Sportsmen for Trump & the selling out of the American Sportsman

[Ben Lamb]

Trump is using sportsmen. So? Did u miss Romney and Kerry and their photo ops with shotguns? Or Liz Warren suddenly become a public lands warrior as her poll numbers barely register. Why can't we use him? Some are. $fw loves him. Kuiu seems to as well.

Don Peay speaks for a minority of hunters in his own state. Truth is if not for the 200 tags at the expo, no one would know Don Peay. I'm sure Don Peay has elivated himself as a mastermind as to how Trump got elected, I'm guessing his campaign would not agree.

But lets face reality. The Dems are only better on land policy because their donor base, trial lawyers, haven't got a scheme to enrich themselves selling public land. However lets not forget, the teacher unions who are a major power in dem politics, are a driving force behind SITLA land sales.

In balance, Jr wearing camo, shooting guns, hunting(in whatever form) is a positive to our community. The alternative would have been Chelsea Clinton, what do we get from that?

Romney & Kerry are not the President and do not set the policies that impact wildlife, wildlife habitat and our hunting opportunity over the course of time. Holding those in power accountable for their promises broken is an important part of conservation, just as it is our obligation to the nation as a whole, would you agree to that?

Don Peay speaks to the Secretary of the Interior, to the President's son and to the advisors who set the policies. It doesn't matter how many people he represents, he is the voice of hunting to a large swath of the administration. Regardless of all of that - it's the policies of this administration that should alarm all of us, regardless of political stripe. That some would rather dig in and defend a man who has never picked up a rod or a rifle and only finds value in developing land is exactly why we won't have 1/2 the opportunities we currently do in future generations.

 

[JM77]

This thread brings to mind the monumental task it is of sportsman and conservationists to make a difference in policy making on a federal level. We, combined, are such a small percentage of the population and it sucks when we don't always get our way, but we often don't. That's not meant to say we should lay down, but to be realists and carry on the effort. At that level I applaud Ben's efforts.

Frankly, I don't think Jr had much at all to do with the outcome of the last Presidential election and it doesn't matter now. Forty Six will bring a whole new set of complaints, different or not, to keep forums like this buzzing. Does anyone expect anything more or less? We can only hope...

 

[Irrelevant]

The continual mental gymnastics that people have to go through to not admit someone they voted for is bad on a particular subject, is ridiculous. I can readily admit that when my candidate sucks on a subject, I've already emailed several prospective campaigns about there stances on a half a dozen topics. But there are freaking many people on here that can't admit anything other than "whataboutisms". Hilldog sucked. Drump sucked/sucks. Just because the first IS true does not make the second IS NOT true.

 

[hossblur]

I can't want Trump, our president, to do a better job of representing hunters and outdoor recreationalist because Hillary wouldn't have done any better?
Well chit... I mean if that's the way we are forming arguments these days I guess I should just be glad Trump didn't sell all public lands the day he got into office because that's what Ted Cruz would have done.

You missed the forest for the trees. The point is simple. Our community isn't so dumb that we can't see what's up, and can't take advantage of our position. We had no position with Clinton. And like it or not, we had only 2 viable options.

We have gotten a small seat at the table. Bertrand is not great, but it could have been Rob Bishop. If we were able to leverage our position because trump was using us, then its a win.

The article was simply talking down to us "rubes", as if none of us knew Don PEAY, or Trump Jr.

Its ok to take wins when we can. Waiting for purists is a long wait

 

[hossblur]

Romney & Kerry are not the President and do not set the policies that impact wildlife, wildlife habitat and our hunting opportunity over the course of time. Holding those in power accountable for their promises broken is an important part of conservation, just as it is our obligation to the nation as a whole, would you agree to that?

Don Peay speaks to the Secretary of the Interior, to the President's son and to the advisors who set the policies. It doesn't matter how many people he represents, he is the voice of hunting to a large swath of the administration. Regardless of all of that - it's the policies of this administration that should alarm all of us, regardless of political stripe. That some would rather dig in and defend a man who has never picked up a rod or a rifle and only finds value in developing land is exactly why we won't have 1/2 the opportunities we currently do in future generations.

Ummmmmm. Mitt Romney is my Senator, and a proud member of the Utah land grabbers.

Next time all you guys toll into SLC to the Expo, feel free and tell us about how concerned you are. Doing so gives Peay power. 50k+in attendance., millions in "revenue: speaks volumes to Trump, Bertrand, or Utah gov Herbert.

Without the expo, and tags that created it, Peay is just some dude talking.

Food for thought

 

[Deleted member 28227]

You missed the forest for the trees. The point is simple. Our community isn't so dumb that we can't see what's up, and can't take advantage of our position. We had no position with Clinton. And like it or not, we had only 2 viable options.

We have gotten a small seat at the table. Bertrand is not great, but it could have been Rob Bishop. If we were able to leverage our position because trump was using us, then its a win.

The article was simply talking down to us "rubes", as if none of us knew Don PEAY, or Trump Jr.

Its ok to take wins when we can. Waiting for purists is a long wait

Ya... not my point. My point was you can and should criticize your elected officials. Just because one candidate is better than another doesn't mean you shouldn't still criticize them.

 

[ImBillT]

Personally I vote for politicians based on a wider array of issues. Sometimes I find a person on the other side that I agree with a few things, or a person on the side I usually vote for that I disagree with on a few things, but when evaluating everything a candidate stands for, and directly comparing to his/her actual opponent in that specific race, my choices often start falling closer to party lines. Does that mean that you can find people that I voted for that did something I didn’t like? Yep. Does it mean they may have even screwed up on a issue important to me like hunting, and public land? Yep. Is there a chance that I might vote for that person again? Yep. Does it make me stupid? Nope. If I vote for them again it means that they did a lot of things that I did like, or that they other choice was going to do a lot more things that I didn’t like. Donald Trump and his family may not be the biggest hunters or users of public land, and they may use tactics common among politicians to target particular groups when looking for votes, but until you show me his actual nominated opposition and the whole body of work from both candidates(our system is not designed for more than two parties to be successful if you don’t like a two party system, you’ll have to get a parliamentary system implemented before it’s worth considering) it’s meaningless.

There are some significant firearms related cases going to the Supreme Court, and my guess would be that the results in those cases would be very different if Hillary, Sanders, or Kasich had become president.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Personally I vote for politicians based on a wider array of issues. Sometimes I find a person on the other side that I agree with a few things, or a person on the side I usually vote for that I disagree with on a few things, but when evaluating everything a candidate stands for, and directly comparing to his/her actual opponent in that specific race, my choices often start falling closer to party lines. Does that mean that you can find people that I voted for that did something I didn’t like? Yep. Does it mean they may have even screwed up on a issue important to me like hunting, and public land? Yep. Is there a chance that I might vote for that person again? Yep. Does it make me stupid? Nope. If I vote for them again it means that they did a lot of things that I did like, or that they other choice was going to do a lot more things that I didn’t like. Donald Trump and his family may not be the biggest hunters or users of public land, and they may use tactics common among politicians to target particular groups when looking for votes, but until you show me his actual nominated opposition and the whole body of work from both candidates(our system is not designed for more than two parties to be successful if you don’t like a two party system, you’ll have to get a parliamentary system implemented before it’s worth considering) it’s meaningless.

There are some significant firearms related cases going to the Supreme Court, and my guess would be that the results in those cases would be very different if Hillary, Sanders, or Kasich had become president.

Evaluating a range of important issues and picking the candidate that you feel is the best option does not make you stupid in the least, but it also doesn't mean that once that candidate is elected that you can't criticize them for their positions on various issues and/or that you should justify their behavior by waving a finger at their opponent in the election.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Evaluating a range of important issues and picking the candidate that you feel is the best option does not make you stupid in the least, but it also doesn't mean that once that candidate is elected that you can't criticize them for their positions on various issues and/or that you should justify their behavior by waving a finger at their opponent in the election.

I agree with you entirely. The problem us trump voting rubes have gave me a beautiful example today. Trump is getting absolutely CRUSHED on all networks today for giving a medal to tiger woods. From he just did it cause he likes golf, he sounded like he read off wikipedia's webpage when presenting the award, this was like the 19th hole without the alcohol Trump has sullied the award...and on and on and on.... so when were bombarded with this kind of absolute motherF!@;%%$ garbage 24/7 our instinctual response is this to is garbage. Trump giving a medal to tiger woods is not BREAKING NEWS. But they turned it into breaking news and their 12 million viewers eat every last morsel of this garbage. Any reason in the world to RIP trump they revel in it. Someone even said trump just gave him the medal to cover up his racism on CNN. That's an outright lie!!!!!! But CNN viewers masterbait to that kind of top notch commentary.

Red Sox players not going to White House cause Puerto Rico hasn't fully recovered from the hurricane yet. Yep that's trumps fault....only 91 million or maybe it was billion dollars has been sent there for recovery from trumps administration. But because someone still hasn't got electricity back yet it's all trumps fault....once again any reason to bash trump.

I can give a million examples but I'm sick of typing. The coverage of this administration is disgusting beyond words. All they do is try to get people to hate a man they never met!

So excuse me for being wary of an agenda driven article.

FTW....on the other hand From 2008-2016 Obama could skeet skeet on the steps of the White House in broad daylight and been hailed a hero and social difference maker!

 

[noharleyyet]

...and there it is.

In b4 locked..

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Someone had to say it.

 

[noharleyyet]

No sir. I agree with the selective outrage indictment of the fourth estate. As it was during W's 8 years so it shall be during Trump's 8.

 

[Ben Lamb]

No sir. I agree with the selective outrage indictment of the fourth estate. As it was during W's 8 years so it shall be during Trump's 8.

And the 8 years of scandals about tan suits, bike helmets, etc with 44.

Nobody did faux rage like Fox from 2008 - 2016.

 

[Irrelevant]

FTW....on the other hand From 2008-2016 Obama could skeet skeet on the steps of the White House in broad daylight and been hailed a hero and social difference maker!

What freakin' world were you living on?
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/15-ridiculous-moments-fox-news-attacked-barack-obama.html/

 

[JLS]

I view the media’s take on many things similar to how I do another lie out of Trumps mouth. At some point, right or wrong, I just let the bullshit filter capture it and don’t worry about it.

The sword cuts both ways whether you watch Fox or CNN, so let’s be honest about it.

 

[noharleyyet]

And the 8 years of scandals about tan suits, bike helmets, etc with 44.

Nobody did faux rage like Fox from 2008 - 2016.

Ratings apogee begins 2024...

 

[Losing_Sanity]

My personal politics notwithstanding, I don't care about the letter after your name when you're advancing good, thoughtful policy. I'm often mis-cast as a partisan, rather than an advocate for wildlife and public lands. That our politics has made this so toxic is sad, especially when there is common ground between both parties on how to get things done. We've ceded the dialog to the extremists and we let our own perceptions blind us to getting things done. This current administration has bought in to the politics of division more-so than any in my time in the conservation world. And they do it in a manner that is dangerous to not only our heritage, but to the future of the nation.

You are a very well informed and intelligent person. I enjoy reading your point of view and they give me some better insight to the situation. I have to read some of it a couple of times to understand it all, but none the less I enjoy it. I/we can learn alot from you. I too have no idea what side you are on from time to time. Like you I don't really care about the letter associated with the name as long as they do good things.

My point is everything seems to be blamed on President Trump and his administration. Do we really know what is going through his mind? We are not involved, nor entitled to everything his advisors are telling him, we don't know what influencing facts he is dealing with, we just don't know everything. How would any of us hold up to the pressures that he is facing? Right or wrong, if any of us were to be elected and in his shoes, would we still see things the way we do right now? Would we get the support to do the things we feel is correct? How much could he accomplish if he had the support he deserves? The man deals with continual attacks driven from fear and hatred every day. He has been disrespected and attacked by the vary people we put in office to work for us, who should understand the pressures associated with the office, and respect the office if not the man. He got elected, it's his (and the people that elected him) turn, and no President can satisfy everyone, me included. I'm not trying to make excusses for him, just trying to see things from his perspective. There are a lot of issues that need to be fixed in our country.

My thoughts are not as elegant or as well written as yours are, but I do believe that, although he has inherited responsibility, it's not always President Trumps downfall.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

What freakin' world were you living on?
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/15-ridiculous-moments-fox-news-attacked-barack-obama.html/

Yea Fox news railed on Obama. What's your point? My point is the other thousand outlets didnt at all. They washed his feet. With Trump its 100% opposite. Most of fox worships him the other thousand outlets excoriate him.

 

[ImBillT]

Evaluating a range of important issues and picking the candidate that you feel is the best option does not make you stupid in the least, but it also doesn't mean that once that candidate is elected that you can't criticize them for their positions on various issues and/or that you should justify their behavior by waving a finger at their opponent in the election.

If course! I’ve always criticized decisions made by candidates that I supported whenever I disagreed. If you don’t do that then you’re just a blind follower and a sheep. I feel like the purpose of the article wasn’t to encourage us to change the mind of a politician that we support, but rather to abandon support over a political tactic employed by both sides.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

If course! I’ve always criticized decisions made by candidates that I supported whenever I disagreed. If you don’t do that then you’re just a blind follower and a sheep. I feel like the purpose of the article wasn’t to encourage us to change the mind of a politician that we support, but rather to abandon support over a political tactic employed by both sides.

ImbillT after 77 comments comes in and just nails it and clarifies what we couldn't in very few words....lol

You the man BillT!!