NEW REPORT BY RIVAL PROVIDES ALARMING DETAILS
The Anti-Conservation Mission of the NRA
Will hunters continue to support the demise of their sport by contributing to the National Rifle Association?By Bill Schneider, 8-28-08
 |
|
 | |
|
It’s hardly a news flash that the National Rifle Association (NRA) supports anti-conservation, anti-hunting politicians. Even though I’ve written about it several times, I never realized how bad it was.
A just-released report by the NRA’s nemesis, the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), deals out all the dreadful details, and it should be a major eye-opener for any hunter who still supports the NRA.
(Incidentally, in case you’re wondering about the “anti-hunting” adjective, I refer to people who consistently support or vote for measures that destroy wildlife habitat or limit hunting access, even if they own guns and say they “support hunting"--even, if fact, if they hunt. Obviously, the loss of wildlife habitat and huntable land hurts hunters as much or more than opposition to hunting from animal rights groups.)
“As the self-proclaimed ‘largest pro-hunting organization in the world,’ the National Rifle Association has long claimed to represent America’s hunters and shooters in the fight to protect one of America’s oldest traditions,” the AHSA said in a press release accompanying the report. “The NRA’s bylaws include an article setting a core goal ‘to promote and defend hunting…as a viable and necessary method of fostering the propagation, growth and conservation…of our renewable wildlife resources.’ But it turns out that its by-laws are just empty rhetoric.”
“Our goal is to pull back the curtain on the ugly truth,” Ray Schoenke, AHSA President, wrote in a letter to NewWest.Net. “The leaders of the National Rifle Association, who have long claimed to represent hunters and shooters, have instead overwhelmingly supported the biggest conservation opponents in Congress.”
And Schoenke doesn’t mind getting a little personal. In a P.S. on the letter, he said, “Unlike Wayne LaPierre (Chief Executive Officer of the NRA), I don’t fly on private jets and my salary is a dollar a year. I can also outshoot LaPierre and I’ll gladly challenge him to a wild hunt. That’s a challenge I look forward to, but I won’t hold my breath that he’ll ever take it.”
(Here’s a P.S. from me. Don’t you think it’s a bit strange--or should I say, telling--that a self-acclaimed “conservation organization” would call its top dog “Chief Executive Officer”? At least they pay him like a CEO, close to a million dollars in total annual compensation, roughly equal to 35,000 annual membership renewals.)
Regrettably, we have no good way to judge a politician’s record on conservation, but the annual survey conducted by the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is the best we have--and the one primarily used by ASHA to come to its conclusions. On the front page of the report, in fact, AHSA states that the NRA gave campaign contributions to 52 of the 53 members of Congress who received a zero rating from LCV for their conservation voting records.
Inside the report, which is titled “Slash and Burn,” the AHSA offered three examples to support the group’s conclusion. The NRA gave much more money to and gave much higher ratings to politicians who:
- In 2001, opposed the Roadless Area Conservation Act, which was defeated even though it would have protected millions of acres of our best hunting land.
- In 2005, tried to sell off hundreds of thousands of acres of public land to “corporate interests at prices far below market value,” as stated in the report. “While conservation groups across America came out against the (sale of public land), the NRA stayed silent.”
- In 2007, opposed the so-called “Katrina Amendment” proposed to prevent future catastrophic flooding and protect wetlands and wildlife habitat threatened by climate change.
The NRA is “out of line with America’s most respected conservation organizations,” says AHSA, mainly because the nation’s biggest gun lobby gave $4,085,277 to support the 193 members of Congress who received poor conservation ratings from the LCV and only $390,897, 10 times less, to the 245 members of Congress who have received high conservation ratings.
The AHSA goes into great detail on what contributions went to individual members of Congress, so if you’re wondering how much NRA money went to your candidate, you can probably find it in the report.
The report also compares NRA campaign donations to senators and representatives endorsed by the Sierra Club with predictable results.
The online presentation of the report also has a survey for hunters who might agree with this statement: “I will not support a gun rights organization that works to elect members of Congress who will allow our natural environment to be ruined by corporate polluters, loggers, strip miners, and other groups that act to destroy America’s great outdoors.” Click here to add your name to the list.
The main point AHSA made, the main reason for issuing the report, was: Don’t let the NRA leadership and its allies in Congress destroy the lands where we hunt.
To this, I say, only hunters who are NRA members need to work hard inside to change the focus of the organization or stop paying membership dues.
Footnote: Ironically, on the same day I read AHSA’s report, I read a Los Angeles Times article citing recent survey findings that more hunters and anglers supported John MaCain than Barack Obama. Go figure. More on this later.
To read the entire report, click here.
Related articles on NewWest.Net:
Hunters, Look Beyond the End of Your Gun Barrel, 7-9-08
NRA Nemesis Alive and Well, and Supporting Obama, 6-24-08
NRA Stands for Not Really an Ally, 11-4-07
Defending Wilderness and Hunting Defends Our Right to Bear Arms, 3-29-07
Guns, Sex, Lies, and Democrats, 3-22-07
The Zumbo Affair, Afterthoughts, 3-8-07
NRA Destroys Long-time Friend, 2-26-07
NRA Supports Conrad Burns, Proving Again it Doesn’t Represent Hunters, 11-2-06
NRA Doesn’t Represent Both Hunters and Gun Owners, 7-2-06
Saving Hunters from the NRA, 6-21-06
To read a chronology of all my articles on the NRA and gun rights, click here.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NRA endorses Schweitzer
By CHARLES S. JOHNSON - IR State Bureau - 05/28/08
The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund on Tuesday endorsed Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s re-election, citing his strong support of the rights of gun owners, hunters and sportsmen.
“He’s just done a great job defending the Second Amendment, hunting, fishing (and) access on the part of the public to public lands,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said in a phone interview after a press conference in Billings. “He also had legislation that secured $10 million for public access. He ended the moratorium on the buffalo hunt after 16 years.”
LaPierre also mentioned that Schweitzer had increased state spending on shooting ranges and made hunter management and block management permanent in Montana.
“You look at his record, and it’s one of achievement,” LaPierre said. “We’re proud to support him for election.”
Schweitzer, a lifetime NRA member, received an A rating from the NRA.
“I’m proud to have the endorsement of the NRA,” Schweitzer said, adding, “I’ve been a big supporter of Second Amendment rights. I believe that people have the right to bear arms.”
Schweitzer is running for re-election to a second term. His likely Republican opponent, state Sen. Roy Brown of Billings, is also a lifetime member of the NRA and has an A rating from the gun-rights group.
When asked why the NRA endorsed Schweitzer instead of Brown, LaPierre said: “The governor’s just done such a great job, day in and day out, standing for our Second Amendment freedoms and hunting and fishing that we believe he deserves the endorsement.”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Does this make Democrat Schweitzer anti-hunting and anti-conservationist too? If so, impeach him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Providing Increased Access To Hunting Lands Through "Open Fields
Finding a place to hunt is one of the biggest concerns of hunters and NRA-ILA is actively working on multiple fronts to promote solutions to this growing problem. One such solution is called "Open Fields."
"Open Fields" programs provide incentives to land owners to allow public access for hunters. The program--known by different names in various states--provides modest payments to land owners for opening up their lands to sportsmen in what are often called "walk-in" programs. The program has seen great success in states such as Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska and North Dakota, among others. Expansion of the program to additional states provides the opportunity to open millions of new acres to hunters.
In addition to state-based programs, federal legislators have introduced the "Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program Act" in Congress. Senators Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Pat Roberts (R-KS) are the primary sponsors of S. 548 in the U.S. Senate, and Representatives Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) and Tom Osborne (R-NE) have introduced a companion bill, H.R. 1351, in the U.S. House of Representatives.
If passed, S.548/H.R.1351 would provide $20 million annually for five years to any state with an existing "Open Fields" program, or to any state that implements a program that meets the eligibility requirements.
This is a significant program because of the potential it has to open many millions of acres of private land to hunters. "Open Fields" is also important because it provides incentives to landowners to improve the habitat for wildlife that is essential for the future of hunting in America.
The federal program is designed to provide immediate funding for ongoing programs, and as an incentive for additional states to adopt "Open Fields." In so doing, the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program will allow these programs to expand as quickly as possible, without imposing burdensome federal mandates on the design or implementation of the individual state programs.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Commitment to "Open Fields" and Governor Schweitzer's support for Block Management on private property, is one of the reason's the NRA declared its support for him. But again, if being pro- Open Fields, and receiving the NRA seal of approval for supporting Open Fields, means a politician is anti-hunter and anti-conservation, impeach the bastard!
The NRA shows some conservationist values and awareness at the state level, but at the national level it has been captured by the wingnuts who get lathered over Waco and Ruby Ridge and believe every home should have 50-cal machine guns, RPGs and enough firepower to mow down the ravening hordes of darkies, wetbacks, hippies and UN peace keepers swooping down in their black helicopters.
(Okay, that was a slight exaggeration, but not by much.)
Long ago, the NRA made an unholy alliance with the GOP and Big Bidness and under the cover of Second Amendment language, have supported politicians who genuflect before the Almighty NRA, but are quite willing to destroy wildlife and habitat in the pursuit of the even more Almighty Dollar.
People are beginning to figure that out, which bodes ill for the NRA, the GOP and ravenous corporations. Obama and Western Democrats are nullifying much of the overheated NRA rhetoric by embracing hunters and drawing common-sense lines between hunting and legitimate self-defense and the mini-militia whackos.
Good job, Bill.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Senators Conrad and Roberts, Rep`s. Pomeroy and Moran, Introduce "Open Fields Initiative" Bills
Bills Would Increase Access to Hunting Grounds
On May 24, Senators Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Pat Roberts (R-Kans.), and Representatives Jerry Moran (R-Kans.) and Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), introduced S. 1502 and H.R. 2473, the Voluntary Public Access and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program Act of 2007.
The bills seek to promote, on a national level, the Open Fields Initiative already undertaken with success in some states. They will provide $20 million annually, during fiscal years 2008-2012, to fund state efforts to develop voluntary, incentive-based programs that expand public access to private lands. Currently, many states lack sufficient funding for such programs.
The bills would amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to encourage owners and operators of privately-held farm, ranch, and forest lands to voluntarily make their lands accessible to the public under programs administered by states and tribal governments. If fully funded, the Open Fields Initiative will open up more than 10 million new acres of private land to the public each year. And, it will allow each state to design access programs to fit the needs of its sportsmen and landowners.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in the most recent year for which data have been compiled, 82 million people aged 16 years and older participated in wildlife-related recreation in the U.S., including 13 million who hunted, and more than 66 million who engaged in wildlife-related recreation such as observing, feeding or photographing wildlife. These individuals spent an estimated $56 million on hunting and fishing equipment and supplies, and more than $28 billion on food, lodging and transportation. Hunting and fishing licenses, permits, and stamps, and excise taxes on hunting and fishing goods have generated billions of dollars for wildlife conservation, research and management over the years.
Moreover, hunting and fishing provide essential funding sources for wildlife habitat development, wildlife conservation, ecosystem preservation, and effective wildlife management, and they contribute to the reduction of conflicts between people and wildlife.
<<<<<<<<<<
Without a quality place to hunt, there is no hunting. Open Fields steps up to the habitat access issue. And this is ONLY one aspect of the NRA's pro-hunter efforts. The AHSA supports Obama. The AHSA leadership are all democrats. Their endorsement was not surprising. Recently, there was a poll, I believe sponsored by the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, of hunters and fisherman. By a large majority they support McCain over Obama. Ever since Teddy Roosevelt, no one has worked harder to preserve the field sporting experience or put their money towards habitat enhancement and preservation than the field sporting community. The NRA was not established as a field sporting association. Organizations like the TRCP, not the AHSA, fullfil that primary roll. See: http://www.trcp.org/ Together the NRA and the TRCP fight the good fight at preserving the 2nd Amendment and the field sporting experience. By the way, Bill's article motivated my to overcome my personal objections, that I have harbored for years, and rejoin the NRA to complement my TRCP membership.
>>>>>>>>>>
76 percent of sportsmen say they prefer to elect a President who hunts or fishes
John McCain is the preferred Presidential candidate among sportsmen,
as well as the preferred sporting partner
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sportsmen have a solid history of voting, with 9 in 10 currently registered to vote and of those 83 percent say they will vote in the November election, according to a new survey by the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. Overall, there are an estimated 40 million sportsmen of voting age in the United States.
"Sportsmen are active voters and prefer candidates who align with them on hunting and fishing issues," said Jeff Crane, president of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. "The attention presidential candidates give to sportsmen's issues is well-aimed."
Among sportsmen, Republican John McCain holds a significant lead over White House opponent Barack Obama, with a 14-point margin according to the survey.
Asked who they planned to vote for in November, 45 percent said McCain and 31 percent said Obama.
Support for McCain among sportsmen extends from the voting booth to the field, the survey found.
Asked who they'd like to go hunting with, 49 percent said McCain and 27 percent said Obama. As a fishing buddy, 44 percent said they'd prefer McCain and 31 percent chose Obama.
"Sportsmen view John McCain as good company in the great outdoors," said Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which helped underwrite the survey. "They're just not sure how much fun Barack Obama would be in a duck blind."
By a 2 to 1 margin sportsman said McCain would be a better president on sportsmen's issues than Obama.
<<<<<<<<<<<
I ask everyone, like the NRA and the TRCP, to help support Open Fields.
What a weak case has made here against the NRA. LaPierre is paid like a CEO because he’s worth every penny and most NRA members being the capitalists pigs that we are have no qualms about it. I want the most effective lobbyist money can buy! Ray Schoenke can out shoot out hunt LaPierre? Woppie! Is that supposed to somehow make him a savvier leader for the protection of the 2nd amendment? As for the three bullet points; the roadless act has greatly hindered forest management and conservation on national forests and the private sector has historically been a much better steward of the land. What about the loss of habitat to catastrophic wildfire, insect and disease from a lack of management? These might have been valid point if a case was being made for preservation but hunters are interested conservation and restoration. As for the Katrina Amendment: The NRA supports some senators who are champions of the 2nd amendment but vote against some pork to protect an area below sea level from catastrophic flooding and that is also supposed to somehow save wetlands from climate change? SO WHAT!
Polled sportsmen endorse McSame over Obama? So what?
That does not negate the point that the NRA is allied with politicians that help corporations wreak havoc in the natural world every day, every minute.
Open Fields is a bandage compared to the damage caused by DuPont, Exxon, Arch Coal, et al.
The media that caters to sportsmen is terrified of arousing NRA wrath, so of course sportsmen's political awareness is going to be colored by that.
Craig, is that all you've got?
Oh, and there's other donations, to Barbara Boxer, California Victory, that great sportsman Bill Bradley. This guy's a big spender of the most liberal of the libs. So he hunts ducks...
As for adhering to the LCV line...the simple fact is that doing so would mean a lot of sportsmen would be unemployed. Can't hunt much when you can't afford to fuel the truck, much less pay some outfitter thousands to horsepack you.
Stop insulting your readers with this transparent hooey. And yeah, I'm an NRA life member.
>>>>>>>>>>>
DuPont gives nearly 16,000 acres to the Conservation Fund Ending Mining Plans on Those Lands
Atlanta, GA - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today welcomed the planned donation of about 5,000 acres of important habitat to be incorporated into the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in Georgia. Acquisition of the 5,000-acre parcel, part of a total of about 16,000 acres donated by DuPont to The Conservation Fund, will preclude development of a proposed titanium mine on the northeastern boundary of the refuge.
In commemoration of the centennial of the National Wildlife Refuge System, The Conservation Fund plans to transfer the approximately 5,000-acre parcel, which is located inside the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge acquisition boundary, to the Service. The Fund will work with the State of Georgia and local community to determine the most appropriate long-term steward of the remaining lands.
"I applaud the partnership of DuPont and The Conservation Fund," said Interior Secretary Gale Norton. "Their action will protect thousands of acres of sensitive lands and ensure the continued preservation of the unique Okefenokee ecosystem. These kinds of partnerships demonstrate the kind of cooperation and citizen-driven stewardship the Bush Administration envisions for the 21st Century.”
The Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge is recognized worldwide for its extraordinary natural beauty and unique ecosystem and is one of only 19 sites in the United States to be listed as a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance. Established in 1936 to preserve the 438,000-acre Okefenokee Swamp, the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge encompasses approximately 391,000 acres. In 1974, to further ensure the protection of this unique ecosystem, the interior 353,981 acres of the refuge was designated a National Wilderness Area. The swamp remains one of the oldest and most well preserved freshwater areas in America and the world.
“DuPont deserves our thanks for recognizing the ecological significance of the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and the Okefenokee Swamp,” said Steve Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “This gift to the American people is a tremendous contribution to conservation and will enhance the protection and management of this ecological treasure.”
DuPont had intended to mine titanium ore from the site adjacent to the refuge after acquiring the land in 1991 and 1996. Following years of negotiations with local officials and interest groups stemming from the controversial nature of the proposed mine, DuPont agreed to retire mineral rights without compensation and donate its land to The Conservation Fund for placement into permanently protected status.
“We thank The Conservation Fund for working closely with DuPont to help bring about this great step for conservation,” said Sam D. Hamilton, the Service’s Regional Director for the Southeast Region. “We are proud to manage these lands for wildlife and people to enjoy for generations.”
Hamilton went on to say that DuPont should be especially recognized for sacrificing its own economic interests and committing to the needs of the local community and ecological integrity of the swamp.
<<<<<<
Conservation, hunters, and fisherman win again.
I was also amused by the average NRA rating of the "correct" voters, a D-minus. So, we vote green, we also throw away our firearms rights. No coincidence, and no thanks.
Studies have shown that roadless areas have better wildlife habitat, better hunting, and healthier ecosystems. The only people that complain of access are the people that are either unaware that there are already 300,000 miles of roads in our national forests nationwide, or that don't know that there is only one spot in the lower 48 more that 22 miles from a road, or that consider hunting driving around on an ATV to be real hunting. Real hunters don't need and don't want more roads. As for less cow tags, there could be many reasons for that. Dead bison? Gee, maybe the rancher influence that promotes slaughter of any bison that dares step foot outide of Yellowstone has something to do with that. As for fire, funny how the pro logger crew blames fire for devestating the forest and then advocates controlled burns (which frequesntly get out of hand) as a means of keeping the habitat healthy. The Roadless rule is a Godsend and bravo to Clinton for doing something that helped hunting tremendously.
Oh thank God for roads. How did nature ever manage for 4 billion years before humans came along and built roads.
FIA data:
http://199.128.173.26/fido/mastf/index.html
That being said pitting AHSA against the NRA when they both support Open Fields is just plain wrong. Above I quoted the NRA support for Open Fields, here is what AHSA says: http://www.huntersandshooters.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=93&Itemid=33
>>>>>>>>>>>>
President's Corner: Open Fields
In poll after poll, the most common worry of sportsmen and women is having access to a place to hunt, which, for a number of reasons, is getting more difficult for the average hunter each passing year.
But a remedy could be on the way, assuming lawmakers see the wisdom in promoting additional public access to the outdoors. Recently, Sen. Kent Conrad, a Democrat from North Dakota, and Sen. Pat Roberts, a Republican from Kansas, introduced a new version of the so-called Open Fields bill in the U.S. Senate. A companion bill will be introduced in the House of Representatives in the near future.
The bipartisan legislation, titled the Voluntary Public Access and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program Act of 2005, would provide grants to states and tribes to open millions of acres of private land for public hunting, fishing and other outdoor recreational activities. In return, landowners would be paid for signing an access lease agreement, which could be an economic boon for cash-strapped rural America, conservation officials say.
The first version of Open Fields was introduced in November 2003. It was co-sponsored by 40 Democrats and Republicans and received broad support from the outdoors community, including hunting, fishing and conservation groups. The 2005 version of the bill, which is gaining meaningful bipartisan support, has some noteworthy changes from the previous legislation.
First, it expands funding availability to “tribal access and forest properties,” in effect expanding the land pool for potential public access. Second, the bill would provide $20 million a year for five years to states with existing access programs, with the hope that those programs will be expanded later (conservation officials report that there are landowner waiting lists in most states because of a lack of funding).
Today, there are 17 states with public access programs, which translate into about 12 million acres of land open for public access for hunting and fishing. The new legislation could open up an additional 4 million acres per year and provide an incentive for more states to adopt such programs.
The loss of access to hunting lands is perhaps the largest contributing factor to the decline in hunter numbers and license sales nationwide. Increased access could jump-start an upward trend in hunter participation.
<<<<<<<<<<<
Seems both organizations realize that the field sporting community are served by supporting Open Fields. Personally, I don't care about the political skirmish between the two so long as my interests are advanced by their violent agreement.
What a clever way to take away our second amendment rights. Destroy their staunchest supporter from within.
P.S. Although Craig and I respectully agree to disagree on this specific point, he is correct that I only want the best for hunters and hunting, which is why I feel so strongly about the contents of this column and other similar commentaries in the past.
Tome, maybe the NRA and republicans could defend hunting by defending the places we hunt. Novel concept eh?
You and I are obviously getting two different sources on information. From what I understand, animals are more abundant in areas with less roads. They avoid roads, they hate the noise of snowmobiles and ATVs. More roads will mean more ATVs and road hunters, and the best areas to hunt are the designated wilderness areas were motorized vehicles are off limits. Again, long before there were roads, animals were doing fine. The real problem is exploitation of public land by corporations. The logging industry destroys fire resistant old growth forests and turns our lands into a monoculture. More roads mean less habitat. If they didn't, the interstates would be great places to hunt. Also, human overpopulation, which most republicans do not believe is a problem, is a major culprit to the decline of hunting and wildlife. We have too many raods on public lands as is. Let nature reclaim about half of them.
As for the larger issues you raise here, you're wrong about four billion years man-free. The landscape you see, the vegetation on it, AND the animals on it were hugely influenced by Indian management practices manifested in induced fire. Never mind Indian harvest practices, tribal territories and whatnot. To ignore that blows your arguments completely out of the water.
Study harder, dude.
Bill, you should not only want the best for hunters, but for America, our society at large, et cetera. The simple fact is that AHSA and other fake groups is nothing more than a "divide and conquer" strategy by a combination of those who would strip Americans of not only their firearms rights, but their economic and therefore social well-being.
I realized a long time ago that I couldn't be a hunter first last and always in the context of a life with many other worthy life goals. Some people certainly can be such, and more power to them...yet not so much power that they can exercise it over my rights.
Have a nice day.
We are going to need you real bad over the next decade. Please try hard to find a strong Second Amendment supporting conservationist poliical leader. Don't be afraid to talk with some of the old gun rights supporters and inform them that American gun owners are mostly wilderness supporters and believe in protecting the environment and wildlife habitat. We'll take any help we can get in keeping the Second Amendment, but it's going to make our job harder if political leaders who lose nothing by giving lip service to gun rights also leap whole hog into the pockets of corporate powers intent on destroying the last places where we hunt and fish. We're gun owners, and we worry about mercury in fish, and the blowing up of ancient eastern forests to get coal to burn, as if we were a bunch of cave people. We can see the hypocrisy and the danger in pandering to international corporations that keep our nation on its knees before the false god of oil. We're super sick of Republican corruption, but we're afraid that the Democrats are gonna "dance with those who brung 'em" which might include the Brady Bunch. Please don't force us to make impossible choices, because a whole lot of us are going to vote the health of the USA first - and that includes the health of the environment, and the economy, and the two things are inseparable. Once upon a time, we trusted that the nation was tough and self sufficient and we could vote single issue- gun rights- and that was a good time.
It is over. We just saw how it could go, where politicians don't try to mess with our gun rights, but they sell everything else right out the window to the highest bidder.
NRA, my old friends, get out of the headquarters and make some strong new arguments- I'll help you anyway I can- to some new people, lots of them, anybody who will listen. Don't sit tight and let the old base of Republicans come to you, reminding you of how its always been. They are dragging a lot of stinking nastiness behind them, like a tincanned cat, and the country is watching. Things have changed. Not the threats to gunrights- they are stronger than ever. Never before have so many Americans shown that they would give up freedom for the illusion of safety. It has been shocking and its been ugly.
The battle field has changed. The stakes are as high as ever. Comfortably hidebound is not going to cut it.
By the way, we don't trust the AHSA. We'd prefer to hang with our old friends.
I do want the best for society and America, just as much as you do, which is why I'm not worried about the gun rights issue and choose to concentrate on issue that make a difference right now. The gun issue has been won. As I've written in the past, the dems won't dare make any serious effort to get more gun control. They know that support for the Second Amendment is too strong, and even though I'm sure there are mavericks within the party that want more gun control, the leadership won't risk it politiclaly.
So let's leave it put it on hold and work on issues that matter.
Bill
Thomas Jefferson
I support gun rights 100%, not the NRA. Read closer next time. The NRA does not stick to gun rights, they get involved in all sorts of issues.
I did not say North America has never been impacted by man. I said nature thrived for 4 billion years before we built roads which others have argued actually help wildlife (what a spin).
The Indians did not have nearly the level of impact western civiliziation did. Follow your own advice and study harder.
If you were to examine TWS, TNC, DU, Sierra Club, RMEF, you find that no matter what they say to donors, their work is not to provide land on which to hunt. Hunting is not the raison d'etre most think these organizations live and die for. They are land acquisition and holding companies that have no tax liability. Vast income streams, and market altering business presence, but no tax liability. And that vast income stream provides well for the upper level management persons. Some are bringing down 7 figure incomes and benefits. They are not in it to provide for hunting, but to grow the income stream and to control more land that they might manage as they wish, for any purpose they wish. If hunting happens, it is more serendipity than intent.
NRA and hunting is really a red herring. NRA is about the well regulated militia, defending against corrupt law enforcement thugs, and keeping the military and police out of your home. Coincidentally, your hunting piece qualifies as a weapon for the constitutionally protected militia. That you have a gun to hunt with is because of the vigilance of the NRA, and their having the horsepower and standing to sue over transgressions against the people and the Constitution, mostly be governments intent on making life easy for themselves and hard for citizens. The "us agin' them" deal that seems to prevail in this country to a heightened degree in these times has not lessened. One party is for, by, and of government, and government workers, and the other is supposed to create enough wealth to support the party of government's habit, lifestyle and ambitions. The NRA is a needed buffer, blunt force instrument, and legal coyote to fight that element. And, we can hunt if the regulators allow it. They can take that away, but not your shooters.
Also, I wouldn't base any opinions on the reaction of animals to vehicles in Yellowstone--whether you're on a snowmobile or driving a car.
Hal, great comment. I am going to use my voice within the NRA to help with that. I think a growing and passionate part of the membership shares those thoughts as well.
The winter of 2007-2008 provided a big snowpack in the Northwest, and the number of fires in the summer of 2008 has been minimal. Fighting fires in hot dry summers with low snowpack is an insurmountable task. The Forest Service spends most of its firefighting efforts just protecting structures and rural towns located in the forests. Firefighting cannot stop the raging fires in the backcountry when the forests are dried up, due to drought and low snowpack winters. The dry summer fires finally end when cooler weather and storms arrive in September. I speak about this as a firefighter and lifelong (56 years) resident of Idaho.
Even roadless forests are managed, but they are being managed by disease and beetles for no one's benefit. Because beetles have been allowed such free rein they are not only destroying the forests out side of Yellowstone, but they are destroying the crucial white bark pine inside of the park. Cutting one more food supply that the grizzlies need.
As for the wolves, they are having a terrible impact on the elk. anyone who goes to Yellowstone regularly cannot help but notice the lack of elk, and the rarity of sighting moose. Wolf proponents try to claim that the elk are jsut hiding even as the numbers have plunged from 19,000 to 6000 last winter.
If the pioneers that settled these lands held to your beliefs we would have never crossed the Appalachians let alone the Mississippi.
Bill, I just have to shake my head at your responsiveness to what shouldn't be termed NRA's "nemesis" but more clearly "just another liberal front group."
Never mind that I finally bothered to poke around on the AHSA website, found the August 20 press release and this charming quote:
"With research from the League of Conservation Voters and the assistance of former Congressman Pete McCloskey, we launched this effort today."
Ah, League of Conservation Voters. The Bruce Babbitt "identify our enemies and destroy them" outfit.
And Pete McCloskey? Co-author of the ESA? Earth Day co-chair? Faked out "republican" in a primary against Richard Pombo who was trying to reform the ESA into something a bit more sane, then turned around and endorsed Pombo's Dem opponent? Of course, Pombo bit the dust thanks to big money dumped in his district by, yep, entities including LCV. And McCloskey finally came clean and officially switched to the Dems.
This AHSA thing is so transparent, it should be invisible. I guess my question is when Bill joins the staff.
But Mark "Tin Ear" Rey is the crummiest salesman in the world...really, he is.
As for Pombo, don't ignore that he got something like four million dollars in unlimited, non McFein-regulated targeted money dumped into his district against him. The only insanity on Pombo's part was in having the backbone to try reforming a shamefully bad and unjust law that is a bludgeon for the exclusive use of a chosen few.
His defeat sent a pretty clear message to those with more flexible spines, and America is worse off for it. How else to explain that charming 9 or 11 percent Congressional approval rating? I wonder what Mark Rey's approval rating might be?
And remember these wackos wont be happy until ALL public land,logging roads,FS,BLM,state,private lands are locked off to only thier clubmembers and us po folk in town gone. Then will the wilderness agenda be final.
Or somthing they call THE NEW WEST. Just those types of people will allowed, on your road bike or hiking and thats all the access your gonna get, on all public lands.
It is a rant but how far from the Y2Y agenda is it ???
The ESA has helped some species without a doubt, but at what cost? It has seriously eroded our private property rights, the monetary cost is staggering. It has become a means of power grabbing, money making for certain "non profits" that have assets in the billions. It has developed a legal society skilled at taking away the right of individuals to use & protect their own property.
Who are these "common" people? I meet all types that enjoy the designated wilderness areas. Horseback riders, hikers, hunters, fishermen, bird watchers, photographers. By common people do you mean people who want to plow over, drill, mine, graze to oblivian?Is it the people that want to drive over vegetation on ATVs? Who are these common people?
As far as the ESA, it has done more to protect the land I hunt and recreate on than the republcians or the NRA combined. American hunters (many of whom could be called common people) owe a debt of gratitude to the ESA. The paranoia over private property in this country is amazing. The big powerful developers have done more to condemn and take private property than the ESA by far.
I see you are helping to spread the paranoia that people that care about nature want to close off the land to all the "poor" people. What is this based on? Those of us who are environmentalists are actually trying to make sure the public has acess to public lands. I've seen ranchers chainswa trees down over mountain biking trails because they said the bikers were disturbing their cattle. Ranchers have looked gates that provide public access, they have blown up petroglyphs because the publci was coming out to see them. The extractive industry supported Rick Pombo because he wanted to sell off all public lands to private interests. Then we could all be like Texas were hunters have to pay $1000 a year to deer hunt. How is that for sticking it to poor folks. Common working people should thank God for the environmentalists who realize that public land belongs to all of us, not just big corporations.
Its your bosses and more importantly their bosses. Thats what scares me. The power elite of the left.
Maybe I shouldnt have said "po" people.
Wilderness is for the healthy and the wealthy and poor come to think of it. Those who have the time to enjoy it. I have few days in the summer to take off. I enjoy taking roads out my backdoor to the mountains and forested areas to collect firewwod,fly fish, get huckleberries,morels etc and see beatiful country. Just kick it . I dont have time to hike up a mountain. I'll hike a few miles here and there. I just would like to keep it the way it is. Thats all. I'd could show you bear scat in a clearcut and the poop is big let me tell ya. Bigger than yours the bear is doing fine.
Enviro hype is "pombo is selling off our lands!" He got kicked out 2 years ago and your still bringing it up? Somthing that never existed in the first place.
Im all for protecting the forest bit Im also about keeping my access intact. Stop mining and drilling in these areas, keep existing uses. You wont have my objections.
How many millions of acres of Wilderness and environmetalists wont be happy until that many million more. Why dont you go explore all that wilderness that we have already and then once youve explored all that get back to me. Tell me if its wild or not.
Then I could show you some non wilderness land that isnt going to be mined or drilled but you can get their in your car . Tell me if its wild or not.
Dont believe the hype its a sequel as an equal can I get this through to you?
Havent you seen the article aboot the Idaho roadless EIS???
Thats the way it has to done.
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/american_hunters_and_shooters_association_responds_to_its_critics/C41/L41/
Bill