Hunter to NRA-----It's the habitat!

[Ithaca 37]

Hunter to NRA: It’s the habitat, stupid
Ben Long

Article Summary: The writer blasts the National Rifle Association for neglecting its mission and hawking falsehoods about the Sierra Club
**********************************************

Can anyone find a link to this article? I've heard it's a good summary of the NRA negative attitude about saving wildlife habitat.

 

[Hangar18]

Is this it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39731-2004Jul9.html

NRA and Outdoor Writers Have Falling-Out
Head of Gun Group Rebuked For Attack on Sierra Club
By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A03


SEATTLE, July 9 -- In a spat that could have implications for the presidential campaign, the National Rifle Association has angered a group of opinion makers among America's 50 million hunters and anglers.

The president of the National Rifle Association warned a convention of outdoor writers last month that it should not be seduced by environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club, which promise to protect hunting habitat but actually are scheming to ban guns.

"It's pretty hard to hunt without guns," Kayne B. Robinson, president of the NRA, told the Outdoor Writers Association of America at its annual meeting in Spokane, Wash.

At the convention, the Sierra Club had offered to join forces with hunting groups to protect wildlife habitat, a proposal that generated considerable support. But Robinson said the NRA, which has 4 million members, half of whom are hunters, would never cooperate with the Sierra Club, which he suggested was trying to "hoodwink hunters into voting for gun ban candidates."

Robinson's remarks have prompted an unprecedented rebuke from the Outdoor Writers, a 77-year-old group of newspaper, magazine, radio and TV commentators who for decades have had a somewhat fawning relationship with the NRA. Many are longtime NRA members and contributors to its publications.

The writers' board of directors voted 11 to 4 to send Robinson a letter "expressing our disappointment in your harsh criticism of fellow OWAA supporting member Sierra Club." The June 30 letter described his comments as "inappropriate."

Since the late June convention, several outdoor columnists, writing in their own newspapers, have lambasted Robinson's speech. They also have said his accusation that environmental groups have a stealth plan to ban hunting guns was alarmist and false.

"The National Rifle Association locked, loaded and fired its best shot at the Sierra Club . . . only to have the blast explode in its face," wrote Tom Stienstra in the San Francisco Chronicle.

"The NRA continues to blindly advocate 'Vote your gun.' So narrow. So sad," wrote Rich Landers, outdoors editor of the Spokesman-Review in Spokane. Landers observed that Robinson's "bull-headed polarizing rhetoric" occasioned "a good deal of eye-rolling" at the convention.

Asked to comment on the criticism, Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA, said that Robinson "provided reasonable commentary in an honest, factual and civil manner. The glaring anomaly here is individuals with journalism backgrounds wanting to choke off the oxygen of free speech."

Also fueling the anger in Spokane -- and injecting presidential politics into the argument -- was Robinson's assertion that hunters are being denied access to 26 million acres because of a Clinton-era policy that limits road construction on federal land.

The Bush administration, which has the backing of the NRA in the Nov. 2 election, has moved to limit the roadless rule in national forests. Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), President Bush's Democratic challenger, has said he would reinstate all roadless areas.

The Bush and Kerry campaigns are courting hunters and anglers, whose numbers are large in swing states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania and who tend to turn out to vote. In the 2000 election, the "hook and bullet" vote went mostly to George W. Bush and gun rights were a decisive factor, according to several major hunting and conservation groups. But according to these same organizations, resource extraction efforts by the Bush administration on prime hunting and fishing habitat have upset many outdoorsmen.

In Spokane, many of the outdoor writers said they disputed Robinson's statement that roadless areas are closed to hunters. In fact, roadless areas are open to hunting and fishing, if sportsmen are willing to get out of their cars and ply these areas on foot or horseback.

The best hunting and fishing in Idaho and Oregon -- as measured by the size and number of big game taken and fish caught -- occur in roadless areas, according to two new studies by Trout Unlimited, a conservation group. The studies were presented at the convention.

"I was embarrassed and appalled by what Robinson had to say," said Pat Wray, a member of the Outdoor Writers board of directors. Wray is author of "The Chukar Hunter's Companion" and is a 20-year member of the NRA.

Wray, who drafted the letter of complaint to Robinson, said the NRA struggles with a "basic conundrum" that limits its willingness to protect wildlife habitat.

"Its primary purpose in life is protecting Americans' right to keep and bear arms, but they are trying to play that game in a hunter's realm," Wray said. "The NRA will make a push on behalf of politicians who are strong supporters of gun rights, but very often these are the same people who are the least supportive of efforts to protect hunting habitat from roads, logging and mining."

Wray said there are "a great many hunters out there like me. I am a registered Republican. I am a longtime member of the NRA. But George Bush's administration scares me to death, when it comes to the environment."

Arulanandam said the NRA has not heard complaints from members about the Bush administration's environmental policies. He added that the NRA "has contributed more to preserve hunting lands than any organization in this country."

The NRA wants to make access by car to hunting areas a priority, Arulanandam said. He added that Robinson's major complaint about roadless areas is that they limit "mainstream hunter access to valuable hunting land.

"You are talking about people having to hire hunting guides, which is a financial burden, or you are talking about trekking," Arulanandam said. "It would take exceptionally long to hunt, and what about disabled hunters?"

The NRA's insistence on drive-close hunting has, itself, generated considerable heat among outdoor writers. An editorial last month in the Lewiston, Idaho, Tribune said that "most of the legions of people insisting on a driveway right" to hunt "simply have more invested in their beer bellies than their boots."

To be somewhat fair to the NRA.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=124

There were also two mentions of hunting issues in their weekly email, for Maine and New Jersey.

MAINE
National animal rights groups, led by the Humane Society of the United States, have organized and funded a ballot initiative for the November 2 election that would ban the three traditional methods of bear hunting--baiting, hunting with dogs, and trapping. These groups routinely use ballot measures to curtail hunting throughout the country and have been successful in several states, including banning all trapping in neighboring Massachusetts. Please be sure to encourage your family, friends and fellow sportsmen to vote "NO" on this initiative in the November 2 election. Please note: In opposition to the anti-bear hunting ballot initiative question on the November 2 ballot, NRA-ILA is hosting a FREE Grassroots-Election Workshop in Augusta on August 28. The Workshop and related materials, including food & drink, are FREE! At the Workshop, you will hear from the only pro-freedom U.S. Representative in the Pine Tree State, U.S. Representative Michael Michaud (D), as he discusses the effects of this referendum in your state. You will also hear from organizations in Maine that are working to protect your sporting and outdoors traditions, NRA-ILA representatives, and NRA-ILA Election Volunteer Coordinators (EVCs) on what you can do locally to ensure this initiative is defeated on Election Day. Your EVC is a local NRA member who is working closely with NRA-ILA to defeat this bear initiative by providing critically-needed volunteer support for a variety of activities. Rest assured, anti-hunting extremists are already working full force in the Pine Tree State to ensure the passage of this initiative. We must be prepared to defeat their efforts at every turn. The Workshop will be held on Saturday, August 28, from 9:00 a.m. - Noon, at the Holiday Inn Augusta-Civic Center, 110 Community Drive, Augusta. Registration and breakfast will be from 8:00 - 9:00 a.m. For additional information, please call (207) 622-4751. To reserve your seat, please visit http://www.nraila.org/workshops/. To register by phone or for more information, please call the NRA-ILA Grassroots Division at (800) 392-VOTE (8683).

NEW JERSEY
The New Jersey black bear hunt, scheduled for December 2004, is being threatened by anti-hunting advocates. Please be sure to call your state legislators and tell them that you support the hunt and that the hunt should proceed as planned. You can find contact information for your legislators by using the "Write your Representatives" feature at www.NRAILA.org. Also, please be sure to stop by the New Jersey Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs tent at the upcoming New Jersey State Fair. The Fair is being held August 6-15, Plains Road, Frankford Township, Sussex County. Please be sure to visit the tent and show your support of the black bear hunt!

 

[Ithaca 37]

Hangar, Thank you. The article (actually a "Writers on the Range" guest editorial in today's Statesman) was about the same issue at the outdoor writer's convention as your article.

Sounds like the NRA president shot himself in the foot! We've been discussing the NRA politics in another topic, and this current spat between the writers and the NRA is exactly what we were talking about in "Sportsmen against Bush" and one other topic I can't find.

Here's what the NRA spokesman says, "The NRA wants to make access by car to hunting areas a priority, Arulanandam said. He added that Robinson's major complaint about roadless areas is that they limit "mainstream hunter access to valuable hunting land.

"You are talking about people having to hire hunting guides, which is a financial burden, or you are talking about trekking,"

Arulanandam must be crazy! Now I'm more down on the NRA than ever, if that's how they think!

 

[Ithaca 37]

The NRA is pulling no punches when it comes to outdoor groups like the Sierra Club.

But the spat between the NRA and these groups has the Outdoor Writers Association of America angry.

The writers group's newfound disdain for NRA comes following a speech last month by Kayne B. Robinson, president of the 4-million-strong NRA, at the association's annual meeting in Spokane, Wash.

There, Kayne criticized the liberal environmental group Sierra Club for its alleged motives regarding a new campaign to protect wildlife habitat.
According to the Washington Post, Kayne offended members of the 77-year-old organization of newspaper, magazine, radio and TV commentators when he suggested the Sierra Club's offer to partner on the campaign was merely a thinly veiled attempt to ban more guns.

"It's pretty hard to hunt without guns," Robinson said. He went on to say his group would never cooperate with the Sierra Club, and he suggested the cooperative effort was one to "hoodwink hunters into voting for gun-ban candidates."

But, the Post says, the habitat proposal was popular enough to "generate considerable support," and that means a number of NRA members — half of whom are hunters — may have been upset by the organization's refusal to participate.

The paper even suggested the refusal could have political implications in November — partly because a number of the Outdoor Writers are also NRA members.
Vote to Rebuke
By an 11-4 margin, the writer's group's board of directors voted to send Robinson a letter, voicing "our disappointment in your harsh criticism of fellow OWAA supporting member Sierra Club." The letter, dated June 30, described his comments as "inappropriate."

And since then a number of the outdoor writers have written articles in their own publishing venues criticizing Robinson's speech.


In part, they claim his accusation that the Sierra Club merely wants to ban hunting guns is alarmist and false.

"The National Rifle Association locked, loaded and fired its best shot at the Sierra Club ... only to have the blast explode in its face," wrote Tom Stienstra in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Added Rich Landers, outdoors editor of the Spokesman-Review in Spokane, "The NRA continues to blindly advocate 'Vote your gun.' So narrow. So sad."

For its part, the Sierra Club says it is "not anti-hunting and has no position on guns, but our overall image allows our opponents to get away with ascribing to us positions we don't take."
Outdoor Supporter

But other outdoor publications, such as "Outdoor Life," have described the Sierra Club as "not-so-sportsmen-friendly" and enemies of both gun and hunting rights.

And, in the 2000 election, the Sierra Club launched a $3 million anti-Bush, pro-Al Gore, campaign criticizing the environmental record of the former but ignoring the anti-gun agenda of the latter.

Also, the NRA has a long-standing reputation of not only standing up for hunters, but also for supporting issues that are important to them.

In June, Robinson said politicians and policymakers in Washington have caved in to the whims of liberal environmental groups by agreeing to close off millions of acres of federal land to hunting and outdoor activities.


"Included in that mix are state fish and wildlife agencies and commissions that adopt regulations that he maintains seem designed more to penalize hunters than help them harvest game," writes Dave Workman for ESPN.com June 1.


Robinson told NRA members at the group's annual meeting in Pittsburgh, Pa., that without the gun rights organization, as many as 10 million hunters would be lost in America, almost by design.


"There are many fine people in state and federal game agencies who have dedicated their lives to promoting and preserving hunting. But today, there are also many government agents who, unwittingly or not, are active participants in the slow death of hunting," Robinson says.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Here's more:

"Behind the flap is a bitter battle over access to public land. Robinson wants improved access to millions of acres never actually set aside as "wilderness" but inaccessible to most people, through road closures or "roadless area" designations. The Sierra Club and its cheerleaders would keep out people whose age, wheelchairs, crutches or other impairments limit their mobility. True wilderness and wildlife habitat is vital and must be vigorously protected, but one needn't get vicious toward those who want to share it.


Some of the nastiest rhetoric in this debate came from the Lewiston (Idaho) Tribune back in March. Columnist Patrick McGann wrote, "The trouble is too many fishers and hunters have their heads up their asphalt fetish." He added this insult: "Most of the legions of people insisting on a driveway right up to Brutus-the-bull's living room simply have more invested in their beer bellies than their boots." He suggested that "if you are serious about catching fish and killing game, you are nuts to side with the two-strokers," an apparent allusion to ATV riders............."

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2004/07/27/opinion/opinion3a.prt

 

[Ithaca 37]

And more:

NRA's Potshots at Sierra Club Are Way off the Mark

The National Rifle Association had the opportunity recently to step across a philosophical chasm and join hands with what it perceives as an old enemy.
But NRA President Kayne Robinson instead decided to blast away at the Sierra Club by shooting off his mouth in a speech to the Outdoor Writers Association of America.

At the group's recent meeting in Spokane, the Sierra Club offered to join forces with hunting groups to protect wildlife habitat — an idea generally near and dear to the hearts of both hunters and environmentalists.

But instead of recognizing there are some issues on which organizations as different as these two can share a common interest, Robinson saw only conspiracy in the suggestion. He suggested the Sierra Club was trying to "hoodwink hunters into voting for gun-ban candidates" as part of a larger scheme to ban guns altogether.

Oh, please.

Even the Outdoors Writers Association, which has occasionally fawned over the NRA, was angered at Robinson's tirade. The writers' board of directors voted 11 to 4 to send Robinson a rebuke "expressing our disappointment in your harsh criticism of fellow OWAA supporting member Sierra Club."

Rich Landers, outdoors editor of the Spokesman-Review in Spokane, labeled Robinson's remarks as "bull-headed polarizing rhetoric," and we'd agree. His tantrum served no purpose other than to antagonize another powerful group willing to find one common purpose in the midst of all their other disagreements. That would be a goal worth working toward.

We have to agree with Tom Stienstra, an outdoors writer for the San Francisco Chronicle:

"The National Rifle Association locked, loaded and fired its best shot at the Sierra Club ... only to have the blast explode in its face."

http://www.yakima-herald.com/opinion.php?storyid=280984628561626


And here's plenty more. http://www.google.com/search?q=Tom+Stienstra+San+Francisco+Chronicle++NRA+&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=0&sa=N

 

[Ithaca 37]

""Most of the legions of people insisting on a driveway right up to Brutus-the-bull's living room simply have more invested in their beer bellies than their boots." He suggested that "if you are serious about catching fish and killing game, you are nuts to side with the two-strokers," an apparent allusion to ATV riders............."


It's real obvious on this BB who has more invested in their beer bellies than their boots!

 

[JoseCuervo]

Hunter to NRA: It's the habitat
By Ben Long
Kalispell, Mont.


Like most gun owners of America, I do not belong to the National Rifle Association. Sometimes, I am grateful for their work. But it seems ever more often, I find myself embarrassed by this consummate beltway lobby group - a group that seems to be more intent on settling political scores than solving real problems.

I was among several hundred outdoor writers at the annual conference of the Outdoor Writers Association of America recently in Spokane, Wash. It's a friendly crowd for the NRA, a bunch of shooters and hunters who happen to make their living writing about shooting and hunting.

I learned one thing: NRA president Kayne Robinson is no Charlton Heston. It takes real skill to embarrass yourself in front of this friendly bunch. Robinson pulled it off. As one embarrassed board member of the Outdoor Writers group told a reporter: "The NRA made an ass of itself."

Robinson ranted during a group breakfast. The Clinton administration, he said, had placed 26 million acres off limits to American hunters. He blasted the Sierra Club, saying the group was out to snatch guns and stomp out hunting.

The trouble was, Robinson's bluster was full of blatant falsehoods.

The fact is, the Sierra Club supports ethical and legal hunting and about one in five Sierra Club members hunts or fishes. (For the record, I'm not a member of the Sierra Club, either.) The Sierra Club was also at the writers' conference along with the NRA, trying to build bridges with hunters. Robinson decided he would rather drive political wedges. Or throw verbal hand grenades.

The other fact is, hunters were not locked out of a single acre of public land during the Clinton years. Reporters pressed Robinson on his statements after breakfast and he confessed he could not point to a single acre where hunting was now off limits on public land thanks to the Clinton administration. Yet, he refused to correct himself.

Over the years, the NRA has become more and more political. It is trying very hard to get President Bush re-elected. That's OK, but a fellow has an obligation to get his facts straight.

Here's a fact Robinson missed. Some 8,700 acres of wildlife habitat - farms, fields and forests - are lost to development every day in the United States. They were lost to urban development. They are gone forever behind "No Trespassing" signs and beneath asphalt. That's the real enemy of all who love the outdoors.

At the same gathering, the conservation and angling group Trout Unlimited held a news conference, unveiling a series of reports that illustrate how America's finest hunting and fishing opportunities are in undeveloped roadless areas on our national forest and Bureau of Land Management ground. Whether you stalk elk or cast for chinook salmon, our roadless lands often offer the finest quality habitat for the many game species that Americans like me love to pursue.

Hunters watch with broken hearts as our best habitat - our cleanest water and the best winter ranges and wetlands - is lost to the crush of development. We are watching the quiet, lovely and open places we love to hunt and fish become noisier and more crowded.

Hunters need guns in order to hunt, but we also need natural places and healthy streams, fields and forests. There should be no conflict between those who work to protect our freedom to own firearms and those who work to keep our public lands healthy. Their interests are much the same. Defenders of both our Second Amendment rights and our public lands need more allies, not more enemies.

Which leaves an unsettling question: Why was the NRA president so intent on slapping the hand that reached out to it? Come to your own conclusion. Mine is this: The NRA is more interested in protecting turf and throwing its political weight than it is about sticking up for the true needs of American outdoorsmen.

It's about the habitat. When it comes to defending the hunt, the NRA would be wise to remember that.

Ben Long is a writer in Kalispell, Mont.

 

[MarlandS]

How can the NRA forge an alliance with the Sierra Club when their endorsments is a who's who of gun control advocates? http://www.sierraclub.org/endorsements/2004/

While I agree this could have been handled a lot better , look at the names on the list for Senate. there's people on there that the NRA has worked for yeas trying to unseat. The masses would see any alliance as a betrayal.

Look at how companies that align themselves with HSUS get drilled on here even though the programs they were working together on were unrelated to HSUS's anti-hunting stance. I can understand why the NRA wouldn't work with them , but the rhetoric used definately wasn't the best choice.

 

[Hangar18]

If it's a choice between the NRA and the Sierra Club, that's an easy one for me. There are plenty of organizations that look out for wildlife habitat that aren't run by a bunch of radicals.

http://www.cleveland.com/outdoors/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/sports/107537255525662.xml

Animal groups in heat of battle
Thursday, January 29, 2004
he anti-hunting movement is in turmoil this winter. For a change, animal rights groups are in power struggles instead of challenging a sportsman's right to fish or hunt.

Ingrid Newkirk and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have taken aim at the larger, well-heeled Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

The Fund for Animals wants a piece of the Audubon Society's hide.

Paul Watson of the lightly financed but virulently anti-hunting Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is on the Sierra Club's board of directors and plans a takeover attempt.

Wayne Pacelle jumped ship a while back, moving up from The Fund for Animals to the mighty HSUS. Now the executive vice-president of HSUS is caught in the middle.

PETA's Newkirk has chastised the HSUS for bedding down with Iams, a dog food company, to boost the HSUS's $116 million in assets. Iams is sponsoring Pet Fest America in six cities and HSUS is a happy partner.

PETA claims Iams is guilty of allowing cruelty to dogs in its contract laboratories.

PETA also took jabs at HSUS for joining Pet Fest America sponsors Veterinary Pet Insurance and PetSafe. It's bad enough that PetSafe makes pet containment systems and bark control collars that could stress out a pooch. Veterinary Pet Insurance CEO Jack Stephens is a big-game hunter.

PETA may be jealous of the $65 million that HSUS is given each year by millions of animal lovers. PETA's outrageous antics generate only a paltry $17 million. But both are in the business of animal rights.

The Fund for Animals, which reported $8.5 million in revenue last year, is trying to steal a little limelight by going after the venerable Audubon Society. They obviously didn't know that John J. Audubon, the group's founder, hunted many animals in order to illustrate them.

The Audubon Society recently opened a 285-acre piece of property it owns in Greenwich, Conn., to bowhunters. Too many deer is a common problem all over America and the Audubon Society should be praised for allowing hunters to help solve its problem.

The most amazing power grab is taking place in California. Watson, who relishes the title of captain and doesn't mind being called a pirate, is in the thick of a takeover of the 112-year-old, 750,000-member Sierra Club that has, most important, an annual budget of almost $100 million.

Watson, 53, was a founder of Greenpeace. He moved on to create the more radical Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which has a meager $1 million budget. Watson says his group has sunk 10 "illegal" commercial fishing boats around the globe.

Watson is not hiding an attempt to take over the Sierra Club, which has anglers and hunters as members, and push his animal-rights agenda. He claims he is only three votes shy of a majority on the 15-member board. A recent letter signed by 11 former Sierra Club presidents expressed concern over a takeover by Watson and a trio of confederates vehemently opposed to immigration and population growth.

It is quite noble to work for the welfare of animals and many do around northern Ohio. To send hard-earned dollars to pay for exorbitant salaries, addled wildlife schemes, naked protesters or a vitriolic campaign against fishing, hunting and the consumption of meat is proof Americans can be soft-hearted suckers.

PETA's latest comic book (see it at www.furisdead.com) for kids, "Your Mommy Kills Animals!" should be required reading for them.

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

[email protected], 216-999-6136


© 2004 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission.

edit:More reading material
http://www.groundswellsierra.org/watson_quotes.php

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/13/130330.shtml

 

[BuzzH]

Hangar said, "There are plenty of organizations that look out for wildlife habitat that aren't run by a bunch of radicals."

Really??

Thats funny because from the article above: "Here's a fact Robinson missed. Some 8,700 acres of wildlife habitat - farms, fields and forests - are lost to development every day in the United States."

It seems intuitively obvious, even to a casual observer, that there is a substantial lack of organizations that protect habitat based on those facts.

 

[Muledeer4me]

So this statment doesn't bother you ?
Or is it one more thing some people chose not to see?


"Watson is not hiding an attempt to take over the Sierra Club, which has anglers and hunters as members, and push his animal-rights agenda. He claims he is only three votes shy of a majority on the 15-member board. A recent letter signed by 11 former Sierra Club presidents expressed concern over a takeover by Watson "


"Thats funny because from the article above: "Here's a fact Robinson missed. Some 8,700 acres of wildlife habitat - farms, fields and forests - are lost to development every day in the United States.""


It's not the NRA that fuels the campain to oust the rancher or cry about the smell of a farm or the noise from a tractor .
More often then not it's the some bone heads that support The Sierra club , Peta and other treehugger group's ,then they cry when these properties get sold off to a developer.


Yes it's about habitat ,but it's also about all the other freedom's we now enjoy and the FACT that people like Kerry & Clinton don't give a rat's ass about gun right's or hunting,and are ready and willing to sell us out by joining force's with these group's.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Interesting that we now have the Outdoor Writers Association questioning the wisdom of the NRA. After all, these writers are the ones who make a living studying and informing the public on hunting and fishing issues every day. They realize how destructive the NRA radical politics are to the future of our hunting and fishing and outdoor recreation.

This discussion is exactly what Buzz has been telling us about in some other topics.

 

[Hangar18]

Originally posted by BuzzH:
Hangar said, "There are plenty of organizations that look out for wildlife habitat that aren't run by a bunch of radicals."

Really??

Thats funny because from the article above: "Here's a fact Robinson missed. Some 8,700 acres of wildlife habitat - farms, fields and forests - are lost to development every day in the United States."

It seems intuitively obvious, even to a casual observer, that there is a substantial lack of organizations that protect habitat based on those facts.

It seems intuitively obvious to any observer that the Sierra Club is not the place to look for organizations that are actually dedicated just to protecting habitat.

 

[1_pointer]

Yes it's about habitat ,but it's also about all the other freedom's we now enjoy and the FACT that people like Kerry & Clinton don't give a rat's ass about gun right's or hunting,and are ready and willing to sell us out by joining force's with these group's.

By Clinton I assume you mean Bill. He's not running for any offices that I'm aware of. So, Bush is protecting our gun rights. Fine. Maybe we can get someone in the next four years to protect our habitat! Which would be sadder to you, to take your grandchildren hunting in a area where one is lucky to get a deer in one out of five years? Or to take your grandkids on a hike through an area full of all kinds of animals? For me the former would be sadder for me than the latter.

I'm not saying that in the long run it's an either/or proposition, but if one thinks we are losing gun rights and hunting privledges at the same rate we are habitat I think they've got some blinders on. Even more so if one is just to analyze the amount of 'critical' habitat lost per year.

 

[JoseCuervo]

1-Ptr,

You are wise beyond your years.....

Just the opposite of MD.....