TRCP and sportsman and women for biden.

[Glockster]

Just saw that presidential candidate Biden has started a new group sportsmen and sportswomen for Biden. It seems like the TRCP is pretty involved. I don’t know if there’s any TRCP reps that frequent the board but if you look at Biden‘s stance and policy objectives on firearms and the regulation of online ammo sales, Makes it difficult for me to understand how a group that’s supposedly pro hunting in proconservation can get behind a candidate with such restrictive ideas on firearms.
And yes I know conservation, pro public land, hunting, fishing and firearm ownership/Second Amendment don’t go hand-in-hand unfortunately. Would be nice if there was a candidate that supported all those things but I won’t hold my breath.

 

[rustednuts]

Ammo and gun excise tax pays for conservation. So if you make harder to purchase either you are making it harder to finance conservation.

 

[El Jason]

Ammo and gun excise tax pays for conservation. So if you make harder to purchase either you are making it harder to finance conservation.

Not exclusively they don't. Certainly PR funds are a huge component of wildlife management funding, but it's only a piece of the puzzle. One could easily argue that sound environmental policy that leads to clean and intact watersheds, and ecosystems that aren't damaged/degraded is every bit as important as having money to fund things.

Edit: If you don't mess things up, you don't have to spend money to go back and fix them.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hunting license money funds more conservation work than PR. So does general tax revenue from income tax.

Also, got a link for this? TRCP is a 501 (C)3 and cannot engage in electioneering.

 

[fmnjr]

Just saw that presidential candidate Biden has started a new group sportsmen and sportswomen for Biden. It seems like the TRCP is pretty involved. I don’t know if there’s any TRCP reps that frequent the board but if you look at Biden‘s stance and policy objectives on firearms and the regulation of online ammo sales, Makes it difficult for me to understand how a group that’s supposedly pro hunting in proconservation can get behind a candidate with such restrictive ideas on firearms.
And yes I know conservation, pro public land, hunting and fishing and firearm ownership/Second Amendment don’t go hand-in-hand unfortunately. Would be nice if there was a candidate that supported all those things but I won’t hold my breath.

I have to say I doubt he understands it either.

 

[TheNorthStar]

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Hunting license money funds more conservation work than PR. So does general tax revenue from income tax.

Also, got a link for this? TRCP is a 501 (C)3 and cannot engage in electioneering.

I believe the OP made that statement based on the titles of two of the committee chairs.

• Eric Washburn, Founding CEO, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Colorado
• Ambassador Theodore “Tod” Sedgwick, Board Member, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Kentucky

Redirect Notice

 

[El Jason]

Must be Green Decoys.

 

[Glockster]

I believe the OP made that statement based on the titles of two of the committee chairs.

• Eric Washburn, Founding CEO, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Colorado
• Ambassador Theodore “Tod” Sedgwick, Board Member, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Kentucky

Redirect Notice

And
Liz Storer, Board Member, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Wyoming

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@Glockster yeah... I don't think either candidate actually gives a crap about sportsman this election cycle and in general this is just kinda a thing both sides do every 4 years.

Go back 50 years of presidents I think only GW Bush and Carter genuinely hunted and fished outside of politics shooting some birds as a campaign/networking thing doesn't really count in my book.











Hunting and Fishing, isn't a Red shirt Blue shirt thing... there are legislators on both sides of the aisle.
The fact that we have PR and the GAOA demonstrates that fact.

Legislators in the Field | Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation

The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation works with Congress, governors, and state legislatures to protect and advance hunting, angling, recreational shooting, and trapping in the halls of government.

congressionalsportsmen.org

 

[Cheesehead]

It’s a complex discussion worth debate.
That said, worth considering:
1) number of people interested in hunting who didn’t start or quit trying due to not having a good spot/good spots to hunt
2) number of people interested in hunting who didn’t start or quit trying due to firearms regulations being too onerous
Where I’m at, you can buy ARs across the street from the daycare and elementary school quicker than it takes to get a driver’s license

 

[Big Fin]

There are some in the ranks of hunters and anglers who enjoy the politics, maybe even more than hunting and angling. They join these groups as they identify with a political party as much, possibly more so, as they identify as a hunter or angler.

Personally, I hate the formation of these groups. They get formed on both sides. They eventually get used as pawns in the political process. These groups accelerate the politicization of our issues and that is a large negative in my mind.

Look at these groups, going back to however far you want, and see what happens. Whoever wins rolls out their "sportsmen for (insert here)" when they are going to do something where they need political cover. Might be on gun control, might be on lowering regulations at the expense of wild places/things. End result is that we end up being used as pawns to further political agendas that usually have little long-term benefit to our most important issues.

If these party-inclined folks want to spend their time politicking for a party/candidate, they need to understand that about half the time they are going to be left out of the discussion. Once you jump on the wagon of Sportsmen for Trump or Sportsmen for Biden, you are choosing a side that will stick with you forever, excluding you from the important discussion when the other side/party is in power. And, it likely puts you at odds with hunters/anglers of a slightly different political blend who you would otherwise have as a working ally.

Everyone is going to have their beliefs they feel are better reflected by one person or the other, sometimes poorly reflected by both sides. To take it to the level of partisanship, where one holds out the banner of hunting and angling, access and conservation, as their way to engage in politics does nothing helpful for the long-term cause of those issues. It only serves to politicize those issues far more than they are, which in my mind takes our issues further into the political morass of impotence.

I get asked to be part of many of these groups. I decline everyone of them. I will vote and express my priorities that way. When it comes to public support, I will be for the party of hunting, fishing, conservation, and access, with support/criticism of any candidate/party who supports/opposes those issues, regardless of party.

I am so glad I will spend 75 days out in the woods over the next few months.

 

[Glockster]

It’s a complex discussion worth debate.
That said, worth considering:
1) number of people interested in hunting who didn’t start or quit trying due to not having a good spot/good spots to hunt
2) number of people interested in hunting who didn’t start or quit trying due to firearms regulations being too onerous
Where I’m at, you can buy ARs across the street from the daycare and elementary school quicker than it takes to get a driver’s license

Fair point. Most of his policy objectives are par for the course.There are a few that concern me and could have a profound impact.
*Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection.*
We are already seeing this attempted with the survivors of Sandy Hook attempting to sue Remington. I don’t think one would have to put on the tinfoil Helmet to see how this could quickly bankrupt or at least have a severe financial impact to most companies

*End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts.*

I live in a rural area and haven't bought ammo in brick and mortar store for at least five years. Nothing against the stores and I shop there as much as I can I just don’t have what I need. Also very worried on what is considered a gun parts.

 

[SAJ-99]

I don’t think one would have to put on the tinfoil Helmet to see how this could quickly bankrupt or at least have a severe financial impact to most companies

I disagree. I think a jury of common people would find it difficult to find a manufacturer liable for something like Sandy Hook. I could be wrong, but that is where it need to be decided. I think the law that prevents that process is far more dangerous.

 

[Brittany Chukarman]

What administration passed the GAOA?

 

[Dougfirtree]

@Glockster yeah... I don't think either candidate actually gives a crap about sportsman this election cycle and in general this is just kinda a thing both sides do every 4 years.

Go back 50 years of presidents I think only GW Bush and Carter genuinely hunted and fished outside of politics shooting some birds as a campaign/networking thing doesn't really count in my book.

View attachment 153042
View attachment 153047
View attachment 153045
View attachment 153043

View attachment 153046
View attachment 153048



Hunting and Fishing, isn't a Red shirt Blue shirt thing... there are legislators on both sides of the aisle.
The fact that we have PR and the GAOA demonstrates that fact.

Legislators in the Field | Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation

The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation works with Congress, governors, and state legislatures to protect and advance hunting, angling, recreational shooting, and trapping in the halls of government.

congressionalsportsmen.org

Yeah, I'd love to have an avid hunter/angler in the White House, but frankly, if that's not their thing, I'd rather they didn't pretend. Just going out and shooting some ducks because it may get you some votes and not because you want to hunt and eat ducks seems like a crappy thing to do.

 

[mtmiller]

What administration passed the GAOA?

Luckily it had the support of all the Ds.

 

[Cheesehead]

Luckily it had the support of all the Ds.

damn

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Luckily it had the support of all the Ds.

Utah... consistently on brand

 

[Europe]

If these party-inclined folks want to spend their time politicking for a party/candidate, they need to understand that about half the time they are going to be left out of the discussion. Once you jump on the wagon of Sportsmen for Trump or Sportsmen for Biden, you are choosing a side that will stick with you forever, excluding you from the important discussion when the other side/party is in power. And, it likely puts you at odds with hunters/anglers of a slightly different political blend who you would otherwise have as a working ally.

Everyone is going to have their beliefs they feel are better reflected by one person or the other, sometimes poorly reflected by both sides. To take it to the level of partisanship, where one holds out the banner of hunting and angling, access and conservation, as their way to engage in politics does nothing helpful for the long-term cause of those issues. It only serves to politicize those issues far more than they are, which in my mind takes our issues further into the political morass of impotence.

I agree with the entirety of Randy's post but wanted to make a specific point about the above part of his post.

It has gotten far worse than it use to be. The "parties", and a lot of the people in each party have gotten so much further apart. You are either for or against, the "middle ground" has shrunk to a non existing point. 'Disagreeing" has escalated to "hating" and that makes it very hard to come together for a compromise that actually helps.

As far as truly hunting and fishing presidents in my life time ----Harry, Dwight, Jimmy and George ( 41 ) were openly and honestly hunters and anglers. These men hunted and fished before, during and after their presidency.

Wilm1313: "Sportsmen for Hillary" ? Did you just make that one up ? (-: