Cam Hanes Meeting with Chaffetz
- Thread starter NCSU_Lewis
- Start date
JoseCuervo
New member
I am on my phone, so it's a little difficult to write a detailed response.
First of all, Cam was ill- prepared. He didn't understand the laws, so he was unable to speak to them intelligently. So Jason was able to explain them in a one-sided manner.
You almost have to back up, and ask what the purpose of the podcast was.
It was certainly not a debate, because it was an unfair debate at that point.
I don't think it was a news interview.
I don't think it was an education opportunity for cam to be able to educate his listeners.
It mostly seem like an opportunity for Jason to tell his point of view and his agenda, and his philosophy to the podcast audience.
And from that point, it wasn't very entertaining, and it only serve the purpose to promote Jason.
If you listen to it with the assumption that jason wants to destroy public lands, then you realize that his entire agenda is centered that direction. And so every time Cam agreed with Jason, he just supporting Jason's position. Listen to how many times he says "yes" to something that Jason says.
Specific to some of the issues:
HR 621, he allowed Jason to brush it off as confusing messaging and poor communication and not a bad idea. The only reason Jason pulled it back, it was because of the misunderstanding by the hunting community. Jason indicated no new religion, and still feels like it was a good bill. In fact he introduced it six years prior. And nobody was upset with it. So it was bad communication and misinformation this year that caused the uproar. He'll do a better job communicating the message next time he introduces the bill to sell public lands.
HR 622 Cam was unable to stick to the bill, and kept describing "management " instead of "law enforcement ". So, for about 10 or 15 minutes it was cam talking about the wrong thing, and Jason being able to describe it however he wanted.
As described above, he never challenge Jason on the problems that Congress has caused with law-enforcement on public lands. Never called his bullshit I'm not adequately funded in the agencies. Spends time in salting the BLM agents as "desk jockeys" or "people who didn't grow up around there" As if, somehow local guys who become deputies are better than a local guy who becomes a BLM agent.
This also allow Jason to bash the job the agencies do, without taking any responsibility for adequately finding the agencies. And soon, cam started agreeing with him that the agencies don't manager forests better, and we should be able to cut more timber Clearbrush and we have fewer fires. Cam then agreed with Jason of the false notion we waste too much money fighting fires and not enough on managing forests.
Then Cameron started attacking the equal access to justice act. And blamed the "enviros " for the forest issues. And started agreeing that lawsuits to protect fish and game were causing the problems. Cam got rolled.
Then they agreed the endangered species act was causing problems. And he allowed Jason to make a five minute speech about how all this you should be managed at the state, including endangered species because hunters and local people know them better than anything from Washington DC. Cam got rolled. Again.
He allowed Jason to claim the national Park should not be able to acquire new land, because of the $10 billion backlog on deferred maintenance. Without pointing out that he was the cause of the backlog by not finding the national parks. And he allowed Jason to say that national parks are bad for hunters, because we don't get a hunt in national parks. So Hunter should not support national parks.
And then the federal land transfer act that he brought up at the end was really amateur. He did not understand what he was talking about, he was reading somebody's notes off at Courtyard by Marriott piece of stationary. Apparently wadded up with a piece of chewing gum stuck to the back.
Again, Jason was able to drive the discussion, and make claims without being challenged.
I could pick a dozen people off of this bulletin board they could've done a better job addressing the issues.
ShootsManyBullets
Well-known member
Well we now have a good idea for Randys next podcast guest...
Bring Jason in the house!
Bring Jason in the house!
Thanks Jose. There are some people who are well intentioned but debating in the political arena may not be their strong suit, sounds like Cam may fit that bill. Stick to mountain marathons and shooting your bow 365 days a year Cam. Berate these a--holes like Jason but leave the face to face shit to those who excel at it.
Pretty much every year I think
beagle001
Well-known member
The whole time I listened, I kept thinking... "Sounds like a politician"
I went in encouraged, left disappointed. Cam obviously needs to visit the Hunttalk forums a little more. Hell, I think Joe Rogan has a stronger grasp of what is going on that Cam.
I went in encouraged, left disappointed. Cam obviously needs to visit the Hunttalk forums a little more. Hell, I think Joe Rogan has a stronger grasp of what is going on that Cam.
I listened to Randy on the Shoot'n The Bull podcast with Ty Stubblefield. I think I have a little better grasp on the the issues with 622. It seems to me like a "foot in the door" bill.....sort of like a high capacity magazine ban on the gun side. Doesn't seem like the end of the world in and of itself. But once they get their "foot in the door" it will be easier to make real strides towards the taking of public lands. Randy gave some background history on Chaffetz and how he has not shown to be a friend to public lands and hunters in the past.
I listened to the podcast yesterday. And I was pretty disappointed after it was through. Like Jose and others mentioned, Cam got steamrolled. Cam did not have a good grasp of what he was talking about. It's unfortunate because I believe Jason made himself look really good to Cams following who may not know a whole lot about the issues they were discussing. Would have much rather seen Randy, Steve or Land in Cams shoes. Hell I think most of us would have been better. Anyways I like Cam, props to him for trying, I just wish he would have been more prepared.
dannyb278
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 571
This is what I was most afraid of when I heard Chaffetz was going on Cam's podcast. Nothing against Cam, but I have never heard him speak very eloquently on conservation or public land issues, it just hasn't been the focus of his platform. The guy has a huge following and as far as I can tell has done nothing up until this interview to damage hunting. That's pretty hard to say for most hunting celebrities. It was cool to see him take the time away from Instagram selfies to address HR 621 on his social media accounts, but he is clearly out of his depth here.
Its pretty clear that if Chaffetz approached him for the interview, that it was because he is high profile but (a good bet at least) relatively low stakes, which proved itself out with this podcast. If he really wanted to reach sportsman he would have spoke with someone like Rinella, who would no doubt drop a hammer on him. Cam should take up beer league sports with the softballs he was throwing at Chaffetz.
Last edited:
Bigjav
Active member
Cam is a positive voice for the hunting community, however Chaffetz walked all over him and Cam didn't even know it. I was listening and wishing it was someone better prepared so that they could make Chaffetz look like the idiot he is. Chaffetz kept deflecting questions that someone else prepared for Cam and kept blaming the Feds and DC for all that's wrong in the world. Well guess what dipshit you are the Feds, you and all your buddies back in DC are the problem not the BLM LEO trying to do his job
Steelhead
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 701
I would like to hear some "Fin thoughts".
They would likely be much better than "Awww shucks Jason, I has never even mets a politician befores..."
They would likely be much better than "Awww shucks Jason, I has never even mets a politician befores..."
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,676
Can't fault the guy for trying.
beagle001
Well-known member
He maybe should have taken one workout off to prepare for a pretty important meeting...
BuzzH
Well-known member
Its pretty easy to sit in the cheap seats and second guess the guy that was actually in the arena.
Keep in mind that Chaffetz is a paid, professional politician. Its easy for them to divert, dodge, and bullchit their way out of any question...they do it everyday of the week.
IMO/E, most of the people that are harshly criticizing Cam on this issue, would have their lunch eaten by Chaffetz in a one-on-one debate. Lets be honest, 99% don't even have the stones to challenge these politicians with a phone call or email...let alone face to face.
Yeah, Cam got handled, didn't expect him to "win" with Chaffetz, but at least we're here discussing it. Maybe it will trigger a few internet tuffies to actually send a letter to Chaffetz or send an email to their representatives.
Isn't that really the point?
noharleyyet
Well-known member
^^^....nailed it Buzz, well said.
Nobody will ever win the discussion with these guys, nobody, so it's a waste of time trying. Call, send letters etc. but the one on one tactic is totally useless. Ever heard Pence give a straight answer or twist in the wind when defending his indefensible dipshit boss? You haven't and you never will.
Cam called me the day before the meeting. We talked for a long time, as much about strategy and how not to get played by the DC grinding mill as much as it was a discussion of the topics. I sent him an email full of ideas to bring up and tactics to expect. During the break in the podcasts Cam called me with an update of the first half and thoughts and ideas for the second half.
As Cam stated, this was the first time he had ever interacted with a politician. That was not news to JC, which is part of why he reached out to Cam, knowing Cam would likely be kind and non-confrontational. Being new to the game of politics and only recently being engaged in the public land debate, Cam ran a large risk of being used as a mechanism for the opposition; not by his wishes, rather as a function of inexperience. I thanked him for taking the risk to his brand and hoped some of what I could provide might assist in not getting used by the opposition.
Though some have commented they would like JC to debate a few of us who have been in this for a long time, JC will never reach out to someone who has been in this game for twenty years. He is a politician and he knows that you never go into a discussion where you might lose control of the narrative. If he was on my podcast, or in a discussion with a few others who have been at this for decades, JC knows that the formalities between us could be taken care of in the first thirty seconds and after that it would be a serious discussion where we get down to actual facts and realities of proposed ideas. Every time he used the term "DC desk jockey" I would have asked for clarification if he was referring to himself or Congress in general, as that is what they are. When he used the term "Local Control" I would have asked which local auctioneer would be "in control." His advisers are not going to let him walk into that situation, so we can wish for it all we want, but it is not going to happen.
On the positive side, JC just walked a bit further down the plank. He made some statements on Cam's podcast about being one of us, supporting public lands for hunting, blah, blah, blah. The next time JC steps on his junk as it relates to public lands, the pressure will be put on Cam to call him out. When JC does that, and he will, if Cam does call him out as being a typical "political flounder" who flip-flops, that will get a great rise out of Cam's followers. The next time we want something from Congress, a call out can me made to JC asking him to step up. If Cam wants to, he can force JC's hand as it relates to the image hunters have of JC. I hope he does that and I would gladly assist in such effort.
Though there is a lot of overlap in hunting audiences, most of Cam's audience is not on the public land advocacy trail to the degree the Hunt Talk crowd is. His audience is slanted toward hunters who are into fitness as part of hunting. Our audience is into some of the same things, but advocacy for the protection of what we love and the public lands necessary for that is more of the identity our audience would relate to. For Cam to bring this public land issue, the issue we find so important, to his large audience is a good thing.
Steelhead
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 701
Thanks Fin. Great points and eloquently put given the circumstances.
