another point.... I do grow very tired of people that complain about the fire safety around their home and blame someone else for it. don't build or don't buy a house that is threatened in that way. you building a house next to a timber forest is the same as building next to a river with no embankment and crying foul when a wet year hits and you get flooded out. its a matter of when not if its going to happen. as for the dead fall, I agree 100% that locals should be paid a small amount of money to remove it, in the long run, when there is a fire and less fuel to burn it will cost less money to fight. but... I don't know how Montana works but here in Idaho I paid under $30 dollars for permits to remove 4 cords of wood. if you can, get those permits and begin cutting deadfall. faith without works is dead.....
Trumps affect on conservation
- Thread starter oneye
- Start date
- Status
And I grow very tired of arrogant people that make ignorant remarks. Your complaints about public lands is based on an assumption about how others might do their job and my complaint is based on actual evidence of how they have not done their job well and you think I'm the one that's being foolish? Since you have no idea what the situation is like around my home, let me explain to you that I have managed my property with an eye toward fire hazards including clearing dead trees off my land, but that really wont mean crap if the forest service doesn't do it's job and follow through on it's plan to remove the dead trees on their property, a plan that has been in place for about 7 years now but they haven't moved on it. I already buy a wood permit and cut as much dead stuff as I can but the truth is that I own enough acreage that I can get most of wood needs from my own property.
If I wanted to expose my private life on a public forum I could provide enough evidence of government incompetence that you might actually understand my point, although I doubt you would because you've already made your mind up about the benefits of government management. Let me just say that it's not just the forest around my home that the government can't manage well but my medical services, my retirement services, my military disability services, my previous federal job, my wife's medical retirement monies, and my wife's disability monies that we are constantly arguing over that has proven to me just how incompetent the government is across the board. In short, my entire life is constantly being disrupted because of big government screwing things up so forgive me for not trusting them with anything of importance and being short with people who blindly trust them.
you are the only one calling people names.... you still chose a house next to a forest, I'm sorry but that's not arrogant or ignorant of our parts. I can understand the frustration but is what it is. federal government is by far not perfect, if you've lingered around here very long you'd know that no one here thinks they are. I have a father and two brothers who are vets, my two brothers still active. I know all to well how under paid and underappreciated they are by our own government. sad truth is, this is America and we will always have the big government at our back. Thank you for your service.
Calm this conversation down. This is a hunting forum and we have let a lot of these political threads run. Keep civil please.
I have edited a few posts here. Keep it respectful or these political threads will be closed. Thank guys
Finsandtines
Very Active Member
Well said, lets let him get moved into his new house and see where it goes, in four years. I can't hunt much this year so I would love to see everyone's pics on other threads.
Musket Man
Veteran member
I dont see why anyone is offended here. rammont is speaking the truth and from his own experiences.
out of curiousity ,what is the solution, you propose?
mine is to give the environmentalists the finger and resume logging, mining agriculture.in spite of the poor spotted owl, or nonexsistence lizard. I agree 100% the federal government is not looking after our interests. nor are they doing a good job.
what I do not have an answer for is how to accomplish these things.
put it in hands of individual states?
sounds good in theory but not good in practice.
Last edited:
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
He specifically said: "Sorry, but all you people that think the federal government is the answer to our problems are just plain stupid."
And you don't see why that might be offensive?
Many of us are convinced that the federal government is the ONLY hope we have to save our public lands. We WILL fight to prevent transfer, and we are not stupid!
RICMIC
Veteran member
Folks' lets just put this to bed and get back to hunting. I am among the ranks of the hard core rednecks, and "Cling to my guns and religion", but all we are accomplishing here is to piss people off. I can see the danger posed by both parties, and we have to stay active to support our sport, but forums aren't going to change anyone's mind. USMC SEMPER FI
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
Just to be clear...most of us who defend our federal lands are not from the "other party". Many of us are conservative Republicans who "Cling to our guns and our federal lands". This should not be a partisan issue. We are all from the party of Hunting, Fishing and Public Access!
A group of us Republican sportsmen have launched Facebook page entitled Wyoming Sportsmen for Federal Lands. I encourage everyone to visit it and "like" it:
https://www.facebook.com/WyomingSportsmenForFederalLands/?ref=aymt_homepage_panel
Last edited:
COgunmoney
New Member
- Nov 2, 2016
- 33
- 0
I am not even sure how there is a debate here as to which party is better for public lands and conservation. Sure, most hunters might be republican (I am not, I am not affiliated with any party). But I think the main goal of a Trump admin will be to monetize as many resources as we can. Bush probably did a decent job, hes a sportsman and rancher and all. You think Trump is in touch with that side of America at all? Ha! No way. He wants to monetize everything he can, and he wont give a shit about our precious public lands, national parks, national forests, etc. If he can drill in one and make someone money, he will do it in a heartbeat.
I am not saying either party has a perfect record here, but democrats by and large are more sustainably minded than most republicans. Who wanted to drill in the Artic, and who didnt? And I am talking about leaders here, not individuals on this forum. I think everyone on this forum wants the same thing - conservation, access to public lands, and a preservation of our natural beauty.
I sincerely hope Trump doesn't rock this boat, but I don't have much faith in that. I am sure he would love to monetize resources that are currently protected. But as always, we will see how it plays out.
I am not saying either party has a perfect record here, but democrats by and large are more sustainably minded than most republicans. Who wanted to drill in the Artic, and who didnt? And I am talking about leaders here, not individuals on this forum. I think everyone on this forum wants the same thing - conservation, access to public lands, and a preservation of our natural beauty.
I sincerely hope Trump doesn't rock this boat, but I don't have much faith in that. I am sure he would love to monetize resources that are currently protected. But as always, we will see how it plays out.
COgunmoney
New Member
- Nov 2, 2016
- 33
- 0
Take a look at Wyoming. What party is pushing for the transfer or federal lands to the state...? Not sure how this is even a discussion. Neither party is perfect, but republicans want to monetize the shit out of federal lands if they can. Not you, the people here, that are republicans. But the leadership. This is what most of you on here voted for. Be prepared to deal and/or fight.
bdan68
Active Member
Is Trump in touch with that side of America? Of course he is. Don't you know his two older sons are avid hunters?
http://www.bowsite.com/BOWSITE/features/interviews/donaldtrumpjr/
lol. so what if his sons are hunters? not even hunters can agree on this topic.
I have family that are liberal democrats(yes it is true). they are family but I cannot relate to them.
truth is no one but trump knows what his views on this are.
I don't want state control of the lands. state would simply sell it all off.
at same time I have zero problem with drilling for oil ,mining or logging of federal or state lands . however the feds in their infinate wisdom ,will not allow it.
it can be done without significant affect to wildlife and environment.
we have many, many resources but we are a unrational nation with zero common sense at the helm. we could have deficit at zero in a mere few years if we did just these things and put it to our debt
Last edited:
As is typical whenever you disagree with progressives, the messenger gets punished and is accused of being hateful and mean. A lot of you guys make the statement that you are convinced that the answer to good land use management is more federal control, the same people that have managed our public lands for more than 100 years and we all agree that there are major problems with the results - and your conclusion is that continuing to do the same thing will improve the situation...I appologize for hurting your feelings but I really don't know of a better word to describe this kind of thinking, unless you'd prefer insane.
bdan68
Active Member
Either way our country is way better off with Trump as president than Clinton, and fortunately enough people realized that and he won. He's for making America better, more jobs, stronger economy, less wasted money, and safer. He's not even accepting the $400,000/year salary. Clinton is corrupt and only cares about herself, everyone knows that, even most of her supporters. And she very likely would have got us into World War 3.
I've listened to Donald Trump and his sons enough for the last year and a half, that I trust him to do what's right with our public lands. They're just good people. For those who simply don't like him, they're never going to trust him. But all you can do now is wait and see what happens. Donald Trump is our new president.
Here's another article by Field and Stream:
http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2016/01/qa-donald-trump-on-guns-hunting-and-conservation
I've listened to Donald Trump and his sons enough for the last year and a half, that I trust him to do what's right with our public lands. They're just good people. For those who simply don't like him, they're never going to trust him. But all you can do now is wait and see what happens. Donald Trump is our new president.
Here's another article by Field and Stream:
http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2016/01/qa-donald-trump-on-guns-hunting-and-conservation
Someone asked what my solution would be to this land management issue, like everybody else on the forum, I'm not an expert on this issue, I only know that I see problems and that they need to be addressed. Telling me to move out of the forest if I don't like how it's managed is juvenile at best (maybe I should cry to the moderators that my feelings are hurt).
I think that the states should have more input on the management of and work within our national forests. Everybody keeps arguing about who will OWN the forests, that's never been the issue for the federal government, they are concerned with who will BENEFIT from the exploitation of the resources within the forests, and right now that's the federal government. So to me the question is really who should benefit from state resources, the state or the federal government - the answer seems obvious, state resources should benefit the state.
If you are concerned with some rich, cigar smoking, capitalist (most of which are democrats nowadays) keeping you out then I'd have no problem with the federal government retaining title to the land but the states having an equal voice at the management table. I'd also like to see the states, under the management policies, become more involved in providing the manpower and equipment to manage the forests.
Most of you people forget that the states already manage public lands, somewhere around 20% of the public lands in this country are managed by the states (depending upon which state you are talking about) and the truth is that they have a better record of managing those lands than the federal government does.
The fact that the states haven't sold off these lands to private interests should prove that they wont sell of lands that is transferred to them from the federal government. But if the states did own the land and they decided to manage the lands by trading one section of land for another I wouldn't complain because that would allow the state to develop larger wildlife and hunting areas instead of having little checkerboard chunks spread all over the state. Besides, as I states before, I wouldn't have a problem with the federal government retaining ownership as long as the states had more of a voice in how they are used and managed. The fact is that the states receive more revenue per acre than the federal government does and they are better at managing the resources. The states average something like $14 return per dollar of investment while the federal government sees a loss of about $0.25 per dollar of investment. The states make enough profit that they can afford to pay for management projects while it's a fact that the forest service has admitted that they have been behind on their projects since the 1970's, partly because they don't have enough money and partly because they are buried in bureaucratic red tape and spend more time producing studies and reports than working in the forest. The federal government operates at a loss and makes up for it through requests for more and more of our tax dollars while the states put the profit in to improvement projects that benefit everyone, including hunters and outdoor enthusiasts.
The fact that the federal government can't operate at a profit (by law) is why they can't, don't, and will never catch up on their projects and that's why people like me complain about their poor performance at removing the fire hazards in the forest. Telling me to move out of the forest if I don't like things is just being blind to the fact that one day the forests that you love will be so blighted with bugs, fires, and dead-falls that nobody will be able to enjoy using the forest - right now it's just guys like me that are experiencing the problem so the uniformed can act superior and just ridicule people like me rather than acknowledging that there is problem that needs to be addressed.
I think that the states should have more input on the management of and work within our national forests. Everybody keeps arguing about who will OWN the forests, that's never been the issue for the federal government, they are concerned with who will BENEFIT from the exploitation of the resources within the forests, and right now that's the federal government. So to me the question is really who should benefit from state resources, the state or the federal government - the answer seems obvious, state resources should benefit the state.
If you are concerned with some rich, cigar smoking, capitalist (most of which are democrats nowadays) keeping you out then I'd have no problem with the federal government retaining title to the land but the states having an equal voice at the management table. I'd also like to see the states, under the management policies, become more involved in providing the manpower and equipment to manage the forests.
Most of you people forget that the states already manage public lands, somewhere around 20% of the public lands in this country are managed by the states (depending upon which state you are talking about) and the truth is that they have a better record of managing those lands than the federal government does.
The fact that the states haven't sold off these lands to private interests should prove that they wont sell of lands that is transferred to them from the federal government. But if the states did own the land and they decided to manage the lands by trading one section of land for another I wouldn't complain because that would allow the state to develop larger wildlife and hunting areas instead of having little checkerboard chunks spread all over the state. Besides, as I states before, I wouldn't have a problem with the federal government retaining ownership as long as the states had more of a voice in how they are used and managed. The fact is that the states receive more revenue per acre than the federal government does and they are better at managing the resources. The states average something like $14 return per dollar of investment while the federal government sees a loss of about $0.25 per dollar of investment. The states make enough profit that they can afford to pay for management projects while it's a fact that the forest service has admitted that they have been behind on their projects since the 1970's, partly because they don't have enough money and partly because they are buried in bureaucratic red tape and spend more time producing studies and reports than working in the forest. The federal government operates at a loss and makes up for it through requests for more and more of our tax dollars while the states put the profit in to improvement projects that benefit everyone, including hunters and outdoor enthusiasts.
The fact that the federal government can't operate at a profit (by law) is why they can't, don't, and will never catch up on their projects and that's why people like me complain about their poor performance at removing the fire hazards in the forest. Telling me to move out of the forest if I don't like things is just being blind to the fact that one day the forests that you love will be so blighted with bugs, fires, and dead-falls that nobody will be able to enjoy using the forest - right now it's just guys like me that are experiencing the problem so the uniformed can act superior and just ridicule people like me rather than acknowledging that there is problem that needs to be addressed.
Last edited:
- Status