Skip to main content

View Diary: Interior Secretary Jewell Caves to Republicans (27 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As I said elsewhere this has no effect on hunting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    salmo, valion

    Forest Service lands are open as are BLM and state lands. There is nothing to open or close, it's all just land. Campgrounds will be closed, but not "dispersed" camping what is everyone likes to do anyway.

    Almost no hunters belong to the NRA, and we come from blue states as well as red. Something like 2% of gun owners belong to the NRA. Stereotypes of hunters do no one any good.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Fri Oct 11, 2013 at 09:55:51 AM PDT

    •  I second your first paragraph. OTOH, I'd like to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      salmo

      where you're getting your data for the second paragraph, as I would be very surprised if the number of hunters mirrors the number of all gun owners within the NRA.  I would expect the percentage of hunters to be much higher but I don't know where to even get that percentage.

      •  when I googled the best I could find was 90 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        salmo, ColoTim, Meteor Blades

        million gun owners, 4 million NRA members. Nothing on hunters. The 2% I was just pulling out of my hat, I knew it was small.

        (unfortunately every NRA member in CO shows up at the range when I'm shooting and makes Obama comments)

        “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

        by ban nock on Fri Oct 11, 2013 at 11:04:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some SWAG estimates (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ban nock

          I think the percentage of hunters that are NRA members is small, but like Tim, I think 2% is too small.  A lot of rod and gun clubs require NRA membership around here.  In our more populated towns and cities, those rod and gun club ranges are where everyone goes to shoot, sight in, etc.  As a consequence, membership in the NRA is far higher than it would have been if hunters were left to choose whether or not they wished to support the NRA, particularly now as it ratchets up the extremism.  

          In Maine we have 209,284 licensed hunters (and the number is falling, but that's still about 20% of the population).  The NRA and the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine are not forthcoming at all about their membership, but SAM's membership is estimated by people far more knowledgable than me to be around 9000, or a little over 4% of the number of licensed hunters.  My guess is that the NRA does a little better among hunters in Maine for the reasons discussed above.  

          Looking for a national figure, I was surprised to see a National Shooting Sports estimate of 14.3 to 14.9 million hunting licenses sold, but they also estimate that the total hunter population is around 23 million because everyone doesn't buy a license every year.   (http://www.nssf.org/... & http://www.nssf.org/...) They make an attempt to avoid double counting people like me who buy multiple licenses, but there are holes nevertheless.  For example, no hunters are counted in Washington DC, and a bunch of other places with cryptic abbreviations.  The flip side of that is that NRA membership is hardly confined to hunters since hunting is decreasingly the focus of its interest.  Anyway, with caveats all over the place, that would put the NRA's membership as a percentage of hunters somewhere between 18% and 30%, depending on what the assumed hunter population is.  I think all of that should be taken with a several grains of salt.  

          •  The census has a pretty good take on hunters via (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            salmo

            an in depth study they do once every 5 years. It's based on number of people who bought a hunting license over the last year. It would miss those who for whatever reasons didn't buy, but it gets active hunters.

            Of course those figures aren't available, but I diaried here http://www.dailykos.com/...
            I remember it as around 13 and a half million.

            NRA members who claim to have a gun to hunt is 41% here
            http://www.statisticbrain.com/...

            Which would give us 14%, but I doubt very much a lot of those NRA folks have bought a license in the last year. I know more people who have tried hunting or hunted in the past than I know people who will hunt this year. Lots of people like buying nice walnut stocked rifles, they look good in the gun cabinet.

            How about that bear thing in Maine? I heard today the HSUS had funded 99% of the bill's financial support. You all must have some kind of disclosure laws.

            “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

            by ban nock on Fri Oct 11, 2013 at 03:03:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks, and yes we take disclosure seriously (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ban nock

              We'll see of course, but 99% of the funding coming from an out-of-state source is going to turn off a lot of Mainers.  Then, the statistic that 1:5 Maine residents buys a hunting license every year means a large percentage of Maine households have at least one hunter.  

        •  I used to encounter that too at the ranges... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ban nock

          ...not too different in California.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Fri Oct 11, 2013 at 02:55:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I referred to "Red State hunters" AND NRA members (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ban nock

      While there is some overlap I realize that it is only partial.  And I didn't slam them so much as point out that they would be annoyed if the shutdown obstructs their hunting plans.

      Your point about the National Forests being open is valid --
      however, the Wildlife Refuges are supposedly closed.

      Here is info I've seen:

      http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/...

      Note that pheasant hunting is a significant business in the Dakotas.

      http://www.pewstates.org/...

      http://thinkprogress.org/...

      •  Refuges are an insignifigant part of public lands (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        salmo

        open to hunting. Parks are never open. Recreation areas can't open as they require personnel.

        I think they are trying to make it a bigger issue than it is. TRCP and NRA etc all have political axes to grind.

        Total # of hunter days on refuges in my state are probably a small fraction of one percent. For big game it's disabled vets and youth and women by permit only.

        I'm actually glad refuges are shut down, they are much more fragile and a different type of place. I wouldn't want trash or illegal activity or anything else to occur. There are strict limits on number and sex and age of species hunted.

        60% of our state is federal land that is open for hunting. Think Progress etc not my number one choice for issues hunting. My state division of wildlife is more like it.

        “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

        by ban nock on Fri Oct 11, 2013 at 11:17:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  National Wildlife Refuges are 150 million acres (0+ / 0-)

          (See http://www.doi.gov/... ) --twice the size of the National Parks.

          The National Rivers are also under the Park Service and are closed:
           http://www.thv11.com/...

          Plus there are good hunting lands and poor hunting lands.   As a  general rule, I would take riverbanks and lake shores over mountain tops.   Especially if I'm
          a "Duck Dynasty" scion looking for ducks and geese.

          And lands open to hunters vary by state to state --in crowded Pennsylvania, closure of the military land at Fort Indian town Gap has more of an impact than it would in Montana.

          •  ok, outside of Alaska (0+ / 0-)

            75 million in the state alone. I check them out around me, because as you say they are mostly lowlands, and prime winter habitat for many of the species I like to eat. There are very limited hunts, often none, the purpose of refuges isn't to provide us a place to hunt but rather to provide a place for wildlife to multiply. Of late they have allowed more hunting particularly birds, in an effort to make the refuges more accessible for the enjoyment of more people.

            I've heard CA has a lot of hunting at them. But then hunters in CA are a vanishing species themselves.

            I'd trade my firstborn to be allowed to hunt big game at any refuge in CO, that's how rare it is.

            “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

            by ban nock on Fri Oct 11, 2013 at 03:24:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site