Relax, Everything is Going to be Okay!

[cgasner1]

Got news for ya--when it comes to issues affecting hunting and conservation, the results of the november election insured there will be lots of threads and discussions on it for the next 4 years. The way of handling that here seems to be to let them go if they stick to the thread topic.

To me that suggests members should try to get along and have a decent discussion if they disagree--or just ignore the thread if it bothers you that much. That doesn't mean you have to agree or can't disagree in my way of thinking.

Post it back up and you guys have at it. Then when it goes off the rails like the 2-3 other threads that had been locked that night. Guys have fun and give @Big Fin a reason to swing that ban hammer. Maybe a few of you can meet up this fall and use a tape measure to settle some debates

 

[MTGomer]

Smart of those who filed before a bunch of IRS employees were laid off!

this really depends on whether you get a refund, or you owe, and if you intend to be honest…

 

[Nick87]

Post it back up and you guys have at it. Then when it goes off the rails like the 2-3 other threads that had been locked that night. Guys have fun and give @Big Fin a reason to swing that ban hammer. Maybe a few of you can meet up this fall and use a tape measure to settle some debates

I can't wait til he starts eliminating the guys he said we're always in the political threads and nothing to do with hunting.

 

[Big Fin]

You don't have to participate.

Even if you report it, why would a thread with 1 reply be booted? I've seen some pretty wild comments or threads meant for trolling. My thread was nothing close to wild. It wasn't even controversial, just a "let's see what interesting things you've found".

When I logged in, it was 1 of about 25 posts that were reported, across multiple threads, the titles of which threads told me they were likely headed into the ditch. I clicked "moderate all" and toasted them those posts.

I usually don't do it that way, but with the volume or moderation requests these days, I'll probably do it again.

 

[cgasner1]

I can't wait til he starts eliminating the guys he said we're always in the political threads and nothing to do with hunting.

We have lost some good members lately for the most part I just check the legislation thread anymore place needs a cleansing

 

[mtmuley]

I wish Randy would shit can any thread that goes remotely political no matter the subject. Lots of them here lately. mtmuley

 

[Elky Welky]

I wish Randy would shit can any thread that goes remotely political no matter the subject. Lots of them here lately. mtmuley

Unfortunately we can't fully divorce hunting from politics. If the feds fire a bunch of forest service and BLM workers, then that directly effects habitat and hunting. It's one thing if people want to talk about politics that don't affect wildlife/public land, another if it affects us.

There's definitely a line, and I don't envy @Big Fin and the other moderators for having to strike the balance.

 

[dranrab]

That is effectively what I'm (we're) saying, yes. If you're interested in an explanation, it goes something like this: historically, it's been a common argument amongst the privatization crowd that because the federal government is so ineffective at managing public land, that land should be turned over to state ownership for management. The justification is that because states are more locally connected to those lands, they would have greater ability to assess and manage. The issue with this claim, and why I think it's taken a back seat to other arguments in recent times, is that there was never any real meaty data to back it up. It sounded nice, but there was no real substance to it. And of course the dirty little secret is the fact that once the state owns the land, private parties can purchase it for private ownership. The federal-to-state transfer is a necessary step to being able to purchase the land. Utah and Nevada are good examples of how this system works.

Our concern is that hammering the federal land agencies will weaken their ability to effectively manage, ultimately creating a situation where those unsubstantiated claims of ineffective management suddenly become substantiated. It's a precursor step to enabling the government to say, "we clearly can't do the job, so we're ceding these lands to someone who can." Of course if you've spent time in the military or military-adjacent industries, you're quite familiar with this line of reasoning, and you've seen the havoc it can wreak with instances of corruption and misplaced priorities. It's also a conversation that's been going on with other government services (USPS, health care, etc).

Are we wrong to be concerned? Anything is possible of course, but with the amount of work actively being done to shift public lands to private ownership, and the real lack of guarantee from the current administration that such risks don't exist, we feel pretty justified to be worried and vigilant.

I wouldn't say you are wrong for being concerned. I will say that I don't share the concern.

 

[cgasner1]

Unfortunately we can't fully divorce hunting from politics. If the feds fire a bunch of forest service and BLM workers, then that directly effects habitat and hunting. It's one thing if people want to talk about politics that don't affect wildlife/public land, another if it affects us.

There's definitely a line, and I don't envy @Big Fin and the other moderators for having to strike the balance.

As of lately it seems most people have shown up looking for an argument rather than a conversation and it’s just gone from thread to thread to thread.

 

[Irrelevant]

What I don't get is that no one that ever actually tried to be successful in the private industry would ever do, what they support the orange emperor doing. If you downsize or need to fire people, you actually think about it first, you evaluate their workload, how their roles affect other roles, where the most bang for the buck is, and where you can actually find efficiencies. And most importantly you find ways to keep the best people irregardless of all that because great people are what make great companies. The only people stupid enough to indiscriminately fire people without justification or knowing anything about their jobs, would be some bureaucrat in DC that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground- oh wait, nevermind, that checks out.

 

[Bullbrl]

O

You tell me. With the makeup of this congress and administration, if they had a lot more money coming would they just spend it?

And lets get one thing understood--it's not about raising taxes. It's about restoring them to their former level. We have cut them and cut them again esp. for the wealthy and corporations so much that gets confused by many. Those tax cuts have done more to increase the rate of growth of the national debt than increased spending has by far.

And because the bulk of spending is tied up in Medicare, Social Security, and Military you can cut entire federal departments and not make as big a dent as you would by restoring to the former tax rates. Not that some focus in both places shouldn't occur--it's just DOGE and this administration are NOT focusing on both sides of the ledger!

I do think some extra revenue should be spent--on more help that pays for itself and then some that has been resisted by congress for years. But absent that if it just went to lowering the deficit some I'd be OK with that too.

And yes my experience with people who worked in large business or corporations is that they absolutely do that with care, strategically cutting back where it does the least harm to their future. That's not what Doge is doing. And I guarantee you no business or corporation will be jumping to find ways to take LESS money in like this administration has planned.

Just one of the many ironies--some say it should be managed like a business, but no business would survive if they managed like DOGE and the current administration is!

Since you asked I suspect many government employees on this board or those close to them will have universal agreement on this. If there's a need to cut back, ask the employees where that should occur. They will have some good ideas in my experience--but no one ever asks them.

The caveat there is to remember that may not play in every department--those who have had staff and budgets cut again and again may not have much if anything left to cut unless the public is prepared to not have the services those agencies provide anymore.

Not sure, it’s too early to tell. I can only tell you how things have happened in the past, correct?

Hmm, no business would survive? Didn’t they say that about twitter/X after Elon cut 80% of its employees? In 2021 twitter had $5 billion revenue/$600 million profit. In 2024 X had $2.7 billion revenue/$1.2 billion profit according to Forbes. So, I’ll trust someone like Elon and his background over those on hunttalk. Unless any of you can show me your experience in running multiple multi-billion dollar companies.

It’s so cute you think big business makes decisions like a “surgeon”. My roommate from college worked for google and was let go 2 years ago. He had the second highest project completion rate and he had 2 of 3 projects get adopted division wide. From the emails shared with me he was tops in his division but was let go because he’d only been there 2 years total. 7 months ago they contacted him about coming back to work, essentially saying they made a mistake. He turned them down as he started his own consulting/freelance business. Despite what you think, when businesses are letting thousands of people go they are not doing it on an individual basis. Like I said in my previous post, if a mistake was made they will bring that position/person back.

As far as taxes go, we don’t know what will happen. You must have a crystal ball but I can’t tell the future.

 

[Irrelevant]

If Orange 2.0 had been similar to Orange 1.0, I think a lot of people would be discussing the upcoming draws, or debating the scoping muzzleloaders, or which new-fangled long-range cartridge is better than the other... but 2.0 immediately came for our public lands, and many people fear that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

it's literally everything the Newberg has been warning us about for decades. It's actually happening, but people are too caught up in #winning, and rubbing the losers faces in that steaming pile of #winning to care about what's coming down the pipe.

 

[Bullbrl]

What I don't get is that no one that ever actually tried to be successful in the private industry would ever do, what they support the orange emperor doing. If you downsize or need to fire people, you actually think about it first, you evaluate their workload, how their roles affect other roles, where the most bang for the buck is, and where you can actually find efficiencies. And most importantly you find ways to keep the best people irregardless of all that because great people are what make great companies. The only people stupid enough to indiscriminately fire people without justification or knowing anything about their jobs, would be some bureaucrat in DC that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground- oh wait, nevermind, that checks out.

How have you handled these issues in your massive companies?

Seems to me some pretty big players in the business world have come aboard and praising what is happening.

 

[cgasner1]

Unfortunately we can't fully divorce hunting from politics. If the feds fire a bunch of forest service and BLM workers, then that directly effects habitat and hunting. It's one thing if people want to talk about politics that don't affect wildlife/public land, another if it affects us.

There's definitely a line, and I don't envy @Big Fin and the other moderators for having to strike the balance.

Also have you talked to anyone at the forest service personally? Other than reading news articles? Not picking on you here but the forest service that manages the part of the world I hunt kept all 9 employees. May be a small sample size but that’s from the guy with almost 35 years in. He said some other people have lost jobs

 

[Gulf of America]

I wish Randy would shit can any thread that goes remotely political no matter the subject. Lots of them here lately. mtmuley

This site is the sole source for many people (myself included, for the most part) to get information on what is happening at the local and national level, and if we hunters don’t show up and fight when politicians try to screw us, we won’t have any use for a public land hunting forum.

 

[texwest44]

I wouldn't say you are wrong for being concerned. I will say that I don't share the concern.

Which is fine, it isn't realistic to expect every single person to share it, it's just important that concerns are recognized, adequately understood, and reasonbly considered, which seems to be the case here today.

And with that, I'd say this particular cow is back in the barn.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

I think if the moderators discontinued the clown emoji buzz would move out on his own.
Baa-dunk

Carry on...this thread ain't bad i enjoyed it.

 

[Bullbrl]

people are too caught up in #winning, and rubbing the losers faces in that steaming pile of #winning to care about what's coming down the pipe.

That’s funny coming from the party of the last 4 years, hilarious. Seems to me the people of this country saw and felt what came down the pipe the previous 4 years and made their voices heard.

 

[Treeshark]

If you downsize or need to fire people, you actually think about it first, you evaluate their workload, how their roles affect other roles, where the most bang for the buck is, and where you can actually find efficiencies.

You’re right in theory, but unions make that very difficult.

 

[Big Fin]

How have you handled these issues in your massive companies?

Seems to me some pretty big players in the business world have come aboard and praising what is happening.

As I've mentioned here, I've been analyzing the posts people make and comparing their interest in posting on hunting topics versus their posts on political topics. You are an example what I'm referring to.

Since you were a "winner" in that analysis, I pulled up your account and I went through all 382 posts you've made here. In the first twenty, there were a few posts I might be able to say were slightly related to hunting. In the last 360, not a single one of them was in a hunting related thread.


Next........