Ducks Unlimited vs angry gunowners

scott_r

scott_r

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 99.6%
223   1   0
Location
Behind a .204 Ruger
Am I the only one who thinks all the good this organization has done kinda outweighs this whole petition thing? I don't see any gun shops, gun orgs, ect..that have purchased land and allow anyone access to hunt, hike, photograph ect,,, Land owners are increasingly becoming hostile to hunters, in portions of southern Sask almost 90% is private. DU lands and some SWF is about all a person can hunt. Plus they actively go out and purchase new stuff as well as keep an eye on the waterfowl in Canada.
I signed the petition and am against any more heavy handed gun laws but am not angry with Ducks Unlimited for being neutral. Im wondering if these people bashing DU will opt out of using the land they secured as well.?? Only people that are gonna loose out here are hunters IMHO. Whats your thoughts as a hunter?
 
Yep most of their support comes from hunters. I don't see may photography clubs attending their dinners and volunteering for DU. I could be wrong though it might just be what im seeing local.
 
Think about this, all DU had to do was simply post something anything suggesting their members sign the petition. Didn't have to be a big flashy bill board or a full page add. Instead they chose to tell people that they were staying out of it because it wasn't their fight. It may not be their fight, but it is the fight of the majority of their supporters and if you're not going to support your supporters they will not support you.
 
I went through this with DU Canada 20 years ago. At that time I had spent 12 years on 3 different banquet committees in 3 different communities. Over that 12 years the committees I was part of raised over $750,000.00 clear profit - total income less cost including the DU packages. I repeatably requested that DUC step in and protest the long gun registry as at that time most members were hunters. At first they claimed they would lose their tax-free non-profit status if they lobbied outside of their mandate. As time went on the story changed as they started stating they didn't want to alienate the non-hunting people who were increasingly joining the organization as members. After beating my head on the wall for years I finally cut all ties and walked away.
 
The fact that they have a position on the Firearms Advisory Committee should mean they have a horse in the race. Their presence is touted as gun owner representation by the government. If they choose to "remain neutral" then they are not representing their constituency. And in fact, they are then merely confirming that they owe their position, and are contributing, to Liberal malfeasance in creating the fiction of gun owner representation on the committee as pablum for the uninformed.

If DU truly believes it has no place in the gun control debate, then it has no place on the advisory committee and it should have declined the seat for reasons of integrity.
 
Last edited:
scott_r said:
Am I the only one who thinks all the good this organization has done kinda outweighs this whole petition thing? I don't see any gun shops, gun orgs, ect..that have purchased land and allow anyone access to hunt, hike, photograph ect,,, Land owners are increasingly becoming hostile to hunters, in portions of southern Sask almost 90% is private. DU lands and some SWF is about all a person can hunt. Plus they actively go out and purchase new stuff as well as keep an eye on the waterfowl in Canada.
I signed the petition and am against any more heavy handed gun laws but am not angry with Ducks Unlimited for being neutral. Im wondering if these people bashing DU will opt out of using the land they secured as well.?? Only people that are gonna loose out here are hunters IMHO. Whats your thoughts as a hunter?
Click to expand...

If they are supposed to be neutral why are the on the FIREARMS Advisory Committee. I understand your point but as others have pointed out they put their name on firearms giveaways, draws, hunting apparel, etc. I'm guessing they probably receive some provincial funding from the sale of hunting licenses. You can't be neutral if in the past you have in effect shown support for firearms owners.
 
scott_r said:
Am I the only one who thinks all the good this organization has done kinda outweighs this whole petition thing? I don't see any gun shops, gun orgs, ect..that have purchased land and allow anyone access to hunt, hike, photograph ect,,, Land owners are increasingly becoming hostile to hunters, in portions of southern Sask almost 90% is private. DU lands and some SWF is about all a person can hunt. Plus they actively go out and purchase new stuff as well as keep an eye on the waterfowl in Canada.
I signed the petition and am against any more heavy handed gun laws but am not angry with Ducks Unlimited for being neutral. Im wondering if these people bashing DU will opt out of using the land they secured as well.?? Only people that are gonna loose out here are hunters IMHO. Whats your thoughts as a hunter?
Click to expand...

I've been to many DU dinners and shoots. I don't see hikers and photographers at them. I don't see hiking or photography gear auctioned. What I do see are guns, hunts, ammo and hunting equipment being auctioned to hunters and shooters.

DU will take a gun owner's money at an auction for a semi-automatic shotgun but won't inform its membership about a petition about a pending ban of semi-automatic firearms. If they can't do something as simple as that then my support for them is over.
 
Sad state of affairs and in the end only wildlife and hunters are gonna loose out. Liberals could care less about a petition or any left leaning buffoon.
I do see where most stand though, and agree but can’t see this doing any good. We need to place this anger at the source, the current government.
 
I was on a DU committee for over 10 years.

I see this as a variation of the “if you’re not with me you’re against me” thought process.
(EDIT - which I should add, this forum is famous for onmany issues, not just this one)

As the OP points out...are you going to protest by not supporting them with funding but continue hunting on DUC property?
That would be hypocritical.

However, I think DUC should have a public opinion on the issue or give up the seat on the advisory committee.
It’s not something they can remain neutral on in my opinion.
 
Chuckbuster said:
The fact that they have a position on the Firearms Advisory Committee should mean they have a horse in the race. Their presence is touted as gun owner representation by the government. If they choose to "remain neutral" then they are not representing their constituency. And in fact, they are then merely confirming that they owe their position, and are contributing, to Liberal malfeasance in creating the fiction of gun owner representation on the committee as pablum for the uninformed.

If DU truly believes it has no place in the gun control debate, then it has no place on the advisory committee and it should have declined the seat for reasons of integrity.
Click to expand...

I really have to agree with this.

Gun advocate members of DU should campaign to have them step down from that position. It's hypocritical to claim they represent hunters and gun owners there and then not listen to those same people who are their membership.

Free up the seat for actual hunter or sport shooting advocates.
 
Chuckbuster said:
The fact that they have a position on the Firearms Advisory Committee should mean they have a horse in the race. Their presence is touted as gun owner representation by the government. If they choose to "remain neutral" then they are not representing their constituency. And in fact, they are then merely confirming that they owe their position, and are contributing, to Liberal malfeasance in creating the fiction of gun owner representation on the committee as pablum for the uninformed.

If DU truly believes it has no place in the gun control debate, then it has no place on the advisory committee and it should have declined the seat for reasons of integrity.
Click to expand...

Well put. Sums it up perfectly.
 
8x68 said:
If they are supposed to be neutral why are the on the FIREARMS Advisory Committee.
Click to expand...


Because the liberal government once again realigns reality as most people in Canada - including a lot here - assume that DUC is a gun-friendly hunters' organization. By appointing a neutral organization and calling them firearms proponents the liberals fool the public into thinking some firearms owners support their proposed regulations. The liberals are the master of contorting facts to match their visions.

DUC is NOT a gun organization in any way, shape, or form. They are on a good day firearms neutral.
 
Last edited:
with a seat a the firearms advisory table they should be representing firearm owners.... even if it's just waterfowl hunters firearms. Sportsmen of all stripes have been the back bone of the organization's ability to exist in North America as a whole. Without the support of those sportsmen and their families , who care about the resource, ducks unlimited would not be the effective conservation organization that it is.

They should either stand in support of Canadian sportsmen and their firearms or relinquish their firearms advisory panel position to someone who will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom