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.

Sportsmen Stunned by Move Against Sportsmen's Act

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.

November 28, 2012

Sportsmen Stunned by Move Against Sportsmen's Act

By Bob Marshall

It’s unlikely that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a staunch conservative, takes direction from The New York Times editorial page. So sportsmen can’t use that newspaper’s error-laden editorial last week opposing The Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 as the reason the Alabama lawmaker stunned sportsmen’s groups Monday by using a procedural vote to deliver what is a likely a knock-out blow to a bill that had been coveted by the nation’s hunters, anglers and sport shooters.
 
The bill’s key features include reauthorizing the North American Wetland Conservation Act (NAWCA); using 1.5 percent of Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations for purchasing access to public lands from willing private sellers, helping give sportsmen access to additional 35 million acres of public property; allowing more funding from the Pittman-Robertson Act for development and operation of public shooting ranges; allowing the sale of federal duck stamps electronically; raising the price of duck stamps from $15 to $25 - and giving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in conjunction with an independent panel, the ability to make future increases.
 
Groups such as Ducks Unlimited, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the National Rifle Association, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation watched in stunned disbelief as Sessions threw cold water on a “yes” vote celebration they were planning. After all, the Sportsman’s Act - carefully guided through the Senate by Jon Tester (D-MT) - had won two previous procedural votes over the last month with more than 80 votes - a stunning display of bi-partisanship from one of the most divided senates ever.
 
Even when Sessions talked about his major objections (he wanted $14 million trimmed from the cost to fit within the Budget Control Act; he didn’t like diluting Congress’ sole authority to “raise taxes” by the giving the USFWS oversight over duck stamp costs) supporters felt the vote would still be in their favor.
 
Wrong. They needed 60 votes to waive Sessions points of order, but fell six votes short on a mostly-party-line vote, with fellow Republicans joining Sessions.
 
“Although Senator Sessions and the (Dem) leader Harry Reid (D-NV) indicated they would try to make changes and move this back for another vote, even if that’s done it puts this bill in an incredibly difficult time squeeze,” said Vaughn Collins, director of government affairs for the TRCP.
 
That’s because the bill would not go to the House for action until next month, where it would have to fight for time during the coming political and legislative storm over the so-called “fiscal cliff” negotiations.
 
If approved by the House, it would probably then have to fight for a space in what promises to be the tightest budget bill in years.
 
That doesn’t mean there’s no chance it will pass - but it does mean that chance is down to slim and none.

Comments (52)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Chris Link wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

The republicans doing a mostly partyline vote against a wildlife/hunting bill doesn't suprise me the slightest. Just because most hunters are conservative doesn't mean conservatives in office support wildlife and hunters.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I was shocked to see most republicans joined Barbara Boxer (maybe the most anti-hunting congressmen) in voting this down. The only repbulican to give this a yes vote was Olympia Snowe from Maine.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Jay, allow me re-phrase your comment in a more accurate manner: Barbara Boxer joined most Republicans in voting this down.

I hate to be picky here, but lets call this for what it is.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I've no idea why this came to a party line vote. Republicans aren't generally anti hunting. The vote was Repubs + Boxer against, Dems+ Olympia Snow for. All I can think of is they were mad and madder as they are about to lose filibuster in January so they are out to do as much damage until then.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from TM wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Rediculous to think the GOP is not on the side of Sporsman. It is the left that attacks sportsman's interests. In my town 3 new gun stores have sprung up since Obama was elected, and they are crowded buy guns and ammo expecting new restriction gun legislation, excessive taxation on guns and ammo, and are hoarding guns and ammo. Get real. There is lots of evidence as to what the far left wants legislated against sportsman's interests.

-10 Good Comment? | | Report
from jryoung wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

It came to a party line vote because Republicans are disappointed Tester got re-elected. Further, but shooting in down on a procedural vote the avoided official grading from the NRA.

I don't know what I am more pissed about, the fact that the Republicans changed their votes at the 11th hour, or we have heard nothing from the NRA.

Don't you think the NRA would have a conniption if the democrats backed away from previous support of an NRA sponsored bill that expanded hunting opportunities, ensured more money for public shooting ranges, and kept ammunition/fishing lure regulation out of the hands of the EPA?

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Republicans used to be our friends....

They may be no longer....

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

clinchknot: on the last post on this website in which bob wrote about the NYT writing against the sportsmen act you commented that the NYT is a leftist anti-hunting paper. yet now a day later it is the republicans that have the same opinion as the NYT and voted down this bill.

kinda makes you look foolish doesn't it?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from RockySquirrel wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

"Laws are like sausages. better not to see them made”: Otto Von Bismarck.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Arlo269 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Whoever runs against Sessions will get my vote next election!!!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

You can seldom ever know the entire story on a bill. A party will try to gain political capital by saying someone voted down something, and do it just to gain a favorable public opinion on the issue. But often a bill has a bunch of riders attached to it making it necessary to vote the main issue down. I know the bigger picture, and it ain't that hard to understand. The GOP is for states rights, individual freedoms, and FOR hunting and fishing rights. The libs?..on many, many fronts they try to shutdown public lands, etc., etc. You should just see the hording of guns and ammo since Obama was re-elected!! It is incredible. Folks know who is for, and who is against.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

And by the way. If you are not able to see what side of the fence this Bob Marshell is on you are totally unable to understand who's for and who's against on virtually anything.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

^ Apologist

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Clichknot- You're in denial and you sound like someone that's suffering from a nervous breakdown. I suggest you stop now before embarrassing yourself any further.

and the hoarding of guns and ammo? So what? Did you see all the people across the country filling up their minivans with twinkies? These people are irrational.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Please! Once you know an individuals political ideology you NEVER EVER find out.."GEE WIZ, this Bob Marshell guy is now a conservative! You are delusional. This isn't rocket science. Just read a Bob Marshell topic heading, and you know his slant. And you think I am wrong about the hording of guns and ammo since Obama's time in office?

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

UNREAL..Do you donate to ANY hunting/sportsman's efforts?..like the NRA, or Pheasants Forever, or Ducks Unlimited? EVeryone of those organizations has a publication, and everyone of them speaks in no uncertain terms as to the efforts of liberals to curtail gun ownership, deny access to public lands, and on, and on. Why lie? Hard to understand the adverse working of the liberal mind. Stop and ask someone why the hording is going on. Pull your head out.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from amoor983 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

My initial reaction is that this is not a hunting or conservation issue (it is, but senators are not seeing it that way). This is a budget and spending issue. A line has been drawn in the sand; conservatives want to curtail federal spending and balance the budget. Things are so polarized right now that any spending will get the axe by republicans. Several of these “no” senators are from states where hunting is big business and strong tradition, and have supported hunting and conservation in the past. Grid lock is not all bad. Sometimes the best thing congress can do is nothing. This is an exception. Bad timing for the bill and an unfortunate blow to conservation.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

amoor983..Now you make sense with that post. Everything I usnderstand about what is going on supports what you posted. I had no interest in spending time understanding the issue given the background of the author, and the postes who support his side of the isle. Good post.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Jeepers, Clinchie, Shut Up. No one cares what you think of Bob Marshall and, to be honest, if you despise him so much why do you even bother to read his blog? You're like some sort of spurned girlfriend who keeps trying to get his attention.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from jryoung wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

clinchknot - everyone of those groups you just mentioned support this bill. There are 47 in total, just about every hunting, fishing and shooting organization is behind this bill. By killing this bill they are seeking to deny access to public land.

Additionally, if you want to see and effort to sell off public lands google "The Western Caucas" and see the letter they sent to John Boehner on the 26th calling for the sale of Public Land.

Specifically they state:

"Divesting the federal government of its vast land holdings could pay down the deficit and reduce spending. The federal government owns roughly 650 million acres of land, or 1/3 of the entire landmass of our country. Over 90% of this land is located in the western states and most of it we do not even need."

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Clinch, you're free to look up the details behind this whole ordeal elsewhere. You chose to comment under Marshall's piece and disagree with it, despite admitting to not even reading it. Then you thought this would be a perfect forum to go on a political rant based on rhetoric and conspiracy rather than facts.

To sum it up, the GOP refused to waive the budget rules in supporting a $10 increase on the duck stamp. This increase would have violated some provision from last year preventing any sort of fee increase.

What I don't understand is, the majority of republicans showed support for the Act and waited until the last second to deliver a death blow. All this over a $10 increase on a duck stamp. We're not talking about the deficit or major spending here.

The Sportsmen's Act was for Republicans and Democrats alike. We went from total bi-partisan support to toxic partisanship. Why couldn't the GOP just bite their tongue and support this? There aren't any victims from a $10 duck stamp increase. Waterfowlers overwhelmingly support it and for good reason.

If you want things to get done in D.C., sometimes you have to give in, take it on the chin and compromise. This showed the total opposite. It's dirty politics as usual. I don't think this move by the GOP was about a stinkin' $10 increase in the duck stamp. This was the result of politics as usual under the guise of some bogus technicality.

Major kudos to Republican Senator Olympia Snowe for doing the right thing and putting politics aside for the sake of conservation, hunting and fishing in this country. I wish there were more politicians like her out there to represent moderates like myself.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

You libs shouldn't be surprised when a lot more programs go unfunded, and spending voted down. I work with teachers, and these union members make the case."bankrupt, or not, we have to spend money on education!" They vote for folks that bankrupt the country then expect the govt spending to continue. Balance the books or lots of things are going unfunded.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I can balance the books right quickly. End all overseas deployments, cut the USN fleet in half, the army to 1/3, the USAF to 1/2, and remission the lot of them to solely the job of defending the lands and waters of the USA. Mission accomplished.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Clinch, since your an expert on spending. Let me ask you a few questions.

A) Lets rewind to January 2001. When President Bush first took office, was there a gov't surplus or a deficit handed over from President Clinton?

B) Next, when the surplus was no more- did we see a deficit and increasing debt?

C) Next, to pay for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan- did we borrow money or did we raise taxes?

D) and with his Medicare Part D plan, did we pay for that by borrowing or raising taxes?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rgw3 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

This is tough. While I support the Act, although it in no way will affect me personally. I am a believer in supporting all hunters. But, I also understand that we can only live off of others means for so long. We need to cut spending, even on the things we hold most dear.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rgw3 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Realgoodman, I think defending the Constitution, which states that only Congress has the right to raise revenue, even if it is over a $10 duck stamp is worth it. Granted I am a combat veteran, maybe I see things differently. Of course, it has been my experience that anyone who has to claim that he is a real good man, probably isn't.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from JS76 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I'm very disappointed that this bill has been stabbed in the back. We can do better. When the politicians are gone the land will still be there. I sincerely hope the game and fish will be too.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Rgw3, it's the name of a Tim McGraw song.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Diel....You can? lol! The President, not but two years ago said "everyone knows that entitlements" are taking this country under, and need to be reformed" He said that. Ryan, and the Republicans took that task on, and the dems want no part of titlement reform they know is taking us over the cliff. Socialists in the dem party have even threatened Obama to not even consider it.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I'm guessing, Clinchie, that the President's position is that the Gingrich-Romney care plane (renamed Obamacare) is supposed to achieve some of that reform. But I'll bite. Let's eliminate medicare, medicaid, and the Veterens' Admin. No point in allowing all those socialists, as you call them, parasitizing off of the rest of us. AND also, let's stop defending the rest of the world, and stop making other nations safe places to offshore American jobs. Problem solved.

@Rgw3 -- Just because you were a combat vet does not necessarily mean that the missions on which you were sent had the slightest thing to do with defending the Constitution or American sovereignty or Americans' liberty. YOu don't have a priviliged perspective on constitutional fidelity.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

"Granted I am a combat veteran, maybe I see things differently. Of course, it has been my experience that anyone who has to claim that he is a real good man, probably isn't."

Of course, it has been my experience that anyone who needs to claim that their combat experience gives them a special expertise on constitutional matters probably should never have been allowed to wear the uniform of the USA in the first place.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Mike Diehl, don't forget about reducing medicare costs by replacing medical procedures for the terminally ill elderly with hospice care.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Diel..You bit? Really, that was a bite? NO, REFORM is needed, and honest liberals know it is needed. But the big govt liberal supporters don't want it touched, and are willing to go off the fiscal cliff. And Mr. Marshall, I am sure is on the side of catastrophe supporting the left. When Ryan presented the entitlement Reform proposal that took a lot of time, money and effort to submit to congress....instead of you liberals considering it, and knowing it was needed, decided an ad showing the GOP pushing granny off the cliff would be politically more effective.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

clinch is trying to turn this into liberals against conservatives. however i don't think he realizes a lot of people on here have not been brainwashed by either party, they can think for themselves rather than being controlled and told what to think. we are disappointed that a seemingly bipartisan bill was shot down. and the reasoning it was shot down seems to be a lousy $10 increase on a duck stamp that hunters wanted.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Hey Clinchie - it is communist azz kissing liberals like you who are ruining the USA. I just proposed the ELIMINATION of medicare and medicaid. That's a $750Bn Dollar Per Year reduction in the size of the Federal government and, by ANYONE'S standards, "real reform."

You seem to dislike the idea. What's the matter? Does ending your federal gravy train cause your knees to shake?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

wisc...you should understand politics a whole lot better. Because you do not, Mr. Marshall feels very confident he can turn voters against conservatives, as being a group that is against conservation measures. Twer that not true, we would have at least gotten ONE subject written by Mr. Marshell identifying the very disturbing fact that liberals are moving against hunters/fishermen in very obvious ways. There are lots that can be written about in this regard. Ever read the recent quotes by James Carville, the democrat operative that has orchastrated winning elections for democrats? Embarrassing what he recently said about 80% of democrat voters. I will post what he said for you if you would like.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Clinch,

Can you identify this "very disturbing fact" on how Democrats are moving against hunters and fishermen? Is there a concrete example you can share? Proof? Citing your town's residents going into a frenzy buying firearms and ammo off the shelves isn't proof. It might serve as proof that they sit in their basements with the lights off posting messages on their Doomsday Preppers message boards, but not much else. Lets stick to reality here.

Mr. Marshall writes on conservation issues pertaining to hunting and fishing on the Conservationist blog. He often details the disturbing trends of far-right Republicans voting against conservation. These out-of-touch turd piles have hijacked the once conservation-friendly GOP in favor of corporate polluters and the privatization and auctioning off of our public lands, while spitting on the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt.

If this isn't the truth, then here's your chance to say otherwise. You may not like what Bob has to say, but that doesn't make it false.

Roll call after roll call on votes relating to the conservation and stewardship of our natural resources and lands don't lie.

Constantly citing the economy, jobs and the deficit as justification is a pathetic cop out. Especially in the case of the Sportsmen's Act. If you want to create a blog on Field & Stream and call it "The Apologist," then go ahead, but don't come here and piss down our backs and tell us it's raining.

Bunch of freakin' crybabies that can't handle the truth. Talkin' about James Carville? Nobody here gives a horse's behind about that fool. I know, it's tough when you don't have a leg to stand on. Making excuses for these reject politicians you constantly defend is no easy task.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Where are the rest of the Raymond Babbitt regulars on this board with their incessant red herring go-tos? Bald eagles and deficit, Bald Eagles and deficit.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chris Link wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

"Rediculous to think the GOP is not on the side of Sporsman. It is the left that attacks sportsman's interests. In my town 3 new gun stores have sprung up since Obama was elected, and they are crowded buy guns and ammo expecting new restriction gun legislation, excessive taxation on guns and ammo, and are hoarding guns and ammo. Get real. There is lots of evidence as to what the far left wants legislated against sportsman's interests."

Gun rights and hunting are not the same thing. Nationally the demand for gun control has declined dramatically, which is why democrats have no pursued that recently. However, if misplaced fear opens up new gun shops, I can't complain.

However, If you want to have good hunting, you need good habitat. The republican party views public land as useful for three things: Cattle, Oil, Timber. Thats hard to dismiss by their voting records. They consitantly try to make the EPA powerless, bypass the clean water act, develope public land for oil at the cost of wildlife, ect ect ect. The list goes on.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rgw3 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Mr. Diehl, actually I think serving in combat is one of the best qualifications to speak about defending the constitution, especially since that is the oath we take. But, your comment sounds it comes from a man who never put on a uniform. Perhaps maybe your experience isn't worth anything. I'll happily put my service record against yours any day of the week.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rgw3 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Realgoodman, if you are just taking the title of a song, then I apologize. These sites are filled with people who are too self-absorbed for my taste. It was completely unfair of me to assume you are one of those. Again, I apologize.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I say with PRIDE that I have never worn a uniform and never will. I'm not the sort to offload my moral decisions onto politicians. If I ever feel anyone really needs killing, I'll accept the consequences for the act and the decision on my own shoulders. As for your service, Rgw3, it value it not in the slightest because you fatuously imagine yourself to be qualified in matters of knowledge merely on having held a firearm in combat. You are the shining example of why the US founding fathers deplored permanent armies and the sorts of people that are attracted to that sort of thing.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jerry A. wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

@ Mike Diehl- You're an enormous POS. I value your opinion less than you value my service and would not excrete urine on you if you were on fire.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Don't worry about it, Rgw3. Thank you for your service.

Before things get out of hand here, lets reflect on a quote from Voltaire: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Despite this coming from a frenchie, it certainly rings true here in our great country.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rgw3 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Mr. Diehl, you are welcome. I figure this is your way of saying thank you to all those "deplorable" people who have given you the right to spout your views. I am happy that I was given the honor to make it possible for you.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

@Rgw- Your most recent comment simply illustrates the point. My rights do not exist courtesy of anything that you have ever done. They are independent of you entirely, and they exist and will continue to do so, whether you will it or no. For clarification, there are many servicemen whom I know, respect and admire. They just don't happen to share your particular self-absorption, nor "Jerry's" penchant for poultry excresence. My general observation has been that the armed forces draw upon the gamut of American society, for good and for ill. Some servicemen are noble, not because of their service, but because of the light that shines within. Otherse are wretched, regardless of their service; generally the wretched ones are the ones who, in conversation, acclaim their service as though it gives them a privileged point of view on matters of politics, freedom, or governance.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jerry A. wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Someone is really mature and gave me -1's on about several of the last blogs I commented on. I wonder what lilly livered, sorry excuse for a man could have done that?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

The Republicans are panicked. They have yet to find a new way to and continue to be the party of no. Olympia Snowe can vote independently of them as she evidently has grown to dislike her own party and is bailing. I don't blame her one bit, Republicans have gone off the deep end. By the way there are plenty of independent and Democratic outdoorsmen who think for themselves.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

jerry a. you don't sound like someone who has served in any of the armed forces. many in my family whom i am very close to served. reading your comments you actually sound very immature

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Scott Alexander wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Wow. I am absolutely stunned. I guess I will be writing my Senators again.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 357 wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

When I made a budget for myself and my family I look to the bigger expenses to cut and the unnecessary stuff. Wildlife conservation isn't big in the grand scheme of things i doubt it's more then 2% of the budget and I don't think it's unnecessary. Our wilderness and outdoor need funding. Seems like a c**p place to start drawing lines in the sand.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from jryoung wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

It came to a party line vote because Republicans are disappointed Tester got re-elected. Further, but shooting in down on a procedural vote the avoided official grading from the NRA.

I don't know what I am more pissed about, the fact that the Republicans changed their votes at the 11th hour, or we have heard nothing from the NRA.

Don't you think the NRA would have a conniption if the democrats backed away from previous support of an NRA sponsored bill that expanded hunting opportunities, ensured more money for public shooting ranges, and kept ammunition/fishing lure regulation out of the hands of the EPA?

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Jeepers, Clinchie, Shut Up. No one cares what you think of Bob Marshall and, to be honest, if you despise him so much why do you even bother to read his blog? You're like some sort of spurned girlfriend who keeps trying to get his attention.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from TM wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Clinch, you're free to look up the details behind this whole ordeal elsewhere. You chose to comment under Marshall's piece and disagree with it, despite admitting to not even reading it. Then you thought this would be a perfect forum to go on a political rant based on rhetoric and conspiracy rather than facts.

To sum it up, the GOP refused to waive the budget rules in supporting a $10 increase on the duck stamp. This increase would have violated some provision from last year preventing any sort of fee increase.

What I don't understand is, the majority of republicans showed support for the Act and waited until the last second to deliver a death blow. All this over a $10 increase on a duck stamp. We're not talking about the deficit or major spending here.

The Sportsmen's Act was for Republicans and Democrats alike. We went from total bi-partisan support to toxic partisanship. Why couldn't the GOP just bite their tongue and support this? There aren't any victims from a $10 duck stamp increase. Waterfowlers overwhelmingly support it and for good reason.

If you want things to get done in D.C., sometimes you have to give in, take it on the chin and compromise. This showed the total opposite. It's dirty politics as usual. I don't think this move by the GOP was about a stinkin' $10 increase in the duck stamp. This was the result of politics as usual under the guise of some bogus technicality.

Major kudos to Republican Senator Olympia Snowe for doing the right thing and putting politics aside for the sake of conservation, hunting and fishing in this country. I wish there were more politicians like her out there to represent moderates like myself.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I've no idea why this came to a party line vote. Republicans aren't generally anti hunting. The vote was Repubs + Boxer against, Dems+ Olympia Snow for. All I can think of is they were mad and madder as they are about to lose filibuster in January so they are out to do as much damage until then.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Republicans used to be our friends....

They may be no longer....

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

clinchknot: on the last post on this website in which bob wrote about the NYT writing against the sportsmen act you commented that the NYT is a leftist anti-hunting paper. yet now a day later it is the republicans that have the same opinion as the NYT and voted down this bill.

kinda makes you look foolish doesn't it?

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Arlo269 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Whoever runs against Sessions will get my vote next election!!!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from JS76 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I'm very disappointed that this bill has been stabbed in the back. We can do better. When the politicians are gone the land will still be there. I sincerely hope the game and fish will be too.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from jryoung wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

clinchknot - everyone of those groups you just mentioned support this bill. There are 47 in total, just about every hunting, fishing and shooting organization is behind this bill. By killing this bill they are seeking to deny access to public land.

Additionally, if you want to see and effort to sell off public lands google "The Western Caucas" and see the letter they sent to John Boehner on the 26th calling for the sale of Public Land.

Specifically they state:

"Divesting the federal government of its vast land holdings could pay down the deficit and reduce spending. The federal government owns roughly 650 million acres of land, or 1/3 of the entire landmass of our country. Over 90% of this land is located in the western states and most of it we do not even need."

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Clinch, since your an expert on spending. Let me ask you a few questions.

A) Lets rewind to January 2001. When President Bush first took office, was there a gov't surplus or a deficit handed over from President Clinton?

B) Next, when the surplus was no more- did we see a deficit and increasing debt?

C) Next, to pay for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan- did we borrow money or did we raise taxes?

D) and with his Medicare Part D plan, did we pay for that by borrowing or raising taxes?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

"Granted I am a combat veteran, maybe I see things differently. Of course, it has been my experience that anyone who has to claim that he is a real good man, probably isn't."

Of course, it has been my experience that anyone who needs to claim that their combat experience gives them a special expertise on constitutional matters probably should never have been allowed to wear the uniform of the USA in the first place.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

clinch is trying to turn this into liberals against conservatives. however i don't think he realizes a lot of people on here have not been brainwashed by either party, they can think for themselves rather than being controlled and told what to think. we are disappointed that a seemingly bipartisan bill was shot down. and the reasoning it was shot down seems to be a lousy $10 increase on a duck stamp that hunters wanted.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Clinch,

Can you identify this "very disturbing fact" on how Democrats are moving against hunters and fishermen? Is there a concrete example you can share? Proof? Citing your town's residents going into a frenzy buying firearms and ammo off the shelves isn't proof. It might serve as proof that they sit in their basements with the lights off posting messages on their Doomsday Preppers message boards, but not much else. Lets stick to reality here.

Mr. Marshall writes on conservation issues pertaining to hunting and fishing on the Conservationist blog. He often details the disturbing trends of far-right Republicans voting against conservation. These out-of-touch turd piles have hijacked the once conservation-friendly GOP in favor of corporate polluters and the privatization and auctioning off of our public lands, while spitting on the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt.

If this isn't the truth, then here's your chance to say otherwise. You may not like what Bob has to say, but that doesn't make it false.

Roll call after roll call on votes relating to the conservation and stewardship of our natural resources and lands don't lie.

Constantly citing the economy, jobs and the deficit as justification is a pathetic cop out. Especially in the case of the Sportsmen's Act. If you want to create a blog on Field & Stream and call it "The Apologist," then go ahead, but don't come here and piss down our backs and tell us it's raining.

Bunch of freakin' crybabies that can't handle the truth. Talkin' about James Carville? Nobody here gives a horse's behind about that fool. I know, it's tough when you don't have a leg to stand on. Making excuses for these reject politicians you constantly defend is no easy task.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chris Link wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

"Rediculous to think the GOP is not on the side of Sporsman. It is the left that attacks sportsman's interests. In my town 3 new gun stores have sprung up since Obama was elected, and they are crowded buy guns and ammo expecting new restriction gun legislation, excessive taxation on guns and ammo, and are hoarding guns and ammo. Get real. There is lots of evidence as to what the far left wants legislated against sportsman's interests."

Gun rights and hunting are not the same thing. Nationally the demand for gun control has declined dramatically, which is why democrats have no pursued that recently. However, if misplaced fear opens up new gun shops, I can't complain.

However, If you want to have good hunting, you need good habitat. The republican party views public land as useful for three things: Cattle, Oil, Timber. Thats hard to dismiss by their voting records. They consitantly try to make the EPA powerless, bypass the clean water act, develope public land for oil at the cost of wildlife, ect ect ect. The list goes on.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Don't worry about it, Rgw3. Thank you for your service.

Before things get out of hand here, lets reflect on a quote from Voltaire: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Despite this coming from a frenchie, it certainly rings true here in our great country.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Scott Alexander wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

Wow. I am absolutely stunned. I guess I will be writing my Senators again.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chris Link wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

The republicans doing a mostly partyline vote against a wildlife/hunting bill doesn't suprise me the slightest. Just because most hunters are conservative doesn't mean conservatives in office support wildlife and hunters.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Jay, allow me re-phrase your comment in a more accurate manner: Barbara Boxer joined most Republicans in voting this down.

I hate to be picky here, but lets call this for what it is.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

^ Apologist

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Clichknot- You're in denial and you sound like someone that's suffering from a nervous breakdown. I suggest you stop now before embarrassing yourself any further.

and the hoarding of guns and ammo? So what? Did you see all the people across the country filling up their minivans with twinkies? These people are irrational.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Rgw3, it's the name of a Tim McGraw song.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I'm guessing, Clinchie, that the President's position is that the Gingrich-Romney care plane (renamed Obamacare) is supposed to achieve some of that reform. But I'll bite. Let's eliminate medicare, medicaid, and the Veterens' Admin. No point in allowing all those socialists, as you call them, parasitizing off of the rest of us. AND also, let's stop defending the rest of the world, and stop making other nations safe places to offshore American jobs. Problem solved.

@Rgw3 -- Just because you were a combat vet does not necessarily mean that the missions on which you were sent had the slightest thing to do with defending the Constitution or American sovereignty or Americans' liberty. YOu don't have a priviliged perspective on constitutional fidelity.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Mike Diehl, don't forget about reducing medicare costs by replacing medical procedures for the terminally ill elderly with hospice care.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Where are the rest of the Raymond Babbitt regulars on this board with their incessant red herring go-tos? Bald eagles and deficit, Bald Eagles and deficit.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

@Rgw- Your most recent comment simply illustrates the point. My rights do not exist courtesy of anything that you have ever done. They are independent of you entirely, and they exist and will continue to do so, whether you will it or no. For clarification, there are many servicemen whom I know, respect and admire. They just don't happen to share your particular self-absorption, nor "Jerry's" penchant for poultry excresence. My general observation has been that the armed forces draw upon the gamut of American society, for good and for ill. Some servicemen are noble, not because of their service, but because of the light that shines within. Otherse are wretched, regardless of their service; generally the wretched ones are the ones who, in conversation, acclaim their service as though it gives them a privileged point of view on matters of politics, freedom, or governance.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 1ojolsen wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

The Republicans are panicked. They have yet to find a new way to and continue to be the party of no. Olympia Snowe can vote independently of them as she evidently has grown to dislike her own party and is bailing. I don't blame her one bit, Republicans have gone off the deep end. By the way there are plenty of independent and Democratic outdoorsmen who think for themselves.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I was shocked to see most republicans joined Barbara Boxer (maybe the most anti-hunting congressmen) in voting this down. The only repbulican to give this a yes vote was Olympia Snowe from Maine.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RockySquirrel wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

"Laws are like sausages. better not to see them made”: Otto Von Bismarck.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from amoor983 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

My initial reaction is that this is not a hunting or conservation issue (it is, but senators are not seeing it that way). This is a budget and spending issue. A line has been drawn in the sand; conservatives want to curtail federal spending and balance the budget. Things are so polarized right now that any spending will get the axe by republicans. Several of these “no” senators are from states where hunting is big business and strong tradition, and have supported hunting and conservation in the past. Grid lock is not all bad. Sometimes the best thing congress can do is nothing. This is an exception. Bad timing for the bill and an unfortunate blow to conservation.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I can balance the books right quickly. End all overseas deployments, cut the USN fleet in half, the army to 1/3, the USAF to 1/2, and remission the lot of them to solely the job of defending the lands and waters of the USA. Mission accomplished.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Hey Clinchie - it is communist azz kissing liberals like you who are ruining the USA. I just proposed the ELIMINATION of medicare and medicaid. That's a $750Bn Dollar Per Year reduction in the size of the Federal government and, by ANYONE'S standards, "real reform."

You seem to dislike the idea. What's the matter? Does ending your federal gravy train cause your knees to shake?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

wisc...you should understand politics a whole lot better. Because you do not, Mr. Marshall feels very confident he can turn voters against conservatives, as being a group that is against conservation measures. Twer that not true, we would have at least gotten ONE subject written by Mr. Marshell identifying the very disturbing fact that liberals are moving against hunters/fishermen in very obvious ways. There are lots that can be written about in this regard. Ever read the recent quotes by James Carville, the democrat operative that has orchastrated winning elections for democrats? Embarrassing what he recently said about 80% of democrat voters. I will post what he said for you if you would like.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rgw3 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Mr. Diehl, you are welcome. I figure this is your way of saying thank you to all those "deplorable" people who have given you the right to spout your views. I am happy that I was given the honor to make it possible for you.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jerry A. wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Someone is really mature and gave me -1's on about several of the last blogs I commented on. I wonder what lilly livered, sorry excuse for a man could have done that?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

jerry a. you don't sound like someone who has served in any of the armed forces. many in my family whom i am very close to served. reading your comments you actually sound very immature

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 357 wrote 1 year 19 weeks ago

When I made a budget for myself and my family I look to the bigger expenses to cut and the unnecessary stuff. Wildlife conservation isn't big in the grand scheme of things i doubt it's more then 2% of the budget and I don't think it's unnecessary. Our wilderness and outdoor need funding. Seems like a c**p place to start drawing lines in the sand.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

amoor983..Now you make sense with that post. Everything I usnderstand about what is going on supports what you posted. I had no interest in spending time understanding the issue given the background of the author, and the postes who support his side of the isle. Good post.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Diel..You bit? Really, that was a bite? NO, REFORM is needed, and honest liberals know it is needed. But the big govt liberal supporters don't want it touched, and are willing to go off the fiscal cliff. And Mr. Marshall, I am sure is on the side of catastrophe supporting the left. When Ryan presented the entitlement Reform proposal that took a lot of time, money and effort to submit to congress....instead of you liberals considering it, and knowing it was needed, decided an ad showing the GOP pushing granny off the cliff would be politically more effective.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jerry A. wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

@ Mike Diehl- You're an enormous POS. I value your opinion less than you value my service and would not excrete urine on you if you were on fire.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

And by the way. If you are not able to see what side of the fence this Bob Marshell is on you are totally unable to understand who's for and who's against on virtually anything.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rgw3 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

This is tough. While I support the Act, although it in no way will affect me personally. I am a believer in supporting all hunters. But, I also understand that we can only live off of others means for so long. We need to cut spending, even on the things we hold most dear.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rgw3 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Realgoodman, I think defending the Constitution, which states that only Congress has the right to raise revenue, even if it is over a $10 duck stamp is worth it. Granted I am a combat veteran, maybe I see things differently. Of course, it has been my experience that anyone who has to claim that he is a real good man, probably isn't.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Diel....You can? lol! The President, not but two years ago said "everyone knows that entitlements" are taking this country under, and need to be reformed" He said that. Ryan, and the Republicans took that task on, and the dems want no part of titlement reform they know is taking us over the cliff. Socialists in the dem party have even threatened Obama to not even consider it.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rgw3 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Realgoodman, if you are just taking the title of a song, then I apologize. These sites are filled with people who are too self-absorbed for my taste. It was completely unfair of me to assume you are one of those. Again, I apologize.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

I say with PRIDE that I have never worn a uniform and never will. I'm not the sort to offload my moral decisions onto politicians. If I ever feel anyone really needs killing, I'll accept the consequences for the act and the decision on my own shoulders. As for your service, Rgw3, it value it not in the slightest because you fatuously imagine yourself to be qualified in matters of knowledge merely on having held a firearm in combat. You are the shining example of why the US founding fathers deplored permanent armies and the sorts of people that are attracted to that sort of thing.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Please! Once you know an individuals political ideology you NEVER EVER find out.."GEE WIZ, this Bob Marshell guy is now a conservative! You are delusional. This isn't rocket science. Just read a Bob Marshell topic heading, and you know his slant. And you think I am wrong about the hording of guns and ammo since Obama's time in office?

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

UNREAL..Do you donate to ANY hunting/sportsman's efforts?..like the NRA, or Pheasants Forever, or Ducks Unlimited? EVeryone of those organizations has a publication, and everyone of them speaks in no uncertain terms as to the efforts of liberals to curtail gun ownership, deny access to public lands, and on, and on. Why lie? Hard to understand the adverse working of the liberal mind. Stop and ask someone why the hording is going on. Pull your head out.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

You libs shouldn't be surprised when a lot more programs go unfunded, and spending voted down. I work with teachers, and these union members make the case."bankrupt, or not, we have to spend money on education!" They vote for folks that bankrupt the country then expect the govt spending to continue. Balance the books or lots of things are going unfunded.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rgw3 wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Mr. Diehl, actually I think serving in combat is one of the best qualifications to speak about defending the constitution, especially since that is the oath we take. But, your comment sounds it comes from a man who never put on a uniform. Perhaps maybe your experience isn't worth anything. I'll happily put my service record against yours any day of the week.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

You can seldom ever know the entire story on a bill. A party will try to gain political capital by saying someone voted down something, and do it just to gain a favorable public opinion on the issue. But often a bill has a bunch of riders attached to it making it necessary to vote the main issue down. I know the bigger picture, and it ain't that hard to understand. The GOP is for states rights, individual freedoms, and FOR hunting and fishing rights. The libs?..on many, many fronts they try to shutdown public lands, etc., etc. You should just see the hording of guns and ammo since Obama was re-elected!! It is incredible. Folks know who is for, and who is against.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from clinchknot wrote 1 year 20 weeks ago

Rediculous to think the GOP is not on the side of Sporsman. It is the left that attacks sportsman's interests. In my town 3 new gun stores have sprung up since Obama was elected, and they are crowded buy guns and ammo expecting new restriction gun legislation, excessive taxation on guns and ammo, and are hoarding guns and ammo. Get real. There is lots of evidence as to what the far left wants legislated against sportsman's interests.

-10 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment