FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, August 21, 2008

For further information contact:

Al Madison: (o) 202-223-7031, (c) 202-841-3341

John Robinson, Chief of Staff, AHSA: (c) 202-262-3252



NRA PUT ON NOTICE: HUNTERS ONTO YOUR BAIT AND SWITCH

AMERICAN HUNTERS AND SHOOTERS ASSOCIATION (AHSA) EXPOSE DETAILS HOW NRA KINGPINS SPEND MEMBERS’ MONEY ON CONSERVATION OPPONENTS



WASHINGTON, D.C. --- Today, Ray Schoenke, President of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), released its expose on where the National Rifle Association (NRA) dues money actually goes in a report called "Slash and Burn: Why Does the National Rifle Association Leadership Support Congress's Biggest Opponents of Conservation?" The scathing report and accompanying website can be found at www.realhuntersrealconservation.org.

Schoenke stated “The NRA has long claimed to represent hunters and shooters, but today’s alarming report — the first of its kind ever produced—pulls the curtain back on the ugly truth: The NRA has overwhelmingly supported the biggest opponents of conservation. We want America's 70 million gun owners, most of whom, like me, consider themselves conservationists, to have the opportunity to learn about the NRA's dismal record on conservationâ€


“With research from the League of Conservation Voters and the assistance of former Congressman Pete McCloskey, we launched this effort today but will keep fighting until the NRA starts working for hunters and shooters instead of against them,†Schoenke continued. In 2006, former Rep. McCloskey worked to unseat one of the NRA's leadership's favorite anti-conservation critters, now former Congressman, Richard Pombo. “Given Pombo's terrible record on conservation issues,†McCloskey stated, “that for the NRA to have given Pombo any money was an outrage."


From conservation issues of protecting public lands and wildlife habitats, key issues for hunters and shooters everywhere, the NRA has overwhelmingly supported Members of Congress who received sub-standard and poor ratings from respected conservation organizations. Since 2000, the NRA has given $4,085,277 in campaign money to support the 193 Members of Congress who received poor conservation ratings from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) and only $390,897 – 10 times less – to the 245 Members of Congress who have received high conservation ratings from LCV.


“This report is based on solid data compiled by many respected groups including the League of Conservation voters,†said David Sandretti, LCV communications director.


· On the issue of protecting public lands, in 2005, the House of Representatives considered the “Pombo-Gibbons Amendment,†which would have allowed the sale of public wilderness lands to corporate interests at prices far below market value. While conservation groups across America came out against the Pombo-Gibbons Amendment, the NRA stayed silent. And what kind of ratings has the NRA given to the 172 House Members who voted for the Pombo-Gibbons Amendment? An A- average. For those Members who stood up for conservation and against Pombo-Gibbons, the NRA gave out an average rating of a D.

· On the issue of protecting wildlife habitats, in 2007, the Senate considered the “Katrina Amendment†to prevent future catastrophic flooding and protect wetlands and wildlife habitat threatened by climate change. Fifty-one Senators, recognizing the very real threat of global warming to our wild resources, voted in favor of the amendment while 40 Senators voted against it. On average, how much campaign money has the NRA given since 2000 to each Senator who voted for the wildlife amendment? $6,669. On average, how much campaign money did the NRA give to support the campaigns of each Senator who voted against the wildlife amendment? Ten times as much: $70,925


As the self-proclaimed ‘largest pro-hunting organization in the world,’ the National Rifle Association has long claimed to represent America’s hunters and shooters in the fight to protect one of America’s oldest traditions. The NRA’s bylaws include an article setting a core goal ‘to promote and defend hunting…as a viable and necessary method of fostering the propagation, growth and conservation…of our renewable wildlife resources.’ But it turns out that its by-laws are just empty rhetoric.


“Today’s report reveals an ugly truth: the NRA’s leadership is spending its Members’ money to support the campaigns of the biggest conservation opponents in Congress. Contrary to its stated goals and assurances to the hunting community, our unprecedented analysis shows that NRA’s leadership overwhelming supports Members of Congress with the worst conservation voting records,†Schoenke continued.

###

The American Hunters and Shooters Association, unlike the NRA, is dedicated both to protecting the gun rights of Americans and preserving America’s hunting heritage through conservation and responsible wildlife management. We understand the crucial relationship between protecting our rights as gun owners and protecting the lands we love. Our website is at http://www.huntersandshooters.com.

Tony
Very interesting, but I wonder if I smell the Sierra Club somewhere in the woodpile. Touted by most mainstream media as "one of the foremost leaders in conservation" the Sierra Club is no friend to hunters. I'll do a little more digging just to satisfy my own curiosity. Good post, keep 'em coming.
Walt

quote:

AMERICAN HUNTERS AND SHOOTERS ASSOCIATION

They're pretty much just a phony front group for hire with roots in gun control groups like HCI.

Buck,

Skinner has it correct.

AHSA is a wolf in sheep's clothing. One of its founders was involved with Sarah Brady's group.

Here's a reply I posted elsewhere on this to someone who asked if the release is factual.

****
I have no doubt the money figures are correct. BUT..what isn't mentioned is the fact that the congress critters with the BEST conservation records are also those who are intent on discarding the 2nd amendment. AND...several of the honchos in AHSA are also among those who wish to compromise the rights spelled out in the 2nd.

So the NRA is doing exactly what it is supposed to do -- protect our rights to use and own firearms. Sadly, it can't do that by supporting both sides of the issue in the process. -TONY

quote:

So the NRA is doing exactly what it is supposed to do -- protect our rights to use and own firearms.

And as such are not the best choice in terms of defending hunting, trapping, wildlife management, habitat conservation, etc, etc.

Reality is that many Democrats vote our way on hunting issues but not on firearms.

unfortunately, the second amendment is not about hunting, it is about the right to protect ourselves from others, including oppressive government. hunting can certainly be done with our legally owned firearms, but that is a separate issue and is only related to the 2nd if they succeed in taking all the guns away. as noted, it is not always possible to protect both at the same time and with the same crummy politicians. this carefully worded diatribe, especially that tear jerking last paragraph, is nothing but a misdirecting and self serving scam.