It was an interesting interview. of which only a small part was in this article. The writer had a tough task to convince me that he was not just fishing for someway to bash gun owners. We spent a lot of time talking about what "scoop" he was looking for and what message I wanted to get out there.
He kept his promise that this would be about public lands and how hunters should not be taken for granted on this discussion, just because our demographic profile puts us right of center on most issues. I wanted to make it clear that hunters are best served to push on the 2A groups to exercise their power with these politicians who are bad on public lands. I think that comes across how I had hoped.
We went over many other topics and perspectives and space did not allow for all of it. When you deal with national media, you have to come to the table with eyes wide open. I gave him a lot of my comments in emails, so there would be no confusion as to what I said.
What I came away with is how the national media is of the assumption that all hunters are in lock step with the far fringe politicians, just because they claim to be good on guns. I think he was genuinely interested to talk to a gun nut like myself and learn how public land access was also a "Cold Dead Hands" issue. I assured him I am not the only gun nut for who public land access is a "Cold Dead Hands: issue. I gave him many examples of the uproar this has caused among hunters. He spent over a week investigating many of the examples and came back very impressed that hunters were leading the charge on this.
He did ask the question as to why other public land users are not making such a big stink about it. I gave him my answers as to what degree the other users are/aren't involved and why hunters are such a critical group to lead this discussion, both in the context of history and of influence among those who might be bad on public lands. Unfortunately, space did not allow for those Q and A remarks.
