Disappointed with Jim Shockey
- Thread starter dying4publicland
- Start date
dying4publicland
New member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2017
- Messages
- 6
Thank you sir! Putting That link to use!
bstrasheim55
New member
Attachments
Rancho Loco
Well-known member
In a national atmosphere where words > actions, this is hardly surprising.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I think to guys like Shockey and Zinke, "putting aside politics" is code speak for, "let me do whatever I want with your public lands, sit there, and shut up about it".
No thanks.
Unless those types are interested in a collaborative approach and making concessions, I'd rather keep up the bickering...and will.
No thanks.
Unless those types are interested in a collaborative approach and making concessions, I'd rather keep up the bickering...and will.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
OhHeyThereBen
Active member
Just went and checked this out. There are certain places that this argument does work. 2nd amendment is one of them. However, I agree with you guys. It doesn't work with the public land debate.
COEngineer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,526
I would like to hear what Shockey sees as the end-game if federal land is sold off. I cannot imagine any other result than fewer hunters and greatly diminished wildlife (A la Europe). If he can articulate a different perspective and present some reasonable arguments, we can start there. Until then I have to strongly disagree with his endorsements of the land-transfer politicians.
fowladdict
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,565
How does one "put politics aside" and support a politician??
Southern Elk
Well-known member
I don't give a crap about any "celebrity's" endorsement (other than Randy Newberg), much less a Canadian. Who the hell would listen to what a foreigner said about how you should vote?
I bet he knows about as much about America's politics and public land policy as I do about Canada's.
I bet he knows about as much about America's politics and public land policy as I do about Canada's.
"We all need to join together and not speak ill of other hunters!" Spoken by everyone who knows that they're advocating for crap, but still want your support regardless of how it would actually impact your life.
It's the standard SFW/BGF line on not wanting opposition to your idea, while stil ltrying to make out like you care about average hunters or anglers. I'm all for smash-mouth policy debates. If your idea doesn't stand up to scrutiny by like-mined people, then maybe you shouldn't be advocating for who/or what you are.
It's the standard SFW/BGF line on not wanting opposition to your idea, while stil ltrying to make out like you care about average hunters or anglers. I'm all for smash-mouth policy debates. If your idea doesn't stand up to scrutiny by like-mined people, then maybe you shouldn't be advocating for who/or what you are.
onpoint
Well-known member
"We all need to join together and not speak ill of other hunters!" Spoken by everyone who knows that they're advocating for crap....."
And maybe by some who don't know they are advocating for crap??.................
And maybe by some who don't know they are advocating for crap??.................
It's an effective talking point. It changes the subject and puts to negatives on people who are voicing honest concerns. It's political speak in it's highest form.
If people don't know they're being used as a tool to advance a bad agenda, are they still tools?
If people don't know they're being used as a tool to advance a bad agenda, are they still tools?
onpoint
Well-known member
A loaded question, especially the last four words of it..................
406LIFE
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2016
- Messages
- 3,130
This has been my issue in getting behind celebrities and other spokesman in the hunting industry. Advocating uniting behind figureheads instead of ideas forces you to espouse everything they do or caveat your way on a myriad of issues. This is why I personal identify as conservative (which is itself now becoming loaded) instead of Republican. In that way I back an idea instead of a person.
Back this guy (despite his anti stance) should instead be: WE back public lands and here is the list of others who do. If Shockey wants to back public lands and his politico as well, then lets just says that and applaud that.
However, we do not live in a world where you can simply vote ideas on a ballot, you have to vote the person. But, we can raise the alarm loudly on issues.
I admire your undivided devotion though if you follow all the organizations and personalities/TV shows Leupold sponsors / partners with, well they are an extraordinary company! However, within the many, there are aspects within some I disagree.
https://www.leupold.com/leupold-core/vip-programs
https://www.leupold.com/leupold-dna/partners
https://www.leupold.com/leupold-core/core-communities/pro-team
And for public lands public figure, the ONLY TV outdoor personality promoted on their website as a fixture... Not on occasion though a set fixture is, Randy Newberg. So imagine all they do in support of your interests.
https://www.leupold.com/leupold-core/core-communities/elk-talk-with-randy-newberg
To me, when my $ allows me to dig into one company or another, I look at who most promotes my interests. Made in America, Public Lands promotion among other key interests. If there is one they sponsor/partner that I do not like, I'll let my voice be heard as I did today over our Canadian Shockey, that damn Russki!!! Ehh, Canuck!!! - influencing the naive public regarding our politicians as a foreigner!! <Haha! Joke> I don't intend to hinder the support they provide for the vast others that my purchase power assists.
-Fwiw
Idahoarcheryhunter
Well-known member
whats the gain for guys like shockey being best friends with these politicians when they have little to no impact on them? Correct me if I am wrong but he runs most of his guided hunts out of Canada right? I am sure when he hunts down here with the rest of us it isn't public land... so whats the gain for him? Slipping him a check for a social media post trying to get like minded individuals to vote for said politician? I guess I just don't see the point of hunting celebs promoting politicians.
dying4publicland
New member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2017
- Messages
- 6
Sytes,
Thank for the reply and grounding the conversation. You have some excellent points! It brings it back to my original post. I agree with you that Leupold does some great things. They make great products. They sponsor Randy! They are a great company. I will not argue that at all. That's what makes this hard and hence the post with questions.
The question I have is where is the line? Its something I think about all the time. Its not a black and white issue. Is the public land transfer issue so important to us that we will stop using a brand, even though we consider that company to be very ethical otherwise? I know most of us consider that transfer of public lands as the ultimate sin in the hunting and fishing world but what are we willing to sacrifice to bring justice? My question is not rhetorical, its genuine.
I have to throw the caveat on here that I am not picking on Leupold. They are merely a place holder in this conversation. It could be any company or person that is in this position and I really doubt Leupold directed Jim in any way. The sponsors are one of the the conduits to where Sportsman can hold these figures accountable.
Thanks!
Last edited:
Get a PLT politician elected, transfer public lands, open US based (Utah in this case) outfitting/guide business using an already well known name (J Shockey) on newly acquired private lands, rake in the money.
The last word of the above run-on sentence is the answer to your question.
Similar threads
