Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Field and Stream Magazine Attacks Bush's Environmental Policies

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
JPZenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 01:48 PM
Original message
Field and Stream Magazine Attacks Bush's Environmental Policies
Edited on Thu Apr-13-06 01:48 PM by JPZenger
http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/columnists/conservation/article/0,13199,489794,00.html

A major article by a columnist in Field and Stream Magazine attacks the Bush Administration policies for their effects on hunting and fishing. Here's an excerpt:

"...the policy has prioritized drilling over other uses on federal lands, while relegating long-standing conservation mandates from the 1960s and ’70s to the back burner. For example, in Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico, the Bureau of Land Management has approved over 75 percent of the energy industry’s applications for exemptions to work in critical winter range, heretofore closed to protect wildlife—sage grouse, mule deer, and pronghorns, in particular (the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 gave agencies the means to close critical habitat). The BLM has also continued to issue drilling leases while in the process of writing new resource management plans that still await public comment. In addition, the Bush administration is working hard to eliminate Wilderness Study areas—set aside for their scenic value as well as their importance to wildlife. Most disturbingly, Congress is now debating a national energy bill that would codify the policy, making it the law of the land rather than an executive order. Subsequent administrations—be they Republican or Democratic—would be unable to institute a more balanced management plan for our western lands without resorting to new congressional legislation.

The results of these actions—billed as promoting national energy security—have begun to turn vast tracts of the western United States into industrial landscapes. The winners are the energy companies, which have been able to acquire their leases for as little as $2 per acre. The casualties are big game, upland birds, cold- and warmwater fisheries, the traditional interests of hunters and anglers, and the economic welfare of communities whose livelihoods are based on outdoor recreation and ranching. The Powder River Basin in northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana—approximately 13 million acres of prairie, escarpments, and mountains—provides the starkest example of how the Bush administration’s unbridled energy policy is running roughshod over our public lands. The BLM’s final environmental impact statement for the area calls for about 66,000 new coalbed methane (CBM) wells (about 14,000 have already been drilled in Wyoming; several hundred in Montana), 26,000 miles of new roads, and 52,000 miles of new pipelines.

...Roads and pipelines aren’t the only way energy development is making wildlife more vulnerable. Wherever there are coal seams, CBM is trapped on the surface of the coal by water pressure. Pumping out the groundwater releases the methane, which rises to the surface, where it’s collected. However, each well discharges about 16,000 gallons of salinized water per day— 43 million gallons per month for the Powder River Basin alone. Not only are underground aquifers being rapidly depleted, but the discharged water must be put someplace. It’s been spread over the landscape; it’s emptied into rivers; it’s collected in infiltration pits. The salinized water kills forage for wildlife and livestock, and it pollutes waterways. Art Hayes Jr., whose family has ranched on the Tongue River since 1884, told me that the salinity level in the Tongue has gone up fivefold seasonally since a CBM company, Fidelity Exploration, began dumping water directly into the river. Both a tailwater fishery for rainbow and brown trout and a warmwater fishery for smallmouth bass and walleyes have been jeopardized..."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. They should have done it in 2003 and 2004.
Amazing how many sportsmen were taken in by BushInc. As if Bush ever really fishes in the small lakes and rivers they fish in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. This should be crossposted in the environment/energy forum.
Thanks for sharing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPZenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
3. You Call this a Wetland?
Here's another new article in Field and Stream Magazine entitled "You Call this a wetland?"

http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/columnists/conservation/article/0,13199,1179434,00.html

Excerpt:

"Interior Secretary Gale Norton called a press conference to claim our long nightmare of wetlands loss had finally come to an end due to unprecedented gains since 1997 (click hear to read the report she cites). However, she then admitted much of that gain has been in artificially created ponds, such as golf course water hazards and farm impoundments.... Researchers long ago established that natural wetlands such as marshes, swamps and prairie potholes are far more productive than even the best-designed artificial wetlands. And sharp-edged water bodies like water hazards, farm ponds, and even reservoirs offer very little for wildlife. Putting man-made ponds in the same class as natural wetlands is like ranking pen-raised quail with wild coveys.

The boldness of Norton's claim was particularly galling given the Bush Administration's record on wetlands. President Bush, like other presidents before him, promised a policy of “no net loss” of wetlands, but his administration has consistently supported rollbacks of the Clean Water Act to satisfy industry and development. In fact, at the same press conference, the Fish and Wildlife Service reported a continued loss of 523,500 acres of natural wetlands during the same time period. So how could the nation have come out ahead if it lost more than half a million acres? Norton didn't try to hide the truth: The 715,300-acre “gain” was mainly artificial ponds.

...Norton's announcement was likely an act of setting the table for more administration assaults on wetlands protections. It was probably no coincidence that three days earlier, the Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency proposed new regulations that encourage development of companies that build artificial wetlands used by industries that destroy the vital natural habitats. It's part of the wetlands mitigation banking concept--which gives companies permits to drain wetlands, as long as they produce “new” wetlands somewhere else."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I wonder if Gale Norton included hog-waste lagoons in her "wetlands"
Good thing the Field & Stream audience was able to see right through how phony John Kerry's hunting photo-op was, huh?

Day late, dollar short, lots of luck at fixing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. If it prompts readers to vote Dem this next election
it's a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fawkes Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. It's a tough issue
If we get the Bush administration out of office at the expense of a nuclear war with Iran, is that "worth it?"

Similarly, if we trash our environment but get them out of office, is that okay?

I think not. I think any loss of wetlands is a tragedy.

If the next administration could or would "fix" the loss, it might be okay, but I don't think there's the scientific capacity or the political will to do so, even among dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-14-06 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. True enough...
but, on the other hand, we ceretainly can't afford to leave THEM in charge of it all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
27. Hi Fawkes!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is great!
It launches a salvo straight into another segment of Bush's base. More people turning away from the Repugs. Gotta love that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainegreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
7. I'd love to see the republicans loose the sportsman & hunting lobby.
That would pretty much kill their viability in a lot of middle of the road rural states (like mine).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-14-06 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. If gun-404 urban politicians will lay off the ban-nonhunting-guns crusade,
Edited on Fri Apr-14-06 08:14 AM by benEzra
it could definitely happen.

80% of gun owners aren't hunters or "sportsmen," though, so banning civilian nonhunting guns (handguns, modern looking rifles) also has to be off the table.

Half of all gun owners are NOT repubs...good fact to keep in mind...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Now why the fuck would anyone want the gun crazies on their side
Even the Republicans have to run away from their odious company in public........



"Half of all gun owners are NOT repubs..."
And even more than half aren't jonesing for assault weapons and support commonsense gun control......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. "Assault weapons"...
Edited on Sat Apr-15-06 08:56 PM by benEzra
preban Marlin Model 60 squirrel hunting rifle:





Benelli 12-gauge turkey hunting shotgun:





European target competition pistol (Hammerli):




Two out of three of these are even hunting guns....


And banned in the USA, if you get your way...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Big Deal. So The Laws Might Need Some Fine-Tuning.
Fine-tuning by someone who has a significant knowledge of firerams, but who supports their rigorous control. Someone like me, for instance.

Looking forward to the inevitable "If you're such a firearms expert, exactly how many 98 Mausers were manufactured during 1943?" type of response from you......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Any "fine tuning" needed has already been done...
Edited on Sun Apr-16-06 01:11 PM by benEzra
by the National Firearms Act as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, and by the sunsetting of the Scary Looking Gun Ban in 2004. If you "fine tune" the AWB to apply only to military assault rifles, then it goes away...since military assault rifles are already restricted by the National Firearms Act and always have been.

As you are quite aware, civilian rifles are used so rarely in homicides as to be statistically insigificant. If you disregard the fearmongering and look at the FBI stats, you'll find that less than 2.8% of homicides involved rifles of ANY description, a fact you are already well acquainted with and apparently choose to ignore. Quite a few states didn't have ANY rifle homicides in 2004.

The anti-gun lobby's fearmongering about rifles with handgrips that stick out is just that--fearmongering--and their support of rifle bans shows that their real goal is not reduction of criminal gun misuse, but rather harassing law-abiding gun owners and shooters in any way they can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. There's no reason to let crazies and criminals
get their hands on assault weapons...which is why even a shitheel like Tom Delay had to hide behind a lame procedural excuse when he put them back in the stores.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Since they are almost never used in crimes...
There's no reason to let crazies and criminals get their hands on assault weapons...which is why even a shitheel like Tom Delay had to hide behind a lame procedural excuse when he put them back in the stores.

Can the fearmongering and look at the facts. You trust FBI Uniform Crime Report Stats, yes?

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_20-22.html

Check out the stats. Nationwide, all rifles COMBINED account for less than 2.8% of homicides. That's only a fraction of the number committed with fists and feet. Lots of states had ZERO rifle homicides in 2004.

So why, again, is it SOOO important to ban rifle stocks with handgrips that stick out, and .22-caliber squirrel rifles that hold more than 10 or 15 rounds? :eyes:

The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch isn't about criminals. It's a way for the anti-gun lobby to stick it to the NON-criminals.

What's that saying about people who redouble their efforts after losing sight of their goals...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Geeze, Ben, so we should wait until they are?
What a loopy fucking idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Well, it's been 80 to 140 years now, depending on your definition...
Geeze, Ben, so we should wait until they are? What a loopy fucking idea.

Well, it's been 80 to 140 years now, depending on your definition...the bloodshed should be starting any moment...

Seriously, over-10-round repeating rifles have been on the civilian market since circa 1860. Semiautomatic carbines hit the civvie market in the late 1890's or early 1900's. Semiauto rifles with protruding handgrips hit the market in, oh, the 1920's. The M1 carbine dates from the 1930's and tons of them were sold in the '40's. The AR-15 has been on the civilian market since 1961. The mini-14 dates from the early 70's, but is basically a 1930's M1 carbine rechambered for a smaller-caliber, higher-pressure cartridge.

The fact is, rifles of any description are NOT a crime problem and are not going to be. Rifles are great for defense-in-place but are not very deployable from one's person or a vehicle, and are extremely difficult to conceal.

What's "loopy" is screaming that rifles are "the weapon of choice of criminals" when they are almost never used in homicides, per FBI stats (less than 2.8% for all types of rifles combined).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. In other words there have been more than enough crimes
to make a ban desirable to 80% of voters.

Now I suggest you go sob about your assautl weapons to someone who gives a shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Actually, no, there haven't...
Edited on Tue Apr-18-06 09:08 AM by benEzra
In other words there have been more than enough crimes to make a ban desirable to 80% of voters.

Actually, no, there haven't--all rifles COMBINED account for only a third as many homicides as fists and feet...

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_20-22.html

To put the 393 rifle-related deaths in perspective, that's around one eighth of the number of children and adults who drown each year, not even counting boating accidents. Ready to ban swimming pools?

The now-defunct Protruding Handgrip Ban would never have passed in the first place were it not for the deliberate confusion of legal civilian rifles with restricted NFA Title 2/Class III military weapons.




Now I suggest you go sob about your assautl weapons to someone who gives a shit.

You're the one whining about it...I'm QUITE cheerful, thanks...

Got our tax refund back last week...which is a big deal for us working-class folks...

Got the transmission mostly out of my wife's vehicle (now on the trans jack) and the new transmission is nearly ready to go in...

Had a major milestone Sunday, when my 7 y.o. son was able for the first time in his life to sit down with his 5 y.o. sister and eat the same food she was.
:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:
(Our son lost the ability to eat solid food at age 2 due to medical issues, and is now in therapy to try to regain that ability.)



Spring is in the air...beautiful breezes this weekend...went driving in the rain with the family last night, listening to some tunes...

And our rifles are still in our gun safe, despite all the sputtering from you, Bill Bennett, and Dianne Feinstein. And extrapolating from the decreasing year-to-year cosponsor numbers for your Protruding Handgrip Ban, it looks like they're going to stay there...

No, I'm not complaining about much right now...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Actually, yes, there have....
But try not to let any facts get in your way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. Facts like this, you mean?
Edited on Tue Apr-18-06 05:32 PM by benEzra
Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Crime in the United States 2004

Table 20

Murder
by State, 2004
Type of Weapon


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_20-22.html



Download the Excel spreadsheet at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/04tbl20a.xls and sum the columns, assuming you grok Excel.


If you do, you find the following indisputable fact:


Of 14,121 homicides in 2004, only 393--2.8 percent--were committed with all types of rifles combined. That's less than half as many people (933) as were murdered using fists and feet.


So much for the "weapon of choice of criminals" BS...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Yeah, keep on pretending
that the ban didn't work....or that there aren't horrifying crimes committed with assault weapons. It shows in spades what a pantload the gun rights movement really is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. Which ban? The expired Federal one that banned bayonet lugs
on rifles with handgrips that stick out? Yeah, it worked at reducing the number of bayonet lugs on rifles with handgrips that stick out...which is totally irrelevant to the crime picture, since of the TINY percentage of crimes that involve rifles, I doubt that ANY involved bayonet charges...betcha none involved horse cavalry, either...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-16-06 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Yes, Ben, we all know you're jonesing for assault weapons
Now I suggest you go cry about it to somebody who gives a shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. It's the prohibitionists who keep bringing up this crap...
Edited on Mon Apr-17-06 07:18 AM by benEzra
Yes, Ben, we all know you're jonesing for assault weapons Now I suggest you go cry about it to somebody who gives a shit.

It's the prohibitionists who keep bringing up this crap. Rifle stocks with handgrips that stick out are legal, and will hopefully stay that way.

Just keep your sticky fingers out of my gun safe, and we'll all be happy...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. In other words, citizens want these guns off the market
Now go snivel about it to somebody who gives a shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Oh, that must be why nearly every state has considered and REJECTED
Edited on Mon Apr-17-06 09:07 AM by benEzra
bans on rifles with handgrips that stick out. You can count the number of states with such bans on the fingers of one hand...despite the fact that the Protruding Handgrip Ban has been priority #1 of the gun-prohibition lobby since the late 1980's/early 1990's...

That must also be why the "renewed and expanded" protruding handgrip ban has LOST Democratic cosponsors every year since it was introduced...

You have your little Scary Handgrip Ban in New Jersey. Keep it, fine with me. Just stop trying to foist your paranoia on those of us in the vast majority of states that have rejected such bans...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Yeah, the GOP and the gun lobby are pieces of shit
"You can count the number of states with such bans on the fingers of one hand..."
And about 80% of voters want it passed on a national level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #29
32. Only if you deceive them as to what the ban actually covers... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Which you're utterly unable to do.....
Hence this endless wailing on your part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Dispute the following FACTS, then:
S.1431, H.R. 2038, and sequelae would have banned ALL civilian detachable-magazine, self-loading rifles if they have a handgrip that sticks out. Putting a stock with the wrong shape on your own rifle would be a Federal felony.

The above bans would have banned numerous Olympic-style small-caliber target pistols solely on the basis of where the magazine attaches.

The bans would have outlawed all civilian centerfire firearms, and most rimfire firearms, with a magazine capacity of 11 rounds or more.

Possession of a vintage Marlin Model 60 .22 caliber squirrel rifle in the state of New Jersey is a 5-year felony under your state's "assault weapons ban" (N.J.S.R 2C:39-1w(4)), unless the hunting rifle was registered as an "assault weapon" prior to the 1990 cutoff date.

The proposed Illinois AWB bans all civilian shotguns using detachable magazines, regardless of stock shape, and bans all civilian self-loading shotguns with handgrips that stick out.

Military automatic weapons like M16's and actual AK-47's are ALREADY tightly controlled by the National Firearms Act, which has been on the books since 1934, and are not in any way affected by "assault weapons bans."

All rifles COMBINED were used in less than 2.8% of homicides in 2004, per FBI stats, which is only a fraction of the number involving fists and feet.


Hence this endless wailing on your part.

Guess you didn't read my prior post, huh? :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. More wailing...
"The proposed Illinois AWB bans all civilian shotguns using detachable magazines, regardless of stock shape, and bans all civilian self-loading shotguns with handgrips that stick out."
Tough titty. Go cry about it to somebody else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Who's crying? The ban was DEFEATED
largely by downstate Dems. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. More wailing on your part....
And it was the GOP that defeated it...but then they're scumbags.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DinahMoeHum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
8. This is what will help the Dems win in the rural regions and the South.
Edited on Thu Apr-13-06 02:18 PM by DinahMoeHum
Mark Warner carried the outdoor sports vote in Virginia in his governor's race.

For details, please read "Foxes in the Henhouse" written by Warner's campaign managers, Steve Jarding and Dave "Mudcat" Saunders.

BTW, Jarding and Saunders are endorsing James Webb in his quest for the US Senate.

www.foxesinthehenhouse.com

(snip)
Chapter 9
Lie 4: Republicans are the Party for Hunters, Anglers, and Outdoors Enthusiasts

Just the Facts Please
A Democratic Agenda on Guns, hunting, Fishing, and other Outdoor Issues
Bush and the Republicans: An Unprecedented Assault on Our Air, Land, and Water…
The NRA-Now Republican Altogether
(snip)

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-14-06 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Listened to the interview on Here and Now on Monday...
good stuff. Not sure if they realize that most gun owners aren't hunters, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-13-06 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
9. more wow. I don't see how he can stay
in office. Even if he jettisons Cheney and Rumsfeld, everything is going to hell and once you pass critcal mass, there is no stopping the eight ball from rampaging the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JPZenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-14-06 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
14. Third Article in Field and Stream: Where Will Our Children Hunt?
Field and Stream Mag: Where will our Granchildren Hunt?

Here is a third article from the magazine about Bush's proposal sale of public lands for private development. Fortunately, the sportsman's community is waking up.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/columnists/conservation/article/0,13199,1171074,00.html#

"For Sale: Your Hunting Heritage:
The Bush administration wants to hold a fire sale on our public lands.
Will your grandchildren have places left to hunt?

...Bush's 2007 budget includes an order to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to sell off as much as 800,000 acres of national lands ...The proposal directs the agencies to raise nearly $1 billion for the federal treasury by selling more than 300,000 acres of national forest and up to 500,000 acres of BLM lands, mostly in western states...

Forest Service and BLM officials maintain most of the lands in question are small, isolated parcels, usually surrounded by private property and, hence, "difficult to manage." However the complete list of forest lands (http://www.fs.fed.us/...) shows most parcels are more than 40 acres and many are in the hundreds of acres. The BLM has not listed the lands it will sell...Clearly this sets a dangerous precedent - and makes prophets of environmental groups that have long claimed the Bush administration's goal is to sell public property, not manage it."
-----
At the bottom of the article is a link to a place for magazine readers to provide comments. This comment is typical:

"Thanks F&S for running this article. It is ridiculous that this Administration is trying once again to undermine our public lands sporting heritage. It just goes to show out of touch these policy makers are with the average hunter and angler in this country. The future of hunting as we know it is dependant on keeping public lands in public hands!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
28. 5 Years Late and Several Million Dollars Short
but who's counting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC