N.r.a. [poll]

[Washington Hunter]

My sentiments, too. In fact, the NRA doesn't give a rat's ass about the environment, which seems like a distinctly anti-hunting stance to me.

True, and like I mentioned before, they also support game farms, high-fence hunting, canned hunts, etc. (whatever you want to call it.)

 

[Bambistew]

The one that really turned me off was the ATV trail in the ID wilderness. I can't remember what one it was though. I think Tenbears knows what I'm talking about though. I have a hard time keeping up on all the happenings out west anymore.

 

[csutton7]

I rejoined this year, but really it was to be in a raffle to go buff huntin' in Africa---was a member for years, but then I didn't renew for years, but decided to take a chance this year on the raffle--not sure I'll renew or not--but right now I'm a member----chris

 

[cjcj]

Guppie, I send you my Cell#....heading to Vegas friday morn....sent you a P.M....

 

[Oak]

NRA no longer has hunters’ best interests in mind

By DAVE BUCHANAN The Daily Sentinel

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Just when it appeared sportsmen/conservationists had struck a compromise with the apparently wildlife-hating National Rifle Association on the proposed Browns Canyon Wilderness Act, the NRA changed its mind.

The wilderness bill, which would have protected some 20,000 acres of BLM and Forest Service land along the Arkansas River south of Buena Vista, was supported and sponsored by two key Colorado Republican congressmen, Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. Joel Hefley, and also received nods of approval from Colorado Rep. Mark Udall and Sen. Ken Salazar, both Democrats.

But at the last minute, the NRA scratched its OK because the bill would have closed what locals call the Turret Road, a hard-scrabble, two-track wagon road up a steep gully penetrating into the proposed wilderness.

The NRA’s opposition was based on the complaints of a few members who wanted to drive their all-terrain vehicles along a route that most local residents and Forest Service officials said was in need of being closed.

The NRA forged its reputation for its zealous defense of the Second Amendment, but in recent years the powerful lobbying group has diverged terribly from what many observers consider the mainstream hunter and angler. Instead of being the sportsmen’s ally, the NRA comes on as an anti-wildlife, anti-wildlands interloper more interested in catering to well-heeled political allies instead of forming coalitions with everyday hunters who recognize the need for roadless areas.

The NRA ignores what such diverse groups as Trout Unlimited, the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Oregon-based Backcountry Hunters and Anglers have documented: That there is a strong connection between roadless area and the success of hunters and anglers.

David Lien, Front Range director for Backcountry Hunters and anglers, said in a letter to Allard that while the NRA “does an excellent job of protecting our Second Amendment gun rights ... their lobbyists apparently don’t get outside of Washington, D.C., often enough these days to hear from real hunters.

“Loss of habitat is the biggest threat to wildlife and hunting today, and hunters understand that habitat means wild, rugged country not overrun with roads, trails, and (off highway vehicles),” Lien continued.

Those of us in western Colorado who have seen some of the best habitat laced with roads from the ever-increasing energy boom doubly lament the loss of any chances to protect wildlife and its habitat.

Lien’s letter, along with some impassioned arguments from Chaffee County Commissioner Jerry Mallett, a wilderness proponent who delivered an alternative bill that would cherrystem a narrow road corridor into the wilderness, apparently was enough to mollify the NRA, which then withdrew its opposition.

For about a week.

Earlier this week, the NRA demanded not only a road but also a 400-foot wide corridor, a space one observer said was enough to turn around a semitrailer.

“The agreement was to withdraw the road, with the assumption the Forest Service would close it anyway,” said Dave Petersen of Trout Unlimited and Colorado field representative for Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. “Everyone thought the compromise looked good, but the bill Allard introduced called for a 400-foot wide corridor, and that killed the whole deal.”

This isn’t a Second Amendment issue, but rather a case of the NRA pandering to a fistful of ATV users willing to tear up and further fragment wildlife habitat.

As Mallett said in a letter he sent to Allard, “It is apparent that the NRA has no on-the-ground knowledge of the area.”

Petersen and others aren’t sure who shoulders most of the blame for the last-minute deal killer, but there is little doubt the ultimate responsibility lies with the NRA and its pressure on Allard to change the legislation to demand that 400-foot wide corridor.

Now, the wilderness bill awaits the next session of congress, where proponents hope it meets a friendlier fate.

 

[Hangar18]

NRA no longer has hunters’ best interests in mind

When did the NRA ever have hunters' best interests in mind? The fact that they basically told the Sierra Club to piss off is good enough for my support...though not the reason for it.

 

[ELKCHSR]

The NRA and the second amendment were never meant to protect hunting rights

Why is it a number of individuals always want to try and confuse the two?

Yes, hunting and the second amendment go hand in hand, but they are two seperate topics

While it's true that most people who hunt have guns and want to keep the both, most who have guns, "IMO" don't hunt and couldn't care less about the past time most of us on this board hold a passion for

 

[Hunterman]

I WAS a life member(from High School), until that JACKASS of an ex. V.P. started running his mouth,,then I returned it with a note to were they could cram it...I have told the N.R.A. on many occasions that until they get rid of his goat stinking ass not to contact me for anything..I could care less if they folded..

Hunterman(Tony)