Bowsite.com

I would prefer folks from the east coast stay out of the west politics.

Just look at the timber companies locked out of forests from liberal policies. How much Carbon and air pollution is created every year from the fires in California. That`s liberal eco nut heaven and it`s KILLING us all.

Who pushed for plastic over paper containers and bags years ago.....environmentalists. They said plastic would be recycled and not using paper would save the trees. How`s that working out for us. Our oceans and land are loaded with plastic that can`t biodegrade. Recycling actually produces MORE Carbon than the original production. Now we are going BACK to paper after 5 decades of a failed liberal experiment.

Who was in charge when the EPA breached the Gold King Mine in S.W Colorado....that was no accidental breach....that was done on purpose. Who was ever held responsible for that? If that was a private corporation there would of been holy hell to pay from the libturds on the left. But seeing how it was Obama`s administration....crickets.

When I see "Democrats" and "liberals protecting our environment" I want to puke.

I`m tired of our hard earned tax dollars going to that liberal crap hole...if it ain`t fires, it`s droughts...mudslides....dams breaking or earthquakes. Just one of these last fires emitted the Carbon equivalent to 1 million cars for a full year. California is the equal to China or India for Christ sakes. You want to save the earth....get rid of liberals.

Is it really liberals that cause droughts, mudslides, failed dams and earthquakes? Or is it more likely that the increase in these events is due to denying climate change, and no matter the cause, that we can at least slow the rate of change by responsible legislation.

I think the earth would benefit more if we got rid of tyrants, bigots, and morons.

Yup. btu for btu nothing is as efficient as fossil fuels. BTW, what caused the hundreds or thousands of other "climate changes" that occurred in the past 4 billion years?

"You're really blaming the California fires on liberals?"

Yup. They were the ones that pretty much banned any and all removal of the fuel. Also vetoed $$ for additional forest fighting abilities.

"that we can at least slow the rate of change by responsible legislation."

Insert eye roll.

You're no conservative. Not at all. Your posts reek of the lefts talking points.

This^^^^

If we are to call ourselves conservationists... It does not matter who we vote for from a party platform perspective... But it DOES matter than actual conservation is important to those we vote for.

That was a good enough article that I may have to actually buy a few Field and Stream's for the first time in like 20 years.

Blow's my mind when I see articles like this, often in hunting and fishing focused organization's social media feeds or magazines (TU, etc) and so many comments just go nuts off the bat rather than thinking about it for a second.

Our heritage, is literally that of the founders of the american conservation movement. Literally! Protecting our open spaces health, and our people's access to our public spaces is huge to both our immediate ability to continue enjoying an outdoor lifestyle, but also our kids and their kids ability.

Thanks for posting it Trial... I'd not seen it, and enjoyed it.

Reservoirs are for collecting rain water and snow run off. When you have an excess of potable water then you don`t have water bans and you have plenty for irrigation so your areas don`t burn off and turn into tinder.

Ike, spot on. unfortunately I think you're talking to few that failed to actually read the contents of the article.

Southern California has dams on "creeks" that flow a few days a year.

And the reason for these crazy fires is definitely in part due to no logging, but that's not the case in Southern California where very little of what burns is commercially viable anyways. Most of what burns down there is brush. The reason for scope of these fires is because: 1) There's always been fires in California, 2) There's 50 million people in the state now that have built into areas that burn, 3) 50 million people means we always have a few pyromaniacs around to set fires and plenty of idiots that light fires inadvertently, and 4) whether it's due to man-made causes or not, the Southwest is getting hotter and dryer and the Santa Ana winds now blow well through November which have extended the fire season. Hot dry air blowing at 30mph from the desert after a long hot summer to dry out vegetation is a recipe for huge fires.

And they DO build fire breaks, albeit not enough. Our most recent fire, the Cranston fire, that nearly burned down my house, burned through two different fire firebreaks and one of them, that burned Bonita Vista homes had just burned 5 years prior in the Mountain Fire. That's right, the fire burned through a fire break, burned homes, then 5 years later, burned the same firebreak again and right on up into the mountain burning the same stuff that'd burned 5 years prior. The trees burn too, but cutting down the patches of trees makes no difference. It's the sage and ribbonwood that grows right back in 2 years that fuels these Southern California fires and they grow right back up from their stumps after the burn - these bushes are made for frequent catastrophic fires. Pines/oaks less so, and homes even less.

Still waiting for the list of all those "deadly" fires in Alaska and BC....lmao

I don't like the input of the coastal populations dictating what we do with our federal lands, but I do like the tax money they put into the federal gov. that cares for the lands.

Take the money and the input, or don't take the money and lose the land.

lose lose situation

oz

I too am sick of the liberal agenda.....after having to deal with it for many years. I don't believe the Reps are the, "Development at all costs" that the liberal Dems make them out to be.

If the Republicans got out in front of these environmental issues with a comprehensive policy [that most of them agree on anyway] it would go a long ways towards blasting these libs out of the water.

The sugar farmers have nothing to do with the algae problem, they are mostly south and southeast of the Big O.

The cattle ranches however are north, east and west of the Kissimmee River. All that nutrient rich pasture land run off ends up in the river, running right into the lake.

The blue green algae doesn’t kill fish in the lake, that only occurs after the Lake water is released. They are working on STAs (storm water treatment areas) south of the lake to restore the natural water flow from the headwaters of the Kissimmee down to Florida Bay.

Our problem here is the government involvement of helping people build and homestead where they never should have decades ago. I’m a sport fishing captain in the southeast, the fish kill was minimal in my area from the red tide. It actually came from the west coast up the Gulfstream.

The politicians can help a little maybe, but I believe the ranchers to the north need to build catchment areas for run off before it enters the river system. I did vote for Scott because the incumbent Nelson hasn’t done a damn thing but collect my tax money for his salary. I thought Scott was a good governor, better than Bush, not as good as Graham

As for California s water woohs, they should build RO plants on the coast. If the Bahamas can afford it, California should be able to. Just my 2 cents

2017 CA 7,117 fires 505,956 acres

2017 BC 1,300 fires 2,965,265 acres

2017 AK 362 fires 653,148 acres 2015 AK 768 fires 5,111,453 acres

Since fire seasons vary I included 2015 for AK for comparison. I was wrong about the number of fires but not the size. It should also be noted that BC only reported "fire season" - April-November. And Alaska is pretty much snow covered for at least half the year. Monetary damage is a factor of population so is not very relevant.

Idyllwild already responded to your brilliant idea to build more reservoirs. Virtually every drop of water is already being used, much of it many times over. The Colorado River historically had one of the largest tidal bores in the world. Now it doesn't even reach the sea. Even the aquifers are being depleted.

I got a PM that basically said that "the problem with liberals is that they think they can control the weather" and that I should "get a grip". Also got an eye roll from Bowbender on the same topic.

Well, if we can't/don't slow the unprecedented rate of climate change, we are in for one hell of an ugly ride. If there is any wildlife left to hunt, we'll be too busy trying to survive to care.

For Trial153 who said, "Just an observation I have made in life. In my experience the smartest guys in room types arent the ones calling people morons and idiots."

That may or may not be true. In my experience though, people who constantly stand on a podium and lie, beat their chests, and declare to the world how brilliant, intelligent, and magnificent they are, have serious emotional and psychological problems that should preclude them from holding any public office.

I never intended to make this about Democrats vs Republicans. My concern is with one individual who is proving to be a clear and present danger to the country. But I do have grave concerns about the Republican Party. All the responsible Republicans have fled or died. All that are left are pretty much a$$ kissers. It's also pretty scary the number of people who vote strictly down party lines - on both sides. I'm glad I'm seeing this at age 65 and not 25, and I don't have any kids to worry about.

It took you all day to google your examples....now try to find what was asked of you before. Burnt trees don`t cost taxpayers billions....dead people and lost homes do.

The article you posted seemed to read more like an editorial, that’s my opinion. But I can tell you for a fact some of the statements that were made about Florida’s water problems were dead wrong. The fact he stated he doesn’t care about our issues, I think proves my point earlier. He has no vested interest except to sell a magazine. Myself on the other hand do care, study for solutions and have a vested interest. It’s my lively hood.

Hopefully those credentials are good enough for you, I not oh well. Just because someone is published in a magazine doesn’t make them right.

Why isnt it there?

I wholeheartedly agree but I will not cross over party lines to vote for one single member of the Democratic Socialist party. Some things are more important than hunting.

I whole heartedly agree with your last sentence. But NEITHER party is a villain nor a savior. Voting strictly along party lines is intellectually lazy. The values and character of our leaders is critically important.

And along that line, Trump is at it again. After insisting many times that he has had NOTHING to do with Russia, it turns out that he was planning a building in Moscow in 2016 and negotiating for land with his good pal Putin. Granted, nothing illegal about that. But he also insists there is nothing wrong with that since he decided "not to go through with the deal". (Yet) He also said he is a business man and there would be nothing wrong if he HAD continued with his plan. I can add 2 + 2 and come up with 4. What's to stop him from leveraging his current position when he returns to his business interests? He's demonstrated over and over again that it's all about him. He doesn't admit to understanding what a conflict of interest is, and he simply can't be trusted.

As the Republican candidate for President, he invited Russia to hack the emails of not just a US citizen, but of a prominent political figure. Why? For his own personal gain, no matter the cost to the country. I still don't understand why that alone is not treason.

Most on here value and applaud our veterans, and get upset when anyone disrespects the flag. Yet, a draft dodger, openly voiced contempt for and disrespected an honest-to-god war hero while campaigning, with NO serious repercussions from the party he supposed to represent. The intellectual disconnect in that is astounding. There is more than one way to disrespect the flag. To Trump the flag is only a pretty piece of cloth hje can use to his own advantage. Once again he demonstrates that it's all about him.

These, and many more, are glimpses into his psyche. The Republican party will not recover until he is gone, and it will likely take some time after that. The sooner we get started, the better.

Excellent Perspective - for sure!

Really? No, Really? You have evidence? Prolly should forward that to Mueller.

"Yet, a draft dodger, openly voiced contempt for and disrespected an honest-to-god war hero while campaigning, with NO serious repercussions from the party he supposed to represent. "

Yup. And guess what? Being a "war hero" doesn't exempt you from being called out as d!ck when you treat your own party with contempt and disregard. And McCain did exactly that. He parlayed his "war hero" status into a lucrative political career, and then forgot to "dance with the one that brung ya". He single handedly prevented O'care from being gutted. All because he didn't like Trump. Nice. Placed his ego and feelings over what was best for the country. His maverick status will not be missed in the Senate.

As far as climate change, you'll continue to get eye rolls. Like I said, there have been literally thousands of climate change events in the last 4 billion years. Many with catastrophic consequences. Why is this "climate change" different from the others that happened previous to the last two hundred years?

I will never, never align my self with a liberal on outdoor issues. The reason being, little liberals vote for bigger liberals and their policies. The democrat leadership is on record as saying they would ban guns in a heartbeat, if they could. Look at states like Illinois, New Jersey, New York, California. Places with large liberal majorities placing restrictions on firearm ownership.

They are not about conservation, they are about hands-off, zero usage, preservation. Great, they protected all our federal lands. Except due to the new carbon tax on all fossil fuels because of "climate change", a gallon of gas now costs 8,9,10$. No one can afford to drive to hunt. Fly? Forget about it. And that is exactly what is being proposed to fight the man made climate change myth.

Think long and hard about what you are asking for, and who you are willing to crawl in bed with to get it.

Good one. Don't try to defend the draft dodger. Instead, deflect the criticism.

"Many with catastrophic consequences. Why is this "climate change" different..."

Because this time we are here, and instead of just sitting by waiting to go the way of the dinosaurs, we have at least a chance of doing something about it.

"they would ban guns in a heartbeat, if they could."

I share your concern. But for 8 years of Obama they didn't. That "if they could" is significant.

"...a gallon of gas now costs 8,9,10$." If your observations and assessments of such a simple thing as gas prices are so inaccurate, how can we give any credence to anything else you say?

It's easy to pick and choose one or two issues, and make blanket statements. Life isn't that black and white.

As to midwest's post; "I will not cross over party lines to vote for one single member of the Democratic Socialist party." Someone else could say "I wouldn't vote for the Republican Fascist Party", and that would be an equally valid argument. Simple minds look for simple solutions. Unfortunately, life doesn't work that way. At least not very well.

No deflection needed. No crime, just your opinion.

"Because this time we are here, and instead of just sitting by waiting to go the way of the dinosaurs, we have at least a chance of doing something about it."

Yeah....lets just do something. Not sure what, Just do something. Yeah, cause man can affect solar activity, volcanic eruptions, etc... insert another eye roll.

"I share your concern. But for 8 years of Obama they didn't. That "if they could" is significant."

And only two years did they control all three branches. Sorry I don't share your optimism with regards to liberals and gun control. One only need look at what has happened on a state level in the last 5-10 years. It does require pulling ones head out of the sand however.

"...a gallon of gas now costs 8,9,10$." If your observations and assessments of such a simple thing as gas prices are so inaccurate, how can we give any credence to anything else you say?"

Perhaps you could post the entire quote. Kinda disingenuous not to. What I said was "Except due to the new carbon tax on all fossil fuels because of "climate change", a gallon of gas now costs 8,9,10$."

To fight the myth of "man made climate change" one of the key items proposed. is a "carbon tax" on fossil fuel. It WILL drive the price of gas up exponentially.

If your reading comprehension is so poor how can we give credence to anything else you say. Sauce goose gander.

"It's easy to pick and choose one or two issues, and make blanket statements. Life isn't that black and white."

"Simple minds look for simple solutions."

Kinda like looking to liberals to "save" the environment, while sacrificing everything else.

But, I have no doubt that no matter what happens, gas will someday cost $10 a gallon. I remember when it cost $.25 a gallon. It's current price is not due to a carbon tax. It's due to "normal" inflation. Oil is also a FINITE resource, like many others. You and I will never see it totally depleted, but some future generation will. It's interesting that someone with no kids to want to pass down a healthy environment, and fiscally healthy country to, is more concerned about doing so than many who do have kids.

Your last statement is either perplexing or shows a lack of understanding. The "environment" IS everything! There is no "winner take all" option. My entire argument is just the opposite. Both parties need to step far away from the nuts on the far right and far left. I know many Dems that hunt. And many of them understand conservation better than some Republicans. Certainly better than indicated by much of the new "Republican" platform, which can be summed up by borrow whatever you need now, use up all the resources everywhere with the proceeds going to the "elite", and let future generations worry about the consequences. We would ALL be better off somewhere in the middle. That's called compromise. It's what our Democratic Republic was based on and designed for. And it can't flourish and may not survive without it. Trump is incapable of leading us there. In fact he's going the other way. He's using the same playbook that tyrants throughout history have used. Maybe my argument will be more compelling when Dems are in control. After all, they have more registered voters and are more highly educated. The Republican party used to be the more fiscally responsible, but it's been some time since they can make that claim.

"Great, they protected all our federal lands."

I don't know what you mean by "protected" but it was a Republican responsible for setting them aside for multiple use to begin with. I would be thrilled if THAT Republican Party returned.

I obviously can't control what others do. I can only act on what I see and comprehend. It appears that some have not updated the computer between their ears with current information. Many of the arguments against Democrats and support for the "Republican" party are outdated and cliche.

"...who you are willing to crawl in bed with to get it."

Right back at ya! I will vote for the next responsible candidate put forth. I hope it's a Republican. But if it's Trump I'll go with someone else. If it happens to be a Democrat, unless it's Oprah or Berny, I'll take my chance there. If they come up with a fringe candidate, well, we're seriously screwed either way, so it really won't matter. I also think this is a great opportunity to get ahead of Dems. But the party that starts acting responsibly first will be the winner.

And what about a party that would give/sell those federal lands to the states, who would sell it to private interests, who would throw your ass in jail for setting foot upon it?

This “Politics“ stuff is in nearly so easy as some would have us believe. Big Ozzie seems to get it, though....

Maybe you think they should move somewhere else? We could try to convince them to head to, say, Wisconsin. Oh wait, then they might have to deal with floods. But I'm sure that didn't cause any taxpayer aid.

Hahaha..... That’s rich coming from the guy who finds an opportunity to insert a derogatory, sarcastic, and needless comment on every thread he seems to post on.

Keep it going guys, I am loving the nostalgia.

The Democrats are going to be rough to beat in 2020 if they control the weather...