Getting Rid of Public Land

[Forerunner]

Straight Arrow, I cannot comment on the Democratic party in Montana, though I'd venture that they're much more conservative than the Democratic party nationally, and certainly more conservative than those in California. The problem is that as the Democrats move further and further left and push for more and more federal control, your more-conservative Democrats will have less and less control over their own state. And if you think that the Republicans have ambitions that are adverse to sportsmen, just wait until management of Montana by its own Democratic party is replace by the Democrats in D.C.

While the Republican party, and right-leaning organizations may have goals other than those of sportsmen, there is not one Republican, or right-ist organization I can think of whose aim is explicitly against those of sportsmen. None that I can think of who want to ban hunting/fishing. All such organizations find their home in the Democratic party. It seems it would be better to champion the cause of the conservationist, who must understand the need for some resource development, from within the Republican party, especially if you are a conservative, than to give up on the party.

Oak, to quote Dennis Prager, "There are two parties in this country. One is dumb, one is dangerous." I wish it was otherwise.

 

[Forerunner]

Ben, thanks for the kind words. You made a great point. I'm sure our respective opinions of the two parties are shaped largely by our local political environment. It certainly is a great and unique thing, that all Americans have the right to tread on our beautiful public lands. As someone who has grown up hunting and with his father, it saddens me that I am appreciably less-able to do so with my own children in my state, not not merely by loss of public lands, but by a concerted effort against sportsmen. Quite frankly, it is one of the best reasons I can think of to make some other state my home.

Sorry for the double post. Don't know how I did that.

 

[schmalts]

This is a crappy idea, selling Federal land to pay off debt. But we would not be in such a mess if we elected politicians who practice real budget cuts and spending caps and who realize a debt ceiling is a real line that should not be crossed. Once again I will state that the average voter has their heads in the sand at the implications that will no doubt have to come from being over 16 trillion dollars in the hole.

 

[Ben Lamb]

This is a crappy idea, selling Federal land to pay off debt. But we would not be in such a mess if we elected politicians who practice real budget cuts and spending caps and who realize a debt ceiling is a real line that should not be crossed.

Agreed. We may disagree about what to cut in the budget though.

I'm by no means a Paul Ryan fan, but I find it incredibly hypocritical of anyone who claims to want to reign in spending that we don't take an honest look at the Pentagon's budget.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/paul-ryan-military-compensation-overhaul-103460.html

 

[schmalts]

Agreed. We may disagree about what to cut in the budget though.

I'm by no means a Paul Ryan fan, but I find it incredibly hypocritical of anyone who claims to want to reign in spending that we don't take an honest look at the Pentagon's budget.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/paul-ryan-military-compensation-overhaul-103460.html

No incumbents. EVERY LAST ONE SHOULD BE GONE FOREVEVER

 

[Ben Lamb]

That's proven to be even more disastrous in states that have implemented term limits. The voters need to stop giving their authority away and exercise their sacred franchise.

 

[schmalts]

That's proven to be even more disastrous in states that have implemented term limits. The voters need to stop giving their authority away and exercise their sacred franchise.

How so, do you have an example of that claim? Take a look at any poll by any news source either left or right and it seems not too many are happy with the job these clowns are doing.

 

[noharleyyet]

Forerunner, well said....welcome.

 

[jryoung]

How so, do you have an example of that claim? Take a look at any poll by any news source either left or right and it seems not too many are happy with the job these clowns are doing.

But they are too afraid to vote them our or vote for a change in the system. That is the problem, everyone bitches, but they won't vote out an incumbent. The people keep voting for the status quo.

In CA in 2008, a whole new crop of freshman democrats showed up, they had a majority, but were so green they gave into every republican request and rolled over on a bunch of stuff.

We need seasoned leaders, but we need leaders who are willing to compromise and get stuff done. Hopefully in CA the open primary begins to pay some dividends and we can get some more moderate candidates.

 

[Ben Lamb]

How so, do you have an example of that claim? Take a look at any poll by any news source either left or right and it seems not too many are happy with the job these clowns are doing.

Pat, look at the chit-show Montana has become. It's not just wildlife laws that are ridiculous, there are a host of ideas that are patently unconstitutional, unworkable and downright dangerous every session because once we get guys trained on something as simple as how to run a committee, they're gone. There is no institutional knowledge left except for the lobbyists. You really believe that PP&L has your best interests at heart? What about O&G interests?

Term limits already exist. They're called elections. Instituting term limits is just voters abrogating their rights in favor of a quick fix. Term limits cheapen democracy.

JR's right. Congress repeatedly polls lower than cockroaches, but that's everyone else's congressman. Ours is great. That's the prevailing mentality. If you don't like what Congress is doing, get involved. Don't give up your right to choose the best candidate.

 

[Nemont]

The problem with term limits is that you end up fighting over the same hill you just nearly bled to death on. Also you turn more and more power over to the Bureaucrats because they will be there longer then the legislators. The ultimate term limiter is the ballot box.

It also makes partisanship more embedded in the political system.

If the people keep voting for the status quo, what does that tell you? They must like the status quo.

Term limits suck.

Nemont

 

[Corax]

First off, I do not agree with selling off national forests or other public lands. They aint making any more of it, and IMO it would be extremely dumb to finance current spending with land sales.

The Republican party is taking heat here for suggesting unpopular measures to bring down the federal budget and the debt. They are also taking heat in other forums for trying to cut benefits to other groups: old people (I am 63), the poor, students, you name it. The implication is that all we need to do is vote Democratic and we can have everything we want and someone else is going to pay for it. The reality is that we need to either cut a lot, raise taxes on all of us, or accept a dollar that is worth 25 cents.

Our priorities on this forum are in conflict with everyone else that wants something from the feds – I figure we are in line somewhere behind the unions and national public radio. IMO the first step is to accept that we are not going to get everything we want, and then to stay involved in the debate.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The ultimate term limiter is the ballot box.

Amen! And I believe that's what our forefathers intended. We have lost the continued valuable work of many good legislators due to term limits.

 

[schmalts]

We need term limits in the supreme court. Too many judges putting political agenda over the oath they took to enforce the constitution

 

[Big Fin]

Some interesting stuff to read. I take my wife on a wonderful trip for our 25th anniversary and all of a sudden we end up with intellectual dialogue rather than the normal "call him a worse name than he called me" winter doldrums argument. Glad to see the discourse, though obviously upset at the topic.

I will not use language that forces anyone to think I am implying anything. I will flat out state it.

None who identify first and foremost as Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives, left or right, are going to make the future of hunting or fishing a priority. If they self-assign themselves one of the aforementioned titles or categories, they have already told us their allegiances are more to parties or belief systems than it is to the cause of conservation.

The biggest mistake hunters and anglers could make in the next twenty years is to allow their most important priority to be made a partisan topic; and that temptation will be very great at times. To this point hunting, fishing, and conservation have had robust support on both sides of the aisle. We have accomplished all we have in the last 80 years by refusing to make our priority a bargaining chip of the political hacks. The minute you do that, you have periods when your chosen party is not in power and no work will be accomplished, or worse yet, the opposition dismantles all the institutions that we have spent decades building.

It is about the policy and the position, not the person. The person you oppose today might be your ally tomorrow. Yes, I would work with some in the MT legislature who have little use for me, if it meant progress for the causes I hold dear. I would let them take all the credit, if that is what it took to get the task accomplished. And when they are against the issues of my priority, they will know I am not going away without a fight.

So long as I own the platforms I do, I will be an equal opportunity supporter and an equal opportunity detractor. I will not be lead down a path that is right or left, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. Doing so results in a terminal path whereby we sell our souls for the favors of one or the other.

We should pressure all our hunting and fishing groups to stay as apolitical as possible. That does not mean being disengaged, rather advocating based on the principle and the position and rejecting the attempts to be sucked in the American cesspool where political favors are bought and traded like a free-falling stock on the NASDAQ.

It is inherent to the nature of leading groups and clans, or in this case, political parties, to care far less about the issues than the preservation of the group/clan/party. In the world of policy making and political parties, those in charge of preserving the clan are required to care a lot less about our issues and focus a lot more on whether or not we have the power to vote them out.

There are some who do share our passion. Yet, there are also some who will pander to us, not because they are our advocate, rather they fear our collective power when we reject the use of party tags or categories.

If the disingenuous in the world of politics and policy fear us, all the better. I would rather be in a position of being feared by one of the "bought and paid for" politicians than the position of being placated or taken for granted.

 

[schmalts]

But they are too afraid to vote them our or vote for a change in the system.

The majority are, but I do not think it is because they are afraid, it is more that they are so uninformed that they have no clue what is going on and when they go to the polls they pull the lever for the name they recognize.
Hell, ask 15 people under the age of 25 what an incumbent is and see if they even have a clue what you are talking about. Really, try it and you will be surprised.

 

[jryoung]

The majority are, but I do not think it is because they are afraid, it is more that they are so uninformed that they have no clue what is going on and when they go to the polls they pull the lever for the name they recognize.
Hell, ask 15 people under the age of 25 what an incumbent is and see if they even have a clue what you are talking about. Really, try it and you will be surprised.

Agreed, that's what I was trying to get at. Most voters only want to identify with a party or whatever rhetoric their candidate is spewing. If voters took the time to look at their candidate, look where they stood on issue, and more importantly how they are arriving at those decisions we'd be a whole lot better off.

The devil is always in the details, and we as voters aren't getting into them.