Santorum to end hunting on Public Lands in Idaho

[RockyDog]

In Obama's first year i was hunting elk in an area just outside yellowstone national park.

For the first time in history, hunters were able to walk through the national park carrying a rifle to access public national forest. It was very cool.

The reason why - Obama signed a particular bill that included allowing guns in national parks.

So i fail to buy into the fear that Obama is going to take our guns.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Therein lies the problem...your bill of rights could do a 180 in the next president's term if that president is Obama.

While I think that many of the critiques mentioned of the republican candidates are valid to some extent, Obama has a pretty poor track record on SC Justice appointments. Both Kagan and Sotomayor are very anti-gun. Heller and MacDonald were both 5-4 votes...you do the math on the next president's importance to gun rights.

Congress makes laws. Not the executive. And for what it's worth, we've already ceded our 4th and 5th amendment rights to Government. So what good is owning a gun if I have no place to use it, and have no other rights to go along with it? I keep hearing how the 2A advocates are going to save America. Must be Dancing with the Stars night, because they're all at home when the other amendments get threatened.

BTW - Mark nailed it. The precedent set by Heller and MacDonald will keep our 2A rights solid. I don't see congress rushing to pass gun bans, which thanks to the NRA are political suicide.

Besides, do we want more of Scalia, Thomas and Roberts telling us that corporations are people and have the same rights as actual citizens?

 

[WV Hunter]

And for what it's worth, we've already ceded our 4th and 5th amendment rights to Government. So what good is owning a gun if I have no place to use it, and have no other rights to go along with it?

I think you have confused what a guns use is actually for, you came close in the first sentence but then you zigged when you should have zagged.

I am happy that we have public lands but I don't see anything saying that the fed.gov can't decide on a whim to restrict use from hunting, hiking and camping like some state govs already have. I hope some of the lefts champion lobbyist groups (anti hunters) and so forth never get a solid foothold.

 

[mtlion]

If there is one issue where party lines should not matter it's protecting OUR public land. I don't know how many of you guys have foreign friends but I tell you this, our vast amount of publicly owned and accessible land in the US is the envy of the entire free world. We can not afford to let that heritage be lost. Our undeveloped public land is one of the defining characteristics of greatness belonging to our country.

 

[DreaminofMT6X6s]

Santorum scares me!!!

 

[brymoore]

I've become a disgruntled voter in my not so old age. I fail to see much difference in either party at this point. My voting strategy is slowly turning towards trying to ensure deadlock between the branches of government.

 

[Z Barebow]

It sure is playing out like I will have to multitask in Nov. How to hold my nose and vote at the same time.

From my point of view, I have become more and more cynical. THE factor which drives me is fiscal responsibility. The ONLY candidate who has presented any plans which would change the fiscal direction of this country is Ron Paul. He is the ONLY one who has shown his convictions consistently with his voting record. But for various reasons, he will not be on the ballot in Nov. I have moral convictions and beliefs, but these should not be part of the national political process. (These issues should be dealt with on a state/local level IMHO. EX If I am pro abortion and my state outlaws it, as a citizen of the US, it should be my choice to live in a state where it may be legal.) I say this as people are commenting that Santorum is the "conservative" choice. Look at his voting record. Fiscally, he has spent the tax payers money liberally. The ONLY thing he is conservative on is his religous viewpoint, and apparently this makes him conservative. HA! Neglecting any party affiliation, he is a anti-abortion fiscal liberal. He is George Bush re-incarnated.

brymoore is spot on- Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When GW had a Republican Congress, they abandoned any fiscal restraint and spent like drunken sailors. (I will say this, it took them longer to overspend) This ruined the fiscal conservative argument for the Rep party. Any fiscal conservative branding by the Republicans was ruined. and lost (IE Why the Dems swept in in 2008) From 2008-2010, the Dems took the spending template set by the previous administration and tripled down. They spent so much drunken sailors were insulted! Since the Dems lost the House in 2010, nothing major has moved through govt. And this is a GOOD thing! Both parties have shown us when they are empowered, they CANNOT be trusted and WILL piss in there own cornflakes with total majorities.

Whomever is on the ballot in Nov will not have the political will to make the drastic changes necessary and tell the American public, "The emperor has no clothes". We need politicians(LEADERS!) who do NOT care about getting re-elected by the masses and who are willing to make the fiscal hard choices now and save the future of our country and our children. As far as I am concerned, if there was a president who would make real cuts in government across the board, and ate puppies for breakfast, I would support them whole heartedly. Since these leaders do not appear to exist, the best I can hope for is a political structural that is incapable of dramatic swings.

If Obama wins, I am for a Rep House and Senate. If a Republican wins, I hope the Senate stays Dem.

 

[6speed]

if there was a president who would make real cuts in government across the board, and ate puppies for breakfast, I would support them whole heartedly.

My new favorite quote!

 

[JoseCuervo]

A follow up on the anti-hunting positions of Santorum, Romney, and Ron Paul. Anybody who doesn't think Republicans have a long history of trying to end hunting on public lands in the west is terribly naive or stupid, or, perhaps both.

OTHER CANDIDATES BROACH TRANSFERS

Santorum isn’t the only Republican in the race urging the federal government to transfer public land.

Rep. Ron Paul has called for eliminating the Department of Interior, which manages more than 500 million acres of public land and a big chunk of Idaho, almost two-thirds of which is owned by the federal government.

“I’d rather see the land owned and controlled by the states,” Paul told a crowd in Elko, Nev., earlier this month.

Romney’s campaign did not respond to an Idaho Statesman request for details about the candidate’s federal lands policy Wednesday.

Earlier this month, Romney told the Reno-Gazette Journal that he didn’t know why the federal government owned all the land and that he hadn’t studied the transfer issue.

“But where government ownership of land is designed to satisfy, let’s say, the most extreme environmentalists, from keeping a population from developing their coal, their gold, their other resources for the benefit of the state, I would find that to be unacceptable,” Romney said.

Of the four Republicans in Idaho’s congressional delegation, only Rep. Raul Labrador has expressed support for transferring public land to the state, which he did during his 2010 congressional campaign. Press secretary Ellen Carmichael said Wednesday that Labrador had no comment on Santorum’s proposal.

None of the rest of Idaho’s congressional delegation responded, either, by deadline Wednesday. Otter wasn’t available for comment.

But in 2005, when he was Idaho’s 1st District congressman, Otter co-sponsored a bill that would have required the Forest Service to sell15 percent of its land to help pay for the cost of helping victims of Hurricane Katrina.

After his 2006 Democratic opponent, Jerry Brady, made it an issue in the gubernatorial campaign, Otter acknowledged he made a mistake and reversed his position.

“As an avid sportsman, a Grand Slam member of Ducks Unlimited and a life member of the Safari Club International, I understand the importance of public land both to our wildlife and to the hunting and fishing public,” Otter wrote in a newspaper guest opinion in 2006.

But among Republicans, it’s been a divisive issue.

In the same year Otter backed off, the Idaho Senate voted to ask Congress not to sell significant portions of public land. But the Idaho House of Representatives did vote to ask Congress to transfer management of the national forests in Idaho to the state to pay for rural schools and roads.

The federal government owns 33.7 million acres in Idaho, almost 64 percent of the state’s land. Of that, 20.5 million acres are national forests and 11.9 million acres are owned by the Bureau of Land Management.

About 677,000 acres — 2.3 percent — of Santorum’s Pennsylvania is federal land, including national parks and the Allegheny National Forest.

A HISTORY OF CONTROVERSY

Watt, President Ronald Reagan’s interior secretary, proposed selling 35 million acres of public land in 1983 to help pay off the national debt. The proposal kicked off a storm of protest that forced him to back down.

“He became the biggest fund-raising tool the Sierra Club ever had,” said Rick Johnson, executive director of the Idaho Conservation League, who said Watt’s proposal was one reason he went into environmental work.

President Hoover proposed transferring to the states 190 million acres of public land that remained unsold in 1929. But he offered the land without the minerals beneath, which Westerners derided as “skimmed milk,” or “the lid without the bucket.”

The states rejected the transfer, said John Freemuth, a professor of political science at Boise State University.

Santorum said Tuesday the nation could not afford to manage its federal estate.

“The federal government doesn’t care about it, they don’t care about this land,” he said. “They don’t live here, they don’t care about it, we don’t care about it in Washington. It’s just flyover country for most of the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.”

But John Reuter, a Republican who just took over as director of the Conservation Voters for Idaho, said he opposes Santorum’s proposal.

Public lands, said Reuter, are “core to Idaho’s quality of life and its economy.”

 

[JoseCuervo]

Sorry guys, I'm just clinging to my guns and bible. I'm just your typical racists white person.

As long as you understand you are part of the problem for hunters of the west, enjoy your cool, crisp fall mornings listening to the sound of AM radio instead of hunting.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Wow that list is the farthest thing from a list of groups to donate to as a hunter. Jose you must be on the sauce! WWP you have to be kidding.

Then find other groups that protect and defend Public Lands. I was asked a question, and I replied with the groups who are by far the MOST effective and efficient in Idaho with protecting My Public Lands.

I have hunted on WWP land (East Fork of the Salmon, old Greenfire Ranch), so I know there isn't any issue there. You can make up whatever imaginary boogey-men you need, but make sure you are supporting groups that actually protect Public Lands and don't spend money building Headquarter Mansions/Buildings/Museums, publishing slick magazines, and the likes of most of the "feel-good" hunting groups.

 

[belly-deep]

Congress makes laws. Not the executive. And for what it's worth, we've already ceded our 4th and 5th amendment rights to Government. So what good is owning a gun if I have no place to use it, and have no other rights to go along with it? I keep hearing how the 2A advocates are going to save America. Must be Dancing with the Stars night, because they're all at home when the other amendments get threatened.

BTW - Mark nailed it. The precedent set by Heller and MacDonald will keep our 2A rights solid. I don't see congress rushing to pass gun bans, which thanks to the NRA are political suicide.

Besides, do we want more of Scalia, Thomas and Roberts telling us that corporations are people and have the same rights as actual citizens?

You're right Ben. Congress does make the laws. But the president also has this thing called "veto power" and the executive branch IS the branch that enforces laws and makes decisions regarding that.

Were you alive during the Clinton era? A very anti-gun administration...a very anti-gun executive branch.

In what ways have we ceded our 4th and 5th amend rights to the government? I'd just like you to clarify that rather broad statement.

BTW - Mark didn't nail it...the Supreme Court can overrule its previous rulings at ANY time...that's why they're "Supreme." You should read Roper v. Simmons some time. It is a juvenile death penalty case, but both the majority and dissenting opinions are very informative as to when/how/why the Court may overrule itself. Roper overturned precedent set just 15 years before.

The 5-4 decisions are the easiest split to overrule.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Pagosa, You've got the best post on this thread, hands down. It is funny to see people get all emotional over save the wolf, desert tortoise, and this and that species, which have some good merit, but sacrifice more important things. There are far more important issues then conservation(as noble as it may be), and besides, there are lots of laws already in place to protect these lands. Who gives a flip about conservation when we grind the faces of the poor, or are burdened with heavy taxes, or watch families destroyed or at the start of a cold war with China, or have the uncertainty of healthcare for our parents. Some on here seem to put conservation above other more important issues. It is as if they worship the earth before the God that made it. I'm sure no one is going to care that they can't drive their tank in wilderness when we are at war. And no one is going to care about hunting elk if we loose our great nation to immorality.

Kind of rambling, and poorly written, but, it looks like you agree with Pagosa, so you are likely uneducated, which would explain the poor writing.

Yes, hunting on Public Lands is important, and so is everything else tied to well-managed public lands in states like Idaho (and Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Alaska, etc..) Read some of Ben Lamb's posts and you might learn something.

As for your concerns of "grind the faces of the poor", I assume you are referring to Mitt Romney's comments that he doesn't have any concern for the poor. If you think neglecting the poor is more important than protecting Public Lands, you may be beyond help.

With your worry of "heavy taxes", are you referring to the 13% tax rate that Romney pays on his income or the 28% that Santorum pays on his? One is 1/3 less than they would have paid during Reagan's administration, the other is 2/3's less.

Not sure what is "destroy your families", but I am assuming you are referring to the 750k jobs that were being lost each month during the Dubya administration? Please explain how selling public lands would have helped that failure?

What is a "cold war with China"? Is that something they talk about on AM radio or on Fox News? Have no idea how that is important to this discussion, but you are willing to give up hunting on Public Lands so you can keep buying cheap plastic hangars from Wal-Mart for $1.19 for a 12-pack of Made in China hangars?

And, your "uncertainty for healthcare for your parents" is obviously a concern of the coupon clipping system that Paul Ryan is proposing where your parents will get coupons to go try and find doctor's that will treat them. Again, not sure how it relates to Public Lands, but, I am sure it is important on the Hannity show.

And no one is going to care about hunting elk if we loose our great nation to immorality.

You can live your life as immoral as you want, I really don't care what you do with small farm animals, not my business. But, I do care to hunt elk, and I would prefer your actions with small farm animals not hinder my pursuits.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I certainly think that clean air and water are more important than manufactured outrage over gay marriage.

I can't figure out how somebody in Idaho or Montana, or anywhere else that calls themselves a hunter is more worried about who is marrying who in Vermont than they are about who owns and manages the millions of acres outside their front door.

Nothing like a good culture war to identify the nutcases.

I'd rather vote for the guy who treats wives like stepping stones.

Kind of ironic the guy with 3 wives is not the Mormon guy.....

 

[Dinkshooter]

A HISTORY OF CONTROVERSY

Watt, President Ronald Reagan’s interior secretary, proposed selling 35 million acres of public land in 1983 to help pay off the national debt. The proposal kicked off a storm of protest that forced him to back down.

“He became the biggest fund-raising tool the Sierra Club ever had,” said Rick Johnson, executive director of the Idaho Conservation League, who said Watt’s proposal was one reason he went into environmental work.

Backfire, Backfire!!!!!!

 

[JoseCuervo]

Therein lies the problem...your bill of rights could do a 180 in the next president's term if that president is Obama.

While I think that many of the critiques mentioned of the republican candidates are valid to some extent, Obama has a pretty poor track record on SC Justice appointments. Both Kagan and Sotomayor are very anti-gun. Heller and MacDonald were both 5-4 votes...you do the math on the next president's importance to gun rights.

You are definitely drinking the NRA (please send us more money for NRA-ILA and to build new office palaces/buildings) kool-aid.

Living in fear produced by the NRA while ignoring policy statements of leading presidential candidates pretty much dooms hunting in the future.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I think you have confused what a guns use is actually for, you came close in the first sentence but then you zigged when you should have zagged.

I am happy that we have public lands but I don't see anything saying that the fed.gov can't decide on a whim to restrict use from hunting, hiking and camping like some state govs already have. I hope some of the lefts champion lobbyist groups (anti hunters) and so forth never get a solid foothold.

You are terribly naive to Public Land issues if you think the "lefts" are trying to close down Public Lands. Every locked gate I have ever found has been put up by a Welfare Rancher, whom, I would bet, votes on the "right" every time.

Don't try and create new paranoia about people trying to ban camping....

 

[belly-deep]

You are definitely drinking the NRA (please send us more money for NRA-ILA and to build new office palaces/buildings) kool-aid.

Living in fear produced by the NRA while ignoring policy statements of leading presidential candidates pretty much dooms hunting in the future.

Kool-aid? Kagan and Sotomayor are kool-aid? Their votes are pretty clear.

I don't think Obama will push for an outright gun ban. But anti-gun SC Justices will be no less detrimental.

 

[WV Hunter]

You are terribly naive to Public Land issues if you think the "lefts" are trying to close down Public Lands. Every locked gate I have ever found has been put up by a Welfare Rancher, whom, I would bet, votes on the "right" every time.

Don't try and create new paranoia about people trying to ban camping....

For someones that thinks their so smart, you sure are an idiot

 

[JoseCuervo]

Kool-aid? Kagan and Sotomayor are kool-aid? Their votes are pretty clear.

I don't think Obama will push for an outright gun ban. But anti-gun SC Justices will be no less detrimental.

Outright gun ban??? Holy shit. You definitely are drinking NRA kool-aid if you are making up fantasy worries while ignoring policy statements for guys running for president that want to sell Public Lands.

At some point, ignorance is going to get what it deserves, and have fun with not hunting any more. :W: