Peay is better...no comparison.
I guess that opinion helps clear the air on some of these topics. Enough on that.
Do any of you realize what the end goal for these Eastern/foreign funded groups is? They want to have vast parks, full of bison, wolves, grizzly bears, a return to the "natural eco-system". The first level is to attain the lands from Ft. Benton to Fort Peck and to the Canadian border. Then work on Y2Y(Yellowstone to the Yukon)...the Y2Y sounds far fetched right now(but so did the "Big Open" back in the 70's)......Take a look at all the land AFP, Nat. Conservancy has bought...then look at what happens when we get signed into a Nat. Monument....chipping away, inch by inch, acre by acre. It may be inevitable the tide can not be stopped. But do not stick your head in the sand and pretend that your grandchildren are going to hunting these places. The last word I got from the APF is "we are pro-hunting for now". A lot of emphasis put on the "for now"....and was told "we do not know what direction APF will take when we have a new board of directors, most likely it won't always be this way". Still like bison, easements, and monuments? Think there will be public hunting allowed there in 5-10 years? I hope it takes 30-40 years, as I most likely won't be around to see it.
5 years ago I would have never believed that would think this way...time/events have a way of changing your perception on things.
Wow. That is a lot of dots to connect for that UN Agenda 21 theory to be put together.
Regardless of who believes what theory, this is a classic irony that I find so amusing. Loaded with hypocrisy.
I gotta ask, Eric. You state you are a landowner, worried about property rights, small government, etc. I suspect whether we are landowners or not, smaller government and property rights are high on the list of everyone reading this thread.
Yet, you imply that there is something wrong with American Prairie Foundation purchasing land from willing sellers. What is wrong with that? It is an exercise of the property rights of the seller.
Are you implying that you would want government to get bigger by stepping in and telling a property owner who they can or cannot sell to?
I don't think you feel that way, but if one reads your comments, that is what conclusion is drawn. To paraphrase what I got from your comments, you seem to think, "It is OK to sell your land, so long as it is to someone I like."
And once you acquire the land, your comments seem to say, "It is OK for you to own the land, so long as you do what we think you should do with it."
That is hypocrisy in spades. Bitch about what someone did with their land, yet claim to be a private property advocate.
Advocacy of property rights in not a one-sided religious ideology as practiced by the fringes of this discussions. One right starts where the other right ends. Whether it is a private right or a public right, a right in deeded land, a right held in trust, a right held individually or collectively. We may not like what some do with their property, but the 5th Amendment protects their right to do as they damn well please.
The 10th Amendment establishes rights held collectively by citizens, via being held the states, either outright or in trust. This 10th Amendment is one Amendment that many in the fringe think is no longer in play; that somehow it is not as important as the 5th, because it came 5 Amdendment later in the Bill of Rights. They are equally important, or at least if you believe in our Constitution, they are equally important.
It can't go both ways. Either we are property rights advocates and we let willing buyer-willing seller markets determine prices and eventual ownership. Or, we have government dictate the market.
Whether we like who bought the property, or not, it was sold in a willing buyer-willing seller transaction. As one fringe element of the landowner community once told hunters, "If you don't like what I am doing with my land, you should have bought it."
I would say the same appliies here. If you, or others who subscribe to the Agenda 21 theory, do not like it, I guess you should have bought the land now owned by the American Prairie Foundation.
I may not agree with who a landowner is, or what they do with their property, but if they own, they should do as they damn well please, regardless of what conspiracy theories I might have as to their motives and long-term plans.
To complain about a land transaction, or what a landowner is doing with the land, while professing to respect private property rights, is hypocrisy at its finest. No other way to say it.
I hope the APF land stays open to hunting and that they continue to lease pasture/farm ground to producers that can work within what plans they have, But if not, there is nothing I can about it - I don't own it. If I don't like it, I guess I should have bought it before they did.
I thought your earlier reference to Agenda 21 was an attempt at humor and did not even reply, only smiled at the humor I found in it. This convoluted weaving of conspiracies from the UN, to the APF, to the Y2Y, and now the new control of the entire Montana Hi-Line from Ft. Peck to Ft. Benton makes me smile even more.
As far as the Ft. Peck to Ft. Benton problem, I think Denny Rehberg is behind that one. Those concerned should demand a meeting with him. He has sponsored a bill, H.R. 1505, that would give Homeland Security control of not only that area of Montana, but anything within 100 miles of the Montana-Canada border.
So, some seem really worried about American Prairie Foundation buying land on the free market, but not a word about one of the "Good Old Boys" giving government control over millions of acres right in their own back yard. Seems if Agenda 21 is going to happen, Denny Rehberg is leading the charge. Maybe he is friends with the inept wingnuts over at the UN.
Which is better for the "average Joe" hunter?
