U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
801 Kingsmill Parkway, Columbus, OH 43229
Ph. 614/888-4868 • Fax 614/888-0326
Website: http://www.ussportsmen.org • E-mail: info@ussportsmen.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Mike Faw (614) 888-4868 X 214
March 5, 2012 Sharon Hayden (614) 888 4868 X 226
Presidential Candidates Talk Sportsmen’s Issues with USSA
(Columbus) –Like so many other states during the last 90 days, Ohio is now taking its turn as the center of the political storm. The Republican candidates for the White House are crisscrossing the Buckeye state to make their case to voters prior to tomorrow’s “Super Tuesday” primary.
This full court press, in the backyard of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance’s national headquarters, provided staff leadership a chance to visit and have dialogue with the campaigns and candidates.
Today, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum agreed to sit down to talk about the most important issues facing sportsmen with USSA staff. Bud Pidgeon, USSA president and CEO; Rob Sexton, Senior Vice President; Doug Jeanneret, Vice President of Marketing; and Evan Heusinkveld, Director of State Services, spent 30 minutes with the presidential hopeful at an American Legion hall.
“I have spent my career fighting to preserve the 2nd Amendment and the traditions of the sportsman, and I will continue working to ensure these rights are never infringed upon,” said Sen. Santorum. “I have to admit though, that one of the best things about being on this campaign was the Iowa pheasant hunts – and the high point for me was watching my oldest son take his first pheasant.”
Prior to the meeting, the Santorum campaign provided information on his views on hunting and second amendment rights. Click here to read the Santorum document in its entirety. USSA will publish Sen. Santorum’s responses to questions asked by USSA leadership tomorrow on the organization’s website http://www.ussportsmen.org.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s campaign also provided information explaining his views on hunting and the second amendment. Click here to read the Romney document in its entirety.
Governor Romney recently addressed his feelings regarding our outdoor heritage during a campaign stop in Ohio on Feb. 29, 2012.
“My own view is, lets protect the second amendment, lets protect the right of Americans to bear arms, whether for hunting, for sportsmen, for personal protection, for whatever legal purpose someone might have,” said Romney.
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance was pleased to have a discourse with both candidates.
“Given that one of these two men could very likely lead our country, it is vital for sportsmen to have every chance to learn more about where they stand on hunting, conservation and gun rights,” said Bud Pidgeon. “We are very pleased to have had the opportunity to visit, and will continue to provide information on the candidates whenever possible.”
About USSA: The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance’s watchdog efforts protect hunters’ rights and the interests of anglers, trappers and recreational shooters in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress, and through many public education programs. The USSA has more than 150,000 registered Sentries that regularly receive information about conservation issues, and then they actively work to promote and protect scientific conservation through calls and contacts. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and the Sentry program, call (614) 888-4868 or visit: http://www.ussportsmen.org.
SUPPORT THOSE WHO SUPPORT US!
-
outlaw13
- Open Mouth
- Posts: 874
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:32 pm
- Location: California
- Location: nor-cal
Re: SUPPORT THOSE WHO SUPPORT US!
It is sad that this has so little views after a day and other total drama crap will have 10X the views.
If you're not offending idiots, you might be an idiot.- Ted Nugent
Go Big or Go Home!!!
Clint Berg
Go Big or Go Home!!!
Clint Berg
Re: SUPPORT THOSE WHO SUPPORT US!
U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
801 Kingsmill Parkway, Columbus, OH 43229
Ph. 614/888-4868 • Fax 614/888-0326
Website: www.ussportsmen.org • E-mail: info@ussportsmen.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Mike Faw (614) 888-4868 x 214
March 7, 2012 Sharon Hayden (614) 888-4868 x 226
Santorum Provides Views on Sportsmen’s Issues
(Columbus, OH) –On the day before the pivotal “Super Tuesday” primaries, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum sat down for an interview with the staff leadership of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance to discuss issues important to hunters, trappers and anglers.
The USSA staff present for the interview with Santorum were: Bud Pidgeon (President and CEO); Rob Sexton (Senior Vice President); Doug Jeanneret (Vice President, Marketing); and Evan Heusinkveld (Director, State Services).
Here is the interview by issue topic:
Topic One: Hunting Recruitment and Hunting Access
Jeanneret: One of the issues facing sportsmen these days are dwindling numbers of sportsmen. It’s a really big issue. The conservation community, every national group… if you talked to any of them it’s a concern of theirs. One of the things we would like to ask you, the Department of Interior oversees U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees federal game laws. In your opinion, should they be helping us create hunters, fishermen, trappers and promoting that ethic out there?
Santorum: I hear you but I am looking at where we are from the standpoint from the deficit. I mean a lot of people ask me, where are you for federal dollars for this or that? We are borrowing 42 cents of every dollar right now and for me to commit any new dollars to do anything would be a tough thing. If you are talking about within the literature, for example that comes out, and we do things to talk about hunting and fishing opportunities… if it’s in the context of what the agency generally does and making sure that people are aware of opportunities and things like that to sort of reinforce the importance or nature of the sports. I have no problem with that. It’s different if you’re saying we need to spend new dollars to do this.
Jeanneret: We’re not.
Sexton: We’re not. The pot of money we are talking about would be excise tax dollars that come from ammunition sales, firearm sales, fishing tackle sales. That money typically gets spent back on conservation issues and sportsmen issues anyways. We are looking for some prioritization of that money to programs that will get people into the field and get them out and open up new land for them to hunt on and things like that.
Santorum: I have no problem. I mean if you are asking me if I am going to be friendly to opening up federal lands for more sportsmen activity the answer is absolutely yes. If you are talking about if we are going to take federal lands in the extent we can and turn them over to private sector or turn them over to the state the answer is yes. I think this is an opportunity for us. We have way too much federal land and way too many restrictions on the federal lands that we have. I will be working with a whole variety of different conservation groups, not environmental groups, conservation groups as well as sportsmen groups to see what avenues we can pursue to make that a much more welcoming environment for sportsmen and for recreation.
Sexton: For years our community put our money towards reestablishing species, whether it be deer or turkey or pheasant or what have you. Returning to the idea of hunters, one of the biggest factors is the urbanization of America. Guys give up hunting because they have to drive 2½ hours to get to a place to hunt. I am just bringing this around full circle so you know where we are coming from. We have used our money… the firearm tax money and the fishing tackle money. That money is supposed to be put back into the resource so that you get back more hunters and anglers. Of course they (hunters) have a huge economic impact as you know from your own home state. What we are looking for now… we want to see investment in programs so that a guy doesn’t have to drive 2 hours outside of Pittsburgh to get to hunt.
Santorum: I am okay with that as long as…you are going to find if you look at my record one of the programs I am not a fan of is CRP. I know a lot of CRP land is used for habitat but we shouldn’t be paying farmers not to farm. I mean if you want to use that money to pay farmers to keep habitat for pheasant, turkey, whatever…great, but I don’t think we should be using money that encourages farmers not to farm their land for environmental purposes. It’s not (CRP) as you know, it’s not intended for wildlife habitat. It was intended for runoff and all sorts of other things to preserve the ecology. I understand a lot of hunters and sportsmen actually feel very passionate about the CRP program. I don’t. Just being very up front with you. If you want to use the knowledge for that, that’s one thing but we shouldn’t use ag (agriculture) dollars for that.
Topic Two: HR 4089, The Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012
Heusinkveld: We have a piece of legislation we have been working on in D.C. It’s called the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012. It’s a package of four different pieces of legislation. It would close legal loopholes that anti-hunters have used to shut down access to sportsmen to federal lands. It has a provision, “open until closed,” which mandates that these federal lands are open (to hunting, shooting, and fishing) until closed by the agency because they’ve got specific reason or cause or evidence that it needs to be done. The way the current law works, they (federal land management agencies) have to open every single piece of land. That opens up the opportunity to be sued by anti-hunters and animal rights groups.
Santorum: I’m for it. (referring to supporting HR 4089)
Heusinkveld: Great.
Santorum: Government should make things available unless there is a reason it shouldn’t be.
Topic Three: Dog Breeding and the Humane Society of the United States
Sexton: I think you are probably aware of a lot of the media coverage over issues of substandard dog breeding operations. There has been a 50 state campaign to address the issue but the issue has gotten out of control. The laws that are being written heavily impact folks who aren’t large breeders, but operate sporting dog kennels, hobby breeders instead of going after…
Santorum: …that’s actually why we thought about doing this at the federal level so we could get all the folks and interested parties in doing it. I mean you actually probably know I supported some of this because of it was in conjunction with a problem we were having with the importation of dogs and cats, but mostly dogs from China where there are huge, huge problems with dogs, huge amount of dogs dying in transportation and other types of problems and so that was clearly a federal government issue because it has to do with trade so this was sort of piggy backed on that bill. But it has been a chronic problem for us in Pennsylvania too in the Amish areas. It became sort of a wildfire issue for me and as far as I know they didn’t have this (state) effort, which I understand they do now, to try and take care of this in the 50 states. I know each state is dealing with it differently. But if you look at that law we put together we were very, very conscious of hobby breeders. We were very conscious of making sure we were talking about large commercial operations, not somebody that was breeding a few bitches you know every year or two.
Sexton: I think one of the concerns about the issue nationally is that the chief proponent of the overall issue was the Humane Society of the United States, who the hunting community regards as the top anti-hunting group. The bills have been written in wide funnel methodology that would… well in Pennsylvania the law they proposed would have put every sporting dog kennel out of existence. We couldn’t find even one in compliance with their proposal.
Santorum: I am not surprised by that. We dealt with both the AKC and the HSUS. There were a lot of issues that ultimately would go back and forth that we are not able to resolve and as a result probably just set them aside. You know for me this was trying to do something that was reasonable. I do believe in people’s ability to raise their own animals, but I also believe when animals go into the home as most of these animals do, you have to have consumer protection standards so you’re not having defective animals and animals that have temper problems and other types of problems coming into people’s homes. How many folks do you know that their dog is like their child? You just can’t introduce an animal into the home without having some sort of standards that are set in place.
Sexton: Are you aware of the issues between the Humane Society of the United States and the Sportsmen’s Community?
Santorum: Sure. I am very aware of it. I understand there are issues between them (HSUS) and production agriculture which is even worse than it is with the Humane Society and the sportsmen. I think you’ll find I am very reasonable guy. I do believe we should be good stewards. We have dominion over animals. We have dominion over the earth and we have to be responsible for the treatment of them. I know most sportsmen are but unfortunately there are some breeders who aren’t. As a result this is the same thing as everything else when you have people that do not live up to those conditions. Everyone else has to deal with regulations as a result of that. You can’t just turn a blind eye to it. You can’t just say well it’s too bad there are some bad people out there but too bad. I just don’t think that’s what laws are for. People keep a minimum standard for the care of and treatment of animals.
Sexton: You know you can draw a parallel when you think about it like firearms regulations and laws. We are after law breakers, not the law abiding and the same would be true on this issue.
Santorum: The concern is that we heard from some sportsmen groups and breeders that government shouldn’t be involved with us at all. Well, I don’t buy that. I mean you know if you want to police yourself…but you’re not because I can point to lots of kennels where you’re not. So if you’re not, someone is going to have to police it, otherwise you can run the videos and show the American public and you’re going to lose because no one is going to want to see animals treated like this and hear the stories that are going on. I mean, Americans loves our pets so we have to be reasonable. What I found is that vast majority of breeders are very reasonable. Some who don’t believe in any government regulation of anything and they have been out there speaking against me as I have heard in some of the states, but my feeling is we need responsible laws just make sure were hitting the irresponsible people not the responsible ones.
***Editor’s Note: The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is attempting to set up interviews with the remaining presidential candidates. We will provide information on their views on the most important issues to sportsmen as it becomes available.
About USSA: The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance’s watchdog efforts protect hunters’ rights and the interests of anglers, trappers and recreational shooters in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress, and through many public education programs. The USSA has more than 150,000 registered Sentries that regularly receive information about conservation issues, and then they actively work to promote and protect scientific conservation through calls and contacts. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and the Sentry program, call (614) 888-4868 or visit www.ussportsmen.org.
801 Kingsmill Parkway, Columbus, OH 43229
Ph. 614/888-4868 • Fax 614/888-0326
Website: www.ussportsmen.org • E-mail: info@ussportsmen.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Mike Faw (614) 888-4868 x 214
March 7, 2012 Sharon Hayden (614) 888-4868 x 226
Santorum Provides Views on Sportsmen’s Issues
(Columbus, OH) –On the day before the pivotal “Super Tuesday” primaries, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum sat down for an interview with the staff leadership of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance to discuss issues important to hunters, trappers and anglers.
The USSA staff present for the interview with Santorum were: Bud Pidgeon (President and CEO); Rob Sexton (Senior Vice President); Doug Jeanneret (Vice President, Marketing); and Evan Heusinkveld (Director, State Services).
Here is the interview by issue topic:
Topic One: Hunting Recruitment and Hunting Access
Jeanneret: One of the issues facing sportsmen these days are dwindling numbers of sportsmen. It’s a really big issue. The conservation community, every national group… if you talked to any of them it’s a concern of theirs. One of the things we would like to ask you, the Department of Interior oversees U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees federal game laws. In your opinion, should they be helping us create hunters, fishermen, trappers and promoting that ethic out there?
Santorum: I hear you but I am looking at where we are from the standpoint from the deficit. I mean a lot of people ask me, where are you for federal dollars for this or that? We are borrowing 42 cents of every dollar right now and for me to commit any new dollars to do anything would be a tough thing. If you are talking about within the literature, for example that comes out, and we do things to talk about hunting and fishing opportunities… if it’s in the context of what the agency generally does and making sure that people are aware of opportunities and things like that to sort of reinforce the importance or nature of the sports. I have no problem with that. It’s different if you’re saying we need to spend new dollars to do this.
Jeanneret: We’re not.
Sexton: We’re not. The pot of money we are talking about would be excise tax dollars that come from ammunition sales, firearm sales, fishing tackle sales. That money typically gets spent back on conservation issues and sportsmen issues anyways. We are looking for some prioritization of that money to programs that will get people into the field and get them out and open up new land for them to hunt on and things like that.
Santorum: I have no problem. I mean if you are asking me if I am going to be friendly to opening up federal lands for more sportsmen activity the answer is absolutely yes. If you are talking about if we are going to take federal lands in the extent we can and turn them over to private sector or turn them over to the state the answer is yes. I think this is an opportunity for us. We have way too much federal land and way too many restrictions on the federal lands that we have. I will be working with a whole variety of different conservation groups, not environmental groups, conservation groups as well as sportsmen groups to see what avenues we can pursue to make that a much more welcoming environment for sportsmen and for recreation.
Sexton: For years our community put our money towards reestablishing species, whether it be deer or turkey or pheasant or what have you. Returning to the idea of hunters, one of the biggest factors is the urbanization of America. Guys give up hunting because they have to drive 2½ hours to get to a place to hunt. I am just bringing this around full circle so you know where we are coming from. We have used our money… the firearm tax money and the fishing tackle money. That money is supposed to be put back into the resource so that you get back more hunters and anglers. Of course they (hunters) have a huge economic impact as you know from your own home state. What we are looking for now… we want to see investment in programs so that a guy doesn’t have to drive 2 hours outside of Pittsburgh to get to hunt.
Santorum: I am okay with that as long as…you are going to find if you look at my record one of the programs I am not a fan of is CRP. I know a lot of CRP land is used for habitat but we shouldn’t be paying farmers not to farm. I mean if you want to use that money to pay farmers to keep habitat for pheasant, turkey, whatever…great, but I don’t think we should be using money that encourages farmers not to farm their land for environmental purposes. It’s not (CRP) as you know, it’s not intended for wildlife habitat. It was intended for runoff and all sorts of other things to preserve the ecology. I understand a lot of hunters and sportsmen actually feel very passionate about the CRP program. I don’t. Just being very up front with you. If you want to use the knowledge for that, that’s one thing but we shouldn’t use ag (agriculture) dollars for that.
Topic Two: HR 4089, The Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012
Heusinkveld: We have a piece of legislation we have been working on in D.C. It’s called the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012. It’s a package of four different pieces of legislation. It would close legal loopholes that anti-hunters have used to shut down access to sportsmen to federal lands. It has a provision, “open until closed,” which mandates that these federal lands are open (to hunting, shooting, and fishing) until closed by the agency because they’ve got specific reason or cause or evidence that it needs to be done. The way the current law works, they (federal land management agencies) have to open every single piece of land. That opens up the opportunity to be sued by anti-hunters and animal rights groups.
Santorum: I’m for it. (referring to supporting HR 4089)
Heusinkveld: Great.
Santorum: Government should make things available unless there is a reason it shouldn’t be.
Topic Three: Dog Breeding and the Humane Society of the United States
Sexton: I think you are probably aware of a lot of the media coverage over issues of substandard dog breeding operations. There has been a 50 state campaign to address the issue but the issue has gotten out of control. The laws that are being written heavily impact folks who aren’t large breeders, but operate sporting dog kennels, hobby breeders instead of going after…
Santorum: …that’s actually why we thought about doing this at the federal level so we could get all the folks and interested parties in doing it. I mean you actually probably know I supported some of this because of it was in conjunction with a problem we were having with the importation of dogs and cats, but mostly dogs from China where there are huge, huge problems with dogs, huge amount of dogs dying in transportation and other types of problems and so that was clearly a federal government issue because it has to do with trade so this was sort of piggy backed on that bill. But it has been a chronic problem for us in Pennsylvania too in the Amish areas. It became sort of a wildfire issue for me and as far as I know they didn’t have this (state) effort, which I understand they do now, to try and take care of this in the 50 states. I know each state is dealing with it differently. But if you look at that law we put together we were very, very conscious of hobby breeders. We were very conscious of making sure we were talking about large commercial operations, not somebody that was breeding a few bitches you know every year or two.
Sexton: I think one of the concerns about the issue nationally is that the chief proponent of the overall issue was the Humane Society of the United States, who the hunting community regards as the top anti-hunting group. The bills have been written in wide funnel methodology that would… well in Pennsylvania the law they proposed would have put every sporting dog kennel out of existence. We couldn’t find even one in compliance with their proposal.
Santorum: I am not surprised by that. We dealt with both the AKC and the HSUS. There were a lot of issues that ultimately would go back and forth that we are not able to resolve and as a result probably just set them aside. You know for me this was trying to do something that was reasonable. I do believe in people’s ability to raise their own animals, but I also believe when animals go into the home as most of these animals do, you have to have consumer protection standards so you’re not having defective animals and animals that have temper problems and other types of problems coming into people’s homes. How many folks do you know that their dog is like their child? You just can’t introduce an animal into the home without having some sort of standards that are set in place.
Sexton: Are you aware of the issues between the Humane Society of the United States and the Sportsmen’s Community?
Santorum: Sure. I am very aware of it. I understand there are issues between them (HSUS) and production agriculture which is even worse than it is with the Humane Society and the sportsmen. I think you’ll find I am very reasonable guy. I do believe we should be good stewards. We have dominion over animals. We have dominion over the earth and we have to be responsible for the treatment of them. I know most sportsmen are but unfortunately there are some breeders who aren’t. As a result this is the same thing as everything else when you have people that do not live up to those conditions. Everyone else has to deal with regulations as a result of that. You can’t just turn a blind eye to it. You can’t just say well it’s too bad there are some bad people out there but too bad. I just don’t think that’s what laws are for. People keep a minimum standard for the care of and treatment of animals.
Sexton: You know you can draw a parallel when you think about it like firearms regulations and laws. We are after law breakers, not the law abiding and the same would be true on this issue.
Santorum: The concern is that we heard from some sportsmen groups and breeders that government shouldn’t be involved with us at all. Well, I don’t buy that. I mean you know if you want to police yourself…but you’re not because I can point to lots of kennels where you’re not. So if you’re not, someone is going to have to police it, otherwise you can run the videos and show the American public and you’re going to lose because no one is going to want to see animals treated like this and hear the stories that are going on. I mean, Americans loves our pets so we have to be reasonable. What I found is that vast majority of breeders are very reasonable. Some who don’t believe in any government regulation of anything and they have been out there speaking against me as I have heard in some of the states, but my feeling is we need responsible laws just make sure were hitting the irresponsible people not the responsible ones.
***Editor’s Note: The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is attempting to set up interviews with the remaining presidential candidates. We will provide information on their views on the most important issues to sportsmen as it becomes available.
About USSA: The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance’s watchdog efforts protect hunters’ rights and the interests of anglers, trappers and recreational shooters in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress, and through many public education programs. The USSA has more than 150,000 registered Sentries that regularly receive information about conservation issues, and then they actively work to promote and protect scientific conservation through calls and contacts. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and the Sentry program, call (614) 888-4868 or visit www.ussportsmen.org.
-
outlaw13
- Open Mouth
- Posts: 874
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:32 pm
- Location: California
- Location: nor-cal
Re: SUPPORT THOSE WHO SUPPORT US!
i noticed how he was speaking out of both sides of his mouth, all i could think is that people actually fall for this crap. Santorum seems to be a snake to me and you can never trust a snake.
If you're not offending idiots, you might be an idiot.- Ted Nugent
Go Big or Go Home!!!
Clint Berg
Go Big or Go Home!!!
Clint Berg
-
Liz ODell
- Open Mouth
- Posts: 594
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:22 pm
- Location: First Nations
- Location: My peoples land...forever.
Re: SUPPORT THOSE WHO SUPPORT US!
Santorum;"I have no problem. I mean if you are asking me if I am going to be friendly to opening up federal lands for more sportsmen activity the answer is absolutely yes. If you are talking about if we are going to take federal lands in the extent we can and turn them over to private sector or turn them over to the state the answer is yes. I think this is an opportunity for us. We have way too much federal land and way too many restrictions on the federal lands that we have. I will be working with a whole variety of different conservation groups, not environmental groups, conservation groups as well as sportsmen groups to see what avenues we can pursue to make that a much more welcoming environment for sportsmen and for recreation"
How can selling Federal land to private make it more sportsman friendly? Yeah those gates and 'no trespassing' signs on what was once public domain sure is friendly, so is the amount of money you'll have to pay to get to hunt behind those gates and well the land owners just might not like hounddogging...
How about just working on the current system that is already in place? How about a smack down on the fed's new 'Travel Management' system that is closing off USFS and BLM land to the public. How about a smack down on those people in postions of power within those 2 agencies that are not serving the best interest of the public?
Has anyone heard what Romney's stand on Federal lands is?
I know both Paul (who has always maintained that idea - subject was spoken about in a previous thread) and now Santorum both believe in the idea of selling federal land (ie; National Forest and BLM) to private.
I mean is that really what we as hunters want?
Hmmm...I still can't figure out why all the 'conservatives' always say we have too much federal land and want to turn it over to private (I realize this is a little issue is a big sea of issues)?
Granted we do not want the feds locking us off the land or turning it into new wilderness areas but turning it into private? WOW.
Why is there never any middle ground? 'Conservatives' want to sell it and 'liberals' want to lock it all up.
I might not be a fan of big government and I may be a die hard listener of the Alex Jones show BUT I do think the idea of Federal lands FOR THE PEOPLE is way better than private property and houses on every square inch of dirt, give me my mountains and deserts with no one but critters in sight. We need those places!
l don't know who I am going to end up voting for - except I know it won't be Obama!
How can selling Federal land to private make it more sportsman friendly? Yeah those gates and 'no trespassing' signs on what was once public domain sure is friendly, so is the amount of money you'll have to pay to get to hunt behind those gates and well the land owners just might not like hounddogging...
How about just working on the current system that is already in place? How about a smack down on the fed's new 'Travel Management' system that is closing off USFS and BLM land to the public. How about a smack down on those people in postions of power within those 2 agencies that are not serving the best interest of the public?
Has anyone heard what Romney's stand on Federal lands is?
I know both Paul (who has always maintained that idea - subject was spoken about in a previous thread) and now Santorum both believe in the idea of selling federal land (ie; National Forest and BLM) to private.
I mean is that really what we as hunters want?
Hmmm...I still can't figure out why all the 'conservatives' always say we have too much federal land and want to turn it over to private (I realize this is a little issue is a big sea of issues)?
Granted we do not want the feds locking us off the land or turning it into new wilderness areas but turning it into private? WOW.
Why is there never any middle ground? 'Conservatives' want to sell it and 'liberals' want to lock it all up.
I might not be a fan of big government and I may be a die hard listener of the Alex Jones show BUT I do think the idea of Federal lands FOR THE PEOPLE is way better than private property and houses on every square inch of dirt, give me my mountains and deserts with no one but critters in sight. We need those places!
l don't know who I am going to end up voting for - except I know it won't be Obama!
Re: SUPPORT THOSE WHO SUPPORT US!
The USSA is suppose to have some more interviews, I'll post more when I get more.
-
Grzyadms4x4
- Open Mouth
- Posts: 983
- Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:53 pm
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: AZ
Re: SUPPORT THOSE WHO SUPPORT US!
There is a lot of Federal land that could be sold, but it's not the federal government's land to sell, it's the State's and the majority should be returned to the States. I too am not for selling to the land to the highest bidder as we all know what could happen to it. Subdivision in Yellowstone, Devils Tower Condos anyone(might actually be kinda cool.) The bast plan would be to return the national parks, sanctuaries and any other federal land not deemed necessary for national defense, to the states to manage as they see fit. They could put in in a Trust and only sell of parcels for education in the state like here in AZ or maybe make huge state parks.
-
WAcoyotehunter
- Bawl Mouth
- Posts: 171
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:18 pm
Re: SUPPORT THOSE WHO SUPPORT US!
IMO- public land needs to remain that way... can you see them selling to their oil or timber cronies and deregulating? I can. Hunters need to resist ANY conversation regarding selling land.
Don't shoot to kill...Shoot to SURVIVE!
Re: SUPPORT THOSE WHO SUPPORT US!
From the USSA On Target News Letter
Presidential Candidates as Rated by the Anti's
Humane Society of the United States Rates Presidential Candidates
3/15/12
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance does not endorse candidates for office. It does, however, provide information about candidates that may be helpful as sportsmen and women make their own decisions during the election season.
For example, last week, USSA provided an interview with former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. It is expected that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will also respond to the interview request. In the meantime, it may be helpful to American hunters, anglers and trappers to see how the nation’s most powerful anti-hunting organization views the candidates.
The Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) is the advocacy arm of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which is the largest animal rights organization in the world. HSUS is led by Wayne Pacelle, a former protégé of Cleveland Amory who founded the Fund for Animals, which focused primarily on outlawing hunting. After leaving the Fund for Animals for HSUS, Pacelle moved up to the top job and orchestrated the unification of the two organizations. When the Fund for Animals folded, its leadership was awarded key positions with HSUS. This ensures that their anti-hunting agenda continues.
Former Fund for Animals head, Michael Markarian, now runs the HSUS advocacy arm, which had the following to say (in print) about the Republican candidates back on December 30, 2011.
In Markarian’s words:
Newt Gingrich: Gingrich earned a 21 percent on the Humane Scorecard for the 103rd Congress, but did not have scores for subsequent sessions since the Speaker of the House typically does not vote. He did vote to allow sport hunting in the Mojave National Preserve, and to allow foreign aid dollars to be used to promote trophy hunting of elephants and other species. On the positive side, he cosponsored legislation to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, and when he was Speaker helped to prevent the weakening of endangered species protections. Gingrich is, so far, the only presidential candidate who has actively talked about the importance of the human-animal bond while on the campaign trail. He launched a web site called “Pets with Newt,” and he is widely known to be a fan of zoos. Gingrich wrote the foreword to the guidebook “America’s Best Zoos,” and often stops by to visit the local zoo when he’s in a new city.
Ron Paul: Like Bachmann, Ron Paul has consistently received low marks on animal issues in Congress: He earned a 10 percent on the Humane Scorecard for the 108th Congress, a 14 percent in the 109th Congress, a zero in the 110th Congress, a 7 percent in the 111th Congress, and he’s on track to get a 25 percent for 2011. He has voted to allow the slaughter of American horses for food exports, the killing of Yellowstone National Park bison, the trophy shooting of bears over piles of bait on federal lands, the commercial sale and slaughter of wild horses from public lands, the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies, and the slaughter of downer livestock too sick or injured to walk on their own. He voted to block EPA from collecting data on factory farm emissions and voted against conservation legislation to protect rare cats and dogs, cranes, marine turtles, and sea otters. He was one of only a handful of lawmakers who opposed legislation to ban commerce in animal crush videos, to provide for pets in disaster planning, to ban the trade in dangerous primates as pets, to make dogfighting and cockfighting a felony, and to fund the enforcement of the federal animal fighting law. He has supported a handful of animal protection measures, to bar the trade in big cats as pets, to pair veterans with service dogs, and to cut funding for several government programs that harm animals, such as agriculture subsidies, lethal predator control, trapping on national wildlife refuges, and trophy hunting programs in foreign countries.
Mitt Romney: Romney attracted the ire of animal advocates when they learned that during a 1983 vacation, he put the family’s Irish setter, Seamus, in a carrier and strapped him to the roof rack of the station wagon. When the terrified dog urinated and defecated during the 12-hour drive, Romney pulled over, hosed down the dog, and continued the voyage from Boston to Ontario. As chief executive of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Romney also came under fire from animal protection groups for allowing a rodeo exhibition that included calf roping. His term as Massachusetts governor from 2003 to 2007 was mixed, and Romney did not distinguish himself on animal issues. He appointed a raft of animal-unfriendly people to the state Fisheries and Wildlife Board, even though Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure calling for more balanced wildlife policy. He vetoed a bill that would have given students the right to choose alternatives to animal dissection in the classroom. He did, however, sign a number of animal protection bills into law, including measures to strengthen the animal cruelty and animal fighting laws and prevent a convicted animal abuser from getting the animal back.
Rick Santorum: Of all the candidates who have served in Congress, Santorum was arguably the most active on animal protection issues. He earned a 60 percent on the Humane Scorecard for the 108th Congress and an 80 percent for the 109th Congress. But more importantly, he was the lead sponsor of the Pet Animal Welfare Statute (PAWS) to crack down on large-scale commercial puppy mills, and held a hearing on the bill when he was the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition and General Legislation. He was also a leader in the Senate urging adequate funding for the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, the federal animal fighting law, and other animal welfare programs. He cosponsored legislation to establish federal felony penalties for dogfighting and cockfighting, cosponsored legislation to require the addition of a bittering agent to antifreeze and engine coolant to prevent the poisoning of pets, and voted to stop the slaughter of American horses for food exports.
It’s clear that Santorum, Perry, and Huntsman (also reviewed) have the strongest animal protection records. They showed leadership and active support for our issues, and HSLF commends them for their past performance. Bachmann and Paul have demonstrated a consistent hostility or indifference to these concerns. Romney has largely been indifferent and has not been an active supporter. Gingrich has been a bit enigmatic, but he understands the power of the human-animal bond and has taken action to protect some of the most charismatic species.”—Source: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2011/12.
Presidential Candidates as Rated by the Anti's
Humane Society of the United States Rates Presidential Candidates
3/15/12
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance does not endorse candidates for office. It does, however, provide information about candidates that may be helpful as sportsmen and women make their own decisions during the election season.
For example, last week, USSA provided an interview with former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. It is expected that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will also respond to the interview request. In the meantime, it may be helpful to American hunters, anglers and trappers to see how the nation’s most powerful anti-hunting organization views the candidates.
The Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) is the advocacy arm of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which is the largest animal rights organization in the world. HSUS is led by Wayne Pacelle, a former protégé of Cleveland Amory who founded the Fund for Animals, which focused primarily on outlawing hunting. After leaving the Fund for Animals for HSUS, Pacelle moved up to the top job and orchestrated the unification of the two organizations. When the Fund for Animals folded, its leadership was awarded key positions with HSUS. This ensures that their anti-hunting agenda continues.
Former Fund for Animals head, Michael Markarian, now runs the HSUS advocacy arm, which had the following to say (in print) about the Republican candidates back on December 30, 2011.
In Markarian’s words:
Newt Gingrich: Gingrich earned a 21 percent on the Humane Scorecard for the 103rd Congress, but did not have scores for subsequent sessions since the Speaker of the House typically does not vote. He did vote to allow sport hunting in the Mojave National Preserve, and to allow foreign aid dollars to be used to promote trophy hunting of elephants and other species. On the positive side, he cosponsored legislation to strengthen the Endangered Species Act, and when he was Speaker helped to prevent the weakening of endangered species protections. Gingrich is, so far, the only presidential candidate who has actively talked about the importance of the human-animal bond while on the campaign trail. He launched a web site called “Pets with Newt,” and he is widely known to be a fan of zoos. Gingrich wrote the foreword to the guidebook “America’s Best Zoos,” and often stops by to visit the local zoo when he’s in a new city.
Ron Paul: Like Bachmann, Ron Paul has consistently received low marks on animal issues in Congress: He earned a 10 percent on the Humane Scorecard for the 108th Congress, a 14 percent in the 109th Congress, a zero in the 110th Congress, a 7 percent in the 111th Congress, and he’s on track to get a 25 percent for 2011. He has voted to allow the slaughter of American horses for food exports, the killing of Yellowstone National Park bison, the trophy shooting of bears over piles of bait on federal lands, the commercial sale and slaughter of wild horses from public lands, the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies, and the slaughter of downer livestock too sick or injured to walk on their own. He voted to block EPA from collecting data on factory farm emissions and voted against conservation legislation to protect rare cats and dogs, cranes, marine turtles, and sea otters. He was one of only a handful of lawmakers who opposed legislation to ban commerce in animal crush videos, to provide for pets in disaster planning, to ban the trade in dangerous primates as pets, to make dogfighting and cockfighting a felony, and to fund the enforcement of the federal animal fighting law. He has supported a handful of animal protection measures, to bar the trade in big cats as pets, to pair veterans with service dogs, and to cut funding for several government programs that harm animals, such as agriculture subsidies, lethal predator control, trapping on national wildlife refuges, and trophy hunting programs in foreign countries.
Mitt Romney: Romney attracted the ire of animal advocates when they learned that during a 1983 vacation, he put the family’s Irish setter, Seamus, in a carrier and strapped him to the roof rack of the station wagon. When the terrified dog urinated and defecated during the 12-hour drive, Romney pulled over, hosed down the dog, and continued the voyage from Boston to Ontario. As chief executive of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Romney also came under fire from animal protection groups for allowing a rodeo exhibition that included calf roping. His term as Massachusetts governor from 2003 to 2007 was mixed, and Romney did not distinguish himself on animal issues. He appointed a raft of animal-unfriendly people to the state Fisheries and Wildlife Board, even though Massachusetts voters overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure calling for more balanced wildlife policy. He vetoed a bill that would have given students the right to choose alternatives to animal dissection in the classroom. He did, however, sign a number of animal protection bills into law, including measures to strengthen the animal cruelty and animal fighting laws and prevent a convicted animal abuser from getting the animal back.
Rick Santorum: Of all the candidates who have served in Congress, Santorum was arguably the most active on animal protection issues. He earned a 60 percent on the Humane Scorecard for the 108th Congress and an 80 percent for the 109th Congress. But more importantly, he was the lead sponsor of the Pet Animal Welfare Statute (PAWS) to crack down on large-scale commercial puppy mills, and held a hearing on the bill when he was the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee’s Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition and General Legislation. He was also a leader in the Senate urging adequate funding for the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, the federal animal fighting law, and other animal welfare programs. He cosponsored legislation to establish federal felony penalties for dogfighting and cockfighting, cosponsored legislation to require the addition of a bittering agent to antifreeze and engine coolant to prevent the poisoning of pets, and voted to stop the slaughter of American horses for food exports.
It’s clear that Santorum, Perry, and Huntsman (also reviewed) have the strongest animal protection records. They showed leadership and active support for our issues, and HSLF commends them for their past performance. Bachmann and Paul have demonstrated a consistent hostility or indifference to these concerns. Romney has largely been indifferent and has not been an active supporter. Gingrich has been a bit enigmatic, but he understands the power of the human-animal bond and has taken action to protect some of the most charismatic species.”—Source: http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2011/12.