Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: huntrights on November 12, 2017, 05:10:02 PMAs we see in many discussions, there may be differences of opinions. If a discussion starts to get a bit heated, it would be a good idea to review the Forum Rules & Policies (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,163263.0.html). Posts should not be invasive of a person’s privacy which would include use of their name or profession. “This forum is intended to be a family friendly and helpful venue for hunters, fishers, trappers, and other sportsmen.” We should all be working very hard together to support the common interests of hunters and other sportsmen and sportswomen.Thank you!
As we see in many discussions, there may be differences of opinions. If a discussion starts to get a bit heated, it would be a good idea to review the Forum Rules & Policies (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,163263.0.html). Posts should not be invasive of a person’s privacy which would include use of their name or profession. “This forum is intended to be a family friendly and helpful venue for hunters, fishers, trappers, and other sportsmen.” We should all be working very hard together to support the common interests of hunters and other sportsmen and sportswomen.
Quote from: Bushcraft on November 12, 2017, 05:48:12 PMQuote from: Stein on November 12, 2017, 03:24:08 PM9 Democratic senators are rated "A" by the NRA and 2 Republicans are rated "F" so it doesn't appear as cut and dry as some make it (that is nearly 20% of the Senate). I grew up in Montana and the left union blue collar guys who would rather die than vote for a republican are some of the most fervent gun supporters out there - as are their elected officials. If I happen to live in a state where giving money to Democrats results in one of the Democrats rated A being elected and another guy lives in a state where giving to the Republican party results in one being elected with an F, am I a sellout and he an ardent supporter of gun rights?It is also very clear that the Republican party is leading the charge of handing over federal land to the states for the express purpose of it coming up on the auction block as will undoubtedly happen if we head down that path.I refuse to say I will trade my public land for gun rights, I don't see it as a zero sum game where I have to choose what right I am willing to lose.Everyone is free to assign higher or lower value on whatever issues are important, but at the end of the day you vote for a person and their stance on positions, not a party (hopefully). At this point in history, it is pretty hard to argue that at the federal level both parties are bought and paid for largely by the same people and organizations. My opinion is this is a direct result, at least in part, of people blindly voting for one party regardless of what they actually do.Instead of cherry picking 11 votes out of the 7,382 elected members that serve in the National and State legislatures, why don't we take a look at the bigger picture problem? The charts found in the link below help illustrate the shift in the American public’s political values over the past two decades. The share of Americans with ideologically consistent values has increased over this time and these political values also have become more strongly associated with partisanship...or said differently polarized. http://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/Now, dial that back to our state. Washington is increasingly politically controlled by a relatively small area of the state that tends to vote 90+% rabidly progressively liberal. And by that I mean the Seattle Metro area. Take a look at who they've chosen to represent them as Mayor and City Council members and tell me I'm wrong. Democrats or worse...All of them. They don't like guns. At all. BTW, it's tough to hunt without guns unless you're into using pointy sticks. They're big fans of the idea of public lands too. But, when it comes right down to it they really wouldn't want you hunting on them. So, you'll have all the glorious public land you want - especially if we get more of that flaming socialist idiot Kshama Sawant since she would have all land socialized if she had her druthers....but you won't be able to actually use it for your incorrigibly backward and bloodthirsty purpose of putting meat in your freezer. If you're into that sort of thing, that's your prerogative.As for me, you can go ahead and chalk me up as being firmly on the right side of the political spectrum and I will support and vote for those that share my political beliefs in personal responsibility, private property rights, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc., etc., regardless of party affiliation. It's just that damn few Democrats in positions of leadership measure up. Just doing my small part to align myself with, and support, that portion of the political spectrum that has history on its side when it comes to what ultimately benefits society.I agree, in this state there is not much diversity in the democratic party. My point is that is not the case in many other parts of the country. I can absolutely tell you a MT democrat looks much more conservative than just about any republican from this state - just because they have to be that way in both cases.It sounds like we agree that the issues are important, not necessarily the party. Both parties have platforms, but those aren't always followed and what they do is more important than what they say - I wish it was the same thing.
Quote from: Stein on November 12, 2017, 03:24:08 PM9 Democratic senators are rated "A" by the NRA and 2 Republicans are rated "F" so it doesn't appear as cut and dry as some make it (that is nearly 20% of the Senate). I grew up in Montana and the left union blue collar guys who would rather die than vote for a republican are some of the most fervent gun supporters out there - as are their elected officials. If I happen to live in a state where giving money to Democrats results in one of the Democrats rated A being elected and another guy lives in a state where giving to the Republican party results in one being elected with an F, am I a sellout and he an ardent supporter of gun rights?It is also very clear that the Republican party is leading the charge of handing over federal land to the states for the express purpose of it coming up on the auction block as will undoubtedly happen if we head down that path.I refuse to say I will trade my public land for gun rights, I don't see it as a zero sum game where I have to choose what right I am willing to lose.Everyone is free to assign higher or lower value on whatever issues are important, but at the end of the day you vote for a person and their stance on positions, not a party (hopefully). At this point in history, it is pretty hard to argue that at the federal level both parties are bought and paid for largely by the same people and organizations. My opinion is this is a direct result, at least in part, of people blindly voting for one party regardless of what they actually do.Instead of cherry picking 11 votes out of the 7,382 elected members that serve in the National and State legislatures, why don't we take a look at the bigger picture problem? The charts found in the link below help illustrate the shift in the American public’s political values over the past two decades. The share of Americans with ideologically consistent values has increased over this time and these political values also have become more strongly associated with partisanship...or said differently polarized. http://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/Now, dial that back to our state. Washington is increasingly politically controlled by a relatively small area of the state that tends to vote 90+% rabidly progressively liberal. And by that I mean the Seattle Metro area. Take a look at who they've chosen to represent them as Mayor and City Council members and tell me I'm wrong. Democrats or worse...All of them. They don't like guns. At all. BTW, it's tough to hunt without guns unless you're into using pointy sticks. They're big fans of the idea of public lands too. But, when it comes right down to it they really wouldn't want you hunting on them. So, you'll have all the glorious public land you want - especially if we get more of that flaming socialist idiot Kshama Sawant since she would have all land socialized if she had her druthers....but you won't be able to actually use it for your incorrigibly backward and bloodthirsty purpose of putting meat in your freezer. If you're into that sort of thing, that's your prerogative.As for me, you can go ahead and chalk me up as being firmly on the right side of the political spectrum and I will support and vote for those that share my political beliefs in personal responsibility, private property rights, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc., etc., regardless of party affiliation. It's just that damn few Democrats in positions of leadership measure up. Just doing my small part to align myself with, and support, that portion of the political spectrum that has history on its side when it comes to what ultimately benefits society.
9 Democratic senators are rated "A" by the NRA and 2 Republicans are rated "F" so it doesn't appear as cut and dry as some make it (that is nearly 20% of the Senate). I grew up in Montana and the left union blue collar guys who would rather die than vote for a republican are some of the most fervent gun supporters out there - as are their elected officials. If I happen to live in a state where giving money to Democrats results in one of the Democrats rated A being elected and another guy lives in a state where giving to the Republican party results in one being elected with an F, am I a sellout and he an ardent supporter of gun rights?It is also very clear that the Republican party is leading the charge of handing over federal land to the states for the express purpose of it coming up on the auction block as will undoubtedly happen if we head down that path.I refuse to say I will trade my public land for gun rights, I don't see it as a zero sum game where I have to choose what right I am willing to lose.Everyone is free to assign higher or lower value on whatever issues are important, but at the end of the day you vote for a person and their stance on positions, not a party (hopefully). At this point in history, it is pretty hard to argue that at the federal level both parties are bought and paid for largely by the same people and organizations. My opinion is this is a direct result, at least in part, of people blindly voting for one party regardless of what they actually do.
Quote from: Stein on November 12, 2017, 06:09:29 PMQuote from: Bushcraft on November 12, 2017, 05:48:12 PMQuote from: Stein on November 12, 2017, 03:24:08 PM9 Democratic senators are rated "A" by the NRA and 2 Republicans are rated "F" so it doesn't appear as cut and dry as some make it (that is nearly 20% of the Senate). I grew up in Montana and the left union blue collar guys who would rather die than vote for a republican are some of the most fervent gun supporters out there - as are their elected officials. If I happen to live in a state where giving money to Democrats results in one of the Democrats rated A being elected and another guy lives in a state where giving to the Republican party results in one being elected with an F, am I a sellout and he an ardent supporter of gun rights?It is also very clear that the Republican party is leading the charge of handing over federal land to the states for the express purpose of it coming up on the auction block as will undoubtedly happen if we head down that path.I refuse to say I will trade my public land for gun rights, I don't see it as a zero sum game where I have to choose what right I am willing to lose.Everyone is free to assign higher or lower value on whatever issues are important, but at the end of the day you vote for a person and their stance on positions, not a party (hopefully). At this point in history, it is pretty hard to argue that at the federal level both parties are bought and paid for largely by the same people and organizations. My opinion is this is a direct result, at least in part, of people blindly voting for one party regardless of what they actually do.Instead of cherry picking 11 votes out of the 7,382 elected members that serve in the National and State legislatures, why don't we take a look at the bigger picture problem? The charts found in the link below help illustrate the shift in the American public’s political values over the past two decades. The share of Americans with ideologically consistent values has increased over this time and these political values also have become more strongly associated with partisanship...or said differently polarized. http://www.people-press.org/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/Now, dial that back to our state. Washington is increasingly politically controlled by a relatively small area of the state that tends to vote 90+% rabidly progressively liberal. And by that I mean the Seattle Metro area. Take a look at who they've chosen to represent them as Mayor and City Council members and tell me I'm wrong. Democrats or worse...All of them. They don't like guns. At all. BTW, it's tough to hunt without guns unless you're into using pointy sticks. They're big fans of the idea of public lands too. But, when it comes right down to it they really wouldn't want you hunting on them. So, you'll have all the glorious public land you want - especially if we get more of that flaming socialist idiot Kshama Sawant since she would have all land socialized if she had her druthers....but you won't be able to actually use it for your incorrigibly backward and bloodthirsty purpose of putting meat in your freezer. If you're into that sort of thing, that's your prerogative.As for me, you can go ahead and chalk me up as being firmly on the right side of the political spectrum and I will support and vote for those that share my political beliefs in personal responsibility, private property rights, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc., etc., regardless of party affiliation. It's just that damn few Democrats in positions of leadership measure up. Just doing my small part to align myself with, and support, that portion of the political spectrum that has history on its side when it comes to what ultimately benefits society.I agree, in this state there is not much diversity in the democratic party. My point is that is not the case in many other parts of the country. I can absolutely tell you a MT democrat looks much more conservative than just about any republican from this state - just because they have to be that way in both cases.It sounds like we agree that the issues are important, not necessarily the party. Both parties have platforms, but those aren't always followed and what they do is more important than what they say - I wish it was the same thing.Many of Washington's Democrats were similar in that way 30++ years ago. And from the people I've talked to the western part of montana isn't that conservative. Reminds me of the Californication of this state in the late 80s early 90s.Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I know this to be a fact in the whitefish area where I have skied and have a customer. He loves the growth in business but hates how everyone is trying to change that area into what they came from..Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Bart,Im not sure why that was worthy of a droll (or should I say troll?) chuckle or insinuation that Im worried about my anonymity. Im not. After all, Ive posted my name and contact information on this forum and elsewhere. Im easy to get a hold of. And you neednt have signed your post on my accord. It was plainly obvious to me who you were. You bio for the Kalispel tribe, right? BTW, since youre cool with the whole profession-cat-is-out-of-the-bag thing, youve somehow managed to leave out Professional Hound Hunting Guide out of your signature. Not that I find fault with that at all - Im a big fan and proponent of hound hunting, I just question the hypocrisy.On that note...would you mind reminding us as to which political party was largely responsible for banning hound hunting in Washington State (and would dearly love to do so everywhere else)? Hint 1: Its the same party that the President & CEO of Backcountry Hunter and Anglers (among other leadership) aligns himself with and actively campaigns for. Hint 2: It starts with a D.I suspect that BHAs leaderships political affinities are an inconvenient truth they really do not want exposed to the light of day. Its bad for membership #s and puts a crimp in their campaign contribution style.Sincerely,Allen ErnstWealth Manager, Wildlife Conservationist, Hunting Advocate, Philanthropist, Independent Conservative, Adventure Photographer, Hunter & Husband
Quote from: Bushcraft on November 12, 2017, 09:43:02 PMBart,I’m not sure why that was worthy of a droll (or should I say troll?) chuckle or insinuation that I’m worried about my anonymity. I’m not. After all, I’ve posted my name and contact information on this forum and elsewhere. I’m easy to get a hold of. And you needn’t have signed your post on my accord. It was plainly obvious to me who you were. You bio for the Kalispel tribe, right? BTW, since you’re cool with the whole profession-cat-is-out-of-the-bag thing, you’ve somehow managed to leave out Professional Hound Hunting Guide out of your signature. Not that I find fault with that at all - I’m a big fan and proponent of hound hunting, I just question the hypocrisy.On that note...would you mind reminding us as to which political party was largely responsible for banning hound hunting in Washington State (and would dearly love to do so everywhere else)? Hint 1: It’s the same party that the President & CEO of Backcountry Hunter and Anglers (among other leadership) aligns himself with and actively campaigns for. Hint 2: It starts with a D.I suspect that BHA’s leadership’s political affinities are an inconvenient truth they really do not want exposed to the light of day. It’s bad for membership #’s and puts a crimp in their campaign contribution style.Sincerely,Allen ErnstWealth Manager, Wildlife Conservationist, Hunting Advocate, Philanthropist, Independent Conservative, Adventure Photographer, Hunter & HusbandAllen we can go on and on about which party does more of this and that. I understand that the liberal party tends to be more anti hunting, which I hate. I vote D because of their position on land conservation and social issues. It does bother me when they support anti hunting bills and I make a point of fighting those issues every time, like I am currently doing in Arizona with the hound ban. I'm surprised to see you so glued to a party line and with such a bone to pick with a Hunting group just because some of us vote differently than you do. If we were in the business of "lumping" I could say that the WA hound ban was because of the Westsiders...ergo "YOU", but I know better than to lump people like that and know that both sides have people that share my interests. Why can't you make the same connection? If you want to attack anti hunters, let's do it. But your attacks on another hunting and fishing group are a perfect example of the 'divide and conquer' that is happening in our sport. BHA is working to protect access for hunters and anglers, which should resonate with public land users. No one in our leadership (or membership) is an anti hunter. If you can't look past people voting differently than you do, you're in the wrong state.
Bart,I’m not sure why that was worthy of a droll (or should I say troll?) chuckle or insinuation that I’m worried about my anonymity. I’m not. After all, I’ve posted my name and contact information on this forum and elsewhere. I’m easy to get a hold of. And you needn’t have signed your post on my accord. It was plainly obvious to me who you were. You bio for the Kalispel tribe, right? BTW, since you’re cool with the whole profession-cat-is-out-of-the-bag thing, you’ve somehow managed to leave out Professional Hound Hunting Guide out of your signature. Not that I find fault with that at all - I’m a big fan and proponent of hound hunting, I just question the hypocrisy.On that note...would you mind reminding us as to which political party was largely responsible for banning hound hunting in Washington State (and would dearly love to do so everywhere else)? Hint 1: It’s the same party that the President & CEO of Backcountry Hunter and Anglers (among other leadership) aligns himself with and actively campaigns for. Hint 2: It starts with a D.I suspect that BHA’s leadership’s political affinities are an inconvenient truth they really do not want exposed to the light of day. It’s bad for membership #’s and puts a crimp in their campaign contribution style.Sincerely,Allen ErnstWealth Manager, Wildlife Conservationist, Hunting Advocate, Philanthropist, Independent Conservative, Adventure Photographer, Hunter & Husband
I'm fairly disapointed in most groups that portray them selves as pro hunting and 2A. Mostly they are self serving and choose to sit on the sidelines until they have a clear way to rattle the tin can to fundraise some more.I've hoped for a long time that a group would spear head the organization of hunters, orgs and related clubs to present a large voter block in front of the legislators. Much like the Coastal Conservation Alliance has done for fishing.Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
This whole thread reads like a bash coming from SCI against BHA and First Lite.What does any of it have to do with an assault weapons ban proposal?