The 2004 and 2006 elections were tough for Republicans west of Kansas, with losses of governorships and Senate seats in longtime red states Montana and Colorado, among others. Traditional constituencies such as sportsmen bailed on the GOP in surprisingly high numbers "” and, looking ahead, 2008 promises to be little better in that regard.
As much as the national GOP may downplay the environment as an issue that runs against it out West, recent events indicate that Republicans could see even more attrition among hunters, anglers and others, as a result of the apparent pitting of core local interests against those of giant corporations "” especially those operating in the energy sector, which are perceived as being buddy-buddy with the GOP.
In August, the Environmental Working Group released a report on mining in the western U.S. It concluded that mining claims affecting public lands have skyrocketed an astonishing 80 percent in the past four and a half years, and the rise has been especially notable in places like Colorado and Arizona, including in locations like Grand Canyon National Park.
With all the concerns about damage caused to natural landscapes by mining, many voters in states like these, where tourism is one of the top two industries, will not be happy to learn of that figure.
Given mining"™s tendency to present increased risks of pollution and contamination, likewise, hunters and anglers are unlikely to be pleased by the 80 percent surge "” which Western Democrats, who have successfully campaigned on the environment as an issue that appeals to greenies and sportsmen, will no doubt remind them occurred on President Bush"™s watch.
Already, more than a year ahead of the 2008 election, Coloradan sportsmen and wildlife officials are expressing worries about Republican senatorial candidate Bob Schaffer"™s ties to the energy industry "” whose drilling is seen as a direct threat to the interests of hunters, in particular.
Recently, several of them commented that his work as vice president for business development at Denver-based Aspect Energy was cause for concern, and that it could push sportsmen to support Rep. Mark Udall, the Democratic candidate, who has strong ties to the environmental movement.
Schaffer seems unconcerned, but he and his Republican colleagues should not be.
In 2004, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer won his first gubernatorial race, in large part by portraying conservationists"™, and sportsmen"™s, interests as joined "” and not represented by Republicans, who wanted to sell off public lands and restrict rights to access private property for fishing and hunting purposes.
Indeed, pre-election polling showed that in a then deeply red state, more Montanans felt that Schweitzer, with his pro-hunting, conservationist message, shared their values, rather than his Republican opponent.
In Colorado in 2006, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter"™s construction of a coalition between environmentalists and sportsmen helped lead to an easy victory.
A post-election survey by Colorado Conservation Voters and National Wildlife Action showed a 9 percentage point margin in favor of Ritter, where hunters and anglers were concerned, over his Republican rival, then-Rep. Bob Beauprez. In addition, the survey showed that hunters and anglers preferred Ritter by a 30 percentage point margin where wildlife protection issues were concerned.
Some Republicans are taking note of the way in which concerns about exploitation of the environment, perceived as sanctioned by the Bush administration and congressional Republicans, have contributed to their declining fortunes out West.
Perhaps scared by her slim 45.6 percent victory in 2006, Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, a staunch conservative regarded as big-business-friendly, recently surprised political observers by asking federal regulators to delay approval of a uranium mine. Her action was described by one pundit as "śsiding with property owners over traditional GOP interests."ť
The Bush administration also seems to have noticed the trend, but rather than responding by attempting to get environmentalists and sportsmen onside, they have gone the route of simply trying to return hunters to the fold. In August, the president issued an executive order instructing federal agencies to "śmanage wildlife and wildlife habitats on public lands in a manner that expands and enhances hunting opportunities."ť
It was a clear move to demonstrate to hunters that Republicans simply care more "” not a point that Western Democrats look willing to concede.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who maintains a better NRA rating "” an "śA"ť "” than all of the current presidential front-runners from either party (except former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson), implied that White House policy that would end "śunabashedly pro-corporate exploitation of our natural resources"ť might be "śanother empty promise."ť
Mark Udall, prepping for next year"™s Colorado Senate race, has introduced legislation that would allow public participation in culls to bring down excess numbers of elk in national parks "” a proposal that looks popular, and which would address the underlying problem identified by Bush and many Westerners.
One thing is clear from the back and forth between Democrats and Republicans on the issue: Environmental concerns, especially in relation to public lands, matter greatly out West, and not just to greenies. With recent elections in places like Colorado, Montana and Arizona having favored Democrats, Republicans would do well to remember that.
The question seems to be whether hunters will leave the GOP fold for the Democratic fold because of the GOP's poor stance on environmental policies. The answer, I believe, would be an overwhelming "no." While the Democrats haven't really done any more for hunters than Republicans, the GOP is typically viewed as being more hunter-friendly, and when you pit the two major issues facing hunters "” loss of hunting land and gun ownership "” one against the other, gun ownership is going to be the most talked about issue every time, by far. Not that one is necessarily any more important than the other "” you can no more hunt without animals and a place to hunt than you can hunt without a weapon "” but one is very much deemed more important than the other. And while Democrats clearly have the upper hand on the environment, they obviously do not on gun ownership.
That said, I agree with the article: It's time for the Republicans to toe the line on the environment. The Bush administration's thumbing of their collective noses at environmental safeguards is one of my biggest beefs with this president, and the Republicans have long failed to make the grade where protecting the environment is concerned. The question is how do you balance being friendly towards business, which is a founding principle of this party, while not allowing shoddy timber practices, dangerous mining practices and misuse of our public lands to occur? If there can't be a compromise in that area, I know which of the two I'm going to favor, and it isn't going to be business.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
I would be reluctant to suppose that hunters, as a group, are going to have a tendency to vote Democrat rather than Republican, for the reasons already cited. I would go further and say I feel that in my opinion Republicans are, as a group, significantly more supportive of hunting than Democrats.
Yes, the Republicans as a group seem to be less friendly to the environment and this has implications for hunting and fishing. I don't see that being friendly to the environment is anti-business any more than being friendly to employees is anti-business. Since when was it just, fair, equitable to damage the property of another in pursuit of increasing one's own wealth without paying compensatory damages? If GM dumps a load of smelly ordure on Ford's property, be sure that Ford is going to demand redress -- why is it anti-business to impose similar constraints on business from damages caused to commons property -- such as dumping poisons into commons water, commons air, etc? Granted, this can go overboard, but other than some "endangered species act" actions I am not aware of abuses.
I don't really think that Democrats will ever have a majority of sportsmen on their side. As a whole, hunters are likely to be conservative (I know I am painting with a broad brush), but the implication is that the Democrats don't necessarily have to win over a majority of hunters. If the Democrats just narrow the gap, it really changes the political landscape.
Take Missouri as an example. A moderate Democrat, Claire McCaskill beat a conservative Republican, Jim Talent. Now, McCaskill is certainly no Zell Miller, but she narrowed the margins in rural Missouri and won overwhelmingly in urban areas (STL and KC.) She didn't have to win the farm/sportsmen vote. She simply had to take a little away from Talent to make the numbers work.
Prediction: If Democrats can manage to balance the middle-of-the-road Democrats in Montana with the Democrats in NY and CA, then they are going to be tough to beat. Is that likely, I don't know. Could your average outdoorsmen sit in the same room as Cindy Sheehan and listen to her crazy-babble?
Republicans in DC have routinely thumbed their collective noses at environmental issues. They may just pay the price at next years elections. i do not see where Republicans have done a lot for sportsmen and other hunters. It is true that Bush did stop the wasting of Pittman-Robertson funds on feel good stuff. Clinton and the Democrat congress
wasted millions of dollars on whimsical crap not related to hunting or fishing.
OK US senator Jim Inhofe is an unabashed enemy of the environment. He just may lose his seat in 2008.
There are a lot of environental issues that congress and the white house have not addressed.The folks who polluted the place should be responsible for the environmental remediation: Not some subsequent owner of the property and definitely not US taxpayers.
Too much is left to the states.Afew years ago i was looking to start a small business. Found a nice corner lot that was priced very low. Mentioned it to a friend. His reaction was: "Don't buy that lot. There was a gas station there and the tanks are still in the ground. If thestate of OK environmental folks decide that it needs cleaned up, you will have to pay forthe cleanup."
What aconcept: Make the new small business owner pay cleanup costs for a piece of property that some gas company polluted over decades.
i own a piece of property where a gully is highly polluted by hazardous wastethat was dumpedon the adjacent property. For several years the empty drums were still on the adjacent place across the fence. Checked out some of the numbers on the drums and some of them had held some very bad stuff. The drums are now gone.
On a hot day that gully smells like the portion of a large garden center where insecticides and defoliantsand other chemicals are kept. i do not dare tell the state of OK about this place. You guessedit, i would have to pay for the cleanup.
Republican track records on environmental policy, especially during the current administration speak for themselves and many are tired of them. Although most hunters have conservative values and especially guard against infractions of the 2nd amendment, you have to consider the fact that as hunter demographics change thru attrition, many of the newer generation might not see certain new "gun laws" as thatintruding on their civil liberties. Also, you have to also consider those who exclusively bowhunt (which is a growing segment) and thoseoutdoorsman who are almost exclusively anglers (another significant portion). Their feelings about environmental issues could possibly trump their 2nd amendment concerns.
__________________
Looney tunes deductive reasoning:
--Me smell Mohican burning
--Me last Mohican
--Must be me!!!
--EEEOOOWWW!!!!!
you have to consider the fact that as hunter demographics change thru attrition, many of the newer generation might not see certain new "gun laws" as thatÂ*intruding on their civil liberties.Â* Also, you have to also consider those who exclusively bowhunt (which is a growing segment) and thoseÂ*outdoorsman who are almost exclusively anglers (another significant portion).Â* Their feelings about environmental issues could possibly trump their 2nd amendment concerns.Â*
Is this likely, or is this something you'd like to think is possible? I've been hearing for years that hunters as gunowners are turning away from the traditional NRA stance that any gun law is a bad gun law. Yet, every election cycle, we see gunowners and sportsmen play a role in the election, and if there is particularly damaging gun control legislation that has been or is being considered, they play an even bigger role.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
It is FACT that the percentage of people who hunt is getting smaller all the time. In my home state the numbers have plummeted in the last 10 years. Eventhough gun control issues may have had an effect on the last few elections, I don't see them having the same effect in next years since their may not be any candidates who are really pro-gun. I have to agree with those who think that the gun control and hunting issues will eventually not be linked as closely as they once were. Lots of hunters out there who own hunting guns, but understand why some gun laws need to be in place. Throw in some more school shooting or a terrorist attack on this soil using certain kinds of weapons and public opinion can turn mighty quickly. There may be millions of people out there who do own guns, but there are probably even more who don't so the numbers are really NOT in our favor and I don't see them going in that direction either.
a terrorist attack on this soil using certain kinds of weapons
Anyone watch "Jericho"? Seems to me to be one of the more powerful pro-2nd Amendment TV shows that has been aired in quite some time.
The estimates I keep hearing are that there are roughly 60-70 million gun owners in the country. And only 3-4 million are members of the NRA. Pathetic.
Hunters, the Environment and the GOP
