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.

House Kills Farm Bill and Sportsmen’s Hopes

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.

June 25, 2013

House Kills Farm Bill and Sportsmen’s Hopes

By Bob Marshall

The House of Representatives stunned sportsmen’s conservation groups last week when it suddenly and unexpectedly killed its version of the Farm Bill, putting the nation’s largest and most effective conservation programs on a three-month death watch.

Earlier, conservation groups had hailed the Senate passage of a Farm Bill and voiced hope a House version would be clearing that chamber in a matter of weeks, based on optimism from the GOP leadership. But those hopes melted quickly with the passage of two amendments supported by more conservative members. The first would have undone traditional price supports for milk producers; the second would have deepened already steep cuts in food stamps.

Those measures eroded Democratic support, and when the vote was called, the bill failed 195-234.

The House also failed to pass a Farm Bill last year, instead agreeing to nine-month extension of the old bill, which expires Sept. 30.

That means conservation forces have little more than 100 days left to save vital initiatives such as the Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Grasslands Reserve Program, Sod Buster, and many others.

Sportsmen groups Friday were still trying to assess future moves before issuing public statements. But privately, most voiced surprise at the sudden turnaround, and placed the collapse on the push by fiscal conservatives who moved the two amendments. Lobbyists working sportsmen’s issues said House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) would not have moved the bill if he wasn’t assured of Democratic support. He clearly didn’t see the food stamp attacks being planned by some of his fellow House members, they said.

No action is expected on the issue until after the July 4 recess. However, veteran congress watchers said they expect to see at least another extension of the old bill because the agriculture lobby will be too strong for congress to ignore. That, of course, would probably mean another extension of conservation programs.

That’s far from ideal for fish, wildlife and sportsmen, because participation in the programs will continue to erode as they sit in limbo with an uncertain future.

Comments (32)

Top Rated
All Comments
from CL3 wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

Why is it not Federal law that any bill & amendments to the bill are "germane" to the overall goal of said bill?

In other words, keep your food stamp related items out of the nation's Farm Bill.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

By the way, that was a rhetorical question; I know why Federal bills / amendments are not germane.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

"The first would have undone traditional price supports for milk producers; the second would have deepened already steep cuts in food stamps."

There are now 48 million people on food stamps- that's a 70% increase under Obama. Traditional price support- what could be more American than fixing prices. Enough with your biased liberal BS- IT IS PATHETIC THAT YOU WRITE FOR A HUNTING MAGAZINE!

-6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

"The House of Representatives stunned sportsmen’s conservation groups last week when it suddenly and unexpectedly killed its version of the Farm Bill"

You are the only one surprised Bob. About a month prior to the vote it was already stated as a non-starter bill because of the food stamp issue and that they were going to lower the subsidies to corn & soybean to in turn increase the subsidies to cotton, peanuts, rice & a few others I now don't remember. Another problem is food stamp funding has not decreased. I know it's hard for you to understand but a decrease to an increase is not a decrease it is still an increase. Not so tricky of a math problem for my 2nd grade daughter.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

CL3, your 1st question is easy to answer. It's just like Bob & Congress calling it a Farm Bill, it's more palatable to the public if they think it is to help out farmers. What they don't know it has little to do with that very minimal help. In Bob's last article on it I broke it down for the simplest of minds (not saying you're one)to understand. You know that saying almost every political hack quoted in the 2008 election about "lipstick on a pig" this is exactly that lipstick on a pig. If they would simply separate everything a true "Conservation Bill" would pass with little to no hick-ups but if they keep welfare, conservation, and farm subsidies in one bill it will never pass. It's a pretty simple thing by letting each item stand or fall on it's own, but we have to play political gotcha games. Then you have morons making things up as they go to get what the h3!! they want regardless of the impacts it creates on everything else.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steward wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

From what I can tell, this bloated farm bill needed to die. I'm sure there is a other ways to support conservation causes than that bill.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dangle wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

Bob...How about doing some research, and tell us how great and effective that wonderful Senate is would you?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

This is suppose to be a sportsman magazine and website, not MSNBC. There were plenty of Democrats that voted no on the farm bill due to the subsidies to Farmers. I wish Bob Marshall would provide all the facts and not just the democrat's talking points.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greenhead wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

Dcast, Apparently DU was surprised, as well: "In an unexpected outcome, the House of Representatives’ final vote on the 2013 Farm Bill was 195-234. The vote fell far short of the 218 required for passage."

It amazes me that so many sportsmen get so angry when people start talking about conservation.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

Seems to me I remember Republicans killing another stand alone Sportsmans bill that would have kept lead bullets from being litigated, enhanced access to public lands and made more funds available for shooting ranges. Happened in January of this year. Every Repub against it.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from barlazyd wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

At $1.7 trillion dollars with massive food stamp entitlements and more, it was worth killing. As an outdoorsman, there are better ways to get our needs met.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bioguy01 wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

I'm with CL3...what the hell was something about food stamps doing in the farm bill? I'm sick of politicians destroying our system by sticking amendments in bills where they do not belong! That's sleazy, corrupt politics and complete bull crap! This is the exact reason why people do not trust government.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 43 weeks 1 day ago

Bioguy01- Food stamps in the farm bill is nothing new. It's only recently that it has become a big time hot button issue in D.C.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 43 weeks 1 day ago

Greenhead, I don't understand why you and apparently DU don't understand what this bill is. As an avid sportsman I care about conservation, and as a father with a family to support on a limited income every dollar taken from me is one dollar less going to my family. Once again before commenting read the bill it is not a conservation bill it is "WELFARE" and if you care to look further back sometime last week or the week prior I broke it down for you. It's tiresome to keep on informing the ill-informed and they don't give a flying puck to read. People like you make great politicians! "Farm-bill", Sounds legit! You got my vote! 80% of the bill goes to "SNAP" A.K.A. FOOOOOOOOOOD STAAAAAAMPS! Not conservation but FOOOOOOOOOOD STAAAAAAMPS! Your argument is shallow and lacking in knowledge.

Rockrat, You care to enlighten us of such bill?

Bioguy, I explained it already. It has been in there for ever. It's just like Welfare being called SNAP, Food Stamps now EBT card, etc.... It is PC so people are not looked down on for being less fortunate.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 43 weeks 1 day ago

Food stamps were in the farm bill because food stamps are in effect subsidized (by you n me) consumption of agricultural products. These, in turn, essentially support the agri-industry by keeping demand reliably high.

The problems with food stamps are legion. Among them are the arbitrage in food stamps, whereby low-lives sell them at discounted rates for cash, that they then use to purchase things that, shall we say, "have nothing to do with food." They're also extensively used (since the 1970s) to purchase prepared foods; try eliminating or changing the food stamp rules so that they may only be applied to, in effect, "things that you must consume at home" and McDonald's and PepsiCo will be all over it like a wet blanket.

Farm subsidies are a good thing, to a degree. With a Federal Gov't that spends so very much money on idiotic things, like airports that no one uses, defending foreign nations, diversity- and refugee- immigration programs, ensuring that there is a stable and plentiful food supply for Americans strikes me as one of the FEW things that Uncle Sugar does that has real merit. Makes more sense than subsidizing, for example, the coal or minerals extraction industries.

I am pretty sure someone will come up with a new Farm Bill. If it turns out now that to get anything done, bills have to be stripped down to their core elements, it is not such a bad thing. In the meantime, lobby the heck out of your state representatives to protect the public lands and waterways in your own state. We're not weak here, as a group, and we don't need DC to take the lead to achieve our goals.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Erik Jensen wrote 43 weeks 1 day ago

There's plenty to not like about this farm bill, but we're better off with it than without it. There is corporate welfare for poor practices and overproduction, but without the good elements, the conservation incentives being in effect for certain, participation will diminish.

David Brooks, who leans to right, said on PBS last week that the people getting food stamps really need them, even though he had sympathy for other conservative complaints about the bill. America has been through a wrenching economic time. The food stamps have always been set up to help keep a stable demand as well, nothing wrong with that. There may be things we can do to improve it. I've never been on food stamps, but my family got WIC several years ago when our daughters were very young, and it's been improved so that you're not forced to buy junk food.

The bottom line is, the House is nuts. Even though the GOP got a million fewer votes than Dems when you total the whole country's house votes, most of the GOP members are from gerrymandered districts and have no chance of losing. They can thumb their nose at conservation and the overall sentiment in the country, and even their own leadership.

As far as our issues are concerned, you have to hope is that conservation-minded conservative voters get more vocal in some of those districts to bring some pressure on the situation.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dangle wrote 43 weeks 1 day ago

Liberal Bob Marshall scribes, and then here comes the libs Diehl, Rock Rat ad mausium. What a great outdoor magazine.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greenhead wrote 43 weeks 1 day ago

Dangle, did you mean ad nauseam? Latin is tough, I understand, kinda like understanding that just because you hunt and fish, you don't have to march lockstep with the Republican party. If you try really hard, someday you may find that you can support both gun rights, and programs that preserve the places where you can use them.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dangle wrote 43 weeks 19 hours ago

Greenshead..Yes, Latin wasn't one of my favorites, and I did take it early on. Just march lock step with decent, Pro-Americans. There are a number of Republicans that fall into the liberal collumn that is ruining the country. The Regime' running the show right now is about as corrupt as there is including those in South America that support this Regime'. And you are one of the supporters?

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 43 weeks 15 hours ago

Hey there, NotMuchToDangle, this spud's for you: ..1.,

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 43 weeks 14 hours ago

"most of the GOP members are from gerrymandered districts and have no chance of losing. They can thumb their nose at conservation and the overall sentiment in the country, and even their own leadership."

I don't think that is a very accurate claim or statement of their purpose. GOPpers aren't particularly more "gerrymandered" than any other district. And the left has long been in favor of minority-majority districting; the thing is, if you create some wacky district that arbitrarily gives leftwing minorities a lock-in, you wind up putting conservatives into other districts, strengthening their chances for election.

Now, for the most part I vote for conservatives. The problem is that conservatism in the classic Barry Goldwater sense is different from the "conservatism" of the Big Money extraction crowd. The trick is to find real conservatives who really DON'Y want "change" just for the sake of creating some other privileged subset of cronies.

I think we're slowly getting around to recognition among conservatives that good CONSERVATION practices sustain the kind of culture (outdoor enthusiasts and hunters) that side with other conservative issues. Always chasing the big money donors won't necessarily get you the popular conservative vote.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Constant Gardener wrote 43 weeks 10 hours ago

Classic conservatism abhorred Goldwater, still does, but were one to substitute a legitimately Burkean conservative for Goldwater, Diehl is precisely correct. Money is the problem in politics. Congress doesn't work for me whether I view myself as a hunter or an environmentalist or a small business person. It works for Monsanto, AIG and Haliburton and that won't change as long as congresspeople spend five hours a day soliciting money for reelection.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dangle wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

Deihl is right? Deihl is on the side of bigger, and bigger, and more intrusive govt. Get Real! A major survey just conducted indicated that 27% ofthe folks on Deihl's side of the isle think the TEA PARTY folks are the major terrorist threat in this country! Digest that one. The Tea Party folks want less big govt. Less of their hard working dollars going to buying votes on Deihl's side of the isle. Less corruption, waste, and on, and on. But they are terrorists according to Deihl's liberal folks.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

funny how there are a select few who always resort to playground like name calling any time conservation is brought up.

pheasants forever, trcp, and du were all surprised by this.

i however wasn't. that is what happens when are gov is made up of extremist tea baggers and occupy slugs. nothing will get accomplished

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

I'm so in favor of Big Government that I want to reduce its budget to the size of your average community college. I don't know to which side of the "aisle" you refer, Dingle, but my side of the aisle is the "freedom" side.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

Here's a test:

Do you favor more medicare, less medicare, or eliminating medicare?

Do you favor defending other nations or telling them it is their responsibility to purchase sufficient armed capability to defend themselves?

Should US public lands assets be given away at pennies on the dollar of value to foreigners or reserved for the exclusive use of US citizens and legal permanent residents?

If someone upstream fouls your water, should you have recourse under the law to prevent them from doing it, or should you just be 'ship out of luck?'

Get back to me when you know the correct answers to these questions.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

Outdoor life covered this issue in an unbiased way- F & S won't let me post the link but John Haughey uses facts and numbers instead of dem talking points- worth taking a look.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

Outdoor life covered this issue in an unbiased way- F & S won't let me post the link but John Haughey uses facts and numbers instead of dem talking points- worth taking a look.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from tleichty1989 wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

Its obvious America is not happy just based on this comments in this post. Shits gunna hit the fan at some point and a revolutions on its way.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

Sure thing, tleichty1989. Who needs Gallup polling when you can just come onto the Field & Stream message board after a Bob Marshall post to get an accurate survey of 316 million people's public opinion.

If a handful of "I hate all things liberal" far-right tea party types were representative of America, you wouldn't see Barack Obama win two Presidential elections.

What is obvious is that doomsday prepper lunatics like yourself are the laughing stock of the country.

Us moderate republicans, democrats and independents; we're the majority. Not the fringe conspiracy theorist pissants like yourself.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Constant Gardener wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

In answer to Mr. Diehl:
Medicare is very efficient, let's have more.

Depends on the country and which nations border it.

No.

Yes!

Friends: I gave maybe $4000 total in donations to candidates in 2012. You know, $500 here, $250 there. The only race I gave more than a grand to was the presidential race. But still, I spread some c-notes around. None of the candidates I supported know I exist. We must get money out of elections. Do that, and then we can think about sending better educated, higher functioning candidates, but the money has to come out first.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 42 weeks 1 day ago

Few people understand that the farm bill has always been a front for welfare funding. 70% of the typical "Farm Bill" funds DEFACS programs. Make the Politicians call the Farm Bill what it actually is a "Welfare Bill." Then we can have a real farm bill that doesn't look like the GDP of a EU nation.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from Erik Jensen wrote 43 weeks 1 day ago

There's plenty to not like about this farm bill, but we're better off with it than without it. There is corporate welfare for poor practices and overproduction, but without the good elements, the conservation incentives being in effect for certain, participation will diminish.

David Brooks, who leans to right, said on PBS last week that the people getting food stamps really need them, even though he had sympathy for other conservative complaints about the bill. America has been through a wrenching economic time. The food stamps have always been set up to help keep a stable demand as well, nothing wrong with that. There may be things we can do to improve it. I've never been on food stamps, but my family got WIC several years ago when our daughters were very young, and it's been improved so that you're not forced to buy junk food.

The bottom line is, the House is nuts. Even though the GOP got a million fewer votes than Dems when you total the whole country's house votes, most of the GOP members are from gerrymandered districts and have no chance of losing. They can thumb their nose at conservation and the overall sentiment in the country, and even their own leadership.

As far as our issues are concerned, you have to hope is that conservation-minded conservative voters get more vocal in some of those districts to bring some pressure on the situation.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greenhead wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

Dcast, Apparently DU was surprised, as well: "In an unexpected outcome, the House of Representatives’ final vote on the 2013 Farm Bill was 195-234. The vote fell far short of the 218 required for passage."

It amazes me that so many sportsmen get so angry when people start talking about conservation.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from rock rat wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

Seems to me I remember Republicans killing another stand alone Sportsmans bill that would have kept lead bullets from being litigated, enhanced access to public lands and made more funds available for shooting ranges. Happened in January of this year. Every Repub against it.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Greenhead wrote 43 weeks 1 day ago

Dangle, did you mean ad nauseam? Latin is tough, I understand, kinda like understanding that just because you hunt and fish, you don't have to march lockstep with the Republican party. If you try really hard, someday you may find that you can support both gun rights, and programs that preserve the places where you can use them.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Constant Gardener wrote 43 weeks 10 hours ago

Classic conservatism abhorred Goldwater, still does, but were one to substitute a legitimately Burkean conservative for Goldwater, Diehl is precisely correct. Money is the problem in politics. Congress doesn't work for me whether I view myself as a hunter or an environmentalist or a small business person. It works for Monsanto, AIG and Haliburton and that won't change as long as congresspeople spend five hours a day soliciting money for reelection.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from barlazyd wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

At $1.7 trillion dollars with massive food stamp entitlements and more, it was worth killing. As an outdoorsman, there are better ways to get our needs met.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 43 weeks 1 day ago

Bioguy01- Food stamps in the farm bill is nothing new. It's only recently that it has become a big time hot button issue in D.C.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 43 weeks 1 day ago

Food stamps were in the farm bill because food stamps are in effect subsidized (by you n me) consumption of agricultural products. These, in turn, essentially support the agri-industry by keeping demand reliably high.

The problems with food stamps are legion. Among them are the arbitrage in food stamps, whereby low-lives sell them at discounted rates for cash, that they then use to purchase things that, shall we say, "have nothing to do with food." They're also extensively used (since the 1970s) to purchase prepared foods; try eliminating or changing the food stamp rules so that they may only be applied to, in effect, "things that you must consume at home" and McDonald's and PepsiCo will be all over it like a wet blanket.

Farm subsidies are a good thing, to a degree. With a Federal Gov't that spends so very much money on idiotic things, like airports that no one uses, defending foreign nations, diversity- and refugee- immigration programs, ensuring that there is a stable and plentiful food supply for Americans strikes me as one of the FEW things that Uncle Sugar does that has real merit. Makes more sense than subsidizing, for example, the coal or minerals extraction industries.

I am pretty sure someone will come up with a new Farm Bill. If it turns out now that to get anything done, bills have to be stripped down to their core elements, it is not such a bad thing. In the meantime, lobby the heck out of your state representatives to protect the public lands and waterways in your own state. We're not weak here, as a group, and we don't need DC to take the lead to achieve our goals.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

Here's a test:

Do you favor more medicare, less medicare, or eliminating medicare?

Do you favor defending other nations or telling them it is their responsibility to purchase sufficient armed capability to defend themselves?

Should US public lands assets be given away at pennies on the dollar of value to foreigners or reserved for the exclusive use of US citizens and legal permanent residents?

If someone upstream fouls your water, should you have recourse under the law to prevent them from doing it, or should you just be 'ship out of luck?'

Get back to me when you know the correct answers to these questions.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

Why is it not Federal law that any bill & amendments to the bill are "germane" to the overall goal of said bill?

In other words, keep your food stamp related items out of the nation's Farm Bill.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

"The House of Representatives stunned sportsmen’s conservation groups last week when it suddenly and unexpectedly killed its version of the Farm Bill"

You are the only one surprised Bob. About a month prior to the vote it was already stated as a non-starter bill because of the food stamp issue and that they were going to lower the subsidies to corn & soybean to in turn increase the subsidies to cotton, peanuts, rice & a few others I now don't remember. Another problem is food stamp funding has not decreased. I know it's hard for you to understand but a decrease to an increase is not a decrease it is still an increase. Not so tricky of a math problem for my 2nd grade daughter.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

CL3, your 1st question is easy to answer. It's just like Bob & Congress calling it a Farm Bill, it's more palatable to the public if they think it is to help out farmers. What they don't know it has little to do with that very minimal help. In Bob's last article on it I broke it down for the simplest of minds (not saying you're one)to understand. You know that saying almost every political hack quoted in the 2008 election about "lipstick on a pig" this is exactly that lipstick on a pig. If they would simply separate everything a true "Conservation Bill" would pass with little to no hick-ups but if they keep welfare, conservation, and farm subsidies in one bill it will never pass. It's a pretty simple thing by letting each item stand or fall on it's own, but we have to play political gotcha games. Then you have morons making things up as they go to get what the h3!! they want regardless of the impacts it creates on everything else.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steward wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

From what I can tell, this bloated farm bill needed to die. I'm sure there is a other ways to support conservation causes than that bill.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

funny how there are a select few who always resort to playground like name calling any time conservation is brought up.

pheasants forever, trcp, and du were all surprised by this.

i however wasn't. that is what happens when are gov is made up of extremist tea baggers and occupy slugs. nothing will get accomplished

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

I'm so in favor of Big Government that I want to reduce its budget to the size of your average community college. I don't know to which side of the "aisle" you refer, Dingle, but my side of the aisle is the "freedom" side.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Constant Gardener wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

In answer to Mr. Diehl:
Medicare is very efficient, let's have more.

Depends on the country and which nations border it.

No.

Yes!

Friends: I gave maybe $4000 total in donations to candidates in 2012. You know, $500 here, $250 there. The only race I gave more than a grand to was the presidential race. But still, I spread some c-notes around. None of the candidates I supported know I exist. We must get money out of elections. Do that, and then we can think about sending better educated, higher functioning candidates, but the money has to come out first.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Beekeeper wrote 42 weeks 1 day ago

Few people understand that the farm bill has always been a front for welfare funding. 70% of the typical "Farm Bill" funds DEFACS programs. Make the Politicians call the Farm Bill what it actually is a "Welfare Bill." Then we can have a real farm bill that doesn't look like the GDP of a EU nation.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

This is suppose to be a sportsman magazine and website, not MSNBC. There were plenty of Democrats that voted no on the farm bill due to the subsidies to Farmers. I wish Bob Marshall would provide all the facts and not just the democrat's talking points.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bioguy01 wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

I'm with CL3...what the hell was something about food stamps doing in the farm bill? I'm sick of politicians destroying our system by sticking amendments in bills where they do not belong! That's sleazy, corrupt politics and complete bull crap! This is the exact reason why people do not trust government.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 43 weeks 14 hours ago

"most of the GOP members are from gerrymandered districts and have no chance of losing. They can thumb their nose at conservation and the overall sentiment in the country, and even their own leadership."

I don't think that is a very accurate claim or statement of their purpose. GOPpers aren't particularly more "gerrymandered" than any other district. And the left has long been in favor of minority-majority districting; the thing is, if you create some wacky district that arbitrarily gives leftwing minorities a lock-in, you wind up putting conservatives into other districts, strengthening their chances for election.

Now, for the most part I vote for conservatives. The problem is that conservatism in the classic Barry Goldwater sense is different from the "conservatism" of the Big Money extraction crowd. The trick is to find real conservatives who really DON'Y want "change" just for the sake of creating some other privileged subset of cronies.

I think we're slowly getting around to recognition among conservatives that good CONSERVATION practices sustain the kind of culture (outdoor enthusiasts and hunters) that side with other conservative issues. Always chasing the big money donors won't necessarily get you the popular conservative vote.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

Outdoor life covered this issue in an unbiased way- F & S won't let me post the link but John Haughey uses facts and numbers instead of dem talking points- worth taking a look.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tleichty1989 wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

Its obvious America is not happy just based on this comments in this post. Shits gunna hit the fan at some point and a revolutions on its way.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

Sure thing, tleichty1989. Who needs Gallup polling when you can just come onto the Field & Stream message board after a Bob Marshall post to get an accurate survey of 316 million people's public opinion.

If a handful of "I hate all things liberal" far-right tea party types were representative of America, you wouldn't see Barack Obama win two Presidential elections.

What is obvious is that doomsday prepper lunatics like yourself are the laughing stock of the country.

Us moderate republicans, democrats and independents; we're the majority. Not the fringe conspiracy theorist pissants like yourself.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dangle wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

Bob...How about doing some research, and tell us how great and effective that wonderful Senate is would you?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 43 weeks 15 hours ago

Hey there, NotMuchToDangle, this spud's for you: ..1.,

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

Outdoor life covered this issue in an unbiased way- F & S won't let me post the link but John Haughey uses facts and numbers instead of dem talking points- worth taking a look.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from CL3 wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

By the way, that was a rhetorical question; I know why Federal bills / amendments are not germane.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dangle wrote 43 weeks 19 hours ago

Greenshead..Yes, Latin wasn't one of my favorites, and I did take it early on. Just march lock step with decent, Pro-Americans. There are a number of Republicans that fall into the liberal collumn that is ruining the country. The Regime' running the show right now is about as corrupt as there is including those in South America that support this Regime'. And you are one of the supporters?

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dangle wrote 42 weeks 6 days ago

Deihl is right? Deihl is on the side of bigger, and bigger, and more intrusive govt. Get Real! A major survey just conducted indicated that 27% ofthe folks on Deihl's side of the isle think the TEA PARTY folks are the major terrorist threat in this country! Digest that one. The Tea Party folks want less big govt. Less of their hard working dollars going to buying votes on Deihl's side of the isle. Less corruption, waste, and on, and on. But they are terrorists according to Deihl's liberal folks.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 43 weeks 1 day ago

Greenhead, I don't understand why you and apparently DU don't understand what this bill is. As an avid sportsman I care about conservation, and as a father with a family to support on a limited income every dollar taken from me is one dollar less going to my family. Once again before commenting read the bill it is not a conservation bill it is "WELFARE" and if you care to look further back sometime last week or the week prior I broke it down for you. It's tiresome to keep on informing the ill-informed and they don't give a flying puck to read. People like you make great politicians! "Farm-bill", Sounds legit! You got my vote! 80% of the bill goes to "SNAP" A.K.A. FOOOOOOOOOOD STAAAAAAMPS! Not conservation but FOOOOOOOOOOD STAAAAAAMPS! Your argument is shallow and lacking in knowledge.

Rockrat, You care to enlighten us of such bill?

Bioguy, I explained it already. It has been in there for ever. It's just like Welfare being called SNAP, Food Stamps now EBT card, etc.... It is PC so people are not looked down on for being less fortunate.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dangle wrote 43 weeks 1 day ago

Liberal Bob Marshall scribes, and then here comes the libs Diehl, Rock Rat ad mausium. What a great outdoor magazine.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from aferraro wrote 43 weeks 2 days ago

"The first would have undone traditional price supports for milk producers; the second would have deepened already steep cuts in food stamps."

There are now 48 million people on food stamps- that's a 70% increase under Obama. Traditional price support- what could be more American than fixing prices. Enough with your biased liberal BS- IT IS PATHETIC THAT YOU WRITE FOR A HUNTING MAGAZINE!

-6 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment