OT an interesting experience

I called both 'my' senators about the Pombo 'mining' crap in the house
version of the budget, asking that they make sure that it doesn't make it to
the final version. Both were interested and co-operative.

Then, for the hell of it, I tried calling a few senators in states where I
spend lots of time, and money but don't have a residence, to express the
same opinions. Uniformly I was told that unless I owned property in the
state my opinion wasn't worth squat ( although this was usually politely
worded ;-) I guess this is as it 'should' be ... each elected official
representing only his own constituents ... but nonetheless, I'd think that
in places like Montana and Idaho the views of 'summer residents' would be of
interest ... they are a big economic factor.

Not a comment, really .... just found it interesting

Larry L wrote:
I called both 'my' senators about the Pombo 'mining' crap in the house
version of the budget, asking that they make sure that it doesn't make it to
the final version. Both were interested and co-operative.

Then, for the hell of it, I tried calling a few senators in states where I
spend lots of time, and money but don't have a residence, to express the
same opinions. Uniformly I was told that unless I owned property in the
state my opinion wasn't worth squat ( although this was usually politely
worded ;-) I guess this is as it 'should' be ... each elected official
representing only his own constituents ... but nonetheless, I'd think that
in places like Montana and Idaho the views of 'summer residents' would be of
interest ... they are a big economic factor.

Not a comment, really .... just found it interesting

It *is* interesting. Western states get a lot of income these days from
out-of-state hunters, fishermen and other outdoor recreationalists, who
are attracted by the sporting opportunities on public lands in those
states.....

BTW, did you talk to your senators themselves, or to aides?

JR

Larry L wrote:
I called both 'my' senators about the Pombo 'mining' crap in the house
version of the budget, asking that they make sure that it doesn't make it to
the final version. Both were interested and co-operative.

Then, for the hell of it, I tried calling a few senators in states where I
spend lots of time, and money but don't have a residence, to express the
same opinions. Uniformly I was told that unless I owned property in the
state my opinion wasn't worth squat ( although this was usually politely
worded ;-)

It's not "owning property" that's supposed to count. It's being
registered, or at least eligible to vote.

BTW, when you called your senators, who I assume are Boxer and
Feinstein, your opinion wasn't worth squat, either. Fortunately, they
probably agree with your position anyway.

I guess this is as it 'should' be ... each elected official
representing only his own constituents ... but nonetheless, I'd think that
in places like Montana and Idaho the views of 'summer residents' would be of
interest ... they are a big economic factor.

I can't speak for Montana, but I know from experience that in Idaho the
views of "summer residents," especially those with California tags, are
worth negative squat.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Larry L wrote:
snip
Then, for the hell of it, I tried calling a few senators in states where I
spend lots of time, and money but don't have a residence, to express the
same opinions. Uniformly I was told that unless I owned property in the
state my opinion wasn't worth squat ( although this was usually politely
worded ;-) I guess this is as it 'should' be ... each elected official
representing only his own constituents ...

That's how the House "should be", the Senate is supposed
to be composed of statesmen who put the interests of the
republic above the interests of their constituents.

When they passed the 17th Amendment they should have
apportioned Senators according to population just like
the House, as it is scumbags like Ted Stevens have power
all out of proportion to common sense.

--
Ken Fortenberry

JR wrote:

It *is* interesting. Western states get a lot of income these days from
out-of-state hunters, fishermen and other outdoor recreationalists, who
are attracted by the sporting opportunities on public lands in those
states.....

It's a gross oversimplification to lump all "Western" states together in
their regard for out-of-state sportsmen's dollars. For example, compared
to Idaho, Montana seems like a beacon of progress. They have a popular
Democratic governor who actively courts the sportsman's vote. It seems
like Montana "gets it" that their economic growth depends more on
tourism than on traditional extractive industries, like mining, oil an
gas, forestry, and ranching. They have far better services for
out-of-state hunters and fishermen.

****, you can't even buy a fishing or hunting license online in Idaho
(last time I looked, anyway), and their licensing contractor is totally
****ed up. The past two years running, the system was broken for days
during the first day of trout season and the first day to apply for
controlled hunts -- the busiest days of the year. Their system's
terminals look like they belong in a computer museum.

The anti-government "property rights" movement is very powerful in
Idaho. Many people believe fervently in it, or at least they believe
fervently in it until someone from out of state buys property and then
tries to do something they don't like.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"JR" wrote


BTW, did you talk to your senators themselves, or to aides?



aides, I'd bet it would take a big campaign check to get past them to the
real thing G irrespective of Party

Both of California's senators are Democrats, and, thus, reasonable G
........ I was hoping to give a Republican or two some reasons they would
listen to ( i.e. the almighty dollar, idol of all true Republicans :-).

Montana, in particular, 'should' already know about the dangers of poorly
regulated mining. I find it interesting that at one point Montana had one
of the highest per capita incomes .... now it has one of the lowest .... a
major reason for the change? the environmental damage done by mining and the
costs of trying to fix it ( the mining companies find loopholes ). Another
interesting Montana political tidbit ... in a state that is very 'anti big
government" ..... for every dollar Montana sends the Federal government in
taxes, Montana gets more than $1.50 BACK in Fed money!!!

JR, I 'read' you as a bright guy with some time on your hands. Find Jared
Diamonds book "Collapse" at your library, it's an interesting read. The
first chapter on cultures that declined because of environmental issues is
on .... tada ..... Montana

ah, any other bright guys ( or gals ) with some time might find it
interesting too, I did, and I'm only dim, not bright

"rw" wrote


I can't speak for Montana, but I know from experience that in Idaho the
views of "summer residents," especially those with California tags, are
worth negative squat.


That has largely been my 'social' experience but I wasn't sure if it was
official state policy G

Actually, I'm just starting to be treated a little like a 'local' in the
places I spend the most time ... it's been uphill but I use George Bush as
my role model in how to get along with others from different backgrounds,
and that helps.

Surprised?

Well we all have role models, but I have both positive and negative ones
..... I try to be more like the positive models and avoid acting like the
negative ones. Thus both ends of the scale have ready made standards to to
help me judge my own actions .... if I find myself agreeing with Bush on any
environmental issue it would be a huge red light ... or if I sense any of
his asshole dimwitted, yet arrogant, 'ugly American' crap in myself, time
to back up and readjust ....

btw, I also sent e-mails to about 10 fly shops with links to info on
'Pombo's Public Land Distruction Act of 2005' 'and asked that they consider
contacting their senators. In it, I said what I believe

"Regardless of personal views on any other political issues, I can't see how
any Fly Fisher would want the National Forests and parts of the National
Parks opened to unregulated sale for corporate profit. The potential
damage to watersheds is immense."

Larry L wrote:

"Regardless of personal views on any other political issues, I can't see how
any Fly Fisher would want the National Forests and parts of the National
Parks opened to unregulated sale...

How 'bout regulated sale?

cheers

oz, who consideres Fred Harvey, Inc. as the owner of our national parks

I called both 'my' senators about the Pombo 'mining' crap in the house
version of the budget, asking that they make sure that it doesn't make it to
the final version. Both were interested and co-operative.

Did you actually talk to the senators, or to some staff member?

I've never been able to talk to anyone but the staff member who
answers the phone.

vince