# Things in the recently passed Infrastructure Bill that is good for wildlife/wild places/hunters



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Bipartisan Infrastructure Package Secures Major Conservation Investments | Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership


Representatives make the most of this opportunity to fund wildlife crossings, public land access, and natural infrastructure solutions that benefit habitat and American communities.




www.trcp.org






$350 million for a first-of-its-kind grant program to *construct wildlife-friendly roadway crossings* and reconnect fragmented migration corridors.
$250 million for the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program to *improve access to Forest Service public lands and safeguard fish and wildlife habitat* from harmful runoff and pollutants caused by roads in disrepair.
Reauthorization of the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, which pays for *fisheries conservation, access improvements, and education for anglers and boaters*.
$1.4 billion for *natural infrastructure solutions* through the Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving Transportation (PROTECT) Grant Program.
$14.65 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program, which supports *estuary restoration and stormwater management projects*.
$400 million for WaterSMART grants, with $100 million set aside for natural infrastructure solutions that *enhance resilience to drought and wildfires, facilitate water conservation, create new habitat, and improve water quality*.
Significant investments in programs aimed at enhancing the resiliency of Western watersheds to climate change and drought, including $300 million to *implement the Colorado River Drought Contingency Plans*, $3.2 billion to *modernize aging agricultural infrastructure* and generate benefits for fish and wildlife, and $50 million to *support ongoing Endangered Species recovery* efforts that sustain habitat for native fish.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

We pay for this how ??


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

It’s about darn time the Dems finally got off their worthless (insert whatever term you’d like here) and got their crap together enough to act on this! The senate only put it on their plates 3 months ago.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

2full said:


> We pay for this how ??


The same way we pay for endless wars, military spending, etc. With debt. The cat is out of the bag and I'd far rather spend the money that's going to get spent anyway on our infrastructure which is in desperate need of repair in a lot of places, along with good things like are listed above. How do we pay for any of it? The money always seems to be endless for a variety of things, at least this is long term beneficial. The infrastructure bill is a decent bill, the other $3 or 4 trillion monstrosity is what should not be passed unless it is trimmed to nearly nothing. Our country is going to spend money. Having giant mountains of debt isn't a good thing, but I can support a lot of what's in the infrastructure bill and there's billions in it to help wildlife and benefit hunters. Not to mention Utahn's who don't have running water, electricity, and internet available to them.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

2full said:


> We pay for this how ??


Taxes and debt.

In before the lock.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

wyogoob said:


> Taxes and debt.
> 
> In before the lock.


Too true. But I'm sure we are about to be educated by certain posters why this is god's gift.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

In to give a couple quick likes and say its about time. This spending is something the country actually needs.

Oh, and IBTL. Carry on.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

In


Catherder said:


> In to give a couple quick likes and say its about time. This spending is something the country actually needs.
> 
> Oh, and IBTL. Carry on.


Not me.. 
ILBT......


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

2full said:


> We pay for this how ??


Money printer go brrrrr.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> It’s about darn time the Dems finally got off their worthless (insert whatever term you’d like here) and got their crap together enough to act on this! The senate only put it on their plates 3 months ago.


And it required bipartisan support from 13 Republicans to do so. 

Some of those programs look great, #1Deer


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

backcountry said:


> And it required bipartisan support from 13 Republicans to do so.
> 
> Some of those programs look great, #1Deer


It might of taken those 13 R's but it was the AOC's of the house that were holding it up.

I wonder just what did Pelosi promise them that is going to burn us?

IBTL

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Critter said:


> It might of taken those 13 R's but it was the AOC's of the house that were holding it up.
> 
> I wonder just what did Pelosi promise them that is going to burn us?
> 
> ...


AOC and the very progressive members of the Democratic Party voted against it. She didn’t get their vote. I think they finally came to a point they felt like they needed to actually do something. Election results a week ago was a good pressure to actually do something.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

backcountry said:


> And it required bipartisan support from 13 Republicans to do so.
> 
> Some of those programs look great, #1Deer


It’s good it had bi-partisan support. This bill is fine, and now that Republicans helped get it across the finish line it will likely stop the other albatross.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

I really hope it does stop the other joke of a bill !!


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Still no lock? Lets go, Brandon!


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

2full said:


> I really hope it does stop the other joke of a bill !!


There’s some good in that bill, but far too much waste and nonsense attached to that one, the infrastructure bill is a much more needed and cleaner bill. Manchin and Sinema have no reason to cave at this point, I don’t expect any movement on that one unless it is extremely trimmed down.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Still no lock? Lets go, Brandon!


Eye roll


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Doesn't look like Utah has any wildlife crossing projects from the bill but many western states do.


----------



## TheOtherJeff (Oct 7, 2021)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> AOC and the very progressive members of the Democratic Party voted against it. She didn’t get their vote. I think they finally came to a point they felt like they needed to actually do something. Election results a week ago was a good pressure to actually do something.


As straightforward a first-year-in-office story as it gets, typical of either party when they take over the White House or Congress. The wings get very ambitious until an off-year election shows them what that ambition will cost them.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> I'd far rather spend the money that's going to get spent anyway on our infrastructure which is in desperate need of repair in a lot of places, along with good things like are listed above. How do we pay for any of it? The money always seems to be endless for a variety of things, at least this is long term beneficial.


I'd rather the gov't learn to live within its means...


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

2full said:


> We pay for this how ??


If people would take a little while and actually read the bill...of course you don't need to read it page for page, but if you would read the parts of the bill you have an interest in, then maybe more people would start to get an understanding of how this great country actually works, Maybe we would stop just regurgitating whatever our farorite news source and whack job "pundit" says the bill says then maybe "we the people" could come together and stop this insidious name calling and the associated HATE!
Oh, and by the way, there is, as in every spending bill passed by congress a GAO explanation of HOW THE **** THING IS GOING TO BE PAID FOR AND EXPECTED EFFECTS TO OUR COUNTRY!

Here is the bill...go read it yourself and then get back to me.





__





Loading…






www.govinfo.gov


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

BPturkeys said:


> If people would take a little while and actually read the bill...of course you don't need to read it page for page, but if you would read the parts of the bill you have an interest in, then maybe more people would start to get an understanding of how this great country actually works, Maybe we would stop just regurgitating whatever our farorite news source and whack job "pundit" says the bill says then maybe "we the people" could come together and stop this insidious name calling and the associated HATE!
> Oh, and by the way, there is, as in every spending bill passed by congress a GAO explanation of HOW THE **** THING IS GOING TO BE PAID FOR AND EXPECTED EFFECTS TO OUR COUNTRY!
> 
> Here is the bill...go read it yourself and then get back to me.
> ...


Sir, this is a Wendy's.


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

BPturkeys said:


> If people would take a little while and actually read the bill...of course you don't need to read it page for page, but if you would read the parts of the bill you have an interest in, then maybe more people would start to get an understanding of how this great country actually works, Maybe we would stop just regurgitating whatever our farorite news source and whack job "pundit" says the bill says then maybe "we the people" could come together and stop this insidious name calling and the associated HATE!
> Oh, and by the way, there is, as in every spending bill passed by congress a GAO explanation of HOW THE **** THING IS GOING TO BE PAID FOR AND EXPECTED EFFECTS TO OUR COUNTRY!
> 
> Here is the bill...go read it yourself and then get back to me.
> ...


Who did I hate ??
Who did I call names ??


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Sir, this is a Wendy's.


A "Wendy's" ...What in the world does that even mean? I don't know if I am supposed to be offended of puffed, but I kind of get the feeling it's kind of related to that hate business I referred to. Oh, and 2full, sorry, didn't mean for it to be personal, just replying someplace early in the post. Fair question but a bit rhetorical.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

BPturkeys said:


> A "Wendy's" ...What in the world does that even mean? I don't know if I am supposed to be offended of puffed, but I kind of get the feeling it's kind of related to that hate business I referred to.


I get the feeling you want it to be. Don't read too much into it. The internet is not that serious, Broseph.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

BPturkeys said:


> If people would take a little while and actually read the bill...of course you don't need to read it page for page, but if you would read the parts of the bill you have an interest in, then maybe more people would start to get an understanding of how this great country actually works, Maybe we would stop just regurgitating whatever our farorite news source and whack job "pundit" says the bill says then maybe "we the people" could come together and stop this insidious name calling and the associated HATE!
> Oh, and by the way, there is, as in every spending bill passed by congress a GAO explanation of HOW THE **** THING IS GOING TO BE PAID FOR AND EXPECTED EFFECTS TO OUR COUNTRY!
> 
> Here is the bill...go read it yourself and then get back to me.
> ...


What a person really needs to do is to read the information or parts of the bill that they are not interested in to see how it works. 

Just about every bill passed, and I don't care if is sponsored by a D, R, or a I there is more pork in that bill that what is going to benefit the American people. And from what I have been hearing without reading it this bill is the status quo..


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

backcountry said:


> Doesn't look like Utah has any wildlife crossing projects from the bill but many western states do.


Probably has something to do with none in any planning stage. Apparently UDOT has other priorities.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Critter said:


> What a person really needs to do is to read the information or parts of the bill that they are not interested in to see how it works.
> 
> Just about every bill passed, and I don't care if is sponsored by a D, R, or a I there is more pork in that bill that what is going to benefit the American people. And from what I have been hearing without reading it this bill is the status quo..


amen to that brother. But remember, one man's "pork" is another man's "filet mignon"

One part of the bill that caught my eye was the part of the bill explaining "cool roads" under the "Healthy Streets Program"(sec. 11406). Their nature and the funding of their construction. Oh, the grants that are up for grabs with that one.😄


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

One of the biggest things that gets me is the amount of money going to the installation of electric charging stations for electric vehicles. Quite possibly 80% of which will go to the east coast states. And don't even get me started on the money going to Amtrak which quite possibly will never be spend west of the Alleghenies. 

I wonder just who subsidized the fuel station owners back in the early 1900's when gas vehicles became available to the common public. Oh yea, it was the petroleum companies and not the government.


----------



## Ray (May 10, 2018)

#LetsGoBrandon


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Still no lock? Lets go, Brandon!


I'm kinda busy. Finish up all yer political bull**** and then I'll lock this thing up.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

I can't believe there's a bill out there that supports wildlife issues and some of you people have to make an "us vs them", a "D vs R" thing, out of it. 

Never mind, I can believe it. Good grief.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Critter said:


> One of the biggest things that gets me is the amount of money going to the installation of electric charging stations for electric vehicles. Quite possibly 80% of which will go to the east coast states. And don't even get me started on the money going to Amtrak which quite possibly will never be spend west of the Alleghenies.
> 
> I wonder just who subsidized the fuel station owners back in the early 1900's when gas vehicles became available to the common public. Oh yea, it was the petroleum companies and not the government.


The E-stations are not something that should publicly funded. The inherent problem with that is gov't controlling commerce the way private enterprise is supposed to.

That's the issue with everything being tied to the grid, from transportation to home heating.

Not good...


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

middlefork said:


> Probably has something to do with none in any planning stage. Apparently UDOT has other priorities.


Good point. And actually the list I attached satisfy your point. They aren't guaranteed projects under the bill but are just ones in the pipeline that could be funded by the new law. As aI understand it, earmarks/pork were banned a decade ago so it's harder to designate state specific projects like these in the language of the bill itself.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

To be fair, the benefits to wildlife in this bill- while great- are a very small portion of the bill.

That said, if there is a topic that we all SHOULD be able to agree upon pretty easily it is infrastructure. I mean, if the government isn’t supposed to pay for infrastructure, what in the H-E-double hockey sticks should it be paying for then?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

We could actually pay for both bills by reversing the Trump tax cuts, which mostly benefitted the rich, and funding the IRS so they could actually force tax evaders and cheats to follow the rules and pay what they owe. 

Just wait until the fight over raising the debt ceiling starts. Republicans have already said the Democrats will have to do it by themselves, even though it's their debt, having increased it by $8 trillion during Trump's four years. So, why should it be the sole responsibility of the Democrats to avert the consequences of defaulting?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

paddler said:


> Republicans have already said the Democrats will have to do it by themselves, even though it's their debt...


Yep, debt has only increased under republican control. Yep...nothing to see here! Like I said, worthless.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Putting the mod hat on here....

If you want to talk about this bill and what it is going to do or not do that is fine. 

However it is on a very thin line of weather it will be locked or not.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> To be fair, the benefits to wildlife in this bill- while great- are a very small portion of the bill.
> 
> That said, if there is a topic that we all SHOULD be able to agree upon pretty easily it is infrastructure. I mean, if the government isn’t supposed to pay for infrastructure, what in the H-E-double hockey sticks should it be paying for then?


As long as it sticks to legitimate infrastructure items, sure. It's when the other stuff gets tossed in you get bologna...


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

There is a justified line of political thinking that earmarks and pork barrel items fostered bipartisan bills more easily. The ban a decade ago definitely correlates with a decrease in such legislation.

But reasonable people can also disagree that the supposed benefit is outweighed by the waste. I for one am happy we finally did something after years of endless "infrastructure week" talk.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> As long as it sticks to legitimate infrastructure items, sure. It's when the other stuff gets tossed in you get bologna...


Agreed 100%! And I don't expect any piece of legislation to ever have universal support for every provision. No matter how good it is. I'm just saying all those budget hawks (where were they two years ago????) saying "how are we going to pay for it" across the country...infrastructure is EXACTLY what the government is supposed to pay for with tax dollars. More so than any other area, in my opinion. 

Also, it's hilarious to me that one side wants all the power, but complains that they have to take accountability for what happens when they exercise that power. What a joke.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> I'd rather the gov't learn to live within its means...


This isn't a realistic goal is the problem.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> This isn't a realistic goal is the problem.


Only because it's a choice. That's the real problem...


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Vanilla said:


> To be fair, the benefits to wildlife in this bill- while great- are a very small portion of the bill.
> 
> ...............................................................


Ya think? But no matter how small they are in the bill, affect us all and are worth talking about.

Although this reminds me of when the UWN was a political forum disguised as an outdoor forum. A few select members would post these "wildlife issue" things in order to bait other members into bitchin and moanin about the other side, especially if their guy, or gal, didn't win.

It's called trolling. And it's easy to bait a lot members, even Moderators, here. Please keep this thread wildlife related. Thanks


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

What is the timeline for the listed projects? Normally such funds have an expiration date of some sort.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

So, it appears that most here think passing the bill is in the best interest of wildlife and Utah's sportsmen, right? So, I find myself confused. The bill passed the House with all but six Democrats voting yea, while only 13 Republicans did so. All four of Utah's representatives voted Nay. In the Senate, DB Lee voted Nay, while Romney voted Yea. Seems like we should remove those other five from office, right? I mean, shouldn't our representatives actually represent our interests? Weird to retain Stewart, Curtis, Moore, Owens and Lee, right?

Let's see how many of those Nay voters try to take credit for the bill. It has happened before.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

Mods in this thread must feel like


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

wyogoob said:


> Taxes and debt.
> 
> In before the lock.





Critter said:


> It might of taken those 13 R's but it was the AOC's of the house that were holding it up.
> 
> I wonder just what did Pelosi promise them that is going to burn us?
> 
> ...





colorcountrygunner said:


> Mods in this thread must feel like
> View attachment 150265


Yeah, especially when the Mods turn the mice loose...


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> Yeah, especially when the Mods turn the mice loose...


I'm the white fluffy cat.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out the fact that all but one of our Congressional delegation voted against the bill. Kind of the elephant in the room. Clearly that fact must be taken into account in future elections by those who value wildlife and the opportunity to pursue it in their leisure time. Can one truly claim to support wildlife and public lands, yet support elected officials who vote against those interests at every opportunity? 

It's not political to hold people accountable, or give credit where due. I'll be watching to see if any of those five try to take credit for bringing that money home.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

paddler said:


> I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out the fact that all but one of our Congressional delegation voted against the bill. Kind of the elephant in the room. Clearly that fact must be taken into account in future elections by those who value wildlife and the opportunity to pursue it in their leisure time. Can one truly claim to support wildlife and public lands, yet support elected officials who vote against those interests at every opportunity?
> 
> It's not political to hold people accountable, or give credit where due. I'll be watching to see if any of those five try to take credit for bringing that money home.


There's plenty of us here that hear you loud and clear on that front.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

colorcountrygunner said:


> There's plenty of us here that hear you loud and clear on that front.


I'm sure. More than a few ostriches, too. Or cognitive dissonance, or other excuses. The beat goes on...

Just to clarify my posts above, a total of 19 Senate Republicans voted Yea on the bill. Not our own Senator Lee, of course. He needs to go.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

Perhaps more palatable candidates would help?









Utah U.S. Senate Results: Mike Lee Wins


Utah election results from the 2016 general election.




www.nytimes.com


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

middlefork said:


> Perhaps more palatable candidates would help?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Honestly, I don't believe any Democrat would have had a chance. It's the Utah way. Lee has an R behind his name, it doesn't matter that he's a national embarrassment.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)




----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

paddler said:


> Honestly, I don't believe any Democrat would have had a chance. It's the Utah way.


God bless Utah!


*Only mostly kidding on that one...


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

All this right vs left stuff and we're all gonna have our @sses handed to us by climate change before long anyway. By then it won't matter which sky wizard you believe in or which bathroom a tranny is allowed to take a dump in. C'est la vie. It was nice sharing this blue marble with you guys.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

backcountry said:


> What is the timeline for the listed projects? Normally such funds have an expiration date of some sort.


Looks like 5 years?








Here's what the $1.2T infrastructure bill will look like in the West


The bill is being touted as a multipronged approach to tackling issues specific to the region, like drought, wildfires and public lands management.




www.ksl.com


----------



## T-dubs-42 (Sep 8, 2015)

The wildfire management portion of the bill has some very important provisions as well. Glad to see the pay raise for wildland firefighters but they still deserve more.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

middlefork said:


> Perhaps more palatable candidates would help?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, Evan McMullin and Becky Edwards are both viable choices at this point. Much more moderate than Lee, and much more persuadable on public land issues. Mike Lee isn't open to listening on these issues, and it's time to get rid of him. You now have your viable and palatable candidates on the ballot. But can some vote against Mike Lee in the interest of a change and an indictment on what he has represented? We shall see. Admittedly McMullin's stance on public lands in 2016 isn't good, but I've seen a far more openness to listen to voters than Mike Lee who has become nothing but a partisan political insider comfy with ignoring his constituency on a lot of things because he feels safe.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

T-dubs-42 said:


> The wildfire management portion of the bill has some very important provisions as well. Glad to see the pay raise for wildland firefighters but they still deserve more.


There is road fixes, wildfire fixes, internet, running water, electricity improvements for the state. The infrastructure bill is a fine bill and helps fund some necessary issues. Keep in mind one of our Senators worked on this bill to include those wildfire fixes and obtain funding, while Mike Lee just continues to complain and be totally partisan. I don't care who gets things done, but do them. Anyone who cares which party passes beneficial legislation, is more interested in politics than benefitting our communities and state and wildlife and wild places.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

T-dubs-42 said:


> The wildfire management portion of the bill has some very important provisions as well. Glad to see the pay raise for wildland firefighters but they still deserve more.


True that!
On the other hand I wonder how much of $500 million is going to go to lawyers?

An additional $500 million will be allocated for mechanical thinning projects that, similar to prescribed burns, intend to promote fire-resilient stands. It's a controversial approach to fire mitigation that environmental groups say is an excuse to increase logging. The bill states the thinning will be done "in an ecologically appropriate manner that maximizes the retention of large trees, as appropriate for the forest type."


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Well, Evan McMullin and Becky Edwards are both viable choices at this point. Much more moderate than Lee, and much more persuadable on public land issues. . We shall see.


I wish I could have happy thoughts like this. Unfortunately I don't.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

middlefork said:


> I wish I could have happy thoughts like this. Unfortunately I don't.


Lee has been nothing but a thorn in the side of public lands his entire political career. I understand no candidate is perfect, but aside from not being a raging fan of the one guy, McMullin's policy stances are relatively close to Lee, but McMullin has shown a far better faith effort to work with others and embrace a more middle approach. I think if some can't find it in them to punish Mike Lee for his anti-public land stances with those two as choices on the ballot, and the fact they are very much centrist, I think secretly people just really like Lee no matter how opposed to public lands and wild places he is. People say they want people in politics who try to not serve a party but serve people. There is a reasonable, and high profile Independent on the ballot next November and I hope voters will seriously consider him.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Lee has been nothing but a thorn in the side of public lands his entire political career. I understand no candidate is perfect, but aside from not being a raging fan of the one guy, McMullin's policy stances are relatively close to Lee, but McMullin has shown a far better faith effort to work with others and embrace a more middle approach. I think if some can't find it in them to punish Mike Lee for his anti-public land stances with those two as choices on the ballot, and the fact they are very much centrist, I think secretly people just really like Lee no matter how opposed to public lands and wild places he is.


Are we campaigning against Mike Lee, or are we discussing how the spending bill benefits wildlife, public places, and haunters?


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

colorcountrygunner said:


> All this right vs left stuff and we're all gonna have our @sses handed to us by climate change before long anyway. By then it won't matter which sky wizard you believe in or which bathroom a tranny is allowed to take a dump in. C'est la vie. It was nice sharing this blue marble with you guys.


So, you're saying we should look at actual policies instead of party? That we should we follow the science? Elect people who believe that anthropogenic climate change is a real thing and promise to actually do something about it? I'm cool with that. Maybe, given the extreme polarization we see today, parties should be eliminated. Maybe have a training program for those seeking to run for office, maybe have a credentialing program. If you can't pass a testing proving you're qualified for office you can't run? Maybe something more difficult than person, man, woman...


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> Are we campaigning against Mike Lee, or are we discussing how the spending bill benefits wildlife, public places, and *haunters*?


Campaigning against Lee is actually campaigning for public lands. Not sure what ghosts have to do with anything.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Come on folks, back on subject on the pros and cons of the bill.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> Are we campaigning against Mike Lee, or are we discussing how the spending bill benefits wildlife, public places, and haunters?


The bill Mike Lee voted against? And yes, I’ll always be anti-Mike Lee because he is anti-everything I enjoy and has never once supported any form of legislation beneficial to public lands or fixing the problem he complains about. Here is yet another example.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> The bill Mike Lee voted against? And yes, I’ll always be anti-Mike Lee because he is anti-everything I enjoy and has never once supported any form of legislation beneficial to public lands or fixing the problem he complains about. Here is yet another example.


Mike Lee's vote has nothing to do with the contributing benefits it has to wildlife, hiking, and hunting...


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

If you want to talk politics you need to find a different forum. 

This is your last warning. 

Either talk about the benefits of the bill that was passed and is yet to be signed or the cons of it. 

If you want to go elsewhere I'll lock it down.


----------

