dying4publicland
New member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2017
- Messages
- 6
Last night Jim Shockey posted a picture on social media. In that picture he was seated with several political figures. One of which was Greg Hughes, a state Representative from Utah.
In the comments portion Jim stated that:
"I Support Greg Hughes, seated on my right, a fellow hunter and politician. In his absolutely vital conservation work as Utah Speaker of the House(and likely next Governor of Utah). Again, in spite of his position of power and influence, Greg is one of us hunters and we must support him, protect him and ensure he does become the next Governor."
Greg Hughes is a major supporter in the fight to transfer public lands. Reference- http://greghughes.com/issues/public-lands/
I commented that despite Jim's calls for unity in the hunting community I cannot get behind an individual with ethics like Mr. Hughes. Jim responded that Greg Hughes is a champion of conservation because he has funded $3million towards coyote management. He also stated we need to set aside our "differences on the issues" and unite as a hunting community.
I have a real problem with this. We have an "elder statesman" of the hunting community endorsing a major land transfer advocate. Additionally he is calling for all hunters to unify under this leadership. I guess I'm not a hunter conservationist because I don't blindly follow people that don't align with my views?
I reached out to some of the sponsors of Shockey and they responded by saying "We might not agree with Jim but he has done a lot for hunting and conservation."
So my question to the forum is "Where is the line?" Is the public land debate not debatable anymore?
Jim Shockey has done a lot for hunters, no doubt about it. I certainly don't hate the guy either, he delivers great advocacy. Had he posted the same comments about PETA or Humane Society, seated with members of those groups, the hunting world would go into level ten thousand meltdown. He would loose endorsements and a fan base. Remember Jim Zumbo?
When does endorsing the land transfer people get the same fallout as endorsing other hunting threats?
Thanks in advance!
In the comments portion Jim stated that:
"I Support Greg Hughes, seated on my right, a fellow hunter and politician. In his absolutely vital conservation work as Utah Speaker of the House(and likely next Governor of Utah). Again, in spite of his position of power and influence, Greg is one of us hunters and we must support him, protect him and ensure he does become the next Governor."
Greg Hughes is a major supporter in the fight to transfer public lands. Reference- http://greghughes.com/issues/public-lands/
I commented that despite Jim's calls for unity in the hunting community I cannot get behind an individual with ethics like Mr. Hughes. Jim responded that Greg Hughes is a champion of conservation because he has funded $3million towards coyote management. He also stated we need to set aside our "differences on the issues" and unite as a hunting community.
I have a real problem with this. We have an "elder statesman" of the hunting community endorsing a major land transfer advocate. Additionally he is calling for all hunters to unify under this leadership. I guess I'm not a hunter conservationist because I don't blindly follow people that don't align with my views?
I reached out to some of the sponsors of Shockey and they responded by saying "We might not agree with Jim but he has done a lot for hunting and conservation."
So my question to the forum is "Where is the line?" Is the public land debate not debatable anymore?
Jim Shockey has done a lot for hunters, no doubt about it. I certainly don't hate the guy either, he delivers great advocacy. Had he posted the same comments about PETA or Humane Society, seated with members of those groups, the hunting world would go into level ten thousand meltdown. He would loose endorsements and a fan base. Remember Jim Zumbo?
When does endorsing the land transfer people get the same fallout as endorsing other hunting threats?
Thanks in advance!