Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Completely unfiltered

Irrelevant

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2015
Messages
11,116
Location
Wenatchee
I thought the latest podcast with Brian Call was IMO the best podcast yet. I am consistently frustrated when punches are pulled or topics avoided or danced around which to some degree had been happening on some of the previous podcasts. No this one. This one cut right to the quick calling spades spades. And their policies anti-hunting. Thanks BF for the listen, I greatly enjoyed it and am more motivated to keep the fight alive!
 
Just listened to this pod cast at 30,000 ft. We enjoyed a long weekend in Glacier and are heading back east. After hearing the line Randy is drawing, I need a path to resolve a matter of conscience. By conscience, protecting the unborn is my number 1 issue. Number 2 is public lands. I think Randy was telling me I have to vote Democrat and give the senate back to the democrats in order to make the republicans feel the pain and change the public land transfer platform. I can’t do that. And I’m not a chicken shit for this priority. I want to fight for public lands but there must be another way. I’d even vote democrat at local level but I can’t give abortion back to the democrats to set policy. I appreciate this is not everyone’s priority. But I’ll bet there are a number of other public land advocates who feel the same. Help us find a way to push back on the Utah Doctrine without violating conscience. If I have to choose abortion or public land, I’ll choose the unborn. This was not a choice Roosevelt had to make in his time. If you want to pull the hunting community together to make a difference, you can’t make voting democrat the litmus test for being on the team. If you do, the team will be smaller than it needs to be and influence will be proportionaly weakend.
 
This is primary season. This is when you have the most options to choose from, the votes now dictate how easy or hard it is to vote is Nov.
 
This was not a choice Roosevelt had to make in his time. .
Might want to do some reading. Abortion or as Roosevelt called, racial suicide (no wonder he was/is considered a jingoist) was very much an issue he campaigned and wrote on, he did quite a bit of sparring with Margret Sanger. Also Roosevelt's conservation stance was not popular with elements of his party or with the same political factions we are dealing with today. Google "midnight forests" and do some reading about Roosevelt and Pinchot. To the contrary I think Roosevelt DID exactly what your saying you wont do and forsook his party despite agreeing with them on a number of other issues. If you remember Henry M. Teller was a fellow republican and one of Roosevelt's main conservation opponents. After a number of spats with the republican part Roosevelt went his own way ran as a progressive, the "Bull Moose" party.
 
Might want to do some reading. Abortion or as Roosevelt called, racial suicide (no wonder he was/is considered a jingoist) was very much an issue he campaigned and wrote on, he did quite a bit of sparring with Margret Sanger..

After doing some reading on Roosevelt’s position on life - he clearly was not dealing with abortion at that time. It was a debate over larger families versus birth control. Teddy was very much pro-large families. As a point of clarification, the issue is setting up a choice between public lands and other important social issues. Is this reallly necessary to drive change? It’s not about party affiliation. The democratic national platform is strongly pro-abortion today. 30 years ago pro-life Democrats were strongly represented in the party. Not anymore. Republics are pro-land transfer today. Hopefully in a few years they won’t be. If I have to pick between the two, I’m choosing the protecting the unborn because for me it’s a higher priority. I’m asking Randy to reconsider setting a litmus test that puts many of the public land advocates in conflict with other important social issues that are core to them. Maybe some feel the same way about immigration as I do about life - who knows. I think Randy was also saying, we need a big tent to take on those that are driving land transfer. I agree. Let’s find other paths to saving public lands that allows all public land advocates to participate. I’ll do my part for public lands, but I’m not throwing the baby out with the bath water to do it.
 
Last edited:
I thought it was a really good podcast. Randy and Brian were very fired up. Unfortunately, I felt like at least half of the time they spent talking about how they are not afraid to voice their apparently controversial opinions without actually stating said controversial opinions. I don't think anybody would argue against conservation, wild lands and wild animals. The devil is in the details.

The conversation about federally owned public lands was good but again it suffered from lack of details. This was your chance to grab the bat and do some thumping. But there was no thumping. Just lot of anger. What are the pros and cons? Talk about examples of past land transfers and why they didn't work out. Who is for transfer of federal lands to states? What is their ulterior motives? Are they bought by energy companies? No mention of Rob Bishop. No talk of his definition of "access"...

I'm a new hunter and trying to understand these things. I want to understand the issues and take action to protect our public lands. I also need to understand enough to defend my position against someone who may think transferring land to the states is a good idea. This podcast did not further my understanding at all.

Thanks for the book recommendation though. I will definitely read Wilderness Warrior to educate myself.
 
It was a debate over larger families versus birth control. Teddy was very much pro-large families. .

True, there was definitely a different context around the issue, and the women's suffrage movement was pro-life, although I would argue Sanger and birth control was the beginning of the pro-choice movement. Yes, that discourse has evolved, but Roosevelt was involved in the early discussion of the modern issue.

Regardless, it seems like we both find it frustrating that you have to buy into everything a party is selling or nothing. There is no reason why these two, completely unrelated issues are linked. I think what Randy is arguing is that if republicans see this being a issue that loses them some seats the leadership will likely drop it, they have bigger fish to fry. Public lands transfer affects all American's but really only benefits a few individuals in a few states (rich dudes in Utah).
 
I think Randy made it very clear that until public lands are THE issue it won't be an issue. While some might call that dividing conservationists, I simply see it as a fact. Some are willing the make that leap and others (like Eric) won't, it's doesn't make them wrong, it's just the reality we're faced with. It's better to understand what you're working with than pretend it's something different. That's why I pointed to primaries being so critical. That's where you can (hopefully) find someone that supports your #1 issue and public land. It's where you could fine a D that's pro life or an R that pro public land, for example.
 
Last edited:
Roosevelt protected our lands and resources FOR the unborn.

"Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the 'the game belongs to the people.' So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."
 
I think Randy made it very clear that until public lands are THE issue it won't be an issue. While some might call that dividing conservationists, I simply see it as a fact. Some are willing the make that leap and others (like Eric) won't, it's doesn't make them wrong, it's just the reality we're faced with. It's better to understand what you're working with than pretend it's something different. That's why I pointed to primaries being so critical. That's where you can (hopefully) find someone that supports your #1 issue and public land. It's where you could fine a D that's pro life or an R that pro public land, for example.

This is a really excellent point.
 
This is exactly why I hate talking public lands and politics . As I am staunch supporter of preserving public land for all Americans even those "in the womb of time". I am also against abortion but not birth control . Where does that leave a guy like me sometimes accepted by all and sometimes ostracized by all . I dont think issues like this should be tied to party lines but they always are.
 
Last edited:
It's gotta hurt.

I have been a passive observer on this forum for quite awhile. I care deeply about the conservation of public land and open spaces. It is the #1 issue for me personally, specifically increasing acres, access and animals. My past reluctance to engage in these various discussions stems from the fact that my personal political leanings appear to be anathema to the hunter and conservationist praxis—And out of a fear that a splintered conservationist movement does more harm than good.

I think ‘appaloosa’ said it best on a separate thread: “Imagine what the world would be like if every election wasn't decided based on guns and abortions.” His sentiment is spot on, and for any intrepid poster that engages on either topic, they no doubt have it coming to them. Randy’s Completely Unfiltered episode with Brian Call for better or worse has me rethinking the wisdom of the “good for the gander” approach to achieving our shared conservation goals. Ignoring the gun side of the equation for now, I’d like to dig in on the abortion piece (god help me).

The history of the anti-abortion movement is a messy one. Throughout its history, anti-abortion sentiment has been use as a galvanizing force (successfully I might add) to further the republican political agenda—an agenda that as we are now seeing is hostile toward conservation. That’s not to say that good people with impeccable moral and ethical standards, who are driven to protect the unborn, are in any way wrong in their commitment to life. I am simply arguing that we are presented with a false choice between right vs. left, democrat vs. republican. Remember Roe v. Wade was decided by a 7-2 vote supported by 5 republican-appointed justices.

Cards on the table here: I am pro-choice. I think Roe got it mostly right. Reproductive rights is a movement that argues for the full citizenship status of women with a right to the privacy of their own bodies, free from government interference, and free from mandated maternity (remember contraception was not legal in all states until 1965).

I respect ErictheRed’s opinion and take him at his word when he writes “I need a path to resolve a matter of conscience”. I just happen to think that the path is clear one. In 2014 abortions hit historic lows, arguably the accessibility of contraceptions was the primary cause (some anti-abortion think tanks are in disagreement with this). The Trump administration with republicans in tow have taken concrete actions against the availability and accessibility of contraceptives, and has defunded women’s health centers (who perform abortions yes but they also provide a whole host of other medical and family planning services). They are attacking the very mechanisms that have been proven to reduced the number of abortions. Let’s be clear here, before Roe v. Wade abortions were happening and probably at higher rates then they are today. There is some debate about how prevalent Abortions were in the U.S., but most agree they were very common.

- excerpt from the Atlantic:
“There were always drugs, either grown in the garden or sold for other purposes, that at the least made spontaneous chemical abortions more likely. The chemicals meant to 'bring on the monthly waters' were not generally acknowledged, but they were also not illegal, either to grow or sell. Historical accounts have women regularly obtaining them, and even entire recipe books. It was only towards the 1820s that laws restricting their use went into effect, and those were poison control laws, not laws restricting abortion.“

I hold the idea that mainstreaming reproductive rights, providing quality medical care, and pulling this practice out of the shadows has had a net positive impact on the lives of the unborn. And turning back that clock will only serve to increase suffering.

It’s clear we have an up hill fight to preserve public land and open spaces. For a truly frightening vision take a look at https://disappearingwest.org/. BLM acreage between 1990 - 2015 has decreased by almost 10%, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the 105 million acres of total human modified areas. "Between 2001 and 2011, natural areas in the West—including forests, wetlands, deserts, and grasslands—were disappearing at the rate of one football field every 2.5 minutes”. We are losing this fight. Though my politics may not align with the majority of the hunting public, what I do know is that attacks to public land are at this moment coming from one party—The Republican Party. Someday, it might be Democrats that come for our land (I wouldn’t put it past them). As the Rumsfeld quote goes, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” If a party’s policies change, we need to change our vote. Period. It’s the only method we have to steer this ship. And we have got to make it hurt.

If your #1 issue is the unborn, like ErictheRed, consider your activism well spent in supporting women’s rights, reproductive freedom, and access to contraceptives. They are the only proven mechanism that reduces the occurrences of abortions. Better yet, get onboard with conservation as your #1, and set aside the false notion that votes for republicans equates with fewer abortions.


Thank you all for the work you do and the great advice over the years. I leave you with this gem.
[video=youtube;HkuAnIIkQo0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkuAnIIkQo0[/video]
 
Wow Socialish, that was quite the first post. It's no New WR Elk, but it's pretty good on substance and no lack of fear to tackle an exceptionally difficult topic.
 
It’s really heartening to see polite respectful discourse on topics that are extremely important to the. individuals here. I found the podcast refreshing because Randy in my opinion did take off the gloves and delineate the Parties’ support for various issues. I am not particularly a Joe Rogan fan but I remember smiling when on some podcast he pointed out the idiocy of the idea that we have to make a Binary political choice. Doesn’t seem to be anything like the idea of a coalition government in our system. I think that’s what makes it so exciting when we identify a party member or politician who can express what our strange system has labeled divergent views. I don’t know whether any specific issue has to be number one to get political attention, but straight one issue politics makes a tough pill to swallow at times.
 
I just listened—looking forward to seeing Randy’s content on what we can do to better affect change. I’m a member of/donate to TRCP, BHA, RMEF, WSF, and a local organization, Deschutes River Alliance, and I call my representatives pretty regularly, but it doesn’t feel like enough in the face of all these threats to wildlife, habitat, and public lands. Thanks to Randy and so many on this forum for making me more aware, and more engaged. I used to take all this stuff for granted. You guys have really opened my eyes.
 
Help us find a way to push back on the Utah Doctrine without violating conscience.

I've had similar thoughts. Public lands is very much a top priority for me, but there are some pressing moral issues that I wish our elected officials in Utah (my state) would focus on. Something like public lands is not the fight they need to be picking right now. Let's focus more on the issues that really impact us like abortion, school safety, immigration, strengthening families, etc. Let's not make wildlife conservation and protection of everyone's public lands such a political lightning rod. These are issues both sides of the aisle (and others) can easily agree on. The only people truly "negatively" impacted by the public lands debate are those that stand to profit from their demise (i.e. energy companies and land developers). I just don't know why our officials have chosen public lands as the hill they want to take right now when there are other issues they should be fighting for.
 
I'm in the same boat as many of you with my views, pro-life and pro conservation and public lands. I find it very unfortunate for us as Americans that either political party is allowed to "own" an issue. We all suffer when the Republicans "own" protection of the 2nd Amendment and protections for the unborn and the Democrats "own" conservation and protection of the environment. Ultimately, the fault of this lies with us the American voter. When we blindly cast our allegiance with politicians because of the tribal badge they flash after their name without considering the quality of their character and their own personal views on all issues and whom they are beholden to for political favors, we the American people find ourselves in the position of being taken advantage of by a political class who has learned to manipulate us for their own gain and power.

My personal stance is to be a self-declared independent doling out my vote to the candidate I feel best represents my views on an issue they are in a position to EFFECTIVELY change. At times that leads me to vote against a candidate I feel is only giving lip service to one issue I care about in support of another candidate whom I might disagree with on that first issue but is solid and effective in advocating for another issue that I also care about. I find neither party's platform or positions adequately represent me so I refuse to let my loyalty be taken for granted.

I realize that for many other voters being an independent is not an option they will take personally and they will prefer to identify with and be party loyal. In that situation, it is of utmost importance that those party loyalists advocate and put pressure on their party and candidates to represent THEM as a constituant rather than assume that "their" fellow tribesman is a good guy and trust him to do the right thing.

Currently, my take on the Republican Party and current issues is that they are only giving lip service to their concern for the unborn and they are putting way to much emphasis on rolling back environmental protections and allowing an anti-federal lands narrative to gain too much prominance. As such, my ballot is going to be heavily weighted with D's this election. Should the Republicans respond to pressure from both Dems and former party members such as myself to abandon the rotton garbage that is PLT and advance politcians such as North Carolina Senator Burr within the party, they would probably see my vote coming back their way.

IMO, if all of us regardless of party affiliation would advocate within our party for positive change that benefits the majority of Americans rather than special interest groups, we would see the polarity of the current political atmosphere start to ease a bit.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
110,816
Messages
1,935,405
Members
34,888
Latest member
Jack the bear
Back
Top