Something Stinks In The Hunting Community ~ VIDEO

Opinion by Clark Ramsey

USA – -( Something stinks in the hunting community, and it smells like big government

Gun owners and sportsmen are predominantly political conservatives. Unfortunately, they have a weak spot. Like most people, these folks think they’re principled. Until you threaten to take away or reduce protections for something they have a personal interest in. For many gun owners and sportsmen their personal interest is public land, the environment, and the game they pursue.

Recently the Trump administration issued guidance to federal wildlife law enforcement on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Trump administration will no longer be seeking to prosecute “incidental take” of birds protected under the Act.

Protections still remain for birds intentionally killed, but no longer will someone be prosecuted for tearing down a vulture’s nest to build a man-made structure.

Specifically, the guidance provided, “all that is relevant is that the landowner undertook an action that did not have the killing of [protected birds] as its purpose.” Some contend that this removes vital protection for catastrophes like Deep Water Horizon, but those fears are misplaced. The federal government still retains avenues of reimbursement from companies responsible for such catastrophes.

Ducks, geese, and other migratory game birds like mourning doves and woodcock also fall under the Act. The response from many sportsmen has been rife with condemnation for billionaires and “greedy corporations.” If there is one issue in this country that carries vast bipartisan support it is a hatred for the wealthy.

I have one simple question for you hunters and conservatives who believe a massive federal government is the answer to game management and the environment. Where does the money that supports private conservation groups and all the habitat they protect come from?

Since migratory birds are at issue, let us examine where Ducks Unlimited’s annual budget of more than $220 million comes from. Their 2017 annual report reveals nothing surprising to me, but it will be a big surprise to those who rage against the wealthy.

Only 25% of their funds come from membership dues, but events and sponsorships are tied into that figure. They don’t reveal the income distribution of any members or contributors. No doubt at least some of that money comes out of rich people’s pockets.

19% comes from donated conservation easements. In short, a binding legal covenant not to develop the land, thus preserving habitat. This of course reduces the value of the land in perpetuity and likely prevents heirs from subdividing it or developing it. Generally, only the wealthy could afford such a reduction in value.

12% comes from “major gifts and endowments.” Yet again, those filthy rich bastards. The audacity of contributing significant funds to conservation for the benefit of others.

Ducks UnlimitedLastly, 39% comes from federal and state habitat support and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Where does that government money come from? First, a massive portion of federal income taxes are paid by the wealthiest 1%. They paid 39.5% of federal income taxes in 2014, the most recently reported year. Second, corporations in America, until this year, were taxed at one of the highest rates in the world. Lastly, NGOs are those evil corporations we all love to hate. Despite all the money they already shell out in taxes, they’re still giving away money for free to conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited.

Principles don’t move because we have a personal interest in a particular benefit. Nor do they move because of emotional outcries about “the environment.” We cannot be for big government in one avenue of our lives and staunchly oppose it in another.

Many self-proclaimed conservatives and moderates love to throw around quotes about the environment from Teddy Roosevelt. Most of what he thought about conservation a century ago is completely irrelevant today. We have long surpassed the low information conservation age of Teddy Roosevelt.

In his day, there were next to no game laws. The man thought killing sow bears and their cubs was a perfectly good idea. He thought nothing of killing every animal in sight. Please stop circulating his progressive ideas about a need for a massive federal government because he tied it to your pet issue of wildlife and the environment.

Some still cling to the idea that unethical and harmful practices of Roosevelt’s time will somehow return. That view ignores the fact that we’ve evolved a great deal on conservation and environmental practices. We understand migration of waterfowl. We have seasons and bag limits, which are and should be determined by the states.

Market hunting for instance is in no danger of returning. Systems are already in place. We have domesticated sources of venison, buffalo, waterfowl, and all manner of meat. I consider myself a pretty skilled hunter, but you’d have to be far better than me to compete with the domestic market with your shotgun or rifle.

We cannot be authentic proponents of a Constitutionally limited government if we cry for big government on any issue.

We claim we will be prepared to exercise the power of the 2nd Amendment at some point down the road when the government becomes too oppressive. Yet, some of us demand an ever-expanding federal power in the name of environmental protection and the game we pursue. What will there be to hunt when we are no longer free?

What’s the answer, absent a massive federal government? Advocate and teach. Think of the days when catch and release fishing and “if it flies it dies” hunting were the norm. That didn’t change because of regulation so much as it did a concerted effort by advocates and private conservation groups. Most of us have learned the consequence of that behavior. In short, if you don’t want the federal or state government to regulate then you’d better regulate yourselves.

Clark Ramsey
Clark Ramsey

About the Author Clark Ramsey

Clark Ramsey is the host of “The Ramsey Revival” on YouTube. He is a former Infantry Marine and a service-connected disabled veteran. Clark holds a Juris Doctor from Michigan State University College of Law and a Bachelor's degree in Homeland Security & Emergency Preparedness. He has thousands of hours in a variety of shooting related disciplines from hunting to tactical fieldwork. If he could, he'd spend all of his time hunting and fishing with his wife and three kids.

  • 11 thoughts on “Something Stinks In The Hunting Community ~ VIDEO

    1. “Think of the days when catch and release fishing and “if it flies it dies” hunting were the norm. That didn’t change because of regulation so much as it did a concerted effort by advocates and private conservation groups. Most of us have learned the consequence of that behavior.”

      OK, help a small-government, non-hunting, non-fishing, environmentally-concerned, ‘shall not infringe’ 2nd Amendment adhering, shooting sports enthusiast conservative understand this statement in the article. I don’t understand the conflation of ‘if it flies it dies’ hunting with ‘catch and release’ fishing. I I thought the latter was the new fishing method of choice for conservation-conscious fishermen and fisherwomen?

      1. Sorry those are a little backwards. I should’ve said that differently. You’re correct. We use to keep all the fish, now we release most
        of them. We use to say “if it flies it dies,” now we only shoot the males.

        1. Appreciate the clarification. As I noted above, I enjoy the shooting sports and how they allow me to keep my gun handling skills, should I need them for real. If I weren’t so lazy or didn’t hate getting up at zero-dark-30, I’d probably be into hunting too.

          In any case, patriots who appreciate the uniquely American recognition that our God-given right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed” must stick together. You helped me make sure we were on the same page. KYPD!

    2. Angry Farmer, I’d like to hear more about this. I am from northern MN and I love to pheasant hunt. This year was my first year hunting in Southern MN for pheasants and I was happily surprised by the amount of public land that was available to hunt (Big Stone area) compared to ND. I understand nothing is “Free” and would like to hear more about the Land Grab by Pheasants Forever. I’ve always maintained a good relationship with farmers in ND as they would always allow us to openly hunt their private land; as long as we were courteous and didn’t ruin anything and helped out from time to time. I haven’t hunted enough in MN to develop a rapport with the local farmers. I would hate to see the bond between hunters and farmers broken over something like this.

      1. @Guit, Hey, I have some riparian land in Big Stone County! I just paid my property taxes on it. I’d like to hear some more about this allege land grab, too!

    3. Regulating ourselves has been the proven solution ever since Pittman-Robertson was initiated at the INSISTENCE of sportsman.

        1. Minnesota has mandated arbitrary set backs (many 50′ each direction) from undefinable waterways, with significant fines for use of the land.

          I wish I could post some pictures of the “No Hunting, due to buffer law” signs.

 Basically if there is a ditch along the road they can fine you for $50k for mowing, or planting within 50′ of the high water mark before the pheasants are done with it. Of course this doesn’t apply to homeowners, government, and all in the name of clean water (while nothing is done to deal with sewage treatment plants, storm drains…..)

          What farmers who are in the cross hairs think.

          1. Thanks Farmer. I had no idea. I do understand the logic behind the buffer (Becker county lakes are a mess), but I would suspect that most of the problem is with residential overdevelopment of lake shore properties. Detroit lakes area lakes have a horrible weed and algea problem now that people are building million dollar homes in the lakes and demanding they have pristine green lawns and over fertilizing them. This I have witnessed to entire Eco systems. No farming in these areas. Just rich people living in the lake not understanding how they are ruining it.

            1. All land belonged to the King. All game was property of the king. The King could do no wrong. It was the duty of the King’s subjects to host his army, (3rd amendment sound familiar?). Only the King or royalty could be armed.

              Apparently we want a King again. We keep giving the king the rights to our game, our land. In many cities the police demand business have certain formats of surveillance camera and access to the feed.

              You won’t make it vary far through, “Im from the government and I’m here to kill you” by David Hardy before the case is made that the King’s men had more accountability than the agents of today’s government.

    Leave a Comment 11 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *