Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 42

Thread: Another positive

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    10,125
    Thanks
    3,144
    Thanked 4,536 Times in 2,978 Posts
    Groans
    84
    Groaned 107 Times in 102 Posts

    Default Another positive

    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/blog...-and-fishermen

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to leaningright For This Post:

    Sailor (06-18-2019), Stretch (06-19-2019), Truth Detector (06-18-2019)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,287
    Thanks
    145,695
    Thanked 82,519 Times in 52,737 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    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?

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ThatOwlWoman For This Post:

    Cypress (06-18-2019), Guno צְבִי (06-18-2019)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    24,892
    Thanks
    4,196
    Thanked 15,334 Times in 9,321 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,825 Times in 2,563 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leaningright View Post
    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/blog...-and-fishermen
    I don't believe a single word Trump says

  6. The Following User Groans At reagansghost For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (06-19-2019)

  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to reagansghost For This Post:

    Cypress (06-18-2019), domer76 (06-18-2019), Guno צְבִי (06-18-2019), ThatOwlWoman (06-18-2019)

  8. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    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?
    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.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MAGA MAN For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (06-19-2019), Truth Detector (06-18-2019)

  10. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reagansghost View Post
    I don't believe a single word Trump says
    Of course. After all, everything he says is a lie, unless he's cutting up with a fellow TV personality in a private conversation...

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MAGA MAN For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (06-19-2019), Darth Omar (06-18-2019), Stretch (06-19-2019), Truth Detector (06-18-2019)

  12. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    290
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 144 Times in 99 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 10 Times in 10 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    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?
    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.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dirt McGirt For This Post:

    MAGA MAN (06-18-2019), Truth Detector (06-18-2019)

  14. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,960
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,041 Times in 13,848 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reagansghost View Post
    I don't believe a single word Trump says
    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

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to archives For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (06-18-2019), LV426 (06-18-2019), ThatOwlWoman (06-18-2019)

  16. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,287
    Thanks
    145,695
    Thanked 82,519 Times in 52,737 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Soul View Post
    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.
    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.

  17. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,287
    Thanks
    145,695
    Thanked 82,519 Times in 52,737 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirt McGirt View Post
    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.
    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?

  18. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    7,405
    Thanks
    757
    Thanked 2,440 Times in 2,013 Posts
    Groans
    60
    Groaned 611 Times in 582 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reagansghost View Post
    I don't believe a single word Trump says
    There is that!
    Tie Your 'roo down Mate

  19. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,533
    Thanks
    65,160
    Thanked 38,092 Times in 25,663 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reagansghost View Post
    I don't believe a single word Trump says
    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/239192...national-parks


    “What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
    ― Charles Dickens

  20. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    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?
    ALL hunting license fees go to wildlife management. Hunting is a form of that management.
    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Truth Detector For This Post:

    MAGA MAN (06-18-2019)

  22. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    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.
    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.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to MAGA MAN For This Post:

    Sailor (06-18-2019)

  24. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,287
    Thanks
    145,695
    Thanked 82,519 Times in 52,737 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Soul View Post
    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.
    What makes you think that my cautious approach is a "new position"?

  25. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Blue Ridge
    Posts
    37,741
    Thanks
    21,918
    Thanked 12,581 Times in 9,703 Posts
    Groans
    4,312
    Groaned 1,312 Times in 1,210 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    What makes you think that my cautious approach is a "new position"?
    Because it's not the same one that I destroyed earlier...

Similar Threads

  1. Is there such a thing as positive racism?
    By daworm06 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-15-2018, 09:31 PM
  2. APP - Proof positive it was intentional
    By canceled.2021.3 in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-03-2016, 07:10 AM
  3. CDC: 62 Percent Of HIV-Positive Men Have Unprotected Sex
    By StormX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-06-2013, 08:39 AM
  4. HIV-positive mom had sex with 2 teens
    By RockX in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-18-2013, 12:17 PM
  5. Proof Positive the NRA Was Right....Oh, Wait!
    By Althea in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-22-2013, 09:38 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •