Tndeer Logo

Page 3 of 3 <123
Topic Options
#3052479 - 11/27/12 09:39 PM Re: Senate Republicans vote against Sportsmen's Bill [Re: preds1]
Super8
8 Point


Registered: 07/15/12
Posts: 1452
Loc: USofA

Offline
 Originally Posted By: preds1
Not too sure I'm up to borrowing even more money to build target ranges, reefs, etc. just to have our kids pay for it later on.
Sure I love hunting/fishing, but there's bigger issues to be concerned with today than something "I" want. That's what got us in this mess.

IMO - everything needs to be cut, across the board, whether I like/dislike any particular bill and who the sponsor is.
Senate should pass a budget first. ;\)



Exactly........This Sportman's Bill was full of PORK and once again a good idea for a bill but it was highjacked with wasteful spending. It would be like selling your soul to the Devil for a pocket full of cash. Guess they will play this game until the end of time. Its sad!
_________________________
You could save more innocent lives by taking pens away from politicians than by taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.

Top
#3052506 - 11/27/12 09:55 PM Re: Senate Republicans vote against Sportsmen's Bill [Re: Super8]
Big J
16 Point


Registered: 03/10/06
Posts: 11990
Loc: Joelton

Offline
Use of Funds- Of the amounts made available under subsection (a) for each fiscal year, not less than 75 percent shall be expended for projects carried out at a location outside of the United States.’.


Thats enough for me to say go screw yourself!!!!! Dont wrap a turd up in pretty paper and call it chocolate!!!
_________________________
Love God, Love people, Live Gospel!!

Top
#3052516 - 11/27/12 10:03 PM Re: Senate Republicans vote against Sportsmen's Bill [Re: Big J]
Big J
16 Point


Registered: 03/10/06
Posts: 11990
Loc: Joelton

Offline
Hey I have an idea!! Instead of implementing this group of bullcrapers!! Send this money to the state wildlife agencies and let them use it to do what needs to be done instead of putting together a board of idiots to report it to someone that has no idea what the heck they are being told!!!!!!!

SEC. 205. NATIONAL FISH HABITAT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP OFFICE.
(a) Establishment- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall establish an office, to be known as the ‘National Fish Habitat Conservation Partnership Office’, within the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

(b) Functions- The National Fish Habitat Conservation Partnership Office shall--

(1) provide funding for the operational needs of the Partnerships, including funding for activities such as planning, project development and implementation, coordination, monitoring, evaluation, communication, and outreach;

(2) provide funding to support the detail of State and tribal fish and wildlife staff to the Office;

(3) facilitate the cooperative development and approval of Partnerships;

(4) assist the Secretary and the Board in carrying out this subtitle;

(5) assist the Secretary in carrying out the requirements of sections 206 and 208;

(6) facilitate communication, cohesiveness, and efficient operations for the benefit of Partnerships and the Board;

(7) facilitate, with assistance from the Director, the Assistant Administrator, and the President of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the consideration of fish habitat conservation projects by the Board;

(8) provide support to the Director regarding the development and implementation of the interagency operational plan under subsection (c);

(9) coordinate technical and scientific reporting as required by section 209;

(10) facilitate the efficient use of resources and activities of Federal departments and agencies to carry out this subtitle in an efficient manner; and

(11) provide support to the Board for national communication and outreach efforts that promote public awareness of fish habitat conservation.

(c) Interagency Operational Plan- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the Director, in cooperation with the Assistant Administrator and the heads of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies, shall develop an interagency operational plan for the National Fish Habitat Conservation Partnership Office that describes--

(1) the functional, operational, technical, scientific, and general staff, administrative, and material needs of the Office; and

(2) any interagency agreements between or among Federal departments and agencies to address those needs.

(d) Staff and Support-

(1) DEPARTMENTS OF INTERIOR AND COMMERCE- The Director and the Assistant Administrator shall each provide appropriate staff to support the National Fish Habitat Conservation Partnership Office, subject to the availability of funds under section 213.

(2) STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES- Each State and Indian tribe is encouraged to provide staff to support the National Fish Habitat Conservation Partnership Office.

(3) DETAILEES AND CONTRACTORS- The National Fish Habitat Conservation Partnership Office may accept staff or other administrative support from other entities--

(A) through interagency details; or

(B) as contractors.

(4) QUALIFICATIONS- The staff of the National Fish Habitat Conservation Partnership Office shall include members with education and experience relating to the principles of fish, wildlife, and aquatic habitat conservation.

(5) WAIVER OF REQUIREMENT- The Secretary may waive all or part of the non-Federal contribution requirement under section 204(e)(1) if the Secretary determines that--

(A) no reasonable means are available through which the affected applicant can meet the requirement; and

(B) the probable benefit of the relevant fish habitat conservation project outweighs the public interest in meeting the requirement.

(e) Reports- Not less frequently than once each year, the Director shall provide to the Board a report describing the activities of the National Fish Habitat Conservation Partnership Office.
_________________________
Love God, Love people, Live Gospel!!

Top
#3052608 - 11/27/12 11:37 PM Re: Senate Republicans vote against Sportsmen's Bill [Re: Jugfish]
stik
"Popcorn"
18 Point


Registered: 03/12/99
Posts: 20915
Loc: lenoir city,tn

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Jugfish


I suggest fishboy and stik do a little more research.


i stand by my original opinion. read the bill.
_________________________
experienced hunters know its not just a bushy white tail, its a big middle finger.

nothing makes a fish bigger than almost being caught


Top
#3053198 - 11/28/12 10:44 AM Re: Senate Republicans vote against Sportsmen's Bill [Re: BMan]
Jugfish
4 Point


Registered: 01/17/11
Posts: 243
Loc: Corbin, KY

Offline
Wildcat's statement was to have a bill that supports American Sportsmen.

Section 245 reauthorizes, including expenditure of funds, supporting African and Asian species and mandates the money be spent outside the U.S.

So, please explain how reauthorizing anything for African and Asian species and spending money on them outside the U.S. supports American Sportsmen.
[/quote]

I think I understand now what you are upset about. I'll try to explain. The money that would go to overseas projects to do things like conserve apes or lions would come from the sale of 'stamps' much like duck stamps. This program already exists now and is completely voluntary. If somebody wants to contribute to an effort to conserve African wildlife, they can purchase one of these stamps, and this bill says that at least 75% of that money has to be spent on the issue in Africa. It can't be spent on offices in DC. The money is not appropriated. It comes from the sale of stamps which are bought volunatrily for the intended purpose, just like duck stamps.

This bill would have created the ability to buy duck stamps on line as opposed to going to the post office.

This was a good bill, and the Rs will hurt from this for a while. Also, programs that support hunting, fishing, etc will hurt.

This bill would also have prevented EPA from regulating lead in fishing lures and bullets.

Top
#3053237 - 11/28/12 11:14 AM Re: Senate Republicans vote against Sportsmen's Bill [Re: Jugfish]
Wildcat
Non-Typical


Registered: 06/10/00
Posts: 42090
Loc: Western Ky.

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Jugfish
Wildcat's statement was to have a bill that supports American Sportsmen.

Section 245 reauthorizes, including expenditure of funds, supporting African and Asian species and mandates the money be spent outside the U.S.

So, please explain how reauthorizing anything for African and Asian species and spending money on them outside the U.S. supports American Sportsmen.


I think I understand now what you are upset about. I'll try to explain. The money that would go to overseas projects to do things like conserve apes or lions would come from the sale of 'stamps' much like duck stamps. This program already exists now and is completely voluntary. If somebody wants to contribute to an effort to conserve African wildlife, they can purchase one of these stamps, and this bill says that at least 75% of that money has to be spent on the issue in Africa. It can't be spent on offices in DC. The money is not appropriated. It comes from the sale of stamps which are bought volunatrily for the intended purpose, just like duck stamps.

This bill would have created the ability to buy duck stamps on line as opposed to going to the post office.

This was a good bill, and the Rs will hurt from this for a while. Also, programs that support hunting, fishing, etc will hurt.

This bill would also have prevented EPA from regulating lead in fishing lures and bullets. [/quote]







And THAT'S all the 200+ page bill would do??????


That bill was nothing but a show designed to fool some people. They put in a "little sweet stuff" (see above) in there and "named" it the Sportsmans Bill" also desinged to fool the same people.

So far I've seen less than 6 things that would have helped AMERICAN SPORTSMEN in that 200+ page bill.

Now what's in the rest of that bill??? Ever ALL Of our posts on this subject will NEVER reach 200+ pages so what all is in there???

Like I said, they put in a few "sweet things" in and add a nice name to the bill and they've fooled some people
_________________________
Obama, “the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid." Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley.




Top
#3053285 - 11/28/12 12:03 PM Re: Senate Republicans vote against Sportsmen's Bill [Re: Wildcat]
Jugfish
4 Point


Registered: 01/17/11
Posts: 243
Loc: Corbin, KY

Offline
Just about like I told you in KY, OK,whatever. Nevermind.
Top
#3053571 - 11/28/12 03:23 PM Re: Senate Republicans vote against Sportsmen's Bill [Re: Jugfish]
BMan
16 Point


Registered: 02/06/06
Posts: 10503
Loc: Middle TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Jugfish
I think I understand now what you are upset about. I'll try to explain. The money that would go to overseas projects to do things like conserve apes or lions would come from the sale of 'stamps' much like duck stamps. This program already exists now and is completely voluntary. If somebody wants to contribute to an effort to conserve African wildlife, they can purchase one of these stamps, and this bill says that at least 75% of that money has to be spent on the issue in Africa. It can't be spent on offices in DC. The money is not appropriated. It comes from the sale of stamps which are bought volunatrily for the intended purpose, just like duck stamps.


Sections 244 and 245 deal with completely different acts, so your combining them into one doesn't wash. Sorry.

Even if they were for the same acts, how exactly does that help American Sportsmen? That's right - it doesn't, not one bit.

 Originally Posted By: Jugfish
This bill would also have prevented EPA from regulating lead in fishing lures and bullets.

Really? Read the bill again; the only thing addressed is sport fishing, which doesn't include bullets.

Oh, and don't forget this little nugget which eliminates any "protection":

(b) Relationship to Other Law- Nothing in this section or any amendment made by this section affects or limits the application of or obligation to comply with any other Federal, State or local law.

 Originally Posted By: Jugfish
This was a good bill, and the Rs will hurt from this for a while. Also, programs that support hunting, fishing, etc will hurt.

We'll just have to disagree on this. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the only reason the bill was introduced was to put the Rs into a bind: they could be against it and be labeled as anti-sportsmen, or they could support it and be labeled as excessive spenders.

Again, if this bill is supposed to help sportsmen, and open up federal land for hunting, why is that covered in 1 or 2 pages of the bill, but numerous boards and positions are created? That doesn't seem odd to you?

_________________________
Rules are for people who lose fights.

Top
Page 3 of 3 <123


Moderator:  Crappie Luck, Tennessee Todd, RUGER, Unicam, stretch, Cuttin Caller, Bobby G, Kimber45 
Hop to:
Top Posters
4105222
RUGER
86679
Deer Assassin
65037
BSK
60880
Crappie Luck
51376
spitndrum
Newest Members
TboneD, sbhockey, ZachA, DocT, Raegan
13202 Registered Users
Who's Online
106 registered (ChadG, Deer Elvis, MUP, dh1984, WNicholson, TRIGGER, 12 invisible) and 126 anonymous users online.
Forum Stats
13202 Members
42 Forums
91397 Topics
1068453 Posts

Max Online: 788 @ 11/11/13 08:06 PM
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
August
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Forum Donations
The TnDeer.Com Deer Talk Forum is for Tennessee Deer Hunters by Tennessee Deer Hunters. If you enjoy using our Talk Forum and would like to contribute to help in it's up-keep. Just submit your contribution by clicking on the DONATE button below and paying with PayPal or a major credit card. Any amount is much appreciated. Thanks for your support!

TN Burn Safe

Generated in 0.042 seconds in which 0.001 seconds were spent on a total of 14 queries. Zlib compression enabled.