Blame it on the politics of the extreme. Or maybe on me.
An election-year survey of Colorado’s registered voters reveals as many who count themselves uncommitted as who belong to either of the major parties.
These independents, of whom I am one, held the balance in Tuesday’s election, along with the next one and the next, perhaps to infinity. We pride ourselves in rising above the pettiness of party politics, of freeing our minds and loyalties to choose whom we feel to be the best candidates. Among outdoorsmen, this increasingly means those who hold a strong ethic of environmental protection.
What we have done, individually and collectively, is reject the politics of the extremes, particularly as this represents blind loyalty to party at the expense of the common good.
But in so doing, we’ve also caused an inadvertent fallout, not at all beneficial. In our defection, we’ve left both the Democratic and Republican parties more in the grip of their respective radicals, the political crazies, as it were.
If we follow this path to its logical conclusion, the result will be a continued disaffection, leaving these core bodies with fewer moderates than before.
So it is with the National Rifle Association, that well-oiled lobby noted for its rabid defense of the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
Time was, the NRA could be counted as a friend of the sportsmen, but no more. Having lost much of its temperate base, including this writer, the NRA of late has charged off on a bad trip characterized by a knee-jerk reaction against environmental protection.
Among its many recent wrong turns on resource issues, the NRA now opposes establishment of the Browns Canyon Wilderness, a 20,000-acre corridor along the Arkansas River south of Buena Vista. Proposed by Rep. Joel Hefley and Sen. Wayne Allard, both Republicans, the legislation would protect a wild area that’s generally at low elevation, something of a novelty for Colorado.
The push for wilderness appeared to be sailing smoothly until the NRA rushed in, objecting that it would close a motorized trail used by ATVs.
This claim flies in the face of a considerable body of research showing that roads not only diminish habitat and reduce the numbers of animals, but also decrease hunter harvest.
A report released by Trout Unlimited in 2006 establishes a strong connection between roadless areas and successful hunting and fishing.
Other studies strongly connect wild areas with an abundance of deer and elk.
Wildlife managers consistently lament the fragmentation of lands with a growing network of mechanized trails, many pioneered illegally by ATVs.
This condition is being accelerated dramatically by oil and gas exploration in western Colorado.
David Lien, Front Range director for Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, notes the proposed Browns Canyon Wilderness is home many forms of wildlife and provides unique hunting and recreational opportunities.
“We need to maintain quality habitat for wildlife populations, and more roads won’t do that,” Lien said last week in a letter to Allard.
Rather than adhere to the wishes of its many sportsmen members who understand the critical link between environmental protection and quality outdoor sport, NRA increasingly finds itself linked to despoilers.
NRA attempts to confuse the larger issues of habitat and resource protection with scare tactics about firearms ownership while forming unholy alliances with rape-and-scrape politicians who shoot us where it hurts most.
One suspects that if the organization sticks to its guns in opposing popular initiatives such as Browns Canyon Wilderness, it will continue to lose moderate members.
The result, of course, will be an association that’s even crazier than before.
