Why some gun owners are unhappy with Bush (environment)

Status
Not open for further replies.

w4rma

member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
724
Location
United States of America
They say the administration has strayed too far from earlier GOP principles on the environment.

By Todd Wilkinson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

When Jimmie Rosenbruch went north last month, bound for the high country of southeast Alaska to stalk mountain goats, the Utah sportsman and master hunting guide toted more than a rifle into the wilderness.

Mr. Rosenbruch, a burly lifelong Republican and acquaintance of former President George H.W. Bush, also carried personal displeasure over the natural- resource agenda of Mr. Bush's son.

In particular, Rosenbruch and a groundswell of other gun owners from the lower 48 are challenging the Bush administration's plan to undo protection of Alaska's Tongass and Chugach national forests by opening both to increased logging and road construction.

For the current president, who relied upon unwavering support from the so-called "hook and bullet" crowd to win in 2000, the kind of public criticism now being voiced by political conservatives like Rosenbruch represents a potential problem in 2004, observers say.

According to a report from the Fish and Wildlife Service, hunters and anglers are a formidable force not only in what they spend, but also in the political power they wield. More than 34 million Americans over age 16 fish annually; 13 million hunt.

Many analysts think most of these people are Republican and supportive of President Bush. But now, a growing vocal minority is taking a stand on concerns they have - from weakening water protection standards in fishable waterways, to proposals to drill for oil in what have been off-limits areas. These people want a clean and healthy environment not only for hunters and anglers, but for all Americans - and they believe Bush is straying too far from this principle.

Petition in circulation

Perhaps no example is more poignant than a recent petition signed by hundreds of gun clubs - on behalf of untold thousands of members - telling Dale Bosworth, Forest Service chief, to keep in place Clinton-era protection of old-growth forests, two-thirds of which lie in Alaska.

"The response took me by surprise, especially in Texas," says Greg Petrich, the petition organizer, who is also a registered Alaska Republican and former commercial fisherman.

When Mr. Petrich began circulating the petition in October, he modestly hoped to enlist 100 gun clubs in the lower 48. But the response has been so overwhelming that he now believes he'll have 500 organizations signed up by the end of the year. The list of supporters includes the Allegheny Country Rifle Club of Pittsburgh (oldest gun club in the US), 49 combat handgun clubs, and 40 shooting groups in Mr. Bush's home state of Texas.

In addition, conservation organizations like Trout Unlimited, with its large membership of suburban "country club" Republicans who love to fly-fish, have questioned the Bush administration's opening of pristine public lands to natural-resource development.

Opinion polls have made the Bush administration well aware that its handling of the environment holds resonance as a serious domestic campaign issue. And analysts see the millions of suburban sport shooters and rural hunters - traditionally the core of the National Rifle Association (NRA) membership - as representing an important swing vote.

One of those joining Petrich's campaign is Carl Rosier, a state game and fish commissioner who served under former Alaska Gov. Wally Hickel, a stalwart conservative Republican.

Reached in Juneau, Mr. Rosier explained that proposed oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - which he supports - is the battle front that most Americans associate with Alaska. But the Bush administration's current efforts to restore publicly subsidized logging of Alaskan rain forest will also be a green lightning rod in the coming months.

"You've got a bunch of timber beasts [former timber-industry lobbyists] setting environmental policy in Alaska, and that's wrong," Rosier says. "In three years, we've witnessed a 180-degree swing from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush."

Both Rosier and Rosenbruch believe in "reasonable" resource extraction, but they say Republicans are adrift from the stewardship principles championed a century ago by GOP President Theodore Roosevelt. Such sentiments could cost candidates at the polls.

Too alarmist?

Yet many backers of the president believe that Bush has nothing to fear. With its 4 million members, the NRA doesn't see a large number of gun owners turning against Bush. "Without a doubt, he has the strongest support among NRA members of any modern president," says J.P. Nelson, the NRA's Western field director based in Mesa, Ariz. "We were mobilized in the last election, and we will be again."

Still Petrich, who is a member of the Northern Sportsmen Network, says not all hunters need to support Tongass protection in order to seize the attention of campaign strategists. "Small percentages of voters could have a big impact in 2004," Petrich says. "If this administration senses that more hunters and shooters are becoming ambivalent about Bush because of his conservation agenda, it could force them to reconsider what they're doing in wild places like the Tongass."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1204/p02s01-uspo.html
 
OH NO! President Bush may only win re-election with 45 states now! I'm sure the GOP is worried about losing those three electoral votes.:rolleyes:
 
Bush need not worry.....

"Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor"
************************************************************

These folks are likely already not in Bush's corner, despite the attempts of the author to portray a 'bush uprising':eek:

If "Dubya" wants to do some forest-trimming, though, he ought to wait until after the election.:D

************************************************************
"Reached in Juneau, Mr. Rosier explained that proposed oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - which he supports -"
************************************************************

At least it's not all bad news:) .
 
I think half the COUNTRY is mad at Bush for one thing or another.

Problem is, the "Anybody But Bush" crowd can't seem to atriculate to the neutral voter (i.e. swing voter) how any of the Democratic candidates are better....
 
Yeah, I could also write a cloumn about how I'm a life-long Democrat but will have a hard time voting for a democratic cadidate in 2004 because I'm against gun cotrol, abortion, high taxes, gay marriage, and support the war on terrorism.:rolleyes:
 
W4,

all points of view are welcome here, but I gotta say you seem to only know one tune. Surely there are more things to talk about here than bashing Bush?
 
How many forest fires will it take for the wackos to realize that not thinning forests can be as bad as excessive logging. While we're at it, why don't we stop hunting deer, elk, bear and buffalo so that the populations outgrow the food supply?
 
the article makes some good points, any one who follows politics or public policy has seen the shift of power move from the citizens groups to the monied special interests and corporations, especially in environmental regulation.

I've never followed enviro causes but some of the stuff I've been seeing come out of this admin over the last few years is crazy. Allowing strip miners to dump mountains into streams in appalchia, forget what they call it. Rolling back the new source review for old power plants. The healthy forests initiative he signed yesterday has more to do with corporate welfare than healthy forests.

Bush has turned out to be a bigger commie than the dems, just everything benefits corps instead of people. I'm used to politicians selling us out but I bet Bush has raised the bar.

I remember his father selling off mining rights to Barick Goldstrik (sp?) for pennies right before he left office. He then ended up as a piad board member there for years. These guys are pros at lining their own pockets.

Look at the current Boeing fiasco. They had to fire the CEO, CFO and others for bribing federal officials to do that aircraft lease scam. Now they found a $20 million payoff to Bush advisor Richard Perle from Boeing.

(http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1069493697693)

Clinton was scum but these guys are a whole different class of criminal.
 
oh yeah, and the GOP stripping all penalties for fraud and profiteering from the $87 billion spending bill for Iraq really made me comfortable.

I thought having one party rule would be good for a change but it's been a disaster, IMHO.
 
So, hunters want a free ride for their hunting preserves and not have to pay their own way? And those not living in Alaska want to keep Alaska roped off like some kind of museum and tell the Alaskans that they should be non or underdeveloped because opportunity and wealth are O.K. for non-Alaskans, but not good for Alaska.:rolleyes:

Gee, what else is new?:D
 
Jonesy9,

Rolling back the new source review for old power plants.

Do you understand New Source Review? Let me use a car as an example.

The Way it Stood
Suppose you owned a 1975 impala. The catalytic converter is plugged or otherwise fails. You take it to the shop for a replacement. The mechanic informs you that in order for you to fix that part, you must bring the entire car up to 2003 emission standards. Not going to happen. You would be required to take the car off of the road. Result: another power plant off-line.

Bush Strategy
Simple. Fix the catalytic converter. By the way, you may emit no more than you were allowed to prior to the change. Result: a power plant stays on-line. There is no net increase in emissions.

I will not even go into power regulation, blackouts, etc. No NEED:D

The same argument could be made for forest management and the price of lumber (have you looked lately?).

We have an economy based on energy, housing, and consumer consumption. We need power, wood and manufacturing. For those of you economically-challenged, consumer consumption drives 2/3 of our economy.

Think Critically ;)
 
Jonesy,

References? Details? Re: "stripping all the penalties for fraud and profiteering", I mean. Real data, not the Democratic Underground/MoveOn approach whereby if a Republican makes a buck it's profiteeering. I'm not saying it ain't true. Just show me.
 
Khornet- you can look it up. I don't log every article I read or news broadcast I see so that I can site them later to some one who doesn't follow current events. It's in the public realm and should be easy to bring up on google. I'm not familiar with the DU/move on approach but if you're one of those people who feel it's my responsibility to go fetch you answers cause you're too lazy, I respectfully decline. I cited the Being article only because it is new and not many people read Financial Times and the story is just being picked up (plus I knew exactly where it was).

7.62FMJ- I see the new source review differently. More like being told in 1975 that your Impala would be gradfathered in under the new emissions standards for the next 30 years. During those years if you wanted to improve tour Impala you'd be required to bring it into compliance with the new standards. You drag your feet and try to put in a new engine and call it the old one. An honest mechanic calls you on it and trys to force you to comply with something you knew was coming for 30 years. You decline, bide your time, and go find a dishonest mechanic who takes your money to look the other way and gives you a new inspection sticker on the sly.
 
Sorry, Jonesy

doesn't work that way. You make an accusation, you back it up or get ignored. If you can't back it up, it's hearsay and opinion, to which you are of course entitled, but which I don't have to believe.

Or to put it better, you're free and welcome to make accusations of corruption, but you have no right to be believed if you can't supply a reference. There are just too many people out there accussing Bush of all kinds of crimes; if it were my job to research each of their claims I'd have to quit my day job.
 
In response to Jonesy9's assertion that the Bush administration is a "whole different class of criminal", the Boeing scandal is a result of a certain Democrat senator...or more appropriately, his wife. Senator Daschle's wife happens to be the lobbyist for Boeing. Makes you think how Boeing managed to get Congress to approve spending $37 billion to lease Boeing planes instead of spending $25 billion to buy them outright. I think the real corruption is within congress, not the presidency.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27744
 
Khornet-- I look at it differently. I think you're dead wrong. I stated a fact not an accusation or a conspiracy theory

If YOU choose not to educate yourself that is not my concern, nor do I care if you choose to beleive it or not.

I'm not here bring you up to speed nor does that fact that you are not aware of a certain fact make it untrue, hearsay or opinion. LOL! cause you haven't heard something and my not spoon feeding you links make s it hearsay or opinion in this instance is laughable.

Instead of trying to apply this absurd theory, you could have found many articles on the despical act you question and maybe learned something.

You're free and welcome to do whatever makes you happy, just don't apply ridiculous theories to me. We're not talking about some wacky conspiracy theory here or then you'd have a point. Because people accused Clinton of all sorts of strange things did that make them all untrue?

Revel in the truth or in ignorance, it's something that you must choose for yourself.
 
When are you "neo-cons" gonna realize ? all science doing with global warming and evolution are the devils science! these liberal scientists want to tell us that buring fossil fuels is leading to a warmer climate. HA ! don't they know its just the coming of a new dinosaur age? They just want hard working corporations from enjoying the fruits of mother earth! belive me ,what damage we do to the enviroment we will make up for in GDP. Speaking of dinosaurs, did you know it's a fact.....Noah rounded up dinosaurs and put them on the Ark as well. Genesis 7:2 "take with you seven pairs of all clean animals the male and his mate" though I heard he had a hard time with the brontosaurus.:D As to these fisherman , why do they have to eat what they kill? why can't they just fish for fun? plus a little mercury poisioning never hurt anyone, really. I say let tomorrow deal with tomorrows problems let the ===== punk kids deal with the forest the way they want when they grow up and geta job ! until then i say let the corporations do what they want, peoples jobs are at stake! as well as my portfolio! :scrutiny:
 
Well, this gun-owner likes the fact that forests will be logged for profit rather than waiting for them to burn down.

"Clinton-era protection of old-growth forests" included attempts such as the biodiversity treaty to interfere with private ownership of land and instill the UN into domestic forest issues.

I appreciate hearing all points of view w4rma, and I welcome your input here, but sometime I'd like to hear what you think about 9mm vs. 45 ACP.

:D
 
7.62FMJ- I see the new source review differently. More like being told in 1975 that your Impala would be gradfathered in under the new emissions standards for the next 30 years. During those years if you wanted to improve tour Impala you'd be required to bring it into compliance with the new standards. You drag your feet and try to put in a new engine and call it the old one. An honest mechanic calls you on it and trys to force you to comply with something you knew was coming for 30 years. You decline, bide your time, and go find a dishonest mechanic who takes your money to look the other way and gives you a new inspection sticker on the sly.

Wrong. You are confusing NSP standards, which are set for a certain performance, defined either by technology or emission rates, with ENFORCEMENT. Your real complaint deals with the APPLICATION of the standards, not with the standard itself. In most cases, the application is performed locally, not by the feds. In very rare cases, the feds may take note and move to enforce.

The PROBLEM with federal standards in the first place is that ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL. I have permitted equipment in rural locations where the level of pollution control is absurd. Almost all equipment is held to standards for the worst case, such as in Los Angeles. There is no reason that a power plant in Alaska needs to meet the strict standards for Los Angeles. Except, of course, when there is an asinine federal blanket standard.

And before you go off with other unscientific rants, a pound of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emitted into the Alaskan Wilderness is absorbed, cleaned and converted. No harm, no foul. That same pound of emissions in Los Angeles exacerbates photo-chemical smog.

Like everything else:

"Bush is polluting the entire world by letting those power plants pollute" (even though there is no more pollution than there was)
"The power went off and it is Bush's fault, old people and children are dying" (because he followed their advice)

He can't win.


Remember, I don't want pollution confiscation, I want "reasonable" pollution control:what:
 
Il Duce- you're dead on. Daschles conflicts of interest are insane. How they are able to get away with it beyond me. His wife's fingerprints are all over this one. Unfortunately, the Repubs are just as dirty on Boeing so we won't see much come of this. It's like the Big Dig here in my city, yeah the labor uniions and local contractors are making a killing for the last 10 years and funnelling money back to Dems, but so are the engineers and project managers like Betchel, who are run by prominent Repubs, who are looting just as much and funneling some back to their GOP enablers. It's massive looting of the Treasury by both sides.


The amount of people with serious conflicts of interest both in the Bush admin and on both sides of Congress is staggering. Bush has appointed more industry lobbyists to regulatory roles than any other president in their first term (sorry Khornet, you'll have to look it up or choose not to believ it). Congress has also been quietly relaxing thr rules of lobbying. Very strange.


Reminds me of the old adage, communism at the top and free trade for the little people.
 
Alright, guys, ease off...

The problem with so much of this environmental argument is that it's difficult to get the whole story from the media articles.

For instance, the "rollback" on some of the potable water stuff involved eliminating testing for elements not known to be found in various areas; the tests for what was already known not to be present are very expensive. No net change in real-world standards. That is, why test for arsenic at $5,000 per test, when you already know there is no arsenic in that groundwater aquifer?

And so on.

As for the Tongass, clear-cutting is wrong because of the very steep mountainsides. "Cherry-picking" of harvestable timber doesn't hurt the ecosystem, as it more nearly replicates the natural process of trees dying of old age--which some species do. The issue is not logging, per se, but the manner in which the logging is done.

Art
 
7.62- you clearly know a lot about pollution control and I don't disagree with you analysis on one size fits all. But the botoom line is the dirtiest plants in the country have had 30 years to reduce their pollution which to some extent some did. They've been creating loopholes for years and were about to have their feet held to the fire and it would have cost them money to be fully compliant. But once again, econmics has trumped all, even my kids health (I'm downwind).


Khornet- out of curiosity I did a quick Goggle search, plenty of info out there on the stripping of the penalties and it's actually worse than I thought.

Seems plenty of Repubs were firmly against stripping it but it came down as a direct order from Bush and they bent over. Old Bill Clinton must be seething, he never could have got away with something as despicable as that.


http://www.hillnews.com/news/110503/profiteering.aspx



Rage erupts over profiteering clause
Iraq supplemental justified, says GOP
By Klaus Marre

A decision by the House Republicans to strip the Iraq supplemental bill of an anti-profiteering provision has outraged the Democrats.

Some Democrats have accused the White House of pulling the strings on the effort to nix the language.

“The White House and House GOP leadership didn’t want [the provision] in there,†charged Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), an author of the language.

The provision — included during the Senate Appropriations Committee markup with unanimous support but removed in conference — would have subjected those who deliberately defrauded the United States or Iraq to jail terms of up to 20 years and costly fines.


patrick g. ryan
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) protested anti-profiteering decision.

Leahy said that, privately, some Republicans told him they though it was a good provision.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), another author of the profiteering provision, called it “shocking†that it was taken out. “Why?†Feinstein asked. “It was a good amendment.â€

A Senate Democratic aide said, “Several House Republican conferees were clearly empathetic, but they had to look to a higher authority. That higher authority was the White House, which had sent the marching order to strip this from the bill.â€

Another Democratic aide said that “the White House got to House Republicans.†The aide pointed to Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner’s (R-Wis.) support for the provision — the lawmaker chairs the authorizing committee but was not a member of the conference — and the unwillingness of House Republicans to compromise on the language as evidence that the top White House staff may have given the marching orders.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), at a Monday hearing of the Democratic Policy Committee, claimed that it does not look as if the White House wanted any oversight on reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

During an Oct. 29 meeting of the conference committee, Leahy advocated a “very, very high standard†for its use, saying it should be applied only in the most egregious cases.

He said the language sends the message not to “rip off Uncle Sam.†Leahy added that he believes with the amount of money flowing into Iraq, “there will be a lot of greedy fingers.â€

Leahy indicated that he was willing to compromise on the provision. He agreed to include a firm sunset provision advocated by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).

Stevens, Democratic aides said, was very supportive of the provision throughout the conference committee process.

However, in conference, House Republicans spurned any compromises. Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) said he was “uneasy†about adding this kind of criminal law without input from the White House and the Department of Justice.

House Appropriations Committee spokesman John Scofield said other reasons for rejecting the provision included that it would have also applied to international assistance and that it did not define what constitutes “excessive profiteering.â€

Leahy this week introduced stand-alone legislation targeting war profiteering.
However, if it passed, it would go into effect later than the supplemental and would not cover the upcoming time period, thus lessening its effectiveness.

Leahy said yesterday it would be “a long road†before the stand-alone legislation is completed.

Leahy’s measure would slap penalties on those who “materially [overvalue] any good or service with the specific intent to excessively profit from the war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities in Iraq.â€

At a Democratic Policy Committee hearing, Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, testified that “Halliburton [formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney] has charged an average price of $2.65 a gallon of gasoline imported into Iraq from Kuwait, despite experts’ conclusions that the total price should be less than $1 a gallon.â€

Sloan added that Iraq’s state oil company is importing “the exact same gas†for 97 cents. She concluded that between $286 million and $339 million of the $900 million the administration has requested for the importation of petroleum products could be wasted “if Halliburton’s pricing practices are not stopped.â€

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who chaired the hearing, said, “Is there anything more ironic than getting ripped off on the price of oil imports in Iraq, of all places?â€

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said at the hearing that following passage of the Iraq supplemental bill there would be a “festive atmosphere on K Street.â€

Durbin said the Iraq spending bill opens the door for “fat and sloppy good-old-boy contracts.†The lawmaker said that those seeking greater transparency were unable to examine many contracts because they are classified. Asserting that this has nothing to do with security, Durbin added, “This administration classifies anything that might be embarrassing.â€

While it was House Republicans who wanted the profiteering provision stripped out in conference, Durbin pointed out that Senate Republicans, who had supported the provision in committee and on the floor, “did not stand up and fight†for the language.

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), in an interview with The Hill, defended Senate conferees. “If the House says no, we can’t do anything about it. We can’t dump the whole bill just because [a provision on profiteering] isn’t included.†Domenici added that some thought the amendment was written in a “political way.â€

Other attempts by Congress to require more accountability for spending the money, especially the reconstruction funds, were for the most part watered down or removed.

The White House staff did not respond to a request for comment.
 
But once again, econmics has trumped all, even my kids health (I'm downwind).

Really? Has your kids life expectancy gone down since we started building coal-fired electric plants?


stripping all penalties for fraud and profiteering

Wow, you mean there is no longer any penalties for comitting fraud? None?

You're telling me that there should be a penalty for making profits?

...

Have you even seen an old-growth forest? Ever try to hike through one? They're so chuck-full of dead trees you couldn't walk 10 steps in a straight line. What most people (especially here in the North East) think of as "old-growth" is an area of trees that was a cattle pasture 200 years ago.

~Lapidator
 
Lap- you got a reading comprehension problem or are you just a troll? get back under that bridge and keep warm, it's gonna snow heavy tonight :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top