Hunting:It's not about the gun

[mtmiller]

Not sure if this has been posted before, but if not.

Sorry, just a link.

http://www.tidepool.org/original_content.cfm?articleid=128211

 

[snake river rufus]

But kerry's voting record does not offer a lot of hope for hunters either.

 

[mtmiller]

I need the wildlife to go hunting and that is where my concerns are. I am just a pup at 36 I guess, but no one has taken away any of my guns since I have been alive.

I don't read many of the posts down here, but what has Kerry done to destroy my wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Heck, by purchasing a migratory bird stamp and a couple boxes of shells this week, Kerry has done more than what I have seen from Dub.

 

[Nemont]

mtmiller,
I have asked my friends who are ardent dems. to show me where the environmental diasaster is taking place. I agree that we need the habitat and that having a wellhead on every quarter section is not the way to go.

I just have not seen the diasaster written about in many of the environmental journals. Could the president put more land and money into conservation, absolutely.

I am curious if the CBM and oilfield activity would not have bappened under a Gore presidency. Many of the same people who gripe about the environment being destroyed also gripe about the prices of gas, natural gas and electricity. I am not sure the indignation is not partisan politics.

If I had to vote soley on the environment, maybe I could vote for Kerry but unfortunately I can't vote based only on that single issue.

I guess maybe writing in WyoTim and EG would be an alternative.

Nemont

p.s.
I wouldn't put too much stock in John "Goose Hunter" Kerry giving two damns about hunting if he gets elected.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Here in Kalifornia they have banned many firearms and forbidden the sale of them. They have confiscated firearms that are not registered with the state.

If it can happen here, it can happen on a Federal level with the right administration and the right (or wrong) appointees to the Supreme Court.

I do not see Kerry as being good for sportsmen or gun owners. Government employees in the conservation/environmental fields like my brother (USFWS) are upset with Bush for cutting funds and programs, and I am not thrilled with Bush - but Kerry would be worse, in my humble opinion.

 

[Wally Dog]

MT,
While I appreciate all of your posts and that we enjoy similar afflictions outdoors, on this one we'll just have to agree to disagree. John Kerry will do nothing, absolutely nothing to insure that HE can continue to hunt his goose.
He's a two faced, wanna be something to everybody politician. He has no purpose or convictions that are real. He's a phony, pretty boy politician from MA.
I'm done.
WD

 

[MarvB]

I'd have to ditto Wally's observations (except for

pretty boy

...that man needs a full face mask!)

Though you still take the best pictures on the boards , I think Kerry will tell anyone anything to get his foot in the door and that his only true convictions are the ones that will get him a vote at that particular time of day.

I might have stronger feelings to the contrary had I stayed in the Nat.Res. field as Bush hasn't tickled me pink in the environmental realm either. I can't, however, opt to sacrifice our country wellbeing for the "possible" (not probable mind you) enhancement of my outdoor pursuits.

 

[OSOK]

Couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

mtmiller, Your article addresses alot of what we don't WANT to see happen to the West, but in the thirty plus years since I have gotten out of school I have seen a Multitude of things go south when you let the goverment run your life. Kerry, for all the polish they have put on him and told him which buzz words to say is still the same type of big goverment jerk that has made it possible for us to lose even the option of saying a prayer before my kid plays a football game. Now I don't live out west, but I have been coming out there for 26 years and I have seen a Doublewide with 35 acres and a millionaire's house with fences that tell you and me to stay off take up the real west, just as much as oil & gas Exploration!
Kerry in one of the debates stated that in ten years we would not depend on foreign oil, we would be self relient. Guess where those resources are? He will have to Drill your Western lands while whatever technology we have catches up to reduce our dependancy on carbon base fuels. Now that article sounds good on the surface, but it does not address real issues, I have seen some great things happen in the oil and gas industry as far as technology goes that make the footprints we leave less damaging. But they can't be erased overnight. But they can be reversed easier that all of the laws that I have seen close in around us. We all know what we want these two canidates to be, but neither man is everything in one package. I have a 14 year old son that I don't want Kerry making deals with the U.N. while the terrorist regroup and all of a sudden my son has to go to war, when we have a chance as a nation to stop it NOW! Everyone is so fixated on casualties right now and they blame Bush, how many soldiers died under Clinton? And we were'nt even at war! We had trucks loaded with explosives running into barracks killing hundreds in their sleep, and we did'nt liberate Jack! mtmiller, please give what I said a thought. PS: Sorry for the rambling.

 

[Tom]

Bush made it policy to increase net US wetlands, not hold even, not decline, wetlands in the US. That's more good than one duck stamp and a few boxes of shells, assuming Kerry bought them.

 

[BuzzH]

Tom,

Not to be a pain, but Bush didnt do anything willingly for wetlands.

He was railed on by DU to the point that he really had no choice (if he wanted a chance at a second term). DU is a pretty powerful lobby and they excerted their clout on Shrub. He folded like soggy spaghetti, in this case for the good of wetlands.

His original plan was to DECREASE wetlands and to slash wetland conservation funds.

Shrub does nothing willingly for wildlife...

 

[snake river rufus]

Originally posted by mtmiller:
I need the wildlife to go hunting and that is where my concerns are. I am just a pup at 36 I guess, but no one has taken away any of my guns since I have been alive.

I don't read many of the posts down here, but what has Kerry done to destroy my wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Heck, by purchasing a migratory bird stamp and a couple boxes of shells this week, Kerry has done more than what I have seen from Dub.

I was alluding to kerry's voting record on wildlife habitat. 1 vote to set aside 1.6 million acres in mojave desert, 2nd vote to close that land to hunters( but not ATV riders).
I'm looking to find a 3rd vote but don't expect to have much luck. Don't try to tell me that kerry is an enviromental candidate even when compared to Bush, kerry comes up short.

 

[Muledeer4me]

MtMiller's Quote,
"I need the wildlife to go hunting and that is where my concerns are."

Where does a guy that back's the animal right's movement fit into hunting?
Go check out the voting record on John Kerry .
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0421103


Animal Rights and Wildlife Issues

"2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Fund for Animals considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Humane Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Animal Protection Institute considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2003 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Doris Day Animal League considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Animal Protection Institute considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Doris Day Animal League considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the Fund for Animals considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the American Humane Association considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorship of legislation the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 89 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 2000 , Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Society for Animal Protective Legislation considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time."

 

[snake river rufus]

yup,kerry's record is outstanding.

 

[1_pointer]

I'm with miller on this one. Good habitat will grow more animals, which without I have much less need for guns.

One interesting thing I find on this board is that many that take the 'pro-NRA' stance are often the same ones who claim environmentalists are doomsayers. But, is that now what the pro-gun groups are doing? I haven't been faced with any restrictions on the firearms that I need/want to hunt with. Cali, what firearms have been banned in California? I'm betting that none are those that I would be interested in hunting with. Is waiting 10 days for your new Weatherby all that much of an inconvenience?

I do know this, GW is not a champion of the environment or healthy ecosystems. Will Kerry be? I don't know, but GW's credentials as a war-time president before 9/11 were pretty lacking as well. I'm ready for a change and if it doesn't work out for the better I'll work to vote in a different possibly better candidate in 4 years.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Most government employees are pro-Kerry and usually vote the Democratic ticket. This is because they are paid by the government and increased government involvement in people's lives means more government spending which often equates to job security. Just another "general observation" about as meaningful as "many that take the 'pro-NRA' stance are often the same ones who claim environmentalists are doomsayers." (As a side note - why are government employees taxed upon their income? That's like me giving my kid an allowance and then taking part of it back.)

My firearms are used for more than just hunting, so I do not narrow my scope down to that. The original "assault weapons" ban in California would have eliminated all semi-auto firearms with a detachable magazine, including a lot of common .22 LRs, the Remingtons, etc.

Is waiting 10 days for a new firearm really preventing any crimes? I know of no way to measure that, but I would doubt it. If someone is mad enough to kill someone on impulse, they would not take the time to go buy a gun but would use something already close at hand - a crime of emotion and impulse. If someone is calculating enough to plan the crime, waiting 10 days for the gun is not going to stop them from planning their crime - it's just another factor to consider.

Say I take a trip out of town like to Sacramento, (400 miles away) happen to go into a sporting goods store, and find a firearm that I have long wanted, but couldn't find. If I buy it, I now have to come back in 10 days to pick it up - a definite incovenience, for no valid reason. It is just a "feel good" law that accomplishes nothing.

 

[1_pointer]

I agree with the feel good law thing, I don't think the gun laws stop anything.

Also, your general observation about gov. employees will work for some and maybe many (could also include military folks

) . I will say this that it's not my reason, as I got into the field of work I do to make world better through improving land health. Thus, I put healthy ecosystems before money.

As far as your analogy in traveling to Sacramento, the extra $$ for shipping to your FFL should not be that big of a burden for rich folks in Cali! For me, I'd rather only bow hunt in an area with healthy lands and lots of animals than someplace that's degraded to hell with a safe full of guns. Don't get me wrong, messing with guns if fun, but not as fun as seeing/hunting critters.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

That's one area where we will disagree, then. I would rather have my guns and hunt only with a camera, if need be. The challenge is still there and I don't NEED the meat. I would rather have my firearms and the ability to protect myself, my family and my freedoms than have game wandering the streets in front of my home.

I shoot a lot more rounds recreationally than I ever shoot in hunting. To each his own, as far as pastimes go.

 

[Nut]

Truth be told, I like sex more than hunting and shooting.

I cant do that if there is poison gas around.