Bend NRA resurfaces

Bend NRA resurfaces

There are 42 comments on the Red Bluff Daily News story from Sep 30, 2010, titled Bend NRA resurfaces. In it, Red Bluff Daily News reports that:

The Sacramento River Bend Area is made of nearly 18,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management holdings open to the public free of charge and with few restrictions.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Red Bluff Daily News.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
william

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#1 Sep 30, 2010
ca. cant afford to keep the ones it has open. makes no sence for anymore
But Really

West Tehama County, CA

#2 Sep 30, 2010
william wrote:
ca. cant afford to keep the ones it has open. makes no sence for anymore
This is a Federal project.
But Really

West Tehama County, CA

#3 Sep 30, 2010
"The designation would help create jobs in Tehama and Shasta counties by promoting tourism, hiking, fishing and other outdoor recreation in the area. "

What a joke! This rattlesnake infested pile of rocks is usable a couple months out of the year. I think they are fishing for votes.
Don Polson

Anderson, CA

#4 Sep 30, 2010
Those of us who opposed the Bend NRA had numerous reasons. One, for which we were chastized, was that it would be promoted as a feather in Boxer's campaign hat, given the suspicious timing. Looks like we were completely realistic, if cynical, about Boxer's intentions.
craig

United States

#5 Sep 30, 2010
What is this type of designation going to have on hunting in this area? This 18,000 acres or 28 square miles of open land for deer, turkey, pig and other game. Would they restrict the entry of hunters, since they want to get a bunch of hikers,birdwatchers and others into this area?
Don Polson

Anderson, CA

#6 Sep 30, 2010
craig wrote:
What is this type of designation going to have on hunting in this area? This 18,000 acres or 28 square miles of open land for deer, turkey, pig and other game. Would they restrict the entry of hunters, since they want to get a bunch of hikers,birdwatchers and others into this area?
FYI, from the examination of the language at the time of the debate, nothing changes (hunting, grazing as currently practiced)...unless enviros sue to stop such activities because it's a (drumroll, rimshot, cymball) National Landscape Conservation System component. All assurances are suspect when "Conservation" is the goal and enviro-lefty lawyers and judges take over. Only time will tell.
Respectful effort

Durham, CA

#7 Sep 30, 2010
Don Polson wrote:
Those of us who opposed the Bend NRA had numerous reasons. One, for which we were chastized, was that it would be promoted as a feather in Boxer's campaign hat, given the suspicious timing. Looks like we were completely realistic, if cynical, about Boxer's intentions.
What were the, "other" reasons?

That you were, "chastised, was that it would be promoted as a feather in Boxer's campaign hat".

Even though you might be 100% correct in that assumption it shouldn't have any bearing on a logical debate.
Respectful effort

Durham, CA

#8 Sep 30, 2010
Don Polson wrote:
<quoted text>
FYI, from the examination of the language at the time of the debate, nothing changes (hunting, grazing as currently practiced)...unless enviros sue to stop such activities because it's a (drumroll, rimshot, cymball) National Landscape Conservation System component. All assurances are suspect when "Conservation" is the goal and enviro-lefty lawyers and judges take over. Only time will tell.
First off, let me qualify myself that my family, friends and I, are intense sportsman and outdoor enthusiasts and are stewards of the natural resources along the river and the surrounding areas.

IMO, the recent transition of private lands into Federal lands along the river in the south county have been fair and reasonable and above my own expectations.
They accommodated the hunting considerations very well, again, IMO.
The key to this was we were involved in the 3C process from he beginning and supplied the US fish and wildlife with input and we stayed involved to this day.

IF.....the enviros want to take issue, there is already a proven track record of a working successful relationship between the Federal government, sportsman (hunters), and wildlife in nearby river areas.
Don Polson

Anderson, CA

#9 Sep 30, 2010
Respectful effort wrote:
<quoted text>
What were the, "other" reasons?
That you were, "chastised, was that it would be promoted as a feather in Boxer's campaign hat".
Even though you might be 100% correct in that assumption it shouldn't have any bearing on a logical debate.
I would just say, Re, that if the entire proposal was devoid of any political overtones, and completely outside the electoral process--which is now manifestly obvious that it was/is not--your point might have more merit. Since these sorts of proposals, when advanced by a single Senator without bipartisan backing as this was, clearly have political weight, as it now has...since this has now become a Boxer campaign issue, it's now a matter of fact that the Bend NRA is a political action. It should have waited until she was re-elected, IMO.

Since: Sep 10

Chico, CA

#10 Sep 30, 2010
Don Polson wrote:
<quoted text>
I would just say, Re, that if the entire proposal was devoid of any political overtones, and completely outside the electoral process--which is now manifestly obvious that it was/is not--your point might have more merit. Since these sorts of proposals, when advanced by a single Senator without bipartisan backing as this was, clearly have political weight, as it now has...since this has now become a Boxer campaign issue, it's now a matter of fact that the Bend NRA is a political action. It should have waited until she was re-elected, IMO.
What I'm digging for is, even if this is a political issue by a couple of Senators that I personally abhor.......what are the negatives or positives going to be?
Fear-mongering, assumptions, and counter politicizing just for the sake of it is counterproductive.

Point....There is a net increase of public access, including hunting along the Sacramento River. This transition happened while the same two Senators were in office. The land went from privately owned, then was sold to the Federal government for recreational purposes, most of it has hunting access BTW.
In addition, this past year, Foster Island, a BLM land that has been used for recreation, including hunting, was transferred to the US Fish and wildlife service. Minor changes were made to the use of this land that involved common-sense. Hunting is still allowed, only that Rifle hunting is now prohibited, but shotgun use is.
In the case of the Bend NRA and local residents, that alone takes their >legitimate< argument of, "stray gunfire" off the table.
Don Polson

Anderson, CA

#11 Sep 30, 2010
Respectful effort wrote:
<quoted text>What I'm digging for is, even if this is a political issue by a couple of Senators that I personally abhor.......what are the negatives or positives going to be?
Fear-mongering, assumptions, and counter politicizing just for the sake of it is counterproductive.
Point....There is a net increase of public access, including hunting along the Sacramento River. This transition happened while the same two Senators were in office. The land went from privately owned, then was sold to the Federal government for recreational purposes, most of it has hunting access BTW.
In addition, this past year, Foster Island, a BLM land that has been used for recreation, including hunting, was transferred to the US Fish and wildlife service. Minor changes were made to the use of this land that involved common-sense. Hunting is still allowed, only that Rifle hunting is now prohibited, but shotgun use is.
In the case of the Bend NRA and local residents, that alone takes their >legitimate< argument of, "stray gunfire" off the table.
We won't find any common ground or agreement--coming at it from different angles. But thanks for doing a good job of presenting your thought processes.

Since: Sep 10

Chico, CA

#12 Sep 30, 2010
Don Polson wrote:
<quoted text>
We won't find any common ground or agreement--coming at it from different angles. But thanks for doing a good job of presenting your thought processes.
Alright Don, but to be fair, I asked what the, "other reasons" were and you stayed with the stance that Boxer was playing politics. You're counter-politicking just for the sake of it while rejecting different angles.

When I said that this was counter-productive, it's a given that, "common ground or agreement" would be first casualty.
Don Polson

Anderson, CA

#13 Sep 30, 2010
Respectful effort wrote:
<quoted text>
Alright Don, but to be fair, I asked what the, "other reasons" were and you stayed with the stance that Boxer was playing politics. You're counter-politicking just for the sake of it while rejecting different angles.
When I said that this was counter-productive, it's a given that, "common ground or agreement" would be first casualty.
Sorry, but "other reasons" were so completely addressed at the time of the public hearings, it serves no purpose for me to delve into your request given that my time comes at the expense of other research. Thanks.

Since: Sep 10

Chico, CA

#14 Sep 30, 2010
Thanks?....Thanks?.....Hmmmm?. ...Thanks?...mmm... haa, I get it now....that's funny....
Don Polson wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but "other reasons" were so completely addressed at the time of the public hearings, it serves no purpose for me to delve into your request given that my time comes at the expense of other research. Thanks.
Only if it were a mountain being made out of a molehill Don, then or now. "Other reasons", I suspect were mostly a smoke screen to obscure common sense or compromise, in favor of the real intention of EVERYSIDE politicizing a simple issue.

Here, how about another angle on a political note.

Don, for better then two years I currently belong to the original group who STARTED the national tea-party movement. One of many original bloggers who conjured up the, "mail a teabag" scheme to our legislators, long before people were standing on corners. I also was one of the original and first to be registered in the American Independent Party, a California based independent CONSERVATIVE movement.

I've been intensely involved in paleo-conservative politics for 20 years. All the while I've witnessed in that time the Republican party corrupt the essence and true meaning of conservatism. In more recent times I've witnessed the tea-party corrupt itself by essentially morphing into a neo-Republican party. It sickens me.

And then we have this.......
Don Polson wrote:
<quoted text>
.... All assurances are suspect when "Conservation" is the goal and enviro-lefty lawyers and judges take over.....
Ahhhh!!....I pound my chest when I call myself a conservative and I embrace CONSERVATion as a core principal. And again I witness neo-conservatives corrupting the concept of conservation. You can point fingers at the other side all you want, but you sir, are very much guilty of the same things, plus, mostly what the liberals say you are! Indeed, in this case, you are a tool of the liberal movement. Very much stuck in counter-productive rhetoric and the perpetuation of convoluted conservatism. In the process you have allowed the liberal movement to paint all conservatives as war mongers, nature destroyers, mega business worshipers, corruptable, harsh, uncaring, and unreasonable. Most assuredly things that the NEOS appear to be, but nowhere near what a true conservative is in honest reality.

This is the utter and complete damage the neo-cons, the neo-Republicans, and the neo-tea party movement has done to the conservatives. And they've done this against the true conservatives more effectively then the liberal movement would have ever been able too. Indeed, they're both destroying conservatism, with one from the inside, like a traitor.

I see your unwillingness to engage me as you being aware that I have the ability to expose you in all the above. Since I've already done so.....LET'S TALK SUBSTANCE. You can drop the pretense and start acting like a REAL conservative.

I'm a huge believer in dynamics, I suspect we can get your, "other research" taken care of in the process even. You can, "thank" me when we're done.
Don Polson

Anderson, CA

#15 Sep 30, 2010
Respectful effort wrote:
Thanks?....Thanks?.....Hmmmm?. ...Thanks?...mmm... haa, I get it now....that's funny....
<quoted text>
Only if it were a mountain being made out of a molehill Don, then or now. "Other reasons", I suspect were mostly a smoke screen to obscure common sense or compromise, in favor of the real intention of EVERYSIDE politicizing a simple issue.
Here, how about another angle on a political note.
Don, for better then two years I currently belong to the original group who STARTED the national tea-party movement. One of many original bloggers who conjured up the, "mail a teabag" scheme to our legislators, long before people were standing on corners. I also was one of the original and first to be registered in the American Independent Party, a California based independent CONSERVATIVE movement.
I've been intensely involved in paleo-conservative politics for 20 years. All the while I've witnessed in that time the Republican party corrupt the essence and true meaning of conservatism. In more recent times I've witnessed the tea-party corrupt itself by essentially morphing into a neo-Republican party. It sickens me.
And then we have this.......
<quoted text>
Ahhhh!!....I pound my chest when I call myself a conservative and I embrace CONSERVATion as a core principal. And again I witness neo-conservatives corrupting the concept of conservation. You can point fingers at the other side all you want, but you sir, are very much guilty of the same things, plus, mostly what the liberals say you are! Indeed, in this case, you are a tool of the liberal movement. Very much stuck in counter-productive rhetoric and the perpetuation of convoluted conservatism. In the process you have allowed the liberal movement to paint all conservatives as war mongers, nature destroyers, mega business worshipers, corruptable, harsh, uncaring, and unreasonable. Most assuredly things that the NEOS appear to be, but nowhere near what a true conservative is in honest reality.
This is the utter and complete damage the neo-cons, the neo-Republicans, and the neo-tea party movement has done to the conservatives. And they've done this against the true conservatives more effectively then the liberal movement would have ever been able too. Indeed, they're both destroying conservatism, with one from the inside, like a traitor.
I see your unwillingness to engage me as you being aware that I have the ability to expose you in all the above. Since I've already done so.....LET'S TALK SUBSTANCE. You can drop the pretense and start acting like a REAL conservative.
I'm a huge believer in dynamics, I suspect we can get your, "other research" taken care of in the process even. You can, "thank" me when we're done.
Hmmm.
dracon

Chico, CA

#16 Sep 30, 2010
Respectful effort wrote:
Thanks?....Thanks?.....Hmmmm?. ...Thanks?...mmm... haa, I get it now....that's funny....
<quoted text>
Only if it were a mountain being made out of a molehill Don, then or now. "Other reasons", I suspect were mostly a smoke screen to obscure common sense or compromise, in favor of the real intention of EVERYSIDE politicizing a simple issue.
Here, how about another angle on a political note.
Don, for better then two years I currently belong to the original group who STARTED the national tea-party movement. One of many original bloggers who conjured up the, "mail a teabag" scheme to our legislators, long before people were standing on corners. I also was one of the original and first to be registered in the American Independent Party, a California based independent CONSERVATIVE movement.
I've been intensely involved in paleo-conservative politics for 20 years. All the while I've witnessed in that time the Republican party corrupt the essence and true meaning of conservatism. In more recent times I've witnessed the tea-party corrupt itself by essentially morphing into a neo-Republican party. It sickens me.
And then we have this.......
<quoted text>
Ahhhh!!....I pound my chest when I call myself a conservative and I embrace CONSERVATion as a core principal. And again I witness neo-conservatives corrupting the concept of conservation. You can point fingers at the other side all you want, but you sir, are very much guilty of the same things, plus, mostly what the liberals say you are! Indeed, in this case, you are a tool of the liberal movement. Very much stuck in counter-productive rhetoric and the perpetuation of convoluted conservatism. In the process you have allowed the liberal movement to paint all conservatives as war mongers, nature destroyers, mega business worshipers, corruptable, harsh, uncaring, and unreasonable. Most assuredly things that the NEOS appear to be, but nowhere near what a true conservative is in honest reality.
This is the utter and complete damage the neo-cons, the neo-Republicans, and the neo-tea party movement has done to the conservatives. And they've done this against the true conservatives more effectively then the liberal movement would have ever been able too. Indeed, they're both destroying conservatism, with one from the inside, like a traitor.
I see your unwillingness to engage me as you being aware that I have the ability to expose you in all the above. Since I've already done so.....LET'S TALK SUBSTANCE. You can drop the pretense and start acting like a REAL conservative.
I'm a huge believer in dynamics, I suspect we can get your, "other research" taken care of in the process even. You can, "thank" me when we're done.
Absolutely, without a doubt, the most concise expose' of the Republican Party I've ever read. Bravo!
dracon

United States

#17 Sep 30, 2010
I suppose I should have said 'expose of both parties'...
Annoyed

Chico, CA

#18 Oct 1, 2010
Respectful effort wrote:
<quoted text>What I'm digging for is, even if this is a political issue by a couple of Senators that I personally abhor.......what are the negatives or positives going to be?
Fear-mongering, assumptions, and counter politicizing just for the sake of it is counterproductive.
Point....There is a net increase of public access, including hunting along the Sacramento River. This transition happened while the same two Senators were in office. The land went from privately owned, then was sold to the Federal government for recreational purposes, most of it has hunting access BTW.
In addition, this past year, Foster Island, a BLM land that has been used for recreation, including hunting, was transferred to the US Fish and wildlife service. Minor changes were made to the use of this land that involved common-sense. Hunting is still allowed, only that Rifle hunting is now prohibited, but shotgun use is.
In the case of the Bend NRA and local residents, that alone takes their >legitimate< argument of, "stray gunfire" off the table.
"Minor changes were made to the use of this land that involved common-sense. Hunting is still allowed, only that Rifle hunting is now prohibited, but shotgun use is."

Excuse me....did you just say "only that Rifle hunting is now prohibited"???? Only?? This will essentially destroy the free hunting of wild pigs in the area; this is not acceptable. Too bad they don't have sportmen invloved in the making of these rules and instead have to rely on unreliable personal (vendettas?) accounts.
Reality

Redding, CA

#19 Oct 1, 2010
Respectful Effort - I have been wanting to say that for a long time. You said it better than I could have. To say that our North State Republicans are conservative is a laugh. They are no different than the most liberal politicians. They just want to expand the government in different ways. They are the mirror image of those they denegrate. The two party system and career politicians are the cause of most of the problems we see in government. TERM LIMITS!!!!
Respectful effort

Durham, CA

#20 Oct 1, 2010
Annoyed wrote:
<quoted text>
"Minor changes were made to the use of this land that involved common-sense. Hunting is still allowed, only that Rifle hunting is now prohibited, but shotgun use is."
Excuse me....did you just say "only that Rifle hunting is now prohibited"???? Only?? This will essentially destroy the free hunting of wild pigs in the area; this is not acceptable. Too bad they don't have sportmen invloved in the making of these rules and instead have to rely on unreliable personal (vendettas?) accounts.
NO....NOTHING has changed in the Bend area as far as hunting is concerned. The area I was referring to is the recent re-designation of FOSTER ISLAND in the south county section of the Sacramento River wildlife area.

AND sportsman were COMPLETELY, AND REMAIN TO BE involved in the 3C process of how these lands would be designated.

As a avid hunter, I agree with areas along the river and those in close proximity to residential areas and other area of multiple use, having restrictions on high power rifle use. This is a common-sense safety related issue.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wally Herger Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News California Rep. Dreier announces plan to retire (Feb '12) Mar '12 torch 4
News Gloria Darlene Linch, Red Bluff: SmartMeters (Feb '11) Sep '11 Jeanne S 34
News Calif. rep. wants shared sacrifice in debt talks (Sep '11) Sep '11 lastoutlaw 10
News Herger in downtown Chico on Tuesday (Aug '11) Aug '11 Angry American 8
News Marijuana-legalization push gets voice on Capit... (Dec '10) Jul '11 roaddog 288
News House Republicans seek IRS probe of AARP (Mar '11) Jul '11 joey 37
News GOP calls for IRS probe of AARP (Apr '11) Jul '11 joey 2
More from around the web