Kenetrek Boots

Rinella cuts through the hyperbole on Bears ears, etc

I found this piece to be very diplomatic. Which is reasonable for a dignitary with a brand to worry about when addressing something like this.
That being said - I did take particular note, like joelhunter, of the significance of the idea of a precedent being set, which could lead to a less than desirable outcome to an issue like this down the road.
I tend to worry if, for some of these issues, it's a little late for diplomacy.
Not everybody always leaves the table smiling, in the real world.......
 
onpoint said:
I found this piece to be very diplomatic. Which is reasonable for a dignitary with a brand to worry about when addressing something like this.
That being said - I did take particular note, like joelhunter, of the significance of the idea of a precedent being set, which could lead to a less than desirable outcome to an issue like this down the road.
I tend to worry if, for some of these issues, it's a little late for diplomacy.
Not everybody always leaves the table smiling, in the real world.......
Click to expand...

I viewed it not so much as diplomatic, as calling attention to the fact that neither major party is consistently "pro public land hunting", one does better on federal public lands and the other with hunting/sportsman's rights. In fact, some of his choice of words were definitely not diplomatic.
 
You'll find no disagreement from me concerning both "party's" shortcomings.
Lewis Black (paraphrased), "America is a two party system. The Republicans- the party of bad ideas. The Democrats - the party of no ideas".
I have seen that in Montana politics repeatedly.
To clarify the above - particularly when it comes to sportsmens/womens issues.
Unfortunately, the public (read voting hunters/anglers) put these very people in the position to legislate........
 
Last edited:
onpoint said:
You'll find no disagreement from me concerning both "party's" shortcomings.
Lewis Black (paraphrased), "America is a two party system. The Republicans- the party of bad ideas. The Democrats - the party of no ideas".
I have seen that in Montana politics repeatedly.
To clarify the above - particularly when it comes to sportsmens/womens issues.
Unfortunately, the public (read voting hunters/anglers) put these very people in the position to legislate........
Click to expand...

Agreed. I've always liked the related saying, "The GOP thinks everyone is too lazy to take care of themselves, and the Dems think everyone is too stupid to take care of themselves."
 
RobG said:
I guess Patagonia changed their wording on their "stolen land" ad, and BHA changed some words in their statement. Good. When the other side accuses you of peddling fake news, it is helpful to our side if we don't go around peddling fake news. I saw Glenn Beck railing on Patagonia about their claim that land was stolen, but then he went on to say you couldn't leave the road in these monuments, which was completely wrong. All this fake news does is make people give up on searching for the truth, and the people in control are fine with that.
Click to expand...

Glenn Beck is a loon. Steven Rinella is a guy I want on my side, a great spokesperson for the "out of doors".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Court ruled in favor of access. Now we are all hoping the state accepts the ruling and that some in the legislature doesn't try to pass another law to void the court ruling.
 
Another big fan of Rinella here. I will say I don't agree with everything he says but I always like to hear his take on things. I know I'm in the minority here but I liked this move. I have seen a great hunting area go from a monument to a much larger park, and with that designation went our hunting rights on these lands. I know that state ownership of lands is a hot topic and I understand why. My question is this. If we think lands may end up transferred to the states, why don't we move to make it more difficult for the states to sell off our lands? Can't we get a hold of our lawmakers and push them to write a bill that would do this? I'll be interested to hear everyones thoughts on this. Thanks
 
smitho said:
Another big fan of Rinella here. I will say I don't agree with everything he says but I always like to hear his take on things. I know I'm in the minority here but I liked this move. I have seen a great hunting area go from a monument to a much larger park, and with that designation went our hunting rights on these lands. I know that state ownership of lands is a hot topic and I understand why. My question is this. If we think lands may end up transferred to the states, why don't we move to make it more difficult for the states to sell off our lands? Can't we get a hold of our lawmakers and push them to write a bill that would do this? I'll be interested to hear everyones thoughts on this. Thanks
Click to expand...

Last year several leading members of the Wyoming Legislature proposed an amendment to the State Constitution that would have prohibited the sale of federal land transferred to the State. Hundreds of people showed up to oppose the bill at two hearings. Why were we so against it? It wouldn't have been worth the paper it was written on, and it would have paved the way for transfer. Don't ever let your legislature try to pull the wool over your eyes with a worthless promise not to sell transferred land!
 
Yeah, Fielder tried to pass a law prohibiting the sale of state land in MT. It was a dangerous diversion. The problem is that they could just as easily repeal that law once the land is transferred. Also, sometimes it makes sense to sell or trade lands.

Of course now all the PLT folks try to make something out of our opposition to this law. They will say anything.
 
RobG said:
Yeah, Fielder tried to pass a law prohibiting the sale of state land in MT. It was a dangerous diversion. The problem is that they could just as easily repeal that law once the land is transferred. Also, sometimes it makes sense to sell or trade lands.

Of course now all the PLT folks try to make something out of our opposition to this law. They will say anything.
Click to expand...

And the proposed legislation was unconstitutional. The state cannot dictate to the Fed. The supremacy clause is pretty clear in that regard.
 
RobG said:
Yeah, Fielder tried to pass a law prohibiting the sale of state land in MT. It was a dangerous diversion. The problem is that they could just as easily repeal that law once the land is transferred. Also, sometimes it makes sense to sell or trade lands.

Of course now all the PLT folks try to make something out of our opposition to this law. They will say anything.
Click to expand...

Here is a link to a video showing how upset people were in Wyoming about the proposed Constitutional Amendment. More than 150 people attended the hearing in Cheyenne on December 14, 2016. Nearly a quarter of a million people watched this video.

https://www.facebook.com/WYHAA/videos/1795697197314437/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
SCOTUS signals interest in taking a look at Antiquities Act (Monuments)
Replies
7
Views
3K
BrannDave
BrannDave
O
Oklahoma Bear
Replies
15
Views
2K
BackofBeyond
BackofBeyond
Nick87
Long time coming.
5 6 7
Replies
127
Views
4K
Dave N
Dave N
The Hedgehog
Rinella article.. CUT AND PASTED
19 20 21
Replies
400
Views
53K
bbright
bbright
RobertD
School me on black bear skinning cuts
Replies
6
Views
2K
RobertD
RobertD
Ollin Magnetic Digiscoping Systems

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,675
Messages
2,029,234
Members
36,279
Latest member
TURKEY NUT

Share this page

Back
Top