BigHornRam
Well-known member
Wasn't meant to be, Ben. But if that's how you took it...........nasty!
Clintons plan for public lands
- Thread starter Oneye
- Start date
- Status
Wasn't meant to be, Ben. But if that's how you took it...........nasty!
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Sanders-Warren. Same stench factor, slightly different odor.
Storm Widgeon
Member
Hey, I'm not saying Trump is the saving grace, nor am I saying to believe his every word. But when people say Hillary is their candidate because of lips service on public lands, I have to laugh.
I'm sorry you don't agree with the consequences of Obama's actions, but for years I've been dealing with these issues on the job and know when the fire gets turned up. Every time he rallied around a justified police shooting and condoned it before he had any clue what he was talking about, the hotter things got on the streets and the more back lash we felt.
I usually don't post on political stuff as there are to many people that are so opinionated, they think of themselves as all knowing because of some "insight" they feel they have, and are ready to slam anyone who thinks otherwise. People on all sides of the election get so ramped up because they all want to feel they know something that the next guy doesn't, therefore justifying their steadfast decision to support a candidate and slam everyone else's. As I was referring to in my last post, outside of major issues with a candidates past, it's all hearsay taken out of context.
I'm sorry you don't agree with the consequences of Obama's actions, but for years I've been dealing with these issues on the job and know when the fire gets turned up. Every time he rallied around a justified police shooting and condoned it before he had any clue what he was talking about, the hotter things got on the streets and the more back lash we felt.
I usually don't post on political stuff as there are to many people that are so opinionated, they think of themselves as all knowing because of some "insight" they feel they have, and are ready to slam anyone who thinks otherwise. People on all sides of the election get so ramped up because they all want to feel they know something that the next guy doesn't, therefore justifying their steadfast decision to support a candidate and slam everyone else's. As I was referring to in my last post, outside of major issues with a candidates past, it's all hearsay taken out of context.
Last edited:
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
I guess the thing that raises my eyebrow, and makes me chuckle, is the implication that you are somehow exempt from your own astute analysis. And your analysis regarding others is indeed astute. I'm not arguing that. It's the idea that you you might not fall four-square within your own indictment that has me chuckling. I'm not sure what they call that in psychology, but I think there is a word for it. I saw it in many cops when I was a prosecutor. Oh well. Press on!
Nemont
Well-known member
I can respect your position on that because I felt that he was often way to hasty to jump into those issues. Same way I feel about Trump. He seems to not need very any facts prior to moving his lips and that turns up the heat in many other areas.
If people want to vote only on the issue of public lands then their lives are not as complicated as other I guess. The transfer of public lands is just one of manyissues which I don't believe either of these candidates are qualified or trustworthy on.
Nemont
That's pretty funny. Yet you and so many others here are buying into the public land issue based on something one of trumps sons said? Trump has no clue about anything, that is why he never says anything about issues that really matter when he speaks at his klan rallys. Rediculous!
As for your original post about drinking the kool-aid, eveything you said is the same BS put out there by the right-wing wackos on the radio. You just happen to drink from the republican pitcher.
Last edited:
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
could not stand it any longer.... for the love of all that is holy, do not any of you left-wingnuts care about important issues? Like illegal immigrants? Pardoning them and allowing them in by the 10's of 1000's? How about unemployment? How about the number of people on welfare?
Certainly the issue of transferring public lands to the states is important. But am I so unwilling to see the forest for all the trees that this is the only issue I would vote on a candidate for?
To the issue of transferring to the state, I know that some of you are scared to death of it, but I have not noticed the state of Montana selling off any accessible land to anyone, perhaps someone here may be able to cite and instance of that happening, but for the most part I see the state buying land, not selling it. The sections of state land that have been sold off that have no access, and the monies used to buy lands that are accessible have been nothing but good for the sportsman.
So before jumping up and down, I am not for the transfer of Gov't lands to the state. I am however not fully convinced that it would be a bad thing, as long as there is a law that there would be no sale of accessible lands to private individuals.
Certainly the issue of transferring public lands to the states is important. But am I so unwilling to see the forest for all the trees that this is the only issue I would vote on a candidate for?
To the issue of transferring to the state, I know that some of you are scared to death of it, but I have not noticed the state of Montana selling off any accessible land to anyone, perhaps someone here may be able to cite and instance of that happening, but for the most part I see the state buying land, not selling it. The sections of state land that have been sold off that have no access, and the monies used to buy lands that are accessible have been nothing but good for the sportsman.
So before jumping up and down, I am not for the transfer of Gov't lands to the state. I am however not fully convinced that it would be a bad thing, as long as there is a law that there would be no sale of accessible lands to private individuals.
T
tjones
Guest
Eric, are you happy with the way FWP manages wildlife?
Dang Eric, take a deep breath. The post title does say "Clintons Plan for Public Lands," so I suspect that is why people are focusing on the public land aspects of the position of Clinton and her opponent. Lots of other topics to discuss with regards to the candidate. I suspect if you started a thread on those the topics would be taken to every tangential spot on the planet.
As for the items I bolded above, you have any suggestions of we accomplish that when the same people asking to transfer the land refuse to have any sort of public access deed alteration that would allow for public use upon any subsequent sale to private parties? Many of us have asked for what you are asking, only to be told to pound sand. Not just in Montana, but in all the states where this BS scheme is being promoted.
Last session they came up with some bill that supposedly would require the proceeds, or some large percentage thereof, fro sold lands to go back to the US Treasury. They were told that nobody really gives a damn where the proceeds go upon sale. We care that the "upon sale" topic that would eliminate access.
If you have ideas of how to accomplish that, I'm all ears, as the legislative promoters of the scheme that I have talked to say it is a "non-starter, as it would reduce values to a potential future buyer," even though they try to tell us they don't plan to sell to "a potential future buyer."
And this transfer scheme is not just an MT issue. It is a national issue. Here is the lands that have been sold, by state. They are not all inaccessible lands. In fact, very few have been inaccessible lands.
All that said, Hillary's actions and hypocrisy on many topics do not allow me to vote for her, no matter her position on public lands.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
But what they have in common for the public land hunter and recreationist is that they are GONE!
Storm Widgeon
Member
Matter of fact I have no clue what Trump's position is on public lands, nor have I addressed it specifically. I hadn't an idea his kid's hunted until someone mentioned here. The only negative I have pointed out are far from BS on right-wing radio. I suppose she's being investigated by her parties own AG for the fun of it? But apparently that's a non issue. LOL.
Last edited:
Storm Widgeon
Member
I'm glad I can make your evening. But I'd like to know how my mild manor comment about how most things spewed on both sides except for a few major law violation issues on Hillary's end makes me so opinionated. How about you stop getting your underwear in such a bunch because other people on here have a different opinion then you.
Prosecutor huh? No offense, and you know what I'm talking about, but that explains a lot!
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
fin, I unfortunately am not at a place in my life where I have the time to dedicate coming up with solutions for all the worlds ills. However I suspect that if the right pressure was applied to a few key legislators something could be written in stone that "accessible lands will not be sold to private individuals or non-profit organizations, but will be held in the publics trust indefinitely". Perhaps with the caveat of "no net gain" for the state, where if they buy a section of land somewhere they must sell an inaccessible section to compensate.
Your chart on previous page did not show the acquired acreage, since '06 the state of Mt. has purchased nearly 100K acres.
I think that it is very important for the nation to have a lot of accessible lands, open to recreation and most importantly to hunting. Can you imagine if we had no public lands, only private? There would be so few people in the hunting community that support for the 2nd amendment would be degraded to the point of owning a firearm could conceivably become indefensible. I believe that there are those in Gov't who want to see this very thing happen.
Your chart on previous page did not show the acquired acreage, since '06 the state of Mt. has purchased nearly 100K acres.
I think that it is very important for the nation to have a lot of accessible lands, open to recreation and most importantly to hunting. Can you imagine if we had no public lands, only private? There would be so few people in the hunting community that support for the 2nd amendment would be degraded to the point of owning a firearm could conceivably become indefensible. I believe that there are those in Gov't who want to see this very thing happen.
dannyb278
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 574
Are you suggesting that the transfer of federal lands to private is actually a gun control plan? Kind of an unnecessarily and opaque long game don't you think.
Both the lands acquired and sold were in the same column ( it was a difference, not an absolute ). So while MT purchased ~100k acres, they also sold off ~600k, resulting in the 500k in the chart.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
It seems the ubiquitous "THEY" in the federal gubment are once again the source of another juicy conspiracy theory ... albeit this one is a real stretch. The rationale leading to that "belief" escapes me.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,674
straight...those who lived in Germany thought it a stretch also.
vanish. thanks for pointing that out...I did not read the chart close enough.
vanish. thanks for pointing that out...I did not read the chart close enough.
RobG
Well-known member
Ah, I see. The public lands transfer is really a liberal plot to take away our guns.
Put forth by the republicans so they are in cahoots.
- Status
