Romney: "I don't know what the purpose is" of public lands
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
sweetnectars last post was probably the best post I've seen on this topic.I want my guns and a place to hunt wth them.if that means hunting outside an oilfield so my fellow americans can have good high paying jobs,I say drill.if it means we are self sufficient, then I say drill some more.More people working and feeling secure in their employment are good for my business.Thats not the case for the past 3 years,and gov't health care has put the brakes on hiring and keeping unemployment high.any candidate ready to get rid of that BS has my vote.The health care stuff is a joke.If your a member of congress you get plan A,the rest of americans get plan C or junk
I can't imagine what would go thru someones mind to pull the lever for Obama again.I've seen alot of presidents in my time and he ranks right up there with Carter as the all time worst in my lifetime.This country use to be a place where hard work got you places.now, they want to take you extra money from your hard work to give it to Johnny dope addict that just can't find a good job or get out of bed.I'm tired of paying for some lazy unmotivated loser.I could actually collect disability for my back for years now,but prefer to be a man and strap my boots on and good to work and support myself and family
main issues for me in this election are what are your plans to get America working again,getting away from dependancy with the middle east,taxes.Public hunting land is far down on the list of worries as there are only so many places worth drilling.and, I know a liberal is a hunters worse nightmare.To say Obama is a moderate has got a good laugh out of me.give him back his dem.congress and see what other changes he'd have in store for us.The changes he was planning and doing his first 2 years is what brought the voters out in force to change those plans
I can't imagine what would go thru someones mind to pull the lever for Obama again.I've seen alot of presidents in my time and he ranks right up there with Carter as the all time worst in my lifetime.This country use to be a place where hard work got you places.now, they want to take you extra money from your hard work to give it to Johnny dope addict that just can't find a good job or get out of bed.I'm tired of paying for some lazy unmotivated loser.I could actually collect disability for my back for years now,but prefer to be a man and strap my boots on and good to work and support myself and family
main issues for me in this election are what are your plans to get America working again,getting away from dependancy with the middle east,taxes.Public hunting land is far down on the list of worries as there are only so many places worth drilling.and, I know a liberal is a hunters worse nightmare.To say Obama is a moderate has got a good laugh out of me.give him back his dem.congress and see what other changes he'd have in store for us.The changes he was planning and doing his first 2 years is what brought the voters out in force to change those plans
onpoint
Well-known member
Miller shoots, he scores.
DRAFTSTUD
Well-known member
Miller scores if you live out west! LOL I understand the little scoring points for your argument, but it always seems to be one way with no trying to understand how the other person views how OUR public lands are enjoyed. True, I get a big kick out of taking my Mules out West for some trail riding. But, if it means supporting Obama twisting his agenda, no thanks. John
onpoint
Well-known member
Oh, if politicians and wolves were our only wor......wait, never mind.
DRAFTSTUD
Well-known member
Fair enough. John
shoots-straight
Well-known member
That is the biggest crock of crap I think you have ever posted. You obviously don't spend any time on OUR public lands unless your hunting. The Wilderness areas next to my house have thousands of NR each year tromping around. The Parks, and WMA are very busy places all year long. People backpack, fish, moutain climb, ski, snowshoe, snowmobile, take photo's, film who know's what, all on our public lands.
You put oil derricks there, those people go elsewhere. You put an open pit mine there, they leave, and never show back. Fisheries die, or are greatly diminished with mining. Native grouse, and mule deer take big dives in populations, with oil and gas production as it is today.
Great, Mixed, Sweat, and Draftstud, can still take their weapons for a walk, without any chance of harvesting game, and still be happy. That's weak!
DRAFTSTUD
Well-known member
For some reason I have been made to sound like I want to come though the West and sell out the wild places and rape and pillage the West. I made reference to one thing, not about Strip mining or Drilling for OIl or Gas. SS, you need to chill Dude, either that or Kiss my Ass! John
Okay, so we have a glut of production and no market to put it into. SO why is industry then clamoring for removing the small regulatory changes put in place by this administration? I would say though, that the Marcellus Shale, Bakken, Wind River Basin, Pinedale Anticline and a host of other plays right now have increased production significantly. I don't know as much about the plays in the Gulf or Gulf states to say if production is up from 2008 or not.
To be sure, the increased leasing and permits to drill have come from Bush Era regulations. These are the same regulations that have caused the Wyoming Range mule deer herd to crash, have poisoned town water supplies (Pavillion, WY and Poplar, MT) and have created a situation where "being a friend to energy" has created even more corruption within the Federal Gov't, like when MMS got pinched for selling favors for drugs and sex to the industry they were supposed to regulate.
Elk herds like WY's Red Desert herd, and the Fortification Creek herd are in jeopardy, sage grouse have lost significant amounts of critical habitat and we lose opportunity to hunt on public lands because the last administration was a friend to industry over the concerns of public land hunters who simply asked that the development be done in a manner that respects other public land users.
I don't want any administration to be a friend to the industries they are supposed to regulate. I want administrations to be friends of the American people, not multi-national conglomerates who don't care about the rest of the world.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Gotta love an uneditible kiss my ass on a monday morning. We keep this up and the politics and opine forum will resurrect.
All you bammy apologists can kiss John's ass too.
All you bammy apologists can kiss John's ass too.
This is what we should be fighting, together, about:
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?p=2217332#post2217332
Tag theft in Idaho.
http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?p=2217332#post2217332
Tag theft in Idaho.
To me, this discussion illustrates how effective the political parties have become at making conservation a partisan issue and in the process, dividing the hunting community into R and D camps. Conservation and access both suffer when it becomes a partisan issue.
This type of discussion sends hunters retreat to corners defending "their boys," whether it be R or D. Too bad, when we see how we got to this point was by putting their feet to the fire, regardless of which party they were aligned with.
If Romney said something that stupid, those of us Republicans (which I at one time considered myself but have been told by some R's that I am not a Repub), need to hammer him, not defend him. Or if he stated that we need to lower oil and gas regulations to allow for even more fracturing of wildlife habitat, or that we need more roads in vital elk habitats, or .......
And if Obama said something so stupid as to imply the 2nd Amendment is not absolute, the Dems among us should toast him. Or if he thinks that wolves should not be managed, or that forests do not need to have managment , or .....
I say we quit defending them when they say something stupid. Hammer them. They take a lot more heed of criticism from their own power base than they do from their opponents.
I am a conservative person, but in no way am I going to defend someone saying something that stupid. Some policies implemented by Republicans, by pandering to the oil and gas industry, are the worst thing to happen to mule deer and antelope in my lifetime. And, (insert your issue here).....
Lack of forest management created by the protectionism ideas often touted by the Dems, or demanded by their well-healed donors, is equally bad for wildlife. Same with the feral horses that are ruining so much wildlife habitat in the Great Basin, feral horses usually being advocated by the Dem supporters. And, (insert your issue here).....
I could list many issues that either political side is promoting and in the process, making wildiife and habitat the currency by which they are paying their political debts. And we as hunters seem to be happy to let them raid our treasury for paying these debts, so long as it is "our guy."
If wildlife could vote, I am sure they would recall most all of Congress and certainly all of the Presidents of my adult lifetime. Same with most Govs and State Legislatures of the last 30 years.
By running to the defense of "our guy" who might make a stupid comment, all we do is foster further comfort in them taking other positions contrary to what is best for hunting and fishing.
The beauty of hunting, conservation, and public lands is that we have the facts and data that those topics are no brainer winners for either side if they decided to leave the fringe and start representing the middle. By defending hunting, conservation, and public access, hunters can do more for ourselves than by defending those politicians who are not worried about us, rather bowing to those extremists on both sides. Given how maleable we have become, I guess it should be no surprise.
We know that in an election year, there will be plenty of stupid statements by politicians on both sides, contrary to what is best for hunting and fishing. We need to hammer them when they do it, and hopefully they will get the message. Don't defend them. Stupid is stupid, whether it comes from an R or D.
I know I a dreaming, but a guy has to dream, right?
This type of discussion sends hunters retreat to corners defending "their boys," whether it be R or D. Too bad, when we see how we got to this point was by putting their feet to the fire, regardless of which party they were aligned with.
If Romney said something that stupid, those of us Republicans (which I at one time considered myself but have been told by some R's that I am not a Repub), need to hammer him, not defend him. Or if he stated that we need to lower oil and gas regulations to allow for even more fracturing of wildlife habitat, or that we need more roads in vital elk habitats, or .......
And if Obama said something so stupid as to imply the 2nd Amendment is not absolute, the Dems among us should toast him. Or if he thinks that wolves should not be managed, or that forests do not need to have managment , or .....
I say we quit defending them when they say something stupid. Hammer them. They take a lot more heed of criticism from their own power base than they do from their opponents.
I am a conservative person, but in no way am I going to defend someone saying something that stupid. Some policies implemented by Republicans, by pandering to the oil and gas industry, are the worst thing to happen to mule deer and antelope in my lifetime. And, (insert your issue here).....
Lack of forest management created by the protectionism ideas often touted by the Dems, or demanded by their well-healed donors, is equally bad for wildlife. Same with the feral horses that are ruining so much wildlife habitat in the Great Basin, feral horses usually being advocated by the Dem supporters. And, (insert your issue here).....
I could list many issues that either political side is promoting and in the process, making wildiife and habitat the currency by which they are paying their political debts. And we as hunters seem to be happy to let them raid our treasury for paying these debts, so long as it is "our guy."
If wildlife could vote, I am sure they would recall most all of Congress and certainly all of the Presidents of my adult lifetime. Same with most Govs and State Legislatures of the last 30 years.
By running to the defense of "our guy" who might make a stupid comment, all we do is foster further comfort in them taking other positions contrary to what is best for hunting and fishing.
The beauty of hunting, conservation, and public lands is that we have the facts and data that those topics are no brainer winners for either side if they decided to leave the fringe and start representing the middle. By defending hunting, conservation, and public access, hunters can do more for ourselves than by defending those politicians who are not worried about us, rather bowing to those extremists on both sides. Given how maleable we have become, I guess it should be no surprise.
We know that in an election year, there will be plenty of stupid statements by politicians on both sides, contrary to what is best for hunting and fishing. We need to hammer them when they do it, and hopefully they will get the message. Don't defend them. Stupid is stupid, whether it comes from an R or D.
I know I a dreaming, but a guy has to dream, right?
DRAFTSTUD
Well-known member
Well, I guess we could fund a Company that could produce energy from the Sun for a half a billion dollars. As for the Gulf and Gulf states, that is where my main knowlege comes from. That kink of money could have gone a long ways to setting up Natural Gas fueling stations along major highways. As for the fields you mentioned, yes I would suppose their production is up, as you have to realize a Gas or Oil Field is like a machine that has to be built. Wells have to be set in place and they only have so much time to define these fields or their leases run out and they have to invest million more to keep them. John
DRAFTSTUD
Well-known member
True Fin, I guess I was never meant to be a Political type. John
How much did the oil spill in the gulf cost the tax payer? How many species of wildlife died because of it? What damage to the wetlands and marshes were reaped? What about the huge spill in Michigan, or the little one on the Yellowstone? $5 says that the total cost of just cleaning up after big oil and gas is much higher than a $500 million gamble on a shady company.
I understand the machine that is the oil and gas industry. Was raised in it. My mother was the regional manager fro Hotline Energy Reporting Services back in the 80's, and my family ran a highly successful asphalt paving company in WY.
"We have to do it now" always leads to:
removal of winter drilling stipulations
ignoring the scientists hired by the O&G industry
poisoning of water supplies
dead livestock
Categorical exclusions on hundreds of new wells, without studying the cumulative effects
etc, etc, etc.
DRAFTSTUD
Well-known member
A gamble on a shady company? You got to be Kidding, you jump my butt over Oil and Gas, but since your man spent the money and lost it is just a gamble. That does not fly Ben. Every well we drill here in Louisiana, Texas and the Gulf states has to have a hearing to get it's approval. The BP guy who ignored what should have done was as guilty as the Captain of the Valdez. If it is done wrong, yes they should be punished as a Company, not as an Industry. John
John,
Not jumping your butt. I'm not an Okie.
It's great to have a hearing, but if the rules and regs are set up to expedite production, then the holes become obvious. The government was as complicit in the BP spill as BP, Halliburton, etc, were.
Same goes for the Solar deal. I hold them all in contempt. Better?
Not jumping your butt. I'm not an Okie.
It's great to have a hearing, but if the rules and regs are set up to expedite production, then the holes become obvious. The government was as complicit in the BP spill as BP, Halliburton, etc, were.
Same goes for the Solar deal. I hold them all in contempt. Better?
DRAFTSTUD
Well-known member
Shake! LOL John
Similar threads
- Locked
