Biden admin attacking hunting in elementary schools

[mmw194287]

I get it... No one is attacking anything that you find frustrating...

/sarcasm off.

Reality - Congress - liberal side, attacked the citizens of these United States with a ridiculous law that will withhold funding for education that has archery and (or) hunters education.

I find this, as you say... frustrating.

Without our Media outlets and organizations i.e. BHA, TU/DU, etc, sharing these ridiculous laws - we are left without our voice to write our senators and share our grievances with our "Representatives" to hopefully right a wrong.

Just as frustrating if congress - conservative side, attacked the citizens of these United States with a ridiculous law that... and some organization, say, The Center for Biological Diversity (aka, B.S.), Sierra Club, Howling for Justice (pick your poison) runs with it, stir up a bunch of controversy, and then on the next report to their board of directors AND their next pitch to those naive pockets of $$$ declare, "LOOK WHAT WE DID..."

This is viable sharing of a liberal congress pushing a bunch of b.s... THEY are attacking our education system with threats of withdrawing funding while promoting funding towards education that does NOT offer archery / Hunters education.

Meh, in the end, your opinion, my opinion. As with any forum banter - YMMV.

Except here, the law was introduced by a Republican senator with the "ANY PERSON" text in question [ED: THIS IS NOT CORRECT AS SYTES HAS DEMONSTRATED BELOW. APOLOGIES!] and initially passed out of the Senate with unanimous consent.

My opinion vs. your opinion...but the foundational assumption of your opinion (which I bolded in the quote above) is not rooted in reality.

Truly, if this is an attack from the liberals, was Marco Rubio merely their pawn? Or was he in on it from the outset?

 

[Beignet]

What's a little hyperbole compared to a little confirmation bias. Faux bad, conservatives being alarmed bad...ye ole every accusation...eh, more hyperbole.

I guess hyperbole is better than just some plain old "bole." Stromboli is the best of the "bole/i, in my opinion. That won't be swayed.

I hope Rep. Green's bill has legs once it gets introduced.

 

[nhenry]

I guess hyperbole is better than just some plain old "bole." Stromboli is the best of the "bole/i, in my opinion. That won't be swayed.

I want to make this whole thing my sig line

 

[Sytes]

Except here, the law was introduced by a Republican senator with the "ANY PERSON" text in question and initially passed out of the Senate with unanimous consent. MARCO RUBIO ATTACKED THE CITIZENS OF THESE UNITED STATES.

My opinion vs. your opinion...but the foundational assumption of your opinion (which I bolded in the quote above) is not rooted in reality.

Truly, if this is an attack from the liberals, was Marco Rubio merely their pawn? Or was he in on it from the outset?

View attachment 2863258

View attachment 286324

Hmmm...

You're reading the final... After ALL 220 Democrats jumped on board and the influencers / framers added this and pulled that...

This is what Marko Rubio introduced, "Sponsored" as S.2938. There's ALWAYS a beginning - to rename a Court Building turned into a deluge of and for people such as yourself to proclaim Rubio is the Sponsor!

 

[RobG]

What's a little hyperbole compared to a little confirmation bias. Faux bad, conservatives being alarmed bad...ye ole every accusation...eh, more hyperbole.

And of course Fox's claim of "Biden's war on hunting" is totally not hyperbole. It's too bad the sports aren't allowed, but somehow I survived high school without them being offered.

 

[Irrelevant]

And of course Fox's claim of "Biden's war on hunting" is totally not hyperbole. It's too bad the sports aren't allowed, but somehow I survived high school without them being offered.

Honestly, we can hardly find a basketball coach, let alone an archery instructor.

 

[mmw194287]

Hmmm...

You're reading the final... After ALL 220 Democrats jumped on board and the influencers / framers added this and pulled that...

This is what Marko Rubio introduced, "Sponsored" as S.2938. There's ALWAYS a beginning - to rename a Court Building turned into a deluge of and for people such as yourself to proclaim Rubio is the Sponsor!

You're right. I was sloppy in my research and thought I'd clicked through to the original text. My bad (genuinely).

If you think that I support removing hunters ed and archery from schools, you are wrong. I was going to address that implication in your original post, but since you brought it up again I thought I'd put it out there. I'm simply pointing out that Congress passes laws all the time that end up having unintended consequences until they are fixed. The provision was intended to prevent schools from diverting ESEA funding to SROs because another part of the bill provided a dedicated source of funding for SROs. If the Democrats saw it as a perfect Trojan horse to kill off some unspecified percentage of hunter ed, then they're about as crafty as it gets. My guess based on all available data is that the Democrats are not quite that clever.

Forget Rubio. What about Cornyn and Tillis, who voted for final passage but have been quoted in these articles as opposed to the administrative rulemaking? Do you think the Democrats intended this law to kill in-school hunter ed, and simply kept that a secret from the Republicans? I think the answer that more believable is that this was a sloppily written bill that didn't carve out an exemption that it should have included.

I still haven't seen an article cite an actual number for the amount of ESEA funding that supports hunter ed/archery programs. The prohibition is not against teaching these things in schools, it is against using certain federal dollars for those programs. What percentage of schools in the country have in-school hunters ed? What percentage of those are supported by ESEA vs. P-R dollars?

I'm simply suggesting that the coverage of this has framed things 1) in a way that suggest an intent that can't be demonstrated and 2) has failed to actually demonstrate the stakes of this development.

 

[elkduds]

I avoid Faux News unequivocally, it mutates human DNA. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Sytes]

If you think that I support removing hunters ed and archery from schools, you are wrong.

I would hope none on Hunt Talk would support such removal. However, Hunt Talk is famed for it's trench ideology for D v R... With a vocal D side. Ya, ya... I know, other sites hold vocal R sides as well. However, my content relates to Hunt Talk.

IMO, I believe the general idea was well intended however, in the hands of Biden nominated, Miguel Cardona to lead Biden's charge and his past statements announcing ban of "Assault Rifles" and his following statement regarding this law...

“The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is an important step toward addressing years of inaction and indifference in response to heartbreaking gun violence in our schools and communities.

At the U.S. Department of Education, we will work diligently to invest more than $2 billion provided under this law to improve mental health supports for students and expand access to school-based health services. We also will assist states and districts in using these resources to invest in evidence-based practices that support safe schools...

...I thank the countless students, families, and educators who continue to stand together to call for change, and commend those in Congress with the courage to answer President Biden’s call for action."

He is Biden's voice on education. What the hell evidence based practice defines removing archery and Hunter's Ed courses?

Who knows, maybe in the coming days Biden will declare this as not as desired... Hold breath?

 

[mmw194287]

Who knows, maybe in the coming days Biden will declare this as not as desired... Hold breath?

I'm not going to hold my breath until the law is actually amended to clarify intent. The law of the land says the executive branch can't use education funds to support the training any person in the use of a weapon (which is expansively defined in the USC).

If they or a future administration did revisit that decision, I'd guess that antigun and antihunting groups would sue saying the DoE is in violation of the law as written by Congress, even if they didn't mean to do that. I would have a hard time making a case otherwise until there's an exemption carved out.

 

[Nick87]

It's too bad the sports aren't allowed, but somehow I survived high school without them being offered.

A lot of people survived with things we didn't have x amount of years ago. That's a chicken shit argument.

 

[Nick87]

Also, you have a problem that needs to be fixed, and it's a problem shared by many other states and municipalities.

Is it any wonder why?

 

[Big Fin]

Did anyone write their congressional representatives about this, or are we all just succumbing to the Fox News rage machine and shaking a fist in the air.

This one seems like an easy fix to rectify sloppily written legislation. If the initial legislation was bipartisan, the fix should easily be bipartisan as well.

Good question. I did write my Senator. I got a reply. Waiting to hear more.

I suspect it is an easy fix, by technical clarification to the original bill. Happens in tax law all the time. By the winds of politics in DC, this change is not so easy, even with sloppy legislation (which most all of it is and has been for a couple decades).

I'm always skeptical of anything that has FOX News as the source. And yes, all those digital media/entertainment groups use hyperbole as their click bait titles. That is why I wait for answers to questions I ask of people "in the know" before getting on a rant.

The answer provided to me, by folks who have been historically reliable, is that such is the interpretation being applied by the Administration to pull funding for these programs.

Not related to the quote above, rather my general observation of being involved in enough of this for a long time.

I doubt that Administration's "interpretation" of this bi-partisan bill is by accident. The games are played both ways, from both sides. Neither side is immune from such behavior. I don't discount the intended outcome/consequence of the Administration's interpretation due to which outlet happens to be one of the sources.

Is this the biggest problem hunting faces this year? Nope, but indicative of the subtle ways those appointed people with access to levers of power will nibble away at the edges, or in some cases like the Washington and Colorado Commission appointments, take a run at us with a huge kick in the crotch.

 

[HONEYBADGER]

I don't know why anyone is shocked when people they elect to government do the things they say they are going to do. Democrats want gun control, they don't hide it and are not secret about it. Democrats got elected, here is your predicted outcome.

In other words you get what you vote for.

 

[SAJ-99]

Is it any wonder why?

Not at all. But it makes zero sense to criticize (with incorrect information) a small item that helps alleviate the problem, even if only a little.

 

[Sytes]

I would have a hard time making a case otherwise until there's an exemption carved out.

I'm not familiar with the U.S. Constitution stating federal grants / funding may not be used to educate use of "weapons" such as muskets/bows and arrows during the era of our forefather's creation..

***Not to say it doesn't though would you quote the Constitution portion? I'd like to read further on it. An area I didn't realize existed.

I would believe the framing has many educational sources for people before, during, and after that educated on sustenance, i.e. survival. What we consider not weapons of war, rather tools of filling my freezer. Could the device be used to kill another? That's a given, same with baseball bats.
Archery, for many is the equivalent to a baseball bat. Not a stitch of interest to fill a freezer, rather Olympic dreams.
Hunters Ed, for many is learning how to safely fill a freezer.

How do these (USFWS / PR) differ from funding for educational purpose? Is it specific to public schools? We had an archery team at our public school. I couldn't tell you whether it had any federal funding though.

Here's one example of federal funding offered to States for hunter education / archery...

Hunter Education | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

The Hunter Education Program provides grant funds to state and U.S. territory fish and wildlife agencies to provide instruction in firearm and archery safety, wildlife management, conservation, ethics, game laws, outdoor survival, and wilderness first aid.

www.fws.gov

"The Hunter Education Program provides grant funds to state and U.S. territory fish and wildlife agencies to provide instruction in firearm and archery safety, wildlife management, conservation, ethics, game laws, outdoor survival, and wilderness first aid."

Or

§ 80.50 What activities are eligible for funding under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act?

(b) Wildlife Restoration—Basic Hunter Education and Safety subprogram.

(1) Teach the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary to be a responsible hunter.

(2) Acquire real property suitable or capable of being made suitable for firearm and archery ranges for public use.

(3) Construct, operate, or maintain firearm and archery ranges for public use.

(c) Enhanced Hunter Education and Safety program.

(1) Enhance programs for hunter education, hunter development, and firearm and archery safety. Hunter-development programs introduce individuals to and recruit them to take part in hunting, bow hunting, target shooting, or archery.

(2) Enhance interstate coordination of hunter-education and firearm- and archery-range programs.

(3) Enhance programs for education, safety, or development of bow hunters, archers, and shooters.

(4) Enhance construction and development of firearm and archery ranges.

(5) Update safety features of firearm and archery ranges.

(6) Acquire real property suitable or capable of being made suitable for firearm and archery ranges for public use.

******

 

[Big Fin]

Saw this last night. Hopefully the Senator has some influence with the Administration.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

At this point it would be hard to argue that this action by the Administration is anything other than intentional. Given that, is it any wonder that such a large portion of the electorate finds even the most benign gun legislation so problematic? That slippery slope, give them an inch they take a mile, Government over-reach, or intentional misinterpretation that so many scream about any time legislation is proposed that is labeled as common sense gun reform is on full display by this Administration. This nonsense is what erodes our trust in Government.

I hope Sen Tester has more influence with this Administration than does my States Delegation. I would assume he does.

 

[BuzzH]

I do recall archery in PE class, they allowed us to bring our compounds in. It was pretty handy as we had a public archery range just across the street from the high school. The archery targets the school had would have been woefully inadequate for arrows with anything other than a suction cup on the end. I think it would have been a legit safety issue to have us slinging arrows at those P.O.S. targets.

As to hunters safety, it was never taught in school that I was aware of. The class I took was at the University of Montana in the old men's gym, in 1979.

I guess I'm behind the times, because I never have been aware of hunters safety being taught in a public school setting. It probably is a great idea to do so and I'm all in favor of it.

As per usual, Jon Tester seems to be doing the right thing, and of course will get ZERO credit for it. I wonder if Maryland Matt, Zinke, and Daines will do anything?

 

[schmalts]

I had archery in PE class and also was able to use our own equipment. I was in school when Hunters ED was just starting to be taught more as it was not needed when I was a kid. As of late, My neighbor was a school teacher and was teaching it after hours in his school classroom in partnership with the DNR. It is a much needed thing now that most, if not all states require it for kids to hunt without a mentor.