NRA and Hunting

>Some land owners do. Plus
>they let their kids and
>their grand kids hunt it.
> But maybe all those
>people don't count to you.
>

Not sure what you mean by that. If they let their family hunt it they're already doing that, so no it doesn't count. I'm talking about hunters who hunt nothing but public land now for many reasons who would be forced to hunt nothing but private land. The DOW would lose a lot of money on residents and make it up with rich non-residents.

However, real hunting as we know it now would be gone. Not a huge deal for me. I've hunted since the 50's. Long enough. I'd just go fly fishing more.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-05-18 AT 04:29PM (MST)[p]"However, real hunting as we know it now would be gone."

No hunting as YOU PREFER IT would be gone. Plenty of hunting would still exist for other people. Some might even prefer it the new way. Some would maybe like the other way and just make do. Quit assuming all people are just like you.

200!
 
Tri, your juvenile, idiotic responses reveal just what kind of pitiful, immature troll you are.
Every site has their share of them. Sadly, you landed on this one.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-05-18 AT 05:23PM (MST)[p]Beard.

The OP was how the NRA getting banged on would hurt hunting. I assumed FOUNDER meant western because he's from Utah and hunts western mostly.

Our point(mine and others) was that the NRA openly supports the same forces which hope to privatize public land in the west. Mostly by extract companies, but also by folks like the Wilks Bros.

My point was the NRA has been non helpful in western hunting, since 72% of us are public hunters.

Somehow as usual Tri got in and got us lost.

He pretends that western, public land, free range hunting, and high fence, corn fed, rancher deer are the same.

Folks like yourself get it. Especially in Texas.

I just read some Dallas politician took in "$51,000 in in kind" political donations. They were deer seamen straws. Definately not free range deer.

But I'm with Muley. I'm usually treating this as a bunch of dudes bullshizzing at a bar. But as usual there's that one drunk at the end of the bar, unfortunately for you, he's a texan.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Completely off topic from the original post but this conversation has devolved to the point that I would like to chime in...

I can't cite the sources so take it for what it's worth but several times in the last couple of years I've read reports that the number one factor in declining hunter participation in people under the age of 40 has been loss of access. When there are less places to go there are less hunters.

TRI can come on and spout that just because it's private doesn't mean that there's no access which is correct but he would be 100 percent incorrect to say that the same number of hunters would be participating if public lands were transferred to private ownership. It's a simple truth that not everyone is going to pay, has a relative with a ranch, or has access to these private properties. This, in turn, would lead to less support for hunting across the board because not as many people would be able to do it. In the face of the mounting pressures placed on hunting (anti's, policy changes, lack of support from those not involved) there is a very real chance that a transfer of public land to private holding could very well be the tipping point that sends numerous types of hunting the way of the forever lost mountain lion hunts in Cali, or the use of hounds in Oregon. If this were to come to fruition then it wouldn't just be our type of hunting (western) but it would be all hunting that loses (including TRI's feeder deer). When the public swell of disapproval or indifference begins to outweigh the support then we've all lost.
 
+1

I want to say it was several studies including outdoor life and field and stream.

I hear both Newberg and Rinella quote those all the time.



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Well I see cbeard ran out of ideas quickly and got his feelings hurt since he doesn't get treated like royalty.
 
>I can't cite the sources so
>take it for what it's
>worth but several times in
>the last couple of years


>When there are less places
>to go there are less
>hunters.

Is that science? How does changing ownership suddenly make less places to go? Did the globe actually shrink?


>
>TRI can come on and spout
>that just because it's private
>doesn't mean that there's no
>access which is correct but
>he would be 100 percent
>incorrect to say that the
>same number of hunters would
>be participating if public lands
>were transferred to private ownership.

I never made the claim either way. I don't know if there will be more or less hunters and neither do you. I just know hunting itself doesn't come to a screaching hault because of it.

> It's a simple truth
>that not everyone is going
>to pay,

Well that's a load of bull. Everybody pays now. Sure some pay more and some pay less, BUT EVERYONE PAYS. If you don't want to pay more, no problem. I can respect your right to choose how much or what you spend on. But on the flip side I don't have to care that you can't afford it when somebody else can.

Last I find it interesting you bring anti hunting and non hunters into the conversation. Right now millions of anti hunters and nonhunters have zero knowledge that they "own" just as much of that land and wildlife as you do. One day that won't be the case. Mark my words they will use both of those facts against us. It may actually be better if one of those weapons is off the table for them.
 
Interesting the way you turned my posts around Tri. You either have a problem with the English language, or you're a complete moron.

I vote for both.
 
Mess with the bull and you get the horn.

It's easy to show how this is a battle based on selfish self serving agendas. Because that's what it is. There is no virtuous righteous side in this argument. Just people who want.

Look at y'all. You can't even discuss it without personal attacks, lies, and fear mongering.
 
Lol you are the last person on this forum to lecture about personal attacks. Your posts sound like a butthurt 11 year old who just learned some new filthy words he can't wait to spew for his buddies. :)
 
Go back and read boy. You didn't get put in your place until you started making comments about stupid and hard headed. If you can't handle the smell don't sling the sheet, cbeard. It's a little late for you to take the high road now.
 
>LAST EDITED ON Mar-05-18
>AT 05:23?PM (MST)
>
>Beard.
>
>The OP was how the NRA
>getting banged on would hurt
>hunting. I assumed FOUNDER
>meant western because he's from
>Utah and hunts western mostly.
>
>
>Our point(mine and others) was that
>the NRA openly supports the
>same forces which hope to
>privatize public land in the
>west. Mostly by extract
>companies, but also by folks
>like the Wilks Bros.
>
>My point was the NRA has
>been non helpful in western
>hunting, since 72% of us
>are public hunters.
>
>Somehow as usual Tri got in
>and got us lost.
>
>He pretends that western, public land,
>free range hunting, and high
>fence, corn fed, rancher deer
>are the same.
>
>Folks like yourself get it.
>Especially in Texas.
>
>I just read some Dallas politician
>took in "$51,000 in in
>kind" political donations. They
>were deer seamen straws.
>Definately not free range deer.
>
>
>But I'm with Muley. I'm
>usually treating this as a
>bunch of dudes bullshizzing at
>a bar. But as
>usual there's that one drunk
>at the end of the
>bar, unfortunately for you, he's
>a texan.
>
>
>From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN,
>PUBLIC LAND.

Hoss the NRA do not support privatization of public land just because they do not come out and openly support public land does not mean they support private land. Your rationalization of support is BS to say the least. To say they support companies that support privatization of public land you better have evidence to back that up. I have tryed to do research on the company's you listed in post 118 and only could find true support of the 2 Amendment by NSSF, Kimber and Remington the other organizations show no more support than what the NRA clearly states in there email reply to you and others. I do not expect all of these organizations to have a strong stance on gun rights that is not there platform and that is not why people join them.
To use the Sierra club as support for your position is clearly a slap in the face of any true sportsman you state they have over 2 million members yes that is true but it is also true that is over 2 million people that are against hunters, fisherman, atv/utv users livestock use, and any right to use the land as most westerners Grandfather's intended it to be used and my Grandfather's gave to much blood, sweat and tears for me to excuse there lying and borderline terrorist actions.
Hoss I do support Public land and not allowing it to go private but in my opinion the way you are going about it is not going to win a lot of support.
You keep going after the Republicans and some are for privatization of public land but you name me a Democrat that will support the traditional values that the Republican support. Traditional values is just as dear to me as public land is. What about spending do you support the Democrats and spend the country in to bankruptcy. How about the people can of a state can vote how they want issues in there state to be handled but the Democrat's do not respect the vote of the people and judicially take are rights away and please do not through Independents at me I have yet too see one that does not join one organization or the other and as I stated they normally join the Democrats they just claim to be Independents to get votes in a strong Republican district.
I do believe you are a Traditionalist and have strong family values so please give me some names of some politicians I can support with Traditional values and support the other things I have stated matters to me and I am sure you too care about these tbings. Just because I want the perfect candidate don't mean there is one out there quite the opposite we usually have too take the good with the bad.
 
>I am not sure Hossblur can
>legally possess a firearm.

Tri your comment has no merit I do not get the point of comments that are as pointless as this one.
 
>Mess with the bull and you
>get the horn.
>
>It's easy to show how this
>is a battle based on
>selfish self serving agendas.
>Because that's what it is.
>There is no virtuous righteous
>side in this argument.
>Just people who want.
>
>Look at y'all. You can't
>even discuss it without personal
>attacks, lies, and fear mongering.
>



Not all "want" is the same. My side "wants" to keep public land open, meaning open to all citizens.

Your side "wants" to capitalize on a public resource and put up a gate.

Basic point is Tri I can drive by a mtn and wonder how the elk are. Or some sage and wonder if there are any chukars.

Guys like you drive by it and calculate how much an outfitter could charge fencing it off. Or how much oil can be sucked out per acre.

You feel like a piece of ground need justify its existence economically to be of value. I'm fine with it just being ground.

My side prefers organic concept of hunting. Going HUNTING, with the ONLY guarantee is that there are none.

Yours prefers guarantees. Guaranteed animals, trophy, food, etc..

But, we need only look to the NRA to see where they are.

33,000 acres in New Mexico. Did they buy it and open it up to the masses like RMEF, DU, etc have? Did they want to support a place where men could express their FREEDOM, and shoot and hunt at will?

NO. They set up an outfitter service. Actions speak



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
How much I pay to hunt varies from year to year and is my business. I do hunt stands when I am introducing kids to deer hunting. Where I hunt, deer stands aren't allowed. Neither are feeders. However I fully support other people in this state being able to use stands and feeders. There are portions of this state which are almost impossible to hunt successfully without stands and feeders.

Here's a little narrative for you. I actually guided a youth hunt last season which had the most intelligent deer I have ever come across. It was a high fenced place with deer stands and feeders. I thought we were going to whack four bucks easy greasy and get some kids excited about deer hunting. We left there three days later with one buck. On the upside me and the child I was in charge of saw a giant deer which the owner had three trail camera picks of but had never seen in the flesh. The kids were still really excited about deer hunting.

That's the beauty of hunting here. There are all kinds of hunting experiences here and you can find the one that fits you best and you enjoy. I don't personally want to pay money for high fenced hunting. But if other people do I don't have any problem with it. That's their business. I don't get high and mighty and think I am some better hunter than them. I don't hunt to measure myself amongst men. I hunt to play the game with the wildlife and get some good food.
 
No. Not feelings. Actions. Whether its elephant imports, WLH/Waldrips fiasco, tv hunters, regardless, you always come down on the industry, big money side.

I think its a Texas thing. Somehow there, unique to the rest of the country wildlife ranching has been turned into hunting. Exotics, deer sperm banks, high fence. You are a product of your environment. You live in the most commercialized hunting state in the union, in one of the biggest cities in the world. Its not surprising you have some warped concepts. But when guys that live in your state can't even fathom what you support, it past feelings, it dillusion.



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>?On the upside me and the
>child I was in charge of

I had an inkling you had multiple personalities
 
I'm going to assume you're not talking about me. You've already assumed you know me and so far, you don't.

Not sure why you can't say what you pay? Can't anybody hunt where you hunt if they have the money? If so, it's not a secret. It's like giving an outfitters rates.
 
"Not sure why you can't say what you pay? Can't anybody hunt where you hunt if they have the money? If so, it's not a secret. It's like giving an outfitters rates."


I don't talk about my money with other people. I come from a little bit different time and place than you maybe. Where I am from it is even rude to ask, but I can understand you probably were raised different than me so I'm not knifing at you. And I don't give an outfitters rates. When someone asks me what an outfitter charges I say ask them. That's their business. If anyone else hunts where I hunt they make their deal with the person with the hunting rights and its none of my business also what they settled on.

The first part of your post I really don't know what you are talking about.
 
>"Not sure why you can't say
>what you pay? Can't anybody
>hunt where you hunt if
>they have the money? If
>so, it's not a secret.
>It's like giving an outfitters
>rates."
>
>
>I don't talk about my money
>with other people. I
>come from a little bit
>different time and place than
>you maybe. Where I
>am from it is even
>rude to ask, but I
>can understand you probably were
>raised different than me so
>I'm not knifing at you.
> And I don't give
>an outfitters rates. When
>someone asks me what an
>outfitter charges I say ask
>them. That's their business.
> If anyone else hunts
>where I hunt they make
>their deal with the person
>with the hunting rights and
>its none of my business
>also what they settled on.
>
>
>The first part of your post
>I really don't know what
>you are talking about.

I wasn't really asking about your money as much as asking what the landowner charges. Hard for me to ask him if I don't know who he is. Is that a secret too?

The first part of my post was self-explanatory if you refer to your post I was responding to. Too complicated?
 
The disagreement ultimately comes down to semantics.

To a western public land hunter, hunting is the entirety of wildness and the pursuit of an animal. To Tri, if you go out and shoot something you have hunted.

Tri thinks because he pays somebody to shoot livestock, that is hunting. We consider that shooting livestock. He thinks he hunted, we can't figure out why he doesn't understand the difference.

?The mere fair-weather hunter, who trusts entirely to the exertion of others, and does more than ride or walk about under favorable circumstances, and shoot at what somebody else shows him, is a hunter in name only." - Theodore Roosevelt - 1901
 
Have yall noticed all the posts here have broken down to what tristate thinks or feels and really no content.

Yall really can't defend your position at all.
Like I've said before if your position was righteous YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO DEFEND IT.
 
That is absolutely not what you asked me. Now you are crawfishing.

AND YES WHO I DO BUSINESS WITH IS ALSO NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS UNLESS I DECIDE TO MAKE IT SO OR THE OTHER PERSON DECIDES SO.

I did refer to my post that you responded to, and your response didn't make any sense. How old are you?
 
>That is absolutely not what you
>asked me. Now you
>are crawfishing.
>
>AND YES WHO I DO BUSINESS
>WITH IS ALSO NONE OF
>YOUR BUSINESS UNLESS I DECIDE
>TO MAKE IT SO OR
>THE OTHER PERSON DECIDES SO.
>
>
>I did refer to my post
>that you responded to, and
>your response didn't make any
>sense. How old are you?
>

Older and smarter than you.

I'm done with this. Your stupidity has become boring.
 
>Like I've said before if your
>position was righteous YOU WOULDN'T
>HAVE TO DEFEND IT.


Then why does the NRA's position need to be defended?

Nemont
 
"I'm done with this."

Well one more guy quit after he realized he was making an argument against me instead of sticking with his actual position. Like I have said before, if your position was so righteous then you wouldn't have to defend it.

I'll see you soon under another moniker.

Cheers
 
"Then why does the NRA's position need to be defended?"


They aren't. In fact they have said they don't have a position on this.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-18 AT 01:28PM (MST)[p]I am talking their position on guns etc. You said if a position is "righteous" it doesn't need defending.

Nemont
 
>
>"Then why does the NRA's position
>need to be defended?"
>
>
>They aren't. In fact they
>have said they don't have
>a position on this.



Tri that's not even true. They never once said they don't have a position.

They said, they don't think it will pass this congress. That's not "no position".



From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
>Have yall noticed all the posts
>here have broken down to
>what tristate thinks or feels
>and really no content.
>
>Yall really can't defend your position
>at all.
>Like I've said before if your
>position was righteous YOU WOULDN'T
>HAVE TO DEFEND IT.


Hey Tristate, grizzly just hit you with some ?righteous? sh@t, and you don't know the difference. I really enjoyed your ?high fence? hunting story...and that elusive buck that had to avoid all those corn feeders...But you and that kid still saw him...what you do? Hike 10 miles into the wilderness to 13,000 ft elevation and camp out for 10 days by a feeder?
 
Okay you aren't defending the NRA but if the NRA's position on guns, gun control and the 2nd Amendment were "righteous" it wouldn't require a defense of the NRA's position on those issues?

So the current position the NRA holds on the issues listed is not "righteous" per your standard?

Nemont
 
>They aren't defending anything. They
>are lobbying and shining light
>on lies.

No. What they were/are doing is scratching checks to the likes of Rob Bishop. In the most republican state in the US, where he has nearly zero chance of losing a primary, and nearly zero an election. And at no time did they ever as Rob to back it off. Nor Hatch, nor Chaffetz. And bet your guns end old Mitt Romney will get some "love" as well.

That is what they did, are doing, will do. They will sit around, spewing the importance of gun rights, while THEIR candidates, THEIR party work to shut down hundreds of millions of acres where SHOOTING is now legal. Forget hunting, you don't get to SHOOT on closed land. Meaning most of the west will loose their right practice the 2nd ammend.
But, they "don't think it will pass this congress".
Neither will assault weapon bans, yet I see daily alerts, calls to action, fund raising to stop such bans.

The NRA doesn't believe in gray areas, yet they want to inhabit one on this issue. And this issue affects far more gun carrying, shooters than the numbers of their membership by 10x.


From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 
Hey Hoss, did you see the talked to Trump and calmed him down this week? For a buck and a quarter over 5 years they come in pretty handy once in awhile. I bet on a good weekend you can drink it down and piss out more than that? They have their purpose.


#livelikezac
 
I can't tell. Are you angry that they didn't cut you a check?


Can people in Utah with a felony conviction posess a firearm?
 
>Hey Hoss, did you see the
>talked to Trump and calmed
>him down this week? For
>a buck and a quarter
>over 5 years they come
>in pretty handy once in
>awhile. I bet on a
>good weekend you can drink
>it down and piss out
>more than that? They have
>their purpose.
>
>
>#livelikezac


I drink KEYSTONE so $125 might be a stretch for a weekend?

I spent a bunch of time yesterday as a was driving to bids on the phone with local legislators who have come up with a couple more bills to give away state sovereign land, and a watershed. Its been like this the whole session this year. Our AG is getting ready to puss away $4 million suing the feds. On and on, over and over. Folks with the Tri mindset, many just like him, folks who almost never touch land that isn't in town, or a resort.

This is Utah. The NRA is maybe 2nd in power to the LDS church. The NRA "not thinking it will pass" is a simple wink and nod to the repubs to feel free to continue. It wouldn't take a dime for them to put the brakes on this crap. A Press release strongly opposing "transfer". A speach doing so.

This land thing is the direct result of one party rule. Same type of deal as California on the other side.

If you want your kids to stop coloring on a wall you tell them to STOP. You dont sit around watching it because you don't think it will stick.

If they were a single focus org, that would be different.

On second thought, if Trump tariff s alum, $125 might not be too hard.

From the party of HUNTIN, FISHIN, PUBLIC LAND.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

IMG_6383.jpeg
772FA98A-8408-4EAA-A315-0182C02D757F.jpeg
IMG_9620.jpeg
IMG_9621.jpeg
IMG_1986.jpg
98760681-F676-412B-B45A-9F6AB7C86B94.png
2B65036F-EA2A-4B94-A244-84123D787EC1.jpeg
71128A89-A04E-48F6-9731-B6D9CB98EAE8.jpeg
Ridn9high's Trophy Muley
Tracy's%20169'[1].jpg
2021 Mule Deer Success
Nice Muley
Back
Top Bottom