- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,003
BANKROLLING SPORTSMEN -- Jim Matthews-ONS -- 15jan03
Saving hunting and fishing requires money
The new century seems to be ushering in an era that builds walls rather than bridges. In over 25 years of covering the outdoors and environment as a writer here in Southern California, I can honestly say that I have never seen as much incompetence and ignorance in our public agencies, in sporting, conservation and environmental groups, and in our government leaders as I have in the past year.
Sportsmen are losing because of this.
The combination of not-so-hidden agendas and spewing of misinformation has polarized almost all firearm and outdoor issues to the point where both sides have a difficult time seeing the forest for the trees. In so many debates this past year -- whether on gun control, water developments in the Mojave National Preserve, fire closures in the forest, or management of bighorn sheep -- one side or the other has moved so far away its ability to look at facts and common sense that civility has disappeared and resentment and prejudice set in.
Sportsmen are losing because of this.
Hunters, gun owners, and increasingly fishermen are the new minority, and we are being discriminated against at an alarming rate. There is no question about that, but frequently we have not helped our own cause.
While I have never bought into the idea that "if you dress like a tramp, you deserve to get raped" concept, our voices frequently have become shrill and irrational and we don't engender sympathy from the vast non-hunting, non-gun owning, non-fishing segment of the population that ultimately hold sway on whether or not our kids will be able to fish, hunt or own guns. I have been guilty of that. All sportsmen probably have. Even the most level-headed of us can get frustrated when we deal with bureaucrats who refuse to listen to common sense, logic, or scientific facts. I know I tend to get upset when someone lies right to my face, as politicians frequently did this past year. I don't appreciate someone calling my hunting friends murders and bullies when I'm proud to be a part of this community because of our compassion, tolerance, and long track record of exemplary stewardship. I feel its my job to expose agendas based on emotion or bias, especially those directed at outdoorsmen and gun owners. Most of all, I don't suffer fools gladly -- on either side of a debate.
Regular readers of this column know that I frequently lambaste our "friends" as well as our well-known enemies. One of the things I always try to do is offer some factual background where it might have been lacking and offer solutions based on common sense and the facts. Information and real solutions are frequently lacking from bureaucrats and politicians. Their decisions are driven by pressure from people with agendas, agendas frequently not supported by facts or common sense, agendas that are frequently prejudicial. There is a solution.
Sportsmen face a serious problem in California because we do not speak with a calm, clear united voice. We do not have articulate spokesmen to deal with and educate the press. We do not have enough competent lobbyists in Sacramento to work with legislators. We don't have enough lawyers to sue when we're legally wronged. We have a tendency to squirt what little money we have in all directions to support a myriad of groups that work on niche issues. This is not to say these smaller groups and individuals don't do a good job. Without dedicated sportsmen like Cliff McDonald of Needles who has been relentlessly hounding the National Park Service to keep developed water sources in the Mojave National Preserve, I don't doubt that the NPS staff would have already yanked out all the guzzlers. Without Quail Unlimited and the Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep, there would be no new guzzlers being built in California. Without.... well, the list goes on and on.
What we need is a blanket organization where all of the individuals and groups can go when they need legal, media, or political help. It should have a large paid staff that can respond to issues immediately, with scientific experts in a variety of areas, media experts, and lobbyists. It needs to be well-financed with main offices in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. and regional offices throughout the state.
How can we pull this off? Let's devise an outdoor heritage surcharge. A tax for us to be used by us -- not the government. Sporting goods retailers and distributors will tack on one or two percent to the prices of all hunting, fishing, and shooting gear. If that's not enough to build the money tree we need, we'll add another percent or two.
The alternative is to continue to lose -- more hunting closures, more restrictive regulations based on politics and not science, more unfounded marine and rockfish closures, more gun laws that don't reduce crime or improve public safety.
Saving hunting and fishing requires money
The new century seems to be ushering in an era that builds walls rather than bridges. In over 25 years of covering the outdoors and environment as a writer here in Southern California, I can honestly say that I have never seen as much incompetence and ignorance in our public agencies, in sporting, conservation and environmental groups, and in our government leaders as I have in the past year.
Sportsmen are losing because of this.
The combination of not-so-hidden agendas and spewing of misinformation has polarized almost all firearm and outdoor issues to the point where both sides have a difficult time seeing the forest for the trees. In so many debates this past year -- whether on gun control, water developments in the Mojave National Preserve, fire closures in the forest, or management of bighorn sheep -- one side or the other has moved so far away its ability to look at facts and common sense that civility has disappeared and resentment and prejudice set in.
Sportsmen are losing because of this.
Hunters, gun owners, and increasingly fishermen are the new minority, and we are being discriminated against at an alarming rate. There is no question about that, but frequently we have not helped our own cause.
While I have never bought into the idea that "if you dress like a tramp, you deserve to get raped" concept, our voices frequently have become shrill and irrational and we don't engender sympathy from the vast non-hunting, non-gun owning, non-fishing segment of the population that ultimately hold sway on whether or not our kids will be able to fish, hunt or own guns. I have been guilty of that. All sportsmen probably have. Even the most level-headed of us can get frustrated when we deal with bureaucrats who refuse to listen to common sense, logic, or scientific facts. I know I tend to get upset when someone lies right to my face, as politicians frequently did this past year. I don't appreciate someone calling my hunting friends murders and bullies when I'm proud to be a part of this community because of our compassion, tolerance, and long track record of exemplary stewardship. I feel its my job to expose agendas based on emotion or bias, especially those directed at outdoorsmen and gun owners. Most of all, I don't suffer fools gladly -- on either side of a debate.
Regular readers of this column know that I frequently lambaste our "friends" as well as our well-known enemies. One of the things I always try to do is offer some factual background where it might have been lacking and offer solutions based on common sense and the facts. Information and real solutions are frequently lacking from bureaucrats and politicians. Their decisions are driven by pressure from people with agendas, agendas frequently not supported by facts or common sense, agendas that are frequently prejudicial. There is a solution.
Sportsmen face a serious problem in California because we do not speak with a calm, clear united voice. We do not have articulate spokesmen to deal with and educate the press. We do not have enough competent lobbyists in Sacramento to work with legislators. We don't have enough lawyers to sue when we're legally wronged. We have a tendency to squirt what little money we have in all directions to support a myriad of groups that work on niche issues. This is not to say these smaller groups and individuals don't do a good job. Without dedicated sportsmen like Cliff McDonald of Needles who has been relentlessly hounding the National Park Service to keep developed water sources in the Mojave National Preserve, I don't doubt that the NPS staff would have already yanked out all the guzzlers. Without Quail Unlimited and the Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep, there would be no new guzzlers being built in California. Without.... well, the list goes on and on.
What we need is a blanket organization where all of the individuals and groups can go when they need legal, media, or political help. It should have a large paid staff that can respond to issues immediately, with scientific experts in a variety of areas, media experts, and lobbyists. It needs to be well-financed with main offices in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. and regional offices throughout the state.
How can we pull this off? Let's devise an outdoor heritage surcharge. A tax for us to be used by us -- not the government. Sporting goods retailers and distributors will tack on one or two percent to the prices of all hunting, fishing, and shooting gear. If that's not enough to build the money tree we need, we'll add another percent or two.
The alternative is to continue to lose -- more hunting closures, more restrictive regulations based on politics and not science, more unfounded marine and rockfish closures, more gun laws that don't reduce crime or improve public safety.
