John McCain on Hunting, Conservation & the Environment

I am proud of my environmental record. I believe that somewhere along the line we (Republican Party) lost the Teddy Roosevelt commitment to the great outdoors, but at the same time I think the environmental movement was hijacked by extreme environmentalists. Teddy Roosevelt would never agree with Sierra Club on a broad variety of issues, that’s just a fact. I think we Republications let them become the voice of the quote “environmental movement” when we were clearly the leaders. We would never have the National Park Service we have today if it hadn’t been for Teddy Roosevelt. We Republicans are the environmental movement, and I believe we are now starting back towards the position we earned over generations.



One of my top priorities is to increase multiple-use of federal lands for hunting, fishing, camping, etc. It has to be done responsibly. We all know that 99% of the people who enjoy the outdoors take care of it better than anybody else.

Can sound wildlife management, hunting and drilling for oil/natural gas on federal lands co-exist? I believe that with modern technology it can. I wouldn’t want to drill in the Everglades or the Grand Canyon. There are certain areas that have to be protected and kept pristine. But that’s not a huge area of the country. There are BLM and federal lands that with the right kind of environmental regulations and restrictions we could have oil and natural gas exploration.

We digressed a bit, and Iraq came up: “I don’t care what is reported, I don’t care what the opponents of the war say, we are winning and we are winning in a more successful fashion than frankly even I predicted,” Senator McCain said.

On increasing timber harvest on federal lands (which improves habitat for deer and other wildlife): We can do it, but it’s an enormous struggle with the radical environmental groups. We’ve spent untold millions of taxpayers’ dollars on lawsuits with radical organizations. I am not condemning every environmental organization, there are some that are very much in our way of thinking. But there are extreme environmental organizations and I’ll label them as that and I’ll take them on anytime.

On the loss of millions of acres of CRP land (vital wildlife habitat) as more and more corn is planted: Ethanol subsidies that have distorted the marketplace are the root of the problem. We can’t erode the gains we’ve made in conservation programs. (Note: Sen. McCain has said he supports creating a market environment to encourage production of ethanol and other alternative fuels to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil, but not government subsidies.)

On “no-net-loss” legislation to set aside equal lands for development and recreation, including hunting: I would support it, but not by federal mandate. It’s a state and local decision. In Western states with a lot of public land, I’ve been involved in land exchanges. You take certain areas that can be developed in exchange for putting lands in status so they will forever be undeveloped for hunting, fishing, hiking, etc. We’ve done a pretty good job and we can get more robust (with these type programs).

On his nominees for Interior Secretary and head of Fish and Wildlife Service: Absolutely important to have pro-hunting people in these positions.

Off-loading the bus I asked the Senator the big question: Why should deer hunters vote for John McCain? “Look at my record on gun rights,” he said. “I’m big for multiple-use of our public lands, including for hunting. Look at the record of my opponent and the choice is clear.”

I like this sentence from McCain the best out of the whole interview.

We all know that 99% of the people who enjoy the outdoors take care of it better than anybody else.

I wish that were true. Depending where you fish or hunt I'd say it's less than half

Sorry for the hijack Salmonella (cool article by the way) but Tom brings up a good point. What is the deal with all the litter?
I'm pretty new to the whole river fishing thing. For the last year I've done a lot of it. Each month I'm visiting new water. I can't believe how much trash is around the parking areas and in/along the rivers. I was fishing a small river last week and could see where some douche bag just dropped his beer cans as he was walking down the middle of the river. Every couple hundred yards there was another of his cans on the gravel or on the bottom.
I've been fortunate enough to visit 46 of our states. Washington has more trash on the side of the freeways than I've seen anyplace. I'm not sure if we just don't have the crews to pick the stuff up or we are bigger litter bugs than most places. Litter absolutely pisses me off.

Uhh, Teddy Roosevelt left the Republican Party, and here's why:

"To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." - 1912 Progressive Party Platform, attributed to Theodore Roosevelt[1] and quoted again in his autobiography[2] where he connects Trusts and monopolies (sugar interests, Standard Oil, etc.) to Woodrow Wilson and Howard Taft, and consequently both major political parties.

Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul!!!

Bull Moose party '08

We have two parties now with Bull in their first name but neither's second name is Moose. Sarah Palin for president by 2010.

Say whatever it takes to get more votes.

I've visited many a hunting camp, and most, if not all were well kept. Sure there are slobs out there, as there are in every group.

Fishing, especially near terminal areas, is a whole other story. Fish up on the Hoh, or the Quinault, or the Elwah, or Sol Duc, or a number of other rivers and you'll find not so much trash. Fish th Cowlitz, Kalama, and other easily accessed rivers near large cities, and the dreggs of humanity will seek it out.

I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who is against hunting, against gun ownership (because he sure as hell will have armed protection, so why not me?), or would do anything to diminish in any way the 2nd amendment. I fear that Obama would bring along yet another useless gun ban of some type, just like Wild Bill did, and limit my choice of firearms. Stupid people ban guns based on how they look, which is exactly hwat the democrats did.

If you hunt, you might get my vote. If you don't, you certainly won't.

Don't forget the worst gun bans were under Reagan and Bush the 1st, and the ATF was created under Nixon.
Sure Clinton signed the AWB, but it only lasted 10 years.
Article Link Here

Yeah, but it's still Clinton's fault.

Andy, did you vote for Reagan or Bush Senior either time? They were the ones who signed the most extensive gun bans...there was no Ron Paul around back then.

If you did, then how do you square that with your stance now?

Fish on...

Todd

I was too young to vote when Reagan got elected the first time. Voted against him the second time, yet I still supported him when he was elected. Voted for George Bush Sr, so I guess anybody can make a mistake once in a while. They also lived during a time where there were a number of attempts on their lives, so I can understand them being a bit gun shy.

There were ceratin limitations on firearms, but that dealt primarily with foreign made firearms, and fully autromatic weapons. They were not outlawing ownership of all types of weapons, as folks who live in Class 3 states can pay the tax stamp ($200), then purchase, own, and shoot full auto weapons, short barreled rifles (under 16"), and such. Oregon, Idaho & Alaska are all class 3 states. We can own AOW (all other weapons) and suppressors here in Washington, and I know a number of folks who do own these items. Unfortunately you cannot shoot suppressors in Washington due to the ambiguity of the law here. We just have to take them next door, like to Idaho. I can also buy a kit and built my own AK's if I want, and many folks do, but I won't because of the poor accurac of that type of firearm.

The liberals causes I am concerned with want all out bans. The second amendment isn't about hunting, and limiting my ownership to sporting use only firearms does not follow the intent of the 2nd amendment.

The minute we are not armed is the minute we are all victims of the people who are gonna have guns anyway. The biggest fear of an armed robber is breaking into a home of someone who is fully armed. You take that right away and you will see devastation in the world of crime.

When was the last time the news reported a robber being shot in the country for attempted robery. The last time I heard of such a thing, the robber was being packed off by the Herzzzzz.......

"Stupid people ban guns based on how they look, which is exactly hwat the democrats did."
No Stupid people ban BOOKS. After all the thought police are out to get you. Ideas are more dangerous and "there ought to be a limit on freedom." That last part is from G.W. The dumbest president ever.

I built a bunker in the backyard this weekend and would like to add another in the front, but I'm afraid the neighbors would think I'm wacked.

Getting ready for Y2K?


Stever and Kevin made really good points.

Nobody is ever gunna take my guns from me.

I would also agree that banning books is a dangerous step.