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 Update: Romney Energy Plan Would Give Drilling Control on Federal Lands to States

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.

August 24, 2012

Conservation Update: Romney Energy Plan Would Give Drilling Control on Federal Lands to States

By Bob Marshall

Presidential candidates traditionally spend their campaigns making plenty of promises--then quickly forget most of them if they get elected. After looking at the energy plan Mitt Romney released this week, sportsmen can only hope the GOP candidate follows that custom should he win this November. That’s because of the following, which is from page eight of Romney’s energy policy white paper.

Empower States To Control Onshore Energy Debelopment

• States will be empowered to establish processes to oversee the development and production of all forms of energy on federal lands within their borders, excluding only lands specially designated off-limits.

• State regulatory processes and permitting programs for all forms of energy development will be deemed to satisfy all requirements of federal law.

• Federal agencies will certify state processes as adequate, according to established criteria that are sufficiently broad, to afford the states maximum flexibility to ascertain what is most appropriate.

• The federal government will encourage the formation of a State Energy Development Council, where states can work together along with existing organizations such as STRONGER and the IOGCC to share expertise and best management practice.

When it comes to the future of public hunting and fishing--especially out West--fewer proposals could be more frightening.

Sportsmen’s groups have spent the last decade fighting the push by extractive industries--typically timber, mining, oil and gas--to get congress to weaken or lift federal regulations protecting fish and wildlife values on our public lands. We have been generally successful because our ally in this fight generally is the rest of the nation--our co-owners of these public lands.

If that authority is passed to states, the battles will be lost in short order, because commercial groups have great influence in those state houses, which is why state regs in these areas generally are weaker than federal standards.

Romney’s proposal is an echo of the long and rising chant by many Western politicians that “the feds own too much of our state.”

Well, actually, the rest of the nation’s taxpayers own that land--that’s who “the feds” are. Taxpayers have spent hundreds of billions of dollars managing and protecting that land for the public trust for more than a hundred years--and now some politicians want us to hand it over. The national stewardship of our lands has allowed a recreational industry to thrive that supports more than 12 million jobs--and allows so many private sportsmen to enjoy nature.

Romney already has questioned the purpose of public lands, and his vice-presidential pick, Rep. Paul Ryan, proposes selling public lands to address the deficit.

None of this makes sense for sportsmen, or even the economy. These lands make public outdoor recreation possible, and that pastime actually adds to the nation’s gross domestic product.

Comments (41)

Top Rated
All Comments
from hhack wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

So what are you saying we should do Bob vote for the Anti-Hunting and Anti-firearm left? What part of keeping the incumbent in office is going to be good for sportsmen?

-6 Good Comment? | | Report
from nitsujm22 wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

hhack,
Your argument would be more persuasive if you could name a single piece of legislation signed by President Obama that limits the rights of gun ownership in this country. Please keep in mind that while in office for the first two years of his presidency he had Democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives and Senate.

+11 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

hhack, Bob is a phony conservationist that is a liberal democrat operative here to try and get sportsmen behind BO. All his articles start off bashing republicans or conservatives and goes on to blabble about how republicans are going to turn the earth into a cesspool where all life will be void. The only void is between his ears!

-6 Good Comment? | | Report
from hhack wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

nitsujm22
Obama doesn't use legislation. He uses good old fashioned back door dirty Chicago politics. You should know aren't you from there.
Anyways back on track, this is about conservation for sportsmen and I would like to know how the democrat view of the outdoors "That looks so pretty from my high rise" is one that is a benefit to sportsmen?

-6 Good Comment? | | Report
from jryoung wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Romney promised us energy independence by 2020. Others that have promised us energy independece in the past include Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama.

NOT drilling for oil has long been a part of our national security plan, a small part, but still a component none the less...and it should be going forward. Nothing wrong with being conservative with our natural resources.

The proposal should be concerning to hunters and fisherman, but not the end of the world. We simply need to communicate the value that hunting and fishing bring to rural communities. It is a big business, and if we want to protect our areas to hunt and fish we need to team together with others who may use it in a different manner.

+10 Good Comment? | | Report
from kandrew20 wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

hhack
"That looks so pretty from my high rise," who are you quoting, romney?

+11 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Any oil drilling has zero affect at the pump as oil prices are determined by the international market, the only things it helps are the balance of payments and the bottom line for big oil.

More worrisome in Mr. Romney's energy plan is it's lack of support for renewables and lax cafe standards. End of the day we have to drastically reduce our burning of carbon and his plan says nothing about climate change.

I don't think energy extraction is that harmful to hunting or the outdoors in general. Some of the most beautiful country I've ever seen had been developed. Far less harm than calling something a Park, or building a permanent road.

My ecological objections to Romney Inc. is that it cares zero for the people or the environment of the US, only profit for the 1%.

+11 Good Comment? | | Report
from blevenson wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

If we leave politics out of this I still don't think this is a good idea. It means that we will have fewer places to hunt and fish. How many of you want to hunt on a piece of land where natural gas is being mined? Not me. Keep the oil and gas companies off our lands that have been set aside for a reason.

+10 Good Comment? | | Report
from GregMc wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Romney's energy plan is typical or a politician who doesn't hunt or fish out west. He said not long ago that he doesn't think we need so much public land.
This is just another attempt by the selfish interests to take our American birthright and sell it to the highest bidder.

+12 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Marshall an operative?
Please.
That just typifies the current GOP mind set, anyone who opposes their profit first mentality is a Democratic plant.
Sell off our land to reduce our debt?
What do we sell next, Yellowstone? Grand Canyon? And to who, China?
The majority of debt was created by a couple wars and prescription drug giveaways coupled with the GOP's favorite cure all...tax cuts (read de-funding our government).

+10 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

hhack- if you've been paying any attention to conservation issues, you'd realize that it's not the left that's been anti-hunting: it's the right.

Just because the GOP politicians come out to campaign events wearing camo and playing the part doesn't make them pro-hunting. A single glance at their voting records tell a much different tale. But they're very good at what they do- duping voters with the same old scare tactics that come out every election. "Vote for me or the other guy will ban hunting and make guns extinct." Riiiiiight.

Their version of being pro-hunting: shooting juiced-up trophy animals behind fences. Know who's a big Romney supporter? Don Peay from that phony sell-out "conservation" group: Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife. The same privileged dope that called the North American Hunting Model "socialism." Someone needs to tell these guys that public access doesn't mean giving developers and oil/gas companies free access to our public lands.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

The Obama plan is to give control of drilling to greenpeace and other elitist big green organizations. What ever happened to multiple use? If I hadn't been to places like Oil City Pa I would agree with you guys. If the question is whether or not to make all public lands pristene then you have a point. In a non political rational world we could increase US oil production by 3 to 5 million barrels a day and still keep our quality hunting and fishing.

-5 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

In Obama's first 4 years, oil and gas production has actually increased: domestic production at its highest since 2003. But the next time around, Greenpeace is suddenly going to call the shots? Whatever you say, Lab.

What other b/s ideas you got flying around in that fantasy world of yours anyway? Is he going to appoint PETA to the FDA and Charles Manson to Secretary of State?

I guess there's just no pleasing you. You won't be satisfied until we start drilling the Everglades and hand over the last of our wilderness to oil and gas companies.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ncarl wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Am I the only one who is tired of this biased crap bob marshal calls journalism. I dont come to this site to be fed liberal propaganda. I come here to accuire valuable outdoor wisdom. And to field and stream, leave this crap to msnbc and dont tarnish your good name.I'm behind you hack and dcast.

-7 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Oil and gas production decreased on federal lands and increased on privatge lands. The N Dakota oilfields and the gas from shale production in the Marcellus shale are not federal lands. If it makes you feel good to be ignorant keep on keepin on realgoodman.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

I love how these fools like Ncarl, politicalhhack and Dcast won't disprove or refute anything Bob Marshall writes- they just complain, call it propaganda and lash out at him.

Well done, fellas. I equate that sort of behavior with a young, whiny child covering his ears with his hands and screaming, "La la la - I can't hear you - la la la."

Instead of being whiny brats (and enablers to the anti-conservation politicians). Why don't you tell us how Mitt Romney is pro-conservation? Or better yet- write to him and tell him that you want him to be a leader in conservation.. assuming that you do care about such issues (I've got my doubts).

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ncarl wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

RealGoodMan, Im not saying that Mitt Romney Is pro conservation and Im not saying Obama Is pro conservation. Im simply making a statement about the poor journalism on Bob marshals part and that, to put it frankly, this blog isn't meant for political statements like this. I vote freedoms first and the rest will fall in line.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ncarl wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

kandrew20, He shore aint quoting some city slicer from chicago (or where ever hes really really from).

-5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ncarl wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

*could be* Not aint. getting a little late.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from GregMc wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Hey Ncarl, since you're such an eloquent scribe and obviously aching to wax poetic on the subject of journalism, why don't you explain to everyone exactly what in this story constitutes "poor journalism" on Bob's part?
While you're at it, maybe you could explain which statements in Bob's post are incorrect.

Lab, if you you have to ask "whatever happened to multiple use" then odds are you haven't been on public land west of the Mississippi.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ncarl wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Failure to present both sides of the argument. It's just a scare tactic.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from GregMc wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Looks like he actually reprinted a large section of the plan to me Ncarl.
And you still didn't note which part you believe is propaganda or somehow untrue.
Just because you don't like or agree with Bob does not mean what he wrote is propaganda.
It doesn't even mean that you're obtuse or simply too lazy to think for yourself, though it might.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

I'm in Thorne Bay Ak.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

It's pretty sad that it isn't Romney energy plan that is making these guys upset, but the fact that Bob Marshall is highlighting it and calling it for what it is: a bad plan for our public lands that surely isn't in the best interests of sportsmen and the great outdoors. How damn backwards is that?

We get it though. Some article gets you defensive, you call it biased propaganda. Yep- same ol' crap from the people that value their petty politics over principle.

We'll all be losers in the end if we keep this garbage up.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Realgoodman, I have refuted Mr. Marshall countless times with facts and links so others can go to see, it's not my problem that you can't visit the sites I have provided. People like you make me tired and right now I am so tired of this crap that I really don't care to try and educate anymore. Go back and look through all my posts and do the work, or you can continue throwing a temper tantrum and following the gospel of your political party affiliation. In the end I suppose it doesn't matter this country is clearly on the path to ruin I just hope it gets fixed before my children have to realize it they are still young.

Hoski our government wasn't designed to make money and provide welfare. It was designed to maintain the Republic and protect it from foreign governments, but that went away along time ago. As for the comments on our debt, you should really do your homework outside of reading Huffington Post it would definately be surprising there are things called facts and they don't support your comment at all!

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from wwright wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

I believe that any policy that is put in place that takes away our(we the people) public lands and allows a private company to come in and make millions of dollars off that land is wrong. If we are that strapped for energy(oil,gas,coal) production then maybe we need to start investing/thinking about other ways to produce it. Once that land is sold off we will never see it again in that condition if at all. Why do we want to give something away that was given to use but such a great man(TR) This is not sustainable. If we want anything to last in this country it needs to be sustainable. I mean who really cares about whats left in twenty years if you have already got what you need out it. And for you that think this Propaganda, it not. It hasnt been simplified or repeated enough, such as "weapons of mass destruction".

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Andrew Bosway wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Seriously, stop these political articles F&S. I come here to learn about bending rods and pulling triggers not one person's bias on decision making in Washington. Stick with what you're good at... rods, guns, and gear.

-6 Good Comment? | | Report
from GregMc wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Many of us have enough gadgets and we're more interested in making sure that our kids and their kids have a place to hunt and fish. Blogs like this are important to sportsmen who care enough to want future generations to share in our outdoor experiences.
The hunters and anglers who came before us protected public land, created seasons and bag limits, conserved wetlands, created the USFWS and the Duck Stamp. They passed legislation to fund conservation and they made damn sure that we would have an opportunity to hunt and fish.
Some of us feel it's important to do the same and that includes having a frank discussion about policies that are bad for wildlife, regardless of the origins of said policies.
If that's not you, then don't read this blog.
And if you think it doesn't matter, I'll hope you'll take the time to explain to your progeny why you couldn't make the conservation of their fish and wildlife resources a priority.

+8 Good Comment? | | Report
from MattM37 wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Like everything, it's just not cut-and-dried enough for responses like HHack's. I understand the feeling, Mr. Hack, don't get me wrong ... but here's something that made me stop and think(This might seem like an apples-and-oranges kind of comparison, but like I said, just to make the point that there are many facets to every situation ...: I live in New York State, a state the Republican presidential candidate seldom even bothers trying to win. But here in my semi-rural area, our Democratic and typically very liberal state assemblywoman recently led the movement to switch us from a shotgun-only to rifles-allowed area during deer season, as well as helping to push through the recent allowance of crossbow hunting. Granted, she's just a local assemblywoman, but I know plenty of guys who swore up and down that she'd never be on board with this stuff, because they made the usual assumption right at the outset. Turns out she was one of our best allies.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Dcast,
You know, it seems strange that over 200 years after the fact some such as yourself deem themselves the enlightened interpreters of what our founders really meant. Perhaps these words ring a bell:
“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I hope you paid particular attention to the inclusion of the words “promote the general welfare”…and "to ourselves and our posterity".
So it's evident you're wrong on the subject of our citizen's general welfare, and I consider protecting OUR lands for our posterity to include NOT selling them off to the highest bidder.

As for my comments regarding debt…I see by your reasoning 2 long wars and Medicare part D were free, as in no cost at all.
Let us know when you finish with your anti-gravity machine.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 1 year 32 weeks ago

If you guys don't like a blog that DOESN'T bow down to the GOP, how about you go check out EVERY OTHER OUTDOOR/SPORTSMAN WEBSITE ON EARTH?? They seem to fit your "fact-free" criteria. I applaud Bob for having enough grit to put out truth to the hunting and fishing community that for decades has been predominantly Republican.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 32 weeks ago

thank you bob marshall. as jbird said it takes some guts for bob to write some of the things bob does. he is simply saying what republicans are voting for. i see articles on the same issues on websites of TU, DU, TRCP, Pheasants Forevers, Ruffed Grouse society, Backcountry hunter and anglers. it isn't propaganda

ncarl: you talk about "scare tactics" well i must say if you want to see scare tactics look no further than the NRA

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from redfishunter wrote 1 year 32 weeks ago

Dear Bob: You suck.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ncarl wrote 1 year 32 weeks ago

God bless the NRA. If you really care about your right to bear arms your a member. If not it just must not be that important to you.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 32 weeks ago

typical mature response from redfishhunter. only what i would expect.

i find the NRA to be kind of a joke and they do use a lot of scare tactics. what has obama done to limit weapons? especially for people that hunt? he has had the last 4 years to do something about it. the NRA also stands against things like roadless areas which also lessens my opinion of them

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 32 weeks ago

The NRA is a whole other issue, so I'm not going to get too far into that. Lets just say this. I stopped giving them money years ago when I finally came to grips with the fact that the organization has been going downhill for some time. They've sold out on many occasions and have put their noses in business that's not theres. If the NRA wants to stick to 2nd amendment issues- that's fine, I'm all for it, but then they go ahead and throw their support behind HR 1581 and other anti-wilderness bills and it leaves me shaking my head in disgust. They're a beltway organization.. that's all there is to it. They're in the business of increasing membership and generating funds. Scare the crap out of a gun owner, get them all paranoid: then watch the dollars start flowing in.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from eira s wrote 1 year 32 weeks ago

it bugs me that everyone assumes that 'leftists' don't own guns. or hunt, or fish or enjoy the outdoors for the sake of those activities or the outdoors alone.

i don't enjoy it from my condo, i enjoy it from my tent, and when i can hike, from the trail.

Romney probably doesn't need public land. he owns plenty of his own. if he wants to enjoy the outdoors, he probably stays there. why go among the peons? to him, it is only useful for the money he can get out of it. i'm guessing most of us aren't planning on getting a whopping wad of cash for the fish we just caught, unless we're in that industry! we're there for a lot of other reasons.

but we won't be able to do that if we don't have public lands, if they're all off limits and owned by corporations. will they let us hunt and fish on their lands?

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 32 weeks ago

I hold my nose every time I renew my NRA membership but in the end they're the most effective use of my money for stopping the gun registration/ban crowd. It's not like the ACLU would ever step up to defend the 2nd Amendment.

Good post Bob Marshall. As always, concise, factual, accurate and well-reasoned.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 1 year 30 weeks ago

Cool, maybe when Romney gets elected gas will go back to $1.80 instead of up to $7.00 like it will if we have another Obamanation term....

Under Obama the EPA has put their thumb on small businesses and practically killed us. The more money the government has the more they give to those who produce nothing and write regulations to kill private entrepreneurship. If the money stays in the private sector it goes to those who produce products and jobs.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from coloradomountainman wrote 1 year 30 weeks ago

Neither candidate is the best choice for sportsmen and conservationists. We need another Teddy Roosevelt

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 30 weeks ago

The Blue Dog Democrats, the "Republican Main Street Partnership" moderates and ConservAmerica pro-conservation/environment republicans should leave their respective parties and create a third independent party.

That'd be something huh?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from GregMc wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Romney's energy plan is typical or a politician who doesn't hunt or fish out west. He said not long ago that he doesn't think we need so much public land.
This is just another attempt by the selfish interests to take our American birthright and sell it to the highest bidder.

+12 Good Comment? | | Report
from nitsujm22 wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

hhack,
Your argument would be more persuasive if you could name a single piece of legislation signed by President Obama that limits the rights of gun ownership in this country. Please keep in mind that while in office for the first two years of his presidency he had Democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives and Senate.

+11 Good Comment? | | Report
from kandrew20 wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

hhack
"That looks so pretty from my high rise," who are you quoting, romney?

+11 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Any oil drilling has zero affect at the pump as oil prices are determined by the international market, the only things it helps are the balance of payments and the bottom line for big oil.

More worrisome in Mr. Romney's energy plan is it's lack of support for renewables and lax cafe standards. End of the day we have to drastically reduce our burning of carbon and his plan says nothing about climate change.

I don't think energy extraction is that harmful to hunting or the outdoors in general. Some of the most beautiful country I've ever seen had been developed. Far less harm than calling something a Park, or building a permanent road.

My ecological objections to Romney Inc. is that it cares zero for the people or the environment of the US, only profit for the 1%.

+11 Good Comment? | | Report
from jryoung wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Romney promised us energy independence by 2020. Others that have promised us energy independece in the past include Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama.

NOT drilling for oil has long been a part of our national security plan, a small part, but still a component none the less...and it should be going forward. Nothing wrong with being conservative with our natural resources.

The proposal should be concerning to hunters and fisherman, but not the end of the world. We simply need to communicate the value that hunting and fishing bring to rural communities. It is a big business, and if we want to protect our areas to hunt and fish we need to team together with others who may use it in a different manner.

+10 Good Comment? | | Report
from blevenson wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

If we leave politics out of this I still don't think this is a good idea. It means that we will have fewer places to hunt and fish. How many of you want to hunt on a piece of land where natural gas is being mined? Not me. Keep the oil and gas companies off our lands that have been set aside for a reason.

+10 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Marshall an operative?
Please.
That just typifies the current GOP mind set, anyone who opposes their profit first mentality is a Democratic plant.
Sell off our land to reduce our debt?
What do we sell next, Yellowstone? Grand Canyon? And to who, China?
The majority of debt was created by a couple wars and prescription drug giveaways coupled with the GOP's favorite cure all...tax cuts (read de-funding our government).

+10 Good Comment? | | Report
from GregMc wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Many of us have enough gadgets and we're more interested in making sure that our kids and their kids have a place to hunt and fish. Blogs like this are important to sportsmen who care enough to want future generations to share in our outdoor experiences.
The hunters and anglers who came before us protected public land, created seasons and bag limits, conserved wetlands, created the USFWS and the Duck Stamp. They passed legislation to fund conservation and they made damn sure that we would have an opportunity to hunt and fish.
Some of us feel it's important to do the same and that includes having a frank discussion about policies that are bad for wildlife, regardless of the origins of said policies.
If that's not you, then don't read this blog.
And if you think it doesn't matter, I'll hope you'll take the time to explain to your progeny why you couldn't make the conservation of their fish and wildlife resources a priority.

+8 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

I love how these fools like Ncarl, politicalhhack and Dcast won't disprove or refute anything Bob Marshall writes- they just complain, call it propaganda and lash out at him.

Well done, fellas. I equate that sort of behavior with a young, whiny child covering his ears with his hands and screaming, "La la la - I can't hear you - la la la."

Instead of being whiny brats (and enablers to the anti-conservation politicians). Why don't you tell us how Mitt Romney is pro-conservation? Or better yet- write to him and tell him that you want him to be a leader in conservation.. assuming that you do care about such issues (I've got my doubts).

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hoski wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Dcast,
You know, it seems strange that over 200 years after the fact some such as yourself deem themselves the enlightened interpreters of what our founders really meant. Perhaps these words ring a bell:
“We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I hope you paid particular attention to the inclusion of the words “promote the general welfare”…and "to ourselves and our posterity".
So it's evident you're wrong on the subject of our citizen's general welfare, and I consider protecting OUR lands for our posterity to include NOT selling them off to the highest bidder.

As for my comments regarding debt…I see by your reasoning 2 long wars and Medicare part D were free, as in no cost at all.
Let us know when you finish with your anti-gravity machine.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

hhack- if you've been paying any attention to conservation issues, you'd realize that it's not the left that's been anti-hunting: it's the right.

Just because the GOP politicians come out to campaign events wearing camo and playing the part doesn't make them pro-hunting. A single glance at their voting records tell a much different tale. But they're very good at what they do- duping voters with the same old scare tactics that come out every election. "Vote for me or the other guy will ban hunting and make guns extinct." Riiiiiight.

Their version of being pro-hunting: shooting juiced-up trophy animals behind fences. Know who's a big Romney supporter? Don Peay from that phony sell-out "conservation" group: Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife. The same privileged dope that called the North American Hunting Model "socialism." Someone needs to tell these guys that public access doesn't mean giving developers and oil/gas companies free access to our public lands.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

It's pretty sad that it isn't Romney energy plan that is making these guys upset, but the fact that Bob Marshall is highlighting it and calling it for what it is: a bad plan for our public lands that surely isn't in the best interests of sportsmen and the great outdoors. How damn backwards is that?

We get it though. Some article gets you defensive, you call it biased propaganda. Yep- same ol' crap from the people that value their petty politics over principle.

We'll all be losers in the end if we keep this garbage up.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from MattM37 wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Like everything, it's just not cut-and-dried enough for responses like HHack's. I understand the feeling, Mr. Hack, don't get me wrong ... but here's something that made me stop and think(This might seem like an apples-and-oranges kind of comparison, but like I said, just to make the point that there are many facets to every situation ...: I live in New York State, a state the Republican presidential candidate seldom even bothers trying to win. But here in my semi-rural area, our Democratic and typically very liberal state assemblywoman recently led the movement to switch us from a shotgun-only to rifles-allowed area during deer season, as well as helping to push through the recent allowance of crossbow hunting. Granted, she's just a local assemblywoman, but I know plenty of guys who swore up and down that she'd never be on board with this stuff, because they made the usual assumption right at the outset. Turns out she was one of our best allies.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from GregMc wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Looks like he actually reprinted a large section of the plan to me Ncarl.
And you still didn't note which part you believe is propaganda or somehow untrue.
Just because you don't like or agree with Bob does not mean what he wrote is propaganda.
It doesn't even mean that you're obtuse or simply too lazy to think for yourself, though it might.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from wwright wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

I believe that any policy that is put in place that takes away our(we the people) public lands and allows a private company to come in and make millions of dollars off that land is wrong. If we are that strapped for energy(oil,gas,coal) production then maybe we need to start investing/thinking about other ways to produce it. Once that land is sold off we will never see it again in that condition if at all. Why do we want to give something away that was given to use but such a great man(TR) This is not sustainable. If we want anything to last in this country it needs to be sustainable. I mean who really cares about whats left in twenty years if you have already got what you need out it. And for you that think this Propaganda, it not. It hasnt been simplified or repeated enough, such as "weapons of mass destruction".

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

In Obama's first 4 years, oil and gas production has actually increased: domestic production at its highest since 2003. But the next time around, Greenpeace is suddenly going to call the shots? Whatever you say, Lab.

What other b/s ideas you got flying around in that fantasy world of yours anyway? Is he going to appoint PETA to the FDA and Charles Manson to Secretary of State?

I guess there's just no pleasing you. You won't be satisfied until we start drilling the Everglades and hand over the last of our wilderness to oil and gas companies.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 1 year 32 weeks ago

If you guys don't like a blog that DOESN'T bow down to the GOP, how about you go check out EVERY OTHER OUTDOOR/SPORTSMAN WEBSITE ON EARTH?? They seem to fit your "fact-free" criteria. I applaud Bob for having enough grit to put out truth to the hunting and fishing community that for decades has been predominantly Republican.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 32 weeks ago

typical mature response from redfishhunter. only what i would expect.

i find the NRA to be kind of a joke and they do use a lot of scare tactics. what has obama done to limit weapons? especially for people that hunt? he has had the last 4 years to do something about it. the NRA also stands against things like roadless areas which also lessens my opinion of them

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 32 weeks ago

The NRA is a whole other issue, so I'm not going to get too far into that. Lets just say this. I stopped giving them money years ago when I finally came to grips with the fact that the organization has been going downhill for some time. They've sold out on many occasions and have put their noses in business that's not theres. If the NRA wants to stick to 2nd amendment issues- that's fine, I'm all for it, but then they go ahead and throw their support behind HR 1581 and other anti-wilderness bills and it leaves me shaking my head in disgust. They're a beltway organization.. that's all there is to it. They're in the business of increasing membership and generating funds. Scare the crap out of a gun owner, get them all paranoid: then watch the dollars start flowing in.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from eira s wrote 1 year 32 weeks ago

it bugs me that everyone assumes that 'leftists' don't own guns. or hunt, or fish or enjoy the outdoors for the sake of those activities or the outdoors alone.

i don't enjoy it from my condo, i enjoy it from my tent, and when i can hike, from the trail.

Romney probably doesn't need public land. he owns plenty of his own. if he wants to enjoy the outdoors, he probably stays there. why go among the peons? to him, it is only useful for the money he can get out of it. i'm guessing most of us aren't planning on getting a whopping wad of cash for the fish we just caught, unless we're in that industry! we're there for a lot of other reasons.

but we won't be able to do that if we don't have public lands, if they're all off limits and owned by corporations. will they let us hunt and fish on their lands?

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from GregMc wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Hey Ncarl, since you're such an eloquent scribe and obviously aching to wax poetic on the subject of journalism, why don't you explain to everyone exactly what in this story constitutes "poor journalism" on Bob's part?
While you're at it, maybe you could explain which statements in Bob's post are incorrect.

Lab, if you you have to ask "whatever happened to multiple use" then odds are you haven't been on public land west of the Mississippi.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 32 weeks ago

thank you bob marshall. as jbird said it takes some guts for bob to write some of the things bob does. he is simply saying what republicans are voting for. i see articles on the same issues on websites of TU, DU, TRCP, Pheasants Forevers, Ruffed Grouse society, Backcountry hunter and anglers. it isn't propaganda

ncarl: you talk about "scare tactics" well i must say if you want to see scare tactics look no further than the NRA

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 32 weeks ago

I hold my nose every time I renew my NRA membership but in the end they're the most effective use of my money for stopping the gun registration/ban crowd. It's not like the ACLU would ever step up to defend the 2nd Amendment.

Good post Bob Marshall. As always, concise, factual, accurate and well-reasoned.

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

The Blue Dog Democrats, the "Republican Main Street Partnership" moderates and ConservAmerica pro-conservation/environment republicans should leave their respective parties and create a third independent party.

That'd be something huh?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from coloradomountainman wrote 1 year 30 weeks ago

Neither candidate is the best choice for sportsmen and conservationists. We need another Teddy Roosevelt

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Oil and gas production decreased on federal lands and increased on privatge lands. The N Dakota oilfields and the gas from shale production in the Marcellus shale are not federal lands. If it makes you feel good to be ignorant keep on keepin on realgoodman.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

I'm in Thorne Bay Ak.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ncarl wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Failure to present both sides of the argument. It's just a scare tactic.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim Platt wrote 1 year 30 weeks ago

Cool, maybe when Romney gets elected gas will go back to $1.80 instead of up to $7.00 like it will if we have another Obamanation term....

Under Obama the EPA has put their thumb on small businesses and practically killed us. The more money the government has the more they give to those who produce nothing and write regulations to kill private entrepreneurship. If the money stays in the private sector it goes to those who produce products and jobs.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Realgoodman, I have refuted Mr. Marshall countless times with facts and links so others can go to see, it's not my problem that you can't visit the sites I have provided. People like you make me tired and right now I am so tired of this crap that I really don't care to try and educate anymore. Go back and look through all my posts and do the work, or you can continue throwing a temper tantrum and following the gospel of your political party affiliation. In the end I suppose it doesn't matter this country is clearly on the path to ruin I just hope it gets fixed before my children have to realize it they are still young.

Hoski our government wasn't designed to make money and provide welfare. It was designed to maintain the Republic and protect it from foreign governments, but that went away along time ago. As for the comments on our debt, you should really do your homework outside of reading Huffington Post it would definately be surprising there are things called facts and they don't support your comment at all!

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from redfishunter wrote 1 year 32 weeks ago

Dear Bob: You suck.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ncarl wrote 1 year 32 weeks ago

God bless the NRA. If you really care about your right to bear arms your a member. If not it just must not be that important to you.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ncarl wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

RealGoodMan, Im not saying that Mitt Romney Is pro conservation and Im not saying Obama Is pro conservation. Im simply making a statement about the poor journalism on Bob marshals part and that, to put it frankly, this blog isn't meant for political statements like this. I vote freedoms first and the rest will fall in line.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ncarl wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

*could be* Not aint. getting a little late.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from labrador12 wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

The Obama plan is to give control of drilling to greenpeace and other elitist big green organizations. What ever happened to multiple use? If I hadn't been to places like Oil City Pa I would agree with you guys. If the question is whether or not to make all public lands pristene then you have a point. In a non political rational world we could increase US oil production by 3 to 5 million barrels a day and still keep our quality hunting and fishing.

-5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ncarl wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

kandrew20, He shore aint quoting some city slicer from chicago (or where ever hes really really from).

-5 Good Comment? | | Report
from hhack wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

So what are you saying we should do Bob vote for the Anti-Hunting and Anti-firearm left? What part of keeping the incumbent in office is going to be good for sportsmen?

-6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

hhack, Bob is a phony conservationist that is a liberal democrat operative here to try and get sportsmen behind BO. All his articles start off bashing republicans or conservatives and goes on to blabble about how republicans are going to turn the earth into a cesspool where all life will be void. The only void is between his ears!

-6 Good Comment? | | Report
from hhack wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

nitsujm22
Obama doesn't use legislation. He uses good old fashioned back door dirty Chicago politics. You should know aren't you from there.
Anyways back on track, this is about conservation for sportsmen and I would like to know how the democrat view of the outdoors "That looks so pretty from my high rise" is one that is a benefit to sportsmen?

-6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Andrew Bosway wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Seriously, stop these political articles F&S. I come here to learn about bending rods and pulling triggers not one person's bias on decision making in Washington. Stick with what you're good at... rods, guns, and gear.

-6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ncarl wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Am I the only one who is tired of this biased crap bob marshal calls journalism. I dont come to this site to be fed liberal propaganda. I come here to accuire valuable outdoor wisdom. And to field and stream, leave this crap to msnbc and dont tarnish your good name.I'm behind you hack and dcast.

-7 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment