Sorry for this Bird...but it is a dumb bird that don't have a lot of sense to keep away from danger. It is easy prey for most of the predators in its area. I know lots of hunters that will not shoot them because (1) we know their not thriving like they once did (2) they don't taste all that good unless you have special preparations (3) they are way to easy of a target anyway
I hope Montana citizens can see how the facts presented by WildEarth Guardians wildlife biologist match up with rah-rah rhetoric from groups like Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Montana Wildlife Federation and other groups and individuals that have strong ties (including Dark Money ties) to Dem Party politicians in Montana.
Heck, just see how the CEO of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers 'celebrates' the 'historic' sage grouse victory....Driving over to the Great Plains killing sage grouse for 'sport.'
Also, I'd encourage Montanans to pay particular attention as Molvar explains how the ‘Grazing Improvement Act' – which was attached as one of the anti-environmental, anti-public lands, anti-science riders to the National Defense Bill in Dec 2014 – makes the new sage grouse plans even worse.
“And thanks to the Grazing Improvement Act tacked on to the defense spending bill in 2013, when federal agencies are short on money or personnel to issue new grazing permits, permits are automatically renewed for another decade under the same old terms.” – Erik Molvar
Remember, both Senator Tester and (at the time) Rep Daines championed the ‘Grazing Improvement Act’ in press conferences and press releases (even though they both got the details of what it actual does totally wrong).
Also, don’t forget that nobody with groups like the Montana Wilderness Association, Montana Wildlife Federation, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers or Montana Trout Unlimited raised one single red flag about the ‘Grazing Improvement Act.’ This is especially egregious because the 'Grazing Improvement Act' not only will negatively impact sage grouse and their habitat, but it impacts hundreds of millions of acres of public lands across the West and therefore will be a negative impact for countless other wildlife and fish species that rely on public lands.
But hey, as you've seen with things like attempts to greatly increase public lands logging through political mandates, when Democratic Party politicians come up with these 'birdbrained' ideas that compromise America's public lands legacy, these 'conservation' and 'sportsmen's' groups either remain silent or support terrible policy.
I own a car which I use to haul stuff for work but I also bike everywhere. Drivers drive horribly and bikers oftentimes feel entitled. Let's all do a good job and simply be careful and respect our fellow person. And, driving less should be a goal for all so we can stop supporting the oil companies, polluting the airways, and such. And considering Missoula's vast network of bike trails, Free Cycles, etc., there is no excuse. Many cities in the United States don't change their infrastructure to accommodate bicyclists nor are there local businesses that allow you to build bikes practically for free.
Do a google search of "Amsterdam bicyclists". This may inspire some.
I bike and I drive. I don't understand why there is this weird idea that people only do one or the other! But anyways, I will just say, that the Russell crossing actually terrifies me as a driver. I pass thru there a lot. And when people bike through it, a lot of times, its as if they just suddenly pop out into the road from nowhere. For pedestrians this is true as well, but usually they are standing there hoping someone will stop. Sometimes I dont see them till its too late to stop. Its improved since they added more doodads in the crossing but i still find it tricky. The worst is at dusk. It is inexplicably super hard to see right there at dusk. I dont want to scare cyclists and i certainly don't want to hit any. So. Actually I think that spot needs to be insanely well lit, for both pedestrians and bikes, and there needs to be a traffic signal there. Then bikes would get an actual green light, and get to bike on through, safely. Cars would be forced to wait, but they would have ample warning to slow down and stop. It could be just a signal activated by a button , when needed by pedestrians and cyclists. Yeah yeah its super congested traffic right there, bumper to bumper and maybe that would slow it down more sometimes. But I am the kind of driver that would rather there was an annoyance like that, than a safety hazard.
I stop for bicyclists who are following the law. However if you are a driver in this town, you know that it is a common occurrence for bicyclists to disredpgard all traffic laws and risk not only their own love but the loves of others. I was recently in a very near accident...with my baby in the car...that was caused by a bicyclist who decided to make a left turn out of a right turn only lane, thereby crossing four lanes of oncoming traffic one direction and three the other direction. One of the drivers had to stop suddenly which subsequently caused several other cars to have to stop...it caused a four car accident. The bicyclist drove right down the road taking no responsibility for his actions in causing the accident. I have nearly hit several bicyclists who have run stop signs, proceeded through red lights, run me and my child off the sidewalk, and pysically run into my car while running a stop sign. Not only is it the drivers' responsibility to watch for all operators of vehicles and pedestrians, but it is a bicyclist's responsibility to travel in a safe and legal manner. You also left out the section that says you can't ride on the sidewalk if a designated bike lane is present, and that you must follow all Traffic laws that motorized vehicles follow. Yep that includes stopping at red lights and stop signs...as well as turning with appropriate signals and in appropriate lanes.
Missoula can harbor some of the nicest people who are polite to a dangerous level. We *(my wife and I) mostly walk but we employ a similar strategy in staying back from a crosswalk to wait until we can cross without making a traffic snarl. Some people are so polite they get rear-ended ....especially easy to happen if you stop your car in a round-about with a crosswalk at it's edge. Sometimes it is hard to decide the safest thing overall but reasonable people doing reasonable things sometimes gets complicated and make unpredictable outcomes.
The only place I stop for bikes is on Russell at the crossing by the tracks. I won't stop for them anywhere else, as they've requested many times in letters to this paper and others.
Sometimes I'll stop for little kids on bikes if its clear they're trying to cross. That's it. I wish other drivers would do the same - bikes get miffed when you stop, they've said as much.
Did I miss an answer to my question?
Go read the second amendment. Then tell me where in the constitution vehicle, insurance, licensing and to go further education, health, air, water, marriage etc is stated as Federal business? Or even State business for that matter, unless the people decreed it.
I don't understand why everything is focused on weapons trade, proliferation I guess would be the term used by control advocates and accessibility by opponents. We have to train to legally use a vehicle and maintain registration and licensing on it, as well as maintain insurance as a 2 to 8 thousand pound powered chunk of steel is recognized as a highly dangerous thing.
Can someone explain to me why any untrained, unqualified person can go pickup some of the highest powered weaponry on Earth in less time than it takes to shop for groceries? The right to bear arms? We're dealing with idiocy here, not the protection of an important right envisioned by our forbears. What if the right to bear arms was the right to drive cars? The two are about as dangerous as each other when in the hands of fools. I think the argument would run in a similar manner as it has been.
for one, it is already illegal for anyone to sell a gun to a mentally incompetent person with a 10 year sentence, a Federal Law and this is everyone dealer or not, all of us. Seems the Council doesn't read Federal Laws before diving into a lawsuit they can't win. Look it up if you know how, pretty simple these days to know the laws.....
This argument is, most charitably, complete trash. What a shame you might alienate people that sell a variety of lethal weapons to whomever might have the money. Though congress finds itself unable to act that doesn't make local action useless. Yes you may be able to drive to buy a gun at a gun show but at the very least this eliminates immediate purchases of passion. I have a hard time following your logic here, which is disapointing considering most of your writing.
Its not the background checks that most of us object to. As a matter of fact most NRA members own guns they bought at a store legally and went through background checks. And I'd like to point out that when you buy a gun from the internet all reputable sites will only ship to a gun store (or FFL holder). That person then requires a background check of the person receiving the gun (the buyer). Most gun show sellers are FFL holders and likewise require background checks. But I'm not answering the question, sorry. If we were assured that it would just be a disposable background check (like it is supposed to be now) and there would be no attempt to register, limit and confiscate guns we would be all for it. Even though it would do nothing at all to keep guns out of the hands of the literally insane people committing the atrocities we all want to stop. The problem is, it is always the first step of many. On both sides. I'm content with the status quo from my point of view, I'm just afraid once the ball starts rolling it will crush us all. Like San Francisco did with their gun laws.
timmie, I don't know whether your NRA membership numbers are correct, but it doesn't matter. A MAJORITY OF MEMBERS support background checks. Why wouldn't they? Nobody's trying to take your guns, just trying to make sure some spouse or child abuser, murderer, etc. doesn't get his hands on a gun. Why would anyone object to that?
timmie, I don't know whether your NRA membership numbers are correct, but it doesn't matter. A MAJORITY OF MEMBERS support background checks. Why wouldn't they? Nobody's trying to take your guns, just trying to make sure some spouse or child abuser, etc. doesn't get his hands on a gun. Why would anyone object to that?
The NRA is due for a big fall over the next 25-30 years. They've hitched their fortunes to one political party (no Democratic president will ever sign another pro- gun bill, like the guns-in-parks one) and one shrinking demographic - angry white males with a high school education or less. The later are not reproducing at replacement rates, and a quick look around any gun show will reveal mainly an elderly men's convention with a very occasional twenty something guy thrown in. Women, African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans just do not buy into the gun culture, and although Montana will be the last place to notice, hunting participation continues to decline nationally; we unmistakably have fewer people owning more guns per capita. As Newtown tragedies add up, so will public disgust, and people will be less likely to take seriously the guy in the trucker cap ranting about how he needs his AR-15 in case the Redcoats come back. The US Senate will no doubt be the last stand of the NRA by mid-century, but like Southern segregationist senators trying to hold back the civil rights tide, gun extremists will find themselves trapped on an ice floe on a hot day.
So, if legitimate sportsmen want to maintain an environment where shooting sports are accepted and isolated rural residents can keep firearms for legitimate self-protection, they need to start separating themselves from
Wayne LaPierre's wingnut ravings and start negotiating some sensible compromises. The present line in the concrete will, for the NRA, lead right over the cliff.
I'd like to point out a couple things. First of all the reason the NRA exists and is so powerful is that there are 5 million members (according to USA Today). That is 5 million voters who care about an issue enough to put up money to help it out. So please quit making it sound like the NRA is a corporation pushing an agenda like big oil objecting to solar plants. Secondly the reason the NRA pushes so hard is that the ant-gun crowd pushes just as hard in the opposite direction. This legislation is an example of first step thinking. First we have to have background checks. Ok. But now we need to know who is selling a gun. Otherwise people could ignore the law right? Well the only way to do that is to make everyone register every gun. And that my friends is unacceptable. Personally I think the answer is to cause problems for law breakers not law abiding citizens. How about a mandatory life sentence if you commit ANY crime with a gun in your possession? It works in England to the extent that even when the drug dealers have access to guns they don't use them for fear of the repercussions.
The Missoula City council is akin to the San Francisco City Council on steroids. I personally know several families in Lake County who used to spend many thousands of dollars each in Missoula every year, who now do ALL their business in Kalispell. All becuase of the extreme liberal agendas the city council has backed or passed. .
How can the Missoula socialists reconcile the MCA? They can't. But that doesn't stop them for trying.
Trout and mining are not compatable. Trout do their part by remaining beautiful and feisty. It's the Miners who cause the trouble. All they want is product. They have no regard for anything else. These are the same class that decimated the carrier pidgeon the buffalo and the American Indian. They are amount the most evil people this planet has ever experienced
Montana stands to make enormous gains provided we keep these predatory exploiters at bay.
Missoula News/Independent Publishing |
Powered by Foundation