Return of the yeti burners?

[Schaaf]

And the Koch brothers seem to be very anti public lands.

How can that be? Matt Rosendale received a 100% rating from Americans for Prosperity for their 2015 Legislative Scorecard. I was told by many people prior to the last election that Rosendale would always fight for public lands.

 

[OhHeyThereBen]

Like others have said, I think the article is trying to just get people fired up. MeatEater isn't a firearms show. They try to show people that hunting/conservation/public lands shouldn't be a right or left issue, and therefore are careful to keep the scope of their company very streamlined. I think BigFin tries to do the same thing with his stuff and it's my opinion that this is the way to do it.

Most people on here have the pleasure of stating their public opinions without having to worry about implications on the business that they run or the vision they have for their brand. In order to reach your goals (social, not finantial) with a company like MeatEater or OYOA you need to carefully pick the battles you need to fight to win the war. If you're fighting battles that bring your company to a tangential path you're wasting valuable resources and distracting from the endgame.

I have to add, I really don't think O'Brian is bad at all. His podcasts are decidedly different from the group conversations on the MeatEater podcasts, so I could see where they wouldn't be as interesting. But they're valuable to me nonetheless. I haven't dug into his personal life, nor do I ever care to. I just enjoy the content being produced.

 

[Trial153]

Republicans good, Democrats Bad. Democrats Good, Republican bad. The two party establishment has turned a huge portion of this country into thoughtless saps.

 

[belly-deep]

But, again I don’t really think 2a issues are an integral part of the meateater show.

Hunting and the 2A are very intertwined.

Hunttalkers love to bash the NRA for not being more involved in conservation/hunting issues, yet now the shoe is on the other foot and its crickets....

 

[IlliniFIre]

I saw that article today. At first I was concerned, but the more I read it, the more I was amused. There was a lot of demonization of Sen. Tester. Probably just because he has that D after his name. While I haven't spent a ton of time looking at his voting record, but I have to expect that a Montana Democrat is probably not too far of ideologically from a New England Republican.

Unfortunately, I am starting to feel like 2A issues are getting very much zero sum with the most vocal people. The all or nothing attitude in politics these days is very discouraging.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

So the ink has been dry on this deal for at least 4 months, and I have seen, nor heard, an of the insidious agenda.

We all get that the Federalist is just rehashing old news right?

As for Ben O'Brien, just not very interesting so far, waxing intellectual about superficial ethical questions and philosophy isn't enough to base a podcast on, IMO.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Steve was on NPR 7 years ago talking about the 2A, NRA, and assault weapons.

It seems that when various people in the hunting or shooting space are being attached, using the they don't support the 2A, it's really that they have no opinion or aren't strongly in favor of AR's. Sure, AR's are used for hunting, they are effective and there are benefits to using one in various circumstances, but I think a lot of sportsman and women can relate to Rinella when he said the following about hunting with an AR; "I don't have any desire to do it, because for me, like, culturally, like, my definition of a hunting rifle is fixed on a specific image."

At the end of the day assault weapons are just one gun issue and your opinion either way doesn't dictate if you are pro/anti 2A, hell Jim Zumbo was pro-2A.

Rinella on the NRA:

INSKEEP: You don't own an AR-15, for example.
RINELLA: No, I don't. I've never been interested in them. But at the same time, I'm a member of the National Rifle Association, because I do have concerns that I want to safeguard.

https://www.npr.org/2012/12/24/167949039/gun-ownership-is-a-responsiblity-to-be-proud-of

You can't fight every battle, Rinella and Randy for that matter, have shown that's not the hill they want to die on. Belly-deep, speaking for myself, I bash the the NRA for associating with and extolling people that are clearly pro-public land transfer. In that vein, if because of Chernin or a change in his own beliefs Rinella starting saying how much he loved David Hogg I think people would have every reason to criticism him. Also let's be clear he would need to be praising Hogg's, I think having conversations with people on the other side of the aisle and if Rinella wanted to have Hogg on the show for some venison diplomacy I would be all for that...

 

[BucksnDucks]

I don't care for OBrien. He strikes me as a is a less intelligent, more arrogant, less entertaining, less interesting version of Rinella, and seems particularly fake. I do like Rinella however and his way of reaching people who are not traditionally interested in hunting is effective and unique. I was disappointed when he added OBrien to his group and hope he doesnt poison the whole well because I think Rinella does a lot of good.

It was interesting to me that this sentiment about O'Brien came out in the first few replies. I had this impression the first time I listened to his podcast. I turned it off after the first 15 minutes or so. Since then I've listened to quite a few. Not because my opinion changed but he has interesting guests and I'm caught up on other content. At first I thought it was an age thing or maybe because he is from back east. I think you hit it on the head, arrogance and uninteresting. O'Brien strikes me as someone playing a role. It is not the impression I get from Rinella, Putelis, Callahan or Randy who I always feel are sincere and authentic. Time will tell, I think the hunting community was in need of thoughtful representatives of western hunting like Randy and Rinella to get away from the saturation of the Whitetail scene. As for meateater I certainly hope they don't get carried away or swayed into thinking that someone's opinion of "nuance" equals truth and other's opinion therefore is bullshit.

 

[belly-deep]

Belly-deep, speaking for myself, I bash the the NRA for associating with and extolling people that are clearly pro-public land transfer.

I think a lot of people bash the NRA for that. I am an NRA member and I wish they would move away from such people.

But technically, the 2A and public lands are not related issues, and an advocacy group for one does not need to support the other.

So either Meateater and the NRA need to be held to account or they don't, but not selective treatment whereby the NRA gets thrown in the trash and Meateater gets a pass.

My view is that both need to be held to account.

 

[BigHornRam]

We'd have to wait for the drive by click bait from some political discord driving media to trigger us first.

Then once triggered, this thread would be well over 100 posts by now.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

But technically, the 2A and public lands are not related issues, and an advocacy group for one does not need to support the other.
So either Meateater and the NRA need to be held to account or they don't, but not selective treatment whereby the NRA gets thrown in the trash and Meateater gets a pass.

Fair point, I agree, it is unfair and kind of absurd.

Although I disagree that both need to be held to account. I don't think that we all need to hold all the same beliefs on everything, i.e. we can both be member of BHA, you can also be a member of the NRA and I can be a member of whatever the opposite kinda related org is... the Sierra Club???, and I think that's great.

 

[Sytes]

Saw this while filling my coffee this morning. The article title compelled a further read. However, within short time it became a clear - political agenda has driven this one for the preacher's choir to sing away.

It is interesting how the pot calls the kettle black along with the kettle calling the pot black. Just another day in extreme partisan politics.

 

[OhHeyThereBen]

I find it interesting that the 2A comes up so much in reference to hunting. I'm a staunch supporter, but not because I'm a hunter. It gives people the right to defend themselves and their freedoms. Not to hunt.

 

[BrentD]

I find it interesting that the 2A comes up so much in reference to hunting. I'm a staunch supporter, but not because I'm a hunter. It gives people the right to defend themselves and their freedoms. Not to hunt.

Exactly. But it's a litmus test you have to pass to be accepted as a hunter in a lot of circles and hunters are a market sector that the NRA has to have to support their budgets. (I'm a member).

 

[pgidley]

My usual caveat - I'm Canadian, and an outside observer. This forum has quickly become a favourite, as I find these discussions fascinating, and you guys do a great job at keeping opposing arguments very amiable and well reasoned. I'm fascinated by US politics, and I follow closely. It amazes me how divided some portions of the population are on certain issues, yet instead of trying to move towards the middle ground and understand the "other", the wedge keeps getting deeper. We don't have a 2nd amendment equivalent in this country, so maybe it doesn't resonate fully with me. I guess at the end of the day, public land and wildlife interests would win me over every time vs firearms rights, but its sad to see these as opposing interests. Its really too bad that there isn't a more vocal group of sensible folks such as yourselves, where these issues can be discussed and brought to light without further division. I do love visiting your country, and the public land access is what brings me back again and again.

In the meantime I'll keep the popcorn ready.

 

[Big Fin]

I've been out hiking the Arizona Coues mountains, so connection is limited.

This entire effort by the Federalist stems from the Montana Senate race of Tester v. Rosendale. All the other stuff is brought up as fodder. The core concern is that public land issues are grabbing high priority and election outcomes are showing that.

Note that it was announced last summer that Chernin group had made a significant investment in Meateater. Wasn't a problem or concern until such time as the RNC picked the worst candidate in the entire primary and tried to make him Senator. It didn't work, so rather than evaluate the problem with message/messenger, the idea is to take a shot across the bow of a very influential voice in the public land debate; the Meateater group.

The tactic is to tie anyone/any platform that is effective in messaging as some sort of Democratic operative. Rather than put pressure on Republican candidates and party leaders to open their eyes to the power of the public land message, the decision has been made to go after groups that are advocating public lands.

Complete bull shit. I've know Steve from back in his days of producing Wild Within. He's a smart guy, as are the folks running his operation. To imply he is somehow anti-2A is more bull shit. He's made many statements of his support of the 2A.

The bigger issue is whether or not public land hunters are going to be sucked in by pieces such as that put out by the Federalist. If so, we are in deep chit.

The reality is, Matt Rosendale was a terrible candidate. He lost, in large part due to his terrible public land positions. Future elections in some states with heavy public land interest will have similar outcomes. Some folks don't like that and they are willing to paint some pretty crazy stories to try prevent future elections being influenced by public land issues and public land advocates. I say, "Bring it on" and see how far that gets them in the long game that is politics and policy.

 

[Trial153]

I've been out hiking the Arizona Coues mountains, so connection is limited.

This entire effort by the Federalist stems from the Montana Senate race of Tester v. Rosendale. All the other stuff is brought up as fodder. The core concern is that public land issues are grabbing high priority and election outcomes are showing that.

Note that it was announced last summer that Chernin group had made a significant investment in Meateater. Wasn't a problem or concern until such time as the RNC picked the worst candidate in the entire primary and tried to make him Senator. It didn't work, so rather than evaluate the problem with message/messenger, the idea is to take a shot across the bow of a very influential voice in the public land debate; the Meateater group.

The tactic is to tie anyone/any platform that is effective in messaging as some sort of Democratic operative. Rather than put pressure on Republican candidates and party leaders to open their eyes to the power of the public land message, the decision has been made to go after groups that are advocating public lands.

Complete bull shit. I've know Steve from back in his days of producing Wild Within. He's a smart guy, as are the folks running his operation. To imply he is somehow anti-2A is more bull shit. He's made many statements of his support of the 2A.

The bigger issue is whether or not public land hunters are going to be sucked in by pieces such as that put out by the Federalist. If so, we are in deep chit.

The reality is, Matt Rosendale was a terrible candidate. He lost, in large part due to his terrible public land positions. Future elections in some states with heavy public land interest will have similar outcomes. Some folks don't like that and they are willing to paint some pretty crazy stories to try prevent future elections being influenced by public land issues and public land advocates. I say, "Bring it on" and see how far that gets them in the long game that is politics and policy.

May I repost this on another board?

 

[get-n-birdy]

Any one preaching on the platform of public land sales being a bad idea has a very large target on them. Anything and everything will be thrown at the wall in hopes something sticks. Validity won't matter. Casting shadows of doubt and creating rumors is the desired effect. Facts and truth are mute points.

The squeakier the wheel, the bigger the target and the higher the priority.

Would take it as a compliant that they are attacking his platform, it means they are concerned. That's a good thing. Means the message is starting to spread and they don't like that.

A person can be pro 2A and anti public land sales, that is not an impossible stance to have. Even with leanings one way or the other. Been married 25 or 26 years or so now, have 5 kids, all from the same two magnetic gentiles and love the fw, but rarely do we agree on much. Sportsman don't have to be pro 2A, and henceforth pro public land sales because that's what the party lines are. Party lines are bull chit and blindly following them is idiotic.

 

[Big Fin]

May I repost this on another board?

Sure.

 

[Irrelevant]

I'll agree with the Canadian, I appreciate this forum for for its ability to have civil dialogue and I'll agree that personally if given the choice between guns or wildlife I'd pick wildlife every time. Thankfully I don't feel like I have to make that choice. We are the greatest Country on the planet even with our warts.