# Ducks Unlimited



## jeep_guy_4x4 (Apr 11, 2005)

*Who is a friend of DU and Conservation*​
Senator Barack Obama433.33%Senator John McCain866.67%


----------



## jeep_guy_4x4 (Apr 11, 2005)

I emailed DU and asked which Presidential Canidate was a friend of DU and conservation. They promply responded they do not support any polictical party and/or canidates.

So I ask you, barring any other policical agenda....


----------



## Skip OK (Jul 16, 2006)

As a 501 c(3) non-profit, DU cannot endorse or support any candidate for office whether it's the Presidency on down to City Dogcatcher.

Personally, and looking only at the effect on habitat, I don't see how anyone could say anything about Obama either way. His record is just about non-existent.

While I haven't done any research on McCain's record on habitat conservation, either, this in not one of the topics that jump out at me for him.

Now as for whether or not we can own firearms, while McCain isn't high on my list there he is head and shoulders above Obama.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Skip OK said:


> Now as for whether or not we can own firearms, while McCain isn't high on my list there he is head and shoulders above Obama.





jeep_guy_4x4 said:


> So I ask you, barring any other political agenda....


Ummm I think he covered that. He was asking about conservation.


----------



## Skip OK (Jul 16, 2006)

RYAN,

Thank you very much for your post.

If you will take a little more care reading my first response you might see that I answered his poll question first.

I then pointed out something that should be glaringly obvious, but that some people seem to be able to ignore. That is:

1. That Obama, based upon his record in the Illinois Legislature his subsequent speeches and his writings may very well be the most ANTI-GUN candidate ever to run for President; and

2. As hunters, while conservation work is important, so is the right to keep and bear arms; a right guarranteed in the Bill of Rights, recently ratified by the Supreme Court of the United States and, despite beeing ignored by old Barry Obama, some thing that trhe President of the United States swears to support and defend.


----------



## jeep_guy_4x4 (Apr 11, 2005)

Good Point Skip...


----------



## jeep_guy_4x4 (Apr 11, 2005)

Honestly, I don't have good feel for either of em' when it comes to conservation, & the second ammendment...


----------



## jeep_guy_4x4 (Apr 11, 2005)

Gun Control... It makes me sick...

I work in a Hospital and the likelyhood of being accidently killed by a doctor is 9000 time more likely than an accidental gun missfire resulting in death...

Actually I should quit thinking about it before I get to sick and need to be hospitalized....

Hospitals are dangerous...


----------



## bluebird (Feb 28, 2008)

I would agree that some doctors at hospitals are more dangerous then guns.


----------



## Lardy (Oct 15, 2007)

Just this week at sturgis MCain was slamming Obama for his energy policy saying its based on weak conservationalist information. MCains plan is to push for more offshore drilling.

Also during the Republican debates MCain criticized the government for spending a few million dollars on studying bear DNA somewhere out in the one of the western states.

Not making an argument of any kind, and this doesnt say much about ducks really, but ive seen hint that conservation and wildlife arent necessarily at the top of Mcains list.


----------



## Lardy (Oct 15, 2007)

However I still would like to see some actual voting records.


----------



## gjz (Aug 11, 2006)

if anyone gets that cable on demand there was an interview done by the verses channel (old OLN ) with mcain i do not remember all the tidbits but he showed an interest in consrvation and supported the outdoorsman ill watch it again tonight and toss some more info on here about it ( but dont quot me on anything yet its bean a while since i watched it )


----------



## cgreeny (Apr 21, 2004)

Well isnt Obama the Senator from Illinois. Where its largest city Chicago banned guns a few years ago and hasnt their murder rates gone up dramatically since then. That to me say conservation doesnt really matter if we dont have the guns to hunt with?


----------



## Lardy (Oct 15, 2007)

I want to know if people honestly think that shotguns are going to go away because of gun laws before habitat does. I see a lot more land being taken away from hunters than I do guns these days. I believe in the second amendment but I see conservation as a more important priority as of today. I guess this is coming from a guy that doesnt care if he owns and AR or mini-14 but I think its crazy to be worried about getting all of your guns taken away.

For every democratic president that passes a gun law there will be a republican to reverse it in the future.

But this is getting away from the main question

My politics teacher told us that Mickey mouse gets somewhere around 20,000 votes every election...no joke. Maybe he supports conservation?


----------



## gjz (Aug 11, 2006)

i just watched one of the questions it was about the preservation of federal land for hunting and recreation and Mcain said that it will be his administrations policy to preserve federal lands and refuges for hunting fishing and other recreations.


----------



## Lardy (Oct 15, 2007)

Thats good news no doubt, and he did oppose drilling in the Alaskan refuge. Protecting federal lands that already exist however should never become an issue and has already been done since they have been put in place. This is the bare minimum that we need to do in order to protect wildlife.

It is good however to hear that Mccain is bringing up the importance of conservation.

I was wondering if it would be benificial for conservation to elect the canidate that supports ethanol production the LEAST. Seeing as how that is one of the biggest contributors to habitat loss.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Lardy said:


> I want to know if people honestly think that shotguns are going to go away because of gun laws before habitat does. I see a lot more land being taken away from hunters than I do guns these days. I believe in the second amendment but I see conservation as a more important priority as of today. I guess this is coming from a guy that doesnt care if he owns and AR or mini-14 but I think its crazy to be worried about getting all of your guns taken away.


And I think its crazy to not be worried about it. Will they take our shotguns away tomorrow? No. But every gun law they get passed is one little dominoe in a much bigger plan.


----------



## cgreeny (Apr 21, 2004)

barebackjack said:


> Lardy said:
> 
> 
> > I want to know if people honestly think that shotguns are going to go away because of gun laws before habitat does. I see a lot more land being taken away from hunters than I do guns these days. I believe in the second amendment but I see conservation as a more important priority as of today. I guess this is coming from a guy that doesnt care if he owns and AR or mini-14 but I think its crazy to be worried about getting all of your guns taken away.
> ...


VERY TRUE. ONE INCH OR ONE MILE EVERY NEW LAW STACKS THE DECK THAT MUCH HIGHER.


----------



## Lardy (Oct 15, 2007)

I can see the point and I agree to an extent. I just think we should focus more on an issue that is already a problem rather than be paranoid about something that hasnt affected us nearly as much as the loss of habitat.


----------



## Skip OK (Jul 16, 2006)

Lardy,

I truly believe that we have more to fear as far as gun rights go than we do from loss of habitat.

Not so much that habitat loss isn't more important (I thin it is, myself) as much as I think Congress would be MUCH MUCH more likely that a bill "controlling" firearms be passed that a bill destroying the environment gets through.

If for no other reason, there are whole groups of voters whose expressed goal is limiting the ability of Americans to own guns, while there is no group devoted to eliminating habitat.

I have seen some BAD bills for habitat get passed (I'd rate the new Farm Bill that way), but while habitat is LOST, something else takes its place. Would I prefer more grassland habitat in the PPR? Absolutely!! Are we going to lose 100% of the habitat value for land that WERE grassland but are now crops? A LOT of the value, yes; all of it? No.


----------

