Chalk one up for the good guys....

[freebird134]

All this does is put the power back in state level.

Here's a post straight from Alaska F&G..

THE TRUTH ABOUT ALASKA'S REFUGE RULE REPEAL

We've been hearing from many folks concerned about the recent repeal of the Alaska refuge rule. The repeal nullifies regulations that allowed the federal government to override state wildlife management authority on Alaska’s 16 wildlife refuges. Contrary to what some activists claim, it does not allow hunters to gas wolf pups in their dens, to shoot bears and wolves from airplanes, or allow bears to be taken in steel-jawed traps.

FACTS:

Q. DOES THE STATE OF ALASKA PERMIT AERIAL GUNNING OF BEARS?
A. Aerial hunting of bears is prohibited under general hunting regulations. Bears may be taken from the air in state-approved intensive management programs in limited areas by state staff only. The state is not conducting intensive management for bears on any federal lands, nor was it prior to the FWS rule.

Q. DOES THE STATE OF ALASKA ALLOW AERIAL HUNTING OF WOLVES?
A. Aerial hunting of wolves is prohibited under general hunting regulations. Only agents of the state in approved intensive management programs in limited areas may hunt wolves from the air. There are no state intensive management programs on National Park Service or FWS lands.

Q. DOES THE STATE OF ALASKA PERMIT THE GASSING OF WOLF PUPS?
A. This is prohibited under general hunting regulations.

Q. DOES THE STATE OF ALASKA ALLOW THE DENNING OF BEARS AND/OR CUBS?
A. The harvest of black bears at dens is allowed in a limited area under state and federal regulations where it is considered a customary and traditional practice for obtaining food.

Q. DOES THE STATE OF ALASKA ALLOW DENNING OF WOLVES OR WOLF PUPS?
A. No. This can occur only in approved intensive management programs and only by state staff. It was done in one program in 2008 and 2009.

Q. DOES THE STATE OF ALASKA PERMIT THE TAKING OF BEARS OVER BAIT?
A. Yes. The harvest of bears over bait is a form of regulated take in many areas of Alaska and the Lower 48 states. The Federal Subsistence Board also allows federally qualified subsistence users to harvest bears over bait on federal land.

Q. DOES THE STATE OF ALASKA ALLOW BEARS TO BE TAKEN IN STEEL-JAWED TRAPS?
A. No.

Q. WILL THE STATE BOARD OF GAME AUTHORIZE PREDATOR CONTROL IN REFUGES?
A. No, only the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can authorize predator control programs in refuges.

*For more Q&A on this subject, visit Questions and Answers related to H.J. Res 69 and State of Alaska Fish and Wildlife Management, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Thanks for this

 

[Daniel_M]

Thanks for this

Click the link at the bottom, there is a ton more of Q&A.

 

[5MilesBack]

Sorry but I consider the tea party mind set closed minded. So when someone tells me to open my mind so I can see a closed minded point of view....that's hilarious.

And therein lies the problem. The Tea Party is not "closed minded" it is Constitutional minded. So I guess ya in a way......if you're suggesting that we as a country and government should continue down this path moving further and further away from the Constitution.......then YES we are very closed minded to that. It just makes absolutely no sense that a country should be founded on certain principles with a guiding document such as the Constitution, and then just allow it to be ripped apart and ignored. Many, many men have given their lives to preserve, protect, and defend it.......and every single military member, member of Congress, and judicial representative has sworn an oath to support and defend it. So what's difficult is watching them attempt to destroy it........knowing that they swore an oath for the opposite of that. Traitors.

So yes........the political spectrum really is a line......a line between supporting and defending the Constitution, and not supporting and defending the Constitution. That's why it is so ridiculous that so many dems refuse to support Gorsuch as an absolutely fantastic SCOTUS choice. All he has done is support the Constitution in his decisions. But that's a problem for the dems, as he's not an "activist" judge as they really want......so that we can get even further away from the Constitution. Mindboggling.

 

[2ski]

I have the flu and I don't really feel like putting together my thoughts right now.

I will say this. I think the tea party is the single worst thing for the way we treat each other in this country right now. Some of these guys are just straight up nasty to anyone that doesn't agree with them. I'm talking the politicians. Not you. What happened to disagreeing with eachother but being nice about it. Sorry but how you treat people tells me all I need to know about who you are. I don't care how right you think you are. And thats whatever side of the aisle you find yourself on. And sure I'm sure you can give me examples where Democrats and non tea party Republicans do the same but it seems to me it's been exponentially worse since the tea party entered our lives.

Where do you stand with flag burning? Not against the constitution. But so many think it should be illegal. That's the government in my business isn't it?. So where do you draw the line? Where do you say it's okay for the government to be in my business in some things but not other things? For the record, I would never burn a flag. I'm bringing this up for your constitutional opinion. And don't cop out by saying it's up to the states. I don't hear anyone saying the states need to determine if people can burn the flag in each individual states. It's a form of free speech. People are making a statement when they do it. You may not agree with that statement but tough. Your constitution protects it.

People use the constitution as a way to justify what they do or don't want for government intrusion into their lives. Right side wants the government out of their business and religion....unless it's Islam. But a woman's body or people's bedrooms and sexual orientation.... it's up to the states. When in fact, they would be okay if abortion was illegal federally. And that would be incredibly two-faced. Tell me why a sodemy law should exist? What does it matter what two dudes or two women do in the bedroom? You don't want government intrusion into the bedroom of you and your wife. So what's the difference? And then the left, the government should regulate business and a lot of other things. There should be a good balance somewhere in the middle. We tend to treat the people that wrote the constitution as omnipotent. We talk about them in the same reverence we do God. They were men. We are men. And we don't know everything.

I know I've said a lot here. So I leave you with this: Maybe if we served cake to everyone we'd all just get along better. Lol. See what I did there? You have to admit that was funny.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[Jauwater]

I'd be more apt to join these debates if I had Dragon SRS.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[brocksw]

Centrism is the only way forward. The right vs left business is nonsense and arguing for one over the other only proves you're behind the curve.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

Where do you stand with flag burning?

My first question would be........"Why are you (flag burners) even living here if you feel the need to burn our flag?" While they're at it they might as well spit in the faces of every true American. On top of that, if they feel the need to burn Old Glory.......then they have absolutely no rights IMO to dictate what else goes on in this country. I'd like to see those same people go to some other countries and start a protest in the streets and burn that country's flag and see how well that goes for them.

I actually find it comical watching these idiots that protest by burning the flag and not respecting the National Anthem. So they disrespect two of the very symbols in this country that represent the very freedoms they have to protest. They are protesting the very freedoms we have in this country. I guess they would prefer a Gestapo type of freedom. Certainly not our best and brightest on display.

As for the rest of what you wrote that's easy to debate, but this isn't the place for that as we've already gone way beyond this thread's intent. But I'd be happy to help you understand the rest of that offline. By the way you ask those questions it appears that you're confused a little in what the actual intent is, and wreaks of main stream media regurgitation. Nobody cares what happens in anyone's bedroom.

 

[wind gypsy]

My first question would be........"Why are you (flag burners) even living here if you feel the need to burn our flag?" While they're at it they might as well spit in the faces of every true American. On top of that, if they feel the need to burn Old Glory.......then they have absolutely no rights IMO to dictate what else goes on in this country. I'd like to see those same people go to some other countries and start a protest in the streets and burn that country's flag and see how well that goes for them.

I actually find it comical watching these idiots that protest by burning the flag and not respecting the National Anthem. So they disrespect two of the very symbols in this country that represent the very freedoms they have to protest. They are protesting the very freedoms we have in this country. I guess they would prefer a Gestapo type of freedom. Certainly not our best and brightest on display.

As for the rest of what you wrote that's easy to debate, but this isn't the place for that as we've already gone way beyond this thread's intent. But I'd be happy to help you understand the rest of that offline. By the way you ask those questions it appears that you're confused a little in what the actual intent is, and wreaks of main stream media regurgitation. Nobody cares what happens in anyone's bedroom.

I have similar feelings about flag burning but you are basically supporting his point. "Tea Party is for the Constitution (when it supports our stance)!"

 

[LaGriz]

2ski
I agree with 5milesback on this one "The Tea Party is not "closed minded" it is Constitutional minded." the "TEA" in Tea Party means "Taxed Enough Already" and was a true grass routes movement. Conservatives torn with frustration over AHCA being forced on the country, followed by the liberal shopping spree of government spending created the movement. The lame stream news media has done a fine job of painting them as mind-numbed robots or rubes that have been harmed by talk radio and Fox News. The post election protestors, anti-wall street, black lives matter, and campus protesters are FAR less tolerant of opposing views and have become more violent over time. Well financed by agitators like George Sorrows these groups are "Astro Turf" in comparison to the non-violent Tea Party movement. Since it's creation, a right center electorate has shifted a 1000 seats (+ or -) to the Republicans since 2010. Fox News and talk radio are the only places we as conservatives can hear a message other than the progressive (socialist) nanny state agenda. Because of the shear volume of the dominant and bias media we can't help but hear the other side's opinions. Indeed we are surrounded by it and it totally sucks to be bombarded by the steady drum beat. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. The media colluded with Clinton and her wing of the party to fix the democrat's primary. We know his to be true. Don't let them (CNN MSNBC,CMBC, CBS, ABC, and even BBC) do your thinking for you. As a fellow hunter and an outdoorsmen, don't you see a conflict at times with the lefts agenda? I agree that we are lacking leadership choices in the last few election cycles. Trump was not my 1st choice either. The alternative however, was unpalatable.

LaGriz

 

[brocksw]

2ski
"..... and was a true grass routes movement."
"Fox News and talk radio are the only places we as conservatives can hear a message other than the progressive (socialist) nanny state agenda."
"Don't let them (CNN MSNBC,CMBC, CBS, ABC, and even BBC) do your thinking for you. As a fellow hunter and an outdoorsmen, don't you see a conflict at times with the lefts agenda? I agree that we are lacking leadership choices in the last few election cycles. Trump was not my 1st choice either. The alternative however, was unpalatable."

LaGriz

the Tea party was a grass roots movement but they're now funded by corporate America like the rest of the politics. Like it or not they are just another movement under the modern neoliberal agenda, it doesn't matter if you're left or right, that's just fact. While the Tea party themselves may not be directly violent, they are supported by and in turn support the very organizations that promote the privatization of America, American exceptionalism, and trickle down economics. So while the tea party may not be violent on the streets here an America, they're still supporting and being supported by the entities that represent the for-profit war agenda in other countries (hence the American exceptionalism). Let's not forget that the anti-parks caucus was a tea party idea, privatization of public lands is a conservative neoliberal movement, in some cases exploitation of the environment is also a right wing idea, so as an outdoorsman you must see the conflict with right agenda?

The primary concern I have in this response is your labeling of "socialist" as being a "nanny state". If you look up the definition of "Socialism" you will find that the core belief of socialism is not a nanny state, it's not even government control. Socialism's core belief is that WORKERS should have control over THEIR OWN lives and in turn communities have control. Modern socialism would support things like credit unions, Employee stock ownership programs (ESOP), cooperatives like your local Cenex gas station, and unions(many of which are involved in the coal and energy industries - boilermakers, pipe fitters, laborers, electricians, teachers, carpenters, operators). This nanny state that you speak of is largely a westernized labeling of socialism based on the anti communist agenda in the early 20th century when Russia and the US were calling Russia "socialist" for two different reasons. Lenin called himself Socialist because he knew that would garner the support of the people, he ran as a populist, and he used socialism as his slogan even though he turned Russia turned into a State Capitalist government which is, in all honesty, similar in some respects to our Corporate Republic in the US. The US called Russia socialist because it helped further their agenda for the anti communist movement. Essentially, the American government called the Russian's socialist so they could point their finger at Russia and say "look what socialism is, we don't want that". The truth is that almost none of what happened in Russia in the early 20th century was socialism, not Marxist socialism, not modern democratic socialism, it was sold to the Russian people as socialism and quickly turned into a state capitalist authoritarian dictatorship. In fact, true Marxist communism has never been enacted in any country that I'm aware of.

If you look at the history and look at people like Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin, these gentleman were all living in somewhat socialist countries. Their movements were all right wing perversions of their socialist states. Mao, Mussolini, and Hitler were Fascist Dictators, fascism by definition is a movement against socialism and liberalism. Let's not forget that classical liberalism was the very ideology that the US was founded on. I find this interesting because some major companies like GM, Ford, and IBM all supported NAZI Germany monetarily. Lenin and Stalin actually coined their own ideologies and said they based it on Marxist principles, but any fool can see that they weren't Marxists at all, we call them Leninism and Stalinism. There is significant evidence in history that left wing and right wing beliefs have serious flaws both in actual policy and in ideology. I could write an entire book on these flaws.

Ideally, we need to be done with this left vs right business. Both sides have taken it too far and neither is correct. Both sides have been given plenty of chances and in the last 30 years or so, they've all failed to deliver real change and real progress. Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, they've all failed. It's time to learn from there mistakes and for the American people to sit down with each other for a real conversation to take place, to elect real leaders and do away with this Corporatism based oligarchy where elections are bought and sold and policy is based on political relationships and corporate benefit and not the benefit of the actual people who own the country. The left and right need to take their blinders off and grow up to face the fact that not everyone thinks like they do and compromise must be reached, they have to acknowledge the "other side".

Currently, debating real ideology and pushing for productive growth of the American government and it's citizens with members of the left or the right is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what history tells us, no matter how sound the logic is, the left and the right will both shit on the board and strut around like they won anyway.

 

[KurtR]

What is "real change" and "real progress"?

 

[Billinsd]

yeah I read it...You are cherry picking with your list.

Its the STATES decision whether any of that will actually come to fruition. So for example...if they NEED to manage Grizz bears....they let hunters bait in that unit- simple.

Under Fed control...nothing gets managed as we have seen time and again with wolf controversy in Idaho and Montana. You have vocal city dwelling animal rights folks dictating policy to other states 1,000 miles away...you want that?

That legislation takes the management of those areas out of state hands and into the Feds hands...just as Obama did with many things....

it really boils down to this; Do you want Washington politicians dictating to you...or your own F&G dept?

State Fish and Game please!!! I love Trump's Policies and staff. I still don't like him personally, but I pretty much love what he's doing. I don't like him expanding government and want him to start passing more laws and writing less executive orders. I want him to reduce the debt too. Also, emminent domain.
Otherwise, I love what he's doing.

 

[Billinsd]

the Tea party was a grass roots movement but they're now funded by corporate America like the rest of the politics. Like it or not they are just another movement under the modern neoliberal agenda, it doesn't matter if you're left or right, that's just fact. While the Tea party themselves may not be directly violent, they are supported by and in turn support the very organizations that promote the privatization of America, American exceptionalism, and trickle down economics. So while the tea party may not be violent on the streets here an America, they're still supporting and being supported by the entities that represent the for-profit war agenda in other countries (hence the American exceptionalism). Let's not forget that the anti-parks caucus was a tea party idea, privatization of public lands is a conservative neoliberal movement, in some cases exploitation of the environment is also a right wing idea, so as an outdoorsman you must see the conflict with right agenda?

The primary concern I have in this response is your labeling of "socialist" as being a "nanny state". If you look up the definition of "Socialism" you will find that the core belief of socialism is not a nanny state, it's not even government control. Socialism's core belief is that WORKERS should have control over THEIR OWN lives and in turn communities have control. Modern socialism would support things like credit unions, Employee stock ownership programs (ESOP), cooperatives like your local Cenex gas station, and unions(many of which are involved in the coal and energy industries - boilermakers, pipe fitters, laborers, electricians, teachers, carpenters, operators). This nanny state that you speak of is largely a westernized labeling of socialism based on the anti communist agenda in the early 20th century when Russia and the US were calling Russia "socialist" for two different reasons. Lenin called himself Socialist because he knew that would garner the support of the people, he ran as a populist, and he used socialism as his slogan even though he turned Russia turned into a State Capitalist government which is, in all honesty, similar in some respects to our Corporate Republic in the US. The US called Russia socialist because it helped further their agenda for the anti communist movement. Essentially, the American government called the Russian's socialist so they could point their finger at Russia and say "look what socialism is, we don't want that". The truth is that almost none of what happened in Russia in the early 20th century was socialism, not Marxist socialism, not modern democratic socialism, it was sold to the Russian people as socialism and quickly turned into a state capitalist authoritarian dictatorship. In fact, true Marxist communism has never been enacted in any country that I'm aware of.

If you look at the history and look at people like Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin, these gentleman were all living in somewhat socialist countries. Their movements were all right wing perversions of their socialist states. Mao, Mussolini, and Hitler were Fascist Dictators, fascism by definition is a movement against socialism and liberalism. Let's not forget that classical liberalism was the very ideology that the US was founded on. I find this interesting because some major companies like GM, Ford, and IBM all supported NAZI Germany monetarily. Lenin and Stalin actually coined their own ideologies and said they based it on Marxist principles, but any fool can see that they weren't Marxists at all, we call them Leninism and Stalinism. There is significant evidence in history that left wing and right wing beliefs have serious flaws both in actual policy and in ideology. I could write an entire book on these flaws.

Ideally, we need to be done with this left vs right business. Both sides have taken it too far and neither is correct. Both sides have been given plenty of chances and in the last 30 years or so, they've all failed to deliver real change and real progress. Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, they've all failed. It's time to learn from there mistakes and for the American people to sit down with each other for a real conversation to take place, to elect real leaders and do away with this Corporatism based oligarchy where elections are bought and sold and policy is based on political relationships and corporate benefit and not the benefit of the actual people who own the country. The left and right need to take their blinders off and grow up to face the fact that not everyone thinks like they do and compromise must be reached, they have to acknowledge the "other side".

Currently, debating real ideology and pushing for productive growth of the American government and it's citizens with members of the left or the right is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what history tells us, no matter how sound the logic is, the left and the right will both shit on the board and strut around like they won anyway.

There are lots of interpretations on what a socialist is. I consider Europe, Scandinavia, England, and Canada are socialist, because the government owns and runs most or all major industires and the countries all have very controlling governments, including wealfare and telling people what is good for them. These same countries consider the ex Soviet Union as Socialist and that they are not Socialists. We called the ex Soviet Union Communists. This is called semantics.

 

[brocksw]

There are lots of interpretations on what a socialist is. I consider Europe, Scandinavia, England, and Canada are socialist, because the government owns and runs most or all major industires and the countries all have very controlling governments, including wealfare and telling people what is good for them. These same countries consider the ex Soviet Union as Socialist and that they are not Socialists. We called the ex Soviet Union Communists. This is called semantics.

Unfortunately, this modern socialism that you mention in Europe in Canada is completely evacuated of what actual socialism is. So while there might be different "interpretations" on what socialism is, it doesn't mean they are correct. Once again, socialism is not about government control, and once government runs major industries it is no longer possible for it to be socialism...it is then called state capitalism or corporatism or even state socialism, all three are essentially the same thing by definition. All happen when the state takes over the means of production and use of capital. This isn't debatable no matter your interpretation or mine, it is what it is or isn't. Telling people what's good for them is not socialism, that's authoritarian. Your comment, in my opinion perfectly frames my point on people being misinformed on what specific ideologies actually are. Socialism, in it's purest ideological form is not in anyway a governments control over the people, but the people's control over their own lives. State Capitalism/socialism, Corporatism, these are largely the most common forms of government in the world.

 

[Billinsd]

1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
3 a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
4 a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

This is what I found at Websters. Seems you are right about socialism not telling people what to do is not in the definition. However, most or all socialist countries are nanny states, but not by definition, but by theit practices and policies.

By the way where did you learn all about socialism and authoritarianism? I'm by no means an expert.

 

[5MilesBack]

Regardless of how you define socialism and/or communism, I am a Capitalist and fully support Capitalism. I also don't believe in group hugs either, but then again I'm not a socialist.

 

[brocksw]

1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
3 a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
4 a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

This is what I found at Websters. Seems you are right about socialism not telling people what to do is not in the definition. However, most or all socialist countries are nanny states, but not by definition, but by theit practices and policies.

By the way where did you learn all about socialism and authoritarianism? I'm by no means an expert.

The definition from Webster's has been modernized. If you study the history of socialism and where it came from, what it meant when it first appeared, it has nothing to do with government control or state ownership like we know today. It was about the elimination of class struggle and egalitarianism. Workers would all be owners of their companies, government would really only play the role of distribution not actually enforcing it's will on citizens. The core notion of traditional socialism is that working people have to be in control of their lives.

 

[brocksw]

Regardless of how you define socialism and/or communism, I am a Capitalist and fully support Capitalism. I also don't believe in group hugs either, but then again I'm not a socialist.

So you support the privatization of public lands? The privatization of the department of education? The privatization of prisons? You support deregulation to the point of market failure? You support crony capitalism and insider trading? You support more overseas business and manufacturing? You don't support democracy? You support wage labor? You oppose labor unions, credit unions, ESOPs?

 

[brocksw]

1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
3 a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
4 a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

This is what I found at Websters. Seems you are right about socialism not telling people what to do is not in the definition. However, most or all socialist countries are nanny states, but not by definition, but by theit practices and policies.

By the way where did you learn all about socialism and authoritarianism? I'm by no means an expert.

If it is a nanny state, it is not socialism in the truest sense of the word. Nanny state = State capitalism, modern state socialism, or corporatism.

 

[JWP58]

So you support the privatization of public lands? The privatization of the department of education? The privatization of prisons? You support deregulation to the point of market failure? You support crony capitalism and insider trading? You support more overseas business and manufacturing?

Lol this is epically funny. Lets play a game...

So you don't support any land ownership rights, your home is mine right? Do you not support the 10th amendment or the right of the individual State to determine standards of Education (by representatives elected by its own citizens)? Do you support regulation to the point of over regulation and in turn strangulation of growth and entrepreneurialism? You support crony socialism? You support less U.S. based business and manufacturing?

See what I did there??? lol. Lets all just ask asinine questions in a moronic way....its pretty fun.