Elitist Hunters

[OriginalOscar]

I always force myself to look for upside. The upside I find from the esteemed Utioans is that I need to up my membership to BHA to a life membership. Between that this and P&Y bowsite thread I can’t help but feel our biggest threat comes from within.

Agreed. Preservationists who think they are conservationists. Sad you'd turn against P&Y which was instrumental in helping establish modern bowhunting and ethics because they questioned BHA.

BHA donor Wilburforce Foundation - Look at board bio's. http://www.wilburforce.org/about-us/

My favorite quote is under Ms. Nichols-Young -

She has a life-long interest in animal protection and the outdoors, and is proud to work with so many smart and passionate people at Wilburforce. She is especially grateful to have the opportunity to help the Founder/President implement her vision to protect wild places in western North America.

Didn't see anyone who hunts or fishes. Why the interest in supporting BHA?

And it's Utahn's

 

[Irrelevant]

OMG DD you found a donor that doesn't fit your world view. Sh!t, man the guns!

Seriously, one group who's mission statement is "WILBURFORCE FOUNDATION IS A PRIVATE PHILANTHROPIC ORGANIZATION THAT SUPPORTS LAND, WATER AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION EFFORTS IN WESTERN NORTH AMERICA."

If anything BHA is trying to make Hunters not look like a bunch of beer can tossin' natural resource plunderin' yahoos destined for anonymity in a society that's becoming more disconnected with the natural world the historic role hunters have played in it, and in the process make some in-roads to previously untapped funding streams.

 

[Sytes]

...If anything BHA is trying to make Hunters not look like a bunch of beer can tossin' natural resource plunderin' yahoos destined for anonymity in a society that's becoming more disconnected with the natural world the historic role hunters have played in it, and in the process make some in-roads to previously untapped funding streams.

Psssh, forget PBR, Coors and Buttwiper... We're Micro-Brew "Pint Night" Elitists.

 

[OriginalOscar]

OMG DD you found a donor that doesn't fit your world view. Sh!t, man the guns!

Seriously, one group who's mission statement is "WILBURFORCE FOUNDATION IS A PRIVATE PHILANTHROPIC ORGANIZATION THAT SUPPORTS LAND, WATER AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION EFFORTS IN WESTERN NORTH AMERICA."

If anything BHA is trying to make Hunters not look like a bunch of beer can tossin' natural resource plunderin' yahoos destined for anonymity in a society that's becoming more disconnected with the natural world the historic role hunters have played in it, and in the process make some in-roads to previously untapped funding streams.

Bout what I expected. People give money for one reason. Influence and collaboration. Look at the other organizations they support.

Elitist statement "natural world the historic role hunters". I hunt because I enjoy it and not to satisfy some smug idea I'm playing a vital role in the natural world.

 

[Schaaf]

Dukes, I’m hosting a Conservation Campout next month in Utah. Would love for you to join.

 

[OriginalOscar]

Dukes, I’m hosting a Conservation Campout next month in Utah. Would love for you to join.

Drop me a PM. Love to.

 

[tjones]

I think I will sign DD up for a BHA membership.

 

[Mike21]

I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why hunters should not support PLT politicians but it's ok to support anti second amendment politician? Please enlighten me. One matters and one doesn't? Neither one makes any sense as a hunter.

When it comes to PLT BHA rallies at the state capital but when it comes to the 2nd amend... Nevermind Sportsmen for Obama, nothing to see here.

To paraphrase JP, The Truth burns off dead wood and most folks don't want their deadwood burned off, that would destroy their ideology, never mind the facts, let's keep stacking this wood.

 

[BuzzH]

I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why hunters should not support PLT politicians but it's ok to support anti second amendment politician? Please enlighten me. One matters and one doesn't? Neither one makes any sense as a hunter.

When it comes to PLT BHA rallies at the state capital but when it comes to the 2nd amend... Nevermind Sportsmen for Obama, nothing to see here.

To paraphrase JP, The Truth burns off dead wood and most folks don't want their deadwood burned off, that would destroy their ideology, never mind the facts, let's keep stacking this wood.

For the record, how many gun rights did Obama take from you?

Who signed the bill into law to allow firearms to be carried in National Parks?

Yeah, just what I thought, don't let the facts get in the way of your rhetoric.

The only "deadwood" is found between your ears...nice work doubling down on ignorant.

 

[tjones]

Gun rights are protected by the Constitution, public lands-not so much.

 

[onpoint]

Gun rights are protected by the Constitution, public lands-not so much.

That's a tough concept for some to digest............

 

[Carnage2011]

I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why hunters should not support PLT politicians but it's ok to support anti second amendment politician? Please enlighten me. One matters and one doesn't? Neither one makes any sense as a hunter.

When it comes to PLT BHA rallies at the state capital but when it comes to the 2nd amend... Nevermind Sportsmen for Obama, nothing to see here.

To paraphrase JP, The Truth burns off dead wood and most folks don't want their deadwood burned off, that would destroy their ideology, never mind the facts, let's keep stacking this wood.

You haven’t heard a valid argument as to why hunters shouldn’t support PLT politicians? Is your head in the sand?

 

[VikingsGuy]

Gun rights are protected by the Constitution, public lands-not so much.

We are exactly 1 supreme court justice away from neither being protected by the Constitution.

 

[tjones]

We are exactly 1 supreme court justice away from neither being protected by the Constitution.

If you mean changing the 2nd. or any other amendments, the way I recall High School Civics, it will take a bit more then that.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If you mean changing the 2nd. or any other amendments, the way I recall High School Civics, it will take a bit more then that.

I think you need to update your civics class TJones. For at least 120+ years prior to the 2008 case, Heller, the 2nd amended did not afford individuals any constitutional rights to own guns, it only allowed the states to have National Guard units. The Heller case was a 5-4 ruling finding a personally protected constitutional right. All four traditionally liberal justices have stood against this reading, several in public. The 5th vote for Heller was 81 year old Kennedy. One aging conservative justice replaced by a liberal justice and there is simply no such right.

 

[onpoint]

We are exactly 1 supreme court justice away from neither being protected by the Constitution.

Hmm, sounds familiar.......

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...one-supreme-court-justice-repeal-david-french

Sorry, too much fun to resist

 

[tjones]

Read on VG

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/485810/

Not looking to get in a throw down and having to read everything the NRA puts out to scare gun owners.

The fact of the matter is gun rights are protected by the 2nd. Public land is not. All that is relevant to Mike’s question.

 

[OriginalOscar]

For the record, how many gun rights did Obama take from you?

Buzz, Ask the folks in San Diego. Obama-Clinton appointments refused to rule. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-public-california.html

Regarding Mike's question on voting for someone who supports PLT. PLT is a consideration along with several other issues. I'm shocked at people on this site who apply that as the litmus test for politicians and anyone associated with hunting.

Another thread Jim Shockey was tagged because he expressed support for Speaker Hughes here in Utah. Speaker Hughes is a get stuff done leader and I'll vote for him and tell my representative how I feel on PLT.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Hmm, sounds familiar.......

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...one-supreme-court-justice-repeal-david-french

Sorry, too much fun to resist

I am not a right-winger, a NRA member or a single issue voter - simply stating the reality. Not sure why that is such "a tough concept for some to digest............"

 

[VikingsGuy]

Read on VG

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/485810/

Not looking to get in a throw down and having to read everything the NRA puts out to scare gun owners.

The fact of the matter is gun rights are protected by the 2nd. Public land is not. All that is relevant to Mike’s question.

First, this is pure conjecture on what the liberal justices would or would not do. Second, a new amendment is a pipe dream. Third, there is zero doubt that there is significant political support for legislating major gun restrictions in at least half the states, and a patchwork quilt of gun laws is certainly not a protected right. Fourth, The Atlantic is just as middle ground as the NRA.

The fact of the matter is that currently 1 conservative SCOTUS vote protects gun rights more than public lands - and that too is relevant to Mike's question.