With all of the economic woes currently facing the country, it seems that all the public wants to hear is the presidential candidates' plans for fixing the mess we're in. Some voters, however, have concerns that haven't gotten much airtime this election. One of these that is near and dear to my heart is the conservation of our nation’s public lands, its fish, and its wildlife. You see, I am a specimen of one of the rarer of political species: the Democrat with a valid hunting license. We can discuss your distaste for the methods by which I obtain some of my meals at a later date. Today, let's examine the presidential candidates as they attempt to address the concerns of America's hunters and anglers.
This is my first diary, and my first contribution of any kind to the discourse of this community. I’ve been reading here semi-regularly for several years, but until now I didn’t feel that I had much to add to the discussion. However, that changed with the publication of the October issue of Field & Stream magazine. It features lengthy interviews with John McCain and Barack Obama, asking the candidates a series of questions that are substantively the same for each. I already supported Obama before reading this article, but it reminded me of why I support him, and why he's going to win in November.
Asked by Field & Stream to state what environmental legislation he is most proud of, Obama states that he is most proud of defeating efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act. Considering that the EPA recommends that nobody eats more than one meal per week of locally caught fish due primarily to air pollution - and that I have a bunch of sand bass fillets in the freezer that I'm having to slowly dish out - Obama's efforts are to be applauded. Then he goes on to say:
When I was in the state legislature, I was a cosponsor of the Wetlands Protection Act there. I worked extensively in efforts to create smart growth strategies so that you didn't have subdivisions and development constantly spreading out . . . Working with others to try to encourage land trusts and land preservation strategies . . . My overarching philosophy is that we have to be good stewards of the land, and we've got to think in terms of sustainability. We're going to have some development. I mean, there's going to be drilling.
It’s a thoughtful, well-reasoned response that offers specifics that are relevant to the topic. He understands the concerns that this nation's sportsmen and women have regarding suburbia's unrelenting assault on America's wild spaces, but he balances that with the fact that fossil fuels remain a necessary evil for the time being. Compare this with Senator McCain’s response:
I've been involved in a number of land exchanges in my state ranging from areas that needed to be in preservation to protecting Luke Air Force Base and having the areas around it be kept from development . . . Trying to protect the Grand Canyon . . . Many pieces of legislation such as the [National Parks] Overflights Act.
Catch that? McCain seems to have no idea what magazine he’s speaking with. He gives an answer that would be much more appropriate in an issue of Sierra Magazine. We can assume that someone told him the name of the magazine he’d be talking to, but maybe we’ll cut him some slack and assume that he’s never heard of a magazine that’s been published in this country for 108 years (and why does an Air Force base need protecting? Seriously, does anyone know?). Still, it seems oddly reminiscent of his Zapatero confusion. Later in the interview, McCain is asked about provisions for isolated wetlands that have been removed from the Clean Water Act due to recent court rulings, and whether he would support the Clean Water Restoration Act which would reaffirm those protections. He punts:
I haven't seen it, I'm sorry to say, because of being out on the campaign [trail]. I would point out to you one salient fact: The fact that wetlands were eroded on the coast of Louisiana contributed mightily to the devastation that they experienced as a result of Hurricane Katrina . . . So it's not just an environmental issue from the standpoint of preserving something that's pristine.
Despite being correct regarding the role wetlands play on our nation’s coasts, McCain again answers as though he’s speaking to the local Nature Conservancy chapter, not a bunch of people who enjoy shooting ducks. Not that duck hunters aren’t awed by the pristine beauty of an untouched wetland (believe me, some of us are) or concerned about the protection of the Gulf Coast, but the readership of a magazine like Field & Stream is generally going to be more interested in prairie potholes and Arkansas oxbows than they are hurricane deflection. More importantly, McCain seems to have no concept of the contents of the Clean Water Restoration Act, which seeks to clarify the federal government's jursidiction in dealing with water pollution. It's important to hunters because it would help ensure the preservation of wetlands, which are vital to waterfowl and other species.
Obama, on the other hand, answers each question in a way that makes me believe he’s really given these issues some consideration. Asked for his opinion on the Supreme Court's recent Second Amendment decision written by Justice Scalia, Obama replies:
What I think it has done is provided some clarity that, in fact, the Second Amendment is an individual right and that law-abiding gun owners can't be prevented from going out and hunting, protecting their family on their own. That doesn't mean that, as Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court noted, it doesn't mean that we can't have some common-sense gun control legislation out there-for example, background checks, making sure that we're keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or people who have mental illnesses.
Sounds good to me.
Both candidates state that they would close the gun show loophole. I enjoy a good gun show as much as the next person and have purchased a number of firearms at them, but even I get creeped out by the thought that anyone with cash can walk up to an individual at a gun show and buy that person’s firearm without any sort of background check. The candidates differ on the Assault Weapons Ban which was allowed to lapse under the Bush administration: McCain would keep it dead because he feels that terms like "assault rifle" and "high capacity" are too vague (huh?), while Obama feels that most hunters don’t really need an AK-47 to kill a deer. Obama’s exactly correct, but unfortunately many outdoorsmen and women have bought into the slippery-slope argument that the NRA has been feeding them for years. Sadly, he’ll lose their votes over this issue, but those folks probably never would have voted for a Democrat anyway.
As we draw to a close, I’d like to warn you, gentle reader, that there are a lot of ignorant gun enthusiasts in the world, and it appears that nearly all of them have taken turns flinging bile at the Democratic candidate on Field & Stream’s comment forum. The interviews are certainly worth a read (as is the rest of the issue - Field&Stream is a quality publication), but believe me when I say there is some truly vile, ignorant shit on display just down the page. Just trust me when I tell you that many hunters and anglers are intelligent, conservation-minded men and women. The conservation of America's wild places is vital, not only for those who pursue fish and game, but for the plants and animals that live there and the the overall health of the planet. Any effort to preserve and heal our wilderness must be rooted in a willingness to tackle the environmental challenges that face us. Barack Obama understands this, and it's one of many reasons why he has my support and respect.
And before I wrap this up, I’d like you to consider Senator McCain’s previous responses, and then consider this:
LICATA: Final question, an easy one. President Bush has a subscription to FIELD & STREAM on Air Force One.
SENATOR MCCAIN: Yep, we'll have it. We'll renew it.