JoseCuervo
New member
What good is hunting if you don't have access to a gun?
The NRA and Public Lands
- Thread starter JoseCuervo
- Start date
What good is hunting if you don't have access to a gun?
I emailed the NRA a few weeks ago concerning public lands, and this is the response I got:
Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA.
The NRA does not have a position on this issue, but is certainly well aware of the concerns over the impact this would have on hunting and public access on federal public lands if a significant percentage of federal lands were transferred to the states. Currently federal lands can be identified for sale or transfer through the land management planning process which is a decision making process open to public participation via public comments and is governed by the National Environmental Policy Act.
There are hundreds of issues at the state and Congressional level that could potentially hurt hunting and access to hunting as well as be a threat to scientific wildlife management. The NRA does not take positions on all these issues, unless we believe there is a real, imminent threat. We do not believe the land transfer issue will gain any significant traction in Congress. Certainly, not in this Congress as it is on its way to adjournment. It remains to be seen whether this issue will surface in the new Congress and if it does, we can determine then what our position will be. I hope you find this helpful to you.
Carlin A
NRA-ILA Grassroots
800-392-8683
www.NRAILA.org
[email protected]
Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA.
The NRA does not have a position on this issue, but is certainly well aware of the concerns over the impact this would have on hunting and public access on federal public lands if a significant percentage of federal lands were transferred to the states. Currently federal lands can be identified for sale or transfer through the land management planning process which is a decision making process open to public participation via public comments and is governed by the National Environmental Policy Act.
There are hundreds of issues at the state and Congressional level that could potentially hurt hunting and access to hunting as well as be a threat to scientific wildlife management. The NRA does not take positions on all these issues, unless we believe there is a real, imminent threat. We do not believe the land transfer issue will gain any significant traction in Congress. Certainly, not in this Congress as it is on its way to adjournment. It remains to be seen whether this issue will surface in the new Congress and if it does, we can determine then what our position will be. I hope you find this helpful to you.
Carlin A
NRA-ILA Grassroots
800-392-8683
www.NRAILA.org
[email protected]
Schaaf
Well-known member
Funny. Since there is no "imminent threat" with a Republican controlled House, Senate, and Executive branch for the 2nd amendment will they stop the fear mongering?
dcopas78
Well-known member
I gave my last money to the NRA about 5 years ago, and they won't get anymore. I've chose to give it to those organizations that protect my public lands instead, without waiting for that "imminent threat" to materialize.
How the hell can you not have a position? It shouldn't make a damn bit of difference whether you consider something an imminent threat or not prior to taking a position on it. That's the most worthless asinine statement ever uttered by a human being.
My 2 cents worth:
The NRA is first of all an organization (bureaucracy if you like) and will act like one. This will also go for the federal government, the RMEF, and even BHA. For them to have a position means that the management has blessed or condoned it, and that they plan to take some action on it. Apparently, at this time the issue has not worked its way far enough up the NRA food chain for a position to have been developed (even as a knee jerk reaction). Alternately, and this may be the most likely, their position is to ignore it and hope it goes away. As I see it, our job is to help them do the right thing by letting them know that our membership dollars and contributions depend on this issue and not just Hilary bashing. Telling them that they will not get another dime from us just tells them that they might as well ignore us. "I really want to renew since you do good work, but I am troubled by the NRA's lack of action on public lands."
I think that it is worth staying engaged with the NRA, since they have significant influence. They get a lot of advertising dollars from ATV manufacturers and other entities that may be at cross purposes with the public land hunter, so it is likely to be a long pull.
The NRA is first of all an organization (bureaucracy if you like) and will act like one. This will also go for the federal government, the RMEF, and even BHA. For them to have a position means that the management has blessed or condoned it, and that they plan to take some action on it. Apparently, at this time the issue has not worked its way far enough up the NRA food chain for a position to have been developed (even as a knee jerk reaction). Alternately, and this may be the most likely, their position is to ignore it and hope it goes away. As I see it, our job is to help them do the right thing by letting them know that our membership dollars and contributions depend on this issue and not just Hilary bashing. Telling them that they will not get another dime from us just tells them that they might as well ignore us. "I really want to renew since you do good work, but I am troubled by the NRA's lack of action on public lands."
I think that it is worth staying engaged with the NRA, since they have significant influence. They get a lot of advertising dollars from ATV manufacturers and other entities that may be at cross purposes with the public land hunter, so it is likely to be a long pull.
Last edited:
Similar threads
