Permanent Ban on Grizzly Hunting Legislation

[Flatgo]

kinda scary to think the federal government could implement a ban like this and this even being taken up in committee. this stuff puts hunters in a bad position. most democrat law makers want to impose gun control and take hunting rights away, and most republican law makers want to decrease public land. we are caught in the middle.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...ps-seek-permanent-ban-on-grizzly-bear-hunting

 

[Dave_]

Taking away states rights to use hunting as a management tool... If a tribe wants to reintroduce bears and doesn't want to allow hunting on a reservation, that's cool. But in the entire lower 48. Dumb dumb dumb.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[Fatcamp]

Just one more step. Eventually the Democrat party will have enough control to pass all kinds of stupid shit. Only a matter of time.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Some, (few) republican law makers want to give control of public lands to the states. Not decrease it. That is simply conjecture you are reciting because it has become a cool political tool to suggest that by political partisans of the Democrat party.

Not all democrat law makers want to take your guns either. Which has become a slander point used by the Republican party partisans.

Me, I can't stand either party much or. politics for that matter. Nor can I stand any law makers that wants to strip away the citizens possessions or rights. Yes, the democratic party seems to lead the pack in that race but, the Republicans have strayed so far from conservative values by doing the same in much of their legislation, they aren't much better. Its a crap shoot that we are indeed stuck in the middle of. But, the beautiful thing is we the people can fix it.


Back to topic, it isn't surprising to see democrats pushing this. But, it wont go any where.

 

[cuerro viejo]

There is a big sign in Banff all about it call Y2Y

I don’t know why this is a surprise.

 

[Flatgo]

The more I think about it. It’s kinda funny pretty sure the Indians didn’t think the grizzly was sacred 300 years ago when they were getting munched on by them....

 

[5MilesBack]

Its a crap shoot that we are indeed stuck in the middle of.

I'm not stuck in the middle of all these politics. I'm so far right, I can't even see the right edge of the Republican Party.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I'm not stuck in the middle of all these politics. I'm so far right, I can't even see the right edge of the Republican Party.

Me too

 

[ODB]

I’ll tell you, as a card carrying member of a “tribal group” (Osage), it’s nauseating how any tribe gets to claim a species/land as sacred and stake a claim on its fate as though nothing ever pre-existed the tribe’s association with said species/land and nothing since their association has any interest/say whatsoever. Absolute bullshit. These associations were fluid over time; to not recognize that, even within the tribe is antithetical to anything resembling modernity.

-Zhi ga tse thka doga
(Little Bull)

 

[wind gypsy]

Some, (few) republican law makers want to give control of public lands to the states. Not decrease it. That is simply conjecture you are reciting because it has become a cool political tool to suggest that by political partisans of the Democrat party.

Not all democrat law makers want to take your guns either. Which has become a slander point used by the Republican party partisans.

Me, I can't stand either party much or. politics for that matter. Nor can I stand any law makers that wants to strip away the citizens possessions or rights. Yes, the democratic party seems to lead the pack in that race but, the Republicans have strayed so far from conservative values by doing the same in much of their legislation, they aren't much better. Its a crap shoot that we are indeed stuck in the middle of. But, the beautiful thing is we the people can fix it.


Back to topic, it isn't surprising to see democrats pushing this. But, it wont go any where.

Your first line = dead giveaway that you are full of it.

From the GOP Platform:

The federal government owns or controls over 640 million acres of land in the United States, most of which is in the West. These are public lands, and the public should have access to them for appropriate activities like hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting. Federal ownership or management of land also places an economic burden on counties and local communities in terms of lost revenue to pay for things such as schools, police, and emergency services. It is absurd to think that all that acreage must remain under the absentee ownership or management of official Washington. Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to states. We call upon all national and state leaders and representatives to exert their utmost power and influence to urge the transfer of those lands, identified in the review process, to all willing states for the benefit of the states and the nation as a whole. The residents of state and local communities know best how to protect the land where they work and live. They practice boots-on-the-ground conservation in their states every day. We support amending the Antiquities Act of 1906 to establish Congress’ right to approve the designation of national monuments and to further require the approval of the state where a national monument is designated or a national park is proposed.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Your first line = dead giveaway that you are full of it.

From the GOP Platform:

I would argue my point but, people dead set on their opinion have little use for reality when it doesn't align with their version of it..

 

[idelkslayer]

I’ll tell you, as a card carrying member of a “tribal group” (Osage), it’s nauseating how any tribe gets to claim a species/land as sacred and stake a claim on its fate as though nothing ever pre-existed the tribe’s association with said species/land and nothing since their association has any interest/say whatsoever. Absolute bullshit. These associations were fluid over time; to not recognize that, even within the tribe is antithetical to anything resembling modernity.

-Zhi ga tse thka doga
(Little Bull)

I have tried many times to express exactly what you typed here. Especially in the full context of history. Most tribes as discovered by Europeans had previously displaced other people or tribes to occupy the land. Indians also hunted and killed Grizzlies and wolves for food and pelts. But now some tribes are playing politics and trying to rewrite their own history to say what we should and should not do today. It is a power play based on a false representation of history.

They seem to have bought into their own Hollywood myth of the Indian living forever in balance with nature. Indians were far from harmless and I think it's insulting to say that they were so primitive that they didn't have an impact. They were/are human beings and were intelligent observers and manipulators of their environment. They cleared forests for farming, they mined metal and minerals, they burned forests and plains to improve habitat and animal herds. They hunted enough to locally deplete herds. Not to mention complex societies and politics to rival our current governments. They found ingenious ways of manipulating the earth to better their survival but for some reason there are those who would have us believe that they were nothing more than superstitious bipedal animals. with a unique connection to the earth that should dictate modern policy. Fact is that even while holding the Grizzly bear as sacred, their ancestors still hunted and killed them.

Another example, although unrelated:

The Black Hills are sacred to the Sioux. The Sioux only moved into the Black Hills and the great plains from the Great Lakes in the 1600's and 1700's. They beat Europeans settlers to the area by only 200 years. They displaced other peoples who felt the land was sacred to them. But forevermore our society has decided that only the Sioux can lay claim to holding the Black Hills as sacred. So the Sioux have occupied the Dakotas for approximately 400 years to date. Europeans have occupied New England for 400 years, in similar fashion to the Sioux they displaced other people. Why aren't Europeans viewed as positively as the Sioux? Are we naive enough to think that Sioux didn't expel the previous inhabitants of land with anything other than warfare? How are they different than the Europeans who came after them? I suggest that they aren't, they are human and humans have always behaved like humans throughout a long history of war, displacement and conquest. History shows that this has been going on since the beginning and if you look around you will see that it is still happening today in many parts of the world.

History is much more nuanced and fluid than people want it to be.