Does the NRA stand for hunters?

[Paul in Idaho]

While reading a hunting magazine recently, I saw this full-page ad from the NRA stating they 'stand for hunters' and will "lobby hard for hunter friendly legislation." I know the topic of the NRA's silence on public lands transfer/sale has been discussed here before.

In my opinion, as long as the NRA gives Rob Bishop and other anti-public land politicians high grades, they're not standing for western hunters. They're clearly not a single-issue organization. Have any of you seen any new commentary from them on the topic of public land?

One of the few matches to a search of the NRA site for "public lands" is this, from 2012:

Obama will spend his second term in office abusing the Endangered Species Act to severely restrict hunting, pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to ban lead ammunition, and seeking more ways to kick you off America’s public lands.

source: http://graphics.nra.org/chriscox/PVF204ObamaFactSheetInsert.pdf

The NRA is probably the only group that could tip the balance of the public lands elimination effort from within the GOP. Will they?




If the search is limited to the past year, the phrase "public lands" hasn't been used even once on their site.

 

[mottlet]

If you've managed to knock down an elephant or a polar bear and need a little help getting ivory or a fluffy white hide back into the country, ESA be damned, then yeah, the NRA is solidly hunter-friendly. If you'd like to see the remote drainage you busted your hump to find, scout, hunt, and pack an elk out of protected from privatization, well, Rob Bishop and Raul Labrador are solidly anti-background check and you're just outta luck.

 

[Goatshoes]

The NRA is fiercely pro gun. Wherever that intersects with hunting, the NRA will be pro hunter. Where it conflicts, they wont. That simple.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The NRA is fiercely pro gun. Wherever that intersects with hunting, the NRA will be pro hunter. Where it conflicts, they wont. That simple.

They endorsed a slate of candidates who oppose public lands while giving lip service to the hunting community.

That simple.

 

[u1299]

The NRA can kiss my A--
They support so called hunters like Nugent, that's it...

 

[sbhooper]

The NRA is fiercely pro gun. Wherever that intersects with hunting, the NRA will be pro hunter. Where it conflicts, they wont. That simple.

Absolutely correct. They fight the politics for their agenda, just like the Elk Foundation fights theirs. The NRA fights where they are needed-hunter included. The Elk Foundation does not fight political battles.

 

[Irrelevant]

I no longer know any hunters that are still members of the NRA.

 

[belly-deep]

I'm a member. Always will be.

 

[TheTone]

If you're into reading ads disguised as hunting articles they put out a good mag. Not a member and doubt I ever will be; the public land issue and dislike of anything that is good for the environment is enough. I read their grades of candidates in Idaho this year and it was enough to make me question their sanity.

 

[u1299]

I no longer know any hunters that are still members of the NRA.

I do, but I don't hunt with them.

 

[Southern Elk]

The NRA has one job, protecting 2nd amendment rights and the 2nd amendment is worth protecting. I wish they would do something to stand up for public lands, but I don't see that happening.

Every one who's concerned about public lands should become a member of Back Country Hunters and Anglers. If we could help turn it into something a fraction as powerful as the NRA, we wouldn't have to worry about the future of public lands.

 

[Goatshoes]

They endorsed a slate of candidates who oppose public lands while giving lip service to the hunting community.

That simple.

So clearly you found an instance where they had to choose between being dedicated to their primary focus and a secondary. The primary focus won. Who would have guessed?

 

[Ben Lamb]

So clearly you found an instance where they had to choose between being dedicated to their primary focus and a secondary. The primary focus won. Who would have guessed?

We absolutely agree that the NRA has no use for, nor do they advocate for the average, blue collar hunter.

 

[MTGomer]

The NRA is a gun rights group, not a hunter's rights group. They will support the candidate with the strongest support for the 2nd Amendment, no matter where that candidate stands on public lands, late term abortions, which breed of dog is cuter as a puppy, or red vs. white wine.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The NRA is a gun rights group, not a hunter's rights group. They will support the candidate with the strongest support for the 2nd Amendment, no matter where that candidate stands on public lands, late term abortions, which breed of dog is cuter as a puppy, or red vs. white wine.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=NRA+hunting

 

[Paul in Idaho]

Southern Elk and MTGomer, they are spending money on full-page ads specifically claiming they represent hunters, not just gun ownership or 2A. If they make that claim, they had better back it up with support.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

I pulled my support and tell the mouth breathers in their call center exactly why everytime they call asking for money to save the world from evil politics.

 

[Goatshoes]

We absolutely agree that the NRA has no use for, nor do they advocate for the average, blue collar hunter.

We absolutely do not agree.
They very much have a use for the blue collar worker 1) to the extent that he or she pays membership dues and 2) it is extremely important to them that the blue collar worker votes the way that the NRA needs them to vote because with out delivering votes they have significantly less power.

And to the extent that the blue collar worker is interested in holding back infringement of their 2nd amendment rights (whether for hunting, self defense or any other reason) they are the most ardent supporter of the blue collar worker.

You are clearly trying to demonize the NRA because they don't support hunters on the political issue of public lands and I think that to the extent that you are successful you are doing a great disservice by doing so.

They are not a hunter organization. They are not a blue collar organization. They are a gun rights organization and there is no institution more effective at defending that right.

Similarly, whatever organization you may choose to support in an effort to preserve public lands, That organization will first and foremost be a public lands advocate; and if they grease the wheels of a politician who is pro-public lands and anti gun it doesn't make them anti hunters it just makes them dedicated advocates for public lands.

 

[bobbydean]

Did NRA for several years. I was a fan of Charlton Heston's comment of taking it out of my cold dead hands. I still the Charlton Heston Still have the signed silver bullets hanging from my pickups mirror. I have no idea how old that is!

I do not know who they support. NRA does nothing for me. Who the organization supports politically supports has turned me off.
Totally agree with the 2nd amendment, but NRA seems to have other agenda.

 

[SixPoint]

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=NRA+hunting

This answers that question.