Why some gun owners are unhappy with Bush

http://csmonitor.com/2003/1204/p02s01-uspo.html
They say the administration has strayed too far from earlier GOP principles on the environment.

By Todd Wilkinson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

When Jimmie Rosenbruch went north last month, bound for the high country of southeast Alaska to stalk mountain goats, the Utah sportsman and master hunting guide toted more than a rifle into the wilderness.

Mr. Rosenbruch, a burly lifelong Republican and acquaintance of former President George H.W. Bush, also carried personal displeasure over the natural- resource agenda of Mr. Bush's son.

In particular, Rosenbruch and a groundswell of other gun owners from the lower 48 are challenging the Bush administration's plan to undo protection of Alaska's Tongass and Chugach national forests by opening both to increased logging and road construction.

For the current president, who relied upon unwavering support from the so-called "hook and bullet" crowd to win in 2000, the kind of public criticism now being voiced by political conservatives like Rosenbruch represents a potential problem in 2004, observers say.

... con't

Hunters, anglers, butterfly watchers and republican women who love the pretty birdies.

Watch out dubyass, we're coming to get you!

but over there, people are way to partisan to listen.

Gun owners don't have much to like about Bush. And if Dean gets the nod, there isn't much difference between teh candidates on the issue.

If we could take some of the usual republican voting block (i.e. gun owners), because this reduced their hunting grounds, dramatically cut our loss of union voters on this issue, and get some of the swingies who like birdies, we could really be in good shape for 04.

I will be out hiking and strike up long conversations with them and they are happy to talk about the woods and what they are up to. Maybe it is because we are the only people they have talked to today (or that we are hiking with a really great dog!). They don't even seem to care whether I hunt or not--usually they don't even ask.

by and large I feel a larger portion of hunters respect and appreciate nature than the entire population as a whole.

Most hunters I know hike/camp, or just enjoy being in teh wooods. Many of them follow to some extent the Tom Brown,jr philosophy towards nature and animals.

Showing them how Bush is hurting our woods and animals would definetly get them looking to a Dem, and if it is one such as Dean who isn't for new restrictions on gun owners, I think we take Repub votes and make them Dem votes

You must be delusional if you think that this sort of information will swing substantial numbers of hunters. Most hunters (99.9999%) will never visit Alaska, nor will they ever stalk mountain goats. Bush might as well announce new logging and road building in Iraq for all of the impact it will have on American hunters. Most hunters seek deer and waterfowl close to home. And most hunters do not view logging and associated road-building as incompatible with hunting. Old growth is grand to look at, but it is a very specialized form of habitat. Most game species make only minimal use of old growth. Habitat diversity is the key to managing game species, and hunters understand this. Every State game agency uses logging as one of its primary tools for increasing game populations. In addition, woods roads provide access for hunters. If you've ever attempted to drag a dead deer carcass out of the woods, you know the value of a woods road. I agree with you on one point; hunters are generally nice people. But, like farmers, hunters tend to be conservative thinkers. Most hunters are far more concerned with protecting their second ammendment rights than preventing logging in Alaska.

> Most game species make only minimal use of old growth. Habitat diversity is the key to managing game species, and hunters understand this. Every State game agency uses logging as one of its primary tools for increasing game populations.

Calling DU posters "delusional" is hardly a way to sway anyone's opinion, I must add. Especially on your first post.

Spike: To support my claim that habitat diversity increases game populations, I fall back on a degrees in Forestry and Wildlife Science, my observation of management techniques used by state game management agencies in the eastern U.S., and 25 years of personal hunting experience and wildlife observation. In addition, I have recently read an Audubon Society publication which makes the very same argument.

My position is not that old growth is not valuable, but that it is not absolutely critical to the maintenance of most game species. I wish also to be clear in my contention that hunters will not necessarily be shocked at the thought of managers using logging practices to manage forests.

I apologize for my use of the word "delusional", which I thought mild in comparison to some of the language I've seen on the DU forum. In any case, I mean to caution against assuming that hunters in large numbers will fall squarely into the Democratic camp because of logging in Alaska. It's just too great a leap of faith to presume such a movement will occur. If you believe it will occur, you may be fooling (deluding) yourselves. Is this more acceptable language?

They do build impoundments near where I live to create waterfowl habitat. When I think of new roads into roadless areas for cutting timber or drilling gas wells, I expect invasive species and destruction of an ecosystem that will never recover to what it was supposed to be. This is even considering that they selectively cut and do not do wholesale clearcuts which are done on a scale do destroy most of the life.

Thank you for your insightful comments.

Environmental issues have never been election turners on the national stage. The only time they are is on local politics, usually dealing withe very specific env. management issues. (If you want creditial, I have an MS in Env. and Occupational Health from U of Iowa).

However, Carl Pope, RFK, Jr. et al. have been working with 2nd amendment types for a while on these issues, and as a result a number of them are starting to warm up to us. Add to that 3 of the 4 leading Dem candidates (Clark, Dean and Kerry) aren't hard on firearms (Gephardt being from an urban/suburban district is pretty tough on guns) and you have a chance.

Now further add that 2nd Amendment types also have strong feelings about the military either because they have served or admire the folks who do. If we get out the word on how poorly the current cabal is treating Vets (7 month wait for an appt. at the VA) and those currently serving on active duty (or reservists who have been called up) in terms of cutting or trying to cut combat pay, forced additional enlistments (if your reserve unit is on active duty now you don't leave the service until the unit gets deactivated) and there is a real shot of these folks voting Democratic this election.