fact he supports these agendas to steal Americans land from them is a deal breaker and he will not get my vote.

All the other issues you bring up I can agree with, but you also need to wake up to the real world we live in now and how far from the world you grew up in we are. I won't get too far into the other issues but will simply say, other countries handle plenty of systems better than America, and just because you have been told all your life Americas way on everything is the best does not make it true.

 

[#1DEER 1-I]

Well 1-I. The thousand other issues that liberals have wrong are deal breakers for me. I vote for individual candidates but it has been a long time since there has been a democrat that I would even consider voting for.

I'll take 'sold to the highest bidder' over made into a national monument, paid for with exhorbanent taxes, and closed to sportsmen anyway.

I grew up under decades of liberal control so I am not as easily fooled as thou art. I can understand fighting for policy revision within the conservative ranks, but suggesting that there is another party that is better for sportsman is simply asinine and shows the naivety of anyone who would make such a suggestion.

Do some research on the Sacramento River Bend area and the Battle Creek wildlife area. I'd be super glad to have a long conversation with you about what the liberal state and federal govt. did to sportsman in these cases.

Funny that the only politicians fighting for sportsmen were both Republicans?? That's the real world my friend.-----SS

Last time I checked you aren't locked out of national monuments. And as for republicans fighting for sportsmen, it is their parties fault with many of the messes they've created for sportsmen. Democrats have voted against the robbing of these lands every time, that's a fight enough for me.

 

[Springville Shooter]

I'm not locked out of national monuments but I also can't do the things that I like to do on them. Same goes with many parks, wildlife areas, recreational areas, and a myriad of other beurocracy controlled areas.

If the mainstream Democrat party had their way, there would be no guns and no hunting period. There would also be no ATV's, no recreational mining, no trapping, no hunting with dogs, no target shooting, no lead bullets, no 'assault weapons', on public lands.... and the list goes on and on. If you don't believe these things then you haven't paid attention to areas that have been historically been run by Democrats.

I get your point about public land and public access. The problem lies in the fact that we no longer have any opposition party because the Democrats are so far off the reservation that the Republicans know they have our hands tied. They can do their little cronie deals and pander to big dollars knowing that any sportsman with a brain will still have to support them.

Your suggestion to join with the Dems because you're mad about property issues is the equivalent of burning down the house because you don't like the carpet. I get your frustration but keep it rational man. These aren't the Democrats of your grandparent's era. -----SS

 

[#1DEER 1-I]

I'm not locked out of national monuments but I also can't do the things that I like to do on them. Same goes with many parks, wildlife areas, recreational areas, and a myriad of other beurocracy controlled areas.

If the mainstream Democrat party had their way, there would be no guns and no hunting period. There would also be no ATV's, no recreational mining, no trapping, no hunting with dogs, no target shooting, no lead bullets, no 'assault weapons', on public lands.... and the list goes on and on. If you don't believe these things then you haven't paid attention to areas that have been historically been run by Democrats.

I get your point about public land and public access. The problem lies in the fact that we no longer have any opposition party because the Democrats are so far off the reservation that the Republicans know they have our hands tied. They can do their little cronie deals and pander to big dollars knowing that any sportsman with a brain will still have to support them.

Your suggestion to join with the Dems because you're mad about property issues is the equivalent of burning down the house because you don't like the carpet. I get your frustration but keep it rational man. These aren't the Democrats of your grandparent's era. -----SS

It is a big frustration problem. On more levels than one. I understand politics aren't what this forum is for but these issues do affect "Utah Wildlife" so excuse me as I dive into the game a little. As a man I trust Ted Cruz more than any other candidate. I actually like him a lot, but trying to steel public land out of mine, yours, and every other Americans hands is a real issue for me. The democrats might want to do it, but if the land transfer happens we know we will be locked out. It's no secret Utahs record breaking $390,000 deer tag shows how wildlife and our hunting is being given a value, rather than a privledge that is ours to protect.

Do I really believe the land transfer will happen? No, but I will never say never.

On a closing note if our choices are Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton, I'll choose the gun to my head. And SS, these aren't the same politicians on either side from your grandparents era.

 

[Springville Shooter]

One last comment:


1-I, never expect a politician from Texas to have any clue about the value of public land. No matter how conservative they are.


-----SS

 

[#1DEER 1-I]

A couple last comments:

Goob, I think that this has been a relevant, and tastefully discussed subject that is right at home on UWN.

1-I, never expect a politician from Texas to have any clue about the value of public land. No matter how conservative they are.

-----SS

That is very true, the politicians interested in this theft of a transfer, have obviously never experienced the giant value public land holds to us as a nation. As I said I think Ted Cuz seems like a decent man, but there are some times your party is wrong because they don't understand the value of things like public land, and I applaud the few republicans that have taken note of this and stood against other republicans for the value these lands hold. I can also agree management on these lands has been okay at best, but considering the positions activist groups put the BLM and Forest Service in at times, I would bump it up to good, under the circumstances they've had to manage the land under the last few decades. Undermining and stealing what the BLM and Forest Service do is not the answer, fixing land management policies they have to follow that don't make sense is what will fix the problem.

In a country of complete political correctness and hypocrisy, sometimes it's a wonder we are still such a power in the world. I never thought news would consist of debate that baby parts being sold, a war on police, our country giving money to a country burning our flag and yelling death to America, and more respect for the Koran than the bible. Our country has already gone to hell in a handbasket, I might as well work on saving my public lands.

 

[Lonetree]

It is not a left-right issue, public trust is centrist by nature, which is why it has endured as an ethos of freemen for 800 years. Roosevelt the Republican, and conservationist icon, was very good friends with Muir the preservationist, and Sierra Club founder. These two were much closer politically and philosophically 100 years ago, compared to the people that hide in their shadows today.

 

[The Naturalist]

...
If the mainstream Democrat party had their way, there would be no guns and no hunting period. There would also be no ATV's, no recreational mining, no trapping, no hunting with dogs, no target shooting, no lead bullets, no 'assault weapons', on public lands.... and the list goes on and on. If you don't believe these things then you haven't paid attention to areas that have been historically been run by Democrats.

-----SS

I consider myself a mainstream democrat...there are factions within the dem party that share some of those views, but NOT the mainstream. I could say don't believe the far right propaganda machine, but that would be generally categorizing what you just did with the dems, its not right and not true.

 

[utahgolf]

not sure how interested I'd be in owning guns if I didn't have a place to hunt or go shoot. :-o