Hook and bullet politics: Many sportsmen fed up with GOP (in Montana)

[Ediacara]

Hook and bullet politics: Many sportsmen fed up with GOP
By SCOTT McMILLION, Chronicle Staff Writer

Randy Newberg wants to send a message to hunters and anglers: pay attention to your lawmakers.

And he has a message for legislators, the governor and members of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission: pay attention to hunters and anglers.

At more than 200,000 strong, they constitute the largest interest group in the state, and they haven't been treated well in recent years, Newberg said.

And because Republicans have been running the Legislature and the Senate since 1994 and the governor's mansion since 1988, that party is bearing the brunt of his scorn.

"I am a registered Republican," Newberg, a Bozeman accountant, said this week. "But I am very disappointed that Republican legislators in this valley vote consistently for bills that are detrimental to" the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

More at the Bozeman Daily Chronicle

[bluestateguy]

1. Democrats may win the governorship of Montana this year

But make no mistake about it, these people will be voting for Bush.

[Florida_Geek]

2. I am not sure about that

They are seeing Bush and his anything the lumber companies want the lumber companies get.

What good are your 2nd adm. rights if you do not have any place to hunt.

[Duck90MPH]

4. Are the 2nd adm. rights about hunting?

I keep hearing that the 2nd adm. rights have nothing to do with hunting.

[Ediacara]

5. well unless you're planning on scaring your querry to death

You'll need some sort of weapon, be it a gun or an atlatl, so I'd say the second ammendment has quite a lot to do with hunting.

[Crachet2004]

10. If all hunting were banned, you would still have your 2nd amendment

rights. The tie in to hunting helps galvanize support and popularize the issue, but there is nothing about hunting in the Constitution.

I am one of the ones on this board who believe gun control issues are big net negative for the Democrat Party.

Simply put, it is the 2nd amendment, and will never be repealed.

We have lost too many elections and spent way too much political capital on an issue, that in light of 911 and 'Patriot', is now the epitome of passe'. We need to move on, as a national party.

If local branches of the party want to pursue local ordinances, fine. That is the height of Democracy. But I believe if the National Party were to disavow further attempts at control it would be worth millions of votes. This thread said 200,000 outdoorsmen in Montana alone?

Now not every outdoorsman will vote for us if we embrace the Constitution, including the 2nd amendment, but it is the final, political, litmus test for maybe, a majority of these guys!

You'll never get rid of the 2nd amendment, so I don't see why we don't give up on gun control nationally, and then we can attack the GOP for their attacks on the Constitution! You know, Patriot, Arnold amendment, gay marriage amendment, etc...

Legitimate hunters and fishermen should be a natural constituency of the Democrat Party. They want to preserve the natural environment in order to enjoy their pastimes, as the article leading this thread indicated. Our party already has an environmental bent, and it shouldn't be that hard to get these guys on board with us...and we wouldn't be giving up a damn thing!

[FeebMaster]

13. The 2nd amendment doesn't have to be repealed.

It's long dead. Some of the federal firearms legislation has been on the books for 70 years now. It isn't going anywhere.

[Crachet2004]

15. No, the 2nd amendment isn't going anywhere...

and neither are further attempts at federal gun control, or the political party that supports said efforts. Why would anyone want to disarm the American People anyway?

Gun control is dead as an issue, may it RIP.

[FeebMaster]

16. Gun control a dead issue?

So I suppose all that federal legislation they passed last century will be repealed any day now.

The 2nd amendment isn't going anywhere, but when Congress and the courts essentially ignore it, it's effectively dead.

[Crachet2004]

19. When you can go to almost any flea market and buy an AK 47

yeah, I'd say it's a dead issue. And you can. In my state and the surrounding ones, at least.

People who want to continue losing elections over this issue, as we did in 2000, are going to be ignored. I hope.

Watch what comes out of the next convention...just watch! The language will be watered down. They should throw it ALL out.

We need to replace tired, old bullshit like gun control with something like energy independence.

Nope. As long as we have the 2nd amendment-and we always will, unless they somehow declare martial law-we will have the right to buy, own and bear arms. Just the way it's gonna be.

[FeebMaster]

20. Yes.

Buy, own, and bear all the arms that haven't already been banned or regulated into near obscurity. Go to any flea market and buy an AK-47? More like go to any flea market and buy an over priced semi-automatic clone of an AK-47. If it's got a bayonet lug, flash suppressor, or collapsible stock then it's probably even more over priced.

[Crachet2004]

21. They aren't fully automatic...

but so what? They legally could be easy enough, if you want to get a federal liscense...or at least I suppose they would be. For me, semi-auto is fine.

And if they are a little pricey for you, buy an SKS. For around 200 dollars you can buy a brand new one. Some are junk, but some are not. Shop around. More imports are coming in now than ever before, by the look of it. AK's were banned, but ten other models and makes (at least) have taken their place, that weren't included in the ban!

People are a little concerned over security right now and there is a huge demand for firearms.

And no demand for more gun control.

And if we keep pushing unpopular issues like this one, soon, we may not even BE a national party.

I'm not really a gun nut, but this last DOES concern me.

[FeebMaster]

24. Legally could be?

Reagan banned future civilian production of machine guns in 1986. There are about 250,000 legal machine guns in civilian hands in this country and there won't be more, ever, under current law.

I'm not saying guns aren't available, they certainly are. Some are even affordable. That doesn't change the fact that there is a lot of gun control on the books. Doesn't look like they're going to pass more any time soon? That's great, but I don't see them repealing any of the laws that are already in place.

All it will take is one screwball going on a shooting rampage to swing things back toward passing more control. Plus, you never know when some enterprising congressman is going to stick some wacky amendment onto a bill 30 seconds before they vote on it. Maybe Bush will just decide to ban some more imports by executive order like his father did.

[Crachet2004]

27. Well,

I never wanted a machine gun anyway. lol. And a lack thereof isn't what I consider gun control.

But seriously, prohibition doesn't work...our Rulers know this...especially prohibition of firearms, wouldn't work. It would be a red flag, instead, to a lot of people.

If demand is great enough, there will always be supply to satisfy it...at a price.

Mostly, I want the Democrat Party to distance itself from this issue. There is simply no future in it. Make the GOP be the party that supports gun control. I think they would have to, as they are the party of property.

I would like to see all language concerning this issue taken out of our national platform. I am tired of losing elections over something that I consider to be yesterdays' news, and yesterdays' views.

The Democrat Party needs to update, and stop supporting gun control at the national level.

[Bandit]

34. I'm not really a gun nut,

If you say so it must be true. :CRAZY:

[yardwork]

18. I think you have a point.

I've been pro-gun control all my life. I'm not a hunter and I don't know anything about hunting. I grew up in the country, though, and I know that rural folks tend to value independence and self-sufficiency. Most farmers have a gun for hunting and for self-protection.

The Democratic Party lost many rural people over the past decades. As the party shifted its focus to urban issues, farmers and hunters felt pushed aside. Not only that, they felt disrespected. Way too many Democrats think nothing of putting down rural people as "rednecks." Too many Democrats forget that the right of hunters and farmers to own guns does not fuel muggings and violent crime in the cities. We haven't spent enough time, imo, reassuring people that when we talk about gun control, we aren't talking about taking farmers' rifles away from them. One reason we didn't try is because we didn't understand rural people's point of view, and we often seemed to have contempt for their point of view.

I still feel that gun control is essential, but maybe it needs to be done on a grassroots level, with the inclusion and support of everybody in every community.

This issue lost Gore his own home state and a bunch of other states. It's ironic that the Dems' insistence on a gun control platform got W elected, who promptly and predictably got us into a bloody war.

[sandnsea]

22. Rednecks

It's really funny, my uppity religious sister and her family put down rednecks in Arkansas. They're Republicans. I think what we mostly have is a case of Democrats being blamed for elitism that people are actually getting from right wing religious snobs.

[yardwork]

23. You are right that many Repugs are snobs too.

Bush and Co have done a good job of hiding their snobbery behind a fake populism. They have fooled a lot of people.

[Crachet2004]

26. Yeah, that's what I mean, Gore even lost his home state...

and mine too! WV, almost always a Blue State, went for Bush over this issue, as well. Maybe Ohio too...they have, 29 Appalachian counties over there. The 2nd amendment really is the bottom line for a lot of people...they feel the Constitution and Bill of Rights are under attack! By the Democrat Party. Millions of them will vote against their own self-interest on every other issue, in order to preserve 2nd amendment rights.

Given the current GOP assault on the Constitution, represented by Patriot, the Arnold amendment, gay marriage amendment, etc..., I see an historic opportunity to turn this sorry state of affairs around!

All we have to do is give up gun control, in our platform, and we can wrap OURSELVES in the flag-for once-as defenders of the Constitution! How many votes would that be worth? We get to tell THEM, for a change: 'if you don't love it leave it'.

And local governments can still have ordinances, if the people who live there so desire. But what is good for them, is not necessarily good for me...or for a lot of people. If I call for a cop, it's at least an hour for them to get here, but a home was broken into a half mile down the road last spring. I saw bear dung around my pond last year. I hear coyotes at night. You hear and read a lot about Patriot...and we are already in a death match over the 2nd amendment. There may really BE terrosists out there...and some fool in the Democrat Party thinks it's a good idea to disarm me?

No, I just think the whole thing should be left to the localities. What is good for New York City, is not good for me...or the Democratic Party at the national level.

And remember one thing! The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, it's to ensure against tyranny!

[Paladin]

30. The Democratic Platform's Provision On Guns......

....is actually moderate and in keeping with what the overwhelming majority of the country believes. Any notion that it is some sort of radical "gun grabbing" position is a testament to the malignant work of the NRA and other gun rights groups to trash anything Democratic. John Kerry poses a lot less of a threat to gun ownership than does John Ashcroft.

[Crachet2004]

31. But he will have a far better chance of being elected...

If he could carry the states we lost in 2000, due to this issue!

I can leave my home right now, and ask the next hundred people I meet if they support further gun control, and they will say no-including women...maybe a few might support it. In Boston, just the opposite might be the case. Therefore, I think it should be handled at the local level...get it completely away from our candidates involved in national elections.

And I think we should do it this year. Just step back and admit it is causing urban/rural divisions within the party...and we're going to handle it at local level from now on. Say that we have other priorities at the national level with the advent of the War on Terrorism.

And John Ashcroft is exactly why I don't believe the 'overwhelming majority' in this country supports further gun control. Many already didn't, and that cat has tipped the scales!

Replace this losing issue with an 'energy independence' plank in 2004!

You'll be glad you did, I promise.

[Ediacara]

3. Schweitzer will probably win, and we *might* go for Kerry

We went for Clinton, and barely went for Dole, Bush won pretty handily, but Gore was aparently seen as an environmental extremist. There seems to be a Democratic tide in the state, and people are PISSED at Bush.

[stevedeshazer]

8. I could see that happening

Nader got 6% in 2000, Gore 34%, Bush 58%.

Nader will not likely be a factor this time. Gore only got 34%, but Kerry will do a lot better in Montana.

It's not impossible for Kerry to make it a close race there, maybe even pull out a win. Just an eight-point swing or so might do the trick.

Bumpersticker I saw recently: I fish. And I vote!

[JohnKleeb]

25. sorry to say Dino but Perot helped but hey it could happen

and I had no idea many were pissed off at Bush. hope it happens. For the presidency, I give a dem governor more of a chance. Good story thanks for posting.

[Ediacara]

29. Perot did help, you're right

But I really believe that we'll get a Dem gov, and a Dem house. The US House seat, is up for grabs depending on what kind of campaign Valezquez runs, and I think if Kerry actually COMES here and plays the right issues, we may go for Kerry, but by a pretty slim margin.

[schultzee]

12. Then they deserve his environmental destruction that leads to

upset sportsment. Fishermen here are really against him for not supporting clean lakes.

[Duck90MPH]

6. They are pulled in both directions

One party wants to log where they drive to hunt and fish and the other party wants to make them hike in 20 miles to hunt and fish. Assuming logging and mining kill off all the fish and game they want to pursue and assuming the roadless and public land closures to motorized vehicles makes it so they need days to get in and out instead or minutes or hours will make this contrast vote very interesting.

It will be interesting to see which way they go.

[Malva Zebrina]

7. Unless something drastic is done about wildlife

on the part of politician, I cannot see these people supporting any of them.

Fish and Wildlife preserves and preserving should not be allocated to Republicans. They cannot be trusted with it as their focus is upon money and profit and not upon beauty and the respect of nature and the notion that we the people do have a right to a few acres in this beautiful country to claim as our own, since we pay the taxes to preserve them.

They will sell it and us out everytime if there is a profit to be made from it that is not complimentary to the preservation of it.

Few of those who are oriented to the trendy good life of mall shopping and purchasing and having a home in the best of neighborhoods will appreciate this bonanza, but I have been to many many all over the country, especially on the east coast--and I have seen the pleasure that many people and their familes, get from taking a day to walk the trails in these forests and wildernesses that have been set aside as their lands and for which they pay.

It is truly an experience to walk these wilderness trails and meet others, familes even, who love doing the same.

[littlejoe]

9. I wrote an editorial that touched on this subject about four months

ago. Yes, it is true that sportsmen all over the country are hopping mad at the Bush administration's environmental policies.

So much so, that many who are one issue(anti-gun control) voters are now going into this campaign season with their eyes wide open.

Few people enjoy what our outdoors has to offer more than hunters and fishermen. Take away forests and prescious ecosystems, waterways and watersheds, and what do they have left? Not much.

And no single group of individuals are as great of stewards to the land than hunters.

I would really like to see an uprising among the white males who historically vote republican. Bush and his kind wouldn't know how to handle it.

And John Kerry, being a hunter himself, is just the man who can relate to these two groups.

[DeepModem Mom]

14. NPR had a segment on this issue the other day --

about surprising opposition to Bush, based on environmental policy, coming from those who hunt and fish.

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. Yes...

and I rather think that Kerry's credentials as a sportsman and dedicated proponent of conservation might be something that will cause some of these people to vote Democratic in November. I really think this is a constituency he needs to reach out to, because a lot of them are NOT happy with the GOP.

[donco6]

11. I just can't actually see them pulling the lever for a Dem.

As much as they might be disappointed in the Repugs, I can't see them actually voting for Kerry. All they need is the gay marriage issue waved in their faces for a few more months, and they'll forget all about the environment.

/synicism off

[havocmom]

28. bush* took 80% where I live. He won't do it again. He has been outed

as the lying, coward he is. As our friends and neighbors get called up and sent to Iraq, more and more of the lies for that war are becoming common knowledge. And as kilth and kin beg for supplies to be sent to them, the problems of leaving troop supplies to the tender mercies of greedy corporations gets get lots of attention. Support the troops means a lot here. Halliburton isn't our frined and we know it.

As bad as the Iraqi invasion is playing here, corporate scandals are really pissing folks off. They see thru the scams and more are getting information from the internet instead of cable TV and Rushbo.

Montana could go Dem pretty easily if the gun control issues fade and we can get out the message that environmental concerns and protections can also favor employment and recreation. We must be sure to communicate that Dems are not the extremists the right wing corporatists paint us as.

Repubs at state level are continually trying to break into the coal tax depletion trust fund in order to pay for tax cuts now. That fund is intended to cover the loss of income to the state when the coal mining finally dwindles and the income from it is lost. Attempts to rob it now to pay for tax cuts which go mostly to the wealthy need to be pointed out often. We need to make sure the general population of Montana gets good information about who really gets the tax cuts. Lot of misconception on that issue.

The environment will be more a concern also because there are a lot of folks here who are not natives. Those fancy new houses being built in the western part of the state are filling with folks from other places.

There are a lot of very wealthy folks making gated communities next to public lands. Access is gonna be a huge issue with the sportsmen. We need to point out that the gated communities are the problem, not environmental protection.

The rich wanna stop access that has been long available through private lands now that they are buying up those lands. Gated communities adjacent to public lands makes access difficult for citizens and increases the value of the private land. When folks like Charles Schwab think the national forests are part of their backyards, sportsmen are gonna get huffy. We need to use that.

We need to make the case to Montanans that any new jobs brought by the rich will be service jobs that don't pay, don't provide benefits, don't offer much dignity. Montana sportsmen and women are beginning to see that there are plans to make this place a golf resort. We need to get the message out that the Dems really offer something different. We need to show that protecting environment and traditions can create economic growth.

OK, take it away tom_paine....

[Jacobin]

32. Some will. I've seen the letters to editors in

"Field & Stream" while waiting in a doctor's office. A raging debate in the letters to editors section praising or booing a recent article in the magazine bitching about Smirky's environmental policies screwing up wildlife habitat.

A LOT of the letters were "vote democrat" or your streams and woods will be toast. A LOT.

It was heartening to read.

:-)

[jmowreader]

33. Mine tailings will win Montana for us

Bush thinks it's okay for mining companies to dump tailings (the non-ore rock they pull out of a mine) in streams. This naturally fucks up the streams.

If Kerry goes to Montana and says he'll ban dumping tailings in streams, he's got the state. Montana only has three electoral votes, but every one will be important.