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.

Conservation Roundup: Thrifty Hunting and Fishing and Why Conservation = Jobs

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.

September 22, 2011

Conservation Roundup: Thrifty Hunting and Fishing and Why Conservation = Jobs

By Bob Marshall

by Bob Marshall

Until there is a breakthrough in renewable/green technologies, energy development remains a threat to hunting and angling. In addition to demanding responsible development on public lands that gives fish, wildlife and recreation the priority it deserves, sportsmen can do one more thing to help out: Lower their energy demands.

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership provided this five-step program for hunters and anglers to use:
1)   Camp, Don’t Commute – Instead of driving back and forth to your hunting/fishing spot, try spending the night in the great outdoors. You’ll save fuel, and have a great experience.

2)   Hunt or Fish with a Friend – Two can get the same thrills for the fuel price of one.
3)   Use Refillable Water Bottles – Those throw-away bottles create huge disposal problems and require energy to produce. You can use the same bottle to save money and the environment.
4)   Scout from Home – Time and money get wasted getting to your access points, and beyond. Use internet maps to study your areas first, cutting your preparation time and fuel bill.
5)   Take the 5% Reduction Pledge – If the average American reduced their driving by just 5 percent annually, they could save $130 (at $3.50 a gallon), reducing their carbon emissions – and having more money to spend on the outdoors.
 
People who tell sportsmen the nation needs to cut conservation spending and environmental regulations often use this excuse: They cost jobs!

Now you can tell them: WRONG!

These programs and regulations annually help to produce jobs and pour billions into the treasury to help eliminate the deficit. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, the habitat necessary for outdoors sports supports businesses that provide 6.4 million jobs, with almost $300 billion in annual retail sales and services contributing $88 billion in annual federal and state taxes.

You can get the complete breakdown here.

Comments (31)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

The far left environmental movement has caused the loss of many, many jobs, and will continue to cause the loss of jobs. Many see corporations as evil, and become anti-capitalists. There are trillions of dollars sitting on the sideline waiting for a fed govt that emphasizes capitalism, and removes restrictive regulation and allows the market to create real jobs, and grow our economy. This grows tax receipts, and funds conservation programs. Centralized, big govt. spending tax payer dollars to create jobs only costs us jobs. It has been a total failure, and things had better change, and change quick. We are going to see a lot more pain going forward. Every day there are programs listed that will be cutback, or eliminated.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Sayfu,
That's an awful lot of rhetoric to address. I'll start by pointing out that what Bob (no relation. ;) is suggesting has nothing to do with big government. Furthermore, it is only related to government regulation insofar that self-policing and taking on conservation efforts voluntarily is probably the most effective way of keeping government from doing it for us.

Don't like goverment forcing corporations to adhere to stricter air standards? Fine, then we need to each reduce our own emissions to keep air-quality from reaching a point that the public demands action.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Sounds great Bob if it works. Right now money is being hidden under the mattress not wanting govt. central control to get ahold of it. Lots of good projects going down the drain. I doubt that enough private money will step forward, and create many jobs. The climate is far from good in investing in America.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

It seems as if these far-right wing Tea Party people have no problem turning this Country into a wasteland like China. They believe that conservation and protecting our public lands hurts the economy and that we should dismantle the Clean Air Act, get rid of the EPA etc- all for the sake of job creation. They're taking this thing too far. I've never seen such an attack on conservation and the environment in my life. There's just some things in life I won't do for job creation. Also, lets get real here. "Job creation" is being thrown around a lot and for the most part: it's a talking point coming straight from the the mouths of oil/gas/coal companies & developers. They've created a wedge issue among Americans in their pursuit of making more money.

+10 Good Comment? | | Report
from nuclear_fisher wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

I sort of agree with Sayfu. I saw this from Bob (Marshall) in a previous post and I held my tongue. It's hard to put your finger on but these 'produced' jobs seem less beneficial than the 'real' jobs that are taken away in the first place. We can't all be employed in the 'leisure' industry or by the government.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

You guys are gonna have to spell it out for me because I just dont get it...

Nowhere in this article is Bob calling for increased government regulation. Nowhere is he even calling for promoting green jobs over traditional industry.

All he is saying is that it is beneficial for the environment to save gas. Unless you were just looking for any excuse to go on a rant about "dumb liberals", what exactly are you complaining about?

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Sayfu,
I just went back and read your first post. I get the impression that you are so anti-left, that you feel compelled to oppose anything they encourage, even if it is something as universally beneficial as trying to conserve gas. As a sportsman, talk about a self-defeating position...

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from nuclear_fisher wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

That document that Bob linked is a 'study' that people can point to when they are arguing against industry so they can say we create as much or more jobs than we destroy. I just don't like the whole "we create jobs" argument for environmentally motivated regulations. The trade off on jobs lost vs jobs produced seems fallacious and thin. It's like fighting fire with fire instead of saying straightforward the real and good arguments for why we need a great outdoors rather than a radioactive, mercury laden concrete jungle. I REALLY hate to quote a harry potter movie but it seems pretty fitting, we must all make the choice between what is right and what is easy. Anyway I'm off now to Michigan for the weekend, hope you all has a good one...and don't worry I'm carpooling.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

a comment above got me thinking; I've heard that as a country, We The People As A Whole have a lot of money in the "bank" (I think in various places, savings etc), even though I know a lot are suffering.

I suspect moving forward that the people that can, will start to free up some of this "reserve / savings" to pay for the things they care about i.e. hunting / fishing / conservation related. It will happen one way or the other, the question will be who will control these resources and can the resources survive until we reach a tipping point where people feel compelled to release some of their money?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Great post Bob, I don't know about the amount of jobs from the recreation industry but I do know that producing green energy creates lots of jobs. My thoughts on extraction is more like so what. I've seen a lot of oil rigs and mines and they certainly aren't pretty when in operation, but when they leave all is pretty quiet again. One hard surface all weather road seems a lot more disruptive to me.

What I really liked about your post were the numbered suggestions on how to reduce our footprint hunting and fishing. A couple things I do are.

1. Hunt locally, if possible very close to where I live. I know I'll never get to shoot a cape buffalo this way but flying has to be one of the most energy intensive activities we can do.

2. I try to buy less stuff. Most every piece of equipment I use hunting serves double purpose hiking, camping, scouting, etc.

3. When possible I take the little car and leave the big truck at home.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Joe Derringer wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

great post...i dont think ppl realize how much outdoorsmen and women pump into this ecomony...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

The issue here is not green jobs versus "real jobs".

What Marshall means is that if we pull a China and let our hunting and fishing grounds go by the wayside, we will see a big loss of jobs and economic stimulus.

"6.4 million jobs, with almost $300 billion in annual retail sales and services contributing $88 billion in annual federal and state taxes."

Hello? Those numbers are at risk. Our sports are already on the decline. If they reach a tipping point, everything will collapse. Without the land, we lose the game and fish. Without the game and fish, we lose the hunters, fishermen, hikers, wildlife watchers, etc. Without them we have no more industry, no more revenue, no more funding for the land. Without funding for the land...

We're back to the beginning of the vicious cycle that's already in motion in the wrong direction. Can't you see that? Is it not obvious? Should I really have needed to spell it out for some of you like that?

Some of you are so blinded by your subservience to corporate interests disguised as political ideology that you still won't get it. Too bad the industry folks don't hand out stipends to those that back them up so loyally.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

In short, you don't have to agree that conservation is good for jobs and the economy.

BUT, it's pretty damn obvious that a lack of conservation is bad for jobs and the economy, not to mention the things we care for so much.

Sadly, many won't get it until they've lost their own favorite spot. That's what it will take.

Then, it will be far too late.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Bob...I didn't read but your first statement yet, but YES, emphatically YES, I am completely against the left. They are destroying our economy with their anti-capitalist rhetoric, and policy! A 5th grader can be quickly taught that the health and prosperity of all our citizens, the needed programs we want funded from schools to cancer research come from a robust private sector economy! Those tax dollars provide the funds, not centralized govt spending, and a highly regulatory environment that prevents job creation!! And now Obama wants more govt spending! Stimulus TWO!!! MY GAWD MAN!.. go buy an ECON 101 book, and open it up and read it! You have not seen anything yet..there is going to be blood in the streets.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

And it was REALGOODMAN with the fictitious handle that I was responding to not BOB.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Sayfu: honestly, I think we're being scammed by both political parties in this country. To say it's the "Left" or the "Right" is just an excuse to put blame on someone. Washington is broken and polarized... they say they are working for the people, but can we honestly see any evidence of this?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Well stated Shane. Couldn't agree more... we've reached a point where we changed tracks onto the wrong vicious cycle again. The catalyst is the rhetoric about the lack of jobs. All reasonable thinking has gone out the window and we'll get to the business of destroying our land for future generations.

The true mark of a real man is what he leaves behind when he is gone.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Sayfu,
Ignoring a clearly responsible idea, like conserving gas, just because you have somehow connected all things conservation-minded with the "left" strikes me as childish.

You keep going on rants about the left destroying the economy. Explain to me how conserving gas has the potential to bring down the economy, and I will humbly reconsider my opinion.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

CL3..Quite honestly here is the honest story. We were scammed by both parties...the liberals in the democrat party, and the WA ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS that went along with the liberals, and threw them all kinds of bones!! The "bipartisan" thing, and can't we all just get along thing that created the nice country club politico in WA that has now run out of tax payer money. It is the TEA Party that is greatly influencing the WA ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS to cut spending, and represent the tax payer, and not waste trillions of dollars in wasteful spending! We are at critical mass...and conservation projects, and jobs will be created by the private sector when they see the economic benefits of having created those jobs. Communities will attract business because of these projects and job creation. Not central planning, the socialist policy making that is now going on and destroying job creation, and the economy!

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Bob..You want to talk about things like "conserving gas?" I could make a lot of points about "conserving gas" as it applies to market capitalism, but you would not accept any of it if you are a liberal ideologue. No liberal has, and they never will even given the hindsight of what has gone on in this country in the last 3 years, and what is going on in Europe. Liberals will not even look at California as an example of liberal failure, and now the polls have even turned against Obama in California for GAWDS SAKE as to his liberal policies. And I have not strayed from the subject at hand, Conservation programs, and jobs. It pertains directly to the subject of conservation and jobs.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Keeping tires properly inflated and having a tune-up would reduce fuel consumption by 5% and help the environment far more than expensive government boondoggles. Solyndra cost tax payers 500 million dollars provides exactly 0 jobs. Liberals refuse to acknowledge that regulations- environmental, legal costs, "free" health care etc. cost jobs. It takes an average of 6 years to get approval to build a factory or transmission network in the US and at worst 6 months to build in Asia or Mexico. Where would you build? Has anyone liberal in this group every hired anyone- or built a business?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Sayfu,
I am far from a liberal idealogue, but I will say this: That's a whole lot of rhetoric that didn't even begin to answer the question.

You would make a fine presidential candidate.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pacific Hunter wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

First I want to address the points to save gas, Okay, I'll bite, I will cut my driving by 5% putting another $130 in my pocket. In only 5 years I will save enough to buy an out of state elk tag. Or I can continue to drive 8 or 9 hours, spend money at all the gas stations, dive hotels, greasy restaurants input a couple thousand dollars into small local economies ($1000 each, I already hunt with a friend) and continue inputting the money into the economies that need it.Secondly, the comments here are as ridiculous as when Bush was running and people said if he was elected there would be no place to hunt. Or Obama being elected he would take all my guns. Just a few days ago I walked onto public land with a rifle on my shoulder and a pistol (with 13 rounds, aka assault)on my hip. And watched three bears go about their business. A chocolate sow with one black and one brown cub. This doom and gloom rhetoric is ridiculous. Allowing regulated drilling on public lands will not kill every mule deer and antelope. People throw around the term conservation, this is wise use. Preservation is what many on here promote. A wilderness is preservation, a WMA is conservation. As much as I hate to admit it the North American Model of Wildlife Management is a socialist idea (liberal) and it has worked better than anywhere else in the world, the wildlife has no monetary value and is a public good. We need to quit pointing fingers at the other side and work towards a medium where we prudently use resources with the greatest benefit to all parties(conservation). You know what, why don't you buy a hydration bladder for your hunting pack and then quite protesting any type of prudent land use. it will get us far closer to reducing our environmental footprint and ensuring future employment and hunting opportunities to future generations.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

What are we talking about here? I live in a state that had less than 500 whitetail deer in the state at the end of WW2, and now has a harvest of over 200,000. I live in a state where Bald Eagles were extinct by 1970 and now has over 350 active nesting pairs. What is this China talk? Only a wealthy country can afford a clean environment. That's a fact... We have polluted places like Oil City Pa and reclaimed them to beauty. Let's get real people, we can develop and keep our world clean at the same time. A number of people here have lost their historical perspective.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Fictitious handle? It's a Tim McGraw song.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

There are certain industries with a zero percent reliability in re cleanup. Mining in particular. Here's the thing; many places that get screwed up by massive extraction operations will remain permanently devalued. Well, on the scale of multiple lifetimes anyhow. Once you've ripped the ore out, the jobs go away.

Outdoor sports & recreation jobs are always there. They can't be outsourced. They won't stop providing jobs & revenu unless of course we allow the extraction industries to crap up every decent remote place left in the USA.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

You guys have been brainwashed by the media. Millions of acres that have been trashed are now productive and supplying great hunting and fishing today. People drove cars without seat belts and didn't die. Lead based paint didn't kill every kid in every home that used it and we don't need a federal program that spends billions to "save the children". Bicycle helmets weren't worn, and kids with knives in school didn't kill each other. I agree with Mr Marshall on his article, that's the way I've hunted and fished for years. I disagree that oil and gas can't be extracted from our lands without total devastation. Only a wealthy nation can have a clean environment. The oil and gas will be extracted. If not by us, it will be exploited by our creditors.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

lab12: you make a good point, I certainly hear ya. The discussion / debate / decision making has become so toxic that nothing reasonable can come of it at times. Just over-reaction by one side or the other.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

"Keeping tires properly inflated and having a tune-up would reduce fuel consumption by 5%"

Ha. I seem to remember Obama getting ripped for suggesting that we check our tire pressure to save gas. I understand that many have a serious problem with a lot of his policies, but when they rip him for giving a good suggestion, it's been taken too far. Just another example of blind partisanship.

Sayfu, I would love to hear your theories on the economic effects of saving gas. Lemme guess. Saving gas is a bad thing?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Flytieflyfish wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

SAYFU FOR PRESIDENT!! I say we take a chance on him. You may not always agree with him but at least we'd have someone in the White House who understands Econ 101 and could create more jobs than we had in August.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from billyjo bondurant wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

yes camping and hunting go together.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

It seems as if these far-right wing Tea Party people have no problem turning this Country into a wasteland like China. They believe that conservation and protecting our public lands hurts the economy and that we should dismantle the Clean Air Act, get rid of the EPA etc- all for the sake of job creation. They're taking this thing too far. I've never seen such an attack on conservation and the environment in my life. There's just some things in life I won't do for job creation. Also, lets get real here. "Job creation" is being thrown around a lot and for the most part: it's a talking point coming straight from the the mouths of oil/gas/coal companies & developers. They've created a wedge issue among Americans in their pursuit of making more money.

+10 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Sayfu,
That's an awful lot of rhetoric to address. I'll start by pointing out that what Bob (no relation. ;) is suggesting has nothing to do with big government. Furthermore, it is only related to government regulation insofar that self-policing and taking on conservation efforts voluntarily is probably the most effective way of keeping government from doing it for us.

Don't like goverment forcing corporations to adhere to stricter air standards? Fine, then we need to each reduce our own emissions to keep air-quality from reaching a point that the public demands action.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Sayfu,
I just went back and read your first post. I get the impression that you are so anti-left, that you feel compelled to oppose anything they encourage, even if it is something as universally beneficial as trying to conserve gas. As a sportsman, talk about a self-defeating position...

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

You guys are gonna have to spell it out for me because I just dont get it...

Nowhere in this article is Bob calling for increased government regulation. Nowhere is he even calling for promoting green jobs over traditional industry.

All he is saying is that it is beneficial for the environment to save gas. Unless you were just looking for any excuse to go on a rant about "dumb liberals", what exactly are you complaining about?

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Sayfu,
Ignoring a clearly responsible idea, like conserving gas, just because you have somehow connected all things conservation-minded with the "left" strikes me as childish.

You keep going on rants about the left destroying the economy. Explain to me how conserving gas has the potential to bring down the economy, and I will humbly reconsider my opinion.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Sayfu,
I am far from a liberal idealogue, but I will say this: That's a whole lot of rhetoric that didn't even begin to answer the question.

You would make a fine presidential candidate.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

There are certain industries with a zero percent reliability in re cleanup. Mining in particular. Here's the thing; many places that get screwed up by massive extraction operations will remain permanently devalued. Well, on the scale of multiple lifetimes anyhow. Once you've ripped the ore out, the jobs go away.

Outdoor sports & recreation jobs are always there. They can't be outsourced. They won't stop providing jobs & revenu unless of course we allow the extraction industries to crap up every decent remote place left in the USA.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pacific Hunter wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

First I want to address the points to save gas, Okay, I'll bite, I will cut my driving by 5% putting another $130 in my pocket. In only 5 years I will save enough to buy an out of state elk tag. Or I can continue to drive 8 or 9 hours, spend money at all the gas stations, dive hotels, greasy restaurants input a couple thousand dollars into small local economies ($1000 each, I already hunt with a friend) and continue inputting the money into the economies that need it.Secondly, the comments here are as ridiculous as when Bush was running and people said if he was elected there would be no place to hunt. Or Obama being elected he would take all my guns. Just a few days ago I walked onto public land with a rifle on my shoulder and a pistol (with 13 rounds, aka assault)on my hip. And watched three bears go about their business. A chocolate sow with one black and one brown cub. This doom and gloom rhetoric is ridiculous. Allowing regulated drilling on public lands will not kill every mule deer and antelope. People throw around the term conservation, this is wise use. Preservation is what many on here promote. A wilderness is preservation, a WMA is conservation. As much as I hate to admit it the North American Model of Wildlife Management is a socialist idea (liberal) and it has worked better than anywhere else in the world, the wildlife has no monetary value and is a public good. We need to quit pointing fingers at the other side and work towards a medium where we prudently use resources with the greatest benefit to all parties(conservation). You know what, why don't you buy a hydration bladder for your hunting pack and then quite protesting any type of prudent land use. it will get us far closer to reducing our environmental footprint and ensuring future employment and hunting opportunities to future generations.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Sayfu: honestly, I think we're being scammed by both political parties in this country. To say it's the "Left" or the "Right" is just an excuse to put blame on someone. Washington is broken and polarized... they say they are working for the people, but can we honestly see any evidence of this?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

The issue here is not green jobs versus "real jobs".

What Marshall means is that if we pull a China and let our hunting and fishing grounds go by the wayside, we will see a big loss of jobs and economic stimulus.

"6.4 million jobs, with almost $300 billion in annual retail sales and services contributing $88 billion in annual federal and state taxes."

Hello? Those numbers are at risk. Our sports are already on the decline. If they reach a tipping point, everything will collapse. Without the land, we lose the game and fish. Without the game and fish, we lose the hunters, fishermen, hikers, wildlife watchers, etc. Without them we have no more industry, no more revenue, no more funding for the land. Without funding for the land...

We're back to the beginning of the vicious cycle that's already in motion in the wrong direction. Can't you see that? Is it not obvious? Should I really have needed to spell it out for some of you like that?

Some of you are so blinded by your subservience to corporate interests disguised as political ideology that you still won't get it. Too bad the industry folks don't hand out stipends to those that back them up so loyally.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

In short, you don't have to agree that conservation is good for jobs and the economy.

BUT, it's pretty damn obvious that a lack of conservation is bad for jobs and the economy, not to mention the things we care for so much.

Sadly, many won't get it until they've lost their own favorite spot. That's what it will take.

Then, it will be far too late.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Great post Bob, I don't know about the amount of jobs from the recreation industry but I do know that producing green energy creates lots of jobs. My thoughts on extraction is more like so what. I've seen a lot of oil rigs and mines and they certainly aren't pretty when in operation, but when they leave all is pretty quiet again. One hard surface all weather road seems a lot more disruptive to me.

What I really liked about your post were the numbered suggestions on how to reduce our footprint hunting and fishing. A couple things I do are.

1. Hunt locally, if possible very close to where I live. I know I'll never get to shoot a cape buffalo this way but flying has to be one of the most energy intensive activities we can do.

2. I try to buy less stuff. Most every piece of equipment I use hunting serves double purpose hiking, camping, scouting, etc.

3. When possible I take the little car and leave the big truck at home.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Joe Derringer wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

great post...i dont think ppl realize how much outdoorsmen and women pump into this ecomony...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

a comment above got me thinking; I've heard that as a country, We The People As A Whole have a lot of money in the "bank" (I think in various places, savings etc), even though I know a lot are suffering.

I suspect moving forward that the people that can, will start to free up some of this "reserve / savings" to pay for the things they care about i.e. hunting / fishing / conservation related. It will happen one way or the other, the question will be who will control these resources and can the resources survive until we reach a tipping point where people feel compelled to release some of their money?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Well stated Shane. Couldn't agree more... we've reached a point where we changed tracks onto the wrong vicious cycle again. The catalyst is the rhetoric about the lack of jobs. All reasonable thinking has gone out the window and we'll get to the business of destroying our land for future generations.

The true mark of a real man is what he leaves behind when he is gone.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

"Keeping tires properly inflated and having a tune-up would reduce fuel consumption by 5%"

Ha. I seem to remember Obama getting ripped for suggesting that we check our tire pressure to save gas. I understand that many have a serious problem with a lot of his policies, but when they rip him for giving a good suggestion, it's been taken too far. Just another example of blind partisanship.

Sayfu, I would love to hear your theories on the economic effects of saving gas. Lemme guess. Saving gas is a bad thing?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Fictitious handle? It's a Tim McGraw song.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

You guys have been brainwashed by the media. Millions of acres that have been trashed are now productive and supplying great hunting and fishing today. People drove cars without seat belts and didn't die. Lead based paint didn't kill every kid in every home that used it and we don't need a federal program that spends billions to "save the children". Bicycle helmets weren't worn, and kids with knives in school didn't kill each other. I agree with Mr Marshall on his article, that's the way I've hunted and fished for years. I disagree that oil and gas can't be extracted from our lands without total devastation. Only a wealthy nation can have a clean environment. The oil and gas will be extracted. If not by us, it will be exploited by our creditors.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Keeping tires properly inflated and having a tune-up would reduce fuel consumption by 5% and help the environment far more than expensive government boondoggles. Solyndra cost tax payers 500 million dollars provides exactly 0 jobs. Liberals refuse to acknowledge that regulations- environmental, legal costs, "free" health care etc. cost jobs. It takes an average of 6 years to get approval to build a factory or transmission network in the US and at worst 6 months to build in Asia or Mexico. Where would you build? Has anyone liberal in this group every hired anyone- or built a business?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Sounds great Bob if it works. Right now money is being hidden under the mattress not wanting govt. central control to get ahold of it. Lots of good projects going down the drain. I doubt that enough private money will step forward, and create many jobs. The climate is far from good in investing in America.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from nuclear_fisher wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

That document that Bob linked is a 'study' that people can point to when they are arguing against industry so they can say we create as much or more jobs than we destroy. I just don't like the whole "we create jobs" argument for environmentally motivated regulations. The trade off on jobs lost vs jobs produced seems fallacious and thin. It's like fighting fire with fire instead of saying straightforward the real and good arguments for why we need a great outdoors rather than a radioactive, mercury laden concrete jungle. I REALLY hate to quote a harry potter movie but it seems pretty fitting, we must all make the choice between what is right and what is easy. Anyway I'm off now to Michigan for the weekend, hope you all has a good one...and don't worry I'm carpooling.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from billyjo bondurant wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

yes camping and hunting go together.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

lab12: you make a good point, I certainly hear ya. The discussion / debate / decision making has become so toxic that nothing reasonable can come of it at times. Just over-reaction by one side or the other.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Flytieflyfish wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

SAYFU FOR PRESIDENT!! I say we take a chance on him. You may not always agree with him but at least we'd have someone in the White House who understands Econ 101 and could create more jobs than we had in August.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

The far left environmental movement has caused the loss of many, many jobs, and will continue to cause the loss of jobs. Many see corporations as evil, and become anti-capitalists. There are trillions of dollars sitting on the sideline waiting for a fed govt that emphasizes capitalism, and removes restrictive regulation and allows the market to create real jobs, and grow our economy. This grows tax receipts, and funds conservation programs. Centralized, big govt. spending tax payer dollars to create jobs only costs us jobs. It has been a total failure, and things had better change, and change quick. We are going to see a lot more pain going forward. Every day there are programs listed that will be cutback, or eliminated.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

And it was REALGOODMAN with the fictitious handle that I was responding to not BOB.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from nuclear_fisher wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

I sort of agree with Sayfu. I saw this from Bob (Marshall) in a previous post and I held my tongue. It's hard to put your finger on but these 'produced' jobs seem less beneficial than the 'real' jobs that are taken away in the first place. We can't all be employed in the 'leisure' industry or by the government.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

What are we talking about here? I live in a state that had less than 500 whitetail deer in the state at the end of WW2, and now has a harvest of over 200,000. I live in a state where Bald Eagles were extinct by 1970 and now has over 350 active nesting pairs. What is this China talk? Only a wealthy country can afford a clean environment. That's a fact... We have polluted places like Oil City Pa and reclaimed them to beauty. Let's get real people, we can develop and keep our world clean at the same time. A number of people here have lost their historical perspective.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Bob...I didn't read but your first statement yet, but YES, emphatically YES, I am completely against the left. They are destroying our economy with their anti-capitalist rhetoric, and policy! A 5th grader can be quickly taught that the health and prosperity of all our citizens, the needed programs we want funded from schools to cancer research come from a robust private sector economy! Those tax dollars provide the funds, not centralized govt spending, and a highly regulatory environment that prevents job creation!! And now Obama wants more govt spending! Stimulus TWO!!! MY GAWD MAN!.. go buy an ECON 101 book, and open it up and read it! You have not seen anything yet..there is going to be blood in the streets.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

CL3..Quite honestly here is the honest story. We were scammed by both parties...the liberals in the democrat party, and the WA ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS that went along with the liberals, and threw them all kinds of bones!! The "bipartisan" thing, and can't we all just get along thing that created the nice country club politico in WA that has now run out of tax payer money. It is the TEA Party that is greatly influencing the WA ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS to cut spending, and represent the tax payer, and not waste trillions of dollars in wasteful spending! We are at critical mass...and conservation projects, and jobs will be created by the private sector when they see the economic benefits of having created those jobs. Communities will attract business because of these projects and job creation. Not central planning, the socialist policy making that is now going on and destroying job creation, and the economy!

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 2 years 30 weeks ago

Bob..You want to talk about things like "conserving gas?" I could make a lot of points about "conserving gas" as it applies to market capitalism, but you would not accept any of it if you are a liberal ideologue. No liberal has, and they never will even given the hindsight of what has gone on in this country in the last 3 years, and what is going on in Europe. Liberals will not even look at California as an example of liberal failure, and now the polls have even turned against Obama in California for GAWDS SAKE as to his liberal policies. And I have not strayed from the subject at hand, Conservation programs, and jobs. It pertains directly to the subject of conservation and jobs.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment