Sportsmen come out in favor climate change legislation.
By on Feb 13th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Sportsmen come out in favor climate change legislation.
More than 670 hunting and fishing organizations are calling on Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050. They write:
We who hunt and fish believe we have a moral responsibility to confront climate change in order to protect our outdoor heritage and our children’s future. Accordingly, we ask you to cosponsor legislation that reduced greenhouse gas pollution 2% annually through a cap and trade program and provides wildlife conservative funding to help wildlife survive climate change.
For more on how cap-and-trade would work, click here.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
“moral responsibility” is not a concept recognized by Bush or his supporters
February 13th, 2008 at 11:45 amCue the GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE crowd in…
February 13th, 2008 at 11:48 am3.
2.
1.
I always found it interesting that every conservative I know who enjoys hunting and/or fishing tends to fall on the progressive side when it comes to environmental issues. Maybe that’s because they actually get out IN the environment, instead of viewing the world from their Barcaloungers.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:52 am“moral responsibility†is not a concept recognized by Bush or his supporters
Comment by VerbalKint
neither of those words rings a bell with bush. Although I can see him saying the phrase. he’d lean over the podium and move his right hand in rythmn of the syllables, and he’d between the si and bi in responsibility. Then he’d duck his head a little and lear at the crowd like he’s proud that he got that phrase out without butchering it.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:53 amalways found it interesting that every conservative I know who enjoys hunting and/or fishing tends to fall on the progressive side when it comes to environmental issues. Maybe that’s because they actually get out IN the environment, instead of viewing the world from their Barcaloungers.
Comment by missmolly
It’s the same for conservatives who have relatives who could benefit from stem cell research. They’re very progressive when they are directly affected. The problem is getting them to be empathetic when they don’t benefit.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:56 amTo which Bush was heard to reply, “”moral responsibility,’ what is that? “
February 13th, 2008 at 11:57 amEven though I think you should just leave the wildlife to live in peace, they deserve life too, I want to thank these people for being able to see thru the fog of deceit that the repukes are spewing about this, and seeing into the future and what it holds if nothing is done.
And for all you troll pukes out there, yes, I am a vegetarian, and yes I fish, barbless hooks and release.
Buck Fush
February 13th, 2008 at 11:59 amAs long as sportsmen aren’t cavorting in the wild in the nude, Bush can’t see any morality.
February 13th, 2008 at 12:10 pmwe don’t need carbon taxes. just stop subsidizing oil and coal companies and start giving tax breaks to solar power and wind power producers and consumers.
it’s that simple
February 13th, 2008 at 12:11 pmThe GOP coalition is crumbling.
-GSD
February 13th, 2008 at 12:15 pmYes, please save our wildlife…… so WE can kill it.
February 13th, 2008 at 12:18 pmIf you hunt, you know the changes happening in the countryside.
February 13th, 2008 at 12:19 pm(Unless, of course, you ‘hunt’ in a rich man’s sporting club where the pheasant and grouse are artificially supplied.)
Farmers know.
Hunters know.
Oilmen don’t know, financiers don’t know, and pampered college students don’t know. And they’re the ones shouting from their air-conditioned rooms that global warming is a liiie.
They’re not only insulated from the seasons, they’re insulated from responsibility for their own lies.
Nothing can touch them.
All that is required is that they stay in their nice rooms and never go out.
I’ve said for years that pro-hunting and environmental folks should get together on many major issues. It’s finally happening more. BushCo and most Repukes in general are no friend to the true sportsman. Here’s an article that was published a few years back in Field & Stream. Wish it had gotten more exposure back then.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/fieldstream/columnists/conservation/article/0,13199,489794,00.html
February 13th, 2008 at 12:23 pmAnd for all you troll pukes out there, yes, I am a vegetarian, and yes I fish, barbless hooks and release.
Why would you give this bit of fuel to trolls?
February 13th, 2008 at 12:24 pmI have a Rooster Pheasant coming to my bird feeders this winter. It’s a real treat to watch such a beautiful bird browsing right below my window.
I’ve hunted & fished all my life. It’s my heritage, & I’m proud of it. I also own 80 acres of pristine wilderness that’s been in my family for over a 100 years. None of my forefathers did anything but harvest wood & wild game off it. We don’t hunt for sport, we eat what we kill.
Over the last 30 years, the small creek running through the middle of the land displays increasing signs of pollution, specifically phosphate run off & oil like residue floating on top.
What’s my point? Political affiliation is secondary to our environment. You can disagree with my outdoor activities, but we all agree on the need to clean up our Earth. Let’s take politics our of climate change & pollution & get to work…we don’t have much time left.
February 13th, 2008 at 12:26 pmMaybe that’s because they actually get out IN the environment, instead of viewing the world from their Barcaloungers.
Comment by missmolly — February 13, 2008 @ 11:52 am
Barcaloungers… that’s funny… new code word for their Cheneys?
February 13th, 2008 at 12:27 pmCap and trade is dubious parctice IMO~
February 13th, 2008 at 12:35 pmI also own 80 acres of pristine wilderness that’s been in my family for over a 100 years
Comment by Zimzone — February 13, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
Really?! Where? Need any help hunting your land? :)
-Dr. Matt
Northern MN.
February 13th, 2008 at 12:39 pmThanks, but my 2 boys & me have it covered Dr. Matt ;)
Would Bush want to endanger his chance of catching another 7 lb perch?
February 13th, 2008 at 1:00 pmThe enviromentalist really need to start working with hunting groups. To date, most land in America gets preserved or restored through hunters not enviromentalist. On the flip side, they have a leg up when it comes to the political side. Mixing the money of the hunting crowd with the lobbying effort of the enviromentalists could be a serious boon to both.
Somehow they need to except we humans hunt and that will never change. In the end, hunting has actually saved our wild places and many species. The African Elephant is a great example. Once they had “value” to hunters, they stopped being poached. Now their are to many of them in many parts of Africa. A true success story. We need to put a “value” on wild life if you want any chance to save it. This is something they would have to come to terms with.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:43 pmComment by Roger_Roger — February 13, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
Sholdn’t the “hunting groups” be the environmentalists? I think you might consider reversing your premise
February 13th, 2008 at 1:53 pmWould Bush want to endanger his chance of catching another 7 lb perch?
Comment by RUCerious — February 13, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
I really mean no disrespect to the family name. I have plenty of more pressing issues with this clan. Just trust me on this one. The men in this clan are not the most adept of fishermen.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:03 pm22 – rigth idea, but flip it around, rog –
the hunters and fishermen need the environmentalists way more than the environmentalists need the hunters and fishermen.
it’s time for the sportsmen to take a couple big steps to the left – that is, if they want their great grandkids to experience the outdoors the same way they always have.
time for the B.A.S.S. guys and the Ducks Unlimited guys to decide they’d rather have a viable fishin’ hole than an assault weapon. the choice ought to be easy.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:16 pmReally, by 2050? Is everyone so ignorant as to believe we will be alive then? You have to be severely retarded or out of touch with science to think that when a few tens of million people are displaced in the next decade, that there may be a bit of pressure on the rest of humanity?
are we collectively this stupid? The ice melt will wipe out the coastal cities ability to function. This is hundreds of millions of people affected and all world commerce. Understand yet? a few years folks.
this doesn’t include seismic, or weather extremes, or volcanic activity.
get smart. it would be preferred if the smart ones survive. Watch “Idiocracy” if you think otherwise.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:16 pmSo the hunters want to save the animals so they can kill them?
February 13th, 2008 at 2:34 pmThe enviromentalist really need to start working with hunting groups.
Comment by Roger_Roger — February 13, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
They do all the time, you idiot. You claim to be “hunter”. If you knew what you were talking about, you’d know this. Sheesh…
February 13th, 2008 at 2:37 pmIn California, groups like Ducks Unlimited work well w/ bird conservation groups.
Historically, the waterfowl migration on the Pacific Flyway was estimated at perhaps 50MM birds a year. By the late 60’s/early 70’s, this had dropped to about 1 (one) million birds, 2% of it original level.
Since then, the partnership between the hunters and the bird conservationists has managed to bring this number back up to maybe 8-10MM birds. A huge, and successful improvement.
I’m not all that crazy about sport hunting. I think it’s nasty to kill for fun, but this is one case where the relationship has worked. Yes, the duck hunters want to shoot birds, but they also realize that in order to continue to hunt ducks, they need a stable, viable duck population to work w/ and they want to maintain that 10MM bird level.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:44 pmMost hunters and fishermen that I hunt and fish with are pro-environment and anti-roads, anti-logging and will rage on about our favorite elk hunting areas being carved into 40 acre “ranches”. At the same time, a majority of them vote Republican.
It’s surprising how little understanding of where the two parties stand and which one is more aligned with their interests. But I have seen a real change in the last few years, Bush has opened a lot of people’s eyes and caused them to see that all the shit they hear from Rush and Faux News is just that.
February 13th, 2008 at 3:12 pm