Closing of a certain south delta wma
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:00 am
- Location: Grenada Ms
- Contact:
Re: Closing of a certain south delta wma
Not sure which laws you're referring to, but like I said, I like to just move on. I pulled that number back in earlier 90's on a North Carolina Highway (back before cell phones and what not). Spent 4 hours huffing and puffing about warrant to search my truck like billy booty. Guess I pissed off the wrong guy. After the dogs and cops left with nothing but a warning for an inspection sticker (which I'm not even sure they have up there) I spent another 3 hours reloading my trailer and truck. Got a few other good stories but them days is behind me now. The preacher says all my sins is warshed away, including that Piggly Wiggly I knocked over in Yazoo. I aint carrying that rock no more. Not saying I don't break itty bitty laws every now and then, but I don't mind talking to cops or green jeans anymore. Hell, sometimes they can point you to a good honey hole.
Where'd who go?
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:00 am
- Location: Grenada Ms
- Contact:
Re: Closing of a certain south delta wma
The law stateing that the cant search you truck without your consent or probable cause, if they have probable cause i want a signed warrant stateing what the probable cause is, , there is nothing in, or has ever been in my truck that is illegal ,i dont mind a " in plain sight " glance into my truck , i do mind someone digging through my belongings. I dont mind standing around wating for the warrant to get there, i'm never in a hurry. To many people today are willing to just step aside and have ther rights trampled on, sorry, i'm not one of those sheeple.
Re: Closing of a certain south delta wma
ISAIAH 40:31
“I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.”
― Franklin D. Roosevelt
“I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.”
― Franklin D. Roosevelt
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:00 am
- Location: Grenada Ms
- Contact:
Re: Closing of a certain south delta wma
Well don't be driving on a county road that just happens to run through a WMA
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:00 am
- Location: Grenada Ms
- Contact:
Re: Closing of a certain south delta wma
Only one i even get close to is in the free state of tallahachie , and i aint worried bout nothing over there
Re: Closing of a certain south delta wma
I was told today south delta wma has been funded for one more year. Thank Thad Cochran.
Peewee
-
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 7779
- Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:04 pm
- Location: Crunksippi
Re: Closing of a certain south delta wma
Wonder about the south ms Chris MCDaniel camp that actually uses it thinks?
- Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
Re: Closing of a certain south delta wma
Funding by COE for mitigation projects, or lack thereof, is the result of a larger policy issue.
When COE plans projects ( eg dredging rivers), part of the process involves an environmental impact study that determines the likely detrimental impact of the project ( eg loss of wetlands) and sets forth proposed mitigation projects to offset the anticipated damage. The COE project cannot go forward without this expensive environmental study, proposed mitigation, and public comment. Thereafter, the project and its funding must be approved by Congress.
The real fraud in this process is that there is no mechanism for recourse by taxpayers/citizens if the COE fails to carry out the approved mitigation. Under the law, the COE/federal govt cannot be sued for not doing what they said they would do in order to get the project approved. The COE will blame the Congress for cutting off funding. Congress will blame the CEO for a project with never-ending costs. And somewhere in the middle of this blame game, wetlands are being lost, and/or we are losing huntable lands.
At some point one has to ask: why even go through the charade of the environmental impact studies if the proposed mitigation to offset the negative impacts is not absolutely required to be done? Sounds like a huge waste of money and time.
So, the ultimate result of this farce is that the ball gets frequently dropped on these mitigation projects. And as an aggrieved citizen/sportsman there is nothing you can do about it ........ except.......
Change the law, and change the result. Or, another way to say it, don't approve the projects absent guarantees of mitigation. Publicly call BS on the unenforceable proposed mitigation related to these projects. Light up the phone lines of your Congress critters --- House and Senate.
When COE plans projects ( eg dredging rivers), part of the process involves an environmental impact study that determines the likely detrimental impact of the project ( eg loss of wetlands) and sets forth proposed mitigation projects to offset the anticipated damage. The COE project cannot go forward without this expensive environmental study, proposed mitigation, and public comment. Thereafter, the project and its funding must be approved by Congress.
The real fraud in this process is that there is no mechanism for recourse by taxpayers/citizens if the COE fails to carry out the approved mitigation. Under the law, the COE/federal govt cannot be sued for not doing what they said they would do in order to get the project approved. The COE will blame the Congress for cutting off funding. Congress will blame the CEO for a project with never-ending costs. And somewhere in the middle of this blame game, wetlands are being lost, and/or we are losing huntable lands.
At some point one has to ask: why even go through the charade of the environmental impact studies if the proposed mitigation to offset the negative impacts is not absolutely required to be done? Sounds like a huge waste of money and time.
So, the ultimate result of this farce is that the ball gets frequently dropped on these mitigation projects. And as an aggrieved citizen/sportsman there is nothing you can do about it ........ except.......
Change the law, and change the result. Or, another way to say it, don't approve the projects absent guarantees of mitigation. Publicly call BS on the unenforceable proposed mitigation related to these projects. Light up the phone lines of your Congress critters --- House and Senate.
You can't drink all day if you don't start in the morning.
- mudsucker
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 14137
- Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 4:15 am
- Location: Brandon,Ms by way of LaBranche Wetlands
Re: Closing of a certain south delta wma
Oh. I see. Blame it on us Mudsuckers!
Long Live the Black Democrat!
GEAUX LSU!
WHO DAT!
DO,DU AND DW!
GEAUX LSU!
WHO DAT!
DO,DU AND DW!
Re: Closing of a certain south delta wma
Which districts are supposively behind on their mitigation proposals?
Peewee
Return to “General Discussion Forum”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests