# 2020 General Election Amendment E



## pockypie

"This amendment establishes a constitutional right to hunt and fish in Utah subject to state statutes and declares that hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife in Utah"

Sounds good, and I know other states have added the right to hunt and fish into their own constitutions, but does anyone know if it actually does anything?
I didn't find very many examples of it being used legally in other states.

*added link to the amendment if anyone wants to read more details

https://voteinfo.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/42/2020/09/Constitutional-Amendment-E.pdf


----------



## Vanilla

On its face it probably won't do much. Where it has its impact is down the road, legislation and rules will have to be made under the guide of how it impacts one's constitutionally recognized right to hunt and fish in Utah. 

That doesn't mean everyone will get a free fishing license and hunting becomes a free for all. Reasonable restrictions, like what we have in place, will still exist. There will just be an added measure of scrutiny to decisions ensuring compliance with the recognized constitutional right. 

We all have opinions on what candidate to vote for, but if every hunter and angler in the state doesn't vote "yea" for this then they deserve to stub their toe every day for a month.


----------



## backcountry

I'm all for it and agree with Vanilla's assessment. It's a bulwark designed to protect our rights and tradition against future uncertainties.


----------



## Daisy

I will vote no, as I do with most amendments. A constitution inherently should be a clean and clear document.

Besides, in my view, hunting and fishing is a privilege, something that should be earned through ethical behavior.


----------



## Ray

backcountry said:


> I'm all for it and agree with Vanilla's assessment. It's a bulwark designed to protect our rights and tradition against future uncertainties.


Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## Catherder

Barring any unexpected finding, I'm voting yes too. Its target is as a preventative against actions taken by anti hunting and Animal rights groups. 
However, since I'm not a lawyer, nor slept in a Holiday Inn recently, I do have a couple of questions on it. 

1. What effect would this amendment have on laws such as the "deadbeat dad" rule taking away tags from deadbeat dads?

2. Would it make it more difficult to revoke fishing and hunting privileges from poachers and other violators? 

Just askin' not arguing.


----------



## paddler

It's more show than go. It may feel good, but it won't change anything. Seems superfluous to me.


----------



## Vanilla

Catherder said:


> Barring any unexpected finding, I'm voting yes too. Its target is as a preventative against actions taken by anti hunting and Animal rights groups.
> However, since I'm not a lawyer, nor slept in a Holiday Inn recently, I do have a couple of questions on it.
> 
> 1. What effect would this amendment have on laws such as the "deadbeat dad" rule taking away tags from deadbeat dads?
> 
> 2. Would it make it more difficult to revoke fishing and hunting privileges from poachers and other violators?
> 
> Just askin' not arguing.


1- It shouldn't, although that one could end up in the courts for that specific example.

2- Definitely not. We take voting rights or 2nd amendment rights from felons. This won't impact this question at all.

Daisy, this won't make it any easier to hunt or fish, it simply protects that right from future attacks. It's a good thing if you see what type of mindset is continuing to flood our state from other places.


----------



## Vanilla

Amendment Language said:


> Article I, Section 30. [Right to hunt and fish.]
> 
> (1) The individual right of the people to hunt and to fish is a valued part of the State's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good.
> 
> (2) The right under Subsection (1) includes the right to use traditional methods to hunt and to fish, subject only to statute, and rules and regulations adopted as provided by statute, to:
> 
> (a) promote wildlife conservation and management;
> (b) provide reasonable regulation of hunting and fishing activities; and
> (c) preserve the future of hunting and fishing.
> (3) Public hunting and fishing shall be the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.
> 
> (4) This section does not affect:
> 
> (a) the law relating to trespass or property rights;
> (b) the State's sovereign authority over the State's natural resources; or
> (c) the State's obligation to manage lands granted to the State under the Enabling Act.


Here is the text so you can read it and see it for yourself. It's always good to see it for yourself.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> It's more show than go. It may feel good, but it won't change anything. Seems superfluous to me.


Can you explain how it's superfluous? Is there already a guaranteed right I'm unaware of? If there is I'll reconsider as I also don't want to bog down our state Constitution with superfluous language.

Given the actual language I think the amendment is pretty smart. It not only defines a previous privilege as a right but details some pretty important context, like wildlife conservation. Given how disconnected many citizens are from the outdoors I think this is an important protection for a tradition that is slowly dying on the national stage.


----------



## Kwalk3

paddler said:


> It's more show than go. It may feel good, but it won't change anything. Seems superfluous to me.


I don't think the intent is to bring about some huge change now, but rather to ensure that change doesn't hinder hunting and fishing in the future.


----------



## paddler

The larger threat to hunting and fishing is not a lack of constitutional protection, as there are literally hundreds of years of precedent for those legitimate activities, but rather the threats to our environment, ie, climate change, rolling back clean air and water regulations, and unwise exploitation of our natural resources, such as opening up the ANWAR for drilling. Sure, go ahead and support the amendment, just don't feel like you've accomplished anything. If you want to actually do something, vote for those who support an agenda that supports conservation, responsible development of our natural resources, addresses anthropogenic climate change, and ensures we have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.


----------



## Kwalk3

I must have missed the part where literally anyone implied that this is a “mission accomplished” scenario. 

It’s an easy thing that adds a small layer of protection to our ability to hunt and fish in perpetuity.

Other stuff is important too. Why not do all we can? This isn’t an either-or proposition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## backcountry

Okie Dokie, Paddler. Not remotely the topic or mutually exclusive with this amendment.


----------



## paddler

*Example*

This is illustrative of the point I made above. The current administration has wantonly flouted the Constitution and federal law in this and so many other instances. Signing the proposed amendment will accomplish little or nothing, now or in the future. Voting out this administration will put an end to the abuse of our natural resources, clean air, water, etc, and thus will do more to preserve our public lands and their use for outdoor recreation.

I really don't understand why this was called off topic. Preserving our public lands is critical to sportsmen across the nation. Signing the amendment but supporting the current administration is irrational if you're a committed outdoorsman. Yet most here, I'd guess, would do just that. Maybe we should do a poll:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2020/10/09/activists-say-court/


----------



## Catherder

paddler said:


> This is illustrative of the point I made above. The current administration has wantonly flouted the Constitution and federal law in this and so many other instances. Signing the proposed amendment will accomplish little or nothing, now or in the future. Voting out this administration will put an end to the abuse of our natural resources, clean air, water, etc, and thus will do more to preserve our public lands and their use for outdoor recreation.
> 
> I really don't understand why this was called off topic. Preserving our public lands is critical to sportsmen across the nation. Signing the amendment but supporting the current administration is irrational if you're a committed outdoorsman. Yet most here, I'd guess, would do just that. Maybe we should do a poll:
> 
> https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2020/10/09/activists-say-court/


Nobody is saying that the public lands battle(s) is/are not important. They are, critically so! However, for purposes of whether to support the above amendment or not, it is an apples to oranges discussion. Hunting and fishing privileges have multiple threats and the amendment addresses a different one. While the misuse and selloff of public lands is largely a threat coming from the "right", anti hunting and animal rights zealotry is a threat from the "left". I suppose that is why you may struggle to see relevance. Nevertheless, excessive partisanship seems to cause blind spots to form for their "side" and too many folks fail to see problems that would otherwise be obvious, so some of your right wing opponents fall under the same criticism. .


----------



## backcountry

^This. Well said.


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> Nobody is saying that the public lands battle(s) is/are not important. They are, critically so! However, for purposes of whether to support the above amendment or not, it is an apples to oranges discussion. Hunting and fishing privileges have multiple threats and the amendment addresses a different one. While the misuse and selloff of public lands is largely a threat coming from the "right", anti hunting and animal rights zealotry is a threat from the "left". I suppose that is why you may struggle to see relevance. Nevertheless, excessive partisanship seems to cause blind spots to form for their "side" and too many folks fail to see problems that would otherwise be obvious, so some of your right wing opponents fall under the same criticism. .


Please specify any verifiable threats from the left you perceive. You're pushing a false equivalency here, a straw man argument which should be rejected out of hand. I doubt animal rights activists or anti-hunting groups will ever gain any real traction, which makes the amendment just another distraction, a shiny object. The real, ongoing and increasing threats are as stated above. Just read the article. Pendley has made his living suing federal agencies and advocating the transfer of federal lands to the states:

_Pendley is a controversial property-rights lawyer from Colorado who had previously spent years suing federal agencies on behalf of public lands users and advocating for transferring these lands to the states. Last year, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt hired Pendley as the BLM's deputy director and named him acting director July 29, 2019. Since President Donald Trump took office, Pendley is the fifth person to serve as acting head of the BLM, which has not had a permanent director. The National Park Service, likewise, has not had a permanent director since President Barack Obama left office._

Is that who you want running our federal lands? That's BS, and just one more example of the Trump administration's attacks on our public lands. 
These threats are real; verifiable, undeniable, and entirely consistent with the Republican approach to our public lands for decades. Anybody here who supports the amendment but votes to keep the current administration in power is demonstrating incredible hypocrisy. Sorry, that's just the way it is.


----------



## Catherder

paddler said:


> Please specify any verifiable threats from the left you perceive. I doubt animal rights activists or anti-hunting groups will ever gain any real traction, which makes the amendment just another distraction, a shiny object.


Just because *You* do not believe that the animal rights movement poses a threat to hunting or fishing does not mean that they cannot or are not already a potent force arrayed against hunting. Between copious publicity, celebrity endorsements, and shifting public opinion, the animal rights movement gains reception and credibility every year. My professional life allows me to see firsthand the threat the animal rights movement poses to activities such as hunting. And there is absolutely no question that the animal rights crowd is not running around with MAGA hats on. They run left. IMO, you are demonstrably not a credible authority to accept your flippant rejection of the animal rights movement as a clear and present threat to hunting and fishing.

Now, for the rest of this "argument", you are so frothed up to have a partisan throwdown, you do not even know what the heck the disagreements between us are. (I always love the "straw man" comment by someone who wants to sound smart) It just so happens you are arguing with someone who is voting Biden, dislikes Trump, and has been one of the most outspoken opponents of TPL/land grab on this board. So froth on.


----------



## paddler

Not a partisan throwdown. Sorry. And not arguing with you personally. Although, you have not cited a credible threat to hunting rights by the groups you mention. Please feel free to enlighten me. Both parties have their wingnuts, I view the animal rights and anti-hunting groups as such on the left. 
I discount their efficacy. If I'm wrong I'm more than willing to listen to concrete evidence. In my line of work I must always be open to new data. 

OTOH, the current administration has from Day One been a threat to our public lands and will continue to be so long as they have control. From your previous posts I feel confident that you and I are politically aligned. My concern is that this entire amendment issue will allow those on the right to feel good about doing something even though it won't accomplish much. In their minds supporting the amendment may give them cover to vote for Trump and his cabal of environmental destroyers. I want to disavow them of that delusion.


----------



## backcountry

The amendment has zero to do with Trump. There is nothing to dispell there.

Catherder is one of the most even keeled posters on this forum and you've attacked his post with the same flare you do your perceived enemies. You've deployed the same fallacies that are so common in most of your posts.

This thread has nothing to do with Trump, the general election, Pendley or any of the other red herrings you seem to be throwing around. Would you please engage the actual merits of the proposed amendments and not deflect it into the arena of your preferred topic, negative partisanship.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> The amendment has zero to do with Trump. There is nothing to dispell there.
> 
> Catherder is one of the most even keeled posters on this forum and you've attacked his post with the same flare you do your perceived enemies. You've deployed the same fallacies that are so common in most of your posts.
> 
> This thread has nothing to do with Trump, the general election, Pendley or any of the other red herrings you seem to be throwing around. Would you please engage the actual merits of the proposed amendments and not deflect it into the arena of your preferred topic, negative partisanship.


I disagree. As I said, if supporting the amendment gives anybody cover to support the current administration, it could do more harm than good. I'd like to see a poll of those who support the amendment asking who they plan to vote for in November. Given my druthers I'd rather see people not support the amendment and oppose the current administration than vice versa.

You may not see the relationship between the amendment intended to protect hunting and fishing and voting for those who intend to protect public lands, clean air, clean water and the responsible development our natural resources, but I do. And, I'll continue to post as I see fit, thank you very much.


----------



## Vanilla

Trying to connect this amendment to support of President Trump is the laziest silly crap I’ve seen in a long time. But what would you expect from a guy who single handedly tried to take hunting opportunities from large amounts of hunters on public lands/waters? 

The whole “traditional methods” part would be problematic for a resurrection of your plan, Doc. I can see why you wouldn’t support this. Just be honest about it, for once.


----------



## backcountry

Vanilla said:


> Trying to connect this amendment to support of President Trump is the laziest silly crap I've seen in a long time. But what would you expect from a guy who single handedly tried to take hunting opportunities from large amounts of hunters on public lands/waters?
> 
> The whole "traditional methods" part would be problematic for a resurrection of your plan, Doc. I can see why you wouldn't support this. Just be honest about it, for once.


I'm not familiar with the allegation you just made. Care to clarify?

The line of approach Paddler is taking is definitely the nadir of partisan desperation. I've seen better conjurings from childhood ouija boards than this and at least then we knew it was a silly game.

I'm pretty hopeful, and certain, that most people are willing to have an up or down vote on a state amendment by citizens without it always being about the POTUS.


----------



## paddler

I see the amendment and protection of our public lands as part and parcel of the same issue; ensuring the rights of outdoorsmen to pursue their interests in perpetuity. If the constitution says we have certain rights, but our lands are sold off so access is denied, or defiled, our streams polluted, what then?

V, you likely make my point. Who did you vote for in 2016? I'm guessing either McMullin, who got 21% of the vote, or another third party, in which you wasted your vote, or the Dumpster. In any case, you enabled the election of Trump, and share responsibility for his anti-public lands, anti-environmental agenda, plus his pro extraction/exploitation actions. The choice was clear, the damage undeniable and significant. I don't give a crap if you support the amendment to guard against future but undefined threats, what did you do in 2016? What will you do this November? This is what I'm trying to explain, and every sportsman in Utah should think long and hard about how the totality of their actions impact our rights.

Just waiting for V's response. How many of us will put our votes where our mouths are? Catherder has spoken up, he gets it. Anybody else?


----------



## paddler

BC, V has been misrepresenting a proposal I authored in 2009 for years. It proposed creating motorless units at each of our WMAs that have multiple boat ramps. The aim was to reduce disturbance and provide cyclists, walk-in and paddlers with areas where they wouldn't have to compete with motor boats. The proposal generated lively discussion back in the day. I attempted to attach it here but it exceeds the file size limit. I only have it as a PDF, but will be happy to send it to you via email. Feel free to PM me.


----------



## Catherder

Sorry I missed out on additional frivolity yesterday. Busy day at work and such. I'm going to make 2 additional points, 1 on the amendment, and one on some related stuff I have been thinking about. Hopefully, the discussion can be productive.

1. First, one final argument in support of the amendment. As an example for why the amendment is a good thing, I present an example from our friends to the West in California. It involves cougar management. The quote source is here.

https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservatio...y-cant-mountain-lions-be-hunted-in-california

If the California division of wildlife, wanted to manage their cougar numbers by holding a hunt, could they do it? NO.

"With the passage of Proposition 117 in 1990, mountain lions became a "specially protected species," making mountain lion hunting illegal in California. This status and other statutes prohibit the California Department of Fish and Wildlife from recommending a hunting season for lions, and it is illegal to take, injure, possess, transport, import, or sell any mountain lion or part of a mountain lion. Mountain lions may be killed only 1) if a depredation permit is issued to take a specific lion killing livestock or pets; 2) to preserve public safety; or 3) to protect listed bighorn sheep."

That must mean cougars are rare? Uh, no.

"Mountain lions are not threatened nor endangered in California. In fact, the lion population is relatively high in California and their numbers appear to be stable. Mountain lions are legally classified as "specially protected species". This has nothing to do with their relative abundance and does not imply that they are rare. "

Proposition 117 came about through efforts of the anti hunting and animal rights set and was passed by an electorate that is certainly not trending "red". Our amendment in question would make such efforts unconstitutional and the anti hunting crowd would have to both win a referendum *and* change the constitution. That is a very high bar. One may say that Utah would never go for a prop 117 type measure. Maybe not now, but conditions change. In my lifetime, I have seen California go republican in presidential elections and pass several conservative acts. Never say never.

One quick note on my "expertise" regarding judgement on the motives and persuasiveness of the Animal rights/welfare movements (there is a difference), it is from over 30 years of work in the animal field, mandatory government accreditation training on the subject, frequent interaction with its supporters, and nearly marrying an adherent a long while ago (don't ask) .

2. The second point is more of a question. It may be directed more at Paddler, but anyone is free to chime in. The question is how do we constructively engage/educate the "left" about the merits and value of hunting and fishing? As I see the current political scene and Trump changing the "R"'s into something very different from what I'm used to, I see the suburbs going more blue. Polling in the last election and now support this hypothesis. Well, Utah has a very high suburban population. How are we as sportsmen going to keep our non hunting suburban and increasingly liberal neighbors form going prop 117 on us?


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> The larger threat to hunting and fishing is not a lack of constitutional protection, as there are literally hundreds of years of precedent for those legitimate activities, but rather the threats to our environment, ie, climate change, rolling back clean air and water regulations, and unwise exploitation of our natural resources, such as opening up the ANWAR for drilling. Sure, go ahead and support the amendment, just don't feel like you've accomplished anything. If you want to actually do something, vote for those who support an agenda that supports conservation, responsible development of our natural resources, addresses anthropogenic climate change, and ensures we have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.


You just lost all credibility in this discussion with this post which has absolutely *NOTHING* to do with this state Constitutional Amendment.

The ad nauseam rhetoric of "clean air, clean water - Orange Man bad" has nothing to do with wildlife management through the practice of hunting and fishing.

Understand the NEPA process does more for habitat protection than this amendment ever could. That's not what it's about.


----------



## Vanilla

The intent of paddler’s proposal that he wouldn’t even show up to the RAC at the time and present but only sent others to the alter for sacrifice was specifically tailored to cut mud motors and give the marsh exclusively to paddlers like him. Taking entire units of public marsh and giving them to less than 8% of the duck hunters. He would have cut more hunting opportunities than any “anti hunter” could have ever dreamed. 

It was opposed by basically everyone but a handful of paddlers that would have stood to gain immensely from their new exclusive public land paradises. Even the groups you’re now claiming to have been championing opposed it because we saw it for what it truly was. 

But that is the past. It’s your current mindset that is a leftover from that same way of thinking that is problematic still.


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> Sorry I missed out on additional frivolity yesterday. Busy day at work and such. I'm going to make 2 additional points, 1 on the amendment, and one on some related stuff I have been thinking about. Hopefully, the discussion can be productive.
> 
> 1. First, one final argument in support of the amendment. As an example for why the amendment is a good thing, I present an example from our friends to the West in California. It involves cougar management. The quote source is here.
> 
> https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservatio...y-cant-mountain-lions-be-hunted-in-california
> 
> If the California division of wildlife, wanted to manage their cougar numbers by holding a hunt, could they do it? NO.
> 
> "With the passage of Proposition 117 in 1990, mountain lions became a "specially protected species," making mountain lion hunting illegal in California. This status and other statutes prohibit the California Department of Fish and Wildlife from recommending a hunting season for lions, and it is illegal to take, injure, possess, transport, import, or sell any mountain lion or part of a mountain lion. Mountain lions may be killed only 1) if a depredation permit is issued to take a specific lion killing livestock or pets; 2) to preserve public safety; or 3) to protect listed bighorn sheep."
> 
> That must mean cougars are rare? Uh, no.
> 
> "Mountain lions are not threatened nor endangered in California. In fact, the lion population is relatively high in California and their numbers appear to be stable. Mountain lions are legally classified as "specially protected species". This has nothing to do with their relative abundance and does not imply that they are rare. "
> 
> Proposition 117 came about through efforts of the anti hunting and animal rights set and was passed by an electorate that is certainly not trending "red". Our amendment in question would make such efforts unconstitutional and the anti hunting crowd would have to both win a referendum *and* change the constitution. That is a very high bar. One may say that Utah would never go for a prop 117 type measure. Maybe not now, but conditions change. In my lifetime, I have seen California go republican in presidential elections and pass several conservative acts. Never say never.
> 
> One quick note on my "expertise" regarding judgement on the motives and persuasiveness of the Animal rights/welfare movements (there is a difference), it is from over 30 years of work in the animal field, mandatory government accreditation training on the subject, frequent interaction with its supporters, and nearly marrying an adherent a long while ago (don't ask) .
> 
> 2. The second point is more of a question. It may be directed more at Paddler, but anyone is free to chime in. The question is how do we constructively engage/educate the "left" about the merits and value of hunting and fishing? As I see the current political scene and Trump changing the "R"'s into something very different from what I'm used to, I see the suburbs going more blue. Polling in the last election and now support this hypothesis. Well, Utah has a very high suburban population. How are we as sportsmen going to keep our non hunting suburban and increasingly liberal neighbors form going prop 117 on us?


Well, one could legitimately argue that cougar hunting is unlike other forms. Running them with dogs and shooting them out of a tree isn't like big game, upland or waterfowl hunting. Personally, I have no interest in hunting apex predators as I typically eat what I kill. Further, I did not see a restriction on running dogs on cougars but not killing them, and depredation hunts are still allowed.

Some might use the "slippery slope" argument, but the fact that the California passed Prop 117 in 1990 and no further restrictions on hunting have passed since invalidates it. As I asked above, what credible threats to hunting have been passed? I'm not aware of any, and doubt any will be proposed at any time in the future here in Utah or anywhere else. I've found that when the subject has come up in conversations with my liberal coworkers they are supportive, even curious. Nobody at any time in any conversation has expressed the belief that hunting should be prohibited. That's why I have said many times on this thread that supporting the amendment will accomplish very little. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I'm open to data to the contrary.

Okay, HDE, who did you vote for in 2016? Who will you vote for in 2020? Still waiting to hear from V, I'm sure if I looked under the rock he resides beneath there's steam coming from his ears, trying to compose a vague nonsensical rebuttal.


----------



## Catherder

paddler said:


> Well, one could legitimately argue that cougar hunting is unlike other forms. Running them with dogs and shooting them out of a tree isn't like big game, upland or waterfowl hunting. Personally, I have no interest in hunting apex predators as I typically eat what I kill. Further, I did not see a restriction on running dogs on cougars but not killing them, and depredation hunts are still allowed.


The question is not one of personal hunting preference, but of loss of a potential management tool for non biological reasons. This often has far reaching consequences. As an example, here in Utah, we have had a spike in cougar numbers with supporting evidence that it is a sizable reason why our deer numbers have recently declined. The response from the DWR was to increase the cougar tags. While far from the sole answer to our deer population issues, it should help at least a little. Losing that tool would likely result in seeing the deer population suppressed, with the additional result of fewer deer hunters being able to go hunt. Which is what the anti hunting crowd wants.


----------



## paddler

Catherder said:


> The question is not one of personal hunting preference, but of loss of a potential management tool for non biological reasons. This often has far reaching consequences. As an example, here in Utah, we have had a spike in cougar numbers with supporting evidence that it is a sizable reason why our deer numbers have recently declined. The response from the DWR was to increase the cougar tags. While far from the sole answer to our deer population issues, it should help at least a little. Losing that tool would likely result in seeing the deer population suppressed, with the additional result of fewer deer hunters being able to go hunt. Which is what the anti hunting crowd wants.


Depredation hunts are still allowed in California. And despite no trophy hunting, cougar numbers remain stable there. Do you have an unbiased scientific study showing the impact of cougars on deer populations? Any other factors contributing? Long term mule deer population trends?


----------



## Catherder

The California deer situation is a dumpster fire. It would be enough to cause Don Peays head to explode.

http://www.deerfriendly.com/deer/ca...ng Term Decline The,to around 500,000 in 2017.

While there are multiple factors related to this, and I sure as heck don't have the time or energy to cover every one, predation is one part of it. (Perusal of one of many threads on our deer population we have in the big Game section would start to cover it.) The graph does show a drop after 1990 and then a slow and inexorable continued decline afterwards.

You keep bringing up depredation hunts. Here is the standard to allow that. 
" Mountain lions may be killed only 1) if a depredation permit is issued to take a specific lion killing livestock or pets; 2) to preserve public safety; or 3) to protect listed bighorn sheep." That is a rather strict standard that isn't invoked all that often and then usually on cougars that are hungry due to lack of food.

Nevertheless, my central point is not refuted. Actions like prop 117 would alter how the DWR manages game and how we hunt, and such actions are brought on by the Animal rights/anti hunting set, which are highly unlikely to be seen running around in MAGA hats.


----------



## paddler

I looked at that link. Just a cursory read, as I was in the marsh. But it emphasizes the role of reduced timber harvest, which reduces edge habitat, for most of the reduction in deer numbers. It also mentions drought, which is thought to be responsible in Utah. Utah also had harsh winter conditions. I'm going to hold out for wildlife biologist to weigh in. If you have other articles I'll be happy to read them.

Now, I haven't seen a response from V or HDE. Still waiting. Go ahead, embrace your 2016 vote, and while you're at it, tell us who you'll vote for Nov 3. And why. As an outdoorsman.


----------



## Vanilla

I think it's cute that you believe you have the clout or influence to dictate to me what I post and when. You should know by now that you don't control the narrative, doc. Never have, and never will.


----------



## backcountry

I don't understand Paddler's obsession with how other people voted or how that can be a black and white reflection on their values as a hunter/fisherman. I understand how common it is but I don't understand how we got to the point that everything is about the POTUS. 

I obviously don't have a problem passionately disagreeing with publicly shared ideas but judging people solely on a single vote (or in this case the assumption of one) isn't the same or even rational.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> I think it's cute that you believe you have the clout or influence to dictate to me what I post and when. You should know by now that you don't control the narrative, doc. Never have, and never will.


I think it's cute how you dodge the question and continue to misrepresent my 2009 proposal. So, one more opportunity to tell us if you really support hunting and fishing in perpetuity. In the 2016 election, any vote not cast for Clinton supported the reduction of Bear's Ears, supports the rolling back of clean air and water regulations, the irresponsible exploitation of our natural resources and the transfer of our federal lands to the states. Hope you're happy.

BC, I really don't understand your lack of understanding. You seem to be a bright guy. Surely you understand that policy is made by POTUS, he chooses those in his administration and they carry out his whims. Do you think a Clinton administration would pull all the anti-conservation crap that we have see courtesy of Trump? This was not a surprise, either. Trump told us who he was and what he'd do well in advance of the 2016 election.

For the record, my proposal was to make one unit at each of our larger WMAs motorless. Harold Crane and Public already have one. Ogden Bay Unit 3 is already wakeless, I proposed making it motorless. Same for Horseshoe Bay and Swan Bay at Salt Creek, those areas off the middle boat ramp. I also proposed making Unit 2 at FB motorless. It's by far the smallest unit at FB, and already gets little pressure. I still think that all motorless hunters; walk-in, bicyclists and paddlers would appreciate having an area with a boat ramp at each WMA that they knew they wouldn't have to compete with mud motors. Not a big deal, actually, as the motorless designation would only apply to ~16% of the floatable areas in our WMAs. BRMBR would be exempt, of course. So the actual impact would impact those who use MMs very little. Compare these facts with V's accusations, you'll note that there is minimal resemblance. As usual.


----------



## Vanilla

All the left talking points wrapped up in a post, including the Bears Ears. Well done! Have you even ever been there? I’ve deer hunted on the Bears Ears monument before it was a monument. I hope to apply a crap ton of elk points to hunt there again one day. There is way more of a chance of you leftists taking away my ability to hunt there than any action President Trump has taken. And that’s not even objectively debatable. 

I have not misrepresented your proposal in the least. It was crap then, and it’s crap now. It was designed to benefit the few in the face of the many. It was plain and simply anti-hunter, unless that hunter was you. You can act like there isn’t documented proof of your statements and how that went on the Refuge Forums all you want. I wouldn’t expect you to start being honest now. Certainly not about this. Which is why I can see how you’d oppose a constitutional amendment guaranteeing hunting by its traditional methods. That makes it harder for you to reduce opportunities for others so you and a certain “guide” can have the entire public marsh unit to yourselves.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> All the left talking points wrapped up in a post, including the Bears Ears. Well done! Have you even ever been there? I've deer hunted on the Bears Ears monument before it was a monument. I hope to apply a crap ton of elk points to hunt there again one day. There is way more of a chance of you leftists taking away my ability to hunt there than any action President Trump has taken. And that's not even objectively debatable.
> 
> I have not misrepresented your proposal in the least. It was crap then, and it's crap now. It was designed to benefit the few in the face of the many. It was plain and simply anti-hunter, unless that hunter was you. You can act like there isn't documented proof of your statements and how that went on the Refuge Forums all you want. I wouldn't expect you to start being honest now. Certainly not about this. Which is why I can see how you'd oppose a constitutional amendment guaranteeing hunting by its traditional methods. That makes it harder for you to reduce opportunities for others so you and a certain "guide" can have the entire public marsh unit to yourselves.


Yep, I've been to Bear's Ears. Nice place. Had a limited entry buck tag many years ago.

Who did you vote for in 2016, V? Who do you plan to vote for this time around? Just answer the question. For posterity.


----------



## Vanilla

This discussion has referred me back to some old notes I've held on to. I had forgotten just how big of a train wreck your proposal and little "organization" was at the time. Man, even the state reps opposed you and called the proposal out as selfish and reducing hunting opportunities.


----------



## backcountry

Time for me to sign off this conversation. I don't have a ton of energy or desire to understand that historical proposal. But more accurately Paddler chose to derail a topic with plenty of opportunity for discrete analysis and instead seems dead set on making it about the general election. The POTUS literally has zero input on the original topic no matter how much Paddler wants to deflect to the administration and broader issues. 

As a moderate, unaffiliated voter I'm starting to better understand how politics has gotten so rotten. I have to be vulnerable to my own role in it over time. I think we all do. But if we don't start to deescalate national politics and allow local politics to be viewed under their own, unique realities than I can't see this getting any better. I've been very vocal against individual politicians choices/behaviors but the moment citizens force people into a corner and try to make choices artificially binary the more of this negative and hyper partisanship we are going to see. We are at a critical junction where we can choose to judge fellow citizens solely on a single vote or we can disagree on policy while respecting how we are more than the sum of political ideas we share. 

I've chosen the latter. I hope more people do as well. We are so much more than our political differences and we often have more in common than we realize.

Take care folks. Best of luck no matter how you vote.


----------



## Vanilla

backcountry said:


> I've chosen the latter. I hope more people do as well. We are so much more than our political differences and we often have more in common than we realize.
> 
> Take care folks. Best of luck no matter how you vote.


The "team sports" politics, as I've referred to it before, is absolutely exhausting. Paddler can even turn an issue that EVERYONE on this forum should support into a partisan soapbox for himself. Again, not shocked from the person, but it's still exhausting. I don't care who you voted for in the 1976 presidential election. You simply did what you were told by your "coach" anyway. There is no bravery in that.

Tell me why we shouldn't want hunting and fishing recognized as a right under our state constitution. That is what we are discussing here. And I think I've pointed out why someone like Paddler would not want it that way, because he has a history of trying to take these exact opportunities away from people.


----------



## Kwalk3

Politics and political discourse have become so vitriolic and partisan that it is hard to not want to totally distance myself from it. 

I’ve seen people put their “team” before faith, science, family, friendships, and basic human decency.

We should let the issues and their importance to us as hunters and fishermen dictate our positions on individual issues. Not what X or Y party says. Contrary to some of the assertions made here, not all X party says or pushes for is beneficial in the long run to our cherished pastimes. Nor is everything that Y party pushes irreparably damaging.

Nuance matters.

I’m pretty solid on where I stand with these issues, and know how that informs my vote. However, it gives me serious pause when I see some asserting that only a wholesale buy-in with left-leaning policies will save our hunting and fishing. Myopic views that ignore the fact that though the threats are different, they are still threats are not helpful.

It would be much more effective to acknowledge threats and weigh them against the competing threats from the opposite end of the spectrum. 

This amendment is at worst an added layer of protection for hunting and fishing in Utah as management tools in perpetuity. Maybe it’s unnecessary now, but I’m ok with it. I haven’t seen anyone here saying this is the only thing we need to do and our hunting and fishing will be incredible forever.

We still need to be diligent in the public lands and waters fight. Speak up against policies and proposals that would further limit opportunity or degrade habitat. We should each vote with these things in mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vanilla

Kwalk3 -- BINGO!

Very well stated.


----------



## paddler

I have no problem with the amendment except as I stated above. I believe it's superfluous, however.

I guess V won't ever answer the questions I posed above. HDE either. Typical, juke and jive, deflect, deny, distract. Cool. I think I can guess the answers anyway.


----------



## backcountry

I've been talking with friends and I'm less certain this will pass than I was a week ago. Lots of speculation about ulterior motives. I try to point people back to the actual legal language but they claim it doesn't pass the smell test. Specifically, the "preferred" language is making parts of my extended community squirm even though I explain to them "preferred" isn't the same in legalese as "must". 

Hopefully my little sample isn't representative of the state. I would like to think we can get back to trusting legislation and the administrative state but so much damage has been done as far as citizens trusting public institutions. I really have learned a lot living in Utah and believe codifying tradition into law can help deescalate tensions but that could be overly optimistic. Our constitution can be an affirmation of unique state preferences not just a reaction to potential threats. 

I'm hoping to build a life here for the long term and would love to know my daughter can have a protected right to hunt for decades to come. We'll know the answer soon enough.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> I have no problem with the amendment except as I stated above. I believe it's superfluous, however.
> 
> I guess V won't ever answer the questions I posed above. HDE either. Typical, juke and jive, deflect, deny, distract. Cool. I think I can guess the answers anyway.


My post on your derailing the thread and turning this topic into a crusade was calling a spade a spade.

Really not interested in what you had to say beyond that and, quite frankly, have no idea what questions you asked. Nor will I...


----------



## Dunkem

original subject please, enough -O,-my dads tougher than your dad.


----------



## backcountry

Anybody have a good feel for the chances of this passing? Looked at the legislative votes and it was pretty solid.


----------



## Vanilla

I have a very small sample size to go off, but two of my left leaning non-hunting friends mocked it and said they’d vote against it. 

One said that he was going to start a petition to get going to movies as a right in the constitution next year. Tough to educate someone with that perspective, but we had a good chat and he said “If your ability to hunt is ever challenged I will defend it.”

He didn’t understand that once that challenge is there, it’s too late to defend at that point.


----------



## Packout

I received a text from a very liberal acquaintance who asked about Amendment E. I gave her my opinion (pro). She said she was leaning that way, but wanted more info. So it is making people think- and the results will be a very interesting "tell" as to where the public perception of hunting/fishing stands. 

If every hunter or fisherman votes For and they each get one more person to vote For then it will pass. If one thinks they can vote For and not engage others to do the same it will probably fail. Just my opinion.

..


----------



## backcountry

Similar issues here but I've had some good conversations. The wording on it could be better. I do wish they would have written it so the "preferred" language was directed at "game" not all wildlife. That is making some thoughtful people's hackles rise. It's a clunky amendment that could have been workshopped better. But ultimately I think it's worth the effort.

I'm trying to be hopeful.


----------



## backcountry

That said.... despite all of my optimism regarding work across stakeholder groups my community satisfies some cliches. My father in law moved to Cedar a year ago from the Bay Area. He was very strongly against Amendment E and wasn't exactly willing to discuss the pros or cons even with my wife, who is noticeably more progressive than me. I was laughing with a fellow forum member last night that he's borderline anti-hunting (mostly because of his aggressive stances on firearms) but has no problem inviting himself to dinner when I have upland game. Pretty funny stuff; not haha funny but a good example of how humans aren't always as logical and consistent as we like to believe.

Hopefully he'll soften his stance over time. But I'm guessing he's never going to embrace Utah's culture as much as I have. So it goes.


----------



## Vanilla

Packout said:


> If every hunter or fisherman votes For and they each get one more person to vote For then it will pass. If one thinks they can vote For and not engage others to do the same it will probably fail. Just my opinion.
> 
> ..


Bingo. It's not 1995 anymore in Utah and there is a shifting view to some of our time honored traditions in the state among many. I'm not yet 40, and there is a time in my lifetime in this state when this would have passed by a vote of 85% or more in favor. Things have changed quite a bit the last decade especially, and not for the good on this one.


----------



## BGD

Salt Lake Tribune opinion piece on all the amendments - Stating voters should vote Against Amendment E. Gives a bit of insight how those not in support may be looking at the issue. I don't agree but thought it was interesting to read another perspective as it helps me Better understand the arguments it against so I can have better conversations with others.

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/editorial/2020/10/20/tribune-editorial-utah/


----------



## backcountry

Ouch, that is a particularly aggressively worded editorial against the amendment. Even the "western wildlife conservancy" tried to disguise it's anti-hunting counter argument as not being anti-hunting. The bias is strong in that editorial.

The wolf issue is the one I'm most concerned about with the amendment's "preferred" language but I'm not worried about all apex predators. Utahns have good reason to be concerned about overly restrictive policy on active management of predators given mistakes in other states. I am all for an Aldo Leupold approach to ecology but active management is still an important tool and several states have crippled management opportunities for predators. 

When my friends have said there isn't a current threat I explain that you shouldn't need one to protect a state's heritage plus the urban centers demographics are heading in a clear direction. I'm still hopeful an amendment could help deescalate tensions but editorials like that one just stoke the fires instead.


----------



## Vanilla

SLTrib said:


> https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/editorial/2020/10/20/tribune-editorial-utah/
> 
> * Amendment E - Against. This proposal would elevate "the right to hunt and fish" to a constitutional level of protection. That's unnecessary. It would also make it state policy that hunting and fishing "shall be the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife," which is a particularly horrible idea. Utah's wildlife management habits, particularly its irrational fear of apex predators such as wolves, are already a sorry example of biological and ecological illiteracy. There is no reason to enshrine such foolishness in our basic charter. This amendment should be rejected.


This is their "analysis?" A bunch of inflammatory conclusory statements with no information to actually back it up? I don't know why I'm surprised with that entity, it seems pretty par for the course for their editorial board to do stuff like this.

I would ask these questions:

1- Why is the elevation of hunting and fishing as a constitutional right unnecessary? The legislature pretty overwhelmingly believed it was, or we wouldn't be here. 
2- If using hunting and fishing as the preferred tool to manage and control wildlife is such a "horrible idea," what would this hack suggest as the alternative? 
3- Utah has a really good track record of managing wildlife, actually. We can all bicker about deer numbers, how we distribute tags or anything else, but that is all fluid. Speaking of simply wildlife populations, Utah has a pretty good track record. Utah has restored and increased native fish populations. It has booming herds of many game animals. All in the face of our invasion of out-of-staters trying to change our way of life and overcrowding our population centers. What has been so illiterate about the policies and strategies that have happened for decades now?

This is a hack job. Classic Tribune spewing political BS with no thought for the facts or issues at hand. There is a reason that "paper" is dying. Disappointed, but not surprised.


----------



## paddler

Vanilla said:


> This is their "analysis?" *A bunch of inflammatory conclusory statements with no information to actually back it up?* I don't know why I'm surprised with that entity, it seems pretty par for the course for their editorial board to do stuff like this.
> 
> I would ask these questions:
> 
> 1- Why is the elevation of hunting and fishing as a constitutional right unnecessary? The legislature pretty overwhelmingly believed it was, or we wouldn't be here.
> 2- If using hunting and fishing as the preferred tool to manage and control wildlife is such a "horrible idea," what would this hack suggest as the alternative?
> 3- Utah has a really good track record of managing wildlife, actually. We can all bicker about deer numbers, how we distribute tags or anything else, but that is all fluid. Speaking of simply wildlife populations, Utah has a pretty good track record. Utah has restored and increased native fish populations. It has booming herds of many game animals. All in the face of our invasion of out-of-staters trying to change our way of life and overcrowding our population centers. What has been so illiterate about the policies and strategies that have happened for decades now?
> 
> This is a hack job. Classic Tribune *spewing political BS with no thought for the facts or issues at hand.* There is a reason that "paper" is dying. Disappointed, but not surprised.


I saw this in the Trib this morning, somebody posted it before me. My own take has been that it is superfluous and would trivialize the constitution. I understand that such an opinion isn't welcome on an outdoor forum where critical thinking is often abandoned, but I resist jumping on bandwagons.

I saw that the Trump administration has recently rolled back regulations re: coal ash ponds. Such actions by the current EPA endanger our ability to enjoy hunting and fishing more than imagined, future, nebulous threats the amendment would address.

I support the Trib, been a subscriber since moving here in 1982. My dog fetches it every morning, has even found it under 10" of fresh snow. All print media struggles with the loss of advertising revenue, but local papers are the only source for much of the news affecting our daily lives. Support your local papers and all responsible journalism. V, the bolded text above describes many of your posts perfectly.


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> I support the Trib, been a subscriber since moving here in 1982. My dog fetches it every morning, has even found it under 10" of fresh snow. All print media struggles with the loss of advertising revenue, but local papers are the only source for much of the news affecting our daily lives. *Support your local papers and all responsible journalism.* V, the bolded text above describes many of your posts perfectly.


I do. "Responsible" being the operative word there.

You'd be hard pressed to find many of my political beliefs any time recently on this forum. Even on this thread I have not got into my own political beliefs at all. The lady doth project too much, me thinks...


----------



## backcountry

Looking pretty strong. I'm hoping language gets more nuanced over time but glad Utah is currently looking to ratify tradition. Maybe I'm naive and overly hopeful, but it'd be great to start de-escalating politics a bit. I'm all up for boring.


----------



## Catherder

backcountry said:


> Looking pretty strong. I'm hoping language gets more nuanced over time but glad Utah is currently looking to ratify tradition. Maybe I'm naive and overly hopeful, but it'd be great to start de-escalating politics a bit. I'm all up for boring.


74-26 looks very solid. Good to see.

And a +1 on wishing for some boring.


----------



## Vanilla

Fantastic news. I thought this one was going to be really close, but looks like Utahns approved this in a landslide. I like it!


----------



## paddler

I voted against on the grounds it's a supercilious, empty gesture that clutters the Constitution. However, I voted for Biden because I know I'd never have to read a story like this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/climate/trump-oil-drilling-alaska.html

Why do Republicans hate wilderness, the environment and conservation? I swear, despoiling wild places is as ingrained in the Republican party as a dog marking its territory. I just don't get it. The follow on question is why outdoorsmen support the Republican "drill, baby, drill" agenda.


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> I voted against on the grounds it's a supercilious, empty gesture that clutters the Constitution. However, I voted for Biden because I know I'd never have to read a story like this:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/climate/trump-oil-drilling-alaska.html
> 
> Why do Republicans hate wilderness, the environment and conservation? I swear, despoiling wild places is as ingrained in the Republican party as a dog marking its territory. I just don't get it. The follow on question is why outdoorsmen support the Republican "drill, baby, drill" agenda.


When was the last time you actually contributed something of substance?


----------



## Vanilla

Not sure what his comment has to do with Amendment E, but none of his comments have to do with the topic at hand. So just par for the course. He uses every thread to jump on his political soapbox. So the answer to your question Ray is....never. 

Very pleased that Utahns showed we still love some of our traditional values and voted in favor of this constitutional amendment in a landslide. Restored some faith in our great state. We’ve got to clean up a couple other things that have crept in, and I think we can do that.


----------



## wyogoob

paddler said:


> I saw this in the Trib this morning, somebody posted it before me. My own take has been that it is superfluous and would trivialize the constitution. I understand that such an opinion isn't welcome on an outdoor forum where critical thinking is often abandoned, but I resist jumping on bandwagons.
> 
> I saw that the Trump administration has recently rolled back regulations re: coal ash ponds. Such actions by the current EPA endanger our ability to enjoy hunting and fishing more than imagined, future, nebulous threats the amendment would address.
> 
> .........................................................


 coal ash ponds - no bueno

In before the lock.

.


----------



## paddler

Ray said:


> When was the last time you actually contributed something of substance?


Last night, in post #63.

I continue to be amazed that you engage in and celebrate meaningless gestures, yet vote against your own interests when it comes to hunting and fishing, public lands, the environment, etc, etc. Just offering a reality check for y'all.


----------



## backcountry

I think we should just start a Paddler subforum. Create a script that after an initial post it immediately switches the thread to being about red vs blue, Trump vs Biden, etc. Just own it and give him his own playground.

IBTL


----------



## Kwalk3

"I voted against an amendment that would add a layer of protection to the rights to hunt and fish in perpetuity, because republicans....."


----------



## Ray

Kwalk3 said:


> "I voted against an amendment that would add a layer of protection to the rights to hunt and fish in perpetuity, because republicans....."


&#128514;&#128076;


----------



## Brettski7

Vanilla said:


> Not sure what his comment has to do with Amendment E, but none of his comments have to do with the topic at hand. So just par for the course. He uses every thread to jump on his political soapbox. So the answer to your question Ray is....never.
> 
> Very pleased that Utahns showed we still love some of our traditional values and voted in favor of this constitutional amendment in a landslide. Restored some faith in our great state. We've got to clean up a couple other things that have crept in, and I think we can do that.


Need to clean up some old things that have stayed around also.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Packout

Kwalk3 said:


> "I voted against an amendment that would add a layer of protection to the rights to hunt and fish in perpetuity, because republicans....."


As Paddler complains about oil/mineral extraction while using an electronic device made in a foreign country from unregulated mining minerals and oil based components. Then said device is shipped to his home by an oil consuming distribution method. He will get in his oil using truck, made from parts generated by oil, gas and minerals to drive his mineral/oil produced canoe to shoot a gun and ammo made using oil and extracted minerals. Or he might use his camera made the same way as the device described above.

And therein lies the problem- guys like Paddler never look in the mirror. An oil pad that uses directional drilling is bad. A windmill farm on the ridges of Wyoming disrupting winter range and killing birds is good. Some people will never look at themselves, nor even listen to the other viewpoint.


----------



## Vanilla

Brettski7 said:


> Need to clean up some old things that have stayed around also.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nowhere is perfect, including Utah. But there is a reason you (and hundreds of thousands of others) came here.


----------



## Brettski7

Vanilla said:


> Nowhere is perfect, including Utah. But there is a reason you (and hundreds of thousands of others) came here.


There is, I don't disagree with that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> I think we should just start a Paddler subforum. Create a script that after an initial post it immediately switches the thread to being about red vs blue, Trump vs Biden, etc. Just own it and give him his own playground.
> 
> IBTL


Hold on there, fella. I don't engage in party politics. I vote my values, which happen to be for preserving our public lands, protecting the environment, and responsible development of our natural resources. Those who paint my comments as party, Red vs Blue, need to look in the mirror. Each and every one of you who voted for Trump voted party over your own values. You betrayed your duty to look beyond party and vote to preserve our public lands, thereby ensuring we have places to pursue our interests.

Tell you what. Anybody who posts anything critical of my posts please include who you voted for in the last election. Anybody who voted for Trump voted against clean air, clean water and protecting our environment and preserving our public lands. Betcha nickle V won't post up.


----------



## paddler

Packout said:


> As Paddler complains about oil/mineral extraction while using an electronic device made in a foreign country from unregulated mining minerals and oil based components. Then said device is shipped to his home by an oil consuming distribution method. He will get in his oil using truck, made from parts generated by oil, gas and minerals to drive his mineral/oil produced canoe to shoot a gun and ammo made using oil and extracted minerals. Or he might use his camera made the same way as the device described above.
> 
> And therein lies the problem- guys like Paddler never look in the mirror. An oil pad that uses directional drilling is bad. A windmill farm on the ridges of Wyoming disrupting winter range and killing birds is good. Some people will never look at themselves, nor even listen to the other viewpoint.


I would point out that my specific objection was about opening the ANWR to drilling, not to directional drilling, fracking, etc. Misrepresenting my statements, my positions, isn't cool. It is, in fact, dishonest, a lie. I would also point out that all the things you noted above are true, and none of them require drilling in one of our largest wild places.

Although, I do think we need to gradually move away from fossil fuels. I drive my Expedition Max slow, 63MPH on the freeway with cruise control. Doing so means I average better than 20MPG, which makes me feel a little bit better about driving a behemoth.


----------



## Brettski7

paddler said:


> Hold on there, fella. I don't engage in party politics. I vote my values, which happen to be for preserving our public lands, protecting the environment, and responsible development of our natural resources. Those who paint my comments as party, Red vs Blue, need to look in the mirror. Each and every one of you who voted for Trump voted party over your own values. You betrayed your duty to look beyond party and vote to preserve our public lands, thereby ensuring we have places to pursue out interests.


That's the most ridiculous and completely false thing I've read today.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wyogoob

Packout said:


> As Paddler complains about oil/mineral extraction while using an electronic device made in a foreign country from unregulated mining minerals and oil based components. Then said device is shipped to his home by an oil consuming distribution method. He will get in his oil using truck, made from parts generated by oil, gas and minerals to drive his mineral/oil produced canoe to shoot a gun and ammo made using oil and extracted minerals. Or he might use his camera made the same way as the device described above.
> 
> And therein lies the problem- guys like Paddler never look in the mirror. An oil pad that uses directional drilling is bad. A windmill farm on the ridges of Wyoming disrupting winter range and killing birds is good. Some people will never look at themselves, nor even listen to the other viewpoint.


I complain about oil, gas and mineral extraction while on my cell phone...ha.

And directional drilling is the best, been around for 45 years. We just started using it in Wyoming about 10 years ago...or about 35,000 wells too late.

Listen, I worked oil, gas, minerals, paper, chemicals, and nuclear for over 50 years. Now retired, all I can say is RU****tinme? We can do better.


----------



## Packout

wyogoob said:


> We can do better.


I agree with this.



paddler said:


> is why outdoorsmen support the Republican "drill, baby, drill" agenda.


I didn't misrepresent anything. I wasn't being dishonest. Above is your quote. I just found it interesting that you voted for people who "despoil" the environment in a different manner, while you partake in the benefit of "drill, baby, drill".


----------



## paddler

Packout said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> I didn't misrepresent anything. I wasn't being dishonest. Above is your quote. I just found it interesting that you voted for people who "despoil" the environment in a different manner, while you partake in the benefit of "drill, baby, drill".


Actually, the saying "Drill, Baby, Drill" was popularized by Sarah Palin, who was a proponent of drilling in the ANWR. I don't understand why Trump and Republicans feel the need to open it up, seems like it's a point of honor for many on the right. The phrase has been used to promote increased drilling, the environment be damned. I am not against drilling, but think it should be done in the most environmentally responsible way. So, you misrepresented my values and my position on the topic. You assumed, with the usual result.


----------



## paddler

Brettski7 said:


> That's the most ridiculous and completely false thing I've read today.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So, who'd you vote for?


----------



## Ray

paddler said:


> Packout said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this.
> 
> I didn't misrepresent anything. I wasn't being dishonest. Above is your quote. I just found it interesting that you voted for people who "despoil" the environment in a different manner, while you partake in the benefit of "drill, baby, drill".
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the saying "Drill, Baby, Drill" was popularized by Sarah Palin, who was a proponent of drilling in the ANWR. I don't understand why Trump and Republicans feel the need to open it up, seems like it's a point of honor for many on the right. The phrase has been used to promote increased drilling, the environment be damned. I am not against drilling, but think it should be done in the most environmentally responsible way. So, you misrepresented my values and my position on the topic. You assumed, with the usual result.
Click to expand...

That's a bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say? almost all of your posts are generalizations about Trump supporters and Republicans, you constantly misrepresent all of our values, you did so in the very post you complained about it being done to you.

You're a know-it-all who knows nothing and we're all sick of your holier-than-thou attitude. Your contributions to this forum are nothing more than partisan propaganda.

Do you even hunt anymore? Or do you spend all of your nights gawking at the screen with a drool bucket in front of you, hanging onto every word Don Lemon says?


----------



## Vanilla

paddler said:


> Hold on there, fella. I don't engage in party politics.


Haha! You are unbelievably delusional. Like pink slip delusions.



paddler said:


> Betcha nickle V won't post up.


Everything is always about me with you. Even when you're replying to others. But to make this interesting, who are you betting and a nickel of what?


----------



## wyogoob

Really need to get this thread back on track, back to an outdoor related thread instead of this "my daddy can beat up yer daddy" BS. thanks


----------



## High Desert Elk

Ya'll are so lucky to have State Constitutional Amendments such as this. Anytime you want to discuss the nuances of blue state governance on outdoor related policy, or any other public policy, PM me. You will count your many blessings you live in UT...


----------

