NRA and Bush. . .

T

TFinalshot

Guest
NRA Pressured To Resist Bush Energy Policies
Hunters Wary of Limited Land Access

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 7, 2007; A03

SEATTLE -- After years of close association with the Republican Party and hard-nosed opposition to federal land-use regulation, the National Rifle Association is being pressured by its membership to distance itself from President Bush's energy policies that have opened more public land for oil and gas drilling and limited access to hunters and anglers.

"The Bush administration has placed more emphasis on oil and gas than access rights for hunters," said Ronald L. Schmeits, second vice president of the NRA, a member of its board of directors and a bank president in Raton, N.M.

The new emphasis on the issue of access to public lands, which Schmeits said is at the "discussion" level among the NRA's directors, would represent a strategic shift for the NRA, whose leadership in Washington has long maintained that its 4 million members were not complaining or even asking questions about access to public lands.

But, during the past six years, an increasing number of the country's 46 million hunters and anglers, including Republican-leaning shooting organizations such as the Boone and Crockett Club, have been grumbling about the Bush's administration fast-tracking of oil and gas drilling leases on public lands.

"We find that our members are having a harder time finding access to public land," said Schmeits, who recently pushed the NRA to lobby for congressional protection of the game-rich Valle Vidal forest on federal land in New Mexico. "Gun rights are still number one, but there will be more time and effort spent on this issue [by NRA leaders] as we move forward."

Such a change in policy could undercut a key argument that the NRA uses to raise money, sway voters and help elect candidates. It has long warned its members that many environmentalists are advancing a subversive gun-grabbing agenda masterminded by liberal Democrats.

Andrew Arulanandam, the group's spokesman in Washington, said he agrees with Schmeits that members are voicing increasing concern about access to hunting land and that the NRA is focusing on the problem.

This comes at a politically challenging time for what has long been one of the most feared lobbying groups in Washington. The NRA is increasingly being criticized as out of touch by some members of the Outdoor Writers Association of America. A new gun ownership group is trying to win the support of disaffected hunters. Also, there is some complaining within the gun industry that NRA policies might be bad for business.

"The core, the dream, the passion that drives gun ownership is hunting and getting out on the wide open spaces," said a senior gun company executive who did not want to be quoted by name for fear of retribution from the NRA. "In the same way the Bush administration has overreached on Iraq, the NRA has overreached on gun rights. We are losing our grip on this green environmental thing."

The NRA found new strength and increased membership with its battles against gun control during the Clinton era, while cementing ties with the Republican Party. An NRA official was videotaped boasting in 2000 that the association would open an office in the Bush White House. No such office opened, but close identification now with an unpopular president and a party that has lost control of Congress may be hurting the NRA.

"If Republicans have a bad year, the NRA is going to have a bad year," said Charlie Cook, the political analyst who runs the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "The Democrats have learned in recent years to shut the hell up about guns. Once they did, they started to win some elections."

In November's midterm elections, a number of prominent NRA-backed Republican incumbents were defeated, including Sen. George Allen of Virginia, Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana, Sen. James M. Talent of Missouri and Rep. Richard W. Pombo of California.

Top Democratic leaders appear to have taken the shut-your-mouth-about-guns lesson to heart. Aides to the new speaker and majority leader in the House said that Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland have no intention of bringing up gun control in the coming year.

For six years, the NRA joined the Bush administration in opposing the Clinton-era roadless rule, a broad land-protection measure that put nearly a third of the national forests off limits to most development -- while keeping them open for hunters and anglers willing to walk or ride horseback into the backcountry.

The 2001 rule, which was overturned by the Bush administration but reinstated by a federal judge in September, had little initial support from state fish and game agencies, Western governors or many major hunting groups. The NRA opposed the rule, arguing that it was too broad and prevented older, less mobile and disabled hunters from using prime hunting lands.

But years of aggressive oil and gas leasing on prime hunting areas in the federal lands of the Rocky Mountain West seem to have made those protections more attractive. Fish and game agencies in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Montana now support the roadless rule, as do most of the region's governors and more and more hunters.

"It is a no-brainer," said Hal Herring, a contributing editor for Field and Stream magazine and an avid hunter who lives near Montana's Rocky Mountain Front, the only area in the lower 48 states where grizzlies, elk and bighorn sheep still come out of the mountains to feed on the plains.

"The NRA stance on the roadless rule is a mistake," Herring said, echoing the view of many prominent outdoor writers. "There are no more roadless areas being produced."

A reader poll in 2003 by Field and Stream found that 41 percent of hunters saw shrinking wildlife habitat as the biggest threat to hunting in America, while 25 percent saw anti-gun legislation as a major threat to hunting.

Trying to seize on these sentiments, a rival gun group, the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), was founded two years ago by former Washington Redskin Ray Schoenke and John Rosenthal, a real estate developer in Boston. "I believe that we have reached a tipping point where the majority of hunters and shooters realize the NRA isn't representing their interests," said Rosenthal, who is a longtime activist for handgun control.

The group concedes that, so far, the NRA has more executives than the new group has members. That has not stopped the NRA from attacking the AHSA in its magazine, America's 1st Freedom, as a "cold, calculated attempt by the gun-ban lobby to thieve the hard-earned political credibility of gun owners and hunters."

Staff writer Juliet Eilperin in Washington contributed to this report.
 
The NRA is a second ammendmet defender first. I am a member for that reason and that reason alone. I hope they don't get side tracked by land use problems. The AHSA is an anti second ammendment group in place solely as cover for antigun politicians to hide behind and claim to support hunters. It is actually a brilliant ploy by the anti-gunners.

JB
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-14-07 AT 10:17PM (MST)[p] BUSH'S JOB IS COMPLEX, DIFFICULT, & EXHAUSTING TO SAY THE LEAST I'M SURE. I JUST CAUGHT HIM ON 60 MINUTES, I HAVE TO SAY I THINK HE'S THICKED SKINED (THATS A GOOD THING), STICKS TO HIS PRINCIPALS, & I HAVE A TON OF RESPECT FOR THE MAN. ...YD.
 
Yes, let's depend on the towel heads for 100% of our oil so that Elmer Fudd can continue to road hunt and drink his barley pops.
 
Yukon,
I saw that interview also and it reaffirmed my thoughts on Bush. He's not a bad guy or a crooked guy he's just bull headed and not very bright. his arrogance and ignorance got him in a big pickle ( Iraq ) and it's now making it worse. sticking to your principles is a virtue when you're right, it just makes you look stupid when you're wrong. as for the oil drilling I'm all for it if it's done right and places that need to be left alone are protected, with congress now watching what goes on I doubt anything too environmentally unfreindly will happen.
 
Energy policy, the administration has a one track energy policy, its called black gold - period. Carbon is the rule with theres guys. Sure they threw a bone in for wind, but that was just a huge corporate deal. No one has been asked to change their lifestyles inorder to help the nation. It still is spend and spend and spend and spend some more, oh and while youre at it, spend some more that will win the war. . .

I spent 5 months on the Cheney energy plan, I know what's in it, I know who's in it and it's a pile of corporate greed, short sighted planning and smoke and mirrors. That energy policy and the people associated with it, is the primary work related reason I left my job in WA DC, I could not stand another day in the city with the new draconian in charge. It was like darth vader showed up after Bush and Cheney took office. Everything on the inside was shut down, and NOTHING went out if first it did not pass through OMB, or the Whitehouse or a representative of the Whitehouse first. Talk about draconian and central government, it was pathetic!

Back to the point, we could save more oil than this nation ever could produce if we slowed down, drove lighter cars, conserved our resources by not spilling gas, put air in your tires, and did proper maintenance on our autos, use more human power, and we could cut way down on total usage if we just insulated our homes better, changed out all the light bulbs to the new florescent - they are good if you buy the right ones - etc.

You see, the Bush plan, since day one, was all about increasing the supply while helping the nation increase its demand. Only, you can only increase supply if you have unlimited resourses. In a finite system, like the one in which we live, if you increase demand, increase supply, while the supply is limited, you will run out of resources - take oil for example.

Where's the life style changes that we need to implement in order to keep this country strong and whole? We cant go about phat ways much longer with out getting some kind of slap in the face. . .
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-15-07 AT 09:31AM (MST)[p]Tfinal,

Where exactly were you working in DC?? Barney Frank's cellar ???

JB
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-15-07 AT 09:38AM (MST)[p]No, more like Barny Fife. What part of the Plan did you work on?
 
That's what I thought, not much to say when the house of cards really starts coming down. I'd say when you loose the support of the NRA (if ever you had it), there's not much to say.
 
Ted Turner owns a huge amount of land in New Mexico. He is extracting huge amounts of energy from his land. The Feds are also paying him to grow and raise endangered species on his land. How can it be that he is successful at both? He is profitable on both sides of the fence. Conservation does not mean hiding in a closet and closing your eyes to minimize your impact on the world. It is responsible consumption. If Ted Turner can do it on his land then certainly the Feds can figure out how to have their cake and eat it too with more land available than even God himself would want to manage and my tax dollars to spare.

"One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
 
T said
"Back to the point, we could save more oil than this nation ever could produce if we slowed down, drove lighter cars, conserved our resources by not spilling gas, put air in your tires, and did proper maintenance on our autos, use more human power, and we could cut way down on total usage if we just insulated our homes better, changed out all the light bulbs to the new florescent - they are good if you buy the right ones - etc."

202 says. "Piss on all of that, except for the car maintenence portion and air in the tires"

As for T's original post. The government has no business owning land except for that which is used in defence of this great nation to train our military. PERIOD. If a lot of you guys weened your self from the Government TEET when it comes to hunting Government land you might be able to see better.
 
202,
You might be able to get the Bush lovers on here to cheer and shake their pom poms with you but I think your public land stand won't fly even with them. 90% of us western hunters hunt public land most if not all the time, don't base everything on what you do in Texas.
 
TF,

Ok you convinced me. On my honor, I will do my best, to ride my bicycle at all times. I will never so much as even look at one of those horrid gas guzzling, oil sucking, enivronmentally devastating vehicles again. It is environmental devastation on wheels. Wait a minute, my bicycle has tires that are made of rubber. Is that a biproduct of oil? Hmmmmmmmmmm.... What shall I do now? Pray for a fast and sudden death, that is the only way to escape!
 
So, it's better to use our limited resourses at quickly as possible than it is to use them like a true conservative?
 
Well just how limited are these "Limited Resorces." Thats a real nice term used by the left to make an arguement. Name one resorce that is soon to be gone/extinct. It damn sure aint oil or trees or land. Maybe your talking about whales. Yea get the Japanese to quit killing whales T.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-23-07 AT 08:21AM (MST)[p]you know the story of drinking water on this planet? How about the passanger pigen, or the wolf, or the grizzly, or the mature mule deer buck herds of the 50's and 60's, or the air in france and england before and durring WWI, or gold, or platinum, or coal or oil or heck, you pick one? 202, you cant be that ignorant, God help us if you are.

The alraming thing about a limited supply of a non-renewable resouseis is this, once it's gone, its gone, but more importantly, items like crude will run short in very short order, especially as our damand and uses for it increases exponentially. We will find that there's "enough" one day, and shortly there after, and faster than we can change technologiclly, it will be in alarmingly short supply. Do you know what exponential grow is? - If not, try this: put one bean on the first sqare of a checkerboard, and there after double the amount of beans you place on each of the next squares, so you start with one, then two, the four, then eight, and 16 and so on until you manage to finish the board. Then come back and talk about NO LIMITS!

In the final annalysis 202, you are correct if your planning horrizon is in the 50 to 100 year range. I would like for there to be an ample supply of oil, in 50 years and at a price that my grandkids can afford.

If you think there's enough oil on this planet for another 100 years (at increasing rates adjusted for population growth and projected demand - I'm assuming historical trends in demand will continue - I'd love to see your data. . .)

There is NO respected oil company or agent on this plannet that will back your statment 202, you like Bush are out there for sure now . . .
 
202,
We have and infinite supply of oil ,trees and land ( of which there should be no public land )? first Bush and now you, I'm thinking we need a fence between us and Texas worse than Mexico.
 
T,

It truly is an honor to have you "elighten" us with your knowlege of world events. The best part is when you question our understanding.

I am a little confused, however. You see I barely or verily (see I can't even use a correct sentence) understand what you are trying to say. Being as you worked around the "White House" and have vast inside information, already puts you far and above me.

However, I wanted to try and still help; besides its what good Bush supporting conservatives do.

You said "How about the passanger pigen, or the wolf, or the grizzly, or the mature mule deer buck herds of the 50's and 60's, or the air in france and england before and durring WWI, or gold, or platinum, or coal or oil or heck, you pick one? 202, you cant be that ignorant, God help us if you are".
Please refer to: http://www.spellcheck.net/

You said: "The alraming thing about a limited supply of a non-renewable resouseis is this, once it's gone, its gone, but more importantly, items like crude will run short in very short order, especially as our damand and uses for it increases exponentially" Please refer to: http://www.spellcheck.net/

You said: "Do you know what exponential grow is? - If not, try this: put one bean on the first sqare of a checkerboard"
Please refer to dictionary.com, type in the word arrogance:

ar?ro?gance /ˈ?rəgəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ar-uh-guhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?noun offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.

You continue to dazzle us with your self proclaimed intellegence. Heck, I admit it, I am a GED recipient. However, I am still willing to admit my shortcomings and help all of my MM friends.

The only bobcat wondering if there is a space between "short" and "comings".
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-23-07 AT 11:24AM (MST)[p]LOL - run spell check, is that all you have, that's it? I jot down a few thoughts, post them without doing the proper spell check, and there are errors in grammar and spelling and that's what you come up with. . .

Nice try. . .

Please excuse my arrogance, my grammar and my spelling for I'm no better than my illiterate ancestors. . . I take all the credit and shame for posting my thoughts, including my errors.

In the future, i'll try first to run spell check, then I'll sugar coat my replies so as to not offend you staunch conservatives, particularly those that dont like in your face, to the point replies – I almost forgot that is the way conservatives like it - or have times really changed that much? In the future I will ask you to be my editor so that I can come across as non offensive, non pompous, and grammatically correct.

Good Grief. . .
 
T,

Look, I told you my IQ is not that high. Heck, I have even been accused being from "Texas". I am afraid that is all I got. So I guess you do win! But hey, I am building my self esteem one sendtinze'ate a tyme.

The only bobcat happy to give and take credit, where credit is due!!!!
 
I recall there was a time, perhaps about 1980, when there was a lot of concern for conserving oil and energy resources. Cars were being made smaller and lighter and engines more efficient and less powerful. Something changed and conservation and low powered, small cars were replaced by big trucks, SUVs, and minivans. I suspect that the drilling boom of 1979-1981 found a lot of oil and dropped the price of oil. Our oil recovery techniques became more more successful. So we were given a temporary reprieve, but now we are back down in the $h!t it would seem.

Oil is a limited resource. Other consumers are siddling up to the bar with us and they have a mighty thirst too, folks from China and Korea. It is worth considering what the impact of large oil prices might have upon our economy. OK, gasoline got over $3.00/gallon here in Texas for awhile, but it is back down to $1.96/gallon this morning. What if gasoline were $9.00/gallon; what if fuel oil were triple its cost in January 2006? What would this do to our economy? As TFinalshot points out, oil consumption growth is exponential. Sure, today I can fill my Suburban up at the pump and have money left over. What about 20 years from now when India has surpassed the US as the largest economy in the world and China has surpassed India? After 20 years of exponential growth of oil consumption? It is a problem, and just because we may experience temporary reprieves doesn't make the problem go away.

I don't know what the solution is. It seems that covering every bet is the way to go: hybrid vehicles using regenerative braking, high efficiency vehicles, more mass transportation infrastructure, encouragement of home office employment, encouragement of car pooling, more wind power, whatever the heck you can think of! It would be best not to hit hard limits on oil usage. We need to begin adopting and changing now, it would seem.

I agree that the solution isn't to drill for oil in every last remaining crook and cranny of our remaining wildernesses. If for no other reason than that this does not solve the problem but at best only forestalls addressing the problem a few short years, and we're talking less than 5 years would be my guess.

Our problem is that we have to change our ways at some point. If not today soon. I am living in the old ways myself, driving my Chevrolet Suburban and liking it a lot. I do not relish the idea of giving up the luxury of this truck when I go elk hunting or deer hunting or duck hunting or driving long drives at Christmas with my family. Yet I see that at some point the fuel consumption of this vehicle will become untenable. I guess I'm not going to unilaterally change. I need to be coerced, gently I hope, from the outside. I don't want to bear the burden of correcting our oil dependency alone, so some sort of external coordination is needed.
 
T you just did not get my point. You and the rest of the doom and gloomers are getting old. It aint as bad as you want it to be. Maybe you feel guilty for how well you have it. If you were so concerned with muleys of the 50's and 60' and their habitat loss you would not be living in their habitat. So all this crap about us having to change our ways is old. Why don't you lead by example and go to living indian style before all us Euro trash took over.

I have friends in the oil business. I live in Texas you know. These folks are scientist that tell me it is an unspoken truth that there is more oil in the middle east alone to last 1000's of years even at expected use levels of the future. The lie is to make you think it is quickly running out. Keep the price high yada yada yada you know the rest. So your oil argument don't fly around here.

Trees..........there are more trees in the US today than in ant time in history. If ya don't believe it just read the Departmnet of the inrteriors study from the late 80's.

Land..........this country has got land comming out it wahoo. Hell leave any major city and soon you are surrounded by land and wildlife. Hell I live in the city and I got gobs of deer and turkey running all over my yard.

I refuse to let the few neerdowells that think they know it all tell me I should change. Change yourself and shut it cause the rest of us are sick of hearing it.

When you doom and gloomers think it is really that bad I will standby and let you and yours go native while I enjoy my lifestyle.
 
Hey D and T I just love the first two sentences in the second to the last paragragh of the fist link.

You guys need to get the dark cloud to quit following you.

It aint all that bad guys.
 
Then why did BUSH pitch a 25% reduction in oil use over the next 10 years if there's no reason to do it? He either is watching the public sentiment (polls), lost his spine, or has come to the conclusion that conservation is the best choice for human kind.

What's said in Texas should stay in Texas. . .
 
What they are saying is that gas will become too expensive to use, because what is readily recoverable will run out shortly, there are billions of gallons of oil that we can never recover and there are more billions of gallons that we COULD recover but you'd pay $10 a gallon for gas at the cost to recover it, so we need alternatives. We also need alternatives environmentally speaking.
 
Yes D I understand that but don't you think our income will be up as well as gas price being up. Everything is relative. All that makes me want to do is make more money so I can still live the way I like.

T I do not agree with the 25% crap and E85 is not realistic. It is way more expensive than gas and you will end up pricing third world countries out of a stable food source. You think they hate us now just wait until you take away their food as well. Genius. E85 is bogus. I need nuke powered F350's to replace my 7.3's and 6.0's.................Lets get nuke power going. Can you imagine the pulling power..........I'm in.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-24-07 AT 01:15PM (MST)[p]

History has proven that conservation and a more sound energy policy is better and FAR cheaper than nukes! Just changing out light bulbs to high efficiency fluorescents is cheaper, over the long run than building just one nuke plat, and it conserves our resources too.

If nothing is done, our population will eclipse our gluttonous appetite. We must manage our demands in a limited supply system. I would prefer more conservation, less destruction and more effort put into fuel cells than nukes. I also believe that a more decentralized power production system is the way of the future. How much money are you willing to pay to upgrade the entire electical grid, AND build more nukes? The people will pay, no doubt, but I'd rather pay for a more long-term, least-cost solution than continue on this centralized system of energy supply. Wind, solar, geothermal, small scale hydro, and local energy systems that meet the demands of rural areas is, in my veiw worth the pain.

Why is that people who dont want to take too much from our future generations are considered doom and gloomers 202? I'm rather optimistic that there will soon be a reduction in the number humans that demand supply side resouces managemet as the answer to our long-term energy needs.

My resources management foundation starts with recognizing that there are limits, you cant out work solar radiation and gravity - unless you plan to work more and spend everything you have on maintenance, followed by the principal of, "keep our options open," and if no other alternatives are feasible then, if you must, reduce the limited supply, but at a conservative level.

We all could stand to use less. . .
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom