Sportsman's Act

Wow, old Barbara was the only D who voted against the sportsmen act. I wonder how many nature lovers understand how bad things would be for wildlife if it wasn't for sportsmen like us. Read the quote in my signature, it says a lot.
 
http://helenair.com/news/state-and-...cle_1d5cbe2c-3820-11e2-80f4-001a4bcf887a.html

Just a note. It doesn't do much good to vote gun rights. when you will have no time or place to use them. If your working 16 hours a day with no health care, no retirement and then throw in dwindling public access to a place to conduct our sport. Guns really only have one purpose then. To protect yourself as a well regulated Militia. I think I envisioned a bit better life then that. A better path. We need this bill passed!!!
 
Last edited:
Why do we need a bill that costs money to open areas to hunting?

Can't they just open those areas that should already be open to hunting anyways?

I think the federal government should get out of almost all land ownership. I have no problem with the national parks but these large swaths of federal ground that no one can do anything with and the states lose control are BS.

Let's not treat the symptoms of our problems and focus on the causes. This bill treats symptoms and costs each of us money.
 
In my opinion, the biggest thing that congress could do to help wildlife on the prairies is to stop all ethanol fuel mandates. It would not cost a dime and it would drastically change the landscape to the benefit of conservation.

The current system increases your cost at the pump and at the supermarket. It also drives up land prices putting pressure on CRP competitveness.

Face it, our country is bankrupt due to both parties' pet projects. It is time that special interests, including our own, take a cut for awhile to balance the budget.
 
quail hound said:
Wow, old Barbara was the only D who voted against the sportsmen act. I wonder how many nature lovers understand how bad things would be for wildlife if it wasn't for sportsmen like us. Read the quote in my signature, it says a lot.
Click to expand...

The only reason she did that is because she's a big-time lead-banner and the bill contains a provision to get that crowd off the backs of the hunting and fishing industries.
 
AtTheMurph said:
Why do we need a bill that costs money to open areas to hunting?

Can't they just open those areas that should already be open to hunting anyways?

I think the federal government should get out of almost all land ownership. I have no problem with the national parks but these large swaths of federal ground that no one can do anything with and the states lose control are BS.

Let's not treat the symptoms of our problems and focus on the causes. This bill treats symptoms and costs each of us money.
Click to expand...

Right on, our RP act taxes and license fees go to buy up and improve habitat on land that we as sportsmen can't use in some cases. That's just wrong.
 
jeffstally said:
In my opinion, the biggest thing that congress could do to help wildlife on the prairies is to stop all ethanol fuel mandates. It would not cost a dime and it would drastically change the landscape to the benefit of conservation.

The current system increases your cost at the pump and at the supermarket. It also drives up land prices putting pressure on CRP competitveness.

Face it, our country is bankrupt due to both parties' pet projects. It is time that special interests, including our own, take a cut for awhile to balance the budget.
Click to expand...

Well said:thumbsup:
 
So did anyone see the proposed amendment to the Sportsman Act sponsored by Ted Cruz that would liquidate federal land holdings over 50% of a states total land mass?
 
I guess I don't understand. You folks think private ownership would better than BLM on these acres ? How would that benefit the public ?

If it wasn't for state ownership of land in my area of Iowa the hunting would be nearly nonexistent.

CRP is government leasing the land.

I know some of the rules out west are pretty archaic, but the government got that land because no one else wanted it. Least that's how I understand it.

And as far as ethanol is concerned, I don't think poor farmers are better stewards of the land. The opposite I think is true. Sure, large swaths of land might not go into the CRP, but the areas that are marginal producing areas still will.
 
Last edited:
McFarmer said:
I guess I don't understand. You folks think private ownership would better than BLM on these acres ? How would that benefit the public ?

If it wasn't for state ownership of land in my area of Iowa the hunting would be nearly nonexistent.

CRP is government leasing the land.

I know some of the rules out west are pretty archaic, but the government got that land because no one else wanted it. Least that's how I understand it.

And as far as ethanol is concerned, I don't think poor farmers are better stewards of the land. The opposite I think is true. Sure, large swaths of land might not go into the CRP, but the areas that are marginal producing areas still will.
Click to expand...

No sir I don't, not at all and any representative that is for the liquidation of our federal lands is no friend of the sportsman. Cattle ranchers couldn't stay above water with out grazing rights on BLM and National Forests, all the head waters of our rivers in California are on federal land, the timber industry (despite what most believe) is alive and well in our National Forests and the list goes on for the benefits that come from OUR LAND!
 
I see how my quote of AtTheMurph could come off that way though, I guess I didn't read his post clearly the first time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top