Post by: bearpaw on December 14, 2014, 05:44:29 PM
Why Hunters and the Hunting Industry Should Worry
By Ace Luciano
Hunters and the Hunting Industry should be worried… Really, really worried.
We, as an industry, are in a state of decline that, while there are some things to be excited about, there are many more reasons for concern.
My grandchildren may not hunt. Not because they won’t desire to or be “against” it (although that is of increasing concern), but because we, as hunters can’t seem to “get our act together” and stop fighting.
Concern Number 1: HOLLYWOOD AND MONEY
Recently, Leonardo DiCaprio et.al held a fundraiser for endangered tigers.
Nobody argues that tigers are endangered and that there is a need for their preservation. Also, nobody argues that raising money to help save tigers is bad.
What’s concerning is how and how much money was raised. $25 MILLION in one evening. That’s right.
More than most groups on the hunting side raise in YEARS. What happens when they decide to go after Elephant Hunting? Lion? Mountain Lion?
What happens when they pool their funds to buy huge swaths of land here and abroad, or lobby against hunting? If you thing the closure of hunting in Botswana and Zambia had nothing to do with money, you need to wake up. Africa and its various corrupt governments are easily bought for what most would consider paltry sums. Then the government thugs in power have free reign to poach and sell the animals that remain.
They will happily take Leo’s money, and then take the poacher’s money as well… and remember, there has been NO LEGAL TROPHY HUNTING IN KENYA SINCE THE 70′s…
Concern Number 2: ANTI HUNTER MOBILIZATION
Recently, as part of a little “social experiment,” I published an article with a very “Attention-Drawing” headline: “Hi, My Name is Ace, And I Kill Animals.”
What was the experiment? I wanted to prove that anti-hunters, while passionate about their cause, would largely ignore me because, after all, I was a white, Christian male that hunted and not a young, attractive female. While I was 100% correct, there were several things I noticed that are of “concern.” I actually had to go after some of the groups with some “strategic” posts and messages before they “found” me, and find me they did. For the most part, these people are ignorant, rude, crude, vulgar, and quite violent in nature for a group that professes to be so “compassionate” about animals. I was threatened, called vile names (it appears that there is quite a fondness “across the pond” for the pejorative term for female genitalia) and ridiculed on my Facebook page. One said he wanted to “fight me” (a very amusing thought, as it came from a 130 lb. pot and paraphernalia store owner…people- we can see WHO YOU ARE, REMEMBER???) It was also very good for my post reach and rankings.
However… The coordination and absolute unification in their message and drive to end all hunting should be of concern.
Concern Number 3: HUNTER VS. HUNTER
It is looking more and more like I will not hunt a lion or elephant in my lifetime. Regardless of what you think, that in and of itself is a disappointment to me. I was fortunate to sit in on a press meeting that addressed the violent attacks on several outdoor personalities as well as the loss of television show venues and sponsors. Everything that was said in that meeting was true, and it was appalling at some of the treatment that these people received.
Even more appalling was the LACK OF SUPPORT THEY RECEIVED FROM OUR SIDE.
What do I mean? Here are some quotes from discussions that I found:
From a waterfowl forum- “I hunt, but I would never shoot a lion or an elephant. Shame on them for doing that. ” From Facebook- “I’m a ‘meat hunter’ and believe that you should eat everything that you harvest. People that go to Africa and just kill a bunch of stuff to prove their manhood disgust me.” “She’s not a ‘Hunter’ anyway- just a spoiled rich girl that daddy sent on some expensive trip.” – From a LinkedIn Group.
This should concern all of us. You know what? I’m happy that girl’s father is so successful that he can spend $150K on hunting for his daughter. Success should be celebrated, not castigated. Think how many jobs his money provides. Think how many people were FED as a result of that safari! I say GOOD FOR THEM.
…But I am in the minority, and that’s a BIG PROBLEM. While we fight, argue and spit at one another about baiting, leases, bow vs. gun, trapping, hunting with dogs, hunting in enclosures, trophy vs. meat hunting, television celebrities, women, etc., the “other side” is ABSOLUTELY UNIFIED in their ONE MISSION…
…To STOP ALL HUNTING.
and if you’re NOT worried, you SHOULD be.
Post by: billythekidrock on December 14, 2014, 05:56:16 PM
Post by: KFhunter on December 14, 2014, 05:56:47 PM
I hunt, but I'd never archery hunt it wounds too many animals I'd support a ban on archery
I hunt, but I only shoot animals within 2-300 yards no one should shoot anything further than that
I hunt, but I only use primitive weapons anything modern isn't really hunting
Plenty of what this article refers to right here on HW
Post by: idahohuntr on December 14, 2014, 06:46:14 PM
On the last point, I think it is important for hunters to become knowledgeable about aspects of hunting they are not familiar with before making comments out of ignorance. However, I believe there are tons of issues that hunters need to self-police on...especially when it comes to technology, methods, and techniques. If the primary justification for maintaining specific technology, methods, or techniques is "hunters shouldn't argue with other hunters"...BAN IT!! :chuckle:
There are a lot of things to be concerned about when it comes to the future of hunting: Hollywood, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the organizational structure of anti-hunters are not what should keep hunters up at night...access and habitat issues... :hello:
Post by: ctwiggs1 on December 14, 2014, 06:58:38 PM
Post by: T Pearce on December 14, 2014, 07:00:49 PM
something I received by email...Thank you for posting this.
Why Hunters and the Hunting Industry Should Worry
By Ace Luciano
Hunters and the Hunting Industry should be worried… Really, really worried.
We, as an industry, are in a state of decline that, while there are some things to be excited about, there are many more reasons for concern.
My grandchildren may not hunt. Not because they won’t desire to or be “against” it (although that is of increasing concern), but because we, as hunters can’t seem to “get our act together” and stop fighting.
Concern Number 1: HOLLYWOOD AND MONEY
Recently, Leonardo DiCaprio et.al held a fundraiser for endangered tigers.
Nobody argues that tigers are endangered and that there is a need for their preservation. Also, nobody argues that raising money to help save tigers is bad.
What’s concerning is how and how much money was raised. $25 MILLION in one evening. That’s right.
More than most groups on the hunting side raise in YEARS. What happens when they decide to go after Elephant Hunting? Lion? Mountain Lion?
What happens when they pool their funds to buy huge swaths of land here and abroad, or lobby against hunting? If you thing the closure of hunting in Botswana and Zambia had nothing to do with money, you need to wake up. Africa and its various corrupt governments are easily bought for what most would consider paltry sums. Then the government thugs in power have free reign to poach and sell the animals that remain.
They will happily take Leo’s money, and then take the poacher’s money as well… and remember, there has been NO LEGAL TROPHY HUNTING IN KENYA SINCE THE 70′s…
Concern Number 2: ANTI HUNTER MOBILIZATION
Recently, as part of a little “social experiment,” I published an article with a very “Attention-Drawing” headline: “Hi, My Name is Ace, And I Kill Animals.”
What was the experiment? I wanted to prove that anti-hunters, while passionate about their cause, would largely ignore me because, after all, I was a white, Christian male that hunted and not a young, attractive female. While I was 100% correct, there were several things I noticed that are of “concern.” I actually had to go after some of the groups with some “strategic” posts and messages before they “found” me, and find me they did. For the most part, these people are ignorant, rude, crude, vulgar, and quite violent in nature for a group that professes to be so “compassionate” about animals. I was threatened, called vile names (it appears that there is quite a fondness “across the pond” for the pejorative term for female genitalia) and ridiculed on my Facebook page. One said he wanted to “fight me” (a very amusing thought, as it came from a 130 lb. pot and paraphernalia store owner…people- we can see WHO YOU ARE, REMEMBER???) It was also very good for my post reach and rankings.
However… The coordination and absolute unification in their message and drive to end all hunting should be of concern.
Concern Number 3: HUNTER VS. HUNTER
It is looking more and more like I will not hunt a lion or elephant in my lifetime. Regardless of what you think, that in and of itself is a disappointment to me. I was fortunate to sit in on a press meeting that addressed the violent attacks on several outdoor personalities as well as the loss of television show venues and sponsors. Everything that was said in that meeting was true, and it was appalling at some of the treatment that these people received.
Even more appalling was the LACK OF SUPPORT THEY RECEIVED FROM OUR SIDE.
What do I mean? Here are some quotes from discussions that I found:
From a waterfowl forum- “I hunt, but I would never shoot a lion or an elephant. Shame on them for doing that. ” From Facebook- “I’m a ‘meat hunter’ and believe that you should eat everything that you harvest. People that go to Africa and just kill a bunch of stuff to prove their manhood disgust me.” “She’s not a ‘Hunter’ anyway- just a spoiled rich girl that daddy sent on some expensive trip.” – From a LinkedIn Group.
This should concern all of us. You know what? I’m happy that girl’s father is so successful that he can spend $150K on hunting for his daughter. Success should be celebrated, not castigated. Think how many jobs his money provides. Think how many people were FED as a result of that safari! I say GOOD FOR THEM.
…But I am in the minority, and that’s a BIG PROBLEM. While we fight, argue and spit at one another about baiting, leases, bow vs. gun, trapping, hunting with dogs, hunting in enclosures, trophy vs. meat hunting, television celebrities, women, etc., the “other side” is ABSOLUTELY UNIFIED in their ONE MISSION…
…To STOP ALL HUNTING.
and if you’re NOT worried, you SHOULD be.
We have all seen the anti post in other mediums. We've seen the infighting here too.
Post by: Bob33 on December 14, 2014, 07:13:11 PM
I hunt, but I don't bait I'd never do that we should outlaw itI haven't heard any one on here call for a ban on archery hunting, or a ban on shots over 300 yards.
I hunt, but I'd never archery hunt it wounds too many animals I'd support a ban on archery
I hunt, but I only shoot animals within 2-300 yards no one should shoot anything further than that
I hunt, but I only use primitive weapons anything modern isn't really hunting
Plenty of what this article refers to right here on HW
Post by: Bigshooter on December 14, 2014, 07:17:33 PM
Post by: Kuduman on December 14, 2014, 07:45:45 PM
Thanks for posting this. Allot of good information and possibly the most disturbing is the amount of money that can be raised quickly to achieve a goal. I couldn't help but think while I was reading that about the "Golden Rule" which is He who has all the gold makes all the rules.
Post by: Stickerbush on December 14, 2014, 08:12:45 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on December 14, 2014, 08:21:24 PM
I hunt, but I don't bait I'd never do that we should outlaw itI haven't heard any one on here call for a ban on archery hunting, or a ban on shots over 300 yards.
I hunt, but I'd never archery hunt it wounds too many animals I'd support a ban on archery
I hunt, but I only shoot animals within 2-300 yards no one should shoot anything further than that
I hunt, but I only use primitive weapons anything modern isn't really hunting
Plenty of what this article refers to right here on HW
Maybe not calls for out right bans, but they are always debated and argued about.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 14, 2014, 08:28:00 PM
The article is flawed in some aspects. Anti-hunters are no more organized or cohesive in their efforts than hunters are in stopping them or promoting all aspects of our sport.
On the last point, I think it is important for hunters to become knowledgeable about aspects of hunting they are not familiar with before making comments out of ignorance. However, I believe there are tons of issues that hunters need to self-police on...especially when it comes to technology, methods, and techniques. If the primary justification for maintaining specific technology, methods, or techniques is "hunters shouldn't argue with other hunters"...BAN IT!! :chuckle:
There are a lot of things to be concerned about when it comes to the future of hunting: Hollywood, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the organizational structure of anti-hunters are not what should keep hunters up at night...access and habitat issues... :hello:
This post proves exactly what this thread is about! :bash:
In fighting amongst all hunters that creates a divide which the lefties will surly take advantage of before its all said and done. :bdid:
Something I was taught as a kid was, if you can't say something nice don't say anything. That's why I never bash anyone's type, or method of hunting, or outdoor pursuits on here! :tup:
Post by: csaaphill on December 14, 2014, 10:09:02 PM
or rants on too many hunters in the field each year
If you've lived long enough you would of noticed a significant drop in hunters in the field each year.
1970's-80's both deer and elk you could not drive more than a mile or two without seeing a tent or two
now for me that is I'm lucky to see maybe 3-5 camps along the roads I do take each year.
Yes others have changed to bow or Muzzy but still weve lost numbers and numbers mean $ and voice.
My dad always groaned about how many people there were, but not me I always liked seeing the camps and deer and elk hanging was always fun.
I understand the I hunt to get away from people, but tremember those people hunt too and spend money and hae a voice too.
You drive them away they usually side against us so ya!
I've known people who quit going because of all the increases in price and or rules had them tell me point blank that was the last year for them and never seen them again either so...
Access always seem to divide us too, and can't quite figure it out.
far reaching Gov too and or GUn ctrl although different but those issues divided us too and it makes me :puke:
I predict hunting and gun ownership of any use will be gone before 2100 which isn't really all that far off since it's already almost 2015 only 85 years off.
probably well before that too 2050 or less! :bash: >:(
Post by: sakoshooter on December 16, 2014, 09:04:19 PM
Post by: csaaphill on December 17, 2014, 12:51:57 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 17, 2014, 01:55:06 PM
I'm unsure there's a solution even if we find a way to ban together. I feel strongly that the 1% is firmly on the side of bigger government and smaller liberty for their own future benefit. But, until such a time as it becomes useless to try, we do seriously need to find a way to accept each other's hunting methods and preferences, and stand together as hunters so that we can try to secure the future for our outdoor passions.
Post by: CarbonHunter on December 17, 2014, 04:23:51 PM
They spend theirs on banning hunting.
Nobody devotes all spare time and money to supporting hunting... They hunt instead.
Post by: Special T on December 17, 2014, 07:25:37 PM
Interesting read
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on December 17, 2014, 07:29:32 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 17, 2014, 07:48:49 PM
Hunters can have disagreements on topics like wolves or baiting, and still fight together for common causes.
When someone discredits another hunter who doesn't agree with every one of his beliefs and positions, the divisiveness hurts all hunters.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on December 17, 2014, 08:00:04 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 17, 2014, 09:15:08 PM
The belief that all hunters will agree on every hunting related topic is a fantasy. The premise that all hunters should agree on every hunting related topic is condescending.Extraordinarily insightful post. This should be pasted to the forum rules/sign-up section.
Hunters can have disagreements on topics like wolves or baiting, and still fight together for common causes.
When someone discredits another hunter who doesn't agree with every one of his beliefs and positions, the divisiveness hurts all hunters.
Post by: csaaphill on December 17, 2014, 10:21:18 PM
oh and ty Bearpaw great thread and read.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 17, 2014, 11:07:57 PM
But what is really killing hunting are things like cost, access, and shrinking habitat. 1. Cost (besides a gun and knife, things like tags, drawings, the price of gas the past 10 years, and now the new biggy, paying for access. If you want to recruit youngsters, first you have to make it affordable for them.), 2. Access(more and more land is locked up as the suburbs expand and city people move to the country for their piece of paradise and bring city sensibilities with them like no hunting and no trespassing. Then there are farmers who can make money leasing their property out to hunters instead of allowing their neighbors to hunt like was done in the past. And also farmers who are tired of their property getting trashed and gates left open and who can blame them? Again, with timber companies leasing out hunting areas and putting a cap on how many people are allowed in, it makes things that much harder for new hunters to get started.) 3. shrinking habitat (if you haven't seen that going on, you aren't paying attention)
These issues are what should have hunters worried, anti hunters are just a distraction.
Post by: csaaphill on December 17, 2014, 11:32:33 PM
There are far worse problems for the hunting community than anti-hunters who are a small minority. As long as non hunters can justify or accept hunting the anti hunters will never win. For one, the radical anti hunters do too many things that piss non hunters off, like throwing blood on people who wear fur or other acts of vandalism. They also do stuff like this.... http://dreadpundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/petas-message-to-your-kids-mommy-and.html (http://dreadpundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/petas-message-to-your-kids-mommy-and.html) and it doesn't win them any converts. They are whack jobs for the most part and most people understand that.some but no not really they make up wierd lawsuits and because they have the money they can get us divided on certain issues then we lose.
But what is really killing hunting are things like cost, access, and shrinking habitat. 1. Cost (besides a gun and knife, things like tags, drawings, the price of gas the past 10 years, and now the new biggy, paying for access. If you want to recruit youngsters, first you have to make it affordable for them.), 2. Access(more and more land is locked up as the suburbs expand and city people move to the country for their piece of paradise and bring city sensibilities with them like no hunting and no trespassing. Then there are farmers who can make money leasing their property out to hunters instead of allowing their neighbors to hunt like was done in the past. And also farmers who are tired of their property getting trashed and gates left open and who can blame them? Again, with timber companies leasing out hunting areas and putting a cap on how many people are allowed in, it makes things that much harder for new hunters to get started.) 3. shrinking habitat (if you haven't seen that going on, you aren't paying attention)
These issues are what should have hunters worried, anti hunters are just a distraction.
Look at how the hound thing or dog hunting ban came about. Lots of hunters supported this ban because they didnt do it or didn't think it was ethical. I read tons of articles on this after that, and lots of pro hunters did sign on.
And FYI the none hunting comuntiy isn't that much on our side I've heard tons of them say they don't really like hunters and or hunting. have had friends critisize me for killing deer, and other things even though they eat meat. I've asked stor clerks that work for a hunting store what their take on hunting was and they easily told me where to go. So just because we put income back into the community don't mean they care.
Why do you think antis side iwth greenies so much, or FYI Antis do side with Greenies! Its because they know if they can rule on side issues that don't necessarily connect directly to hunting, they can gian the upper hand when it does.
Or as you slated access I wonder sometimes just how many anti hunters do own land up in the mountains or outer edges of town and post no tresspassing? I've seen land go over the last decade because people baught land and put a house there now it's posted, so wondering how many of them are anti hunters?
I've cheked essayer sites before, and some weird owners own it by some coop or something. Or bank which if you research that bank they donate to all kinds of Socialist progressive issues.
So ya no antis are a lot of hassle especially when they surround you on all sides and we can't defend it all.
Post by: bearpaw on December 18, 2014, 02:18:01 AM
The belief that all hunters will agree on every hunting related topic is a fantasy. The premise that all hunters should agree on every hunting related topic is condescending.Extraordinarily insightful post. This should be pasted to the forum rules/sign-up section.
Hunters can have disagreements on topics like wolves or baiting, and still fight together for common causes.
When someone discredits another hunter who doesn't agree with every one of his beliefs and positions, the divisiveness hurts all hunters.
Bob made some good points that I agree with emphatically. Another big problem is the way some hunters will continually try to discredit other hunters regarding anything they may say on certain topics.
Post by: csaaphill on December 18, 2014, 02:41:08 AM
Ya not arguing hunters need to agree all the time but seems the diviseness is where we lose.The belief that all hunters will agree on every hunting related topic is a fantasy. The premise that all hunters should agree on every hunting related topic is condescending.Extraordinarily insightful post. This should be pasted to the forum rules/sign-up section.
Hunters can have disagreements on topics like wolves or baiting, and still fight together for common causes.
When someone discredits another hunter who doesn't agree with every one of his beliefs and positions, the divisiveness hurts all hunters.
Bob made some good points that I agree with emphatically. Another big problem is the way some hunters will continually try to discredit other hunters regarding anything they may say on certain topics.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 19, 2014, 04:25:00 PM
Post by: csaaphill on December 19, 2014, 11:43:31 PM
I don't know about some of you guys on here, but, I do not watch, go to movies or support any Hollywood lefty, who is anti-anything I love to do. Ben Affleck is a start, what a liberal puke. It might not be much, but that's how I try and stop their idiotic power................you can't vote 'em out, so don't give them money, from their movies, to try and dictate what we love to do, when they most likely do it themselves. Liberal elites of any sort, have no say or business in my house, ever.:yeah:
Post by: Romeo 2-6 on January 04, 2015, 02:08:29 PM
So I think we all have to stay focused on the fight for hunting and not eat ourselves. And it is a fight, but that does not mean scorched earth is the best way. Keep the ball in sight. We need to mute or at least try to constructively direct those among us, well-intentioned but who walk into the 'buzz-saw' of using their words and actions in ways that work against us all, when they are then in-turn branded as "typical hunters" with a not so veiled "nut-job" reference somewhere in the same sentence. We also need to loudly proclaim against what is clearly bad behavior, and hold our brother and sister hunters accountable when they do really dumb stuff that hurts us all. When I was a kid we drove around with a bull elk head on the truck grill for a few days after harvest. Though you don't see it as much, that really doesn't fly very well in many areas anymore. And that is a minor example.
I hate to think that hunting might go the way of other good things in life that we have lost and likely will never see return. And then get set to pay even more to manage wildlife through government agents, rather than using hunting as the management tool it is...one that actually brings government money, not costing it (in other words, costing us). And when the Pittman-Robertson money goes away when guns, ammo, and hunting are no more, where will wildlife management funding come from then? You'll need a license to watch birds, because that will be all that is left. :dunno:
Post by: HillSlick on January 07, 2015, 04:07:40 PM
I couldn't help but think while I was reading that about the "Golden Rule" which is He who has all the gold makes all the rules.
This...this will be what defeat us if anything...
-"Progress once meant hope for the future, now it will destroy it."
Post by: 300UltraMagShooter on January 07, 2015, 04:39:37 PM
The article is flawed in some aspects. Anti-hunters are no more organized or cohesive in their efforts than hunters are in stopping them or promoting all aspects of our sport.
On the last point, I think it is important for hunters to become knowledgeable about aspects of hunting they are not familiar with before making comments out of ignorance. However, I believe there are tons of issues that hunters need to self-police on...especially when it comes to technology, methods, and techniques. If the primary justification for maintaining specific technology, methods, or techniques is "hunters shouldn't argue with other hunters"...BAN IT!! :chuckle:
There are a lot of things to be concerned about when it comes to the future of hunting: Hollywood, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the organizational structure of anti-hunters are not what should keep hunters up at night...access and habitat issues... :hello:
I couldn't disagree with you more... :bash:
Post by: idahohuntr on January 07, 2015, 04:55:29 PM
Thats fine. You work on influencing how Hollywood and Leonardo DiCaprio spend their money and I will stay committed to access and habitat issues.The article is flawed in some aspects. Anti-hunters are no more organized or cohesive in their efforts than hunters are in stopping them or promoting all aspects of our sport.
On the last point, I think it is important for hunters to become knowledgeable about aspects of hunting they are not familiar with before making comments out of ignorance. However, I believe there are tons of issues that hunters need to self-police on...especially when it comes to technology, methods, and techniques. If the primary justification for maintaining specific technology, methods, or techniques is "hunters shouldn't argue with other hunters"...BAN IT!! :chuckle:
There are a lot of things to be concerned about when it comes to the future of hunting: Hollywood, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the organizational structure of anti-hunters are not what should keep hunters up at night...access and habitat issues... :hello:
I couldn't disagree with you more... :bash:
Post by: csaaphill on January 07, 2015, 07:40:09 PM
Post by: Jarhead Chase on January 10, 2015, 10:17:58 PM
Post by: Hunter4Life on January 11, 2015, 01:21:22 AM
I don't know about some of you guys on here, but, I do not watch, go to movies or support any Hollywood lefty, who is anti-anything I love to do. Ben Affleck is a start, what a liberal puke. It might not be much, but that's how I try and stop their idiotic power................you can't vote 'em out, so don't give them money, from their movies, to try and dictate what we love to do, when they most likely do it themselves. Liberal elites of any sort, have no say or business in my house, ever.
This may be one of the best posts ever. I agree 100% on what CAMPMEAT said. If we support anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-sportsmen businesses we are directly funding those that want to shut us down. My little pittance that I contribute to the economy is tiny, but I will not fund those that don't support my views. If you said that you voted for Obama, you are not welcome in my home. If you oppose the Second Amendment, you are not welcome in my home.
This is something that the outdoor community needs is a list of businesses and organizations that support and oppose the Second Amendment and hunting. The author of the article that Bearpaw posted has an app for smartphones that lists the pro-gun businesses in your area. These are the kind of things we need to do.
I think the article is spot on. Whereas it is impossible for us to agree on everything, we can't fight each other. As was said earlier, we can't disparage those that we don't agree with. The anti's do have solidarity. You have to look no further than the wolf issue in our state. On the Wolf Advisory Group, the antis formed what they called the "Conservation Caucus" and had 100% solidarity on all issues facing the group.
Post by: Jarhead Chase on January 11, 2015, 10:31:48 AM
I don't know about some of you guys on here, but, I do not watch, go to movies or support any Hollywood lefty, who is anti-anything I love to do. Ben Affleck is a start, what a liberal puke. It might not be much, but that's how I try and stop their idiotic power................you can't vote 'em out, so don't give them money, from their movies, to try and dictate what we love to do, when they most likely do it themselves. Liberal elites of any sort, have no say or business in my house, ever.
This may be one of the best posts ever. I agree 100% on what CAMPMEAT said. If we support anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-sportsmen businesses we are directly funding those that want to shut us down. My little pittance that I contribute to the economy is tiny, but I will not fund those that don't support my views. If you said that you voted for Obama, you are not welcome in my home. If you oppose the Second Amendment, you are not welcome in my home.
This is something that the outdoor community needs is a list of businesses and organizations that support and oppose the Second Amendment and hunting. The author of the article that Bearpaw posted has an app for smartphones that lists the pro-gun businesses in your area. These are the kind of things we need to do.
I think the article is spot on. Whereas it is impossible for us to agree on everything, we can't fight each other. As was said earlier, we can't disparage those that we don't agree with. The anti's do have solidarity. You have to look no further than the wolf issue in our state. On the Wolf Advisory Group, the antis formed what they called the "Conservation Caucus" and had 100% solidarity on all issues facing the group.
http://friendorfoe.us (http://friendorfoe.us) This is a website that allows you to check businesses that are gun friendly, and add whether or not they are or are not based on your experience with them.
Post by: Hunter4Life on January 11, 2015, 09:19:33 PM
Post by: Jarhead Chase on January 11, 2015, 09:27:31 PM