re: I have met the enemy, and he is us

quote:

---

That's my biggest problem with those marginal lands being farmed. It's usually too wet and the yields suck and if it goes under there's crop insurance to bail them out. After 2 or 3 times, those should be forced into CRP or farm at own risk. But hey, I want drug testing for welfare mamas too.

---

Uh huh....

quote:

---

I vote for drug testing erryone that gets Gubmint cheese. Welfare mamas, farmers, doctors, nursing home owners

---

Why? The drugs obviously are not affecting their employment.

After reading almost 20 pages of BS the only thing I came across that peaked my interest is this

quote:

---

I know someone in acadia parish that has 850 acres in crp... that NOBODY hunts....

---

If you could please PM me their number as well as give them a call and campaign for them to give me hunting privileges that would be great.

quote:

---

To make the assumption that government conservation programs benefit all hunters is very much the same as saying any welfare, you name it, benefits society as a whole.

---

Government conservation programs benefit all hunters by increasing the number of ducks hatched each year because these programs provide safe breeding grounds, and feeding sites. Ducks cannot provide this for themselves so it is our responsibility as sportsman to provide this for them. I realize that you are not a sportsman and have no desire to increase the number of ducks hatched each year if that means costing you a few bucks.

Welfare, food stamps, etc. benefit humans, who unlike ducks, can provide for themselves. Obviously not all humans on these programs can provide for themselves, and I am ok with our taxes providing for these people. However, many people on these programs can provide for themselves, they just choose not to and the government is doing a poor job regulating who can and cannot be on the programs. This where people have an issue with welfare, food stamps, etc. All ducks that benefit from govt. assistance need it, many of the people who benefit from it do not.

SHORT VERSION BELOW

I'm all for there being more ducks so I am for the govt. providing funds to make this happen.

I am not in favor of lazy pieces of shite breeding more lazy pieces of shite, so I do not like that the govt. provides funds for this to take place.

quote:

---

However, many people on these programs can provide for themselves, they just choose not to and the government is doing a poor job regulating who can and cannot be on the programs.

---

By this logic you should be ok with making sure any landowner wanting to enroll in a program does not have the funds to pay for the improvements themselves.

quote:

---

Ducks cannot provide this for themselves so it is our responsibility as sportsman to provide this for them.

---

Nice one

You my man are exactly who I'm talking about. "Don't cut the funding to the stuff I like!"

If the gov wants to spend millions improving habitat on Federal land, I'm all for it. But on someone's private land? No. If the landowner wants to pay for it, great. But federal tax money is not meant for improving habitat on private land. Sorry that this hurts your feelings.

I will agree with you to an extent.

Let me propose a thought:
-I'm sure lots of us hunters like these programs. More ducks. More hunting. Great. Oh but it's just for recreation. So you're making the government pay for something you enjoy.
--One counterargument would be "it's good for the species overall." Which is true. We as humans don't want to destroy species. However, how many of you laughed at some obscure law protecting some obscure fish or insect from being wiped out?

There is bias among hunters to keep the govt funding these programs. But it is to be expected. I think one just must realize and not deny this fact. That it comes down to "what I want."

quote:

---

Now the fact that you bait and are ok with it

---

But I don't kill over my limit