Hunting Access to Public land blocked!!!

[Ithaca 37]

Here's the latest ploy by welfare ranchers to deny hunting access to public land. What are you going to do about it?

How about hearing opinions from some of you who constantly side with welfare ranchers!

"The U.S. Bureau of Land Management process to change grazing rules has started. There´s one change being considered to lock up public land to protect private land and livestock operations.

Lock up public land for private interests? Yup!

There´s a bureaucratic thing called Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that contains a statement asking “whether BLM should authorize temporarily locked gates on public lands in order to protect private land and improve livestock operations.”

Heck no!

With public access disappearing all across Idaho, should a federal agency be thinking about banning the public from public land?

You can comment to BLM by writing to: Director (630), Bureau of Land Management, Eastern States Office, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, VA 22153. Attention: RIN 1004-AD42. You may also comment via e-mail to: [email protected]."

http://www.idahostatesman.com/Extras/zimo/story.asp?ID=34921

I've already sent my protest to the BLM and my Representatives.

 

[Lostagain]

HAHAHAAHAHA IT. I told you this many times, BE CAREFUL who you side with b/c you're next on their list.

Afew years ago I was party in a lawsuit(which I hate) to open nonmotorized access to state ground, YOUR folks from orgs YOU IT promote were there fighting against the access. You got what you have been screaming at the rest of us dumbass and now you're saying that isn't what you wanted.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Lost, Here's what we're talking about: "whether BLM should authorize temporarily locked gates on public lands in order to protect private land and improve livestock operations.”"

Please quote me saying I'd ever be in favor of that.

Didn't you take the challenge? "You got what you have been screaming at the rest of us dumbass and now you're saying that isn't what you wanted."

"personal attacks, derogatory comments, ect, ect. for 2 weeks from the time you anwser this post."

Calling people "dumbass" would seem to be breaking your word. Pretty interesting who tries to start fights around here by breaking their word and attacking other posters.

 

[Deerslayer]

 

[Lostagain]

This was posted====="You got what you have been screaming at the rest of us dumbass and now you're saying that isn't what you wanted."

This is what you claim was posted======"You got what you have been screaming at the rest of us, dumbass, and now you're saying that isn't what you wanted."

A little pounctation difference but it does change the meaning of the statement. If you wish to apologize for your lack of reading comprehension,

 

[Washington Hunter]

Ithaca, actually the 2 weeks is up...at least for Lost Again it is, so we can go back to name-calling again

So you can go ahead and call Lost Again a dumbass if you'd like.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Lost Again, I don't see how a comma changes the meaning of that sentence. You still called Ithaca a dumbass no matter how you read it. But you're off the hook, cause the 2 weeks is up.

 

[Lostagain]

Without the commas, he was refering to us as dumbasses.
With the commas, I'm calling him a dumbass.

Which was it in the post? Without.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Ok, I think I found the problem. It was your fault Lost Again...you should have used the plural "dumbasses" instead of "dumbass." That would have said what you intended to say, with or without any commas. I can see why Ithaca read it that way. I did too.

 

[Lostagain]

Here, read real closely so you do not misunderstand and jump all over folks for your mistakes. YOU BOTH ARE DUMBASSES. There now I posted it and you shouldn't misunderstand that can you? I would have posted it before if that was what I wanted, but you both need to jump all over someone for something.
MARS=== this is why I've stayed away and others have also. There is no debates, just a lot of crap.

 

[Washington Hunter]

LA, well you were the first to reply to Ithaca's post, and your comments didn't appear to be all that intelligent. It looks like you're the one that started the crap. If you want a good debate, why don't you contribute something worthwhile?

P.S. Yes I do understand that you feel I am a dumbass. I hope you understand that I feel the same about you

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-09-2003 21:05: Message edited by: Washington Hunter ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

LA, Either your spelling is incorrect or your punctuation is. Which is it, or is it both? If you want your posts understood maybe you should learn to spell and punctuate correctly. Either way, your post was just meant to start a fight. It wasn't addressing the topic. I'm glad we've been able to expose who the troublemakers are around here. So far we have you, MD4M and Gato.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-09-2003 22:33: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Oak]

This had the potential to be a good topic until you guys started arguing punctuation.

Sounds like there's a little confusion about what the original post really means. When I first read it I took it to mean that the public land would be closed to all uses by the public. Then I realized that Lost took it to mean that there would be no motorized access by the public. Now, anyone who thinks that the former would be a good idea IS a dumbass. But I really don't see a problem with locking a gate, as long as the rancher doesn't have vehicle access either. They've got horses, right? Shouldn't be a problem.

Is there anyone here that wants to discuss the topic?

Doesn't matter. I'm off to the hills for three days! Have fun ladies!

Oak

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-09-2003 23:56: Message edited by: Colorado Oak ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

"to protect private land and improve livestock operations"

Hunters and recreationists should lose access for those reasons? By locking some gates it would be possible to block access to many miles of roads leading into large areas of BLM or FS. Good quality roads. The gates could be many miles from areas that have good hunting or fishing or hiking.

 

[Tom]

We have a rule here in Texas to leave gates as we find them. If a guy leaves a gate open on a lease and wasn't supposed to and some cattle got out, we track down who it was, who was there, we question them. Guys here get kicked off the leases for leaving a gate open for cattle or sheep to escape. The public should have public access, but if they abuse it, some better gate is needed. I'd rather have a better gate, some dumbass will leave a gate open, not Ithaca, I'd bet Lostagain or Wash. Hunter, they're more likely to leave the gate open. Just kidding. Ithaca, thanks for the news.

 

[MarlandS]

Well, this here dumbass read it as Lost called Ithaca a dumbass, I just shook my head and realized the two weeks was up....
It was fun while it lasted.

Anyway back on topic, this proposal should draw a lawsuit from all the legal owners of the lands in question.

 

[Ithaca 37]

I always close gates that I open, sometimes close gates that I find open if it looks questionable why the gate is open. No big harm done if the next guys have to open and shut the gate. But what we're talking about here is LOCKING gates, and that is much different. I know places where it would be possible to lock a gate to twenty acres of a grazing lease and block access to thousands of acres of public land. Or at least people would have to drive about thirty to fifty miles extra and have to use a very poor quality road to get into those thousands of acres.

We have incidents almost every year where ranchers lock gates on public land and try to bluff people into believing that the gates are legally locked. They also place posted/no trespassing signs in such a way to make it look like public land is closed.

 

[Tom]

Right, I'm definitely against locking them, but I bet the ranchers are wanting to lock them because somebody left the gate open that was not supposed too. A better gate to use would be those that cattle cannot cross, but then you have to have a gate for people on horses, at least where they may go through, too for those users, that's more expensive, just because somebody leaves a gate open that isn't supposed to. I'm against locking out public access for sure, but better gates might solve the rancher issue, too.

 

[Michaelr]

I could effectivly lock people out of quite a chunk of public ground by locking some gates on our ranch,
A simple sign put up during hunting season stating "Please close the gate,
gates left open will be chained and locked".
has worked wonders.

 

[Lostagain]

Apologize for not making it perfectly clear that I was not referring to IT as a dumbass.

I am laughing my ass off b/c the same orgs IT promotes on here are the same orgs that are for this locking out access to public ground. IT, in the past, discounted all us dumbasses for pushing for access. Now, the same orgs are letting the ranchers take the blame for it. Pretty slick, Who/what is next on their list?