Ohh, so you bashed us for pulling the "r" lever...What lever did you pull????

Hippee you should become President of the Republican Water Haulers Union now since Buckne retired that position. He probably had his buckets bronzed and sitting above his fireplace. You'll probably have to buy your own buckets.

LOL, that's what i thought and why i warned you again about the stone throwing.....Unless of course you can back it up. which the lib. party CAN'T. (even when it comes to gun laws)

Just remember, the water gets hauled TO the swamp, not from it in that union.

I will post for you, AGAIN, the Libertarian Party platform concerning the second amendment.

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.

*Underlining added for emphasis by me.
Shall we compare this to the republican platform concerning the second amendment?

Republican platform;

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a natural inalienable right that predates the Constitution and is secured by the Second Amendment. Lawful gun ownership enables Americans to exercise their God-given right of self-defense for the safety of their homes, their loved ones, and their communities.

We salute the Republican Congress for defending the right to keep and bear arms by preventing the President from installing a new liberal majority on the Supreme Court. The confirmation to the Court of additional anti-gun justices would eviscerate the Second Amendment’s fundamental protections. Already, local officials in the nation’s capital and elsewhere are defying the Court’s decisions upholding an individual right to bear arms as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald. We support firearm reciprocity legislation to recognize the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms to protect themselves and their families in all 50 states. We support constitutional carry statutes and salute the states that have passed them. We oppose ill-conceived laws that would restrict magazine capacity or ban the sale of the most popular and common modern rifle. We also oppose any effort to deprive individuals of their right to keep and bear arms without due process of law.

We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and the current Administration’s illegal harassment of firearm dealers. We oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners, registration of ammunition, and restoration of the ill-fated Clinton gun ban. We call for a thorough investigation — by a new Republican administration — of the deadly “Fast and Furious” operation perpetrated by Department of Justice officials who approved and allowed illegal sales of guns to known violent criminals

*I have bolded the portion s which show that no big movement towards "shall not be infringed" is on the horizon from these swamp dwellers.

You're still alive and free, must not bother you too much. lol

Lots of the little things that bug Socialists. For instance, I like the appointment of a second amendment friendly Supreme Court Judge. Is that a good accomplishment?

I would have a hard time arguing with that, especially the last sentence. The next election will shape the future for gun rights, for sure. Regardless if you like Trump or not, his polices are far better that what we will get from the democrats. It's important we vote for only strong 2nd amendment supporters.


The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. Private property owners should be free to establish their own conditions regarding the presence of personal defense weapons on their own property. We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, registering, or monitoring the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition.

*Underlining added for emphasis by me.
Shall we compare this to the republican platform concerning the second amendment? [/quote]

James, I ask could this be the result of people at a much lower level making suggestions to changing regulations ?? I know in my state we have many site managers that sometimes have no idea about trapping, or even different types of hunting, yet they are left to manage the sites, and the activities that take place upon them. I know we have people within the USFWS that are not lets say friendly to trappers, or hunters, and yet many of these types are in positions of power to make recommendations about our resources. I know sometimes when it comes to trapping issues, that party line matters not. Yes when it comes to gun issues there is a party line stance upon that issue, but to me that is a more of a constitutional rights issue, until it crosses over into restrictions while I'm afield in the outdoors.


I guess what I'm saying is James, that we have a lot of people that work at all different levels within many of the different agency's of the federal government, and many of these people have a very negative opinion of trapping, and hunting. Due to the fact that many of these people are in positions to make life miserable for us, and those in charge of these agency's lots of times use these people as a sounding board, especially if they themselves have no idea about the issue at hand, this sadly happens way to offend. Things like this happen most of the time without anyone realizing it, and then you spend the next several years trying to right a wrong, which we all know is a lot harder issue at that point. I'm not saying that is what happen in your case, but I know good and well it has happen at several places in the US in the past, and I see no reason it would not continue at maybe even a greater level in the future. I don't think things like this are a result lots of times due to the administration that is in power at the time, but rather a group/mentality that is already ingrained within the agency. We have seen first hand how an agency, and those within an agency can make life miserable for those within an administration.

RTT

James is a little disingenuous or plain ignorant. The State of Alaska is also requiring a class for moose hunters on the entire Kenai peninsula. It is not anti-hunting, it is anti ignoramus. Apparently too many hunters are shooting sub-legal bulls and this is probably a wasted effort at curbing this. All bureaucracy loves creating new and exciting educational requirements to participate in hunting and trapping. Trapper-ed comes to mind.

Your right Dirt, I agree trappers education fell into that very mix, but I also know trappers have made the very best of it, and now I see trappers education as a very positive thing for trapping. I also know the positives have been the result of trappers efforts, and not those within the bureaucracy you speak of.


RTT

A little FYI for Jimmy.




"The Board of Game put the requirement in place during its February 2017 meeting in Fairbanks by approving an Agenda Change Request submitted by the Central Peninsula Fish and Game Advisory Committee, a citizen group that meets to discuss issues before the Board of Fisheries and the Board of Game. The group was concerned that too many sublegal moose are being killed, particularly in the previous season.

“Hunters that take illegal moose deprive other hunters that are careful in determining whether a bull is legal from that animal in future years,” the proposal states. “When a subpopulation of moose is managed under a selective harvest program, success of the program depends on a low percentage of illegal bulls harvested.”

Last year, 57 sublegal moose were taken by hunters, or about 20 percent of the total harvest, Selinger said. In 2015, the sublegal take was about 42 animals, or 16 percent of the total harvest, according to a presentation submitted by Fish and Game staff to the Board of Game for the meeting in February. That only includes the animals surrendered to Fish and Game by hunters, though, and doesn’t take into account moose killed by cars on the roads, which is somewhere around 200 moose each year on the Kenai Peninsula, Selinger said."

Apparently, guys who hunt the Kenai are dysfunctional.

I have found no evidence of an additional 3 day course to hunt the Kenai Wildlife refuge that Republicans are responsible for. Maybe Jim has a source?

Or could we have case of t-man perjury that should result in a 10 day suspension?

An ostrich with his head in the sand can't see or identify what is going on around it. Some of us are hunters, trappers, sportsmen of every stripe and color, with a love of being out on the land with rod, gun, and trap in hand first and foremost. That's why the vast majority on here vote for Republicans. SOME of us (a very few) are first and foremost devoted Democrats for whatever reason, and hold a love of the outdoors and specifically trapping, secondly.

Dirt, are they dysfunctional, or are the regulations that are in place needing a review ?? I know they should realize the regulations in place, and yes they should comply, but sometimes regulations that are put into place that make it so hard for a person to stay legal. I know this happen back in the late 70's with a many a duck hunter, had to be a lawyer like James to shoot a duck at one point. Now I have never hunted moose, and have never had an opportunity to hunt moose, so what I know about moose hunting you could put up a mosquitos butt, and it would roll around like a BB in a boxcar. That said if there is that many illegal moose within the harvest numbers, then maybe they need to rethink there permit numbers, or how they determine a legal moose. The approach they have taken is not working, and do you really want more regulations on top of regulations already in place, just something to think about from someone on the outside looking in.


RTT

Exactly

Drain the Swamp this November!

MAGA!

TRUMP 2020!!!

I agree the regulation ask for problems, but 20% self reported accidents, to go along with the additional three sss'd accidents and you could be talking 1/3 of the harvest is screw ups. Real simple not to screw up IMO, don't shoot if you are not 100% sure. Guys don't know what they are doing or are taking chances.

I'm no fan of spike, 50", four brow tine, but you shouldn't have a 30% error rate.

Maybe too many Anchorage lawyers hunting the Kenai working the gray area.

What possible biological reason could there be to have a regulation relating to horn size?

Low bull/ cow ratios. The goal is 20-25 bulls per 100 cows post hunting to ensure first estrus breeding success. The scheme allows long seasons and puts a certain segment of the bull population out of the game. It doesn't work awful well along the road system. Created by the former area biologist of the Kenai peninsula and current chairman of the Board of Game.