Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

A Crossroads For American Hunters and Anglers: What's At Stake

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

The Conservationist
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

April 05, 2011

A Crossroads For American Hunters and Anglers: What's At Stake

by Hal Herring

Although I cannot match Bob Marshall’s deeply researched story from two weeks ago concerning House Resolution 1, the US House of Representatives proposal to cut our crushing federal deficit, I just took part in a teleconference on the budget bill that left me so unnerved that I have to address the same topic. I’m not trying to beat readers over the head with this, but we are at a crossroads for American hunters and fishermen.

The situation goes far beyond political parties. It is about representatives who may be well-meaning, but are ignorant of the very basics of conservation and how it affects our economy, our quality of life, and our access to basic resources like clean water, not to mention fish to catch and wild game to hunt. There are times when those who know what is at stake must inform the decision makers. In this case, it is sportsmen who know the facts on the ground, and now is such a time.

Let’s look, again, at what is at stake. And please remember, the part of the federal budget that is devoted to conservation and land and water protection makes up about .5% of the entire budget. You could kill our entire legacy of conservation, ensure the loss of most of our wildlife and fisheries, allow the poisoning of our air and waters, and do nothing whatsoever to actually address the national debt. (And, although it is beyond my scope here, please apprise yourself, as a taxpayer, or just a citizen, of all that has NOT been targeted for cutting. According to these elected representatives, what we can do without as a nation, first, are mostly the things that we hunters and fishermen understand to have great value. WE are the low-hanging fruit.)

A few outtakes from the teleconference:

Bill Geer of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership: “HR 1 cuts $398 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. These are not taxpayer funds- they come from offshore oil and gas royalties, and the money is already there for conservation projects. The bill just takes the money away and directs it elsewhere...”

At stake: just one example out of hundreds- acquisitions like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s years-long effort to obtain public access and protect elk range on over 8200 acres along Tenderfoot Creek, a tributary of Montana’s famed Smith River.

Scott Yaich of Ducks Unlimited: “HR 1 zeroes out the budget for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA), even as we are losing an estimated 80,000 acres of wetlands annually in the US...

“We are talking about the loss of $200 million in worker’s earnings from the restoration and other projects that will be halted by these cuts. These are projects that pay for themselves, and then some, for year after year….and we are talking about this even while the snowmelt this spring is already causing flooding in the upper Midwest due to the filling of wetlands...huge costs, directly related to the loss of wetlands... NAWCA has always been an investment with a high return...”

Mark Humpert of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: “We see the loss of state and tribal wildlife grant funding, the loss of funding matches from revenues like the Pittman-Robertson tax on firearms and ammunition…program like Teaming for wildlife, which has been one huge success in protecting non-game and at-risk wildlife species. This has been the core federal program for proactive, non-regulatory species protection, keeping species from becoming endangered and subject to federal regulation.

Examples: Work throughout the Big Hole River basin to restore populations of native Arctic Grayling.

Milk River initiative: restoring riverbottom habitats and riparian areas in northern Montana

1000’s of other projects across the US."

Humpert: “If we want a future for our birds, with abundant wildlife and fishing, this (Teaming for Wildlife) is one of the programs that we cannot lose.”

Steve Moyers, Trout Unlimited: “HR 1 will halt funding for the EPA to assess what waters are covered by the Clean Water Act. Since the two Supreme Court decisions limiting the scope of the Clean Water Act, what waters are covered and what are not has been in question. HR 1 proposes to stop the EPA from assessing those waters...”

The 404c program of the Clean Water Act is a veto power used by the EPA to halt projects that are deemed to be extraordinarily wasteful, unnecessary, or destructive. “It’s only been used 13 times,” Moyers said, “but it has stopped some of the most destructive and wasteful projects ever proposed.”

Among those projects: the public-money and fisheries squandering Yazoo Area Backwater Pumps Project in Mississippi, and the Two Forks Dam on the South Platte River of Colorado, a project that would have drowned a thirteen-mile long gold medal trout fishery and thousands of acres of bighorn sheep, elk, deer and bear habitat near Denver, all to boost real estate development in sprawling Denver.

“HR 1 zeroes the budget for the 404c program,” Moyers says, noting also that it zeroes the budget for further work on the Cheapeake Bay clean-up and restoration.

Dave Nomsen of Pheasants Forever: “We are coming off a 20 year success story with wetlands conservation, with 232,000 acres enrolled, and more landowners waiting for enrollment. HR 1 cuts $119 million from that. Cuts $130 million from our Conservation Stewardship Plan. Cuts the Conservation Incentives Plan. I know we are all looking for cuts to the budget, but we have to fund these critical and successful programs.”

I have written here before about how so many of our citizens seem to have no idea why we have the resources that we have. We no longer seem to know why you can turn on your faucet and, for pennies or less, enjoy a drink of cold, refreshing water--even though that’s a luxury unheard of throughout most of the world. Why you can breathe clean air, and have supper in an old rural tavern that makes all its money during deer season. Cast for rainbows in the city limits of Missoula, Montana, or shoot a limit of ducks in the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge, hunt turkeys on the Royal Blue Wildlife Management Area in Tennessee, and so on, where ever it is that you love, where you take your kids or grandkids fishing or swimming or hunting. We’ve had it good, based on the hard work of those who came before us. The reason we have had it good (and one of the reasons that we live in a truly exceptional nation) is because of programs like the ones that will be cut under HR1.

The short-sighted drafters of HR 1 offer us a future that looks a lot like contemporary Mexico or India, or China, a future where most of the gains of our past have been lost, and where the pressures of population growth and the loss of a conservation ethic will produce losses that are unimaginable from where we stand today. These losses will cost billions of dollars to reverse if they can be reversed at all. HR 1 is not yet the law of the land. There is still time for citizens who know what is at stake to contact their representatives, and help them understand what we as sportsmen know by heart.

Comments (28)

Top Rated
All Comments
from GiantWhitetails wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Sweet Jesus!!! Those SOBs and their proposed "laws"! We need Teddy Roosevelt, Seth Bullock, John Wesley Powell, Gifford Pinchot, John Muir and the like back.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from campns wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I just looked up the voting rolls for this one... it was passed in the house by the REPUBLICAN HOUSE, it's sad that many of you on here just view Dems as gun hating take your rights away folks... turns out they are wanting to keep our air clean, wildlife strong, and protect our enviroment. I have been sickened by the Clean Coal advertisements on DC area radio, along with the Dispurse the EPA calls it's horrible. I dont know about you but all the tea baggers better wake up and see what they started, and live with how it is going to end. Enjoy this years hunting/fishing it may be the last good year period.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from redtailhawk wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Incredibly shortsighted. The funds are meant as mitigation from extractive uses of public lands. The value of land only goes up. Protecting land for public use, protecting air and water seem excellent value to me.Cutting off your nose to spite your face to meet a made up budget number. Stewardship is the careful and responsible management of something in your care. It is an investment not a cost. It is our natural and cultural heritage at stake.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chris Cholette wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

We've been so completely focused on gun rights for so long that I think we've forgotten that having a gun for many of us is pointless if there's nothing and nowhere to shoot. Let's get some more emphasis on the conservation side.

+9 Good Comment? | | Report
from suburban bushwacker wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

A few words of encouragement from across the pond.

This is going to be the issue that defines a generation. Either as the generation who sat back and let it happen or the generation that restored the reputation of american sportsmen. This is the key moment for the american landscape luckily there are enough American hunters to turn back this tide, but you're going to have to organize. Ask yourself

If not me Who? If not now When?

Good luck
SBW

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

We have added 4 trillion dollars to the National Debt in the last 2 years, with another 1.8 trillion on the way according to Obama's budget for 2012. Obama wants to give Brazil 2 billion to drill for their oil in deep water offshore. Obama wants 53 billion for high speed rail. Personally I only spend money on things I can afford. We are borrowing 42 cents of every dollar the Federal Government spends. We are paying GE to sell us windmills that don't produce power at an affordable price but do chew up eagles and geese and anything else that gets in their way. The government is broken and individuals, not non governmental organizations lobbying for their own share of the pie like DU are going to have to take up the slack. Non Constitutionally authorized spending is indeed the low hanging fruit. What is .5% of 3.8 trillion dollars? My calculator doesn't have room for that many zeros.
We are a country that has more government workers than manufacturing workers. Twice as many people work for the government than work manufacturing things. I used to go to Natural Resources Conservation Service meetings. There would be 60 odd people at the meeting and I was the only one not being paid to be there. I was the only one not driving a government car, using government paid for gas, getting a government retirement program. It cost me money to go to the meeting. They all got paid to spend other peoples money. The quality of the North American environment is not dependent on the amount of money spent by the Dept of the Interior, or the Dept of Energy, or the EPA, or the Agriculture Dept. They just want you to think that it does. That's their rice bowl.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

It is truly sad. Just checked out the voting results on gov.trac. EVERY single "Yea" vote was Republican. 99% of the "Nay" votes were Democrat. Little food for thought for you. Alot of powerful "sportsmen's" groups have spent millions getting these schmucks elected, scaring the sheep with tales of "taking your guns away", now we're faced with reaping what has been sown. SO, do you continue to walk blindly to the beat of the NRA drum, or will you do a little of your OWN research before voting. If we continue to destroy our wilderness and waters for the profit of the super-rich, what good will our "gun rights" be?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Just contacted BOTH of my Senators. Took 10 minutes tops, just Google "Senator" and your state, and thier pages pop right up. I think it's worth the time. Thank you Hal for helping bring attention to this load of crap. The Tea Party should change it's name to the "RE-TARDY"

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FishingnotCatching wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I received an email from Ducks Unlimited today asking me to contact my representative, and had a pre-typed email for me and everything. The gist of it was hunting and fishing generates roughly "$25 billion each year in federal, state and local taxes". I did fill out my email address and name and hit the send button (truly feeling I did my duty as a conservationist).

It just boggles my mind from the business aspect. Everyone knows that you have to spend money to make money. If we are breaking even by our INVESTMENTS(I truly believe spending on conservation is an investment), why would you cut the spending? Not to get into an economics argument (economics assumes people act rationally, and God knows thats not the truth), but you cut spending when you are no longer making a profit. Hell, I'd be fine with getting taxed more for my hobbies, don't eliminate them. You can very easily find useless government spending through a simple google search, for the sake of not offending anybody, I'll leave it at that.
Go Dawgs

(Gently stepping off soap box)

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ed Fishhead wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Stand up now Sportsman! Contact your representatives................Thanks Hal

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I just wish people would think twice before they vote, and the damage isn't only to wild life and wild lands, there's all the cuts to care for orphans, and the very old in nursing homes.

Every single yes vote a Republican.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

How about we take all the CEO's salaries (some exceeding 450 million for the year) that were bailed out by TARP and use those funds for conservation.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from JGooding1 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Reading this made me feel almost physically sick. To think that we could lose so much as hunters and fisherman is beyond belief. I'm just 23 years old and to think that I've experienced the best wildlife conservation we have to offer leaves me lost for words.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

"It is about representatives who may be well-meaning, but are ignorant of the very basics of conservation and how it affects our economy, our quality of life, and our access to basic resources like clean water, not to mention fish to catch and wild game to hunt"

Exactly the problem. We have been electing a long list of idiots for quite some time.

There are no more statesmen (statespersons, i guess). Just politicians. They aren't there for what's best, they they don't even know what's best.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Gun right have been expanded. Hunting? Imperiled.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from sharptail wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

This is disturbing on many levels obviously. However, recently I think what is most troubling is the number of attempts by federal and state government to confiscate money from existing programs, in many cases self-funded, to be diverted toward other programs deemed necessary for the "the public good." In the end, we discover that the money winds up being directed by ill informed bureaucrats for programs supported by lobbyists and special interests tugging at a politicians nose ring. What I find most disturbing about these tactics is how low under the public radar these shenanigans fly.

Just in the past month, my state narrowly avoided an attempt by state government to raid license fees accumulated from fishing and hunting licenses to be used toward non-sportsmen interested water storage projects. The usage would have benefited agriculture and public water use (code for corporate interests and lawn watering).

Tax me? Sure. Take the money I've allocated from my meager personal budget which I've chosen to spend in support of wildlife, habitat, conservation, and use it elsewhere? That's double taxation and cannot be allowed to continue.

It is deeply troubling that the public media has elected to crawl in bed with politics. It is shameful that mass media has abandoned their principles, electing instead to take a position.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Green Sportsman wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Although I shouldn't be, I’m quite surprised that there hasn't been more sportsmen outcry over these proposals, especially where we are losing matching funds for P-R dollars. That is like a double funding cut; the dollars which are being removed together with those that can be secured via the match.

Clearly, most of our brethren are either sympathetic to the greater HR1 cause, or just apathetic.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from jackie_treehorn wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

yup. they argue over a $30 billion disagreement of what to cut. that's out of a $3.5 TRILLION budget. The things they appear to have no problem cutting: education of our youth and conservation related things, that for example, could do the most damage to our world ironically, but one could argue are the most important to save. short-sighted, ignorant, and done for political points. There's the political ruling class and then the rest of us. It's not about be Republican or Democrat.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Amen, Jackie.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from PigHunter wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Some drastic changes are needed to curb the vast amount of excess Federal spending. The Dems obviously have squandered their two year chance to get our fiscal house in order. Someone had to present a plan and of course it will not suit everyone.

If Federal taxes were lower we would have more personal money to donate to conservation. As it is now, we are taxed into poverty. Granted, some of these programs are national but many are locally based and should be up to statewide funding votes. It is not right for the Federal government to take our hard earned money and spend beyond our means. Those of you complaining are like all the other pigs at the trough. You're willing to cut your neighbor out just as long as you still get to eat.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

The two places to look for real money are Medicare and the DoD. As painful as it would be, I'd eliminate Medicare, rather than follow Congsmn Ryan's plan to insert a pirate middleman (private insurers) into the process between consumers and docs.

As for the DoD. Every dollar that the US taxpayer spends defending SOME OTHER nation does about $40 worth of harm to the US economy. We need to STOP making the world a safe place for offshoring.

The Conservation budget is a drop in the bucket. You won't get anything done by shafting Conservation programs and anyhow these are funded by Pittman Roberts money. So if we're not going to use that tax money for the purpose that sportsmen intended when they agreed to it, then we should eliminate that particular tax.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Green Sportsman wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Why is it that everyone seems to have forgotten how we got into this fiscal mess? We've spent over one trillion dollars in Iraq, add to that Afghanistan, and then the melt down of the financial markets. I remain convinced that the TARP package, however distasteful, was absolutely necessary top avoid a complete collapse of the banking system. Although most of the TARP money has now been paid back, Federal revenue was crushed by the worst recession since the Great Depression. This is more than a spending problem.

In a seemingly knee-jerk reaction, we now find ourselves in a situation where the current Congressional leadership is willing to completely eliminate funding for conservation programs under the guise fiscal responsibility in an effort make short-term political gains. My biggest fear is that the modern Conservation movement which began 75 years ago may now be dying because we have now let ourselves become fragmented and redefined as either Sportsmen or Environmentalists.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 1 year 6 weeks ago

I bet we pay the oil people more than we spend on conservation. How about we quit subsidizing the ripoff artists?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 1 year 6 weeks ago

we are always the first on the chopping block.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 6 weeks ago

You're correct, Shane, we do. Fossil fuels receive about $30 Bn in direct and another $300Bn in indirect subsidies (mostly military expenditures to operate bases overseas) every year.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim Berardi wrote 1 year 5 weeks ago

I was raised in a Democratic family but we had a family round table talk in November 2008 & we all agreed this man wasn't patriotic & would possibly be a dictator rather than a leader so we voted accordingly. Now looks like we were dead right & the word Communist comes to mind when examining his ideas!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from shadillac wrote 1 year 5 weeks ago

Can we get more articles on the dangers of Hydrofracking and how it is DESTROYING our water supplies in Northern PA?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Cgull wrote 1 year 5 weeks ago

I saw a very interesting show last night (A show well worth watching), Saving The Bay on PBS and was narrated by Robert Redford.
It shows how three women in 1961 helped save the bays wetlands. Mrs. Kerr and her friends, Sylvia McLaughlin and Esther Gulick, founded Save the Bay in 1961. It was the first organization devoted exclusively to protecting San Francisco Bay.

Among its greatest victories was helping start the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the first coastal protection agency in the country.

The group also fought successfully for a moratorium on landfill in the bay and helped establish the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, one of the largest urban refuges in the country.

http://www.savingthebay.org/

http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-01-03/bay-area/26355726_1_esther-gulick-...

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from Chris Cholette wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

We've been so completely focused on gun rights for so long that I think we've forgotten that having a gun for many of us is pointless if there's nothing and nowhere to shoot. Let's get some more emphasis on the conservation side.

+9 Good Comment? | | Report
from campns wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I just looked up the voting rolls for this one... it was passed in the house by the REPUBLICAN HOUSE, it's sad that many of you on here just view Dems as gun hating take your rights away folks... turns out they are wanting to keep our air clean, wildlife strong, and protect our enviroment. I have been sickened by the Clean Coal advertisements on DC area radio, along with the Dispurse the EPA calls it's horrible. I dont know about you but all the tea baggers better wake up and see what they started, and live with how it is going to end. Enjoy this years hunting/fishing it may be the last good year period.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from FishingnotCatching wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I received an email from Ducks Unlimited today asking me to contact my representative, and had a pre-typed email for me and everything. The gist of it was hunting and fishing generates roughly "$25 billion each year in federal, state and local taxes". I did fill out my email address and name and hit the send button (truly feeling I did my duty as a conservationist).

It just boggles my mind from the business aspect. Everyone knows that you have to spend money to make money. If we are breaking even by our INVESTMENTS(I truly believe spending on conservation is an investment), why would you cut the spending? Not to get into an economics argument (economics assumes people act rationally, and God knows thats not the truth), but you cut spending when you are no longer making a profit. Hell, I'd be fine with getting taxed more for my hobbies, don't eliminate them. You can very easily find useless government spending through a simple google search, for the sake of not offending anybody, I'll leave it at that.
Go Dawgs

(Gently stepping off soap box)

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from suburban bushwacker wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

A few words of encouragement from across the pond.

This is going to be the issue that defines a generation. Either as the generation who sat back and let it happen or the generation that restored the reputation of american sportsmen. This is the key moment for the american landscape luckily there are enough American hunters to turn back this tide, but you're going to have to organize. Ask yourself

If not me Who? If not now When?

Good luck
SBW

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from sharptail wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

This is disturbing on many levels obviously. However, recently I think what is most troubling is the number of attempts by federal and state government to confiscate money from existing programs, in many cases self-funded, to be diverted toward other programs deemed necessary for the "the public good." In the end, we discover that the money winds up being directed by ill informed bureaucrats for programs supported by lobbyists and special interests tugging at a politicians nose ring. What I find most disturbing about these tactics is how low under the public radar these shenanigans fly.

Just in the past month, my state narrowly avoided an attempt by state government to raid license fees accumulated from fishing and hunting licenses to be used toward non-sportsmen interested water storage projects. The usage would have benefited agriculture and public water use (code for corporate interests and lawn watering).

Tax me? Sure. Take the money I've allocated from my meager personal budget which I've chosen to spend in support of wildlife, habitat, conservation, and use it elsewhere? That's double taxation and cannot be allowed to continue.

It is deeply troubling that the public media has elected to crawl in bed with politics. It is shameful that mass media has abandoned their principles, electing instead to take a position.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from GiantWhitetails wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Sweet Jesus!!! Those SOBs and their proposed "laws"! We need Teddy Roosevelt, Seth Bullock, John Wesley Powell, Gifford Pinchot, John Muir and the like back.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Green Sportsman wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Although I shouldn't be, I’m quite surprised that there hasn't been more sportsmen outcry over these proposals, especially where we are losing matching funds for P-R dollars. That is like a double funding cut; the dollars which are being removed together with those that can be secured via the match.

Clearly, most of our brethren are either sympathetic to the greater HR1 cause, or just apathetic.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from jackie_treehorn wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

yup. they argue over a $30 billion disagreement of what to cut. that's out of a $3.5 TRILLION budget. The things they appear to have no problem cutting: education of our youth and conservation related things, that for example, could do the most damage to our world ironically, but one could argue are the most important to save. short-sighted, ignorant, and done for political points. There's the political ruling class and then the rest of us. It's not about be Republican or Democrat.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

The two places to look for real money are Medicare and the DoD. As painful as it would be, I'd eliminate Medicare, rather than follow Congsmn Ryan's plan to insert a pirate middleman (private insurers) into the process between consumers and docs.

As for the DoD. Every dollar that the US taxpayer spends defending SOME OTHER nation does about $40 worth of harm to the US economy. We need to STOP making the world a safe place for offshoring.

The Conservation budget is a drop in the bucket. You won't get anything done by shafting Conservation programs and anyhow these are funded by Pittman Roberts money. So if we're not going to use that tax money for the purpose that sportsmen intended when they agreed to it, then we should eliminate that particular tax.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from redtailhawk wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Incredibly shortsighted. The funds are meant as mitigation from extractive uses of public lands. The value of land only goes up. Protecting land for public use, protecting air and water seem excellent value to me.Cutting off your nose to spite your face to meet a made up budget number. Stewardship is the careful and responsible management of something in your care. It is an investment not a cost. It is our natural and cultural heritage at stake.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

It is truly sad. Just checked out the voting results on gov.trac. EVERY single "Yea" vote was Republican. 99% of the "Nay" votes were Democrat. Little food for thought for you. Alot of powerful "sportsmen's" groups have spent millions getting these schmucks elected, scaring the sheep with tales of "taking your guns away", now we're faced with reaping what has been sown. SO, do you continue to walk blindly to the beat of the NRA drum, or will you do a little of your OWN research before voting. If we continue to destroy our wilderness and waters for the profit of the super-rich, what good will our "gun rights" be?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

How about we take all the CEO's salaries (some exceeding 450 million for the year) that were bailed out by TARP and use those funds for conservation.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from JGooding1 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Reading this made me feel almost physically sick. To think that we could lose so much as hunters and fisherman is beyond belief. I'm just 23 years old and to think that I've experienced the best wildlife conservation we have to offer leaves me lost for words.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Green Sportsman wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Why is it that everyone seems to have forgotten how we got into this fiscal mess? We've spent over one trillion dollars in Iraq, add to that Afghanistan, and then the melt down of the financial markets. I remain convinced that the TARP package, however distasteful, was absolutely necessary top avoid a complete collapse of the banking system. Although most of the TARP money has now been paid back, Federal revenue was crushed by the worst recession since the Great Depression. This is more than a spending problem.

In a seemingly knee-jerk reaction, we now find ourselves in a situation where the current Congressional leadership is willing to completely eliminate funding for conservation programs under the guise fiscal responsibility in an effort make short-term political gains. My biggest fear is that the modern Conservation movement which began 75 years ago may now be dying because we have now let ourselves become fragmented and redefined as either Sportsmen or Environmentalists.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 6 weeks ago

You're correct, Shane, we do. Fossil fuels receive about $30 Bn in direct and another $300Bn in indirect subsidies (mostly military expenditures to operate bases overseas) every year.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ed Fishhead wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Stand up now Sportsman! Contact your representatives................Thanks Hal

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Amen, Jackie.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from PigHunter wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Some drastic changes are needed to curb the vast amount of excess Federal spending. The Dems obviously have squandered their two year chance to get our fiscal house in order. Someone had to present a plan and of course it will not suit everyone.

If Federal taxes were lower we would have more personal money to donate to conservation. As it is now, we are taxed into poverty. Granted, some of these programs are national but many are locally based and should be up to statewide funding votes. It is not right for the Federal government to take our hard earned money and spend beyond our means. Those of you complaining are like all the other pigs at the trough. You're willing to cut your neighbor out just as long as you still get to eat.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shadillac wrote 1 year 5 weeks ago

Can we get more articles on the dangers of Hydrofracking and how it is DESTROYING our water supplies in Northern PA?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

We have added 4 trillion dollars to the National Debt in the last 2 years, with another 1.8 trillion on the way according to Obama's budget for 2012. Obama wants to give Brazil 2 billion to drill for their oil in deep water offshore. Obama wants 53 billion for high speed rail. Personally I only spend money on things I can afford. We are borrowing 42 cents of every dollar the Federal Government spends. We are paying GE to sell us windmills that don't produce power at an affordable price but do chew up eagles and geese and anything else that gets in their way. The government is broken and individuals, not non governmental organizations lobbying for their own share of the pie like DU are going to have to take up the slack. Non Constitutionally authorized spending is indeed the low hanging fruit. What is .5% of 3.8 trillion dollars? My calculator doesn't have room for that many zeros.
We are a country that has more government workers than manufacturing workers. Twice as many people work for the government than work manufacturing things. I used to go to Natural Resources Conservation Service meetings. There would be 60 odd people at the meeting and I was the only one not being paid to be there. I was the only one not driving a government car, using government paid for gas, getting a government retirement program. It cost me money to go to the meeting. They all got paid to spend other peoples money. The quality of the North American environment is not dependent on the amount of money spent by the Dept of the Interior, or the Dept of Energy, or the EPA, or the Agriculture Dept. They just want you to think that it does. That's their rice bowl.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

I just wish people would think twice before they vote, and the damage isn't only to wild life and wild lands, there's all the cuts to care for orphans, and the very old in nursing homes.

Every single yes vote a Republican.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

"It is about representatives who may be well-meaning, but are ignorant of the very basics of conservation and how it affects our economy, our quality of life, and our access to basic resources like clean water, not to mention fish to catch and wild game to hunt"

Exactly the problem. We have been electing a long list of idiots for quite some time.

There are no more statesmen (statespersons, i guess). Just politicians. They aren't there for what's best, they they don't even know what's best.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Gun right have been expanded. Hunting? Imperiled.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 1 year 6 weeks ago

I bet we pay the oil people more than we spend on conservation. How about we quit subsidizing the ripoff artists?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 1 year 6 weeks ago

we are always the first on the chopping block.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jim Berardi wrote 1 year 5 weeks ago

I was raised in a Democratic family but we had a family round table talk in November 2008 & we all agreed this man wasn't patriotic & would possibly be a dictator rather than a leader so we voted accordingly. Now looks like we were dead right & the word Communist comes to mind when examining his ideas!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Cgull wrote 1 year 5 weeks ago

I saw a very interesting show last night (A show well worth watching), Saving The Bay on PBS and was narrated by Robert Redford.
It shows how three women in 1961 helped save the bays wetlands. Mrs. Kerr and her friends, Sylvia McLaughlin and Esther Gulick, founded Save the Bay in 1961. It was the first organization devoted exclusively to protecting San Francisco Bay.

Among its greatest victories was helping start the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the first coastal protection agency in the country.

The group also fought successfully for a moratorium on landfill in the bay and helped establish the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge, one of the largest urban refuges in the country.

http://www.savingthebay.org/

http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-01-03/bay-area/26355726_1_esther-gulick-...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 1 year 7 weeks ago

Just contacted BOTH of my Senators. Took 10 minutes tops, just Google "Senator" and your state, and thier pages pop right up. I think it's worth the time. Thank you Hal for helping bring attention to this load of crap. The Tea Party should change it's name to the "RE-TARDY"

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment