# We need a NCA



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

I believe it is time for all the conservation groups to come together and form a National conservation association. The reason the NRA has so much influence is from unity. There isn't a ar15group,1911 group etc. 
If the conservation groups would come together our voice as sportsman would be largely increased. We don't need DU,REF,MDF ,etc we need them all under one roof. 
I am tired of these constant attacks on us and we really don't seem to be heard. 
We need to be united and we need it to happen quick

What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Interesting question. 

The NRA has it easy. It's goal is to protect the second amendment. While there can be some interpretation as to what that means, it is relatively straightforward. An encompassing "conservation" group as you propose? Lets just say there are some differences. 


1. What is a conservation group? If you ask Joe and Josephine six-pack in the USA what that means, they will likely say organizations like the Sierra club, Greenpeace, or locally, SUWA. These groups do favor many of the same things that hunting and fishing friendly groups espouse. However, I would suspect there are a significant number of sportsmen that would rather self remove their ability to procreate than join with one of these organizations. It also goes both ways. Many of the folks in these "mainstream" environmental groups look with suspicion at hunting and fishing conservation organizations and their motives. 

2. Is there enough agreement about the issues to bring everyone together? I really doubt it. Look at the endless debates we have on here about things like deer management. We simply don't see eye-to-eye enough to be completely cohesive. As an example, one of the leading local "conservation" organizations repeatedly came out against stream access in the recent legislative battles. This happens to be something I'm passionate about. What do you think are the chances I could join this organization if it became the "leading voice" for sportsmen? About nil. 

3. The politics of it. "D"s want to keep public lands public and protect the environment with better fishing and hunting as a result. They also may want to take away my few guns. "R"s are happy to let me continue to be able to have my guns and be able to buy any zombie killing bullets I may want, but they want to take away access to where I hunt and fish. Ugh. However, looking at it pragmatically, both side of the aisle offer positives (and negatives) to sportmen. IMO, a group that represents our interests the best should be able to work with both "D"s and "R"s. Sadly, a great many of our sportsmen refuse to even consider working with or voting for a candidate from the "other" party, even if their person from their favored party is screwing them over with regards to hunting and fishing. Too many of us are too stubborn to change and thus I don't ever see any unity happening. 


Bottom line, its a nice idea but I just don't see it ever happening.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

This is my favorite thread.

.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

Apperently there is a national group. 
The AWCP. But the funny thing is most people have never heard of them. And so they are not effective. 
We need a better louder voice.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Hoopermat said:


> Apperently there is a national group.
> The AWCP. But the funny thing is most people have never heard of them. And so they are not effective.
> We need a better louder voice.


Yep, never heard of them.

Do tell, and why would they represent all sportsmen and conservationists?


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

It's called American Wildlife Conservation Partners (AWCP). 
I don't know anything about them.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Hoopermat said:


> It's called American Wildlife Conservation Partners (AWCP).
> I don't know anything about them.


An organization that nobody knows about is unlikely to be a representative voice for all sportsmen and conservationists.

One additional comment. While I doubt that all sportsmen and conservationists could come together on all or most things, I could see a scenario where a single issue, such as the land grab, could temporarily bring most hunting/fishing groups together with other conservation and recreation minded folks in a common cause. The truth is, we may need to to win the land grab war.

What do you think? Could some of you guys join together with SUWA and a bunch of Eastern liberals if that is what it took to save your hunting and fishing privileges?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Catherder said:


> An organization that nobody knows about is unlikely to be a representative voice for all sportsmen and conservationists.
> 
> One additional comment. While I doubt that all sportsmen and conservationists could come together on all or most things, I could see a scenario where a single issue, such as the land grab, could temporarily bring most hunting/fishing groups together with other conservation and recreation minded folks in a common cause. The truth is, we may need to to win the land grab war.
> 
> What do you think?* Could some of you guys join together with SUWA and a bunch of Eastern liberals if that is what it took to save your hunting and fishing privileges?*


Without a doubt, yes, I could and would. It would, however, not be by 'joining' their organization, but by simply becoming part of the same voice being broadcast on that particular issue. I agree with your assessments Catherder, it is extremely difficult to have all sportsmen and conservationists agree whole heartedly on any single issue. Even the 'organization' (AWCP) that Hoopermat speaks of is set up to allow the individual 'members' speak their own voice if they don't agree with the message.

Many of the 'members' of the AWCP (45 in total IIRC) are well known, many are not. Many of those 'members' don't even acknowledge on their website that they belong to AWCP, which is a shame, and ONE of the many reasons few have heard of the AWCP. Here is the latest 'Wildlife In The 21st Century, Volume V" declaration being sent to the next administration. They did the same thing to the Bush and Obama admins as well.

As a group, hunters appear to be the most apathetic and non-compromising group I can think of, even when their own 'heritage' is at risk. And that's a shame and an embarrassment.

Edit: By the way, Utah's own Mule Deer Foundation is a member. Anyone find acknowledgement of such on their website? I can't. Perhaps I just overlooked it...


----------

