Post by: Bushcraft on November 12, 2017, 10:00:17 AM
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171109/dianne-feinstein-wants-to-ban-commonly-owned-semi-autos-again
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 12, 2017, 10:12:38 AM
Where does BHA "Actively Promote" either party Allen? We fight either party that tries to take away public access or trash the landscape that we hunt and fish on. Prove otherwise before you talk out of your ass.
If BHA supports this bill I will be right with you trashing it, but that's not going to happen.
Does SCI support the GOP platform for transfer of public land, drilling in ANWR, and trashing the Sage Grouse plan? I suppose you support EVERYTHING the GOP does? I know you are all for transfer of public lands....your boy Cruz thought the 1% open land in TX was too much.
Post by: Stein on November 12, 2017, 10:31:07 AM
If you have evidence of them supporting this gun legislation or even Diane Feinstein in general, put it up for all to see otherwise it just looks like you posted a link to an article and then drew a conclusion about an entirely different organization and completely different issue with zero evidence.
Post by: Bushcraft on November 12, 2017, 10:47:18 AM
It’s well known (and easily googled) which side of the political spectrum the leadership of BHA actively supports. Get on the national and Washington Chapter Facebook page and ask them some pointed questions about who their leadership supports. Ask them why they are constantly railing against Republicans, but NEVER ever bring up Democratic talking points and actual party platforms that would adversely affect gun-owning sportsmen. Then look into the personal Facebook pages of their most fervent supporters. Progressive liberal democrat supporters right down the line. Sooner or later you’ll get the boot.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 12, 2017, 11:01:24 AM
It's not a secret Allen, the platform is pretty clear. (see above link). My question was not at all vague- DO YOU SUPPORT EVERYTHING THE GOP SUPPORTS? Do you support Cruz's position on public land ownership?
BHA has been railing against lots of GOP positions, that's not a secret. If GOP changed their position on some public land issues that would stop...It's not a fight against the party, its a fight to protect public land from being trashed.
Post by: Bushcraft on November 12, 2017, 11:23:07 AM
https://www.gop.com/platform/americas-natural-resources
It's not a secret Allen, the platform is pretty clear. (see above link). My question was not at all vague- DO YOU SUPPORT EVERYTHING THE GOP SUPPORTS? Do you support Cruz's position on public land ownership?
BHA has been railing against lots of GOP positions, that's not a secret. If GOP changed their position on some public land issues that would stop...It's not a fight against the party, its a fight to protect public land from being trashed.
Wrong. No one is a proponent of trashing anything. Give it a rest already. Perhaps take a class on remedial reading. It’s a fundamental aspect of critical thinking and arriving at valid conclusions.
On the other hand there IS a portion of the political spectrum who repeatedly pushes for more and more gun control. That spectrum is occupied by the Democratic Party. They’ve been taken over by progressive liberalism lunacy and actively promote legislation like the one I referenced in my original post.
And BTW, thanks for sharing a link to the GOP platform. It’s a convenient opportunity for folks to read for themselves the stark differences between the two diametrically opposed parties and make the determination for themselves which party favors personal responsibility, private property, gun ownership...and the interests of sportsmen.
BTW, in cased you missed it, you might want to re-read this salient point of the GOP platform in the link you so generously provided:
“The federal government owns or controls over 640 million acres of land in the United States, most of which is in the West. These are public lands, and the public should have access to them for appropriate activities like hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting.“
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 12, 2017, 01:14:52 PM
Presumably you understand the double standard here.... You don't seem to agree with everything the GOP does, but since BHA has taken a position against some of the positions that the GOP has supported, they automatically agree with everything the Dems do??? Get real.
I think you're butthurt that you got called out for trolling the FB page and decided to move venues. It doesn't matter where you go, you're going to need some actual facts to make a valid point.
Hey- do you remember that time you worked so hard to torpedo a committee that YOU were on to help fund non game wildlife in our state? The one that would have freed up a pile of money to fund game species (since wolves cost a friggen fortune and that money would have came from someone other than sportsmen $)? We should start a thread about that- As a wealth manager I would be interested to hear how you explain that position. :dunno:
Post by: Bushcraft on November 12, 2017, 02:29:49 PM
No. As an independent-minded Conservative, there are bound to be some small number of specifics of the GOP that I would disagree with. However, there exists a small mountain of data points I vehemently disagree with when it comes to the progressive liberalism that is solidly entrenched in the Democratic Party. Therefore, I absolutely refuse to do anything that would directly or indirectly support and perpetuate any company or organization that will use a portion of my membership or product dollars to pay the salaries of people that will just turn around and use some of it to help get more progressive liberals into office.
As for the rest of what you said, you might want to get a Q-Tip or two to clean out your ears. It sounds like someone has been whispering sweet nothings in them and filling them with BS.
Post by: Bushcraft on November 12, 2017, 02:34:17 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 12, 2017, 02:53:05 PM
Post by: Stein on November 12, 2017, 03:24:08 PM
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.
Post by: huntrights on November 12, 2017, 05:10:02 PM
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.
Post by: Bushcraft on November 12, 2017, 05:48:12 PM
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.
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.
Post by: Bushcraft on November 12, 2017, 05:48:54 PM
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.
Thank you!
Post by: Stein on November 12, 2017, 06:09:29 PM
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.
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.
Post by: Bushcraft on November 12, 2017, 07:42:31 PM
Unfortunately, when it comes to candidates we generally don't get to vote on the issues. We get precisely one vote for a candidate that is an aggregate of views on the issues. No candidate is perfect, but one is inevitably "better" than another when the aggregate of their views are compared and contrasted with another...and the voter casts the one vote accordingly and hopes for the best.
If enough legislators hold views contrary to my own, I lose. If enough legislators hold a dim view of hunting, sportsmen lose. My side loses. I can't abide by that. I hate losing. Which is why I'm politically active and support legitimate sportsmen organizations that are fighting for the benefit of ALL hunters, period. I do not and will not support any organization whose leadership are avowed supporters of a political aggregate that does not share my political and philosophical beliefs.
I totally get where you are coming from with regard to variances in geographical politics. And, what people do is more important that what they say. Tester wouldn't stand an ice-cube's chance hell in King County. :chuckle: That said, as a somewhat moderate Democrat, he's compelled to vote along party lines with the likes of Pelosi, Shumer, Waters, Boxer, Feinstein, Franken, etc. I might agree with him on several issues (what he says), but not at all in aggregate (what he does).
Unfortunately, when observed from the big picture perspective it's clear to me that the Democratic Party's aggregate progressive liberalism is doing us dirty...and pushing us down an ugly path of ruin.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 12, 2017, 08:11:07 PM
Ha! Sorry to risk your anonomity. It's easy to type away and pull ideas from a dark place when no one knows who you are.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.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Bart George
Professional Wildlife Biologist
Post by: Bushcraft on November 12, 2017, 09:43:02 PM
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 Ernst
Wealth Manager, Wildlife Conservationist, Hunting Advocate, Philanthropist, Independent Conservative, Adventure Photographer, Hunter & Husband
Post by: Special T on November 13, 2017, 03:30:05 AM
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.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.
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.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Woodchuck on November 13, 2017, 07:32:37 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 13, 2017, 08:09:27 AM
yeah, I know quite a few people saying similar things T. They said that the crowd moving into the Yellowstone/Big Sky/Boze areas tend to be more liberal and have a lot more money than even the Aspen/Vail crowd. Reason is in Montana they can buy a ranch to do other things in summer and still be close to skiing in winter, whereas in most of the other big ski destinations the options tend to be either a condo or a small cabin that only have winter amenities.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.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.
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.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on November 13, 2017, 08:39:19 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bushcraft on November 13, 2017, 09:01:14 AM
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
That's how the cancer of progressive liberalism spreads. ;)
Post by: Skyvalhunter on November 13, 2017, 09:06:02 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 13, 2017, 09:34:55 AM
Bart,Allen 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 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 Ernst
Wealth Manager, Wildlife Conservationist, Hunting Advocate, Philanthropist, Independent Conservative, Adventure Photographer, Hunter & Husband
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.
Post by: Special T on November 13, 2017, 09:52:25 AM
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
Post by: Bushcraft on November 13, 2017, 11:14:28 AM
Bart,Allen 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 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 Ernst
Wealth Manager, Wildlife Conservationist, Hunting Advocate, Philanthropist, Independent Conservative, Adventure Photographer, Hunter & Husband
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,
Per my other posts, I'm not at all glued to a party line. I'm an independent minded Conservative. I compare and contrast where opposing candidates come down on ALL the issues. I am not a single issue voter. All things considered, the Republican choice inevitably tends to win out over his or her Democrat opponent...or is the least worst choice of the two. Just doing my small part to try and keep the greatest nation this world has ever known from sliding further down the slippery slope of progressive liberalism and socialized ruin. Conversely, given what you just stated, it appears you’re in favor of speeding up that so-called “progress”.
Having the word "hunting" in an organization's name doesn't necessarily make it so. BHA might very well be mostly comprised of hunters and anglers, but it isn't a hunting group per se. More accurately, it's a public lands protection group with a snappy marketing name...that might want to reconsider it 501(c)3 status.
I noted in BHA's 2016 annual report that it billed itself as "the most effective sportsmen's organization in North America".
Good grief! That's 100% pure BS and an absolutely laughable lie. BHA doesn't hold a candle- based on virtually ANY metric, to any number of other legitimate sportsmen's groups in North America. SCI, RMEF, DU, and the NRA are a few that come readily to mind.
It's no secret that I'm a big fan of SCI...so let's compare and contrast the two for the sake of an example set. SCI has far more members than BHA. SCI annually raises and spends far more money on wildlife conservation and hunter advocacy than BHA. SCI attacks and defends against anti-hunting legislation all the time at the local, state, national and international levels…whereas BHA does not. We aggressively lobby for pro-hunting legislation at the local, state, national and international levels...whereas BHA does not.
SCI lobbied on a non-partisan basis for protecting Washington's hunters and anglers and very effectively shut down WDFW's proposed hunting and fishing fee increases. Not a peep from BHA!
SCI pushed both sides of the political aisle hard for the outside financial and operating audit of WDFW in the hopes that we sportsmen will finally have a factual foundation of information from which to make future choices concerning how WDFW should operate. Strip out rumors and innuendos. Discover both efficiency and inefficiency. Get down to the brass tacks of what's really going on with that agency. Again...not a peep from BHA.
BHA has not joined forces with countless of other legitimate pro-sportsmen groups that are part of the most powerful and influential pro-hunting organization-of-organizations in Washington State: Hunter’s Heritage Council and Washingtonians for Wildlife.
In fact...about the only thing I've heard BHA being a proponent of in Washington is working closely with Conservation Northwest to help further its agenda (and its Looney Tune Ultra-Liberal Seattleite leader you seem to be connected at the hip with). You know, Conservation Northwest, the organization absolutely devoted to re-wilding vast tracts of public and private lands and shutting down access...thereby restricting and/or making hunter and angler access more difficult - or even impossible, for sportsmen with physical limitations by tank-trapping or otherwise "rehabilitated" roads. The organization devoted to the reintroduction and dispersion of wolves and other apex predators. The organization that is against effective predator control. The organization that would love nothing more than to radically change WDFW into the “Department of Conservation”. The organization that happily and openly partners with some of the most vehemently anti-hunting organizations on the planet. My, my…You’ve got a bizarre choice in political bedfellows there Bart!
So don’t bother trying to convince me or anyone else that BHA is a hunting group. They’re not. Change your name to something more accurate or merge with the Sierra Club or Conservation Northwest already. I’m sure they’d love the new members. At least, the members that won’t realize that they’ve been bamboozled by a clever marketing ploy.
Allen
Post by: Bushcraft on November 13, 2017, 11:23:32 AM
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
Special T,
Groups like that already exist and have been tremendously successful over the years. They've just flown well under the radar and weren't prone to public chest thumping. SCI and the Hunter's Heritage Council immediately come to mind as organizations that just quietly get the job done for the benefit of sportsmen and women. (see my immediate prior post for a few near-term examples)
It's our fault for not making those successes more clear to sportsmen like you and letting you know who we are and what we do. We're working on addressing those shortcomings, public messaging and would love your help! Join us and help make a tangible difference for sportsmen!
All the best,
Allen
www.sci-washington.com
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 13, 2017, 12:35:19 PM
Post by: Bushcraft on November 13, 2017, 01:40:06 PM
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?
Actually, it's a bash coming from me. I posted an example of which part of the political spectrum is rabidly pushing gun bans (progressive liberal Democrats). Nothing new there. What's different is that I mentioned some organizations whose leadership are supporting the party that is pushing that agenda.
Sportsmen and women only have so many dollars in their pockets to give to various pro-gun and pro-hunting sportsmen's groups. Accordingly, people ought to be aware of where spending and/or donating those hard-earned dollars will do the most good...or most harm. Supporting the gun-grabbing leftist agenda is extremely dangerous in my book. And to be clear: I'm all for keeping public lands public AND accessible for sportsmen and women. But, I won't give one red cent to BHA since I'm quite certain that some part of my membership dues and/or donations would be used to financially support the progressive liberal agenda....which I'm adamantly against.
People voluntarily boycott all manner of organizations when the leadership of those entities support things that people are adamantly against. The blatantly anti-American kneeling crap during the National Anthem that happened in the NFL is a prime example. A so-called hunting organization like BHA whose leadership are deeply avowed progressive liberal Democrat supporters is another example.
Said differently, I just wanted people to think about who they are really supporting with their hard earned money.
Regards,
Allen
Post by: Tinmaniac on November 13, 2017, 01:49:43 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 13, 2017, 01:53:42 PM
It's one thing after another with you. "deeply avowed progressive liberal supports" lol. You sound more like Alex Jones with every post.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?
Actually, it's a bash coming from me. I posted an example of which part of the political spectrum is rabidly pushing gun bans (progressive liberal Democrats). Nothing new there. What's different is that I mentioned some organizations whose leadership are supporting the party that is pushing that agenda.
Sportsmen and women only have so many dollars in their pockets to give to various pro-gun and pro-hunting sportsmen's groups. Accordingly, people ought to be aware of where spending and/or donating those hard-earned dollars will do the most good...or most harm. Supporting the gun-grabbing leftist agenda is extremely dangerous in my book. And to be clear: I'm all for keeping public lands public AND accessible for sportsmen and women. But, I won't give one red cent to BHA since I'm quite certain that some part of my membership dues and/or donations would be used to financially support the progressive liberal agenda....which I'm adamantly against.
People voluntarily boycott all manner of organizations when the leadership of those entities support things that people are adamantly against. The blatantly anti-American kneeling crap during the National Anthem that happened in the NFL is a prime example. A so-called hunting organization like BHA whose leadership are deeply avowed progressive liberal Democrat supporters is another example.
Said differently, I just wanted people to think about who they are really supporting with their hard earned money.
Regards,
Allen
Are you sure you're not representing SCI here? Should the BOD have a look and decide if you're representing them or not?
But you vote Republican even though some support the selling of public land?He cannot see the irony in that. And he cannot see how it's possible to be critical of a party, and support pieces of their legislation, but not all of it. That is clear from the repetitive posts on this thread.
Post by: Bushcraft on November 13, 2017, 02:10:58 PM
But you vote Republican even though some support the selling of public land?
I imagine some support it on a case-by-case basis, but they are an extremely small minority. The party platform as a whole doesn't subscribe to the notion so it will never happen. Unlike the constant threat to, and erosion of, our gun-rights coming from the Democrat party, public land sales aren't even remotely a threat to hunting. But...BHA uses it for some snappy scare-tactic marketing fluff to siphon up some membership sign-up dollars though!
What the party platform does say (see the link) is that transferring oversight responsibilities to the states of some federal lands might improve oversight and management in some instances. I agree with them in some instances. Let me explain.
Having been extremely frustrated by the utterly nonsensical faceless/nameless federal bureaucrats that won't agree to a perfectly fair and sensible land exchange (it actually nets out in the feds favor) that relates to my family's land holdings in Oregon, I can sympathize with those that are open to the prospect of more directly responsible local oversight.
Post by: Eric M on November 13, 2017, 02:43:57 PM
I swore I would stay out of this but I have to disagree. Republican congressman Jason chaffetz withdrew a bill in February that would have sold off 3.3 million acres of public land across 10 western states only because of public backlash. The house had already passed a rules package with a measure that would facilitate public land sell off. If you think either political party gives a hoot about keeping public land public you are kidding yourself. They only care when it affects their pocket book or their job security. :twocents:But you vote Republican even though some support the selling of public land?
I imagine some support it on a case-by-case basis, but they are an extremely small minority. The party platform as a whole doesn't subscribe to the notion so it will never happen. Unlike the constant threat to, and erosion of, our gun-rights coming from the Democrat party, public land sales aren't even remotely a threat to hunting. But...BHA uses it for some snappy scare-tactic marketing fluff to siphon up some membership sign-up dollars though!
What the party platform does say (see the link) is that transferring oversight responsibilities to the states of some federal lands might improve oversight and management in some instances. I agree with them in some instances. Let me explain.
Having been extremely frustrated by the utterly nonsensical faceless/nameless federal bureaucrats that won't agree to a perfectly fair and sensible land exchange (it actually nets out in the feds favor) that relates to my family's land holdings in Oregon, I can sympathize with those that are open to the prospect of more directly responsible local oversight.
Post by: Bushcraft on November 13, 2017, 02:46:04 PM
It's one thing after another with you. "deeply avowed progressive liberal supports" lol. You sound more like Alex Jones with every post.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?
Actually, it's a bash coming from me. I posted an example of which part of the political spectrum is rabidly pushing gun bans (progressive liberal Democrats). Nothing new there. What's different is that I mentioned some organizations whose leadership are supporting the party that is pushing that agenda.
Sportsmen and women only have so many dollars in their pockets to give to various pro-gun and pro-hunting sportsmen's groups. Accordingly, people ought to be aware of where spending and/or donating those hard-earned dollars will do the most good...or most harm. Supporting the gun-grabbing leftist agenda is extremely dangerous in my book. And to be clear: I'm all for keeping public lands public AND accessible for sportsmen and women. But, I won't give one red cent to BHA since I'm quite certain that some part of my membership dues and/or donations would be used to financially support the progressive liberal agenda....which I'm adamantly against.
People voluntarily boycott all manner of organizations when the leadership of those entities support things that people are adamantly against. The blatantly anti-American kneeling crap during the National Anthem that happened in the NFL is a prime example. A so-called hunting organization like BHA whose leadership are deeply avowed progressive liberal Democrat supporters is another example.
Said differently, I just wanted people to think about who they are really supporting with their hard earned money.
Regards,
Allen
Are you sure you're not representing SCI here? Should the BOD have a look and decide if you're representing them or not?But you vote Republican even though some support the selling of public land?He cannot see the irony in that. And he cannot see how it's possible to be critical of a party, and support pieces of their legislation, but not all of it. That is clear from the repetitive posts on this thread.
Bart,
Sigh. Anyone with an internet connection can find out for themselves in a few milliseconds that your President and CEO, Land Tawney, actively supported and campaigned for Obama in 2008, and continues to campaign for other Democrats. It really doesn't get any more deeply progressively liberal than Obama now does it? I'm sure you'd argue otherwise though. Actually, come to think of it...I would too since your party is the chalk full of the likes of Sanders, Pelosi, Waters, Shumer, Kshama Sawant, etc. :chuckle: :chuckle:
Furthermore, if someone were to get on BHA's Facebook pages and do a cursory review of the posts and active posters, they'd readily observe that BHA's posts are riddled with baseless anti-Republican sentiment and NEVER, EVER, EVER point out anything from any Democrat that voices anti-hunting sentiment. Their also quite fond of deleting entire posts when the truth is exposed. Evidently it gets a little too close to home and inconvenient for their membership drives to let it stand in the public light. The writing is on the wall dude. You're evidently in too deep that you're just blind to it.
Allen
Post by: Bushcraft on November 13, 2017, 03:04:58 PM
I swore I would stay out of this but I have to disagree. Republican congressman Jason chaffetz withdrew a bill in February that would have sold off 3.3 million acres of public land across 10 western states only because of public backlash. The house had already passed a rules package with a measure that would facilitate public land sell off. If you think either political party gives a hoot about keeping public land public you are kidding yourself. They only care when it affects their pocket book or their job security. :twocents:But you vote Republican even though some support the selling of public land?
I imagine some support it on a case-by-case basis, but they are an extremely small minority. The party platform as a whole doesn't subscribe to the notion so it will never happen. Unlike the constant threat to, and erosion of, our gun-rights coming from the Democrat party, public land sales aren't even remotely a threat to hunting. But...BHA uses it for some snappy scare-tactic marketing fluff to siphon up some membership sign-up dollars though!
What the party platform does say (see the link) is that transferring oversight responsibilities to the states of some federal lands might improve oversight and management in some instances. I agree with them in some instances. Let me explain.
Having been extremely frustrated by the utterly nonsensical faceless/nameless federal bureaucrats that won't agree to a perfectly fair and sensible land exchange (it actually nets out in the feds favor) that relates to my family's land holdings in Oregon, I can sympathize with those that are open to the prospect of more directly responsible local oversight.
Eric,
Thank you for pointing that out. Having personally witnessed some political theater firsthand, I agree with a lot of what you've said.
Chaffetz would be one of those few R's I was alluding to. The public backlash you speak of actually came from both sides of the aisle, arguably the most influential of which came from a fellow conservative hunter while seated in his office. I can neither confirm nor deny that SCI had a rather pointed conversation with Chaffetz's office on the issue. ;) And...what do you know...he bailed on his term and didn't run for office again. There are literally hundreds of bills that individual legislators put their name on for one reason or another. Most of the truly nutty ones, never actually see the light of day but we do our best to kill them when it benefits sportsmen.
For example, right here in Washington legislators invariably come up with a laundry list of anti-hunting bills session after session after session (I don't want to sound like a broken record...but guess which party???). Due to our bi-partisan lobbying efforts, most of them are never even heard or get out of Committee. And those that get out of Committee are otherwise crushed. The Hunter's Heritage Council has a 100% record of success on bills they oppose.
Regards,
Allen
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 13, 2017, 04:07:22 PM
I think you have a bone to pick with BHA because you and your ilk could care less if the "normal public land hunter" has access. And BHA stands for that exact thing.
Post by: Bushcraft on November 13, 2017, 06:20:35 PM
Sigh, Ted Cruz also wanted to divest public land, in fact he said that the 1% public land in TX was too much, and campaigned on that same idea in Idaho. You were a Ted Cruz supporter.... So exactly which GOP platforms are you for and against??
I think you have a bone to pick with BHA because you and your ilk could care less if the "normal public land hunter" has access. And BHA stands for that exact thing.
Bart,
You might want to register at your local community college and get a grip on your remedial reading skills. I've already stated...very plainly...on numerous occasions...that I am 100% for public lands and access to them by sportsmen. Clearly, Senator Cruz and I differed on this particular topic. Knowing him as I do, he was likely engaging in a bit of political grandstanding to appeal to his base (as politicians do during primaries) and made an off-the-cuff comment or two on the matter. Regardless...BHA's seemingly only talking point that Republicans are public-land-selling boogeymen is patently absurd. It ain't gonna happen for reasons I've already mentioned. Again...I encourage you to check that remedial reading thing.
As to your last comment, such commentary prompts me to quibble a bit over whether or not you actually think at all.
"Me and my ilk." Really, Bart George?
Hmmm...I wonder what you could possibly mean by that daft assertion? Do you mean people like me that believe in an individual's right to keep and bear arms and work very hard to protect those rights from the onslaught of progressive liberal Democrats (that you support) that constantly tries to take them away? Or, do you mean people like me and others that love to hunt and fish and work extremely hard to try and protect those rights, privileges and opportunities from being taken away by progressive liberal anti-hunting Democrats? Do you mean hunters like me that save up enough money over time to eventually be able to hire a hound hunting guide like you to take them out on a cougar hunt? Gasp!
Speaking of hounds...it sounds like you're barking up the wrong tree ol' boy. ;)
Allen
Post by: Mark Brenckle on November 13, 2017, 06:33:34 PM
Post by: jackelope on November 13, 2017, 09:55:49 PM
You two sound like an old married couple, why don't you move your conversation to PMs so the topic can be discussed?
:chuckle:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Bushcraft on November 13, 2017, 10:50:20 PM
You two sound like an old married couple, why don't you move your conversation to PMs so the topic can be discussed?
That, or a couple that needs some serious counseling! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Alrighty then...what can we do to stop this sort of legislation? It’s only a matter of time before some liberal nitwit in Olympia decides to push something similar in Washington.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 13, 2017, 11:26:31 PM
Just accept that this state will vote for someone with a D next to their name without even looking at anything else, then get people that are actually somewhat conservative to run but with a D by their name. Basically do a reverse John McCain.You two sound like an old married couple, why don't you move your conversation to PMs so the topic can be discussed?
That, or a couple that needs some serious counseling! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Alrighty then...what can we do to stop this sort of legislation? It’s only a matter of time before some liberal nitwit in Olympia decides to push something similar in Washington.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 14, 2017, 06:22:44 AM
Getting more moderate R's on the ballot would be a good idea too. Give people the opportunity to vote for a candidate rather and a party.
Post by: Special T on November 14, 2017, 08:19:21 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 14, 2017, 08:32:43 AM
Post by: Special T on November 14, 2017, 08:40:13 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on November 14, 2017, 08:54:24 AM
Post by: wooltie on November 21, 2017, 11:50:52 AM
Just curious what everyone thinks 'progressive liberalism' is and why they think support for that political ideology results in banning AR-15s.
Post by: Bushcraft on November 22, 2017, 04:12:09 PM
What defines the 'progressive liberalism' that is being tossed back and forth between posts?
Just curious what everyone thinks 'progressive liberalism' is and why they think support for that political ideology results in banning AR-15s.
What defines it? Its definition.
Here's a pretty good run-down:
https://classroom.synonym.com/definition-of-progressive-liberalism-12080919.html
Post by: wooltie on November 22, 2017, 05:05:57 PM
What defines the 'progressive liberalism' that is being tossed back and forth between posts?
Just curious what everyone thinks 'progressive liberalism' is and why they think support for that political ideology results in banning AR-15s.
What define's it? Its definition.
Here's a pretty good run-down:
https://classroom.synonym.com/definition-of-progressive-liberalism-12080919.html
The definition cited centered around advocating the regulation of private markets. Are you suggesting that regulating private markets would result in advocating banning AR-15s?
Post by: Bushcraft on November 22, 2017, 05:10:53 PM
Post by: wooltie on November 22, 2017, 05:20:35 PM
Before blaming an entire ideology, I was just curious what aspects of that ideology you thought led to the conclusion that banning assault weapons will contribute to reducing the occurrences of gun violence and 'mass' shootings.
For the record, I don't think an assault weapons ban is the right approach. We tried that approach before and it was ineffective.
Post by: Bushcraft on November 22, 2017, 05:29:53 PM
Well, you seemed to identify progressive liberalism (entrenched in the D part) as the cause of the latest version of an assault weapons ban.
Before blaming an entire ideology, I was just curious what aspects of that ideology you thought led to the conclusion that banning assault weapons will contribute to reducing the occurrences of gun violence and 'mass' shootings.
For the record, I don't think an assault weapons ban is the right approach. We tried that approach before and it was ineffective.
Addressing Paragraph #1: How is it not obvious that gun control legislation, including the one cited in the OP, is coming from the left?
Addressing Paragraph #2: Kindly restate and/or clarify what you are trying to say. As written, it does not make sense given my anti-gun control stance.
Addressing Paragraph #3: I agree with what you've said.
Post by: csaaphill on December 02, 2017, 12:07:01 AM
http://whatwouldtrdo.org/
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/wwtrd
Post by: csaaphill on December 02, 2017, 12:11:26 AM
as for bump stocks which still in the news hope that fails as well. Shall not be infringed is absolute and not subject to a vote or any majority, at least that's how it was supposed to be.