"This shows the zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual foolishness," said , a freelance outdoors writer in Corvallis, Ore., and author of "A Chukar Hunter's Companion."

How's that for stomping on the guts of every gun owner?

The above comes from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17307316/?GT1=9033

I never heard of Pat Wray before this. I did a quick search and found his web site and contact info: patwray@comcast.net
After doing a very brief review of the site, I sent him the following email:

Mr. Wray,

I never heard of you until I saw your name appear in the MSNBC article posted on-line reference to Jim Zumbo.

Mr. Zumbo did a wonderful job of inciting the anti-gun crowd with his completely absurd statement about "terrorist" guns. Zumbo started the fire and you further fanned the flames with your comment:
"This shows the zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual foolishness," said Pat Wray, a freelance outdoors writer in Corvallis, Ore., and author of "A Chukar Hunter's Companion."

You sir, are an idiot! You claim to be a "hunter and outdoor writer" yet you made that statement which puts every single gun owner in the light of needing to be committed to a mental institution by simply defending out rights. Your bio page says you served in the Marine Corps. Obviously sometime between then and the time you made your statement to MSNBC, you forgot about the oath you took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

Not only are you an insult to every American gun owner, you are an insult to the United States Marines and especially to every American who gave their lives to ensure you have the freedom now to make such stupid comments. Zumbo shoved his foot in his mouth and you have as well. The problem is, comments like these cannot be taken back and as you see the anti-gun media has taken yours and ran with it. I'm sure both you and Zumbo have made a great name for yourselves in the shooting and hunting world, right up there with Pelosi, Brady, Murtha and Schumer. Congratulations on becoming famous!

Mark



I can't possibly be the only one sickened to the point of wanting to puke by all this BS??????? Yes, I did intend the above email to be insulting, I make no bones about it nor will I apologize for my comments.

Zumbo trashed every one of his sponsors and if Wray has got any, they have also been equally trashed! These people run their fingers and mouths without any consideration for the magnitude of the repercussions their statements will have.

Perhaps it's time for me to start advertising "Pro-gun keyboard for hire". mark@fire-iron.biz

Yes, I am fed up too, and have sworn off gunrags. What a bunch of elitist, smug jerks. Add Pat Wray as #3 , to Zumbo and Petzal.

Umm Mark? Getting upset is one thing, being insulting and behaving in a way that he describes is another.

Better to write his publisher and ask them if they really want to lose the money they realize from shooters and hunters instead of publishing things Pat Wray says.

My wife saw that article and she thought it was pretty level headed. I read the whole thing and thought, well yeah, Zumbo did say something he will regret for a long time. Let's not take what Pat Wray said out of context. This is the text including Wray's comment.

{Some outdoors writers drew a different lesson from Zumbo's horrible week.

"This shows the zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual foolishness," said Pat Wray, a freelance outdoors writer in Corvallis, Ore., and author of "A Chukar Hunter's Companion."

Wray said that what happened to Zumbo is a case study in how the NRA has trained members to attack their perceived enemies without mercy.

"For so many years, Zumbo has been a voice for these people -- for hunting and for guns -- and they just turned on him in an instant," Wray said. "He apologized all over himself, and it didn't do any good."}

Take something said once wrong. Blow it into a tornado and then crucify a guy for it even though he worked for decades to support something we all believe in because that is the way things are done now. No civility, no adult behavior, no forgiveness. Misrepresentations, obfuscations, denegration of credentials, all to discredit someone's opinion or insight if it doen't toe the line.

Pat Wray may not have been a famous hunting writer like Zumbo before, but he sure is getting his 15 minutes now.

I still think everyone is over reacting and we aren't helping ourselves with the anti's by frothing at the mouth.

I’d rather hear the mans opinion even if I don’t agree with him. At least I know where he’s coming from.

As far as the protests, well, that just goes to show how serious a person takes it when they decide to become a gun owner.

....

I still think everyone is over reacting and we aren't helping ourselves with the anti's by frothing at the mouth.

I disagree...I think we concern ourselves with the antis too much.

When Grant was asked if he was worried about what Gen'l Lee had planned, Grant said he was too busy planning what he was going to do to Lee.

Bottomline, it's about money and votes. That means sticking together, supporting the NRA and our candidates with contributions and getting out the vote.

Personally, I don't listen to the Air America types..although they spout on and on. Likewise, I don't think too many people but ourselves care about our internal quarrels.

Zumbo, Wray, Petzal definitely have a right to say what they feel, that's granted to them by the 1st amendment. The problem is, what these people are saying totally defies the rights afforded to us by the 2nd amendment. This is what I and so many others take serious issue with.

I don't need to be politically correct nor do I have to ignore what is said by anyone. I made my comments and stand behind them because what these three people are doing is only serving to divide the gun community.

No statements were taken out of context. Zumbo said, "terrorist", context is plain and clear. Wray said, "point of actual foolishness", context is also very clear on this one. I do not have Petzal's quote in front of me so I will not comment on it but it's also quite clear and taken in the context it's intended.

You are either for supporting the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States or you are against them. There is no middle ground where you can simply pick and chose those line items you agree with or don't.

Wray sent me an email stating, "I don’t own an AR 15, not because I don’t believe in our right to own them, but because I’m not impressed with the caliber." Fine and dandy, his choice. I don't own an AR either, I don't like them at all, not even a little bit. My personal feelings on the particular rifle have nothing to do with my full and complete support for anyone who does like the AR's or any other gun. There are lots of guns I don't like but that in no way, shape or form does that make me any less defensive of others rights to own whatever guns they want to, doesn't matter if I like them or not!

This is not over reaction nor is it foolishness. What's happened here is that the majority of gun owners have chosed to stick together and do what it right. Zumbo should have known better and being tired is no excuse for ever describing any gun as "terrorist", this just shows not only his lack of knowledge but also his lack of conviction to support at bare minimum the second amendment.

The major problem in this and many other issues is the lack of knowledge and ignorance of the facts. A gun is a gun no matter what it's shape, action type, color or materials it's constructed from. They are nothing more than tools and like any other tool when used improperly or to inflict harm of another, the fault lies with the operator and not with the tool. This is where the "excuse-itis" starts to show. Rather than seek out and cure the real problem, it's easier to find an excuse to justify the problem rather than to correct the problem.

There are no excuses for what these people said and the context in which they said what they delivered their comments. There is no benefit to making excuses, we need to cure the problems. The first step in curing the problem is by removing those who do not support the second amendment as a whole from within our ranks. The second step is to try and repair the damage they have done by taking the time to educate everyone within our ranks that what they say matters and they will be held accountable within their own community. Step three is to extend the damage control to the everyone who is not in our community. Write letters to the editor and your political leaders explaining that the comments made by Zumbo, Wray and Petzal do not reflect the gun owners as a whole. You also need to to make it perfectly clear that guns are not the cause of crime, criminals are and the criminals need to be dealt with. Taking guns off of non-criminals, those people who will never be criminals, solves nothing. We, as a country, have spent untold billions of dollars allegedly fighting the war on illegal drugs yet there are more of these illegal drugs available today than there were when the war started. Those people who have never done drugs and have no desire to ever do drugs were not affected by the ban in any way. Those people that choose to do drugs are breaking the law and they don't care and most are not held accountable for their actions. Instead, we make excuses for why they do the drugs. Illegal immigrants come across the borders every day and instead of curing the problem, we make excuses for their violation of the law and offer them immunity.....

So, following the history, if we banned all guns today and every law abiding citizen turns in their guns, the very same criminals breaking the laws right now will continue to break any new laws too. The criminals will still have their guns. The criminals will still have their dope. The criminals will still be invading out country. The criminals will still be doing robberies, carjackings, rape, murder, ect ..... all because they don't follow the laws we aready have now! What good is another law going to do except to further strip away the rights of the majority who choose to willingly follow the laws and comply with authority anyway????????????????????

All these three people have done is to further the "divide and conquer" technique outlined by the anti-gun crowd. They are the rats jumping from the sinking ship instead of being the loyal crew members giving their all to try and plug all the holes and bail water.

I believe we should forgive these men whome have made statements which are harmful to our rights. I also believe they should be much more careful of what they say, because their ill chosen words are very harmful to us and our freedom. The anti's don't need any help from our ranks to cause us problems, they can lie very well on there own, and the media can't wait to help them. If we don't stand together we will fall apart.

I don't own any assualt weapons although I do own 14 guns, but also don't think they should be in the field on a deer hunt. But........that is my opinion. Which I am intitled to. Just like everyone else. The real problem here is that once Jim said the same thing I just did it created a lot of infighting. Just what the antis like to see. So I think we need to pull the burr out from under the saddle and just chill out. again, just my opinion which I am intitled to.

If you went to work tomorrow, and exercised your right to say that your company's products were total crap, right in front of your boss.... would anyone really have sympathy for you if you got fired?

Just a thought.

Read this and you will know who Pat Wray is;

From the NRA:

Seeking to pick up the baton dropped by the ham-fisted Americans for Gun Safety, the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) has arrived on the scene to become the latest front group for the anti-gun movement in America.
http://www.nraila.org/images/Chrissm.jpgBY CHRIS W. COX, NRA-ILA Executive Director
Tracking the recent history of the Second Amendment debate wouldn’t be complete without a look at the shifting tactics of the opposition. Our tireless efforts and resulting victories at the ballot box have made it clear that openly campaigning against the Second Amendment is a political loser. The anti-gun groups have undertaken a concerted effort to mask their long-term agenda, but only as a mark of pure, calculating political expedience.
It surprised no one when Handgun Control, Inc., decided to change its name to the decidedly vague “Brady Campaign.” But the effort to paint the anti-gun agenda with the comfortable warmth of “gun safety” rhetoric moved from tactical to strategic with the formation of Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) in July 2000. Funded solely by New York City dot-com billionaire Andrew McKelvey—previously a member of the Handgun Control, Inc., board of directors—AGS supported the same tired gun-control agenda, but portrayed itself as “bringing a new, centrist perspective to a long-polarized debate.”
In truth, it was staffed by a handful of longtime anti-gun strategists who were certainly vigorous in issuing countless press releases. But AGS never developed political credibility or power, because it had no members, no base of support and no grassroots strength. In due course, the group appeared to simply evaporate, and it now exists only as a website that hasn’t been updated in months.
The failure of AGS should have been a clear lesson to our opponents that credibility as a voice for hunters and shooters cannot be created with money alone. But blind faith is a powerful force. Much as the anti-gun crowd cannot resist the temptation to continue to push restrictions that have already been defeated; it seems destined that they would again form a phony front group, dedicated to the lofty political goal of fooling gun owners and hunters into supporting a new emperor with no clothes. Just in time for the new election cycle, the group would push the same anti-gun agenda and grant false credentials to politicians seeking to cloak themselves in the false veneer of rhetoric “supporting our rights.”
Now comes, as if on cue, the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA). The group’s self-description that pops up in Internet search engines is: “Countering years of polarized debate and restoring pride in America’s hunting and shooting heritage.” Gee, that polarized debate thing sounds familiar.
But let’s go through the exercise, for those with any doubt. AHSA is certainly working to create that doubt, with a debut performance at the recent convention of the Outdoor Writers Association of America.
http://www.nraila.org/images/StopGunCamo2.jpg“Also troubling is the NRA’s attempt to protect the gun industry from lawsuits that could help shut down gun dealers.” —Ron Schuman (former BATF official)
Hosting a press conference and a breakfast, the group made a minor splash. CNN fell for the routine, offering the group a clean slate from which to cast its own history. AHSA Executive Director Bob Ricker told the CNN host, “We feel that because of the extreme positions the NRA has taken in the past, as you mentioned, that it’s turned off a large number of gun owners. It just became clear to me that the extreme positions the NRA was forcing everyone to take was really hurting hunters and shooters, like myself.”
Pure theater, of course, but good enough for CNN to fawn over. Some of the outdoor writers in attendance, however, were well familiar with the false credentials of Ricker and AHSA’s board of directors. Ricker attempted to sidestep his checkered past, dodging questions on his well-known history as a failed gun-industry lobbyist, then as a paid shill for the anti-gun lobby and its lawyers. Board member John Rosenthal, founder of the anti-gun Massachusetts state group “Stop Handgun Violence,” has called himself a gun owner and shooter. One outdoor writer noted in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette: “They ask that you overlook their past associations and listen to their message.”
The message is plenty familiar—a pure re-hash of the AGS mantra. Their past associations as operatives and supporters of the gun-ban lobby are well established. So let’s look at those associations as they are, not as Ricker glosses over them in the media. Let’s go to the videotape, as the sportscasters say, in the form of a sworn deposition that Ricker was paid to give in the baseless New York City lawsuit against the firearm industry.
What’s that, you say? Ricker is a paid witness in the effort to hold the firearm industry responsible for the acts of criminals? Yes. And that’s just the beginning. Given on September 27, 2005, the deposition details the formation of the group, and Ricker’s other paid allegiances to the gun-ban lobby.
Ricker stated his “biggest” client was the Educational Fund to End Handgun Violence. That’s the “educational” arm of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, a long-in-the-tooth but minor gun-ban group, run by longtime gun-ban advocate Josh Horwitz. The signature logo of CSGV is a picture of a handgun with a red slash across it. Look at their website (www.csgv.org)—it’s right there in the corner. The rest of the site details their slavish support for any and all new gun restrictions. In the deposition, Ricker reports that his other client is the Virginia anti-gun state group Virginians for Public Safety.
Ricker reports AHSA as merely another one of his clients in the deposition and that his services as Executive Director are compensated at the rate of $3,000 per month. Ricker was questioned about the number of members in AHSA and estimated that “it’s probably around 100 to 150 at this point.” Noting that each member pays $25 to join, industry lawyers observed that incoming dues alone were clearly inadequate to pay his retainer. Ricker stated that the rest of the funding comes from “individual contributions” and said the largest contributors were the AHSA board of directors.
The AHSA board proudly displays pictures of themselves target shooting or afield, confirming their elitist mind-set that it’s okay to ban guns they don’t own. Their political track records follow suit. Board Member Ray Schoenke has supported myriad liberal causes in recent years. He has made political contributions to Al Gore, Barbara Boxer, Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. In 2000, Schoenke donated $5,000 to Handgun Control, Inc. Contributions were also made to HCI by the Ray and Holly Schoenke Foundation, enough to earn him a slot as a major benefactor of the annual HCI fundraising dinner.
Board member John Rosenthal remains the leader of Stop Handgun Violence, the Massachusetts anti-gun group. He, too, is a former member of the HCI board of directors. Ricker had this to say in the deposition: “We recognize the fact that Stop Handgun Violence is considered a gun-control organization, and as Mr. Rosenthal is the person who runs that organization, we understand that some hunters and shooters, other organizations like the NRA … would perceive the fact that he’s associated with our organization, and therefore, would conclude somehow that (AHSA) was not pro-gun.” Asked whether this meant that AHSA was just a front group, Ricker responded “That perception would be out there, yes.”
Another ASHA board member is Jody Powell, lead spokesman for the rabidly anti-gun Jimmy Carter administration. Under Carter, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) waged a brutal crusade against the civil liberties of firearm owners that resulted in three major congressional inquiries and led U.S. Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), chairman of two such investigations, to characterize BATF conduct as “bordering on criminality,” saying the agency had moved against honest citizens “because taken the view that individuals who are interested in firearms are either criminals or close to it.” While Carter was posing as a quail hunter, on his watch the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) tried to ban hunting on privately owned timberland. Had Congress not acted to kill the OSHA hunting ban at the urging of NRA, hunting in America, on both public and private lands, may have become a truly endangered activity.
http://www.nraila.org/images/StopGunCamo2.jpg[i]“If it wasn’t for criminals, there wouldn’t be a gun industry in this country.” —Gerard Nunziato (former BATFE official)
AHSA board member Joe Vince is a former BATF employee who made himself infamous as a key architect of the Clinton-Gore regulatory assault on the Second Amendment. Vince, now president of Crime Gun Solutions, employs a number of ex-BATF officials including one Gerard Nunziato, who told the Houston Chronicle that “If it wasn’t for criminals, there wouldn’t be a gun industry in this country.” Nunziato added, “the claims of the NRA and other gun-rights groups that they are protecting law-abiding citizens with their policies are false. The only people it’s protecting are criminals.”
The Chronicle article has yet more: “Also troubling,” said Ron Schuman, another former BATF official who works for Crime Gun Solutions, “is the NRA’s attempt to protect the gun industry from lawsuits that could help shut down gun dealers whose firearms routinely make their way to criminals.” Schuman is identified by Ricker in the deposition as an attendee of the AHSA formative meetings. And did I mention that Crime Gun Solutions performs consulting for the lawyers at the Brady Campaign, frequently appearing as paid expert witnesses in lawsuits against the industry? In fact, these are the same lawyers that Ricker admits to meeting with several times in the deposition.
There’s plenty more in the deposition, more than this space allows. But one response in particular describes the reception AHSA received from DCS, a Democratic vendor of Internet services that administers the AHSA website. Ricker states that DCS staff “advised that in their professional opinion, they thought an organization like the American Hunters and Shooters Association would be attractive to candidates running for office.”
That completes the now-familiar picture. Rich anti-gun donors funnel cash into a front group that claims pro-gun and pro-hunting credentials, despite longstanding and current ties to a multitude of gun-ban groups, causes and candidates. The front group paints itself as a “moderate, centrist” alternative to the “polarizing rhetoric” of the Second Amendment debate and makes a soft-sell to outdoor writers and anti-gun candidates.
Sure enough, there are some who have fallen for it. Outdoor writer Pat Wray was gleeful to parrot the phony rhetoric of AHSA, writing in the Corvallis Gazette-Times that “AHSA appears to be the answer to the prayers of a lot of shooters and hunters who have become disillusioned with the NRA.”
http://www.nraila.org/images/StopGunCamo2.jpgAsked whether AHSA was just a front group, Bob Ricker responded,
“That perception would be out there, yes.”
Wray advised Ricker, Rosenthal and Schoenke that “we will beat a path to their door,” and said “the ripples emanating from the AHSA pebble are getting bigger and gaining speed as they approach NRA headquarters.” Ricker and his cronies were likely rolling with belly laughs when they read Wray’s naïve, enthusiastic embrace.
From the deposition, we know there may be at least 100 to 150 others who have bought the same line. But with the unlimited funding of anti-gun social engineers, and the clear ability to fool at least some outdoor writers into giving the sham group free publicity, who knows how high that number could climb.
The word “absurdity” is not strong enough to describe the notion that longtime operatives of the gun-ban lobby could credibly create and operate a self-described pro-gun association, particularly when they are still giving donations or being paid to push restrictions on consumers and support baseless lawsuits against the industry. Credibility is the coin of the political realm and that’s the reason NRA members hold the power that we do. We know what we believe; we’re good at what we do and the entire operation is made possible by the voluntary contributions of our members and supporters.
We’re not ashamed to defend our freedoms from attack, no matter how “polarizing” our critics may find it to be. That’s what builds credibility. Those who are “disillusioned” are welcome and in fact entitled, under the Constitution, to form their own association. But they should be prepared to be called out as liars if they cover up whom they really are and what they truly support. That’s why AHSA has no political credibility and never will.
The only thing emanating from the “AHSA pebble” is the stench of yet another cold, calculated attempt by the gun-ban lobby to thieve the hard-earned political credibility of gun owners and hunters.

Email reply I just received from Pat Wray:


If you believe Chris Cox and the NRA when they talk about threats, you already have more trouble than anyone else can cause you. I'm including a form note that summarizes my feelings.
Pat
I appreciate you taking the time to write.

Please don't take this as an apology, because I meant everything I've said about Zumbo's statements and the actions taken by people and organizations afterwards. However, your letter, and many others like it, has helped me gain a new appreciation for the gulf between hunters and shooters...and the feelings of abandonment and frustration the shooters are experiencing. Perhaps I thought I had a handle on the situation because I own several semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols, including 'assault rifles', and have no ill feelings toward the military knock-offs. But I certainly didn't understand the strong undercurrents at work here.

My hope is that, having seen the chasm that divides us, we can work together to bridge it. At the same time, we can work together to strengthen all our rights to bear arms.

(Yes, this is a form note; sorry, I just don’t have time to write a personal note to each of the 150 or so folks who have e-mailed me)

Best,

Pat



I voted for the NRA before I voted against them???? This just can't make up his mind which side of the fence he's on.... his replies are right out of the liberal SOP.

So, is Pat Wray a member of AHSA?

I don't know if he's a member or not but the implication is "yes".

I did some research on the AHSA ..... wow, what a group!

They promote search and siezure by LEO's without probable cause or warrants. Ballistics fingerprinting. Electronic smart guns (all types). Prosecution of CCW holders, gun dealers and private citizens who they feel don't store their guns properly ...... these folks are labled as the criminals by the AHSA ..... go figure?

They promote the lies about alleged lead poisoning on shooting ranges yet claim to publish “sound scientific and technical information.” -- ya, okay?


AHSA will support legislation designed to prevent the unethical hunting of animals in enclosures or “pens”, and will actively support measures that promote the “fair chase” ethic.


From what I’ve been able to find on this, the AHSA’s position on “pens” is exactly the same as that carried by the Nature Conservancy (totally against all hunting & fishing), it defines “pens” as any enclosure including private farm and ranch lands. Yes, those of you who hunt on cattle ranches are being accused of hunting in “pens” despite the fact that game easily crosses fences designed to keep domestic livestock in/out.

Facts don’t matter, all that matters is the advancement of their agenda. All we can do is try to expose the lies and make everyone aware of the real facts, be they criminal data or environmental data. The real truth is out there but it's not getting to the general public. That job now belongs to us as neighbors and friends. We see how quickly the gun writers turn tail on their own and sell out the entire community simply because they think it doesn't affect them.... We must all take the time to carry the torch on our own, if we fail to do this, we will loose everything.

I was working my stand at the market on monday. Lady comes by and she jumped a little when she saw the guns I had out for sale. I asked what the problem was and she replied "guns scare me!". I asked her for a couple minutes of her time to explain the basics and give her an understanding that they are no more dangerous than anything else she comes in contact with everyday. When I started explaining things, a small crowd gathered. I did a little show & tell for about 10 minutes then spent another 15 to 20 minutes answering questions. The lady that initially was scared to death of the guns actually held my double and learned how to safely handle it and check to ensure it was not loaded.

I ended up doing that little demo three times for different people because the people that saw the first one told others where my stand was and they came willingly. The $48 I made for working 16 hours sure ain't helping to pay my mortgage but there are least 30 more people out there who no longer fear guns.

Keeping in mind Corvallis is a University town, filling those heads-full-of-mush with leftist BS about "rights" and so on. Just another elitist AH backpedaling when called to account for his published comments. The great gulf isn't there because of the black rifle folks, who aren't trying to take anyone's guns away. Its there due to the like of him and his ilk, who attribute crime and other unsportsmanlike behavior to the existance of ARs.

Every time I see something like this or hear about a "liberal gun owner" I think of a line from the movie"Jaws": "Im not arguing with a man lining up to be a hot lunch." I hope hes a good bowhunter because thats all he will have left when the anti get around to his "long range sniper rifles". And answer me this: which is more sporting: me hunting with a 16in barreled AK clone with a 5 shot mag in 7.62x39 with iron sights or a guy with a 270 WM bolt gun with a 4x16 scope? Keep in mind that people who hate guns also hate hunting. Helping the antis is only helping to put yourself out of business.

How difficult is it to get it through your head that the socialists want to rid society of any guns that are:

1. Too big
2. Too small
3. Too noisy
4. Too quiet
5. Too accurate
6. Too inaccurate
7. Too dangerous looking
8. Too simple looking
9. Shoot too far
10.Shoot too much
11.Shoot too fast
12.Shoot too easy
13.Not in their bodyguard's own possession.

From what I’ve been able to find on this, the AHSA’s position on “pens” is exactly the same as that carried by the Nature Conservancy (totally against all hunting & fishing)

Just to keep the facts straight, The Nature Conservancy is not against hunting and fishing. Here is the statement from their web site:

"In general, the Conservancy does not take a formal position either for or against hunting or fishing.

Because our primary focus has always been to protect the entire spectrum of native biological diversity, we do not encourage hunting or fishing on the majority of conservation sites that we own or manage. At the same time, when these activities are carried out within the guidelines of applicable state and federal laws, we would not oppose those who wish to take part in them. "

More info can be found in their FAQs section.

density1,

Yes, that is what their website says but it's not what they say. Listen to the radio ads where they state clear and direct (paraphrase), "Donate your land to The Nature Conservancy and we will guarantee that it will never be open to hunting or fishing and all wildlife will remain completely undisturbed by humans."

The TNC and AHSA are nothing but front groups. They tell you one thing and do the complete opposite when they think you're not looking. Divide and conquer is the name of the game and their entire strategy....unfortunately as we can clearly see in the last couple weeks, it's working as planned!

I don't own any assualt weapons although I do own 14 guns, but also don't think they should be in the field on a deer hunt.

My first question is why would you say that? They are a semi-automatic rifle not unlike any other. You pull the trigger and one bullet is discharged. Another bullet is not sent down range until you pull the trigger again. Again, functionally speaking how are they different?

My second question is what do you consider an "assault rifle"? I am not comfortable using terms to describe firearms first used by Adolph Hitler and made even more famous by Bill Clinton and Janet Reno.

Yes, that is what their website says but it's not what they say. Listen to the radio ads where they state clear and direct (paraphrase), "Donate your land to The Nature Conservancy and we will guarantee that it will never be open to hunting or fishing and all wildlife will remain completely undisturbed by humans."

The TNC and AHSA are nothing but front groups. They tell you one thing and do the complete opposite when they think you're not looking. Divide and conquer is the name of the game and their entire strategy....unfortunately as we can clearly see in the last couple weeks, it's working as planned!

Mark, I have not heard the radio ads, so I cannot address that point. I do know that the Nature Conservancy is a private organization that owns the land it controls. As such, it can do whatever it wishes to do with the land just as any private landowner can do. Generally, it treats its property just like the U.S. Gov. treats N.W.Rs and National Forests; no hunting or fishing allowed (except on special occasions).

My point is: it is generally not a political organization like the AHSA and TNC. If it is offically neutral to hunting and fishing, then don't go picking a fight with them. That will surely make them another true enemy. The Nature Conservancy owns vast amounts of land that I as a hunter, am glad will not be sold to developers, as then it will never be open to any outdoor sport again. I am sure you have seen land, that was good hunting land in the past, sold off to become subdivisions.

St. Vincent Island, off the panhandle coast, once belonged to the Nature Conservancy. Now it is a NWR where hunting is allowed. If not for the N.C. holding it for so long, I am sure it would be full of houses and hotels just like it's neighbor, St George Is.

Pick your fights carefully, with someone you know is out to get you. Throwing rocks and hitting someone (that is big) who is just standing around watching, will only make you more enemies.

I don't have any problem with what individuals or groups choose to do with land they own but I do take issue with TNC because their claims of being "neutral" don't support their actions. I'm not picking a fight with TNC, I'm simply responding to their words & actions.

A rep from TNC went on a radio show (I think it was on NPR but could have been the local show in PA, was about four years ago) anyway, he spent the entire interview delivering an anti-hunting & anti-fishing media campaign. He made statements saying TNC was opposed to the senseless slaughter of all animals for the sole purpose of sport. How animals shot by hunters suffer for hours, sometimes days before dying. Then he added that most animals killed by hunters are not even recovered and the majority of hunters only take the horns for trophies. Then he went off on a rant about how fishermen let their catch suffer a long agonizing death by suffocation and how all they do is injure and kill all kinds of aquatic life.

What TNC does with land they own is their thing but when they actively take part in delivering anti-hunting & anti-fishing messages, that strips away their claim of "neutrality". I don't have any problem with them wanting to preserve wildlife on land they own. The problem I have with TNC is that this group is in fact very politically active yet they maintain that they are not.....

PETA is totally anti-everything and while I don't agree with their position and actions, I do respect them for not trying to hide behind some mask. The group is what it is and they don't hide it. The AHSA is not what it claims to be and neither is TNC. If theses groups have nothing to hide, why not just admit who they are and run with it???

If TNC wants to be anti-hunting & anti-fishing, that's their option. If they want to say that they operate on a case by case basis, that's fine with me too, just don't say one thing while doing something totally oposite.

Generally, it treats its property just like the U.S. Gov. treats N.W.Rs and National Forests; no hunting or fishing allowed (except on special occasions).

I think you mean National PARKS, not National Forests, where hunting and fishing is not allowed. There are some exceptions to this, but in general National Forests don't have hunting/fishing restrictions, but Parks and Monuments do.

I do agree with Mark...TNC is in general anti-hunting; different degrees of this depending upon the region. While I support private property rights, TNC is soliciting donations to make their purchases, and as such, they should make full disclosure of their position concerning hunting and fishing.

I think you mean National PARKS, not National Forests, where hunting and fishing is not allowed. There are some exceptions to this, but in general National Forests don't have hunting/fishing restrictions, but Parks and Monuments do.

I do agree with Mark...TNC is in general anti-hunting; different degrees of this depending upon the region. While I support private property rights, TNC is soliciting donations to make their purchases, and as such, they should make full disclosure of their position concerning hunting and fishing.


I agree Shawn. If anyone is soliciting money then you should be operating under FULLL DISCLOSURE. Sadly it ain't so. Any organization that solicits money should be able to tell me exactly what that money is going for from infrastructure costs to land purchases to advertising or healthcare for little kids in the third world. Thing is, that people do not operate that way because it would cut out a percentage of donations by people that don't agree but are uninformed about your actual agenda. They don't want to lose those dollars either.

Any organization that solicits money should be able to tell me exactly what that money is going for.... Thing is, that people do not operate that way because it would cut out a percentage of donations by people that don't agree but are uninformed about your actual agenda. They don't want to lose those dollars either.

It's a tough world out there Michael, and discouraging for hopeful - and naive at times - people like me. But I'm learning and getting smarter every day...I think. Everybody has to be sure of the organization's mission that they're giving up money to.

Mark, Shawn, Michael, and all;

I do appreciate your opinions. However I must disagree with you on the agenda of the N.C. I cannot find any information about how the N.C. is anti-hunting or what it has done to stop hunting on any property it does not control. I also cannot address your sources of information as I have not heard or seen what you say you have. I do however have a list of links below for you to look at. Please keep an open mind when looking at them. Some are from the Nature Conservancy and some are from other 3rd party sites. One or two is from the "Sportsman's Alliance" site. If you know anything about them, you know they really go after the anti's. And I think the "SHARK" link will surprise you.
If you think they are liars about what they do, well they have certainly woven a very complicated web of deceit.

http://www.wlfa.org/interactive/features/Read.cfm?ID=694

http://www.sharkonline.org/?P=0000000104

http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/vermont/preserves/art6013.html

http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/wisconsin/animals/art19348.html

http://www.nature.org/magazine/summer2002/flyfishing/misc/art7392.html

http://www.nature.org/magazine/autumn2006/features/art18602.html

http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/maine/preserves/art19619.html

http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/newyork/press/press2194.html

http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/northcarolina/preserves/art10775.html

http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/northdakota/preserves/art9053.html

http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/westvirginia/press/press1617.html

http://www.archeryplusllc.com/anti.html

http://www.ussportsmen.org/pdfs/topantihuntinggroups.pdf

http://prfamerica.org/NatureConservancy-BrianGilbert-8-4-92.html

I don't have time to go digging for all the stuff I collected on TNC but below are just a few links showing thier political action efforts.

I support a lot of what TNC does to help wildlife but I take serious issue with the group simply because they don't admit to who they really are.

When you have a group like TNC claiming to be neutral that is constantly trying to dictate not only public policy but also dictate what other land owners can and cannot do on their own property....now I have a problem!

In OR & UT they lobbied strongly against canned hunting stemming from an incident that allegedly happened on land TNC owns but leases to private individuals. With that in mind, TNC land on the east coast was opened to hunters in the name of "fund raising" at a rate of several thousand dollars a head. This isn't a problem until you find out the rest of the story which is TNC was baiting game into the hunting area to ensure their "donors" got a satisfying hunt. So, a private land owner can't offer canned hunts but TNC can violate game laws while offering canned hunts...... explain this logic?

When you look at all the information, not only what TNC says but what TNC does, the double standard is quite clear to anyone taking the time to look.

I wrote TNC several times taking issue with their words & actions, in every case I received a form letter reply stating to the effect of: TNC is not a political action group and we only serve to inform and educate.

Fine and dandy if this is what they really do but it's not! One link below shows just how politically active they are supporting emissions controls (that have absolutely no basis in fact - argument for another day). Time and again, TNC uses it's money and political influence to dictate public policy and regardless of the good work they do, I take serious issue with thier actions that are causing many people a lot of unjust grief.

density1, I am not trying to take issue with you and this is in no way a personal flame. I don't take issue with what you said, I'm just pointing out that there are two sides to the TNC you need to know about. The AHSA suckered in a lot of people with thier front but when some started doing a little digging for the truth, most cut their ties quickly. TNC puts on a good front but there is a darkside to this organization you need to know about.

Many years ago I, and many others, got suckered in by The Northeast Wildlife Group who claimed to be for raising the game populations and pro-hunting. Turned out, this was yet another front group that suckered a lot of money out of a lot of people then jammed it to us by launching a major anti-hunting campaign. Lessons learned, I'm not too quick to support any group without doing some digging around first.

http://www.rggi.org/docs/tnc_comments_final_5_22_06.pdf

http://www.nea4wd.org/topics/index.cfm?fact=detail&topic_id=50&custom=N

http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/032403MILITARY.pdf

It's a tough world out there Michael, and discouraging for hopeful - and naive at times - people like me. But I'm learning and getting smarter every day...I think. Everybody has to be sure of the organization's mission that they're giving up money to.


I know what youmean Shawn. I'd like to be able to hope for the best every time too, but I have this little voice that tells me to watch what is happening because the moment you put people and money together you can never really be sure what you are going to get. Some things you can see coming down the pike from miles away because of the past behavior of the entity in question but people don't bother to look or think anyway. That not thinking thing is the one that really scares me.

"When you stop being paranoid, that's when they get you."
My Dad

Consider the source.
I don't know Pat Wray, but I know MSNBC.
That outfit can get me P-Oed any time.
Left slanted spin on everything.... always.

rOSENTHAL AND HIS WIFE HAD A VIDIO CLIP ON A HOLLISTON MASS TOWN TV STATION SOME YRS AGO.VERY ANTI GUN.JUST LIKE kERRY AND HIS HUNTING.I BELIEVE THEY HAD AN OFFICE ON JOY ST IN BOSTON

rOSENTHAL AND HIS WIFE. . .

Ouch! My ears! Forgot my hearing protection. Please look before sending!