Exclusively Bowhunters vs. General Rifle Hunters.... lend your thoughts

[In God We Trust]

On a very basic, generalized level, if you want hunting and weapons to always be an option for your family, conservatives in politics would provide this. BUT, if you want public land to hunt, the left seems to be a little better at providing this. The problem is much of the left would love nothing more than to see public land providing recreation exclusively for the non-gun toting demographic.

Well said. Just look at Colorado. We have 'Open Space' parks all over the state that allow many forms of recreation except for hunting. Due to the population boom many in the state are calling for a shooting ban on the front range public land due to user conflict. People that look at everything from one side will have lots of land and no hunting or all of the guns you can buy but little to no public land to hunt on. I lean conservative but like the live and let live libertarian lifestyle. Be careful when you call yourself an 'exclusive bow hunter' and side with a group that wants to limit firearm ownership and firearm opportunities. Once they are done with the guns they will come after your bow hunting next. I hunt with both weapons depending on the season and support hunting as a whole. I don't pretend that one method of take is somehow morally better then another.

 

[Jason Snyder]

BUT, if you want public land to hunt, the left seems to be a little better at providing this. The problem is much of the left would love nothing more than to see public land providing recreation exclusively for the non-gun toting demographic./QUOTE]

Nonsensical. Liberals do not want you to have guns or hunt. So saying they are better at providing public land to hunt is nonsense.

Their agenda fully realized leaves you with no guns, no hunting, no private land ownership, and begging them for a permit to access public land on their terms.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bip...crosoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&gws_rd=ssl

Nonsense. Look at the voting on the Bipartisan Sportsman's Act, and the funding and reauthorization of the LWCF. There are plenty of very liberal democrats who support hunters.

When you try to boil this down to Democrat vs. Republican or liberal vs. conservative you are limting yourself to a very small box you are trying to operate in.

 

[Jon Boy]

One observation I have made that is similar is that Western hunters in particular seem to be more left leaning than hunters east of the Rockies. I haven't drilled all the way down to weapon of choice but I think there is a clear difference based on geography. I was surprised to notice this as I thought most of us were just the opposite. At least we are in the south.

Hate to admit it but as much as I love it out west it's one of the things that makes me hesitant to move out there. Wouldn't want to move to a state with all my gun rights intact and then lose them like colorado did.

The reason for this is due to the fact the right does things like vote for a public land transfer. Even our own senator Steve Daines (R) turned his back on Montana by voting for it after it was made clear in surveys that the majority of MT was against it. Last time I will vote for him.. In Texas its not thought of as a big deal because there is no public land there. Then people from Texas come to MT (wilks bros) buy ranches and shut off long time access to public lands. Perfectly legal, yes. Is it right, not in the opinions of Montanans. Its too bad because most of my views are considered conservative but public lands and conservation are issues that are most important to me. I feel that is a lot of western hunters thoughts too.

 

[Beendare]

I'm a bowhunter from Ca....and I assure you I am as fiscally conservative as they come as are almost every bowhunter I know.

I wasn't always a conservative but from owning my own business while dealing with Gov beaurocracies my entire career [plus paying boatloads of fees and taxes everywhere I turn]....I have become a conservative.

Rifle / bow its all hunting. The problem as I see it is hunters just want to hunt...and not pay any attention to politics- a few I know don't even vote. Well the unfortunate truth with life is EVERYTHING is politics.....and every hunter needs to do just a small part to keep our rights as hunters.

 

[Take-a-knee]

Anyone that thinks one party or another will save hunting is delusional.
.

I can't believe you didn't mention all of those state democrat party right-to-hunt initiatives.

 

[couesbitten]

I either vote for the candidate that has stances close to my own values, or in worst case scenarios the one that I think is the lesser of the two evils.

So Jason, as a fellow Washington resident, I'm curious how often the candidate that has stances close to your own values is a Democrat, give me a ball park percentage. I don't disagree that that there are enemies to our hunting and gun owning rights in both parties, but I've rarely seen a Democrat that I would vote for over any Republican. Probably the last time I voted for a Democrat was when my only choice was between two of them.

I think that the whole stance of "I don't vote a party, I vote for the candidate that best represents my values" is a bit of a smoke screen. For example, I believe in the 2nd Amendment, and in my mind, the Democrat party is an enemy of the 2nd Amendment. I'm not saying all Democrats are, but I believe that the party is, and when it comes down to voting on bills, that Democrat politician that is representing you is going to vote the party line. 99/100, I vote Republican because the party, and generally the candidate, has a stance that more closely represents my own.

 

[Coyote Commander]

I don't know a single hunter, gun or bow that's liberal.

Some may be more "center", but no lilly livered libs.

There is a movement in the West amongst yuppy concrete dwellers for getting "natural", "hormone free" food via hunting, I would surmise many of these types probably lean left some. But from what I've seen, they're a pretty small group and it may just be a fad that will pass.

 

[Jason Snyder]

I can't believe you didn't mention all of those state democrat party right-to-hunt initiatives.

Can you expand on what point you're trying to make?

 

[couesbitten]

I'm betting that Take-a-knee was being sarcastic to make a point.

 

[Jason Snyder]

So Jason, as a fellow Washington resident, I'm curious how often the candidate that has stances close to your own values is a Democrat, give me a ball park percentage. I don't disagree that that there are enemies to our hunting and gun owning rights in both parties, but I've rarely seen a Democrat that I would vote for over any Republican. Probably the last time I voted for a Democrat was when my only choice was between two of them.

I think that the whole stance of "I don't vote a party, I vote for the candidate that best represents my values" is a bit of a smoke screen. For example, I believe in the 2nd Amendment, and in my mind, the Democrat party is an enemy of the 2nd Amendment. I'm not saying all Democrats are, but I believe that the party is, and when it comes down to voting on bills, that Democrat politician that is representing you is going to vote the party line. 99/100, I vote Republican because the party, and generally the candidate, has a stance that more closely represents my own.

I couldn't even begin to give you a percentage as I don't keep track. The last presidential election I voted for Mitt Romney, even though I could find very few redeeming qualities that separated him from Barack Obama. In the end, I felt he was the lesser of two evils, although I certainly won't say that with any conviction.

Sorry if you feel it's a smokescreen, it's just being honest. The 2nd Amendment is written into the US Constitution, and therefore I am guaranteed some level of protection for gun ownership. Our hunting and fishing heritage, and availability of public lands to hunt on is not written into the US Constitution. I cannot simply trust every politician to care about those interests and protect them. Both Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray have voted to support issues that benefit sportsmen and women.

 

[Take-a-knee]

I'm betting that Take-a-knee was being sarcastic to make a point.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

The last "good" democrat (Larry McDonald) was killed by a Soviet air-to-air missile on KAL 007.

So many confuse the powerful chamber of commerce wing of the republican party as being its only influence. They are the modern-day robber barons. Thomas Jefferson's political descendants only have friends in the republican and libertarian parties today, however few those may be. Looking for allies where there are none is like elk hunting in Manhattan.

 

[Coyote Commander]

And if you believe the liberal democrat party in this country is ANY friend to hunting, fishing, trapping, gun ownership, you're delusional.

 

[JWP58]

Who cares?

Cold hard truth = Nobody in D.C. gives a shit about you or me. They only care about lobby money and insider trading. They'll say ANYTHING that will get them elected. So hanging your hat on some political agenda, or party is probably just going to lead to disappointment.

To try and draw politics into hunting at EVERY turn of the road is exhausting....and pointless.

 

[Jason Snyder]

And if you believe the liberal democrat party in this country is ANY friend to hunting, fishing, trapping, gun ownership, you're delusional.

One only needs to look at your own senator, John Tester to see the falsehood in this statement. He is a far cry better for sportsmen than his predecessor Denny Rehberg.

 

[tipsntails7]

I don't know a single hunter, gun or bow that's liberal.

Some may be more "center", but no lilly livered libs.

There is a movement in the West amongst yuppy concrete dwellers for getting "natural", "hormone free" food via hunting, I would surmise many of these types probably lean left some. But from what I've seen, they're a pretty small group and it may just be a fad that will pass.

What is a "lilly livered lib"?

 

[gelton]

Every hunter I've ever known was from West of the Rockies (or along the Front Range of the Rockies), and as stated, strong majority conservative. And that goes back a few decades.

I think another consideration here is education, and I'm not talking about the over-education of morons here. Seems as though the higher some go in the system, the dumber they get. I'm talking about people understanding what their beliefs and ideologies really are. Take unions for example: Unions and union members have historically sided with the libs. But when I discuss these issues with individuals that are union.......most all of their ideologies fall to the conservative side. Yet because of the union they've always voted liberal. People need to educate themselves, and a single issue shouldn't decide which side they're on. You have to take all of it into consideration.

I agree in large part and was in no way suggesting that most western hunters are left leaning but just moreso than I have witnessed here in Texas or anywhere else for that matter. To put it into perspective and to throw out some numbers, I would guestimate that about 5% of hunters in the southeast or central U.S. are lefties whereas I would guess that at least 15% of hunters out west are left leaning. Definitely still not the majority but a much bigger minority than I am used to.

See the thread about the bundy ranch on this site or the BCHA thread...some surprising insights that I wouldnt have expected. I think the fact that there is this group think that only Democrats care about protecting public lands for hunting and that Republicans and/or state would sell it all off to private industry that is the main reason why those out west lean more to the left than anywhere else because you guys are covered up in federally owned public land.

Just my observation.

 

[Shrek]

What is a "lilly livered lib"?

See Debbie Wasserman Schultz .? Bill Ayers ? Oh , that's right , Ayers is a communist terrorist and good friend and mentor to BHO so not technically a liberal. Both Democrats though.

 

[gelton]

The reason for this is due to the fact the right does things like vote for a public land transfer. Even our own senator Steve Daines (R) turned his back on Montana by voting for it after it was made clear in surveys that the majority of MT was against it. Last time I will vote for him.. In Texas its not thought of as a big deal because there is no public land there. Then people from Texas come to MT (wilks bros) buy ranches and shut off long time access to public lands. Perfectly legal, yes. Is it right, not in the opinions of Montanans. Its too bad because most of my views are considered conservative but public lands and conservation are issues that are most important to me. I feel that is a lot of western hunters thoughts too.

I get it but democrats are more than willing to transfer the land too. As long as it's used for "green projects" like wind farms or solar that also happen to limit hunting.

 

[Jon Boy]

I get it but democrats are more than willing to transfer the land too. As long as it's used for "green projects" like wind farms or solar that also happen to limit hunting.

I agree, just giving examples as to why hunters in the west can seem to be left leaning when compared to hunters in the south. politics are much different here and in my experience montana democrats are far from liberal and would be considered conservative by a California liberal. At least that's my experience.

 

[Take-a-knee]

I agree, just giving examples as to why hunters in the west can seem to be left leaning when compared to hunters in the south. politics are much different here and in my experience montana democrats are far from liberal and would be considered conservative by a California liberal. At least that's my experience.

That used to be the case in the south, but increasingly less so. I predict, and elections seem so indicate, it will go the same way in most of the rural west. Former Dixiecrat/democrat turned republican, Strom Thurmond, said, "I did not leave the democrat party, the democrat party left me".