Gents, some of the more active souls here have often espoused that we need representation for the hunter in North America.One of the very important purposes would be educating the public,or correcting misconceptions.
This to keep our sport alive.
I always agree with such approach but personally am too busy and sarcastic to be a stormtroper for a good cause.
Lets examine what we have: the NRA
Dont quite know or appreciate where they started- if that is relevant.But lets examine why the NRA is not as effective as we desire or need:
The NRA,to my interpretation,is taking an all or none approach towards gun ownership,saying that the "others" like to disarm all in layers, so to speak.
That might or might not be so.
Lets examine this subject from the hunters perspective as well as to what "sells" in public.
The public equates guns with crime,not hunting,nevermind whether guncontrol indeed leads to less crime,I am talking about perception.Which is -guns kill.
Assuming a large percentage of the public will tolerate hunting and the use of arms for that purpose but will not vote for "automatic" weapons and bazookas.
The latter solely useful for crime and antigovernmental activities.Again I am not presenting my own viewpoint,but how I perceive Ms public.
As hunters we still have to battle the Bamby=kill perception,thats where education comes in.
I wonder whether focusing on sport hunting with relevant arms would benfit the objective,rather than following the support of the NRA with no limit arms support.
I dont want to be antagonistic to the NRA,as they do support our interest.I would just say we need a stronger voice nationally to support hunting/fishing outdoor sports rather than just freedom to carry all arms.
Just a thought

Sheephunter, after you and your friends take away my sport pistols and other peoples AR's, they will work on your sheep hunting rifle next. After all, why do you need to kill a sheep?

Just my opinion

I thought that was one of the things SCI was all about too.

Am I wrong?

I personally do not own or need or want any firearms that are auto's, AR15's etc. I like my pistols, and hunting long guns. That's all I need.

But the NRA, in my opinion, really has to take an all or none position because of what is written in the Constitution, 2nd ammendment.

Another deep subject, which is fertile grounds for discussion.

He's lived here in PDRKalifornia too long. Probably drank the water. That's why I only drink water bottled in Colorado.

Same problem we have when we send good people to D.C. They stay for a while, drink the water, and are worthless ever after, at least as far as representing those of us who voted for them originally.

Frank Church of Idaho comes to mind. In 1976 he single handedly destroyed the intelligence gathering capability of the CIA. Causing several deaths, too, BTW.

Hope my attitude isn't showing!

Take a look at The Congressional Sportsmens Foundation. They do alot of great work inside the DC beltway and across the country with state Caucus's.

CSF

I have been a member fo 4 years and when my schedule has permitted I have attended quite a few of their fuctions in or around DC.

Take a look and read a little about them, you will see that most of our outdoor organizations as well most of the big retailers that cater to us (Cabela's, Bass Pro etc) are major corporate sponsors as well.

Doug

Gents, please dont misunderstand my personal attitude here.
I am in agreement with all statements made,just raised the question because sometimes it helps to look at "the current situation" as it is,not as we like it.
We have to deal with Ms public - the voter,not convince ourself
My theme is basically: develop a more understanding or better said an understanding attitude in the general voter,not to battle the issue merely on legal grounds as the NRA is constantly doing.

I do understand and appreciate the NRA's mode of operation ,as the most vocal or radical forces we have to battle do want to abolish all arms and will not stop at pocketknives.Yes, I agree they would like to split "us" up and take away our arms in layers.Thats why the legal foundation based on the constitution and fought by the NRA need be.

I also understand though that this "democratic" government has and will limit our arms and activities using false representations and the "voice of the outcrying masses"

Parallel to the legal avenue,I think- we need more public education on hunting and shooting,such that the voter does not feel threatened by us.

Without the public support-I think - we will loose ,despite the constitution or its interpretation.

I have nightmares seeing picture in Australia ,where they confiscated rifles to steamroll them in public.Not to avoid crime but to pander to Ms public and show "concern" by the elected official.

So by all means,fight the antis in court,but of same importance is to regain and keep public support.

show them that a wolf is not a pet named Max,show them the law of nature,a deer is not Bambi and a bear is not cuddly.

Fight pink Disneyland and expose the stupidity and miseducation from those media.

Present to the public that hunting is a challenging sport akin to mountainclimbing,hiking etc and not a killing sport.
We dont rome the woods to kill,yes a successful hunt ends in a kill,but we would not hunt to just kill.

Killing an animal by human is natural ,same as other predators do,killing farm animals is no different.

We dont have to convince ourselves,we have to take the message to the public.
It is well known that the coming generation has less apreciation for all outdoor activities,prefers computer animation with potatoe chips at the side.If we loose that crowd ,we will loose the voter for our sport.

Holding meetings by hunting organizations peddling to their own crowd accomplishes little in that regard.

Hope I was able to outline my "concern" a bit better

Perhaps you have missed them calling your sheep or varmint rig a "Sniper Rifle"? (Why does someone need a SNIPER rifle? See what I mean) I see you're point but you are making the same mistake as argueing with a woman, you're trying to use logic, which they don't understand.

I believe SCI is doing a good job of what your talking about.

the second amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting.

Pay close attention to what Hot Core and Slingster said. They covered it well, I won't reiterate.



Remember, the NRA has one job, that has to do with protecting firearms freedoms. Not hunting. They do not and should not burden themselves with hunting. There is another organization that addresses hunting: it is SCI. It is not perfect, but it is the hunting protectorate. You are a member, aren't you? If not, get in gear and join! They are to hunting what the NRA is to the Second Amendment and firearms ownership, and they are the only one of significance. And no, they are not perfect.

I roll over and admit defeat
Obviously most is well and I see things distorted.

Sheep, you've been living in Calif. of rtoo long my friend. The anti gun people don't care that you & I hunt. If anything, they detest that more than gun ownership. The NRA is right on the issue. It is an all or nothing mentality. You think John Kerry banging away @ a few clay pigeons makes him progun?

Let me understand this Sheephunter you want a federal hunting license so the greedy states cann't get your money and put it in the general fund. You don't care about the states right to own the wildlife or manage it you just want a cheap hunting license. Now according to you we need a strong voice nationally to support hunting/fishing which the NRA should do instead of supporting the freedom to carry all arms. Where do you come up with these idea's or are you just one brick short of a full load. I wasn't even going to reply figured I'd get down to your level but just could resist.

There have been bills before Congress to get rid of "Assault Weapons". Some of these bills have included any detachable magazine fed weapon. This would include all semi-autos, pumps, and some bolt actions. The NRA is what keeps these lunatics from slipping this nonsense through.

SCI-Safari Club International www.safariclub.org

That is more in line what I am trying to point out,but alas
there are people that cant read or I cannot write clearly.
I am not trying to convert or educate the radical anti. mind,agree that is a lost cause.But I believe those radicals depend on mis educating the public to gain their vote as much as "we" need to correct it.
So we need not concern ourselves with the anti hunting anti gun crowd,we need to orient ourselves towards the hopefully reasonable middle,just to keep their support rendered by voting.
We need to look "outside the box",not convince ourselves how right we are.

Our fate is decided in great part by people that do not hunt but vote.

II yes,maybe I dont have all cups in the cubbard,but I shall be the judge of that,not folks that have trouble understanding the concept.

I think what sheep hunter is trying to say is, we need to swing the "fence riders" our way.
Living in the rural midwest, I find it hard to believe sometimes that some people can't see the stupidity of what the antis are trying to do. I grew up with guns, and have been exposed to them all my life, where as people, and there are a growing number of them, that grew up without guns, and hunting, can't understand my attitude as to why this issue is so important. We need to make the folks in the middle understand that there are two very distinct issues at play here, guns, AND hunting.
But without the NRA, our right to own guns would be lost, and hunting would soon follow.

DGK

You're right on target, 375hnh.

thank you 375,
that is precisely my point.All too often we focus/complain about the antis.Wasted effort.
On the other hand ,if you believe or not- we are at the mercy of the (public) voter.Nevermind the 2nd amendment.
Issues of hunting are related but different from rights to bear arms.
To keep hunting alive and respected,we have to correct distortions,misrepresentations etc.I see little of that on the public education medium:TV or press.I see lots of misrepresentation though.The public votes according to what it knows

The left is losing ground. When one of the absolute biggest gun grabbers in the senate (Johnny boy Kerry) has to act like a hunter and claim he is really pro-gun we are gaining ground. I'm not saying the fight is anywhere near over, but look at what happened the Rosie when see tryed to rip on Tom Seleck. She is a non-player now. The last million mom march only attracted a few thousand. States are getting through right to carry laws and passing hunter protection laws. On the left coast we are still losing. When couger hunting is allowed in Cal again and hound/bait hunting is allowed in Oregon then things will be moving.

Sheephunter, you are very correct, but protecting hunting is NOT the job of the NRA. Their job is protecting firearms ownership. Look to other organizations, particularly SCI, to protect hunting. You are a member of both, I surmise.

Sheephunter,

What you say is very true, the public we need to educate, are not the anti hunter, anti gun folks, as you say, that is probably a waste of time and energy. The people we have to reach, are the ones that have no opinion on the matter and don't care either way. THESE are the people the antis have been concentrating on for years, and in that regard they are way ahead of us. Also we need to educate the people that have been misled, and that will be a daunting task.
The group that REALLY piss me off are the people that I know, that own guns and hunt, that are indifferent to the whole situation as well. Unfortunately there are a lot of them too. These are the people I'm sure all of us know, that when you ask "are you a member of, NRA, SCI, etc.", they come back with some excuse why they are not, too expensive, too political, yada yada yada. We all need to be ambassador/salesmen at all times, especially around these folks.

DGK

I am going to assume that most of us here if not all are local members of at least one of the above mentioned organizations. I will again assume that you have functions, maybe a trapshoot or sporting clays tourney. Has anyone ever invited a member of the local media to your tournament? We do this at every trapshoot we have across the country, granted they do not always show up but when they do and we get them shooting it is all over especially if they hit a bird or two. Granted this does nothing in regards to the hunting issue at this point, but you have just introduced someone that in most cases only knew what the media told them about guns. You have freed a mind to perhaps learn more about what we are all about and in most cases you have also erased the misconception that we all (shooters/Hunters)have no teeth, no education etc. You never know but that one person may have that hunting/shooting heart but has never been known it.

Just a thought or two

Doug

Doug,

Nice idea, I will keep that in mind. I think the local gunclub has a trapshoot coming up in Sept. I might work on them to get some of the liberal media folks from Iowa City down there. Iowa City (we refer to it as, the Peoples Republic of..)is a hot bed of anti gun and hunting sentiment.
The new Field and Stream magazine has one of the best articles I have read for some time. The article is by, and about a young woman from New York that won a mule deer hunt in New Mexico. Until two months before the hunt, she had never held a gun let alone killed anything. The outcome of the hunt is no less than a revelation for her. A new hunter is born. It is a great read. She also comes closer to explaining "Why We Hunt", than anyone I have ever read.

DGK