NRA response to me on transfer and sale issue

Southwind

New member
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
1,575
Location
Augusta, KS

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
15,124
Location
Bozeman, MT
Obviously, the person replying is either; 1) too uninformed to understand the issue, or 2) told to deflect the question and answer a different question as they have done by providing that link.
 

JoseCuervo

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
9,761
Location
South of the Border
In other words, the NRA is doing nothing to keep the GOP from selling My Public Lands.

Laughable.....

Yay, buy more private land for control by the government...
allow a greater proportion of the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition to be returned to the states for the use of acquiring land for public target ranges

Yay, guns around dams that we had to block off from terrorists after 9/11
ensures that otherwise lawfully-possessed firearms cannot be prohibited in publicly- accessible recreational areas under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers

Yay, more Washington dictates on local land managers....
require that management plans of the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management facilitate hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.

Yay, ...... (gotta be honest on this one, hard to find fake enthusiasm. )
establish hunter access corridors and require it to allow the transportation of hunting bows if certain requirements are met


Yay, now in Nevada, you can shoot the elephants at Circus Circus and haul the ivory around...
protect hunters against overly-expansive ivory regulations

Yay, nothing says protecting My Public Lands like allowing us to import Polar Bears. Think people have problems with Wolves and Grizzlies, wait till they see Polar Bears running around the Bitterroot....
allow for the importation of trophies from polar bears
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2015
Messages
680
Location
Helena, MT
Seems like a punt to me. The NRA just needs to say these simple words:

"We oppose any public land transfer."

Bet they won't though.
 

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
4,994
Location
Bozeman, MT
I guess ivory and polar bear importations are the most serious issues facing hunters today.
 

Southwind

New member
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
1,575
Location
Augusta, KS
Obviously, the person replying is either; 1) too uninformed to understand the issue, or 2) told to deflect the question and answer a different question as they have done by providing that link.

#1 could be correct but I'm leaning towards #2
 

beginnerhunter

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 15, 2016
Messages
1,174
Nice punt, good hang time. So none of that matters if the federal forests are sold. Good job. Pat on the back.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
14,043
Location
Cedar, MI
I guess ivory and polar bear importations are the most serious issues facing hunters today.

Safari Club Int. has placed those two issues as some of their highest priorities, while their PAC supports politicians who want to sell off public land.

Same goes for the NRA.
 

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
4,994
Location
Bozeman, MT
Safari Club Int. has placed those two issues as some of their highest priorities, while their PAC supports politicians who want to sell off public land.

Same goes for the NRA.
Well golly, who am I to question those two groups? ;)
 

RobG

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
4,994
Location
Bozeman, MT
I especially find it hypocritical that they claim to champion public shooting ranges but require an NRA membership to shoot at the one here.
 

quarterhorse

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
129
Have any other large conservation groups went public with their opposition to the transfer? RMEF, TU?
 

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
15,124
Location
Bozeman, MT
Have any other large conservation groups went public with their opposition to the transfer? RMEF, TU?

Yes, many have. B&C, RMEF, TU, BHA, TRCP, come to mind as those opposing transfer. No word from DU or SCI, as far as I know.
 

Gerald Martin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
5,631
While the bill being discussed here does nothing to help us in the fight against public lands transfer, it is a good bill and should be passed.

Not mentioned in that article but included in the bill is a provision to allow film crews of fewer than five people to get a commercial film permit that is good for all year. I think the cost is @ $200. Comparing that with the current rate of $150 per day it brings the cost of operating legally to a level that is compatible with what the potential for profit is.
 

mottlet

Active member
Joined
Feb 8, 2015
Messages
67
"The number one threat to hunting today is that rich people can't go to another country, shoot an animal that may or may not be endangered, and bring it back here to proudly display in their dens next to that 380 bull elk that got stuck in the corner of the fence."

Remember the good ol' days when the sportsmen bills had conservation pieces in em?
 

WV Hunter

Active member
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
1,765
NRA? Is that the National Right to Public Land Association?

You guys still don't get it.
 

Oak

Expert
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
13,587
Location
Colorado
NRA? Is that the National Right to Public Land Association?

You guys still don't get it.

They haven't had a problem jumping into land management issues in the past.

NRA off target on Browns Canyon project
By Charlie Meyers
Denver Post Outdoors Editor
DenverPost.comArticle
Last Updated:11/07/2006 08:18:57 PM MST

Blame it on the politics of the extreme. Or maybe on me.

An election-year survey of Colorado's registered voters reveals as many who count themselves uncommitted as who belong to either of the major parties.

These independents, of whom I am one, held the balance in Tuesday's election, along with the next one and the next, perhaps to infinity. We pride ourselves in rising above the pettiness of party politics, of freeing our minds and loyalties to choose whom we feel to be the best candidates. Among outdoorsmen, this increasingly means those who hold a strong ethic of environmental protection.

What we have done, individually and collectively, is reject the politics of the extremes, particularly as this represents blind loyalty to party at the expense of the common good.

But in so doing, we've also caused an inadvertent fallout, not at all beneficial. In our defection, we've left both the Democratic and Republican parties more in the grip of their respective radicals, the political crazies, as it were.

If we follow this path to its logical conclusion, the result will be a continued disaffection, leaving these core bodies with fewer moderates than before.

So it is with the National Rifle Association, that well-oiled lobby noted for its rabid defense of the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.

Time was, the NRA could be counted as a friend of the sportsmen, but no more. Having lost much of its temperate base, including this writer, the NRA of late has charged off on a bad trip characterized by a knee-jerk reaction against environmental protection.

Among its many recent wrong turns on resource issues, the NRA now opposes establishment of the Browns Canyon Wilderness, a 20,000-acre corridor along the Arkansas River south of Buena Vista. Proposed by Rep. Joel Hefley and Sen. Wayne Allard, both Republicans, the legislation would protect a wild area that's generally at low elevation, something of a novelty for Colorado.

The push for wilderness appeared to be sailing smoothly until the NRA rushed in, objecting that it would close a motorized trail used by ATVs.
This claim flies in the face of a considerable body of research showing that roads not only diminish habitat and reduce the numbers of animals, but also decrease hunter harvest.

A report released by Trout Unlimited in 2006 establishes a strong connection between roadless areas and successful hunting and fishing.
Other studies strongly connect wild areas with an abundance of deer and elk.

Wildlife managers consistently lament the fragmentation of lands with a growing network of mechanized trails, many pioneered illegally by ATVs.
This condition is being accelerated dramatically by oil and gas exploration in western Colorado.

David Lien, Front Range director for Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, notes the proposed Browns Canyon Wilderness is home many forms of wildlife and provides unique hunting and recreational opportunities.

"We need to maintain quality habitat for wildlife populations, and more roads won't do that," Lien said last week in a letter to Allard.

Rather than adhere to the wishes of its many sportsmen members who understand the critical link between environmental protection and quality outdoor sport, NRA increasingly finds itself linked to despoilers.

NRA attempts to confuse the larger issues of habitat and resource protection with scare tactics about firearms ownership while forming unholy alliances with rape-and-scrape politicians who shoot us where it hurts most.

One suspects that if the organization sticks to its guns in opposing popular initiatives such as Browns Canyon Wilderness, it will continue to lose moderate members.

The result, of course, will be an association that's even crazier than before.

Browns Canyon bill daggered
By Charlie Meyers
Denver Post Outdoors Editor
DenverPost.comArticle
Last Updated:12/12/2006 10:07:32 PM MST

Say a little prayer for the Browns Canyon Wilderness Act. Heaven knows, it needs it.

The proposal to protect 20,000 wild acres along the Arkansas River south of Buena Vista hasn't officially expired, but the Pearly Gates are open wide for a bill originally pushed by Colorado's Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Joel Hefley.

As discussed previously in this column, a measure that seemed to have clear sailing hit the rocks last month when the National Rifle Association protested closing the so-called Turret Road, an unimproved track up a steep gully pointing like a dagger into the heart of the wilderness.

NRA based its opposition on the complaints of members who wanted to drive all-terrain vehicles into the area.

Jerry Mallett, a member of the Chaffee County Board of Commissioners and a wilderness advocate, thought last week he had reached a compromise to save the bill by offering not an olive branch, but a cherry stem.

That was the characterization of a long, narrow corridor that would have allowed mechanized travel while still protecting the wild values of most of the area.

"I thought we had a deal, but they came back with hard language for a 400-foot-wide corridor that we thought would do more damage than good," Mallett said. "You can turn a semi around in that space."

The thing about driving a mechanized wedge deep into a relatively small wilderness area, Mallett said, is that it spooks all the game farther away.

"If you drive up that trail, you can't do any hunting," Mallett said. "All the game moves away up into tough country, and you're still walking."

Mallett's choice is to let the bill lapse in the current congress and do it again in the next session.

"Hopefully, we'll have a better congress and a more friendly state administration," Mallett said.

What worries the veteran outdoorsman most is the way such standoffs work to forge an alliance between the powerful NRA and advocates of off-road vehicles.

"Together, they can do more damage to the environment than oil and gas development," Mallett said.

The expanding use of ATVs, often illegally, also raises the the ire of David Petersen, a Trout Unlimited activist and member of the Colorado Roadless Areas Review Task Force whose recommendations remain snared by various court and administrative wranglings.

Petersen, a 60-year-old Durango resident, is particularly incensed by the claim that motorized access is essential for those with physical limitations.

"The ATV advocates coming to the meetings who throw up excuses for the young, lame and old are usually in their 30s and 40s," said Petersen who, despite the frailties of six decades, still hoofs up and down mountains with a pack frame.

"I personally have lost almost all my favorite public land hunting places to motorized invasion over the past six or eight years," Petersen said of a growing clamor that sent deer and elk scurrying for distant parts.

"The motorized crowd may not be able to go everywhere they want sitting on their butts, but if they chase all the game out, gouge the meadows, muddy the stream and make all that noise, I have no reason to go there. They effectively have denied access to everyone who doesn't want those things."

Petersen, who plans to write a book about motorized abuse, pushes for changes that would allow Division of Wildlife wardens to enforce off-road regulations. He also favors rules that would restrict the numbers of vehicles in a given area, much as currently is the case with crowding from boaters or campers.

A great majority of the abuse and conflicts comes during hunting season, Petersen believes.

"Hunters are responsible for a majority of the real damage and it's very much the responsibility of hunters to take the bull by the horns and do something about it," Petersen said.

Petersen perceives that most organized ATV groups would like to police the bad apples that give them a bad name, but that no real action ever takes place.

"Every year, it gets much worse."
 
Sitka Banner

Forum statistics

Threads
94,606
Messages
1,411,590
Members
29,676
Latest member
acarswell
Top