Connecticut Yankee
Member
This article is an example of how AHSA is and will continue to be used to drive a wedge between the 'hunters' and 'conservationists' and the 'gun people'. Some of the points made by the writer and some of the issues discussed have merit but that is not the focus of this post. Please focus on how the AHSA is used as an introduction to 1. an attack on the NRA and 2. the setting up the interests of 'hunters' vs. 'gun people'. As we enter another political season the last thing we need is guys like this trying to peel off membership (he resigned) or support (money or Grassroots activities) from the NRA.
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/10050/C41/L41/ (from "New West Travel and Outdoors"; in the article scroll to the bottom for comments from readers)
NRA Doesn't Represent Both Hunters and Gun Owners -Bill Schneider, 7-20-06
In June while at the annual conference of the Outdoor Writers Association of America, I went to a press conference held by an upstart conservation group called the American Hunters and Shooters Association, which has a pipedream goal of taking over representation of hunters and gun owners from the most powerful lobby in America, the National Rifle Association.
When I posted a report, Saving Hunters from the NRA, on what AHSA had to say at the press briefing, several devoted NRA members made some uncomplimentary comments about me and my article. They said I'd been duped by AHSA and should not give the group any creditability.
For the record, I really don't know if the AHSA truly represents the rights of gun owners, but that wasn't the point of the article. The point was: Imagine a little group like this trying to take on the goliath of politics. To this, I say dream on!
But all this made me think about the role of the NRA plays in preserving the future of hunting. In looking at today's political landscape, it seems like we might need another group to step up and save hunting before the NRA destroys it.
NRA worrying about AHSA is about like Google worrying about Lycos. But for some reason, the NRA, or at least factions within, views AHSA as a threat and employs its patented bullying style to comes after anybody who writes about it. Could it be that the NRA is worried that the gig is up and hunters will start to figure out they have been the ones who have been duped?
Again, for the record, I own lots of guns; I've hunted all my life (which is a long time); and I believe the Second Amendment is one of our basic freedoms we enjoy here in America, but I don't fret about the federal government breaking down my door to confiscate my battle worn 870 or my late grandfather's octagon-barrel 30-30, nor do I think all gun control laws, such as the ban on automatic assault rifles, are bad. Given that, here are a few thoughts on the NRA.
First (surprise to some of you who sent in comments), I was a NRA member for many years, but I left the flock when the gun rights group began to regularly support politicians making the Dirty Dozen lists for their views and votes on conservation issues such as protection of wildlife habitat. The politicians NRA supports are probably the worst enemies hunters have, which makes the NRA, regardless of its claims to the contrary, a contributor to the demise of hunting.
It doesn't take too much research to see the giant conflict among the NRA's mission. It's trying to represent both gun owners and hunters, but it can't do both because politicians the NRA puts into office and keeps in office do not represent both. They only represent gun owners.
One would have a hard time arguing the NRA has not done a good job of protecting the rights of gun owners, but in the process, the NRA is sacrificing the future of hunting. Bow hunters aside, all hunters are, of course, gun owners, and I have no problem with hunters belonging to the NRA to support the right to bear arms, but they shouldn't be naïve enough to believe the current management of the NRA represents the best interests of hunting. This may have been true thirty years ago, but not today.
By putting and keeping the enemies of hunters in high political places, the NRA supports unbridled development and reduction of access to prime hunting lands. Hunters need guns to hunt, of course, but they also need game animals and accessible hunting land.
ASHA, incidentally, has no qualms about stepping up to the podium and saying, without weasel words, that it supports keeping roadless lands roadless and designating prime hunting lands as Wilderness. I'll go out on a limb and say you'll never hear such straight talk from the NRA.
Many hunters who belong to the NRA tend to believe the endless barrage of political messages coming out of NRA lobbying efforts. When the NRA says vote for somebody, hunters often do it, incorrectly believing NRA supports the best interests of hunting when, in fact, the preferred politicos only support the best interests of gun owners and manufacturers.
It's a shame, actually, that politicians can't represent both hunters and gun owners. That's another long story for another time, but today, it rarely works that way.
This isn't breaking news. The NRA has been taking some lumps for months on this issue. Fellow outdoor writer Pat Wray of Corvallis, Oregon, sort of blew the lid off the issue of the NRA's conflicting mission last January with two articles on the subject, What’s the NRA’s beef with roadless areas? and NRA No Friend of Hunters.
Here's how Wray put it: "I know a man who raises snakes. His snakes are important to him, so he raises mice to feed to the snakes. He takes good care of the mice, because he needs lots of them to support his snakes. We hunters are the NRA’s mice. They want lots of us, too, but they worry because there’s always the outside chance we might start thinking for ourselves. So they keep us scared of enemies, or people they want us to think are enemies. Then we dutifully cough up money to help fight those enemies. Think about it: When was the last time you heard of a snake actually helping a mouse? We’re being tricked."
In response to Wray's original articles, the Gun Guys website where "everybody is a straight shooter," agreed: "One of the reasons we exist is simply to set the record straight on gun issues. For years the NRA has fed lies to the American people because it advances their agenda. And they’ve claimed to be the protectors of the American tradition of hunting. The problem is that they mislead hunters into thinking their actions will benefit hunting. All too often, hunters are foolish enough to believe them. In effect, the NRA is running one of the most effective scams in the country. They are promoting activities sure to decrease future hunting opportunities and convincing hunters to help pay for their efforts."
Last May, another outdoor writer Robert Chappell followed Wray's lead with a well-researched article, Missing the Mark, in the Milwaukee Shepard Express, which was published on the eve of the NRA annual convention in Milwaukee.
In his article, Chappell pointed out that "the NRA has supported conservative legislators intent on opening up wilderness areas, probably the most pristine hunting lands we have, to mining and drilling and the building of roads. In an attempt to justify the contradictory positions, NRA leaders have repeatedly asserted that building roads into natural, pristine habitat is actually good for hunters."
In support of this statement, Chappel quotes NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam as saying “Our dues-paying members are hard-working people who are unable to take large amounts of time off to enjoy the time-honored tradition of hunting.”
Arulanadam also claimed, according to Chappel, that modern-day hunters simply don’t have time to hike; they need to drive right up to the tree stand. The NRA spokesman also repeated, again according to Chappel, the "NRA dogma" that more motorized access benefits the elderly, young and disabled hunters unable to trek through the Wilderness. This is, of course, the same old line used thousands of times by industry groups fighting Wilderness designation.
"This would seem to go against the wishes of NRA members who hunt within those areas and fear the continued loss of habitat," concludes Chapel, "and many of those hunters aren’t buying it."
Chappel quotes John See, a lifelong gun owner and hunter in northern Wisconsin--and one of those hunters no longer buys the NRA line, “They (the NRA hierarchy) are concerned about guns, but I don’t know where they’re going to use those guns,”
See lives in Menominee, Wis., which he calls “NRA country,” but says he has no use for the NRA, nor does he worry about losing his guns. “I think that’s the biggest hoax the NRA perpetrates. I don’t think there’s any chance our guns will be taken away.”
Finally, Chappel goes back to talk to Wray, who originally blew the lid off the NRA scam of blurring the lines between interests of gun owners and hunters. “Right now, the NRA is actively working against the best interests of hunters,” Wray blasted. “It’s never been quite so obvious, quite so insidious, quite so dangerous as it is now. The NRA is using hunters, misleading hunters, and using their money in ways that will work against their best interests.”
After Wray's articles came out, he had to suffer the wrath of NRA criticism, but his point went unrefuted. I suppose this could happen to me, too, but as a hunter concerned about the future of hunting, it's impossible to avoid the same conclusion. The NRA does a great job protecting the best interests of gun owners, but it should come clean with its members and admit that it does not represent the best interests of hunters.
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/10050/C41/L41/ (from "New West Travel and Outdoors"; in the article scroll to the bottom for comments from readers)
NRA Doesn't Represent Both Hunters and Gun Owners -Bill Schneider, 7-20-06
In June while at the annual conference of the Outdoor Writers Association of America, I went to a press conference held by an upstart conservation group called the American Hunters and Shooters Association, which has a pipedream goal of taking over representation of hunters and gun owners from the most powerful lobby in America, the National Rifle Association.
When I posted a report, Saving Hunters from the NRA, on what AHSA had to say at the press briefing, several devoted NRA members made some uncomplimentary comments about me and my article. They said I'd been duped by AHSA and should not give the group any creditability.
For the record, I really don't know if the AHSA truly represents the rights of gun owners, but that wasn't the point of the article. The point was: Imagine a little group like this trying to take on the goliath of politics. To this, I say dream on!
But all this made me think about the role of the NRA plays in preserving the future of hunting. In looking at today's political landscape, it seems like we might need another group to step up and save hunting before the NRA destroys it.
NRA worrying about AHSA is about like Google worrying about Lycos. But for some reason, the NRA, or at least factions within, views AHSA as a threat and employs its patented bullying style to comes after anybody who writes about it. Could it be that the NRA is worried that the gig is up and hunters will start to figure out they have been the ones who have been duped?
Again, for the record, I own lots of guns; I've hunted all my life (which is a long time); and I believe the Second Amendment is one of our basic freedoms we enjoy here in America, but I don't fret about the federal government breaking down my door to confiscate my battle worn 870 or my late grandfather's octagon-barrel 30-30, nor do I think all gun control laws, such as the ban on automatic assault rifles, are bad. Given that, here are a few thoughts on the NRA.
First (surprise to some of you who sent in comments), I was a NRA member for many years, but I left the flock when the gun rights group began to regularly support politicians making the Dirty Dozen lists for their views and votes on conservation issues such as protection of wildlife habitat. The politicians NRA supports are probably the worst enemies hunters have, which makes the NRA, regardless of its claims to the contrary, a contributor to the demise of hunting.
It doesn't take too much research to see the giant conflict among the NRA's mission. It's trying to represent both gun owners and hunters, but it can't do both because politicians the NRA puts into office and keeps in office do not represent both. They only represent gun owners.
One would have a hard time arguing the NRA has not done a good job of protecting the rights of gun owners, but in the process, the NRA is sacrificing the future of hunting. Bow hunters aside, all hunters are, of course, gun owners, and I have no problem with hunters belonging to the NRA to support the right to bear arms, but they shouldn't be naïve enough to believe the current management of the NRA represents the best interests of hunting. This may have been true thirty years ago, but not today.
By putting and keeping the enemies of hunters in high political places, the NRA supports unbridled development and reduction of access to prime hunting lands. Hunters need guns to hunt, of course, but they also need game animals and accessible hunting land.
ASHA, incidentally, has no qualms about stepping up to the podium and saying, without weasel words, that it supports keeping roadless lands roadless and designating prime hunting lands as Wilderness. I'll go out on a limb and say you'll never hear such straight talk from the NRA.
Many hunters who belong to the NRA tend to believe the endless barrage of political messages coming out of NRA lobbying efforts. When the NRA says vote for somebody, hunters often do it, incorrectly believing NRA supports the best interests of hunting when, in fact, the preferred politicos only support the best interests of gun owners and manufacturers.
It's a shame, actually, that politicians can't represent both hunters and gun owners. That's another long story for another time, but today, it rarely works that way.
This isn't breaking news. The NRA has been taking some lumps for months on this issue. Fellow outdoor writer Pat Wray of Corvallis, Oregon, sort of blew the lid off the issue of the NRA's conflicting mission last January with two articles on the subject, What’s the NRA’s beef with roadless areas? and NRA No Friend of Hunters.
Here's how Wray put it: "I know a man who raises snakes. His snakes are important to him, so he raises mice to feed to the snakes. He takes good care of the mice, because he needs lots of them to support his snakes. We hunters are the NRA’s mice. They want lots of us, too, but they worry because there’s always the outside chance we might start thinking for ourselves. So they keep us scared of enemies, or people they want us to think are enemies. Then we dutifully cough up money to help fight those enemies. Think about it: When was the last time you heard of a snake actually helping a mouse? We’re being tricked."
In response to Wray's original articles, the Gun Guys website where "everybody is a straight shooter," agreed: "One of the reasons we exist is simply to set the record straight on gun issues. For years the NRA has fed lies to the American people because it advances their agenda. And they’ve claimed to be the protectors of the American tradition of hunting. The problem is that they mislead hunters into thinking their actions will benefit hunting. All too often, hunters are foolish enough to believe them. In effect, the NRA is running one of the most effective scams in the country. They are promoting activities sure to decrease future hunting opportunities and convincing hunters to help pay for their efforts."
Last May, another outdoor writer Robert Chappell followed Wray's lead with a well-researched article, Missing the Mark, in the Milwaukee Shepard Express, which was published on the eve of the NRA annual convention in Milwaukee.
In his article, Chappell pointed out that "the NRA has supported conservative legislators intent on opening up wilderness areas, probably the most pristine hunting lands we have, to mining and drilling and the building of roads. In an attempt to justify the contradictory positions, NRA leaders have repeatedly asserted that building roads into natural, pristine habitat is actually good for hunters."
In support of this statement, Chappel quotes NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam as saying “Our dues-paying members are hard-working people who are unable to take large amounts of time off to enjoy the time-honored tradition of hunting.”
Arulanadam also claimed, according to Chappel, that modern-day hunters simply don’t have time to hike; they need to drive right up to the tree stand. The NRA spokesman also repeated, again according to Chappel, the "NRA dogma" that more motorized access benefits the elderly, young and disabled hunters unable to trek through the Wilderness. This is, of course, the same old line used thousands of times by industry groups fighting Wilderness designation.
"This would seem to go against the wishes of NRA members who hunt within those areas and fear the continued loss of habitat," concludes Chapel, "and many of those hunters aren’t buying it."
Chappel quotes John See, a lifelong gun owner and hunter in northern Wisconsin--and one of those hunters no longer buys the NRA line, “They (the NRA hierarchy) are concerned about guns, but I don’t know where they’re going to use those guns,”
See lives in Menominee, Wis., which he calls “NRA country,” but says he has no use for the NRA, nor does he worry about losing his guns. “I think that’s the biggest hoax the NRA perpetrates. I don’t think there’s any chance our guns will be taken away.”
Finally, Chappel goes back to talk to Wray, who originally blew the lid off the NRA scam of blurring the lines between interests of gun owners and hunters. “Right now, the NRA is actively working against the best interests of hunters,” Wray blasted. “It’s never been quite so obvious, quite so insidious, quite so dangerous as it is now. The NRA is using hunters, misleading hunters, and using their money in ways that will work against their best interests.”
After Wray's articles came out, he had to suffer the wrath of NRA criticism, but his point went unrefuted. I suppose this could happen to me, too, but as a hunter concerned about the future of hunting, it's impossible to avoid the same conclusion. The NRA does a great job protecting the best interests of gun owners, but it should come clean with its members and admit that it does not represent the best interests of hunters.
