Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Which presidential candidate will best support our dirt bike addiction?

Recommended Posts

Rubio, Trump, or Cruz? Or God forbid, Hillary Clinton or Sanders?? Tell me which one is best. You Democrats, don't even respond because what you say is worthless!

wow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow...

Always remember, Obama is the pinnacle of hatred against fossil fuels. For us to burn oil for entertainment purposes only, while we're not flying Air Force One and playing golf courses that waste billions of gallons of water per year, that knifes him to his bones.

Obama is the ideologue of all ideologues. He's a hypocrite through and through. I hate every molecule in his body, every fiber of my being despises that man.

Edited by LovingOffroadPain
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always remember, Obama is the pinnacle of hatred against fossil fuels. For us to burn oil for entertainment purposes only, while we're not flying Air Force One and playing golf courses that waste billions of gallons of water per year, that knifes him to his bones.

Obama is the ideologue of all ideologues. He's a hypocrite through and through. I hate every molecule in his body, every fiber of my being despises that man.

 

Don't forget Marine One and the car that gets terrible gas mileage. I haven't followed to closely to what each candidate supports. Cruz would probably be best for offloading BUT he is a hunter and hunters don't seem to like dirt bikers scaring off the animals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand paul

Probably but Cruz would likely be good too.  Dont rule out Trump but dont rule him in either. lol  The corporation ceo head in him may have eyes on cutting various government departments, EPA being one.   Could he do it...only his hair dresser knows for sure.  lol

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget Marine One and the car that gets terrible gas mileage. I haven't followed to closely to what each candidate supports. Cruz would probably be best for offloading BUT he is a hunter and hunters don't seem to like dirt bikers scaring off the animals. 

some dont, some love them.  When I hunted I realized that dirt bikes and quads got the animals moving and increased my chances for a shot. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is the ideologue of all ideologues. He's a hypocrite through and through. I hate every molecule in his body, every fiber of my being despises that man.

You only got one more year to hate on the man. Who you going to be hating on after that? To find one person to be the root of all of one's problems is interesting to say the least. While I don't admire him, I certainly spend less time thinking about how much I hate or like the man.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the big scheme of things, I don't think it really matters who wins. The Forest Circus and the BLM were taken over in the 70's by lefties who didn't know shit about public land management. 

 

The bureaucracy. It lives on and on, seldom accountable to anyone. Certainly not "we the people"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always remember, Obama is the pinnacle of hatred against fossil fuels. For us to burn oil for entertainment purposes only, while we're not flying Air Force One and playing golf courses that waste billions of gallons of water per year, that knifes him to his bones.

Obama is the ideologue of all ideologues. He's a hypocrite through and through. I hate every molecule in his body, every fiber of my being despises that man.

. Couldn't have said it better myself
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the pillars of the democrat platform since Clinton/Gore has been to shut motorized recreation out of our public lands.  Look at both Clinton's and Obama's abuses of the Antiquities Act, putting millions of acres off limits to OHVs.  One of the first things a Republican congress needs to do with the cooperation of a Republican president is rewrite the Antiquities Act making it impossible for a single man (or woman) to close millions of acres with the stroke of a pen.  If you look back over the past 20 years or so of land closures it is not so much the idiots in charge of the BLM and FS, it is the democrat politicians.  Any closures implemented by the BLM or FS have to go through a complete scoping process with proposed alternatives with some sort of rationale behind them.  But, for the past 20+ years democrats have listened to eco nazi groups and ignored the public, so the process has always been tilted.  The Roadless Rule is a prime example of this, I wrote a long article on the history of the development of this rule a number of years ago that exposed the corruption involved, it was reprinted in numerous publications including the Blue Ribbon Coaltion magazine.  Bottom line here is that Republican administrations have historically been friendlier to our interests, any one of them would be better than any democrat, especially Clinton, her husband started the abuse of the Antiquities Act (with the help of the Eco nazi in chief, algore and his friends).

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we end up with Sanders or Clinton we are going to have bigger problems than OHV'ing. 

 

I think Trump might be the best option.  I don't like his northeastern upper class background.  These types of people don't seem to understand the way the rest of the country works.  That said I think he would be the strongest candidate in the general election since he's so adept at handling the media/democrats bullsh*t.  I also believe he could do the most good for the economy, and if we all do better maybe some people can afford to get back into OHV'ing.  That would be the best thing.  The more people we have participating the stronger our interests are.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my previous post I mentioned the Roadless Rule and the democrat corruption involved in the attempted implementation of the rule, if you want a primer on how they operate in collusion with their "friends" I am posting the article I wrote 13 years ago.  This article was important in exposing the corruption of the democrats and ultimately pretty much shutting down the biggest land grab of all time.  But, we are in for more of these shenanigans if Clinton gets into office.  It can still be found archived at http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/land-use-issues/71073-long-winding-road-roadless-rule.html

 

THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD OF THE ROADLESS RULE
by Brad Ullrich, Land Use Editor


In the last couple years of his presidency, the most corrupt president in history, William Clinton, tried to pull off the largest land grab of all time as the crown jewel of his "legacy". This grand scheme, known as the Roadless Rule, was Clinton's plan to lock up over 58 million acres of National Forest land, in effect creating 58 million acres of de facto wilderness. He was able to do this with his flagrant abuse of the Antiquities Act with the designation of huge National Monuments, and made an almost successful attempt to put more land off limits to multiple use with the proposed Roadless Rule.

Three years later, even though the rule has yet to be implemented, it is still a very real threat to multiple use on our National Forests. In the intervening three years there have been other attempts by the environmental extremists to lock up our public lands, California Senator Boxers Wild Heritage Act which is still pending being one of the most notable, but none of the land grab attempts have approached the scope of Clinton's Roadless Rule. In order to understand just what is going on with the Rule, and why it is still the threat that it is, we need to go back over three years and start at the beginning of this nearly successful attempt to lock up a large portion of our nation's forest.

The Clinton/Gore administration, as it has been documented numerous times, was pretty much owned by the extreme environmental groups. It is still unclear as to who actually was running the show when it came to environmental matters, Clinton or Gore (take even a casual look at "Earth in the Balance"), but the fact remains that their administration made more use and abuse of environmental laws than any previous administration. And the Roadless Rule is no exception. The exact time and date of the "birth" of this Rule is probably impossible to pin down, it is most likely a valid assumption that an ongoing dialogue between the Clinton/Gore administration and extreme environmental groups on this subject had been going on for quite some time. But, for our purposes, we can look to meetings held in early 1999 as the time when the Rule really began to take shape.

Starting sometime in early 1999, possibly even going back to the latter part of 1998, Ken Rait of the Heritage Forest Campaign, Mike Francis, Bill Meadows, Charles Wilkinson of The Wilderness Society, Niel Lawrence of the National Resources Defense Council, Gene Karpinski of USPIRG, Marty Hayden of the Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund, Dan Beard of the Audubon Society and Carl Pope of the Sierra Club began meeting in secret with members of the Clinton/Gore administration. The Clinton/Gore administration employees included people very high up in the administration, Chris Wood of the Forest Service, Jim Lyons and Anne Kennedy of the Department of Agriculture, Dinah Bear and George Frampton of the Council on Environmental Quality, and John Podesta, Clinton's Chief of Staff. These meetings, as the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health determined in its report dated February 18, 2000, were in direct violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Administrative Procedure Act Prohibition on Ex Parte Communications. The House Report called the formation of the Rule under these conditions an "environmental vacuum". In addition to these numerous meetings with environmental groups, some of the groups, according to the House Report, even supplied lengthy memorandums of opinion to the federal employees involved. These memorandums included Niel Lawrence's legal analysis, "Executive Branch's Authority to Protect National Forest Roadless Areas" and Charles Wilkinson's memo to George Frampton, "Roadless Area Policy - What's Feasible". The above mentioned names and memorandums have been fully documented by the House in their Report.

Move forward a bit to May of 2000. On May 9 the former Forest Service Chief, Mike Dombeck, issued a press release titled "Forest Service Releases Proposal for Future Management of Roadless Areas". This press release attempted to make the proposed rule look like something it was not, and by this time the greenest Forest Service Chief of all time, Dombeck, was part of the scheme, too. In the press release Dombeck said, "[The proposal] seeks to balance local needs with maintaining the values of our remaining roadless areas. At the same time, roadless areas would remain open for public use, access and recreation." It is here that the subject of access first came up, and of course, as part of the coverup to the true intention of the Rule, the Forest Service's Chief and main green mouthpiece is standing up and assuring the public that access will remain undisturbed. What is conspicuously missing in the above statement is what kind of access he is referring to, and you know it was not motorized.

In the May 2000 press release there were several other items of note. The public meetings as an opportunity for public input in the rulemaking process was announced. The number of meetings, and ultimately the number of comments received was unprecedented, nothing anywhere near the scope of this process had ever been done before. But, as we were to begin to realize during 2000, the public input and meeting process was a sham, a smokescreen to cover up a pre-determined outcome. The process was meant only to make the public "feel good", make us feel like we really were part of this process. But, this was not the case. First of all, most of the Forest Service personnel involved in these meetings were, to put it politely, uninformed about the process, and to put it more bluntly, they were clueless. I personally attended two meetings, one in Albuquerque, NM and one in Durango, CO, and I can honestly say that these meetings were a total waste of time. The Forest Service personnel had virtually no information concerning what actually was going on, most questions from the audience they were either unable to answer or answered in only a vague and general way (I have the Albuquerque meeting on tape). And to further the perception of the meetings as a sham, the Forest Service, at the Albuquerque meeting, even allowed Forest Guardians, a very extreme environmental group, to set up a display directly outside the door of the meeting room which was in the Albuquerque Convention Center.

The other "feel good" item that was announced in the May 2000 press release was the Roadless website where the public could go to get up to the minute information on the process. It should be noted that the information the public was given on the website was ONLY information the Clinton/Gore administration wanted us to see. The website was practically useless for any real information concerning the formation of the Rule, this is because it was just another piece of the puzzle that was ultimately to lead to a pre-determined outcome, the lockup of a good portion of the National Forests and 58 million acres of what would be for all respects and purposes wilderness.

The public input process lasted through the Spring and into the summer of 2000, and during that time the Forest Service received more comment letters and had more people attend meetings than at any time previously. It should be noted that many of the comments that were received were in the form of letters or postcards generated by environmental groups with preprinted comments, and then signed by the uninformed and sheeplike membership of these groups. It is this incredible volume of duplicate comments that ultimately led to the current policy that the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management seem to be adopting, the policy of quality of comments, not quantity.

The public meetings and comment period were wrapped up in midsummer 2000, the final date for comments being July 17. At that point in time land use activists started taking a closer look at what had happened during the public input phase of the Rule, and we were getting a very bad feeling about what was going to happen with the Rule in a few months. And, sure enough, in the Federal Register of January 12, 2001 the Final Rule was announced, effective March 13, 2001. It should be noted that the Final Rule, as published, was virtually identical to the proposed Rule. Our suspicions were confirmed, the public input process was a sham, it was designed to cover up what was going to happen, no matter what.

But, by this time, a different administration with a different view of public land management was in office. On January 29, 2001 President George W. Bush's new Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman signed an order delaying implementation of the Rule for sixty days. The Bush administration had some serious concerns about the validity of the Rule and the way in which the Rule was formed, it seems they must have considered the House Report from almost a year earlier, a report that was totally ignored by the Clinton/Gore administration, in fact all appearances would show that the report was for all respects and purposes quashed.

During all this time Land Use Activists were not idle. There were eight lawsuits filed against the Rule in various jurisdictions, the most notable of these being Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman and State of Idaho v. U.S. Forest Service. On May 10, 2001 the Idaho District Court issued an injunction, in effect staying the Rule until litigated further. In his decision the Judge found "the Court conclusively finds that the comment period was grossly inadequate and thus deprived the public of any meaningful dialogue or input into the process." This decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but it is evident that the Clinton/Gore administration's tactic of trying to make the public feel good with a useless comment period and series of meetings was not only seen as a sham by land use activists, it was seen as such by the Courts as well.

Due to the Idaho Court's decision and the new administration's view of the inadequacy of the rulemaking process, the earlier sixty day stay of the Rule was extended, and on July 3, 2001 the new Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth signed an order opening up a new comment period on the Rule to end September 10, 2001. In the Federal Register announcement of the new comment period the administration outlined ten specific questions they wanted the public to answer concerning management of the roadless areas. These areas included informed decision making, working together, protecting forests, protecting communities, homes and property, protecting access to property, describing values, describing activities, designating areas, competing values and limited resources and any other concerns.

Due to pending litigation and the effects on the country of the events of September 11, 2001 the Bush administration had left the Rule on hold. But, the extreme environmental community has not been idle, this Rule is the end result of a trip down a very long road with the corrupt previous administration, and they did not want all their work to go for naught. There are many Representatives and Senators, mostly Democrat, that lean towards the far left which is where the environmental extremists reside. And you know that the environmental groups had been working on these legislators for quite some time, trying to get the Rule put into effect.

Fast forward to the late spring and early summer of 2002, the Rule is still on hold and the extreme environmentalists are getting very agitated. The summer of 2002 has become the worst fire season on record, and management of our forests has finally entered the consciousness of the general public, not just environmental extremists and land use activists. It is apparent that for years our forests have been mismanaged, and this mismanagement has resulted in catastrophic wildfires due to extreme buildup of fuel on the forest floor. Public outcry has in large part been blaming the extreme environmental groups for this buildup, as Forest Service Chief Bosworth has said, "analysis paralysis" and lawsuits have prevented the thinning of this fuel buildup resulting in conditions that were perfect for catastrophic fires.

But, the GAO released a report stating that only a very small percentage of logging and fuel thinning projects were halted by appeal, apparently contradicting the blame being placed on environmental extremists by the public, legislators and governors all over the southwest. In light of this report, the time was now ripe to reintroduce the Roadless Rule to America. Democratic Washington Senator Jay Inslee introduced a bill in the House to codify the Roadless Rule, in effect bypassing the Bush administration's hold on the Rule and making the rule law. Before all was said and done Representative Inslee had over 170 members of the House behind him sponsoring his proposed legislation, and it was starting to look like possible victory for the extreme environmentalists after more than three years of trying.

July came, the extreme environmentalists were thumbing their noses at the public and land use activists due to the GAO report and Representative Inslee's proposed legislation. Then, at the end of the first week of July the bombshell hit, in effect the smoking gun laying the blame for the catastrophic wildfires directly on the environmentalists and their lawsuit happy tactics. In a letter to Colorado Representative Scott McInnis, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health the GAO quietly explained the criteria they used for their earlier report that appeared to exonerate the extreme environmentalists of any culpability in the situation of extreme fire fuel load that the forests were in. The letter explained the methodology that was used in the previous report, a methodology that excluded most projects that had actually been litigated. From the GAO letter to Representative McInnis:

"First, since the Subcommittee's concern at that time was to determine whether appeals or litigation were delaying projects that had already completed the environmental analysis phase and were to be implemented, we only obtained the appeals and litigation information that affected these projects during fiscal year 2001. We did not obtain any information on appeals and litigation that may have occurred earlier in the development of these projects. Enclosure II to our August 31, 2001, report lists the projects that were to be implemented and were appealed in fiscal year 2001, and the status of those projects as of mid-July 2001. Second, when obtaining the number of hazardous fuel reduction projects for which the Forest Service had completed the necessary environmental analyses, we did not determine the nature of the environmental analyses. That is, we did not determine which of the 1,671 hazardous fuel reduction projects the Forest Service determined were within a categorical exclusion from an environmental evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act and which ones were not within such a categorical exclusion."

This letter from the GAO coupled with a preliminary Forest Service report put the blame squarely where it belonged, on the extreme environmental groups. The Forest Service report would show that in some areas of the country fully 100% of all logging and fuel reduction projects were put on hold due to litigation instituted by environmental groups.

This subsequent GAO report along with the Forest Service Report and pressure from numerous wise use groups, labor unions, and Republican lawmakers caused Representative Inslee to withdraw his proposed legislation on July 17. It is my belief that not only pressure from the above mentioned groups caused Inslee to withdraw the Roadless legislation, public perception of forest management during a summer of catastrophic wildfires also had a huge impact. Any lawmaker giving support to a bill that would hamper the Forest Service in doing the job of protecting the forests was in great danger of being lumped together with the extreme environmental groups, political suicide in an election year. As Representative McInnis said in a July 18 press release:

"In my opinion the support just wasn't there to put a straight-jacket on the Forest Service's ability to manage and prevent catastrophic fires in our nation's forests. I think it is now clear that Members of Congress who represent areas not impacted by these destructive fires have gained a perspective on the importance of managing our nation's forests."

You would think that this would have put an end to the Roadless Rule, at least for the time being. But, this misguided, illegal legislation just won't die that easily. Believe it or not, on July 25, 2002, just a week after Representative Inslee withdrew his proposed legislation in the House seven Senators led by Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington, decided to introduce the Roadless Rule as legislation in the Senate. As of this writing the bill has not been acted on, and due to the legislature's August recess it will probably be a while before it is acted on. But, the fact remains, a plot by the Clinton/Gore administration hatched over three years ago behind closed doors to lock up much of our National Forests from multiple use and motorized recreation in particular just will not die.

And the plot just gets stranger and stranger. Support for the Roadless Rule has historically been heavily Democratic, and support for extreme environmental legislation has been supported by the same group. But, in mid July of 2002 a Democratic Senator from South Dakota, none other than Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle attempted to slip logging and forest fuel thinning legislation into an appropriations bill unnoticed. Of course it was noticed by other lawmakers, especially those from the fire decimated southwest. The cry went up, why just Daschle's state, we want in on it, too. So as of this writing there is legislation pending to increase logging and fire fuel load thinning in other parts of the country. What this holds for the future of the Roadless Rule it is impossible to tell. But you can just bet that the Roadless Rule is nowhere near dead yet, there is still Cantwell's Senate bill pending, and the power of the huge extreme environmental groups should in no way be underestimated. They have far to much time and energy invested in the Rule, along with credibility, so you can be sure that the Rule is nowhere near dead, there is still a long fight ahead to keep this extremely dangerous law from ever going into effect.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Reply with:

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...