Another positive

leaningright

leaningright

Moderate Republican
Staff member
I always look for positive things (at least in my eyes) administrations get behind. This might seem like a very small thing to most here but it is a very important thing to me. Without public land or land open to the public hunting and fishing is reserved for the aristocrats ... just the wealthy. I pray that it is never this way in this country.

This is something Trump supports that I’m happy about...

“President Trump opens 1.4 million acres up to hunters and fishermen...”

https://newsradiowrva.radio.com/blo...-opens-14-million-acres-hunters-and-fishermen
 
I want to know more about it before I agree. Will these hunters and fishermen have to buy special permits, and will that money be used to manage the resources? Who is going to oversee the hunting and fishing to make sure that ppl are not taking more than what is permitted? Who's going to pay for those doing the oversight? Is this going to require that roads be built to allow access? If so, how what impact will that have on the area being considered? Will this activity make it unsafe for non-hunters/fishermen to visit these treasures?

The whole idea of a "wildlife refuge" is a large area set aside for -- wait for it -- wildlife. Unless strict rules are in place -- and ENFORCED -- there goes the wildlife. Alaska has a lot of experience with poaching and encroaching on its federally-managed lands. They also have stiff penalties for those who violate the regulations. Will the proposed hunting/fishing on these refuges be similarly regulated and will there be severe penalties for violations?
 
leaningright said:
I always look for positive things (at least in my eyes) administrations get behind. This might seem like a very small thing to most here but it is a very important thing to me. Without public land or land open to the public hunting and fishing is reserved for the aristocrats ... just the wealthy. I pray that it is never this way in this country.

This is something Trump supports that I’m happy about...

“President Trump opens 1.4 million acres up to hunters and fishermen...”

https://newsradiowrva.radio.com/blo...-opens-14-million-acres-hunters-and-fishermen
Click to expand...

I don't believe a single word Trump says
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I want to know more about it before I agree. Will these hunters and fishermen have to buy special permits, and will that money be used to manage the resources? Who is going to oversee the hunting and fishing to make sure that ppl are not taking more than what is permitted? Who's going to pay for those doing the oversight? Is this going to require that roads be built to allow access? If so, how what impact will that have on the area being considered? Will this activity make it unsafe for non-hunters/fishermen to visit these treasures?

The whole idea of a "wildlife refuge" is a large area set aside for -- wait for it -- wildlife. Unless strict rules are in place -- and ENFORCED -- there goes the wildlife. Alaska has a lot of experience with poaching and encroaching on its federally-managed lands. They also have stiff penalties for those who violate the regulations. Will the proposed hunting/fishing on these refuges be similarly regulated and will there be severe penalties for violations?
Click to expand...

Wildlife management through fee permit systems have been practiced by both federal and state agencies for decades and have a solid reputation of success. Your questions assume that this is not the case; a rather odd position.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I want to know more about it before I agree. Will these hunters and fishermen have to buy special permits, and will that money be used to manage the resources? Who is going to oversee the hunting and fishing to make sure that ppl are not taking more than what is permitted? Who's going to pay for those doing the oversight? Is this going to require that roads be built to allow access? If so, how what impact will that have on the area being considered? Will this activity make it unsafe for non-hunters/fishermen to visit these treasures?

The whole idea of a "wildlife refuge" is a large area set aside for -- wait for it -- wildlife. Unless strict rules are in place -- and ENFORCED -- there goes the wildlife. Alaska has a lot of experience with poaching and encroaching on its federally-managed lands. They also have stiff penalties for those who violate the regulations. Will the proposed hunting/fishing on these refuges be similarly regulated and will there be severe penalties for violations?
Click to expand...

These refuges in question already allow hunting. They are just opening more acreage, extending some seasons and allowing more species to be hunted. The state manges these areas in conjunction with the fish and wildlife service and they do a good job with conservation. Likewise, hunters do a good job of funding their own recreation. Fees from licenses, federal duck stamps, and the revenue from the Pittman-Robertson act are the main drivers, as well as funding through private organizations.
 
reagansghost said:
I don't believe a single word Trump says
Click to expand...

I agree, based on his track record, you got to be suspicious, watch, along with the declaration there will be some hidden loophole that in two years the same land can be open for private development

And you got to laugh thinking that Trump, born in raise in NYC, gives a rat's ass about hunting and fishing, the only time he possibly did either was the last time he mistakenly stepped into a grocery store
 
Dark Soul said:
Wildlife management through fee permit systems have been practiced by both federal and state agencies for decades and have a solid reputation of success. Your questions assume that this is not the case; a rather odd position.
Click to expand...

States in general do a decent job of regulating and enforcing hunting/fishing to ensure that greed doesn't remove all the animals/fish from an area. People cannot be trusted to behave responsibly especially if they think that they can get away with something because the game wardens are few and far between. This is, of course, the reason we have these large tracts of land set aside -- so we'll continue to have wildlife.
 
Dirt McGirt said:
These refuges in question already allow hunting. They are just opening more acreage, extending some seasons and allowing more species to be hunted. The state manges these areas in conjunction with the fish and wildlife service and they do a good job with conservation. Likewise, hunters do a good job of funding their own recreation. Fees from licenses, federal duck stamps, and the revenue from the Pittman-Robertson act are the main drivers, as well as funding through private organizations.
Click to expand...

I plan on making comment on the proposal as soon as it's open for public comment. We need to know a lot more than what was in this brief article. You mentioned "more species." Like which ones?
 
reagansghost said:
I don't believe a single word Trump says
Click to expand...

I don't either, and nobody should.

"To understand any budget, all you need to see are the numbers. And when you look at the Trump administration’s 2020 budget proposal for the Department of the Interior, those numbers paint a pretty clear picture. Despite rhetoric about allocating more money for fire suppression and to address the National Park Service’s overwhelming maintenance backlog, the reality is that, if this proposal were to move forward, there would be less cash to go around for virtually everyline item that isn’t directly related to oil and gas extraction.

The good news?The President doesn’t set the federal government’s budget; Congress does. And, according to House Natural Resources Committee Chair Raúl Grijalva, “This isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, it’s dead on arrival in Congress, and printing it was a waste of time.”

But, as an indication of the Trump administration’s priorities, the balance sheets in this budget are about as truthful as it gets. The administration is committed to slashing funding for our national parks and public lands. Let’s cut through the bullshit.

The Rhetoric: “One of Interior’s highest priorities remains to address the deferred maintenance backlog on Federal lands," reads the proposed budget. "At the end of 2018, Interior’s backlog was over $16.0 billion, about three quarters of which is in the National Park Service’s (NPS) crumbling roads, bridges, water systems, and facilities.”

The Reality: The total NPS budget would be cut by $494,946,000. This includes cuts to the operations budget of $52 million, a $31-million cut to the National Recreation and Preservation fund, a $64-million cut to the Historic Preservation Fund, a $113-million cut for the construction and major maintenance budget, and a $176-million cut for land acquisition and state assistance programs.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2391927/trump-budget-cuts-2020-national-parks
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I want to know more about it before I agree. Will these hunters and fishermen have to buy special permits, and will that money be used to manage the resources? Who is going to oversee the hunting and fishing to make sure that ppl are not taking more than what is permitted? Who's going to pay for those doing the oversight? Is this going to require that roads be built to allow access? If so, how what impact will that have on the area being considered? Will this activity make it unsafe for non-hunters/fishermen to visit these treasures?

The whole idea of a "wildlife refuge" is a large area set aside for -- wait for it -- wildlife. Unless strict rules are in place -- and ENFORCED -- there goes the wildlife. Alaska has a lot of experience with poaching and encroaching on its federally-managed lands. They also have stiff penalties for those who violate the regulations. Will the proposed hunting/fishing on these refuges be similarly regulated and will there be severe penalties for violations?
Click to expand...

ALL hunting license fees go to wildlife management. Hunting is a form of that management.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
States in general do a decent job of regulating and enforcing hunting/fishing to ensure that greed doesn't remove all the animals/fish from an area. People cannot be trusted to behave responsibly especially if they think that they can get away with something because the game wardens are few and far between. This is, of course, the reason we have these large tracts of land set aside -- so we'll continue to have wildlife.
Click to expand...

Sportsmen are typically among the fiercest protectors of the environment and wildlife resources, so this new position that you've expressed isn't reasonable either.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I want to know more about it before I agree. Will these hunters and fishermen have to buy special permits, and will that money be used to manage the resources? Who is going to oversee the hunting and fishing to make sure that ppl are not taking more than what is permitted? Who's going to pay for those doing the oversight? Is this going to require that roads be built to allow access? If so, how what impact will that have on the area being considered? Will this activity make it unsafe for non-hunters/fishermen to visit these treasures?

The whole idea of a "wildlife refuge" is a large area set aside for -- wait for it -- wildlife. Unless strict rules are in place -- and ENFORCED -- there goes the wildlife. Alaska has a lot of experience with poaching and encroaching on its federally-managed lands. They also have stiff penalties for those who violate the regulations. Will the proposed hunting/fishing on these refuges be similarly regulated and will there be severe penalties for violations?
Click to expand...

A guy who supports his sons gunning down leopards, murdering elephants, and shooting up giraffes is not a guy I trust to be a genuine advocate for wildlife conservation.
 
leaningright said:
I always look for positive things (at least in my eyes) administrations get behind. This might seem like a very small thing to most here but it is a very important thing to me. Without public land or land open to the public hunting and fishing is reserved for the aristocrats ... just the wealthy. I pray that it is never this way in this country.

This is something Trump supports that I’m happy about...

“President Trump opens 1.4 million acres up to hunters and fishermen...”

https://newsradiowrva.radio.com/blo...-opens-14-million-acres-hunters-and-fishermen
Click to expand...

I doubt you have ever gone out of your way to make a pointed criticism of President Pussy Grabber. I would bet the odds are close to 100 percent that almost everything you post provides cover for Trump, or defends and supports him.
 
Cypress said:
I doubt you have ever gone out of your way to make a pointed criticism of President Pussy Grabber. I would bet the odds are close to 100 percent that almost everything you post provides cover for Trump, or defends and supports him.
Click to expand...

What exactly does any of that have to do with what the OP is about?
 
reagansghost said:
I don't believe a single word Trump says
Click to expand...

The landmark Endangered Species Act is under relentless assault by Republicans.

The Trump family believes in murdering elephants and leopards.

Anyone attempting to make the claim that Republicans are better for wildlife conservation are the exact same people that attempted to claim Donald Trump was the flower-child peacenik candidate in the face of war-monger Clinton -- aka, such claims can only be made by the utterly deluded or the profoundly dishonest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top