The EVP of HSUS told me CA, OR and WA are the three states where they plan to put bowhunting on the general ballot first.
But like DL says, when they got spring bear hunting and all baiting eliminated in CO, they flooded the TV with ads showing crying orphaned cubs, fat guys shooting bears eating donuts, bears crying in trees with snarling hounds baying below and hunters laughing and joking and drinking beer before shooting them. We lost that in a huge landslide.
What has ruined this state is the unbelievably good weather, and great jobs. ALL THE FRUITS & NUTS FROM THE REST OF THE COUNTRY HAVE MOVED HERE, and completely changed the political landscape from where it was when Brown#1 and Reagan were governors. The Democratic Party is responsible for all of this Obamanation of our state.
It's been a decade since I've hunted in this state. I plan the majority of my hunts in Canada, Rocky Mt. States, and Africa.
If any of you guys care about where this all is headed, joint SCI, and contribute $. SCI is in the midst of legally challenging the ban on importing Mountain Lion trophys in CA, among other efforts. We all need to realize that this is a war and fight back.
Here's where it comes down to. The governor appoints the commission head. Now any group can go to a lobbyist to donate to a governors campaign no matter what party. When Brown was running for governor if hunting Orgs waved enough money in front of any politician we could have had more conservative commission. No real action will happen though until they go after waterfowl hunting. Then money will flow.
These things have a creep to them and once the west coast states fall it wouldn't be a stretch for the feds to say, "They have the right idea"...then no one left to support anything.
Weve seen it with eliminating bear hunting with dogs here...not enough guys running dogs to put up a fuss and many of the "It doesn't affect me "crowd let it happen.
Its a great strategy by the antis...divide and conquer. We just want to hunt...not get involved in politics. Well guess what, its time we join together with ALL hunters and stop this anti movement in its tracks.
Beendare's Link
SCI is out in front fighting.....and they are currently in litigation on the Ca lead ban...and in other court cases in different states defending hunters- updates at link
Says the guy from...Indiana?
California has a way of exporting its liberal politics, so Beendare is spot on with the "it doesn't affect me" comment.
There's just a lot of morons on the coast.
If you haven't been to Yosemite National Park, Sequoia National Park, and Redwood National Park, trust me, take a trip and visit them. You'll be blown away.
A: A competition. Who can call and kill the most in a day. It's very popular where I live in Oklahoma.
I am sure that concept will do wonders for the concept of hunting and hunters coast to coast. Let's see who can kill the mostest the fastest and crowqn him the winner and give him the prize. Nice.
No, I believe that title belongs to Washington, DC...
My first comment is stop calling people Eco-Nazi's. The only thing that can accomplish is further divide people. And there are many people who are in the middle of the debate that are moderate and analytical thinkers who are open to the argument that bowhunting feeds families with non-hormone/antibiotic meat, and is the ultimate fair chase hunt. Another argument I have found to be well received is that bow hunting is a sport that requires hiking, stalking, and keen observation in nature. Many people in the middle of the debate can relate to enjoyment of hiking and quiet appreciation of the mountains/wild spaces. Enviromentalists have families they like to spend time around, and many respect hunters that hunt with our dad's, sons, daughters. And for all you 100k mountain racers and marathoners/P90x people-that demographic tends to be liberal.
I know some on this site that when they are racing they talk about bow hunting and why staying in shape is important to many. And I have heard the liberal work-out people tend to be open to hearing about hunting when they know being in shape is part of our culture-maybe one of you runners/p90x guys could speak more to that?
We have a lot in common with many environmentalists. If you think bashing Obama and liberals on this site is going to help hunting, you might want to reconsider-everyone on this site already hunts. And there are liberals and democrats that hunt that some of you are distancing. Is the goal to unify the hunters and keep our great sport viable, or is the goal to win some political ____ inches contest? I care about bow hunting opportunities. If you are republican, democrat or other, we need your help to educate people from the city about our great sport.
From where I sit bowhunters are in a great place to illustrate to moderate environmentalist that hunters respect nature and the game we harvest. Labeling people with terms like eco-nazis only accomplishes dividing people in the middle. Maybe you feel powerless, but I don't. I think hunting is a great family value and american tradition; and when explained to most reasonable people they are open to hearing about why. Run for a spot on the board you described. Or tell anti's about why you hunt and why it's important to you and your family.
On another note, I like California and Washington. Great people. I have had some open conversations while in Napa drinking wine about elk streaks and wine pairings, and many people are willing to listen to why hunting is important to me. Be respectful, listen, consider all sides, and be willing to step up when you need to. We are bow hunters. A little controversy or difficulty does not dissuade us. Let's get our story out-I believe most americans are on our side if they hear our story.
Kelly
Well said. I feel like a broken record sometimes in preaching to folks that it is not the 10% anti hunters that you should care about. It is the 80% NON hunters that will decide the outcomes at the ballot boxes.
Think of how you represent yourself. Truck Nutz may seem cool, but what kind of juvenile image are you sending? How does it come across when a non-hunter hears you say "I stuck a toad of a bull and can't find him, but he was FREAKING huge"? How does it come across when hikers hear you use the term granola, or eco Nazi/freak/etc?
Personally, I have a hard time defending predator contests. I dislike hunting contests of any sort, so I'll admit my bias. I hunt for the experience, the oneness with nature, the kill, and the meat. It's about time with family, friends, God, and myself. We each need to ask ourselves why we hunt, and how do I articulate that to a non-hunter.
The day you romp on your pedal and smoke out some mountain bikers with your diesel truck is the day the see all hunters as assholes. Think of the impact you could make if you were respectful, and spoke to them as human beings with a different outlook.
I was talking to two older guys on a national scenic trail one year as I was scouting for the upcoming deer season. They didn't hunt, knew nothing factual about hunting, and were very curious. They were amazed to find out what a deer hunt really entailed, from the scouting to the backpacking to the stalk to the pack out.
Very few of the people at the endurance trail races I go to hunt. I proudly wear my camo. I proudly talk about elk hunting. I hope that each one of them leaves thinking about how passionate a person can be about protecting wild places and animals so that they can go back and hunt those animals.
As bowhunters, we eat more organically than many. Many of them can relate to the fact that when we get our meat from the wild, we leave very little carbon footprint. There is nothing more "free range" than an elk or a deer. And quite honestly, I think that this will be one of the greatest appeals to up and coming hunters that may not have grown up in a hunting home.
Education is a full time job. If it's being done in response to a ballot initiative, it's likely too late.
In fact, I am seeing an interesting trend locally in regards to organics and people trying to get closer to their food. A group of younger guys in my office recently took the hunters safety class, got their hunting licenses, and went hunting for the first time. I don't think it will "stick" for most of them, but the salient point here is that there seems to be an openness towards hunting that I haven't experienced in the past.
We had a party at our house last night, and I sent more than half our guests home with moose burger or sausage - every little bit helps.
Thank you, you just proved my point. You are worried about convincing the "left wing extremists" that they are wrong. Remember, the only thing different between a left wing extremist and a right wing extremist is the viewpoint they espouse.
Focus on facts and focus on the people in the middle.
I live in liberal Washington, and I don't find the VAST majority to irrational. In fact, far from it. They simply don't always understand, because their lasting impression of a hunter was the guy in the big diesel with his 5" exhaust that acted like a jackass.
A couple years ago a non-hunting reporter wrote an excellent article in our local paper about how healthy it is to eat wild game, and about the "locavore" movement in that direction. She mentioned that she didn't hunt but enjoyed the meat when people give her some.
I looked her up and found out she lived near me. I offered her some elk via email and she accepted. When I dropped it off, it turns out she was my first serious girlfriend from college, a total left-wing hippie artist (who still looks stunning.. I didn't recognize her married name). We had a long conversation about bowhunting, and she understands the hunting ethic and the difference between slobs and hunters. She has since written several more pro-bowhunting articles, including one on traditional bowhunting and another on our local archery club and range. And I'm absolutely sure she voted for Obama.
I believe that first article she wrote probably turned some ambivalent voters our way, simply because it was a balanced piece by an admitted hippie non-hunter. By being positive, she subtly made the point that irrational anti-hunters are, indeed, wrong, without beating anyone over the head.
We hunters need to conduct ourselves professionally and admirably and let the crazy anti's portray themselves as nutcakes. When bear hunting was on the ballot in CO, unfortunately some leaders of hunting orgs acted like nut jobs in front of the news cameras, and the Commission refused to compromise with the HSUS-backed group. If they had compromised we would still have fall baiting.
So they dared HSUS to put it on the ballot. And we got slaughtered. Lucky we still have bear hunting at all. We need to be smarter and look at the big picture.
DL's Link
That all being said, our failure to mount an organised fight against the antis will be the end of hunting. Our opposition is organised and well financed. We need to all join SCI, CBH, and the NRA for starters. After you join, contribute more $ to their political action funds.
Make no mistake, the antis agenda is to destroy hunting, and in the most urbanized state in the country most people could care less. They don't hunt or fish, don't even know anyone who hunts and fishes, and as been noted above, are definitely prone to slob hunter propaganda campaigns. Hell, I just saw a video of wild pigs getting blown all over the landscape and even as someone who has killed a lot of pigs it didn't sit too well with me.
CA has long since turned into a 'but for the grace of God there go you' state. That doesn't mean that pro-hunting groups can't and shouldn't fight the more idiotic efforts by the antis in CA, because this nonsense is coming to a neighborhood near you. It should be obvious that hunting efforts to manage coyotes is only a good thing environmentally, ecologically, and pragmatically. Unfortunately the left wing mouthpiece press isn't going to report our position unless we are organized and fight by the rules of the game.
If you think there are enough hunters to sway the vote, then you my friend are completely kidding yourself.
Also, some of the people that you should be recruiting into hunting are probably "libtards" as you so eloquently put it. That's a great strategy, to immediately alienate a majority of the voting public.
They turn the minds of non hunting voters with emotion, helped by the media and Hollywood. We turn their stomachs with our in-your-face idiotic behavior on video and in public. "If it's down, its down" on our trucks. Hollywood promoting the slob stereotype, poachers regularly in the news.
Lots of Republican voters vote against hunting issues when they see the TV ads of us being jerks, as they did in CO. Liberals will vote with us if the campaign is sensible, as just happened in Maine. I could run a TV ad campaign guaranteed to end bowhunting by a state vote just by using clips from our own videos in prime time. Markarian was giddy at the idea of doing that when they put it on the ballot.
CO CPW has done a great job of educating voters on both sides with the TV "Hug a hunter" campaign, hammering home all that hunting is about that is good. We need liberals on our side. This is one way to help. Other states should follow suit.
If you think you can derive my voting history from this then you are sorely mistaken.
Just because you "call it like you see it" doesn't mean you're right. And, you just proved my point with your assumptions.
As I said, good luck finding enough non-voting hunters to overcome the numbers of non-hunting voters.
The fact is that there are people from every ‘socio-economic category’ that hunt - add to that, every race.
I won't debate how the reputation came about, but the 'typical' hunter that un-informed people envision isn't flattering - several of the posts here do nothing to dispel this negative stereotype.
Politics as people describe it is only ‘politics’ if it doesn't conform to a given person's agenda or ideas – a politician has to take all sides into account, not just one. Dismissing the process outright means you aren't taking the time and effort to understand it - and you aren't participating. Those that don't actively participate are destined to lose. Those that don’t respect the process often don’t earn respect back. We don’t have a perfect system, but there doesn’t seem to be a better one around.
It is true that there are many anti-hunting agendas out there – they use cartoon like, fantasy ideals to portray animal life. Most of us agree that this is devoid of any reality, but it persists because it works. I have, as have several other posters, taken the time to present an alternative point of view – swaying some, not others. (some good stories for another time). The fact is that many rational people will listen and take a more realistic and positive view of hunting. I can only imagine the result that comes from the stance some the posters have taken here – the anti-hunting groups won’t need ‘an agenda’ if we use these tactics.
Many of the shows that the outdoor channels carry aren’t doing us any favors. I realized very early in my hunting life that there was a distinct difference between hunters and shooters. Riding around in a jeep, following some ‘guide’ a short distance on foot and shooting an animal isn’t hunting. Hunters would do well to distance themselves from this group. I get that it isn’t good television but I would like to see a show featuring a hunter like a friend of mine – religiously shed hunts, knocks on countless doors, hunts a select deer when permission comes (years between success), passes many respectable bucks, takes a young animal late in the season that he butchers himself – while raising a family and teaching his young sons the rewards of the outdoors. This is a hunter and there are many more like him that we really don’t hear about.
Decent, hardworking, respectful and ethical is how I would describe him – something all hunters should aspire to be…not just while hunting.
Fanoffdo: I am lucky enough to have a couple friends that live that same lifestyle. One is a democrat, one won't say. Both very respected by everyone who knows them.
I know plenty of liberals who hunt. Subaru drivers with stickers on the roof rack, educated, articulate professionals. Pains me to say this, but it seems like their environmental ethic is stronger than the typical pickup driving, "happiness is a warm gutpile", "God bless the USA", ATV racing, flag-waving Redneck hunters among us.
Guess which one the non hunting voter is more likely to identify with?
Perhaps it is because there is more than one issue that is important to them and they make a balanced decision.
Frankly a little shocked at the acceptance by some of the whole "PC" culture. Or that this isn't political. Or ideological. It absolutely is. If it weren't this wouldn't be an issue, hunting would not be under attack.
If the society that suspends a student for chewing a poptart into the shape of a gun or will call a 9 year old playing Hobbit and trying to make another kid invisible "terroristic threatening".... if this is not at the root of the insanity I don't know what is.
There is no disconnect between anti-hunting crazy and liberal crazy, they are one in the same. I have never met one that is not the other. At the very least it is a cesspool that breeds such things. While you are not going to change their minds, refusing to call them out as the enemy is a huge mistake.
No. we cannot all get along.... not when you are under attack anyway. "Nothing personal..." Yes, actually it is. They are trying to take from you something you now have. By force, at the point of a gun. (apparently THOSE guns they are OK with...) They are on the attack. The offensive. Only playing defense just means you lose slower.... A good case could be made the anyone truly offended by some phrases such as "eco-nazi" are likely either are one or have bought into the whole thing already. Offended is the very least I would wish on them....
"This is not political or ideological" is false. It very much is. They have made it so or again... we wouldn't be having this conversation. It is the very definition of a political and ideological attack.
Trying to hide under the radar is not working. While putting forth a personal effort and portraying the lifestyle in a responsible and respectable way is necessary, it will still lose ground to the organized attack from the liberal left.
It will only be fought and won with the same organizational efforts as the left. And by using many of the same tactics.
Back to CO for another example.... when CO enacted those draconian gun laws they did so expecting little resistance... but outraged groups mounted an organized effort that literally expelled many if not most of those responsible from office. Kicked them out on their azzes in dramatic fashion. Ask a CO politician about pushing for some new gun laws right now and they will run the other way with out even saying "bye"....
That is what it is going to take. You as a politician take a certain stand you PERSONALLY will be punished for it. We will have your job. If you sit on a commission we will have yours as well. "Nothing personal" my wrinkles. That's what you hear just before something bad happens to YOU. PERSONALLY.
Setting a good example is....good. But don't get sucked into the idea that if we give them a little here or a little there they will be satisfied and won't come for you down the line. I hear talk, have even heard it here, of "you know... lets just give them the evil looking black guns... I don't own one, don't need one, no big deal... then we will make friends and they will like us more because we are showing them we are "reasonable".... "
You are part of the problem. A huge part actually. Their side only takes. They NEVER give or "compromise". We are the ONLY party in this that is being told we have to give something up. Com'on, just a little bit... to show you're "reasonable".... Once given you will never get it back. Their idea of "compromise" is not taking away from you as much as they want to.
SCI, NRA, CBH, etc.... political organization is what is needed. "I hate politics" or "I hate organizations" won't get it done anymore. They aren't going to just leave you alone, even if in your little corner of the world all seems fine. That corner will get smaller and smaller unless action is taken to head it off.
I hate organizations, as much or more than anyone. They always want too much of your time... all the socializing... I just want to be left alone and do what I do. But that is not the reality anymore. Hunters, others of like minded individuality and freedom, are under attack. And the organizations are the only offense with the power to hold them off, maybe even the push to get some things back. I'm in some of them. I need to get involved in more of them. But I want to make sure they have a strong POLITICAL stance and abilities. I don't care to go to church socials.
If you think polar bear hunting or mt lion hunting can be ignored because it doesn't effect you... you are wrong. No big deal, I don't bear hunt, I don't trap. Take a couple steps "forward".. the line you are in just moved closer to the sharks....
Folks on the other side can't understand how a person can claim to care about our environment and vote Republican, or how a person can claim to care about wildlife and hunt. The only minds such conundrums boggle are the simple ones.
There is an old saying, "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." A number of folks above are spot on that there is nothing we can do about the 10% anti-hunters, so must focus on the other 80%. When approached politely with facts and examples of hunter contributions to conservation, I have found it surprisingly easy to gain favor. Maybe I will start throwing the term "libtard" around the office, and test the theory on vinegar.
That IMO makes it a political fight. An ideological fight. A way to apply pressure to those who are either on the commission or those who appoint them is what is needed. Powerful organizations will be needed to bring to bear that kind of pressure. And pressure is exactly what will be needed. As much as possible.
You aren't going to get any active help or defense against them from your 80%. At best they won't lineup against you. But being who they are.... well, they really don't care. Unless you show them pictures of kittens and puppies and stuff then all bets are off....SQUIRREL! Usually distracts them....
That IMO is where the big battles will be fought. And why we need the SCI's and NRAs etc. as much as some folks gripe about them. They are the ones fighting on the front line against, yes, the enemy. The time when RMEF and others tried to stay "apolitical" is over. The wolf debacle was proof enough of that. Lead, follow or fold up into a petty social club and get the hell out of the way.
"Libtard" "metrosexual" as well as many others are not terms I would casually label or toss around lightly. But I have no doubts at all about where the attacks on hunting are coming from, where they are based. Who they are, what they believe. I'm amazed at times at those who would dismiss that as not important or has no bearing on the matter. It's huge. It is the very reason we are in this situation. It is why they are the "10%" and not .5% that are going to be flippin' crazy no matter what the issue.
While I agree the "80%" must be won over.... I see no persuasive argument about who our enemy really is and is not. It must be addressed as part of the solution, not ignored. I don't see how we come out on top unless that fermentation tank is.... corrected. Marginalized. Proven as a failed ideology.
If that direction is not halted.... then the defeatist attitude of "it's just a matter of time..." that so many have is justified, inevitable. We will be overwhelmed and eventually eliminated from participation in the natural world, relegated to observer.... but then there are also many that hunting or even just basic freedoms are not really that big a deal to them. Apathy rules the day.
The story of the hound dog laying on the porch.... every few minutes he lifts his head and howls, then lays it down and goes to sleep. The owners buddy asks whats wrong with your hound? "Nothin' he's just laying on a nail head that's worked it's way up from the porch, hurts him." Why doesn't he get up and move off the nail?
"Doesn't hurt him enough I guess..."
I wonder how many of us really practice what we preach? I know this is bow site but, the NRA and SCI are the groups that have the political pull, influence, and money to get things done. If you aren't a member, you dang sure should be regardless of whether you hunt with a gun or not.
I dislike the anti's as much as anyone. I truly do. But, I do agree it takes a level headed approach. Education on the issues is key. All play a huge emo card with proclaiming their love for the environment. However, it is that obsessive love that makes their point misguided and radical. These anti's believe we don't belong there.
Bottom line in my mind is TD pretty much nailed it. I'm tired of being asked to give and I'm tired of my fellow hunters giving in to them. It is time to put our money with the groups who will keep this at bay. We must unify with one another or stand to loose it all. We must educate ourselves. And we must set great examples for the non hunting community. To do different is being as naive as the liberal voting hunter that thinks he is doing right. God bless
If you think being nasty and alienating a huge voter group is going to benefit you then you are delusional and living a pipe dream.
And if you didn't notice, Republicans just won a historic national landslide by getting the votes of independents.
In my experiences, dialog with sound reasoning, and pro-hunting passion based on rational examples (conservation, habitat destruction, money, wildlife management, sustainable resources, organic protein….etc.) goes a long way towards winning over independents. It works. It really does.
Incidentally, I'm now infamous, for being the guy that brings wild game dishes to office potlucks…..non-hunting folks actually looking forward to venison meatloaf and bear chili (among others).
Maybe a multi-pronged approach will work better, but from where I stand, the results of level-headed debate/conversation just can't be beat. It works.
Your anger and hate are getting the best of you and you've turned a hunting issue into a left vs right issue. Now, certainly, there's a left vs right element to this, but it's so much more than that.
I'm with you on fighting fire with fire, specifically when it comes to the most radical element of of the anti-hunting movement. The gloves should come off and we need to defend ourselves as we are under attack.
Still, you're making 90% of the country your enemy with statements like that. You're even attacking your fellow hunters. That makes your "united we stand" comments kinda hypocritical.
Your "they won't compromise" statement is laughable as that's a bilateral phenomenon in Washington these days. Again, I'm with you on not compromising in defense of hunting, but there's a difference between having differing strategies depending on who your audience is, ie: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer," and "divide and conquer."
You've just drug culture war extremism into this and it's not so black and white. There are a million shades of gray when it comes to attitudes towards hunting.
At least that's the case with me.
Dave, you seem to focus an awful lot on the left and right, but might want to change your perspective and consider that the majority of the people we are trying to win over think those who are more than 2.5 standard deviation from the mean are nuts. That may speak to why you are the only one the diplomatic approach does not work for.
That worked out really well to win over the voters in the election, and we were a 50-50 state at the time. 69-41 was the final tally.
You seem so emotionally involved that you can't distinguish the difference between anti-hunters and non-hunters. Sad. Great for the anti's. Bummer for hunters.
I've left favorable opinions with the majority of them and have even gotten a way left whacko to admit to the virtues of bowhunting and subsistance hunting. I've recruited several "liberals" into hunting in recent years. I've swayed dozens of fence-sitters about the virtues of hunting. If you say you tried and failed, I'm willing to bet from personal experience that your delivery is/was poor, just as it is here.
If you don't come off like an angry Fox news anchor, people are often inclined to listen to reason as most views of hunting from the non-hunting public are based on lies and misperceptions. Once cleared up, people have the ability to see the light. Not always, but they have the ability.
They are people just like you, just with different (wrong) views on hunting.
Not that this changes how we should be acting at a political and institutional level, but on a personal level, reenter the solar system and maybe people will be able to hear you.
And even if we all do this, it's still not going to change the political landscape. I agree, we still need to fight tooth and nail, but not only does one size not fit all, but you're totally off base with your categorization of everyone.
The PETA types piss me off too. But your contempt for the middle of the road people betrays your extremism and makes you very much like the PETA types in that way, which is also why reasoning with you is pointless, kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is your fellow man for Pete's sake. Lots of these people probably are your same religion. And you talk with such hate. Turning the Hannity types off made me a more happy person. Those types make money off of pissing people like us off. Life's too short to be so angry.
I believe someone who was on this commission or maybe it was some other wildlife position connected with the commission.... that person went on a mt lion hunt in AZ, NM, I forget where exactly. A 100% legal and above board hunt.
But mt lion hunting is verboten in CA. As well as even possessing any part of a lion, whatsoever. But this person did not hunt the lion in CA. Nor did he bring any part of it home but pictures. He did nothing wrong but go do a totally legal hunt, had a great hunt, took a nice lion and traveled out of state to do so. Should be nothing more to it, right?
Would someone familiar with that situation care to enlighten me on what I understand happened to this man when he got back?
Much as I am also a believer in 'sleep with dogs, wake up with fleas', hunters are going to have to be more proactive with which of our 'leaders' supports our hunting traditions and which don't. The NRA is brilliant at electioneering. EVERY elected official above dog catcher should have a report card of how good or bad they are voting on hunting-related matters. And the good ones should benefit from hunters' direct support, whether it is sending them dough, or knocking on doors.
This group could come up with a bucketful of good ideas on how to make hunting and hunters a more effective voice politically.
That's what our anti friends do. Why not do it and run a strongly-persuasive campaign? Run TV ads. Blast social media. Be creative and frame it as environmentally-conscious, supporting the organic locavore movement the "lib" non-hunters love. Go after them the way they go after us. Fire with fire.
When I proposed and managed a special urban bear hunt in CO, the animal rights gang tried like hell to stop it. HSUS Protests, petitioning the Governor, bringing the national liberal media in to support their cause. We used facts. The bear hunt was conducted with no issues.
Michael, I think you're headed in the right direction here. They only way hunters are going to be able to counter the well organized antis is to adopt the philosophy that we have to pay to play.
There are creative ways that this could happen. I sure that many of you on this site can think of better ones than me. Here are a few of my ideas: Outfitters could adopt a policy that every client donate a small set fee to SCI. Pat could have everyone that uses the bowsite donate $5 to SCI. Hunting retailers could adopt the policy that a percentage of every sale be donated to SCI. All the state archery clubs here in CA could offer real incentives to join CBH. Etc,etc,etc...
The point being that we all have to realize that this type of political action is going to be necessary to preserve our hunting heritage for future generations.
I practice what I preach; I recently renewed my NRA and CBH memberships, and joined SCI when I heard of their legal actions. How about all of you??:-)
Dooner's Link
In California hunters are so grossly outnumbered by anti's that we need a huge push of non-resident support there to fight for what's right. The craziness that continues to happen in California is absolutely not contained within that state's borders. The movement starts in California and then migrates east.
I can't believe the it's looking like New Mexico will ban coyote hunting contests this legislative session!?!?! It seems that every time I see absurd legislation passing a committee here I ask myself, "Didn't that just happen in California?"
California has become somewhat of the launching pad for the anti's powerful (and continually gaining power) movement. Hunters everywhere need to step up and stop these wacko's BEFORE they gain traction by filling their sails with a big win in California. We can't vote there, but we can [and must] provide much needed support to our fellow hunters.
http://www.apecsfoundation.org/home.html
A friend of mine in Colorado is doing his part.
