doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com What Are The Odds...

RMBill, I have no idea what goes on in Montana, I'll take your word for it. I can tell you this. Illinois had no deer or turkey seasons until 1972(deer). Now it is a destination state for deer, turkey and geese. As is Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska. None of those states has a large acreage owned and controlled by the Fedgov outside of tribal trusts. Nor are the uber rich flocking there to impose. MN has a large amount of Fed land, also much state and county. You want to be hunting state, county or private, much better. NC, where I live now has a very good management plan for the Nat. forests. It involves cutting some trees! Some group or another drags the USFS/USF&G into federal court and quashes that every time. No successional forest, few grouse, few deer.
I believe that it was in the mid 1990's Mr. Clinton effectively removed yours and my access to roughly 80% of the federal land. I am not sure if that has been reversed or not. Yes, you could go out on that land. You had better be a long walker.

Chief

Chief, in mentioning Clinton, you seem to be referring to his creation of National Monuments. Your information is a bit shaky. The federal government owns 630 million acres of land across the country. Clinton designated 4 million acres of new Monuments. What the designation prohibits is road building, livestock grazing, and mining. These lands are available to public use. That they don't have roads cut into them is what makes them especially valuable to wildlife production. The best deer and elk hunting in Montana is found on much of these lands. They preserve these treasures for the creatures they support and for the enjoyment of future generations. The controversies over national monuments have to do the with exploitation of resources versus the preservation of a few remaining wild places.

RMBill I recall a lot of locked, (still) gates. And yes, anyone can walk on out there, a few do. More than a few circumvent the gates with an ATV. Possibly a reluctance to maintain the roads, I don't know. Never had to hunt much Fed land and don't intend to at this point in my life. Sounds to me like your best deer hunting is in town! I think the USFS, who I suspect have a whole credentialed, professional staff to rely on should be allowed to manage our land without undue interference, don't you?

Chief

Sergio Marchionne

June 17, 1952 - July 25, 2018

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/business/sergio-marchionne-dies-fiat-chrysler.html


__________________________
Killing the Blues
https://youtu.be/gwg2sdRdahM

Chief, In the Monuments, no one rides out there in an ATV. It's illegal. The point of the Monuments is to stop motorized traffic because it degrades the habitat and its enjoyment by people willing to access it without running it into the ground. Folks who feel they have to hunt from a truck or an ATV have other places to go to. The ATV industry is a blight on outdoor recreation unless it's confined to places already worn out by development and misuse. I'd make an exception in this opinion for disabled veterans.

A sad day. He was a guy who got shit done!

I agree.

RMBill,
I don't care for ATV's either, not my point. How about answering my question? Should the USFS be able to implement their own plan? Should they be made immune from litigation?

Chief

Chief, if the USFS is permitted to operate without political interference, then they should be free to manage national forests according to their professional standards. At present the Forest Service is under heavy pressure to allow maximum harvest of timber. If they can't resist the political heat, then the law is all that restrains them from skinning the woods. Under Bill Clinton The FS had the best director ever. Since then, politics has had the upper hand. No one should be immune from litigation except perhaps the Pope.

I've got an even better question for rocky mtn bill.

I can't take credit for it, but I heard it asked by Tucker Carlson last night. He was interviewing a lady who thought it would be terrible if Trump or Congress ever defunded Planned Parenthood.

She felt that abortion is a Constitutional right, and Tucker disagreed since there is nothing pertaining to abortion in the words of the Constitution. He asked her, since she supported taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood... the largest provider of abortions... if she would also support taxpayer funding for the NRA, since the 2nd Amendment actually is a Constitutional right.

What a great question for any Libtard!

She refused to answer, and felt the question was unfair. Knowing how Billy feels about the NRA, and knowing of his unwavering support for anti-gun Democrats, I would like to ask him the same question. Billy is worried about access to Federal lands for hunting, but he is too dumb to connect the dots when it comes to supporting the politicians who would restrict his hunting by restricting our very right to own and shoot firearms. Further proof that Liberalism is a mental illness.