IN COLORADO, ACCESS HAS BECOME EXCESS
Defending Wilderness and Hunting Defends Our Right to Bear Arms
By David Lien, Guest Writer, 3-29-07
 | |
|
Loss of habitat is the biggest threat to wildlife and hunting today, and hunters understand that habitat means wild, rugged country not overrun with roads, trails and ATVs. That’s what we have in Colorado’s Browns Canyon. Today only 8 percent of the national forest acreage in Colorado lies beyond one mile of a road (only 4 percent for BLM lands) and the Pike-San Isabel National Forests alone have 1,750 miles of system trails and 3,600 miles of system roads.
With so much of Colorado’s public lands base already well-trailed and roaded, “access” is becoming “excess,” and the end result for hunters and gun owners is decidedly negative, with hunters feeling the heat first and gun owners not far behind. It’s a slippery slope from more roads and motorized trails, to fewer hunting opportunities, to more efforts by the antis to ban guns and hunting, but it is the path more motorized access leads to, and this is how it starts.
As road and ATV trail density increases in an area, the quality and size of wildlife habitat declines significantly, which eventually affects elk and other wildlife populations. For example, a road density of 3 linear miles of road per square mile of ground seriously reduces the value of that area for elk, and a road density of 6 linear miles per square mile can reduce elk use to zero.
When vehicle use during hunting season reaches a certain threshold, elk will abandon that area completely and head for less accessible areas such as private land. The result is that road and trail proliferation and persistent use of vehicles during hunting season is cutting down all hunters’ chances of bagging an elk and other game animals, and degrading the habitat of the very animals we are hunting.
“The more we encroach on roadless lands, the more pressure we put on elk and deer to find new habitat,” said John Ellenberger, retired big game manager with the Colorado Division of Wildlife. “They’ll eventually be pushed off public land onto private land and we’ll be forced to reduce game populations as a result. The more this happens, the harder it becomes to find quality hunting.”
The unsettling spinoff threat of increased access (when there is so little inaccessible land left) is that it ultimately undermines one of the general public’s primary reasons for continuing to support our Second Amendment rights: the great tradition of public lands hunting. As access on already overly accessible public land increases, the health of wildlife habitat deteriorates, wildlife numbers decrease, hunting opportunities fade away, and so goes the most defendable reason for the nonhunting majority to allow us to keep our guns without restrictions long-term.
In a nutshell, defending, designating, and protecting wilderness and roadless areas (the gold standard for wildlife habitat and hunting) is in the long-run nothing short of defending our constitutional right to bear arms. As wilderness and roadless areas go, so goes habitat and hunting and support from the gunless majority, and so eventually goes our Second Amendment rights. Don’t believe me?
This slow erosion is already occurring on both of our coasts and in Midwestern states as wildlife habitat is degraded and paved-over, making for fewer hunting opportunities and hunters, which leads to more groups taking action to first limit, and then ban outright hunting, which is followed logically (in their eyes) by limits, and then bans on gun ownership. It’s a slippery slope from more roads and motorized trails on public lands to cold and gunless hands, but it’s getting slipperier by the day and trail.
In addition, top-of-the-line ATV models can outpace sticker prices for many standard passenger cars. Most hunters rely on “sweat equity,” not ATVs. That’s tradition. According to NRA life member Chas S. Clifton, “Although I am 55 years old, I am not so feeble as to require motorized access everywhere I go hunting…Colorado has plenty of heavily roaded public lands for those who do.”
For the record, I own lots of guns; I’ve hunted most of my life, and I believe the Second Amendment is one of our vital basic freedoms. For this reason and those above, for the future of hunting and unfettered gun ownership, the Colorado Backcountry Hunters and Anglers support the protection of Browns Canyon as wilderness.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
When the Founding Fathers and myself wrote the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights back in 1787, the Second Amendment was written as the "right of the PEOPLE (meaning you and I, not govenment employees) to KEEP and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Please do not make that mistake again. Although many Marxist and Intellectually lazy and disingenuous people of your time make this "mistake," it is not only the right to bear arms, it is the right to KEEP and bear arms, and they seem to be trying to condition the American people to the "bear" only portion of the Amendment as to do with the National Guard which did not cone into existance until 1906. Very important distinction here, Sir. If you need any further assistance, I will more than glad to help.
James Madison
Author of the Constitution
3rd President of the United States
Mr. Lien is clearly a Second Amendment supporter. I applaud him in thinking critically about how erosion of support for the Second Amendment may occur in the future. His paraphrase of the Second Amendment didn’t bother me at all. I guess that makes me a lazy Marxist too. Whatever. I wrote the Constitution.
I find Mr. Lien’s arguments interesting and join him in his concern for healthy habitat. It’s logical that excessive motorized use of public lands leads to less access of quality habitat, thus fewer hunters/gun owners.
Sincerely,
James Madison
In spite of the Constitutional quibbling of the Madisons, your point is extactly correct. The further the American population moves from the tradition of hunting, the less influence those who do hold to that tradition will bear. When only those with access to private land have an opportunity to hunt, the tradition will be lost in American culture. The slippery slope will have gotten much steeper. Access to quality hunting in truly roadless areas has become endangered and must be defended by those who treasure our traditions.
Ty Harris
Gun-owner, hunter, fisherman and Dad of 3 kids I hope will get to share in the tradition
Mr. Lien is clearly a Second Amendment supporter.
>Good, I hope he supports it as Mr. Madison originally though, as a member of the militia to support a free state and people, not to be able to hunt as some historical revisionists, including hunters have tried to rationalize. If you here trying to say Mr. Madision put the right to KEEP and bear arms in the Bill of Rights for hunting, you are not only an imposter, but a fraud also, and ally of the Brady Bunch.
I applaud him in thinking critically about how erosion of support for the Second Amendment may occur in the future.
>Well the number of hunters has been shrinking, but number of gun owners and support for the 2nd Amendment going up, so come up with another rationalization, true imposter. While you are at it, take some history classes.
His paraphrase of the Second Amendment didn’t bother me at all.
>It should. Perhaps it is because I teacher History? You better have your ducks in a row, and you DO NOT James.
I guess that makes me a lazy Marxist too. Whatever. I wrote the Constitution.
>I do not know what it makes you, but it definitely does not make you someone who knows anything about the true intent of the 2nd Amendment or what is really going on out there in the gun movement.
I find Mr. Lien’s arguments interesting and join him in his concern for healthy habitat. It’s logical that excessive motorized use of public lands leads to less access of quality habitat, thus fewer hunters/gun owners.
>I have a question. Has the amount of quality habitat in the US be on the rise or going down? Either way, provide empirical evidence to back up your argument.
While, of course, the 2nd Amendment was not written to preserve hunting rights, I agree, with hunting banned (or just as well), we would have very little, if any chance of retaining likely ANY type of 2nd Amendment rights ... no matter WHY the 2nd Amendment was written ... or by whom.
I'm guessin' this is 'nother one of them unfortunate incidents where, while in essentially TOTAL agreement, we can't seem to stop arguing about BS amongst ourselves long 'nuff to make any sort of REAL progress.
To the author, I would simply comment that, unfortunately, with absolutely no population-control measures in place, I'm guessin' hundreds of thousands of LEGAL immigrants per year, and that many again ILLEGAL per year, this country is continually shrinking.
Before we see a total ban on hunting, I see hunting opportunities so FEW and FAR between, that only the richest of the rich will be able to afford them.
IOW, trying to preserve wilderness is like sticking your finger in the dike.
We like to talk about how we MANAGE certain wildlife species ... so they don't otherwise starve ... 'er such.
Who's gonna manage US?
Otherwise, 'less I missed somethin', I wish you luck in your endeavors.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8864508
"The NRA has made a steady progress in loosening local gun controls, particularly in pushing “concealed carry” laws, which now exist in 48 states. The Democrats have softened their anti-gun stance in an attempt to make advances in “red America”—particularly in the all-important mountain West where gun rights are sacrosanct and the next presidential election may be decided. Brian Schweitzer, the Democratic governor of Montana, speaks for a new breed of pro-gun Democrats when he says that he has “more guns than I need but not as many as I want”.
A few clouds loom on the horizon for gun-rights supporters. On the very day of the DC ruling the Police Executive Research Forum, a police think-tank, reported that violent crime, including homicides, had been rising rapidly since 2004. Meanwhile, the NRA is slowly losing one of its most important constituencies: the proportion of Americans holding hunting licences has declined from 10% in 1985 to 6% last year. If both trends continue, more and more Americans will come to associate guns not with healthy outdoorsmanship, as the NRA would like, but with swift and violent human death."
Ever since TR, hunting and conservation have gone hand in hand. It is in the self-interest of hunters to protect the habitat and wildlife. Reduce the hunter population and the downward decline in wilderness and game is all too predictable. We need an alliance of green groups, hunters, and the NRA to protect what we have left for everyone's self-interests.
>Boy, here are some words that should set off alarm bells, and make us think back to 1994. "Police Executive" hmmmm, meaning Police Chiefs? Not the rank and file? Meaning the POLITICALLY APPOINTED guys who fell in lock step behind their anti-gun politician BIG CITY patrons they were used as mouth pieces for back in 1994? Not all of us have short memories. How much you want to bet these guys are connected to the anti-gun "International Police Chief" note note elected Sheriffs, but politically appointeds Police Chiefs who parrot the party line of the people who gave these parasites their jobs. Here we go, 1994 all over again.
reported that violent crime, including homicides, had been rising rapidly since 2004.
>OK, did they cite their source? Hmmm, I wonder why?
Meanwhile, the NRA is slowly losing one of its most important constituencies: the proportion of Americans holding hunting licences has declined from 10% in 1985 to 6% last year.
>OK and this may be true, and it is not he NRA's fault. The NRA has tried everything to promote hunting. Do you think one of the reasons behind the decline in Americans holding hunting licenses might be tied to the destruction of the family in this country, and the rise in the amount of boys being raised in fatherless homes? Being raised to be feminized, emotion-based, wrecks like their mothers? Being a teacher, I can write a book on this topic. Boys are starving for male role models. Boys in my classroom without fathers are climbing all over me looking for male fellowship,and with education being 75% female, they are not getting any male role-models at home or at school. Perhaps that is why hunting is declining. No fathers, and if their Grandfathers are not around, guess what, the tradition is broken.
If both trends continue, more and more Americans will come to associate guns not with healthy outdoorsmanship, as the NRA would like, but with swift and violent human death."
>Did I forget to mention, this article came from "The Economist"? A feminized, left wing, British, anti-gun publication?
*I guess the sophist, America haters at the "Economist" (British leftists who should know a lot about America gun laws, criminal justice, and the social issues and dynamics surrounding it, yeah right) would have never told the readers that the supposed rise in violent crime (note violent crime and crimes committed with guns are not the same thing, another detail they and the political parasite police chiefs forgot to mention) is NOT taking place in the areas where the NRA has "loosened local gun control laws" and is traditionally taking place in areas where guns are tightly controlled if not banned outright. Except pushing for the passage of laws to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms concealed, what other local gun laws has the NRA "loosened"? I guess a little detail, these propagandists did not find important enough to put in their piece of half-truth journalistic trash. These so-called "Journalists" lost their credibility back in the early 1990's with their first attempt to shove this debunked garbage down the throats of the American people. We did not buy it then, and we are not buying it now.
I am going to have to read this. Is this what the DOJ says or is this what some Sophist at the Economist has gleened from the text? How can the DOJ know if someone is a gun owner or not and their involvement in crimes? Technically criminals cannot be counted as gun owners, since under federal and many state laws, they are BANNED from owning guns. Drug addicts, felons, persons under indictment, persons who have renounced their citizenship, you know, Democrats. So let me get this right. It shows an increase in rapes, and other violent crimes by people who own guns, does it make the distinction between legal and illegal gun owners, and those who do not own guns? How can they collect such data? Something smells.
"39 Percentage of Americans reporting a gun in their home "
OK, and what does that have to do with a DOJ report that says violent crimes by gun owners is rising and violent crimes by non-gun owners is remaining level. How do they combine a Gallup poll and a DOJ Report to come up with that conclusion. This only give me more suspicion, Craig. I posted my name are where I live, you happy now, Craig? You cannot refute us, so you regress to "chicken" argument. Now find something else to complain about and change the subject. 39% of Americans own guns in their homes and your point is......? So, what is your point? This is a Gallup poll? OK, and what does this have to do with this so called fact that crimes committed by gun owners are going up and those by non-gun owners are not. Either you are trying to change the subject or lack the cognitive skills to follow the debate here. You still agree with the Economist now that they have been picked apart? If so, I have some ocean front property for same in Arizona.
Uh, there is nothing personal here, if it was personal it would be name-calling, and I am far from a liberal. There is nothing hysterical in my posts, I am a social-scientific communicator, meaning, I am fact based, and like my mentor Socrates, I ask questions, aka the "Socratic method", ever hear of it? Meanwhile, liberals are Humanistic communicators, they make open-ended statements, emotion-based, shout slogans, you know, like their ideological cousins, Socialists, Marxists, Communists. I refute liberals for a living, if you would bother reading what I wrote you would see that. Posting names has nothing to do here, I can post my name, it does not change anything, another attempt to change the subject because you cannot keep up with us? What exactly is your point. Are you pro-gun? Anti-gun? Do you hunt? Do you own handguns? NRA member? Do you target shoot, competition? I will answer any question you pose to me.
>My God, don't quote the Economist if you want to be credible. At this time, I do not know what you are talking about, I will have to go back and look. I think I already talked about the flaws with "violence with firearms" does not actually mean a gun was used, meaning someone was killed with a gun, but the use of a gun was threatened, and might not actually been displayed. I believe this is meant to confuse the public.
The Economist actually got it wrong as the rise is only among possessors of firearms. The point of the Economist's article was that with the declining hunting licenses and the rising serious crimes (among the 40% of firearm owners) that doesn't bode well for the NRA.
>The rise in violent gun crime is only among the 40% who own guns. I do not believe it. How does the DOJ know this? Well, you sort of have to be a gun owner to use a gun in a crime right? This is laughable. The decline in hunting licenses has nothing to do with shrinking habitat. Someone already said why hunting is dying, the destruction of the family, (Marx hated the family BTW) and fatherless households. The supposed rise in gun crimes by people who own guns, which is bull, has nothing to do with CCW laws, and if it is happening, it like I said before, talking place here law-abiding people are NOT allowed to carry guns, and most likely guns are severely restricted if not banned outright. What part of that don't you understand? I have a Degree in Criminal Justice and have done research in this area, I am certified to teach it, I am not only a firearms instructor, but I teach people to teach people how to shoot. You can either go back and forth with me, or you can use this opportunity to learn something. Don't you know you can twist stats to get any politically or agenda driven result you want, no matter how disingenuous? This is nothing new. I can pick these people apart. Why are you eating this stuff hook line and sinker. Be a critical thinker.
Where are they wrong if both trends continue? Isn't it in the NRA's self-interest to promote hunting by being more involved in protecting public lands and the wilderness where joe-blow hunter gets to hunt?
>Yeah, and they are. I guess you do not read their publications or review their programs, if you did, you would not be making asking the above query. You have proof to the contrary?
All we hear from the NRA these days is the smoke screen over concealed carry laws.
>That is all you hear from the NRA, via the media filter, again, you must not be looking at their site, or viewing their publications. You're not biased are you? I like your term "smokescreen" are you hostile to the NRA? Where did you form your opinion of the NRA from, reading the Economist? The so-called mainstream media?
That will not grow and stabilize the base of responsible firearm owners that are a threat only to the criminally predisposed.
>If you investigated the amount of time and money the NRA spent on hunting and youth programs, you would not have the opinion you have. Educate yourself and stop getting your NRA "news" from, documented liars, sophists, half-truth tellers, and agenda driven America haters. You will did not answer my question if you know anything about guns or hunting. I do. Use me, perhaps, you may learn something. Open up your mind.
to do with hunting. It had to do with the right of self
protection, extending even to exercising same against
excesses by the government.
'Hunting` & 'Crime` arguments are false issues in this
debate. The real issue is that the 5% of the population
that owns over 95% of the wealth is becoming uneasy
that the other 95% of the population might be armed.
I would be too.
to do with hunting.
<If anything at all. I see nothing about the "well-regulated militia" "security of a free state" or anything in any of the 39 state constitutions that say anything about hunting or keeping and bearing arms to maintain animal populations or to feed your family. If anyone can show me otherwise, please do so. I know of no other right in the Bill of Rights you have to purchase a license to practice.
It had to do with the right of self protection, extending even to exercising same against excesses by the government.
>Well, if you do that now, you are called a "white separatist" "white supremcist" "having anti-government literature" "pedofile" "religious nut" "wife beater". The FBI throws flares into your house to get a better view inside and mysteriously the place catches fire because you light the place up to commit suicide and all the machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers and other evidence conveniently burns up in the fire.
'Hunting` & 'Crime` arguments are false issues in this debate.
>OK, and I think this is the latest tactic by the Brady Bunch to drive a wedge between Hunters and the NRA
The real issue is that the 5% of the population that owns over 95% of the wealth is becoming uneasy that the other 95% of the population might be armed. I would be too.
>If I was in the 5% of the population, I do not think I would have to worry about acquiring enough firepower to keep the 95%, who are nice people to begin with from messing with me. Agreed? BTW, the militarized federal police forces have no problem using US citizens for target practice to try out all their new toys bought for them under the Homeland Security and domestic terrorism false bill of goods sold to the American people to give up their civil rights in exchange for a massive increase in federal police forces.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." -- Thomas Pynchon (Gravity's Rainbow)
Hey David? Didn't we beat the Indians who had Bows and Our countrymen had GUNS ?
Thanks to small mi ded people like this ??? Ma.... Is the reason why the UN now calls some of our National forests>> Bio -diversity centers, under UN jurisdiction.
You no more talk for hunters than you talk for 2nd amendment rights David, Period!
http://www.willowtown.com/gallery/landscapes/kyelk.htm
I then traveled to another site on private land in another county and found elk that I could drive right up to but couldn't walk within less than 100 ft or so. See one pix here:
http://www.willowtown.com/gallery/landscapes/kyelktourist.htm
I was told by the KDFW employee that the elk are expanding their territory and regularly get killed by cars, causing damage and danger.
We need more private land in private hands, not more land locked away and controlled by some eastern bureaucrat who hates guns and thinks hunting is an archaic cruel activity. People who actually live in the country have more appreciation for the outdoors and hunting/gun owning and freedom. I've seen this time and again.
This website is a lie anyway. It's a thinly veiled attempt by "Liberal" control freaks to hide behind a personna of a 'moderate' hunter/gunowner/etc. so they can spread their poison.