Pittman Robertson...under attack...

buckbull

Veteran member
Jun 20, 2011
2,167
1,354
I'm surprised they haven't tried attacking PR. Maybe they have and it hasn't got alot of attention.
  1. I don't know why the RETURN act was ever introduced. Every conservation group was against it. The NRA was against it. Every hunter should be against it. Every state conversation office was against it. It makes me wonder how an elected official would ever tie their name to the bill. Idiots for the most part.
  2. The Center for Biological Diversity and the Humane Society of the United States loves this bill. WTF were these Republicans thinking sponsoring this kind of trash.
  3. If PR went away tomorrow there is Zero chance those funds would be replaced in full by the federal government.
  4. PR funds are one of the most scrutinized programs the federal government has. No room for shenanigans. The money is spent where it is expected to be spent.
Between creating/sponsors bills like this and the GOP's desire to sell off federal public lands it makes me wonder if they really want my vote as a hunter. I wouldn't vote for any of the turds that signed onto this bill; there has to be a penalty for being a fugging idiot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dribeerfeht

ScottR

Eastmans' Staff / Moderator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2014
7,922
2,827
www.eastmans.com
I'm surprised they haven't tried attacking PR. Maybe they have and it hasn't got alot of attention.
  1. I don't know why the RETURN act was ever introduced. Every conservation group was against it. The NRA was against it. Every hunter should be against it. Every state conversation office was against it. It makes me wonder how an elected official would ever tie their name to the bill. Idiots for the most part.
  2. The Center for Biological Diversity and the Humane Society of the United States loves this bill. WTF were these Republicans thinking sponsoring this kind of trash.
  3. If PR went away tomorrow there is Zero chance those funds would be replaced in full by the federal government.
  4. PR funds are one of the most scrutinized programs the federal government has. No room for shenanigans. The money is spent where it is expected to be spent.
Between creating/sponsors bills like this and the GOP's desire to sell off federal public lands it makes me wonder if they really want my vote as a hunter. I wouldn't vote for any of the turds that signed onto this bill; there has to be a penalty for being a fugging idiot.
The problem is that our 2 party system forces us to vote along what is the highest priority to us. The GOP tends to be the 2A friendly party as well as the Pro-Life party. They get votes on those lines knowing the majority of conservatives have no idea that PR dollars keep the fuel fed for the outdoor activities EVERYONE enjoys.
 

Rich M

Very Active Member
Oct 16, 2012
756
565
"The deepening dependence of conservation funding on firearms sales only reaffirms this historic bond between violence, racism, and lands and wildlife management."

Sentence above says: Guns bad. Violence is bad except when it is the summer of love, racism badbadbad, land and wildlife management needs to be handled without hunters - release the wolves! What is with "racism" in everything?


What this topic made me think of was the whole PR funding being brought into question by Wyoming and the 90/10 thing. It started folks thinking along the lines that the Fed doesn't need to support states like WY - let the USERS fund it - hunters/fishers/hikers/bikers/campers etc.

Where I'm going is that this isn't gonna be the only attack on PR funding, it is gonna come from within the sportsman's sphere as opposed to just from the fringe elements that want to change everything.
 

BuzzH

Very Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
909
952
The problem is that our 2 party system forces us to vote along what is the highest priority to us. The GOP tends to be the 2A friendly party as well as the Pro-Life party. They get votes on those lines knowing the majority of conservatives have no idea that PR dollars keep the fuel fed for the outdoor activities EVERYONE enjoys.
The problem that the GOP is having though, is that a majority of the voting public is not pro-life, but PRO-CHOICE (see Kansas). A majority of the voting public also is pretty tired of schools, churches, and concerts being shot up. Great to be strong on the 2nd, but like it or not, many are growing tired of the amount of gun violence in the US.

The GOP better start realizing and in a big hurry, that their base isn't going to save the day. They also better start believing that the fastest growing religion, is people that aren't practicing any kind of religion.

You start combining those things, with their platform of wanting to get rid of public lands, and now wanting to repeal PR funding, they're shrinking their support of moderates, independents, and folks like me that look at their policy, not the letter behind their name when I cast a vote.

The GOP is in a crisis and the 2A/Pro-life positions are not going to be enough to provide many wins for them, they'll continue to lose elections.

Their positions on PR funding and public lands better change or its going to be tough row to hoe for them going forward. The information age is here, and they can't hide their crap ideas in the shadows anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Slugz and Gr8bawana

kidoggy

Veteran member
Apr 23, 2016
9,847
10,860
58
idaho
all true. but still doesn't change the fact that all democrats and their ideals are also bat @h%t crazy.

there really is no other choice for any rationally sane person.

republicans are a dumpster fire for sure, but libs are a full-blown nuclear holocaust!


but all that aside this is the true reason republicans lose so damn often. and winning just might not be worth changing.

peace.jpg
 
Last edited:

Rich M

Very Active Member
Oct 16, 2012
756
565
Rich m
are you for getting rid of the pittman robertson act?
I just saw this -

I really don't know what I'm for. I'm not for eliminating PR, maybe some changes in fund allocation - far from an expert about it.

The whole 90/10 thing soured me. Just not interested in dealing with that again and again until it passes. Once was enough.
 

kidoggy

Veteran member
Apr 23, 2016
9,847
10,860
58
idaho
90 /10 is ok with me for any state but Idaho. wouldn't go to any of them anyhow.
IMHO, Idaho should be 98 / 2
 

kaludon209

New Member
Sep 24, 2022
2
3
Pittman-Roberston isn't under attack by "both sides." It's under attack by Republicans.
The NYT article you are talking about is an opinion piece by a specific individual who, after going to his personal webpage, seems to have some wackadoo opinions. The guy is not in any way a political thinker/leader... much less in any position of power to create federal legislation. I doubt he'd even consider himself a Democrat looking at his other opinons.
So, again, Pittman-Roberston isn't under attack by "both sides." It's under attack by Republicans. You know how I know? Because HR 8167, the bill to repeal Pittman-Roberston, has 53 co-sponsors in Congress... all of them are Republicans.