# Bishop defends vote on cutting funds for wetlands



## Jeff Bringhurst (May 20, 2009)

Here is a link to the article:
http://www.standard.net/topics/economy/ ... s-wetlands


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Bull **** in my eyes.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I am with Bishop on this, and I emailed him today and thanked him for his vote. This nation is BROKE, cuts MUST be made across the board, not just where you have no personal interest(s). There should be no sacred cows, every government expenditure should be looked at for ways to reduce the burden on the tax payers of today and future generations.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Bishop is Bishop and has only one real agenda behind all his votes...that is the total privatization of all government including private ownership of all property so he and his buddies can capitalize from the now public domain. I find him one of the most repulsive members in all of congress. He is NO friend to wildlife or hunting and fishing!


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I am with Bishop on this, and I emailed him today and thanked him for his vote. This nation is BROKE, cuts MUST be made across the board, not just where you have no personal interest(s). There should be no sacred cows, every government expenditure should be looked at for ways to reduce the burden on the tax payers of today and future generations.


I disagree with you on this Pro.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

BPturkeys said:


> Bishop is Bishop and has only one real agenda behind all his votes...that is the total privatization of all government including private ownership of all property so he and his buddies can capitalize from the now public domain. I find him one of the most repulsive members in all of congress. He is NO friend to wildlife or hunting and fishing!


Absolutely!


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

So I guess that we need to ask big brother to take care of us and our special interests some more. Or we can work in the private sector to accomplish the same things with less graft and corruption. Ducks Unlimited seems to have done plenty without increasing the national debt. What is wrong with taking responsibility for our own future instead of relying on "THE GOVERNMENT" to do it for us? I get a little tired of hearing everyone cry about what they think the government should do for them and their own little hobbies. And if there is a representative that wants to limit the governments influence in my business, I'm all for him.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I am with you, Loke!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

This is yet another example of how people want the government to get spending under control as long as none of their pet projects are affected. Its like Al Gore calling for cuts in carbon emissions but travels the world on private jets, or the Kennedy clan calling for renewable energy but opposing wind turbines off the coast of their little kingdom. Bottom line for me, the private sector is far more affective at getting results, so why DU would want the government taking by FORCE from people and wasting a large portion of it instead of private donations hitting the ground is a mystery to me.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Bottom line for me, the private sector is far more affective at getting results, so why DU would want the government taking by FORCE from people and wasting a large portion of it instead of private donations hitting the ground is a mystery to me.


You don't know much about DU do you? :lol: They want thier cake and eat it too! I stop supporting them several years and don't see myself going backanytime soon. I threw my backing behind Delta Waterfowl.


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> This nation is BROKE, cuts MUST be made across the board, not just where you have no personal interest(s). There should be no sacred cows, every government expenditure should be looked at for ways to reduce the burden on the tax payers of today and future generations.


Pro,

I don't entirely disagree with your statement, however most everyone who is upset on this vote problem with his vote lies in fact that Bishop like most other politicians do not practice what they preach to their constituents.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

I am with Loke, Pro and Mojo on this one. The cuts have to start somewhere and the federal govt is so inefficient...


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> Bull **** in my eyes.


Does it sting? How did a bull get that close without you noticing?


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Loke said:


> dkhntrdstn said:
> 
> 
> > Bull **** in my eyes.
> ...


Yes it sting.It bull **** still. we are losing wet land every flippen year.To highways,new homes to phrag.I join Du many years ago and I like what they have been doing to help are wetlands out.For what they have done there no way in hell they would have come up with that kind of money to do the work they have.Bird watchers bitch about us hunting out there.But yea I want to go out there and take pic of birds with out paying a dime.This Bishop guy is a jack ass and I hope he does not get vote back in next year and this sorry as bill does not pass.


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> I am with Loke, Pro and Mojo on this one. The cuts have to start somewhere and the federal govt is so inefficient...


+1


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

This is a tough one. On one hand the feds need to get the budget under control. They will need to make real and meaningful cuts, unfortunately this includes little tiny cuts like this. On the other hand, we all know what happens to the nation's wetlands if the government doesn't step up to protect them..they get filled in and and paved over. There is no incentive for the private sector to protect wetlands when they can make money by filling them in or draining them and planting corn for ethanol. Bishop is a classic case of wanting all of our natural resources to be privatized and developed to the fullest potential. *The problem is that folks like him fail to realize that wetlands have value as WETLANDS*. Sad to see.
R


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

One more thing:
These guys don't have the cajones to cut what really needs to be cut in order to get our house in order. In the meantime, we will have to deal with cuts to conservation programs I guess. Somehow, I don't think they are going to cut out the *subsidies paid to the oil and gas companies *though...those poor oil companies would be heartbroken if our govt didn't subsidize them and their teeny tiny profits. Things are truly out of whack.
R


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

"There is no incentive for the private sector to protect wetlands when they can make money by filling them in or draining them and planting corn for ethanol. Bishop is a classic case of wanting all of our natural resources to be privatized and developed to the fullest potential."

And in the above quote we have a winner!!!

The World, Our Enviroment and our Wildlife should mean a hell of a lot more than numbers on a profit or loss statement.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Thanks Jeff for "Getting it" Maybe after they privitize all of the states WMA's the managing private company can work out a deal to relocate the prison out in one of them!!!


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> "There is no incentive for the private sector to protect wetlands when they can make money by filling them in or draining them and planting corn for ethanol. Bishop is a classic case of wanting all of our natural resources to be privatized and developed to the fullest potential."
> 
> And in the above quote we have a winner!!!
> 
> The World, Our Enviroment and our Wildlife should mean a hell of a lot more than numbers on a profit or loss statement.


The only incentive for any one in this world to do any thing is for money. All of the environmental groups are in it for the money. The NRA is in it for the money. DU is in it for the money. There is always some one at the top of the organisation making a wad of cash by playing on every ones fears and emotions. If there were no money to be made in any of these causes, no one would care. And if no one cared, some lawyer would stir up the news media so everyone would get their panties in a wad and sue the hell out of each other so the lawyer would get paid. The World, Environment, and our Wildlife is just there for someone to make money from.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Loke, you need to understand, wileywapati thinks the government is good and all caring, and that individuals are bad and greedy. I for the life of me can't figure that one out.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Both the govt and individuals are not to be trusted...neither will pass up the chance to throw our wetlands under the bus in the off-chance that they could profit from it. That is what conservation organizations sprung up for...to act as a watchdog and a counterwieght and to try to help conserve our natural resources where possible. We certainly can't count on our elected officials to help protect these things...they do the bidding of whomever has the most money/influence at any given time.
R


----------



## 1BandMan (Nov 2, 2007)

rjefre said:


> Both the govt and individuals are not to be trusted...neither will pass up the chance to throw our wetlands under the bus in the off-chance that they could profit from it. That is what conservation organizations sprung up for...to act as a watchdog and a counterwieght and to try to help conserve our natural resources where possible. We certainly can't count on our elected officials to help protect these things...they do the bidding of whomever has the most money/influence at any given time.
> R


Good post and stated well.
This is especially the fact in Utah where there is one party politics that goes unchecked so much and so often. More often than not decisons in Utah are made according to the dollar amount offered or to be made.
Our elected officials do whatever whenever with utmost confidence as they run basically unopposed every year.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Loke, you need to understand, wileywapati thinks the government is good and all caring, and that individuals are bad and greedy. I for the life of me can't figure that one out.


He forgets that our government is made of bad and greedy individuals.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

HA HA PRO is trying to draw me in to one of his Libertarian wet dreams!!! I don't think GOVT. is all that caring or grand. What I do know is that the Govt did create the national Park System as we know it. Did develop the Wildlife Conservation Model we SHOULD BE using to manage our big game. I do know for a fact that several PRIVATE GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS are in the process of trying to take our Game, Fish and wildlands and turn them in to commodities for their own personal gain, Right PRO?? Need I elaborate??

So you tell me do we let Private Enterprise run roughshod over the property of all American Citizens?? Do we in essence turn our entire wildlife management system over to the likes of Don Peay and his ilk?? 

What is the difference of paying $5.00 bucks more a year in taxes to preserve our public trusts or paying $5.00 more in taxes that the GOVT uses as a tax cut to the Corps. that would develop what we are already losing??


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Don Peay is operating off the public, not the private! Take the government hand outs, and Don goes away. Tell me, wiley, where exactly does the Constitution direct the federal government to 'save' wetlands while piling up TRILLIONS of dollars in debt, and passing the costs onto future generations? Not sure if you have noticed, but this nation is broke and there is NO way to pay all the IOU's BOTH parties have written and signed. When my debt to income ratio went belly up I had to make hard choices and make CUTS. For some crazy reason, I don't put funding a marsh super high on the priority list of 'must haves' for the federal government to keep dumping funds into. 

You must think the government is grand and caring, because YOU keep trusting the government over individuals. True or not?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> HA HA PRO is trying to draw me in to one of his Libertarian wet dreams!!! I don't think GOVT. is all that caring or grand. ......
> 
> What is the difference of paying $5.00 bucks more a year in taxes to preserve our public trusts or paying $5.00 more in taxes that the GOVT uses as a tax cut to the Corps. that would develop what we are already losing??


Very valid point! Wetlands are not the only worthy cause out there. What about an additional $15/year to preserve our sagebrush flats, $50/year to preserve my neighbor's unemployment benefits for a second year while passing on many good job offers as he holds out for the perfect job, $150/year to support the other neighbor who is a single mother of age 4o who has decided to go back to school who just bought a brand new car, $400/year to add a skate park, $600/year additional social security benefits, $1,500/year for health care for illegal immigrants... 
At what point in your own personal life if your personal income is cut by 30% do you drop the cell phone, sell one of your two brand new cars, cut vacation, sell the boat, sell the trailer, sell the wave runners, sell the four wheelers, sell the UTV, sell the 3rd car, drop satellite, etc? In dealing with the overgrown obese fed govt that we speak of, this neighbor has all of the things mentioned above, yet income has dropped and this neighbor's only solution is to ask a church for help...WTH! Do all of the above! No church has the obligation to finance your out of control lifestyle! This is exactly what is happening here, the cuts certainly will hurt, but keep in mind that none of these things are necessary. The wetlands will not just disappear, that may be a worthy cause for the future, but this budget is a train wreck, all of the fat must be cat and this is one of the least worthy causes IMHO.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Thanks HUGE. PRO DP is acting 100% as a Private Business in raping OUR public Resources
Quit trying to spin it in any different way. We Both know this is a perfect example of what happens when a private entity is allowed to run amok with public property. What your Libertarian pride won't allow you to do is see this blatant failure..

I'll get to you huge later HUGE


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> The wetlands will not just disappear, that may be a worthy cause for the future,


Yes our wetland will be gone before we know it.The money that DU get it helping fight the phrag. we lose more marsh land every year because of this nasty weed called phrag.It not cheap to fight this.The money is also helping re do some big up keeps on the WMA's.I know some of you guys think it a great place to cut because you don't hunt waterfowl.I will say it a again it bull crap.They cut there the dwr taking a big cut. So everything will go up.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

What many people fail to understand is that wetlands WILL just disappear. They DON'T come back after they are paved over or drained. Wetlands serve many important functions that benefit the public as a whole (filtering out pollution, and recharging aquifers, for example). In the case of wetlands, the govt needs to step in and protect a public resource that provides a public service because the private sector *will* destroy them. This is a classic case of needing the govt to do the right thing. 
I'm quite sure that subsidizing oil companies, or paying health care costs for illegal aliens doesn't do much to enhance the public well-being...Wetlands do....*and they disappear forever if not protected*.
R


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

"You must think the government is grand and caring, because YOU keep trusting the government over individuals. True or not?"

In this case PRO the above is an absolute 100% correct statement.

What you are struggling with is like this. You cut out a cell phone or movies with the family or downsized the truck to a smaller vehicle that does not use as much gas. With these cuts I agree wholeheartedly!!!

Now what you can't wrap your head around is, and I am going to be perfectly BLUNT here is the fact that, just like R Jeff said is once these wetlands are drained, or developed there is no solution to ever gettig them back again EVER!!! Hell a year from now you can get a raise in pay and afford to get back some of the things you have cut. Once you lose any type of a non renewable resource that mother F-er is gone, done, it ain't coming back never!!! Once you stripmine a Mountain it's done!!! Once you allow cheatgrass to take over open range for all intents and purposes it's a done deal for a couple generations... So now tell me what are we burdening our children and their children with.

If we could get the "DRILL BABY DRILLERS" to realize that maybe there are some expenses and programs that don't have to automatically come under the knife because of what the current political climate crest and wave has created... See farther than the end of their own noses and what will be in the bank next week they would realize that God ain't coming back to give us more Mountains, Wetlands, Sand Dunes, Rivers and so on.

So yeah, I support GOVT programs expenses and resources that will maintain and preserve what is irreplaceable!!!


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

wileywapati said:


> " What you are struggling with is like this. You cut out a cell phone or movies with the family or downsized the truck to a smaller vehicle that does not use as much gas. With these cuts I agree wholeheartedly!!!




What you all are struggling with is the fact we NOW live in the instant gratification/entitlement world. No one expects to work or save for anything anymore, and will not accept responsibility for their own stupid financial decisions. They always expect someone else to take care of them.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wiley, wiley, wiley. You have a way of using sky is falling NONSENSE and trying to spin it as something close to reality. If this wetland is so dear to you, then YOU fund it! To think Americans who are struggling should fund YOUR pet projects is, to be "blunt" nonsensical and a tad selfish!


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

:roll: "If this wetland is so dear to you, then YOU fund it! To think Americans who are struggling should fund YOUR pet projects is, to be "blunt" nonsensical and a tad selfish!" :roll: 


Didn't Karpowitz Say a few years back that only the people that pay big bucks are the only one's that matter?? Didn't Peay say " If ya only want to shoot a bull go to Colorado" ??

Now we have PRO with the above quote and I am the nonsensical one???

Ya know what ya talked me in to it PRO... Hell lets just develop half and turn the other half in to 100K per year duck clubs.. My kids your kids and every others fathers kids won't know that our generation was to F-ING selfish to pass this heritage on to them... 

I really don't blame you for putting your warped political ideology in front of common sense.. You still can't or won't grasp that what we are dealing with is temporary. Financially and politically. Things will eventually come around. Loss of habitat will not.
Until you see the difference my limited typing skills are going to waste..


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

*$14 TRILLION IN DEBT!* What part of that don't you get? Temporary my butt! I do NOT care about the political costs, not even slightly. I DO care what happens to the debt burden MY children and grandchildren are going to be straddled with for YOUR duck swamp. I am confused how cutting federal funding automatically equates with the marshes being developed. Help me out on this one. Are you saying all the 'caring' and passionate duck hunters will simply give up and pick up basket weaving if the federal government shuts off the spigot of 'free' monies? Why can't YOU guys come up with the funds instead of expecting/demanding I pay for it? That $14 trillion in debt, that doesn't include future debt that we are on the hook for, that exceeds $100 trillion. When we are experiencing inflation unlike ever seen in this nation's history, will you still be demanding the **** ducks get taken care of? At what point when will YOU support a reduction in spending?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

The scenario in which the wetlands are drained is not possible, so theorizing as such is not reality. A federal law passed under Buuuuuush Senior in about '90?? or so made it a law that if wetlands are destroyed they have to be replaced with 200% of the surface area that was destroyed. If memory serves, that is why the Lee Kay wetland areas were created during the big I15 rebuild project to replace what was taken out including the ponds around 21st South there. Phrag certainly is a legit issue, but wetlands being drained and the idea that we need billions of dollars to keep them from being drained is as ridiculous a thought as the very name of "so called Social Security." (Hank Jr, I believe). So, are we to believe that the bill that Bishop opposed was to pay people to monitor private groups from draining wetlands or from where did that concern arise?


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

I'm done, party on Tea Party


----------



## diverfreak (May 11, 2008)

Huge29 said:


> The scenario in which the wetlands are drained is not possible, so theorizing as such is not reality. A federal law passed under Buuuuuush Senior in about '90?? or so made it a law that if wetlands are destroyed they have to be replaced with 200% of the surface area that was destroyed. If memory serves, that is why the Lee Kay wetland areas were created during the big I15 rebuild project to replace what was taken out including the ponds around 21st South there. Phrag certainly is a legit issue, but wetlands being drained and the idea that we need billions of dollars to keep them from being drained is as ridiculous a thought as the very name of "so called Social Security." (Hank Jr, I believe). So, are we to believe that the bill that Bishop opposed was to pay people to monitor private groups from draining wetlands or from where did that concern arise?


 What a crock of manure!!

Let me put it into prospective for you.
lets say they "Federal Government " wants to build a highway right thru the middle of your house. They are feeling very giving and offer you another house 200% bigger. But unfortunately your bedroom will be in Provo, your kitchen will be in Brigham city, your garage will be in Ogden, your front room will be in Heber, and your kids rooms will be in Montana but in different counties. And your 3 bathrooms will be in Tooele. What good does that do for you? IT does about the same for the ecosystem as well as waterfowl!

DiverFreak


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

What Huge is referring to is called mitigation. Mitigation sounds good on the surface, but in reality, it doesn't work (see Diverfreaks example). Most of the time, the destroyed wetlands can't be replaced, so the Army Corps will let them mitigate in alternate ways such as paying for some new culverts at a refuge, or paying for a wetland protection seminar, or buying a duck club and agreeing to not develop it for a certain amount of time. This really does nothing to replace wetlands because they really CAN'T be replaced in most cases. There is much more to a functioning wetland than putting water on a field somwhere, it can take hundreds, sometimes thousands of years to develop the kind of hydrology that it takes to make a fully funtioning natural wetland. Making a new wetland is not as easy as it sounds. In the case of irreplaceable natural resources, it is absolutely necessary for the government to protect them because they WILL be destroyed...and they CAN'T be replaced. Sometimes, in cases of dire budget shortfalls, I can see how the govt may want to shirk their responsibility to protect our country's natural resources, but I hope they will realize that it needs to be protected in the long run and the govt has the power and the responsibility to do it...for better or worse.
R


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Huge29 said:


> The scenario in which the wetlands are drained is not possible, so theorizing as such is not reality. A federal law passed under Buuuuuush Senior in about '90?? or so made it a law that if wetlands are destroyed they have to be replaced with 200% of the surface area that was destroyed.


That true.But look where they replace them where we cant use them.They are taking away from us and replacing where we can't use them.That the bad part and if we lose any more control of the phrag we will never get caught back up and stay a head.We are still be hind the 8 ball on it.


----------



## RobK (Jul 3, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> I am with Bishop on this, and I emailed him today and thanked him for his vote. This nation is BROKE, cuts MUST be made across the board, not just where you have no personal interest(s). There should be no sacred cows, every government expenditure should be looked at for ways to reduce the burden on the tax payers of today and future generations.


Ditto !!


----------



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

If this government was serious about cutting spending they would have to look no further than entitlement spending. medicare and medicaid spending dwarfs all other spending! 10,000 people a DAY are now turning 65 and hitting the roles of medicare. sad thing is those baby boomers financed medicare since its conception in 1965. So it is their turn to collect and look what you know... its running out of money. Sad thing is this Obamacare health care law creates health care as a right and is the ground work for a single payer system. their is no way, ABSOLUTELY no way around a huge rate increase on our taxes. the rich will have to pay a lot more and the middle class will see the deductions like mortgage interest and child deductions go away. mean while the poor will still get their credits (EIC). cut spending where you can, but ultimately they will raise the debt ceiling and print more money to buy our own debt. QE2 is a great example. the actions of a desperate FED!

The real good thing here is that the GOP is trying to show the world and the buyers of our debt that we are serious about our trying to maintain our debt levels and keep the confidence of the world reserve currency. going to be an interesting ride for sure. not to get all churchy on you all but hows your food storage?? If and i mean a huge IF our currency collapses your going to want to have some food in the basement because it isnt going to be cheap. 

hell i sound like Glenn Beck now dont I??? where is my tin foil hat... its time to put it on!


----------



## huntingbuddy (Sep 10, 2007)

I agree with Darin of we really want to reduce spending we need to reduce entitlement programs and leave them up to private organizations. Someone brought up (sorry I don't feel like looking up who it was) that if our taxes were increased $10 we could finance our wetlands protection. Well that $10 dollars is going to get split a 100 different ways and go to everyone's pet projects not just wetlands. So instead of increasing our taxes $10 how about lowering our taxes and $10 and we can choose where to put that $10. I think your $10 is going to go a 100 miles farther with DU, Delta, or whatever conservation organization you choose, than your money would with the Govt. I know there is a small amount of overhead with every conservation organization but its not nearly the size of the overhead of the Govt. Fact of the matter is the Govt has no idea how to spend yours and my money effectivly to conserve habitat. I think if our welfare system was left up to private organizations our country and welfare system would be a much better shape.


----------



## diverfreak (May 11, 2008)

If our government would just cut Molina Medicaid for illegal aliens just in this state alone we would save millions of our tax payers dollars and put them towards things that make sense, like saving wetlands instead of freebies to illegal pig latin speakers!!!!! Just my .02!!!





DiverFreak


----------



## duck jerky (Sep 8, 2007)

diverfreak said:


> If our government would just cut Molina Medicaid for illegal aliens just in this state alone we would save millions of our tax payers dollars and put them towards things that make sense, like saving wetlands instead of freebies to illegal pig latin speakers!!!!! Just my .02!!!
> 
> DiverFreak


 :O||:


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Speaking of mitigation, Congressman Bishop is all for the expansion of GSL Minerals into Bear River Bay. GSL has expressed interest in purchasing mitigation credits from the Machine Lake Mitigation Bank. For those who may not know, this is a duck club owned by the Parsons (Parson's Gravel). It is perfectly legal to buy some shares in their "bank" to replace destroyed wetlands elsewhere. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean that it truly replaces lost playas, emergent marsh, and Sego Pondweed in the Bear River Bay area. It certainly doesn't replace lost public lands, because I don't think the Parsons will be opening up their gates and inviting the public to come on in and enjoy their mitigation credits. *This is how wetlands experience "net losses". This is how hunters lose areas to hunt. This is how government works.* :roll: 
R


----------



## huntingbuddy (Sep 10, 2007)

rjefre said:


> Speaking of mitigation, Congressman Bishop is all for the expansion of GSL Minerals into Bear River Bay. GSL has expressed interest in purchasing mitigation credits from the Machine Lake Mitigation Bank. For those who may not know, this is a duck club owned by the Parsons (Parson's Gravel). It is perfectly legal to buy some shares in their "bank" to replace destroyed wetlands elsewhere. Just because it is legal, doesn't mean that it truly replaces lost playas, emergent marsh, and Sego Pondweed in the Bear River Bay area. It certainly doesn't replace lost public lands, because I don't think the Parsons will be opening up their gates and inviting the public to come on in and enjoy their mitigation credits. *This is how wetlands experience "net losses". This is how hunters lose areas to hunt. This is how government works.* :roll:
> R


I agree with you on this rjefre, I think this is similar to purchasing carbon credits it total b.s. and is really all about money. I agree we need to save the wetlands but not with the govts money which is essentially our money but that is a topic for another day.


----------



## bkelz (Dec 3, 2010)

Finnegan said:


> BPturkeys said:
> 
> 
> > Bishop is Bishop and has only one real agenda behind all his votes...that is the total privatization of all government including private ownership of all property so he and his buddies can capitalize from the now public domain. I find him one of the most repulsive members in all of congress. He is NO friend to wildlife or hunting and fishing!
> ...


i will have to take peoples word on this one, but sounds like a legitimate argument to me.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

rjefre said:


> *This is how wetlands experience "net losses". This is how hunters lose areas to hunt. This is how government works.* :roll:
> R


Are you defining "net losses" as simply public wetlands being replaced by 200% of the area now being on private land? Clearly, having to replace 200% of what was lost is not a net loss of area available to birds, but possibly to bird hunters. So, this was created by this private club creating wetlands where there was not before, correct? It certainly can take much time for these areas to grow vegetation...but I do see ducks and geese on the ponds created at 21st south and I-15 every day I go by and have had for over 5 years, so they adapted to this space within about 5 years or very possibly less.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Cuts are being made and everyone is scrapping and clawing to maintain funding. If cuts stand to affect what you love and cherish, get out there and scrap and claw. This is enough reason for me to oppose Rob. 

This idealistic notion of being a good guy and giving in and being ok with it because we all have to sacrifice only hurts the good guy. Everyone else in this world is refusing to take it lying down, you shouldn't either. 

At some point, one has to consider why they even pay taxes to a government that isn't representing their interests. Should I have to be on welfare, medicaid or social security to realize what I have been putting in the kitty?

PS, I'm willing to fight for my sacred cow, whether it be wetlands or mountain tops.


----------



## diverfreak (May 11, 2008)

Huge29 said:


> rjefre said:
> 
> 
> > *This is how wetlands experience "net losses". This is how hunters lose areas to hunt. This is how government works.* :roll:
> ...


 And so have I, have not gone by to often without seeing geese or mallards smeared across the highway. Read my post on page 4 and tell me if you would want to live that way!

DiverFreak


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

By *net losses of wetlands* i mean that the overall acreage is not replaced. I also mean that public wetlands enjoyed by hunters are lost and no longer available. A mitigation bank like Machine Lake is protecting existing wetlands, and that is a good thing on its face. Mitigation is definitely NOT defined as replacing a lost acre with 2 acres. I wish it was that way, but that is definitely NOT how it works. For example: Machine Lake has always been a wetland. Destroyed wetlands can be assigned a monetary value by the Army Corps, and then the entity that is destroying wetlands can purchase credits worth a corresponding value. If the mitigation bank is selling extremely high priced credits (like Machine Lake) then the "mitigation" is skewed because they only have to buy a few credits to be legal. Although this practice is perfectly legal, this definitely does not replace lost wetlands, and that is why it is considered to be a *net loss* to marshes and a net loss to public hunters. It's a crazy world.
R


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

That is an interesting point! I have read a few articles about the bill passed by Bush Sr. in 1990 with the idea of zero net loss and the requirement to replace 200% of what is destroyed, but in reality the federal government is just exactly what we know them to be completely incompetent and grossly ineffective/inefficient. I see many points where the law passed is done with good intentions, but the implementation is worthless and incompetent, at best. Apparently developers in Utah simply aren't very creative as many reports from Florida show that they don't even have to buy credits at all or do anything under meeting certain criteria showing public benefit...


----------

