James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
Good Luck, Big Fin
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
Chucknduck
Member
Is that Big Finn? He cleans up good.
He's hard to recognize with out a Sitka outfit on
BuzzH
Well-known member
Agreed...
Fontenelle fire 2012
About 2 months after the fire and elk, deer, and moose were all utilizing the burn...notice the Aspen regeneration already.
Last edited:
DRAFTSTUD
Well-known member
I know there must be a lot of Newspapers with Outdoor Editors who are not up to speed on alot of these subjects dealing with our Public Lands. I have sent Letters to DC only to get BS back. I think each of us need to start a ground swell of supporting the Public Lands at a regional newspapers. I started today by contacting our Outdoor Editor. I need a Cheat Sheet! LOL, but this is my first volley!
Mr. Watson, Have you done any articles on the Transfer of Public Lands (National Forests, ect.) back to state ownership that has been brought up recently by several states and recent Candidates for President?
We as citizens of the United States have what amounts to ownership of Tens of Millions of acres that we have access to that could be transferred to states if the mind set of some of these States/Candidates is allowed to move forward, only to be sold or shut down to the Public as most state lands must be held for a profit to the states. We cannot let these lands owned by you and me to be sold to raise funds. We cannot allow the Public Lands to be transferred or sold, once gone they will never be ours again. How can I tell my son and his sons and daughters about the great legacy of our Public Lands and that they cannot enjoy them because I did nothing to sound the alarm. Please feel free to contact me. John A. XXX-2XX5 Thanks.
Mr. Watson, Have you done any articles on the Transfer of Public Lands (National Forests, ect.) back to state ownership that has been brought up recently by several states and recent Candidates for President?
We as citizens of the United States have what amounts to ownership of Tens of Millions of acres that we have access to that could be transferred to states if the mind set of some of these States/Candidates is allowed to move forward, only to be sold or shut down to the Public as most state lands must be held for a profit to the states. We cannot let these lands owned by you and me to be sold to raise funds. We cannot allow the Public Lands to be transferred or sold, once gone they will never be ours again. How can I tell my son and his sons and daughters about the great legacy of our Public Lands and that they cannot enjoy them because I did nothing to sound the alarm. Please feel free to contact me. John A. XXX-2XX5 Thanks.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
DRAFTSTUD
Well-known member
I never said I was a wiz when it came to this stuff, just a mule with a load to carry. BTW, it's not just Canadians you have to watch for. John
On my way to the airport. Always glad to be heading back to Montana. Will give more comments later.
If I lived in Wyoming, I would be asking some questions based on this mornings testimony from one of my state employees and my lone Representative. What they testified in favor of would be a huge hit to Wyoming public hunting access.
The "Stateside" portion of LWCF is based on per capita population, not on the importance of the project. Under a per capita formula, WY would get the lowest allocation under "Stateside" but has some of the greatest projects in need of funding. Was he representing WY, or the National Association of Parks, a mostly urban-centric association? Under "Stateside" allocation, CA, NY, FL, IL, TX get most the funds, not locations with the highest priority conservation need.
Easier answer is to fully fund LWCF and quit diverting it. Then, there is the enough money for all portions of the program.
If one of my state's employees went and gave testimony that was as counter to the interest of my state citizens, as was his, I would be asking for explanation.
If I lived in Wyoming, I would be asking some questions based on this mornings testimony from one of my state employees and my lone Representative. What they testified in favor of would be a huge hit to Wyoming public hunting access.
The "Stateside" portion of LWCF is based on per capita population, not on the importance of the project. Under a per capita formula, WY would get the lowest allocation under "Stateside" but has some of the greatest projects in need of funding. Was he representing WY, or the National Association of Parks, a mostly urban-centric association? Under "Stateside" allocation, CA, NY, FL, IL, TX get most the funds, not locations with the highest priority conservation need.
Easier answer is to fully fund LWCF and quit diverting it. Then, there is the enough money for all portions of the program.
If one of my state's employees went and gave testimony that was as counter to the interest of my state citizens, as was his, I would be asking for explanation.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I bet the questions get asked...
http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=398249
Here is the record of the hearing for those that missed it. Thanks for what you do Randy!
Here is the record of the hearing for those that missed it. Thanks for what you do Randy!
jryoung
Well-known member
McClintock is such a douche.
bigskyblueman
Member
Big Fin presented a compelling statement. Very impressive. Hopefully the committee learned from the portrait he painted for them. I appreciate the effort it took to venture into Foggy Bottom.
