Once Again, the GOP Comes Out as Anti-Hunting

[airlocksniffer]

No reason why somebody can't be pro-public land and a republican. If you are going to vote R, fine, just let the candidates and the RNC know that public land transfer/sale is a bad idea. Hopefully if enough Republican voters let them know, they'll drop the idea.

 

[6speed]

Once again the GOP is anti hunting.....You just categorized the GOP as anti hunting and that is not a accurate statement at all. You can say Ted Cruz appears anti hunting in your opinion do to his support of giving the land back to the people. We need to than define people as ranchers or state govt as that is up to interpretation. Again, a much more accurate statement than calling out an entire political party as anti hunting. It guess this forum would rather support the Dems who openly want to take away your gun rights. You know, something firearms hunters use to hunt.....

No interpretation needed. Read the states Constitution. Here is Idaho's

{Section 8. LOCATION AND DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC LANDS. It shall be the duty of the state board of land commissioners to provide for the location, protection, sale or rental of all the lands heretofore, or which may hereafter be granted to or acquired by the state by or from the general government, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law, and in such manner as will secure the maximum long term financial return to the institution to which granted or to the state if not specifically granted; provided, that no state lands shall be sold for less than the appraised price. No law shall ever be passed by the legislature granting any privileges to persons who may have settled upon any such public lands, subsequent to the survey thereof by the general government, by which the amount to be derived by the sale, or other disposition of such lands, shall be diminished, directly or indirectly. The legislature shall, at the earliest practicable period, provide by law that the general grants of land made by congress to the state shall be judiciously located and carefully preserved and held in trust, subject to disposal at public auction for the use and benefit of the respective object for which said grants of land were made, and the legislature shall provide for the sale of said lands from time to time and for the sale of timber on all state lands and for the faithful application of the proceeds thereof in accordance with the terms of said grants; provided, that not to exceed one hundred sections of state lands shall be sold in any one year, and to be sold in subdivisions of not to exceed three hundred and twenty acres of land to any one individual, company or corporation. The legislature shall have power to authorize the state board of land commissioners to exchange granted or acquired lands of the state on an equal value basis for other lands under agreement with the United States, local units of government, corporations, companies, individuals, or combination thereof}

If you need help interpreting that I'll simplify it. The state has already said it can not afford to manage it. It is therby left with the responsibility of "maximum long term financial return". Because management will cost more than the state can afford it will be "subject to disposal at public auction" for no less "than the appraised price". It will "be sold in subdivisions of not to exceed three hundred and twenty acres of land to any one individual, company or corporation." Because many of the billionaire backers of the transfer control multiple companies and corporations and have the ability to make several more individual corporations that would be under their control the "define people as ranchers" you mentioned would find themselves attempting to bid at public auction against a mega corporation for a block of land that the "define people as ranchers" can't afford to buy in the first place. Of course once the "define people as ranchers" lose access to the land they can't afford to buy and can no longer graze at the subsidised federal rate there won't be many of them left either.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Way to mislead everyone. You have two Dem Pres candidates that want to disarm all of us.

7 years of being told I'm gonna lose my guns, and the basterds keep multiplying in the safe.

 

[TheJason]

And here I thought they had taken Jose back on the mother ship. Dang the luck, it rears it ugly head once again.

Just by the source (Jose) I automatically dismiss any of his gobbley gook.

Maybe you should expand your horizons a bit. Anyone that thinks elk hunting in the west will be even remotely close to what it is now, once public land transfers begin, is completely kidding themselves.

 

[TheJason]

One of the worst posts I have seen yet. Nowhere does it say Ted is anti hunting. Anti big govt, yes. Way to mislead everyone. You have two Dem Pres candidates that want to disarm all of us. I am not saying I am pro - Ted, I just never saw the anti hunting message so as far as I can see you are EXTREMELY misleading everyone here.

I have Constitutional protections that protect my right to own firearms. I have NO Constitutional protections that protect my privilege to use public lands, or even have them available to me for that matter.

 

[----]

I have Constitutional protections that protect my right to own firearms. I have NO Constitutional protections that protect my privilege to use public lands, or even have them available to me for that matter.

If I could summarize this election in two sentences, those would be it.

 

[Lawnboy]

7 years of being told I'm gonna lose my guns, and the basterds keep multiplying in the safe.

Not only that but whomever the "wolf crier" has been for the last 7 years has caused my ammunition bill to skyrocket as well. I think he's the Al Gore of the right wing whomever he is.

 

[Trial153]

I agree, Cruzs stance is anti hunting, furthermore this is becoming entrenched in the Republican Party. A party that increasing has shown that profits for their corporate partners a priority over the American an people they claim to represent. The motives behind this movement embodies those principles.

 

[smarandr]

We now have the guy in 1st or 2nd place in most GOP polls calling out the guy in 1st or 2nd place in the polls to make the GOP's anti-hunting measures a central point in the Presidential race.

http://youtu.be/flLFQnW7CUc


If you have ever voted for Mike Lee, Raul Labrador, or any of another of the Koch Brother's candidates, YOU are part of the problem.

Making entire TV advertisements against hunters shows how much the GOP doesn't care about hunting and knows it won't cost them votes.

If there was any doubt before I don't think there's any now; Ted Cruz just declared war on the public land hunter.

 

[RobG]

Ted Cruz, = anti recreational industry. In the west that means hunting.

What about recreational grazing?

 

[Gr8bawana]

Go read the GOP party platform from 2012: Anti-Hunting.

Add up the polling percentages of the GOP candidates pushing the anti-hunting agenda: hint, it is the majority of the GOP slate.

Look at the GOP House of Reps and the anti-hunting legislation introduced.

Look at the GOP Speaker of the House and his long standing anti-hunting proposals .

Look at the top 2 candidates in the GOP primary now engaging in a "who can end hinting the fastest" competition.

If you are voting for people that keep Paul Ryan as Speaker, YOU are part of the anti-hunting problem.

Don't kid yourself that the Koch Brothers, ALEC, the Heritage Foundation and any of their lackeys want you to hunt.

More good resons for all you die-hard republicans to keep voting republican. You will only have yourselves to blame if this ever comes to be.

 

[JoseCuervo]

No reason why somebody can't be pro-public land and a republican. If you are going to vote R, fine, just let the candidates and the RNC know that public land transfer/sale is a bad idea. Hopefully if enough Republican voters let them know, they'll drop the idea.

The GOP doesn't care what Republican voters want. They care what their "Citizens United" fueled PAC money tells them to care about.


Who do you think the GOP cares more about, you who will vote for them no matter what, or the Koch Brothers and their Millions$$$$ that they use to support the anti-hunting agenda?

 

[Gr8bawana]

7 years of being told I'm gonna lose my guns, and the basterds keep multiplying in the safe.

We hear the same thing every time a Democrat is voted into office. All the chicken little "the sky is falling" crap from the right.

 

[Dave N]

But didn't he just go duck hunting with Phil Robertson?

 

[Oak]

But didn't he just go duck hunting with Phil Robertson?

A great point which brings up another topic:

Where does Phil Roberstson stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Michael Waddell stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where do Lee and Tiffany stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Cam Hanes stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Nate Simmons stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Jim Shockey stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Stan Potts stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Jana Waller stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where do the 300+ other outdoor television hosts stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Edit: I should have started a new topic. Keep this one on track.

 

[BMurr]

A great point which brings up another topic:

Where does Phil Roberstson stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Michael Waddell stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where do Lee and Tiffany stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Cam Hanes stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Ryan Hatfield stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Nate Simmons stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Jim Shockey stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Stan Potts stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Jana Waller stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where do the 300+ other outdoor television hosts stand on the federal land transfer issue?

At least we have Randy Newberg and Steven Rinella.

In the last podcast with Leopold it was clear that they are conservationists, it would be nice if they also came out as public land advocates.

 

[Southwind]

Maybe you should expand your horizons a bit. Anyone that thinks elk hunting in the west will be even remotely close to what it is now, once public land transfers begin, is completely kidding themselves.

My statement was purely and only directed towards the serial liar Jose and nothing to do with content of the link.

I am fully and completely on the record of being opposed to the transfer or sale of federal public lands.

I just have no tolerance for the liar Jose

 

[Ben Lamb]

A great point which brings up another topic:

Where does Phil Roberstson stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Michael Waddell stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where do Lee and Tiffany stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Cam Hanes stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Ryan Hatfield stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Nate Simmons stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Jim Shockey stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Stan Potts stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where does Jana Waller stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Where do the 300+ other outdoor television hosts stand on the federal land transfer issue?

Not sure about the others, but Ryan Hatfield is against and has even given space to radicals in the magazine to opine against it. I've seen personal statements from him against as well.

 

[Oak]

Not sure about the others, but Ryan Hatfield is against and has even given space to radicals in the magazine to opine against it. I've seen personal statements from him against as well.

That's right! I will remove him from the list. My point mostly is that a very, very small percentage is addressing the issue.

I shouldn't have hijacked this thread.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

That's right! I will remove him from the list. My point mostly is that a very, very small percentage is addressing the issue.

I shouldn't have hijacked this thread.

I did drop an email to Ryan, Nate, and Chris over there just to reinforce the importance. I haven't received their magazine in a while (other than the last few issues I was owed from Extreme Elk), but I don't really recall hearing them talk about this at all on there TV show; which seems like is really popular, and would be a great place to include the message.