TRCP and sportsman and women for biden.

[JLS]

It has gotten far worse than it use to be. The "parties", and a lot of the people in each party have gotten so much further apart. You are either for or against, the "middle ground" has shrunk to a non existing point. 'Disagreeing" has escalated to "hating" and that makes it very hard to come together for a compromise that actually helps.

Agreed. Extremism has reached the point of absurdity, and the inability to have pragmatic conversation about uncomfortable topics is mind boggling.

 

[fmnjr]

@Glockster yeah... I don't think either candidate actually gives a crap about sportsman this election cycle and in general this is just kinda a thing both sides do every 4 years.

Go back 50 years of presidents I think only GW Bush and Carter genuinely hunted and fished outside of politics shooting some birds as a campaign/networking thing doesn't really count in my book.

View attachment 153042
View attachment 153047
View attachment 153045
View attachment 153043

View attachment 153046
View attachment 153048



Hunting and Fishing, isn't a Red shirt Blue shirt thing... there are legislators on both sides of the aisle.
The fact that we have PR and the GAOA demonstrates that fact.

Legislators in the Field | Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation

The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation works with Congress, governors, and state legislatures to protect and advance hunting, angling, recreational shooting, and trapping in the halls of government.

congressionalsportsmen.org

Dick Cheney proved politicians don't know one end of weapon from another:

 

[Falcon75]

Vote moose party and be done with all of this. Randy for president 2020. Hopefully he will choose Buzz H for secretary of the interior.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I don't think we're going to change each other's minds on politics this close to the election. But there is an important truth to this nugget from April's post, espcially since @Glockster called out TRCP specifically:

It has gotten far worse than it use to be. The "parties", and a lot of the people in each party have gotten so much further apart. You are either for or against, the "middle ground" has shrunk to a non existing point. 'Disagreeing" has escalated to "hating" and that makes it very hard to come together for a compromise that actually helps.

TRCP has taken a lot of grief lately from some groups & individuals because they chose to work with this administration to the greatest extent possible in order to achieve the greatest conservation good possible. The Farm Bill Conservation Title, Secretarial Order on Big Game Migration Corridors, GAOA, Back-country Hunting Area designations in the Lewistown RMP etc are all directs of their stellar advocacy. They are deeply involved in planning and trying to steer this administration in a more sustainable direction, but they're not tilting at windmills nor are they virtue signaling while doing it. They just quietly and effectively get work done. They also quietly and effectively push back on some of the worst policy decisions coming out of this administration and congress as well.

I don't know two of the three board members, but Liz Storer is a dear friend of mine, and if it weren't for Liz, there wouldn't be a Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resources Trust Account. She funded the conservation effort in 2005, 2006, 2007 and well beyond to get that done. She's consistently funded Wyoming conservation groups and while some folks disagree with her approach, her successes indicate that she works exceedingly well with Democrats and Republicans.

TRCP is the least political group I've ever worked with. They simply don't engage on that level. They do deep policy work that accomplishes major gains for us. If the people who do this work in such an a-political fashion are showing their cards right now, it's because they've seen first hand what's in play, and who will be better for wildlife, public lands and hunter opportunity. Just as I was proud of my friends who were in the inner-circle of Sportsmen for Trump because I knew they would be a moderating voice, I'm glad to see this level of engagement from board members of TRCP in their own time and on their own dime. These folks will likely help temper Biden on guns if he's elected as well.

We have got to get beyond the tribalism our overlords love to keep us divided with, and start critically analyzing why people do what they do.

Now, I'm going to follow @Big Fin's excellent admonition and do my level best to limit my posts to attaboys on killed critters and snarky remarks about @Tradewind's vault of Disco music. Most of all, I'm going hunting whenever I can.

 

[noharleyyet]

I don't think we're going to change each other's minds on politics this close to the election. But there is an important truth to this nugget from April's post, espcially since @Glockster called out TRCP specifically:




TRCP has taken a lot of grief lately from some groups & individuals because they chose to work with this administration to the greatest extent possible in order to achieve the greatest conservation good possible. The Farm Bill Conservation Title, Secretarial Order on Big Game Migration Corridors, GAOA, Back-country Hunting Area designations in the Lewistown RMP etc are all directs of their stellar advocacy. They are deeply involved in planning and trying to steer this administration in a more sustainable direction, but they're not tilting at windmills nor are they virtue signaling while doing it. They just quietly and effectively get work done. They also quietly and effectively push back on some of the worst policy decisions coming out of this administration and congress as well.

I don't know two of the three board members, but Liz Storer is a dear friend of mine, and if it weren't for Liz, there wouldn't be a Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resources Trust Account. She funded the conservation effort in 2005, 2006, 2007 and well beyond to get that done. She's consistently funded Wyoming conservation groups and while some folks disagree with her approach, her successes indicate that she works exceedingly well with Democrats and Republicans.

TRCP is the least political group I've ever worked with. They simply don't engage on that level. They do deep policy work that accomplishes major gains for us. If the people who do this work in such an a-political fashion are showing their cards right now, it's because they've seen first hand what's in play, and who will be better for wildlife, public lands and hunter opportunity. Just as I was proud of my friends who were in the inner-circle of Sportsmen for Trump because I knew they would be a moderating voice, I'm glad to see this level of engagement from board members of TRCP in their own time and on their own dime. These folks will likely help temper Biden on guns if he's elected as well.

We have got to get beyond the tribalism our overlords love to keep us divided with, and start critically analyzing why people do what they do.

Now, I'm going to follow @Big Fin's excellent admonition and do my level best to limit my posts to attaboys on killed critters and snarky remarks about @Tradewind's vault of Disco music. Most of all, I'm going hunting whenever I can.

...attaboy.

 

[88man]

and here I thought the heading would include and wind energy in Wyoming.

 

[get-n-birdy]

Everyone is going to have their beliefs they feel are better reflected by one person or the other, sometimes poorly reflected by both sides.

This!

 

[Tradewind]

I don't think we're going to change each other's minds on politics this close to the election. But there is an important truth to this nugget from April's post, espcially since @Glockster called out TRCP specifically:




TRCP has taken a lot of grief lately from some groups & individuals because they chose to work with this administration to the greatest extent possible in order to achieve the greatest conservation good possible. The Farm Bill Conservation Title, Secretarial Order on Big Game Migration Corridors, GAOA, Back-country Hunting Area designations in the Lewistown RMP etc are all directs of their stellar advocacy. They are deeply involved in planning and trying to steer this administration in a more sustainable direction, but they're not tilting at windmills nor are they virtue signaling while doing it. They just quietly and effectively get work done. They also quietly and effectively push back on some of the worst policy decisions coming out of this administration and congress as well.

I don't know two of the three board members, but Liz Storer is a dear friend of mine, and if it weren't for Liz, there wouldn't be a Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resources Trust Account. She funded the conservation effort in 2005, 2006, 2007 and well beyond to get that done. She's consistently funded Wyoming conservation groups and while some folks disagree with her approach, her successes indicate that she works exceedingly well with Democrats and Republicans.

TRCP is the least political group I've ever worked with. They simply don't engage on that level. They do deep policy work that accomplishes major gains for us. If the people who do this work in such an a-political fashion are showing their cards right now, it's because they've seen first hand what's in play, and who will be better for wildlife, public lands and hunter opportunity. Just as I was proud of my friends who were in the inner-circle of Sportsmen for Trump because I knew they would be a moderating voice, I'm glad to see this level of engagement from board members of TRCP in their own time and on their own dime. These folks will likely help temper Biden on guns if he's elected as well.

We have got to get beyond the tribalism our overlords love to keep us divided with, and start critically analyzing why people do what they do.

Now, I'm going to follow @Big Fin's excellent admonition and do my level best to limit my posts to attaboys on killed critters and snarky remarks about @Tradewind's vault of Disco music. Most of all, I'm going hunting whenever I can.

May the fleas from 1,000 camels infest your jockey shorts

 

[Trial153]

Once again, as its has been through the entirety of my adult life. I will go to the polls with the thought that status quo isnt acceptable despite the fact that some of my past votes should bear some responsibility for the current status quo.

 

[Deleted member 38069]

O/U on post counts?

 

[TN_Rifle_Junkie]

Vote moose party and be done with all of this. Randy for president 2020. Hopefully he will choose Buzz H for secretary of the interior.

I would vote this ticket. They would probably get more done too.

 

[wade0731]

This will be an interesting one for sure...

 

[Salmonchaser]

My last of 105 mornings in Alaska; we have rules at our lodge that have been in place for twenty years. Top two on the list, life jackets and No politics; followed by no cable news. You are here to fish and relax.
As usual April has things pretty well dialed in, certainly worth reading. Because I’m still here I will follow the rules because in the last 20 years the constants are important.
My last Alaska sunrise and the last fish I guide to:

 

[Irrelevant]

There are some in the ranks of hunters and anglers who enjoy the politics, maybe even more than hunting and angling. They join these groups as they identify with a political party as much, possibly more so, as they identify as a hunter or angler.

Personally, I hate the formation of these groups. They get formed on both sides. They eventually get used as pawns in the political process. These groups accelerate the politicization of our issues and that is a large negative in my mind.

Look at these groups, going back to however far you want, and see what happens. Whoever wins rolls out their "sportsmen for (insert here)" when they are going to do something where they need political cover. Might be on gun control, might be on lowering regulations at the expense of wild places/things. End result is that we end up being used as pawns to further political agendas that usually have little long-term benefit to our most important issues.

If these party-inclined folks want to spend their time politicking for a party/candidate, they need to understand that about half the time they are going to be left out of the discussion. Once you jump on the wagon of Sportsmen for Trump or Sportsmen for Biden, you are choosing a side that will stick with you forever, excluding you from the important discussion when the other side/party is in power. And, it likely puts you at odds with hunters/anglers of a slightly different political blend who you would otherwise have as a working ally.

Everyone is going to have their beliefs they feel are better reflected by one person or the other, sometimes poorly reflected by both sides. To take it to the level of partisanship, where one holds out the banner of hunting and angling, access and conservation, as their way to engage in politics does nothing helpful for the long-term cause of those issues. It only serves to politicize those issues far more than they are, which in my mind takes our issues further into the political morass of impotence.

I get asked to be part of many of these groups. I decline everyone of them. I will vote and express my priorities that way. When it comes to public support, I will be for the party of hunting, fishing, conservation, and access, with support/criticism of any candidate/party who supports/opposes those issues, regardless of party.

I am so glad I will spend 75 days out in the woods over the next few months.

I've been thinking about this for a few days. And I have a couple of questions
1. How is the formation of this group, and open support of sportsmen joining this group any different that simply openly supporting that candidate?
2. If there is none, and the argument is made that politics are personal and shouldn't be shared at all, then I would counter that for people of influence, who would like to use that influence, there are benefits of sharing their politics and the rational behind them. Simple exposure to new ideas, like the importance of wetlands and clean water vs bump stocks and 30-round mags, can force people to think harder about their vote and who's getting it.

To simply be for the party of hunting and fishing and conservation is a great slogan in the abstract, but when it gets down to brass tacks and individual candidates often the choice isn't as clear, or maybe it is very clear but in completely different ways for different people.

Now I still understand if a person of influence would choose to not use that to promote any politics. That maybe in their eyes more can be done to push individual legislation by staying neutral. But I don't see how it can be argued that seeing someone you look up to take a political stand doesn't push the public opinion in that direction.

 

[Mike Tomano]

It's obvious which party is responsible for the vast majority of anti-hunting and gun control legislation.

 

[BuzzH]

It's obvious which party is responsible for the vast majority of anti-hunting and gun control legislation.

Is it?

 

[mtmiller]

It's obvious which party is responsible for the vast majority of anti-hunting and gun control legislation.

Can we add to your "anti" list for other hunting and public land issues?

 

[runningmt]

It's obvious which party is responsible for the vast majority of anti-hunting and gun control legislation.

Also seems obvious which party is responsible for the current ideas about “public land transfer, sell off, and elimination”

What good are your guns without land to use them on?

 

[88man]

Also seems obvious which party is responsible for the current ideas about “public land transfer, sell off, and elimination”

What good are your guns without land to use

Protection > Both parties will sell us out in regards to public land transfer. Public Land Transfer is just very low on the list of concerns for the average american. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if the majority was for a sell off. We need to stick together regardless of which lever you pull.

 

[Nameless Range]

Sportsmen For None Of Em