What??? Will be the Economic Base?

[BuzzH]

MD4ME, dont get "anti-hunting" and "anti-use" confused...

Its plenty easy to maintain or improve hunting with "anti" or "limited" use restrictions...

And further, just because some people would rather see limited-use, rather than wide open use, surely doesnt make them anti-hunters.

 

[Ithaca 37]

"As a hunter I see no reason we shouldn't do everything possible to keep increasing the hunting & fishing indrustry."

Well, then quit voting for politicians who are anti- Idaho Fish and Game Dept.

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Elkchsr said, "shouldn't have much if any say of what goes on in rural America. These people neither understand any thing they are donating their dollars or voting for. The public is a fickle thing and shouldn't be addressing management issues.."

Thats a load of crap.

Do the people who "live out of the region" not pay their share of taxes? Do their tax dollars not support public lands management, or "mismanagement"? What makes people like you ELKCHSR, think you understand things any better? Because you live in Anaconda? Thats a laugh.

What the hell gives some honyocker who lives in MT, ID, or anywhere else in the West more of a say in PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT decisions than someone who lives in West Virginia, Maine, or Florida?

Maybe all the smart assed Westerners who seem to think they have all the answers should stop taking the buttloads of federal dollars they receive (from the PUBLIC) each year for everything under the sun, (public lands management, highways, schools, etc. etc. etc.) If the Westerners want absolute rights to control Federal Lands Management, I suggest they purchase it from the Feds, and FUND the management of the lands they buy...until then, I strongly urge all tax payers to educate themselves and comment on public lands management. When I fund something, I want the right to have a voice in the decision making process. How many people would invest a lot of money in a business venture without having a say in how things are run? Only the dumbbells I guess....

The public absolutely does have, and should have, the right to comment, lobby, and pass laws any way they see fit to manage the land thats held in public trust. Its their land and their money funding what goes on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
!!!TSK!!!TSK!!!TSK!!! Still just a litte angry at the world are we Buzz!!!

 

[ELKCHSR]

Besides, I don't believe that people out of area should have any say on the lively hoods of those in regions far removed from their little glass houses...
Well unless it is a matter of helping sustain those areas, it is those areas that bring in the most raw product this country uses and needs to survive, it is these areas that the main populace of the U.S. depend on in their every day hippicritical, self serving lives...

 

[1_pointer]

If it wasn't for the manufacturing centers 'elsewhere' what good would the raw materials be?

IMO, anyone can find a way to make a living still today. Heck, I have!

If you tie yourself to only wanting to live in a certain area, you have narrowed the job market for yourself. If you just want to do a certain job, you may have to move to a place that it is profitable. There's no free lunch...

 

[ELKCHSR]

Yep Tyler your exactly right. But I don't see any one in the urban regions that collect the raw products doing much to try and change the peoples lives by mandate that live in the other regions. This is only a one way street, and most of it is voted on or mandated by people that don't have any idea of what they are doing. It just makes them feel all warm and fuzzy!

 

[BuzzH]

Elkchsr, quit yacking and start proving some points...

Explain to me why you think its alright to exclude public involvement in resource management issues when the $$$ for management comes from THE PUBLIC, and the land in question is owned BY THE PUBLIC.

Like I said, if the Westerners want absolute authority, then purchase the land from the Feds and come up with the money to manage the land...quit leaching off the taxpayer and then whining when they want a rightful say in the decisions...

You have no more or no less right to comment as you see fit...neither does someone from the Bronx, LA, or Dallas.

By the way, I'm not angry at all...in fact just the opposite, I'm winning this issue big time. Many, many, many comments are received every year by the public from all over the country...and management plans, decisions, etc. are adjusted accordingly to facilitate the comments received.

You're the one who's whining and bitching...and thats all your able to do about it...I'll have that last laugh at your expense.

Long live public lands and the publics right to comment and participate in the management of their lands. You gotta love America for that.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Buzz,

I think ol' Elkchsr is just jerking your chain. There is no way anybody would actually believe those comments. He is just trying to get a reaction, as no one is that dumb.

Here is an answer to the original question, about how people will work in Idaho, after they quit destroying the natural resources.

From Buck Knives Home Page...
Buck Knives Planning to Move to Idaho in 2005

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Buck Knives Planning to Move to Idaho in 2005


OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW GROWTH LED TO BUCK DECISION TO MOVE TO IDAHO

As part of an overall corporate strategy to implement the company’s 21st century business model, Buck Knives is underway with a plan to move their operation to Post Falls, Idaho, where they will have a new facility built to suit their needs.

Arguably the most famous name in sports cutlery, Buck celebrated its 100th Anniversary in 2002, and is implementing a plan for the next 100 years of making knives.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lemme' guess. They are moving to Idaho in order to clear cut the Clearwater Forest? Or are they moving to a place with access to an airport and an educated populace???

 

[Ten Bears]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Do you think we'd sell all the non-resident deer tags like we used to? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Lowering the price would sell those tags too, but is the objective to sell tags, or opportunity? Is the objective to fund an agency, or kill more deer?????

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Lemme' guess. They are moving to Idaho in order to clear cut the Clearwater Forest? Or are they moving to a place with access to an airport and an educated populace??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would wager that it has nothing to do with an airport or an educated populace, and everything to do with Kootenai County's assurances of cheap industrial tax refief, high volume of unskilled labor, and low minimum wages through right to work laws.

 

[dgibson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would wager that it has nothing to do with an airport or an educated populace, and everything to do with Kootenai County's assurances of cheap industrial tax refief, high volume of unskilled labor, and low minimum wages through right to work laws.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed!

 

[1_pointer]

But couldn't that be said for MANY counties? Hell there are two in UT with less than 2000 year round residents. I agree with what your saying in also agreeing with what gunner said.

Kinda like why there's a Toyota plant in Princeton, IN instead of Owensboro, KY. That and IN has SMART laborers!

Right, DG?

 

[dgibson]

Absolutely correct! It had nothing at all to do with the fact that Princeton was willing to condemn hundreds of acres of surrounding farm lands in order to give Toyota their little fiefdom...or the fact that they promised them all but their firstborn children to get them to move there. We ALL know that Princetonians are SO much smarter than any hayseed hick from Kentucky, so that must have been it.

Sure, it's a combination of things; a factory isn't going to build if there isn't a viable means of transporting their goods nearby. But towns with airports and highway access are a dime a dozen...the clincher's in the "incentive package."

 

[1_pointer]

You're right, I was just joshin'. They wanted to be in Vanderburgh Co, but Gibson, Co, has less restrictive environmental guidelines.