House Dems Bill for permanent grizzly pr
General Topic
And here we go again. Now our Dem friends are pushing a bill to circumvent science and the ESA by permanently protecting grizzlies. Hearings are scheduled in the Natural Resources Committee. If it makes it out of committee it's likely to pass in the House. Whether the Senate will go along is unknown.
At first glance it appears this only applies to Indian land. However, in reading the entire bill it appears to be ALL public land. It says, "Nothing in this section shall be construed as to permit sport hunting". The Governor of a state must petition the Secretary of the Interior for a permit to have a grizzly killed.
SCI and other hunting organizations are already speaking out against it. The usual suspects support it. Wondering if that fast-growing national organization with "hunters" in the name will issue a position statement?
And yet there are “hunters” that vote Democrat?????
I wonder who the deciders on that "take and possession only for certain purposes" line will be? The Indians? This is geared too much towards the tribes and not the greater good nor public safety. I read a document that said there are an estimated 55,000 of them in North America.
Bans trophy hunting and non-discriminatory predator control measures that may result in taking of grizzly bears on public lands
Permits “take” and “possession” of grizzly bears only for certain purposes going forward
Requires federal consultation with tribes before relevant permits are issued and before any major federal action that could impact grizzly bears or their habitat
Creates a process for reintroduction of grizzly bears on suitable land of willing tribes
"This bill fights grizzly bears’ decline due to trophy hunting and other factors, helping ensure the species does not go extinct.” – Sara Amundson, President, Humane Society Legislative Fund
So this bill seeks to over-ride the entire scientific community by fully protecting one species that had recently come off of the endangered species list? If you've read much on bowsite or been near Yellowstone or Glacier you're well aware that the grizzly's numbers are increasing, and they're showing no signs of slowing down.
I lived in Montana and Wyoming for 10 years during the 70s and 80s, and have visited dozens of times since. The first time I ever saw griz there (2 within a two hour stretch, 10 miles apart), was last September in Glacier. elkstabber is correct, griz pops are increasing by leaps and bounds. They need to be taken off the 'List'. These bills are all based on politics and Dem anger that they 'lost' so they are trying to retaliate in any and all ways that they can. Targeting Conservatism, hunting, hunters, wildlife science, and logic, they are running amok. We are in for a real fight folks.
“The grizzly bear’s importance to many Native Americans underscores its iconic status in our country. We applaud Representative Grijalva and his colleagues for introducing the Tribal Heritage and Grizzly Bear Protection Act. This bill fights grizzly bears’ decline due to trophy hunting and other factors, helping ensure the species does not go extinct.” – Sara Amundson, President, Humane Society Legislative Fund. This statement underscores the ignorance of most supporters of bills like this one in that probably more bears dies as a result of NOT hunting them in Wyo last fall, when many human encounters that may be the result of lack of fear by bears to man that can't 'hunt' them were killed anyway. MORE bears killed than the hunting seasons would have allowed.
It's so incredibly disappointing that this is even brought up. Getting off the endangered species list should be celebrated as a success, it's a slap in the face for what it was originally intended for. Just blows my mind that judges/senators/representatives have more of a say in how we manage our wildlife than the people who spend their careers with critters best interest in mind. These groups keep saying this will avoid trophy hunting them to extinction. As if these tags would be OTC, no limit. The propaganda machine is strong on that side of the isle.
It's amazing to me that these people have time to focus on grizzly bears with all of the real problems we have in this country. They must think that grizzlies vote Dem.
To me it just goes to show that they are not concerned with the real problems we have in this country. They concerned with their foolish agendas only.
Sounds like BC grizzly bear management to me. Ignore science and impose social welfare/feel good regulation.
Z, that is exactly what this is. They know it appeals to their low information base of phony "green" liberal Dems. Especially young voters who don't know any better.
What amazes me is how many of you guys think that the answer to our political problems is increased polarization instead of learning how to find the common ground. Because guess what, Boys? You’re on your way to becoming a minority.
You think you’re going to get anywhere working out a thoughtful, science-based Compromise with AOC once the Republicans have lost their majority to a bunch of people who think and act more and more like she does?
Good luck with that.
You want people to stop listening to you? Start talking politics and then tell them how stupid/brainwashed they are as soon as they disagree with you for ANY reason.
It’s hard enough being a 2% minority, and now there are a bunch of clowns in our midst who aren’t satisfied with that and want to be the 2% minority in the tin-foil hats who believe that it’s the Chinese government who’s going to be paying $100B on tariffs, rather than US importers and consumers.
Just because the Prezedint never learned what a tariff is doesn’t mean that you don’t need to understand how they work.
Its $300B China will be paying vs our $60B increase (in theory), over the long term. For right now the US will probably not benefit, but in the long run we will. That's funny (almost) to think that Trump doesn't understand how tariffs and trade works. What IS your solution to winning this war with the likes of AOC if what you state above is NOT the solution? Because IMO, there is NOTHING that is going to win them over short of enacting their policies. So we need to fight. NOT talking politics and NOT telling them how stupid and brainwashed they are will do nothing to stop them either. Firing up OUR base is how we fight and win that, so I say keep calling them stupid and be divisive. You win with numbers in politics. Majorities!
Grizzly bear decline? Where exactly is that happening? I guess they are a little scarce in California and Washington DC.
If they pass that bill and ever put wolves back on the list I’m changing my Bowsite name to Outlaw or Vigilante. Screw those people people and their emotion and money based agendas!!!
Just once I'd like to see the family of a grizzly mauling find a lawyer and press criminal charges against any judge that has halted the states grizzly hunt. Charge the judge and any plaintiff that filed for a hunt injunction. If a person was killed in the mauling, file 2nd degree murder. Charges probably wouldn't stick, but could certainly be argued that it fit the definition of the law. Would make some noise on our opinion of their decisions. Maybe it has happened. I just never heard of it.
release some griz in new york city and keep them protected there. they will certainly have plenty of food to eat.
GF....stick to Bowsite issues. You veered completely out of your lane with that one...lol
GF, not sure what your post has to do with this issue. What sort of "compromises" are you suggesting for the wolf and grizzly issues, which have become 100% politicized by Dems?
Many hunters voted for Obama and Ds (and campaigned and raised funds for) thinking they would be good for "public land" while leaving hunting alone. Dems then imposed the nuclear option to appoint radical activist judges that the Repubs couldn't oppose. Those same judges are now busy ruling against state biologists and now even the Feds (USFWS and DOI) to stop various hunts.
Now with this proposal the Dems are trying for another nuclear option, this time a permanent hunting ban on a species. Wolves will be the next one, because, you know, they are "spirit animals" too.
So what sorts of compromises are you suggesting we make to "work with them"?
GF- Do you honestly think the likes of AOC are interested in "compromise"?
As I age, I am a proponent of split govt. (IE No single party rule). Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Each party eventually will piss in their cornflakes. But the Dem's treat it as a sprint to piss in their cereal. If the Senate has voice on this matter, I am hopeful the anti hunting grizz bill goes no where.
Z, I'm a proponent of split government too...checks and balances. Here in CO the Dems finally got all three branches, and the overreach has been unfathomable. They are even enacting laws that voters rejected by big margins in the last election. And recall petitions are circulating everywhere.
Guys....wait until Jaq`s thread gets a few days old before you hijack it with "tariff talk".
The most important line was the quote from Jaq about that crazy Sara chick.....the use of ridiculous false propaganda in their arguments. It`s laughable.
GF- Snip from Yahoo article today. AOC commenting about her "Dem Family". (Last paragraph). Do you really think she is interested in working with anyone who is not one of her social media worshippers? This isn't politics, it's zealotry. (If you don't know what a zealot is, Google it. The online dictionary may as well embed AOC's pic in the narrative)
Seems to me this law is unconstitutional as it is based on a religion.
Terry
Coyote, good observation. I wonder though, if 'constitutionality' would apply to sovereign nations such as native American Tribes... I suspect this one will never pass the Senate and reach the desk of the President. Too many gray areas maybe.
This has nothing to do with Native American tribes. They just put that nonsense in there to help get it passed because no Democrat will touch anything that has those words in it. Republicans could take a tactic from this and start attaching "Native American" or any other minority to every one of their bills and then eviscerate Dems for not going along.
"•Requires federal consultation with tribes before relevant permits are issued and before any major federal action that could impact grizzly bears or their habitat •Creates a process for reintroduction of grizzly bears on suitable land of willing tribes" Oh, I must have read that wrong.
"or their habitat".....hmmmm...giving out those extra elk tags could reduce their food supply. That's a no go. See where this is heading?
"And yet there are “hunters” that vote Democrat????? "
Yes. Because their girlfriends tell em to..... =D
This IS political..... because it's politics and a political ideology that is driving it. That is inarguable. If i isn't clear enough yet... it's being considered in a BILL. They are in attack mode to get what they want, by LAW, any way they can.... and some don't seem to grasp (or don't WANT to grasp) they are even being attacked.....
You can use facts and science in your argument all you want, but if it's all waved off and ignored, overruled by feel good emotional.... crap.... then there is no "middle ground" or "compromise" (laughable when they call "compromise" giving in to what THEY want.... with what you already have. NEVER the other way around) you need to call them out on their crap. Other than giving up and giving in.... I really see no other way. When they make claims such as "they are being hunted into extinction" and you don't call them out as lies and liars after they willfully ignore the facts, truth and reality presented.... maybe you should give up.
I'm burning up the thesaurus trying to come up with non-derogatory terms to relay "go wizz up a rope"..... maybe if I just don't raise my voice and ask "please" first.... yeah.... that'll work....
Trump may not sign stuff like this but the next Dem probably will. There really is two America's.
Imagine if they'd pursued this in 2009 when they had a filibuster-proof majority and Obama to rubber stamp it? Scary thought.
Trap - you don’t get it, do you? Those tariffs on Chinese goods are paid by the US COMPANIES that import them, and those costs get passed on to US CONSUMERS.
Meanwhile, our farmers can’t sell soybeans to China because the tariffs make them overpriced.
Jaq - AOC won’t compromise with anyone; not so long as she doesn’t have to. Most people do not subscribe to the Far Left Wing thinking, but if their choices are limited to the Far Left or the Far Right with nothing in between, this country is gonna go Left. It’s already happening, and Trump is an accelerant on the bonfire that a lot of our rights are going into.
“Imagine if they'd pursued this in 2009 when they had a filibuster-proof majority and ___________ to rubber stamp it? Scary thought.”
As we sow....
So who you going to toss off the island to appease the alligators? You seem eager to give them something..... Ya think maybe they'll go for just hunting grizz every other year?
You honestly see some "common middle ground" in this? Where exactly? I mean, minus the Chinese tariff angle.....
Good, maybe if Chinese goods go up in price people will start buying American again. They tarrifs are designed to balance the trade deficit in the long run, not short term. It will cost us more now but will eventually equilibrate.
Trapperkayak wins the thread for proper use of "equilibriate"!
At some point the states are going to fight back against the feds. The feds say "you can't kill a grizzly without proper authorization". What about a bad bear that is causing all kinds of problems but not threatening a human life (this is a grey area in the bill). Wyoming already passed their own bill into law that states that they will manage their grizzlies as they see fit. I see the states pushing back against the feds for too much overreach.
“You honestly see some ‘common middle ground’ in this? Where exactly?”
How about we agree that personal beliefs are a lousy foundation for the laws of a nation? How about we agree that we expect laws to be based on Facts and Science? And maybe economic policy should be informed by the study of Economics and not just whateverthehell pops into somebody’s head?
Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.
Don’t like guns? Don’t buy one.
Don’t like hunting? Don’t do it.
Don’t like fur? Don’t buy it.
Don’t like meat? Don’t eat it.
Don’t like same-sex marriage? Don’t marry a man (unless you’re a woman, of course).
If “the other side” wants Climate-related legislation based on Science, why not say “OK - we’ll work with a Science-based approach on Carbon, and you work with us on a Science-based approach to wildlife management.”
It can be done, but you can’t do it with people who won’t negotiate anything.
This goes along with Pats thread about laws that surpass common sense and morality. There is a point fellas that some things go certain ways without being talked about.
GF, the problem is that virtually all of our laws are based upon personal beliefs. Take your example of economics. Trump (and most conservatives) believe in supply-side economics. Plenty of data can be produced showing it works. Economists on the Left (Krugman, et al) believe in Keynesian economics, and plenty of data can be produced showing that also works, just in different ways because it is more about wealth redistribution. Trump and the Republican economic plan seems to be working pretty well now.
Each of your examples of "middle ground" is an either -or proposition for most, not a basis for compromise.
Many believe in their heart of hearts that abortion is infanticide. Many others believe owning guns is accessory to murder. Many believe trophy hunting is absolutely immoral and they will never compromise by "our side" offering to let them have free abortions if they back off of trying to stop grizzly hunting. This is all about human nature.
Don't like slaves? Don't own any.
We gotta just deal with it! I'm looking forward to doing my part!
It is VERY difficult being a "science denier" these days!
If you deny the biological intuitively obvious science of grizzly bear population recovery, you are a "woke" person, deserving of praise (and votes.)
Yet, if you deny even a portion of the political science of "global warming," you are a blithering idiot, deserving only of scorn and ridicule.
If only there were not such flexible standards from the Lefties!
Pete
Pete, good points. Back in college in Political Science we were taught that the Left values symbolism over substance (this was before they totally hijacked the educational system). As such, they have staked-out "labeling" to discredit anyone who doesn't follow in lockstep.
Legal predator hunters become "trophy hunters", which they've managed to make loathsome to the general public. Big league scientists who are skeptical of the anthropogenic contribution to climate change are labeled "deniers", from which there is no escape.
So long as the mainstream media is complicit in the labeling game, anyone who thinks for themselves has a tough row to hoe.
'but you can’t do it with people who won’t negotiate anything.' Doesn't seem that 'negotiation' is anything the left wing politicians are open to when it comes to gun control, abortion, the border security enclosure, or (especially) ANYTHING President Trump supports or proposes. The old saying, 'You can't argue with a drunk' seems fitting where Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, (the list goes on) are playing the role of the 'drunks'.
Sociological science has no objectivity, beyond affluence.
Jaquomo, maybe we need to assign labels to the preservationists. It would have to be a well thought out term that is negative overall. What should we call someone who wants to preserve all large predators, ignores all science, and wants to bankrupt the fish and game department? PM if you'd prefer.
Elkstabber, I like your idea but without mainstream media cooperation, it won't work. MM repeats these labels hundreds of times in a news cycle, they become viral terms, and stick.
What you describe already has a mainstream label: "Wildlife Conservationists". Look at any major hunting-related news story and the "Wildife conservation groups" they list are Wildearth Guardians, Defenders of Wildlife, World Wildlife Fund, Center for Biodiversity, HSUS, etc..
Jaquomo,
We need to play the "word game" just as they do. (Plus..... it's fun!) Use their terminology back at them. Their reaction can be priceless. Examples:
When antis rail against me and I respond in a letter to editor or comment on an article, I point out that they are using "hate speech."
They love the word "choice." So I always try and point out that it is my CHOICE to legally hunt.
Labels are fun to exploit....!
Pete
Pete -
1) It is easily proven in a lab that an “air” sample holds more heat for longer as the % CO2 increases. No one can produce a result to the contrary.
2) There is absolutely no denying that we humans have extracted megatons of carbon from where it was stored deep in the earth and we have been burning it, releasing it back onto the atmosphere, where it has been accumulating for over 100 years.
3) This accumulation has been documented around the world, with a new record high in the last week or so.
4) Almost every month (if not every last one) for the last several years has been the Hottest (insert name of month) On Record.
Call me crazy, but whether there is a “natural cycle” underneath it or not, we Humans are adding to the problem by our behavior. Primary cause, secondary, tertiary won’t matter one bit in the end.
And if you think it doesn’t matter to us hunter types, look at the way the Caribou population is crashing up north. Why? They can’t get away from the damn bugs, which are thicker than ever because of the warmer, longer summers.
And you guys like to spout your political bullshit about how it’s always all the fault of the other side. All a big freaking game to score political points. Everybody who disagrees with you is s total freaking moron.
Pretty obvious that you prefer the argument to a solution, no matter what the cost.
Me? I’m just looking for a responsible, rational ADULT that I can vote FOR, for once in my life. And there are NONE on either wing.
And somehow the caribou have survived each of the four previous, nearly identical warming cycles recorded over the past 400,000 years...
Here, have a nice cold glass of Kool Aid GF, and calm down a little. AOC will be running for president in six years and then you'll have a responsible, rational adult to vote for who will fix climate change for us. Shes going to force China, India, and Russia to give up cows and airplanes just because, well, BECAUSE!
And what does your rant have to do with some Dem crazies trying to stop grizzly hunting? I missed that.
GF,
Thank you for making my point....!
Your theory about caribou populations crashing due to an increase in insects (due to Global Warming) is interesting. It just doesn't seem to have research to support it, or for that matter, any basis in fact. In science, we call that a "theory."
What IS fact is that caribou populations have been dramatically rising and falling for thousands of years. What IS fact is that while some Canadian caribou populations have fallen recently, some Alaska herds have actually increased.
Btw, you need to catch up with the more enlightened progressive terminology: the new PC term is Climate Change. By using that moniker you can explain away any temp changes, up OR down. It seems to work on stupid people...
Pete
Seems like this thread is on the wrong forum. Isn't the forum for bashing democrats the "community" forum? I'm totally for grizzly bear hunting, and think decisions on management of grizzlies should be left up to the individual states. If the Indian tribes want to protect the grizzlies on their reservations then that's up to them, but outside the reservations it should be left up to the states. Why do hunters still vote Democratic? Maybe it's because the Democrat's are more likely to ensure that we have federal land at all, rather than some of our Republican friends who push for it to get transferred to the states, whom have a bad habit of selling it off.
If the Democrats are so frickin great, then why did they elect the likes of Barry Obama and Joe Biden ? The Democratic wanabees are a bunch of Climate Clowns with a platform based on JUNK Science. JUNK SCIENCE is the cancer of conservation. The Democratic party of today is not the Democratic party of yesterday. GET OVER IT, and move on to something better.
Since when does "Climate Change" have anything to do with anti hunting nut cases?
Well other than they often.... OK, nearly always.... are of the same cult.... I know of no antis who are not cut of the AOC cloth and leftists on nearly every issue. (did you know blondes are now telling AOC jokes? heheheheheh.....) Do any of you REALLY know what is in the touted New Green Deal? Which one? There are like a dozen, you can't pin them down to any one plan, because when it's pointed out how crazy it is they move to another plan.....
Please explain to me where is the "compromise" in a permanent ban on hunting grizzlies? That they "allow" us to keep hunting deer? That's your compromise? In Unicorn Land maybe.... not real world. Real world it's ignoring the facts and science of the matter in favor of fantasy and feelings. As tends to be the case in most things leftist. It's still one side telling the other "you can't do that, because, um, well, I don't like it...." In fact in their little artificial world there is very little they like. Liberal guilt keeps them from enjoying much outside their bubble....
There is a difference between a hunter and a person who happens to have hunted. One has no problem if hunting is taken away.... moving onto their next fad, next interest, with just a shrug. The other, it's his life, it's in his soul. As it has been for millennia.
If you want to side with anti hunters, it is your right. I guess we need our gatherers too......
Irishman, with all due respect, and I mean that, this bill is about ending grizzly hunting everywhere Indians ever lived, not just on reservations.
It is Dem appointed judges who are ruling against hunting everywhere, stopping hunts, enacting moratoriums. It is Dem presidential candidates who promise to use executive action to make firearm ownership so onerous that we'll become Europe. Candidates who say they would "outlaw all guns if they could".
Meanwhile the massive land transfer a few Republicans in the West want (largely because of gross mismanagement by the Feds), which is being used as a recruiting tool and fundraiser for naive young granola-munchers, isn't happening and shows no sign of increasing beyond what was done by the last two Democratic presidents (land sales and transfers).
The surplus land sale order came from the Clinton administration, and his administration sold off my BLM elk hunting hot spot.
The Left can be summed up in one simple statement.
“Your rights end where my feelings start.”
Matt, you do realize that plants that photosynethesize, including algae, breath CO2.... being a scientist, I know you took that botany class. So, as long as man has been burning fossil fuels and releasing co2 into the atmosphere, this gas has been 'accumulating'???? C'mon man, you know better than that. The atmosphere STILL CONTAINS 21% O2, and a miniscule .04% co2... Unless there is a big baloon in the sky that 'man' has been storing that fossil fuel exhaust in all these years, that co2 has been regukarly recycled back through green plants, making o2 for us and our prey to continue to breathe. And the last time I checked, humans were born kf this planet, are not aliens, and therefore, part of NATURE, which really means that any impact we have upon the earth's climate is NATURAL. So since there used to be a me and half of ice layered where I now reside with my combustion engine powered Tacoma, I'd venture to say that people probably wont be able to stop the next such event 10K years from now even if TRUMP does drill ANWAR, knowwhatImeanVern? And griz will probably be the dominant species once again since they can endure cold way better that us pasty hairless nomads that will try to claim we ourselves caused our demise down in the frozen tundra of CT by electing too many Dems who stopped global warming.... ;)
That would be 'mile and a half' thick sheet of ice formerly over my location now.....
As I ponder our current political issues I've come to a few realizations. The first is possibly the most important and something we all need to accept. Think about this and tell me I'm wrong. Leftist hate humanity. Pay attention. Just about all on the left, if they are being honest, will proclaim that humans are a cancer, or disease on the planet. That is the basis for everything they want to do. Abortion, animal rights, support of Islam, socialism. Everything we do has to be bad. Hunting, energy, agriculture, western civilization, free markets, all of this is bad. As soon as you accept this you can then react to what they do in a rational manner. Do we really want those who hate our existence to make decisions on our lives? I will say, it's refreshing to see them finally being honest about what they want to do. We've always knew that they want to take away our guns. Tax us into poverty. Stop all hunting. Curtail free speech. Leftists think they can alter reality to fit their ambitions. Socialism, climate change, etc. Force the world to accept their ideas, even if it never works. It can't work. It just hasn't been tried by the right people, right? Conservatives alter their ambitions to fit reality. They understand that they can't change reality and adapt accordingly. That is the real difference between the right and the left.
One thinks we are a cancer and need to be eradicated, the other accepts that we are just part of the planet.
Second. Man made "catastrophic" climate change is the greatest scam in the history of the world. Even if we are having a detrimental effect on our climate, bankrupting middle class America and spending trillions will have no effect. Mark my words. We live in the cleaner environment today than in any time in human history. The air we breath, food and water we consume is cleaner today than ever before. All of this is because of technology, ingenuity and yes, cheap energy made available with fossil fuels.
Feel free to debate this.
Lou, has the bill progressed? Any idea how it will go?
There was a hearing in the Natural Resources committee last week. Only 1 democrat showed up. The author of the bill didn't show up.
I'm hoping this thing is dead.
"Democrat's are more likely to ensure that we have federal land at all,... " And then they TRANSFER that multi-use land into highly regulated Monuments -- creating defacto anti-hunting areas; both Dem Senators in my state are rabid about it. Then, they start waxing about 'Corridors for Wildlife' -- No! I see the overreach of the Feds and I don't need the wolf / grizzly debacle emigrating to my state. Hunting IS conservation, and the North American hunting model leads the world in stewardship.
Looks like the SC ruled in favor allowing the Crows to poach elk across Wyoming. The court system is broken.
Thanks Smokedtrout. So it looks like it wasn't meant to be a real bill, but that the chairman Grivalja was just creating drama.
You guys are a riot. Anybody who finds any fault whatsoever with DJT is automatically labeled an AOC Autograph Model whack-job and you go on your merry way.
What you’re failing to recognize is that most of us middle-of-the-road folk hold Trump and AOC equally in contempt. Trouble is, most people these days have seen enough of The Donald Show, and a lot of them won’t stay home in ‘20. If the republicans can’t offer a reasonable alternative, they’re going to vote for whatever nitwit the Democrats will offer them.
GF I think you're responding to the wrong post. This one is about permanent grizzly bear protection.
This seems to be dead in the water. Good news.
I think what GF is trying to say is that Trump killed all the caribou, and something about grizzlies is happening which Trump must be responsible for also.
Good news that this bill didn't get serious traction.
Glad this one looks to have fizzled. For now.
I don't know how federal lawmaking takes place. But this is the chairman's bill and my understanding is that he has "tabled" it for now. But, he can pull it back up anytime he chooses. So he could be pulling it back up any time that he chooses. If another "cecil" event were to occur with a bear then he would likely seize the timing and introduce it. Or, possibly he wrote the bill, evaluated its legitimacy, and decided that the US wasn't ready yet.
Good, the bill is in remission then. Maybe they will find a cure in the meantime. A cure for stupid, before it goes into relapse.
In any event, (hypothetically speaking) in 10 thousand years, the Polar bear will likely replace the grizzley in regions north of 30 Degrees N Lat. The elevation will increase by approximately 7920 feet though making it an alpine tundra ecosystem year 'round, and permanent human existence will be nowhere to be found. The bear will have to evolve and learn to forage on land. Based on the fossil record and 'history' that is how dynamic life and existence is on earth. 10 thousand more years, there may be massive tropical forests in Alberta creating more oil-shale and coal being 'created' in Montana. 'Everyone on the left' sees it as or wants to make earth to be 'static', stay the same ideal temperature with static sea levels in their areas 'forever'. Yet every slogan they advertise during elections cycles promotes 'Change". That is how screwed up the left is...trying to play God with nature knowing little to nothing about how it works. Proposals like this 'bear' bill just go to show how ignorant people who rarely set foot in Nature, but run this country from their city abodes, try to make laws for those who do all the while trying to manipulate natural processes. Humans are part of nature, so you have to understand how it works to propose policies. Most who propose and support bills like this one do not because theyare so far removed from it. And as for the right wingers and middle of the roaders, promoting policies that allow extraction of fossil fuels will have mostly positive impacts to us now living, and very little impact to anything 'permanent' because the earth is going to do what it wants to do regardless. We suppress once vast wild land fires that the burning of fossil fuels may make up for, or exceed, but so far our impact to the climate is relatively minor compared to the what the earth does to itself. There are those who will say 'Trump did it'. LOL!
These wildlife protection bill threads always turn into political issues (left vs right) because they are. Its a policy being proposed. And this nation is highly polarized.
I for one do not see Trump as perfect, although I do support most all of his policies. I doubt anyone who looks at the results of his election so far can honestly say this country is not better off than before. To say it is worse off would be delusional, and there is a whole 'side' that does think this. So who are truth-seeking people going to vote for next Pres. election? Unless you want more bills like this one proposed and chancing them eventually becoming law, we better wake the hell up and take a stand on what is 'the greater good'.
The bill did pick up 3 more cosponsors the day after the hearing. Three democrats from NJ, PA, and AZ. None of which attended the hearing.
I still think it is prudent to write/call/accost your representative and tell them what you think of this bill. Nicely though! Especially if your rep is a democrat. We don't need any more sponsors, they can resurrect this thing at any time.
Weird.. those states don’t have grizzlies..
LOL, Smag, that makes me think of what my wife just said when she was in Tennessee last week. " I only saw one person with a full set of teeth!"
“The sky is falling, the sky is falling”.....,chicken little quote.
