# Great Salt Lake Hunting Wetlands Under Siege



## waterfowl88 (Oct 26, 2016)

Water Lobbyists are pushing to build three dams along the Bear River that will all but destroy the Wetlands many love to hunt on. Check out the video for more information and please join the Bear River Coalition to stop these greedy lobbyists at SavetheBearRiver.org


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

It's good to see this alert!
Also, our esteemed Utah lawmakers passed a law this spring that diverts hundreds of millions of dollars of our tax money to begin the studies and planning of the Bear River Diversion. We had a lively discussion on this topic here on this forum back in early spring. What they are doing is a *steaming pantload*, but we all have a chance to help change things...when you vote in the next week or so, PLEASE do not vote for any incumbent! These are the same guys that don't care at all about our state-owned wetlands, and consistently vote against measures to protect our rivers, streams, and marshes. Seriously...these fools claim to be conservatives, but they play fast and loose with our money and ignore their constitutional mandate to protect our state-owned public lands (GSL marshes).
R


----------



## Pumpgunner (Jan 12, 2010)

Is there anything that can be done about this on a federal level? It seems that with the BRBR being a federal refuge they might be interested in protecting it. I have heard that there is a mandated minimum flow for the bear entering the refuge but I don't know if that's enough water to keep it filled. Our incumbents obviously don't give a crap about our local wetlands but it would be nice if there was a way to go over their heads.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Well, the manager of the BRBR will be speaking tonight at the FOGSL (Friends of Great Salt Lake) fundraiser. I'm sure he will address this issue. They will fight it as best as they can. We can try to enlist help from the congressman in that district (Rob Bishop), but he has shown time and again that he cares nothing about conservation or our mashes, so that is a lost cause.
Nearly all of our wetlands are on state-owned property, so the feds can't do much to make our local elected legislators care about our own public lands. We are the only ones that can do that. 
FOGSL will probably be leading the fight (as part of a broader coalition) to try and keep this nutty project from draining our wetlands (and our wallets). 
R


----------



## Pumpgunner (Jan 12, 2010)

Well, at least there is some organized opposition to this project. I'm honestly not sure why this isn't being reported more in the Salt Lake media-as I understand it the side effects of a dry lake bed could be really bad, creating toxic dust storms among other things. Unfortunately, I suppose most people might not care until it's too late.


----------



## Pumpgunner (Jan 12, 2010)

I was also just thinking that this is a perfect issue for Delta or DU to throw some weight behind. Are they aware of what's going on?


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Even if I have wetlands on private land, isn't it nearly impossible to get approval to drain them? From my understanding, the destruction of wetlands on private land is heavily regulated, and almost impossible to get approval to complete. I thought that was Federal and I want to say regulated by the Army Corp of Engineers, but I admittedly have a very limited knowledge about it. Anyone with more information that could clear that up for me?

And I agree with Pumpgunner, the drying up of the Great Salt Lake has a much larger impact on us than just waterfowl numbers. As it dries up, it would also greatly reduce the amount of lake effect snow, greatly impacting the skiing industry as well, would it not?


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I had a conversation recently (about these kinds of threats) with the Ducks Unlimited bigwig that was in town for the Great Salt Lake Symposium this summer. I asked him why they are never involved in any of the REAL threats to our wetlands, like water inflow/diversions, new laws that destroy wetlands, water treatment plants that apply for permits that let them divert water from the marshes, etc. He said they are stretched too thin and have no one that can be involved. I asked if they had someone in ANY chapter that could get involved...but I got no good answers. I haven't spoken to anyone in the upper echelons of Delta, so I don't know if they would get involved.
This will be the biggest fight in our lifetimes when it comes to protecting our wetlands and the traditions of Utah waterfowling. You have real estate developers, water districts and municipalities all salivating at the thought of making big dinero from diverted water from Bear River. It will be a tough fight for what is right, and big money interests are in tight with our legislators...so gird your loins and prepare for a long battle.
R


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

rjefre said:


> It's good to see this alert!
> Also, our esteemed Utah lawmakers passed a law this spring that diverts hundreds of millions of dollars of our tax money to begin the studies and planning of the Bear River Diversion. We had a lively discussion on this topic here on this forum back in early spring. What they are doing is a *steaming pantload*, but we all have a chance to help change things...when you vote in the next week or so, *PLEASE do not vote for any incumbent!* These are the same guys that don't care at all about our state-owned wetlands, and consistently vote against measures to protect our rivers, streams, and marshes. Seriously...these fools claim to be conservatives, but they play fast and loose with our money and ignore their constitutional mandate to protect our state-owned public lands (GSL marshes).
> R


Not quite true, R. Almost true, because most of our incumbents are Republicans, and Republicans are anti-conservation and therefore anti-hunter. Vote straight Democrat! All the opposition to projects like the one mentioned above comes from the Democratic side of the aisle. So long as you vote for Republicans, you're voting against the GSL ecosystem and against your best interests. It really is that simple.

My wife and I attended the Friends of the Great Salt Lake fundraiser this evening. Had a nice chat with R. We should all appreciate his efforts to preserve the GSL and watching out for all duck hunters. I think more duck hunters should support the FOGSL. If you enjoy the resource, give back to it! Vote, contact your elected representatives, join with other conservationists. Get involved, or the things we love could literally evaporate.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Now THAT is something Paddler and I can agree on!
R


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

paddler213 said:


> Vote straight Democrat! All the opposition to projects like the one mentioned above comes from the Democratic side of the aisle. So long as you vote for Republicans, you're voting against the GSL ecosystem and against your best interests. It really is that simple.


*Bovine excrement of the highest odor!*
There are total jackholes on BOTH sides of the isle at state AND federal levels. Find out who they are and fight to get rid of them. The Bear River Project fiasco will NOT go away by voting a straight ticket on either side of the political spectrum. Wake up Paddler; you've been sleeping in a deep, dark cave for way too long. -O,-


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

The Bear River Diversion will definitely NOT go away without the combined forces of hunters, tree-huggers, bird-watchers, fishers, republicans, democrats, and regular folks that care about the destruction of the Great Salt Lake marshes. 
There will be more updates on the upcoming battles in the near future. I hope waterfowlers will not sit around and trust our local legislators to do the right thing. This is big money we're talkin about...and we know by past experience which side our legislators will choose. We will need to be heard.
R


----------



## Pumpgunner (Jan 12, 2010)

rjefre said:


> The Bear River Diversion will definitely NOT go away without the combined forces of hunters, tree-huggers, bird-watchers, fishers, republicans, democrats, and regular folks that care about the destruction of the Great Salt Lake marshes.
> There will be more updates on the upcoming battles in the near future. I hope waterfowlers will not sit around and trust our local legislators to do the right thing. This is big money we're talkin about...and we know by past experience which side our legislators will choose. We will need to be heard.
> R


This has got me more agitated than anything else in a long time. Thanks for keeping us updated R, please let us know what an average joe like me can do to help out.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

rjefre said:


> The Bear River Diversion will definitely NOT go away without the combined forces of hunters, tree-huggers, bird-watchers, fishers, republicans, democrats, and regular folks that care about the destruction of the Great Salt Lake marshes.
> There will be more updates on the upcoming battles in the near future. I hope waterfowlers will not sit around and trust our local legislators to do the right thing. This is big money we're talkin about...and we know by past experience which side our legislators will choose. We will need to be heard.
> R


I couldn't agree more R. I will definitely be watching the next Utah Legislative Session for attempted action on this issue. And please keep us informed on any movement on this issue before the next session of our state congress. Unfortunately, my jackhole Senator (S. Jenkins) will not be on our side on this issue as he has proven time and again to be in the pocket of the lobbyists for big money.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Here is your chance. Go vote. 
A good start would be let's get Rob Bishop out


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

I agree with you. But...Rob Bishop is our federal rep though and the most damage BY FAR is caused by our locally elected representatives. They meet behind closed doors, vote against pretty much anything that would protect our Utah duck hunting areas, and have no fear of not being re-elected. This is a terrible mixture for us. 
The Great Salt Lake marshes are truly under siege...and the enemy is us.
R


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Hoopermat said:


> Here is your chance. Go vote.
> A good start would be let's get Rob Bishop out


Sorry, but Mr Bishop supports other issues that are of high importance to me. I have to vote for him - actually already did. Voting for ANY candidate will most likely be a balancing act of priority issues impacting our own daily lives. For me, Second Amendment stance is a deal breaker for me. Against it and you will NEVER get my vote regardless of other positions. And I agree with R on the water issues in Utah - they are mostly a local fight and the Feds will have little impact one way or the other.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

dubob said:


> Sorry, but Mr Bishop supports other issues that are of high importance to me. I have to vote for him - actually already did. Voting for ANY candidate will most likely be a balancing act of priority issues impacting our own daily lives. For me, Second Amendment stance is a deal breaker for me. Against it and you will NEVER get my vote regardless of other positions. And I agree with R on the water issues in Utah - they are mostly a local fight and the Feds will have little impact one way or the other.


That's an interesting risk assessment, Bob. I just had the same conversation with the RN here at work today. He is an NRA member and a firearms safety instructor for the Boy Scouts. We were talking about the election. I'm pretty sure he didn't vote for Hillary, but he didn't want to disclose that information. I, of course, voted for her. Straight D, I might add. Anyway, when I told him that he said that in five years they'd take my guns away. So, I asked him if he really thought that his right to keep and bear arms would be infringed in the event of a Democratic victory. He mentioned the hoarding that has occurred when Obama was elected. Twice! I narrowed my question, asking if he believed there would be any regulatory changes that would infringe on his 2A rights. He said, "No", and I agree. We had the same fears expressed in 2007, and I called BS at the time. And, lo and behold, I was exactly correct. Under the Obama administration, the Second Amendment has been completely upheld.

In Bob's opinion, the risk of the gubmint comin' to take your guns is high. Indeed, it's so high that he must vote for Bishop. However, as R has said consistently, Bishop always opposes the interests of conservation. Guys, he has demonstrably acted to hurt our interests and *will without doubt continue to do so.*

Risk assessment entails judging both the likelihood of an event and the probable severity of the impacts of said event. In this case, Bob, who lives in the right wing bubble, thinks that Hillary will take his guns, despite the fact that she has said she will uphold the Second Amendment. He has apparently learned nothing over the past 8 years, either, and thinks that Obama would take his guns if he only could. So likely is that to happen that he will vote against the preservation of the GSL ecosystem, and indeed against all outdoorsmen, hunters of big game, upland hunters, waterfowlers and all fishermen in this state.

I have come to exact opposite conclusion. I recognize that the Republicans in this state, as demonstrated by Bishop, represent a clear, present and imminent danger to the GSL and all public lands in Utah. Further, I believe that the threat that Democrats pose to my 2A rights is so miniscule as to be nonexistent. But then, I don't believe in boogie men, don't listen to the Blaze, don't watch Fox, and have critical thinking skills that Bob obviously lacks.

Understand that the Republicans count on the lack of intelligence and critical thinking on this and other issues to ensure their reelection. They know all they have to do is wave the 2A in front of guys like Bob to get their vote. So, it will be business as usual, R. You have Bob and his ilk to thank for it.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Gents, we seem to be getting a little political here, lets watch our steps. Thank you.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Dunkem said:


> Gents, we seem to be getting a little political here, lets watch our steps. Thank you.


So you're going to let Paddler make a bunch of whacko liberal statements about something he has no knowledge of - me and my political views and political voting choices - and then you tell me I can't counter with facts and a rebuttal? His statements are already out there and I can't counter? If the board policy prohibits posting political views, then why didn't you immediately delete Paddlers post? And if political views are not welcome, why was this thread allowed to continue past Post #1? It's purely a political issue in its entirety. Please explain to me why it is permissible for Paddler to dis me on an open thread and I can't offer a rebuttal.-O,-


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

read your own post #11 Bob. you dissed on him and he on you. Call it even and get on to better subjects, and drop the politics please! ( this is for all involved not just Dubob.) Again thanks for all of your understanding.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

I was just musing about critical thinking and risk assessment, Bob. Maybe a bit about innate intelligence, the influence of the media, even how we see the world. How we evaluate recent history with regards to gun rights, conservation and R's original post. Unfortunately, politics plays a major role in the future of our sport. Lord knows I wish it weren't so. Didn't mean to hurt anybody's feelings.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

paddler213 said:


> I was just musing about critical thinking and risk assessment, Bob. Maybe a bit about innate intelligence, the influence of the media, even how we see the world. How we evaluate recent history with regards to gun rights, conservation and R's original post. Unfortunately, politics plays a major role in the future of our sport. Lord knows I wish it weren't so. *Didn't mean to hurt anybody's feelings.*


Yea - right! :mad2:


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

waterfowl88 said:


> Water Lobbyists are pushing to build three dams along the Bear River that will all but destroy the Wetlands many love to hunt on. Check out the video for more information and please join the Bear River Coalition to stop these greedy lobbyists at SavetheBearRiver.org


WF88,

My most humble apologies for side tracking your post. Liberals bring out the worst in me. I will indeed be watching this with keen interest and offering up my input where needed and appropriate. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
:O--O:


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

*My rebutal*

This may get deleted and I might be banned, but it has to be said. Every UWN Member who reads these posts on a regular basis knows that Paddler is 100% Liberal politically. He sometimes pushes my buttons to the point that I feel he needs to be informed about his misguided and false beliefs about what is, and is not happening to this great country of ours. His latest post (see quote below) is just one more example of how he doesn't see the big picture.


paddler213 said:


> That's an interesting risk assessment, Bob. I just had the same conversation with the RN here at work today. He is an NRA member and a firearms safety instructor for the Boy Scouts. We were talking about the election. I'm pretty sure he didn't vote for Hillary, but he didn't want to disclose that information. I, of course, voted for her. Straight D, I might add.
> I'm glad you voted; it should be every citizens duty to do so. I early voted via mail and I did vote for Trump. However, I don't ever vote straight ticket because that can lead to voting for somebody that doesn't have my best interest at heart and will likely have a negative impact on my life.
> Anyway, when I told him that he said that in five years they'd take my guns away. So, I asked him if he really thought that his right to keep and bear arms would be infringed in the event of a Democratic victory. He mentioned the hoarding that has occurred when Obama was elected. Twice! I narrowed my question, asking if he believed there would be any regulatory changes that would infringe on his 2A rights. He said, "No", and I agree. We had the same fears expressed in 2007, and I called BS at the time. And, lo and behold, I was exactly correct. Under the Obama administration, the Second Amendment has been completely upheld.
> Here are the two main reasons WHY nothing changed under Obama. One; there was no shift in the slight Conservative make-up of the US Supreme Court. It was a 5-4 Conservative Court for the entire 8 years. Second; Obama didn't have the needed support in Congress to get anything passed. There are just enough Liberals that think the Second Amendment is an individual right that combine with almost every Conservative in the Congress that have kept any changes from becoming law.
> ...


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

What is that red font Bob? It's pretty cool.

.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> What is that red font Bob? It's pretty cool.
> 
> .


My font selection is (FONT="Comic Sans MS"), (SIZE="3"), (COLOR="DarkRed").


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

dubob said:


> My font selection is (FONT="Comic Sans MS"), (SIZE="3"), (COLOR="DarkRed").


Thanks, not as big as the fonts used in 2012 and 2008 but still cool.

This is my favorite thread.

.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

This is my favorite thread also.

I'm not a card carrying Republican or Democrat. I try to vote for the lesser of two evils.

In our State we keep electing and reelecting Republican representatives. They drain our wetlands, deny us stream access and sell our State trust lands. When they get done with us sportsmen we will have no needs for guns. To me that is back door gun control. 

Go to the voting booth and lets reelect all these same liars that have screwed us over on every environmental, hunting, fishing issue that has been put in front of them. Lets just see how bad the Republicans can rape the environment in our beautiful state or what's left of it.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Hey, my G&H canvasbacks arrived yesterday.

My point is that outdoorsmen should not be motivated by unrealistic fears about gun control. Elect those people whose interests align with our own. As Jerry says, our current representatives have a long history of doing their donors' will to the detriment of our resources. Time for a fresh approach. Do your research and use your vote wisely.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

Well, this thread was originally about the looming threat to the GSL wetlands and to our Waterfowling opportunities that will be negatively impacted. Sadly, these threats are originating from a political base here in Utah. In order to discuss how to protect our duck/goose hunting, we must hold our noses and discuss these threats (hopefully in a civil manner that respects other's views). This is a waterfowl site, and our legislature is destroying our duck hunting areas. *We must have this discussion*...it is of vital importance to our waterfowling heritage here in Utah. 
R


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

rjefre said:


> Well, this thread was originally about the looming threat to the GSL wetlands and to our Waterfowling opportunities that will be negatively impacted. Sadly, these threats are originating from a political base here in Utah. In order to discuss how to protect our duck/goose hunting, we must hold our noses and discuss these threats (hopefully in a civil manner that respects other's views). This is a waterfowl site, and our legislature is destroying our duck hunting areas. *We must have this discussion*...it is of vital importance to our waterfowling heritage here in Utah.
> R


 Agreed. (hopefully in a civil manner that respects other's views). Thanks R.


----------



## Pumpgunner (Jan 12, 2010)

Ever heard of "divide and conquer"? The politicians would love nothing more than to have us fighting among ourselves while they sell our state and our water to the highest bidder. I don't care what letter someone has after their name, or what their personal political beliefs are, as long as they are willing to help fight to protect the lake.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Pumpgunner said:


> Ever heard of "divide and conquer"? The politicians would love nothing more than to have us fighting among ourselves while they sell our state and our water to the highest bidder. I don't care what letter someone has after their name, or what their personal political beliefs are, as long as they are willing to help fight to protect the lake.


I'm not disagreeing with you PG, but as I've said repeatedly on here and elsewhere, you have to prioritize what is absolutely important to you and your families well being and lifestyle. This website is primarily about a recreational pursuit that we all just love. But how important is it to the bigger picture of your complete life and family? For me, it's very high on my list but certainly isn't at the top. Food, shelter, health, and financial security are well ahead of my recreation pursuits with regard to political voting for, and support of, my elected officials at all levels of government. While any given elected official may, or may not, see public land issues and recreational pursuits as I do, he probably does fulfill my other. higher priority issues, such that my overall life is as good as it can be under the current political environment we all live in.

Do I want to give up my hunting and fishing? Hell no I don't. But I could if it meant the other factors important to me would continue in my favor. It is a balancing act and we all must do what is best for ourselves and our family. That doesn't mean that I won't do everything possible to secure better recreational opportunities for myself in the future, but it does mean that I will balance my life choices to secure the best possible overall lifestyle for me and my family.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

dubob said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you PG, but as I've said repeatedly on here and elsewhere, you have to prioritize what is absolutely important to you and your families well being and lifestyle. This website is primarily about a recreational pursuit that we all just love. But how important is it to the bigger picture of your complete life and family? For me, it's very high on my list but certainly isn't at the top. Food, shelter, health, and financial security are well ahead of my recreation pursuits with regard to political voting for, and support of, my elected officials at all levels of government. While any given elected official may, or may not, see public land issues and recreational pursuits as I do, he probably does fulfill my other. higher priority issues, such that my overall life is as good as it can be under the current political environment we all live in.
> 
> Do I want to give up my hunting and fishing? Hell no I don't. But I could if it meant the other factors important to me would continue in my favor. It is a balancing act and we all must do what is best for ourselves and our family. *That doesn't mean that I won't do everything possible to secure better recreational opportunities for myself in the future*, but it does mean that I will balance my life choices to secure the best possible overall lifestyle for me and my family.


Very well. It's clear from your previous posts that you voted for Bishop, and thus against our best interests as hunters and fishermen. Here we have only talked about conservation of the GSL, public land policy, etc. You have, as you say, higher priorities. Which means there are policy issues higher on your list than management of the GSL and other public lands. Could you please specify exactly which policies Bishop stands for that are so important to you? Because you're voting against not only your present and future hunting opportunities, but mine as well, and indeed every outdoorsman in Utah. Voting for Bishop actually invalidates the bolded statement you made above. Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

paddler213 said:


> Very well. It's clear from your previous posts that you voted for Bishop, and thus against our best interests as hunters and fishermen. Here we have only talked about conservation of the GSL, public land policy, etc. You have, as you say, higher priorities. Which means there are policy issues higher on your list than management of the GSL and other public lands. Could you please specify exactly which policies Bishop stands for that are so important to you? Because you're voting against not only your present and future hunting opportunities, but mine as well, and indeed every outdoorsman in Utah. Voting for Bishop actually invalidates the bolded statement you made above. Inquiring minds want to know.


You, and any discussion with you, ain't worth the whiskey.


> "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
> 
> ― George Carlin


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

dubob said:


> You, and any discussion with you, ain't worth the whiskey.


Which is shorthand for not having any rational reason for voting against conservation. I'm sure you realize that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

I'm not quite sure how to fill in the blank... but I tend to wonder when Paddler is messing with us and when he's serious.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Strange world we live in, where being liberal is being in favor of conservation, and being conservative means being in favor of exploitation of our natural resources. Conservatives want to drill, baby, drill, and liberals want to preserve our nation for future generations. Weird, eh?


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

paddler213 said:


> Which is shorthand for not having any rational reason for voting against conservation. I'm sure you realize that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.


----------



## Clarq (Jul 21, 2011)

paddler213 said:


> Strange world we live in, where being liberal is being in favor of conservation, and being conservative means being in favor of exploitation of our natural resources. Conservatives want to drill, baby, drill, and liberals want to preserve our nation for future generations. Weird, eh?


False dichotomy.

There are fiscal liberals/conservatives. Social liberals/conservatives. Environmental liberals/conservatives. etc. etc. etc. The problem comes when parties draw arbitrary lines on issues and we're forced to choose between two that both conflict with major values of most sportsmen. Most sportsmen seem to fall along the lines of socially conservative-moderate, fiscally conservative-moderate, and environmentally moderate-liberal. Where's the good option for those people?

The solution is simple: study each candidate on your ballot carefully, and vote accordingly. Creating broad generalizations and dividing lines between D and R, incumbent or not, etc. does nothing but oversimplify a complicated matter.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Dunkem said:


> It did not show up Bob, here it is for you. Your welcome


Thanks - Yea, I figured it out by using Photobucket.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

dubob said:


> Thanks - Yea, I figured it out by using Photobucket.


 Then I will delete my post as you have it under control.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Clarq said:


> False dichotomy.
> 
> There are fiscal liberals/conservatives. Social liberals/conservatives. Environmental liberals/conservatives. etc. etc. etc. The problem comes when parties draw arbitrary lines on issues and we're forced to choose between two that both conflict with major values of most sportsmen. Most sportsmen seem to fall along the lines of socially conservative-moderate, fiscally conservative-moderate, and environmentally moderate-liberal. Where's the good option for those people?
> 
> The solution is simple: study each candidate on your ballot carefully, and vote accordingly. Creating broad generalizations and dividing lines between D and R, incumbent or not, etc. does nothing but oversimplify a complicated matter.


Perhaps. I was speaking about socially liberal people being, on the whole, environmental conservationists. Social conservatives, OTOH, are often in favor of environmental exploitation. Folks like Palin, who advocate drilling in the ANWR, want the government to curtail a woman's right to make her own reproductive decisions. Socially conservative, environmental rapist. Republicans today own social conservatism and environmental exploitation.

How one votes depends on how your values line up with the views of the candidates. Interesting how Bob says he will do everything in his power for conservation. Except, of course, to vote for candidates who want to preserve the environment and therefore protect his hunting future. And, at the end of the day, how you vote is what really matters.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

paddler213 said:


> Interesting how Bob says he will do everything in his power for conservation. Except, of course, to vote for candidates who want to preserve the environment and therefore protect his hunting future. And, at the end of the day, how you vote is what really matters.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

dubob said:


>


I see we have as much chance of getting a cogent answer to my question out of you as we do of seeing Trump's tax filings. If you can't explain it, just say so.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

paddler213 said:


> I see we have as much chance of getting a cogent answer to my question out of you as we do of seeing Trump's tax filings. If you can't explain it, just say so.





> "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
> 
> ― George Carlin


:tape:


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Let's put the pppm (personal political pissing match) to rest. 
Go vote tomorrow. 
Goodnight all.


----------

