Welcome to the host site for outdoor writer Steve Sorensen’s “Everyday Hunter” columns. For a complete index of all columns, go to EverydayHunter.com.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

What the NRA Does For Hunters

by Steve Sorensen
(Originally published in the Warren Times Observer, May 19, 2012.)
No organization exceeds the energy
and resources the NRA invests
on behalf of hunters.
A recent opinion piece in the New York Times titled “I Hunt, but the NRA Isn’t for Me” has author Lily Raff McCaulou making a truly astonishing claim: “The NRA has never had much to do with hunting.”

Can Ms. McCaulou really be ignorant of the countless ways the National Rifle Association supports hunters, when evidence against her view is so abundant, readily available, and irrefutable? (And how can the NYT print something so factually flawed?)

The NRA is, first and foremost, dedicated to the constitutional right of citizens to own and carry arms. That right would exist even without hunting, but does it have anything to do with hunting? Yes. Hunting is one way – probably the commonest way – people actively exercise that right.

That’s why the NRA has plenty to do with hunting. A bulleted list would take far more space than this column can permit, but I’ll outline enough to show that no organization offers broader or deeper support for hunting than the NRA.

Can anyone ignore American Hunter magazine, with paid circulation over a million? That’s larger than Outdoor Life, but it’s just the beginning. The NRA also teaches hunting skills by producing television shows, publishing books, and promoting seminars. It even provides support to bowhunters.

The NRA issues legislative alerts through various channels so hunters can actively engage in protecting their sport. One of those channels is www.NRAHuntersRights.org, the first website dedicated specifically to the rights of hunters. It’s no static web destination – it provides daily reports about threats to hunting and ways hunters can help preserve hunting heritage.

The NRA fights to prevent funding generated by hunters and designated for wildlife conservation through the Pittman Robertson Act of 1937 from being diverted to illegal uses. The NRA stays active in the courts, making sure that wildlife is managed according to sound scientific principles and not according to the emotions of anti-hunters.

Without the NRA, fewer weapons would be available to hunters. Why? Because it fights against lawsuits that would drive gun manufacturers out of business – lawsuits that attempt to shift liability for crime from criminals to manufacturers.

Without the NRA millions of hunters’ guns would be illegal. Why? Because the NRA fights against so-called “assault weapons” bans – proposals that invariably include countless firearms used by traditional hunters every day.

The NRA effectively opposes legal and regulatory efforts to shut down federal lands to hunting. It makes sure hunters are free to travel with their firearms and to transport harvested game animals. It fights legislation that would regulate or prohibit owning or using hunting dogs.

The NRA advocates for state constitutional amendments that guarantee the right to hunt and fish. On the environmental front it grants funding to state game and fish departments and many conservation organizations in order to benefit habitat for all wildlife.

Since 1949 the NRA has led the way in hunter education through 4-H clubs, Boy Scouts and state game agencies. Plus, millions more youth benefit from supervised shooting programs supported by the NRA.

The NRA supports mentored hunting laws, opening doors for younger people to enter the world of hunting. It helps disabled people meet their special challenges as hunters. It sponsors programs introducing women to the sport of hunting. Ms. McCaulou doesn’t take advantage of those programs, but it’s a sad irony that she snubs the efforts of the NRA to include women like her in the ranks of hunters.

If the NRA wasn’t doing much for hunting, would anti-hunters be so at odds with the NRA? I doubt it. It’s safe to say that no organization exceeds the energy and resources the NRA invests on behalf of hunters. Without it, fewer people would be hunters.

The NRA claims to be the “largest pro-hunting organization in the world.” In light of all these efforts and more, it takes someone who is willfully ignorant to challenge that. The NRA’s opponents don’t have to like the NRA, but they should at least dislike it for honest reasons. To say that “the NRA has never had much to do with hunting” isn’t an honest reason.


Post a Comment

<< Home