Ducks Unlimited vs angry gunowners

Personally, I have no issue with the position they're currently taking.

What I do have issue with is them not taking this position from the outset, and only addressing it after a significant public blowback. To me, a neutral stance is tolerable when it's honest, when a neutral stance needs to be forced out of someone it comes off very different.
 
scott_r said:
And is he representing the entire DU organization or is he doing this as an individual? I have nothing to do with DU but am interested in the Truth in this whole mess.

Cheers!!
Click to expand...

The truth of the matter is simple, they were playing with fire and now they are getting burned.

You can NOT sit on a firearm committee and play neutral.
 
Last edited:
DU could never ever pull this off in the USA but quietly managed it here in Canada, where the ducks actually come from. The comments about them existing to protect ducks from Canadian hunters in order to feed them to their members in the USA are shown to be entirely accurate now, are they not?
 
scott_r said:
And is he representing the entire DU organization or is he doing this as an individual? I have nothing to do with DU but am interested in the Truth in this whole mess.

Cheers!!
Click to expand...

James (Jim) Couch may no longer be the President of Ducks Unlimited Canada, but he's on the Board of Directors, and as such his seat on the Firearms Advisory Council is held by DUC...
 
For interest only and has nothing to do with the debate ..................

Canadians kill about 4 million ducks and geese each year; Americans kill about 15 million birds.

Shooter success rate is slightly higher in Canada with the hypothetical average hunter killing 11 birds each season. The average American hunter takes 9 birds a year.
 
scott_r said:
Can you please provide a link or something that supports the claim that DU as an organization sits on the firearms advisory committee?

Cheers!!
Click to expand...

Perhaps go read jay's thread on the subject.
If you don't see it then you are not willing to see it...

Hint, president of du got on the Fac, he might not be president at the moment but is still on b.o.d. of du.
 
I was heavily involved with DU in the early to mid 80's. They have always tried to balance on the fence, at times they loose their balance, and lean to the left or right. I can not see them changing their balancing act. You either accept the organization for what it is or reject it. Personally I do not agree with all their policies, but I feel they do more good than harm to the hunting community.
 
'Boo said:
For interest only and has nothing to do with the debate ..................

Canadians kill about 4 million ducks and geese each year; Americans kill about 15 million birds.

Shooter success rate is slightly higher in Canada with the hypothetical average hunter killing 11 birds each season. The average American hunter takes 9 birds a year.
Click to expand...

That's a staggering difference when you consider that the American population is 10 times larger than Canada's.
 
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...

110% agree on that
 
I'm so disappointed in Canadian gun enthusiasts not discerning who is friend or foe. A conservation organization does not need to fight the gun fight. The gun fight is something else. Enjoy the outdoors and waterfowl whether or not you are a hunter or gun owner. Please take the the gun ban people to task. That is a good fight. But refusing to support a conservation organization? Vey foolish. Being angry at everybody who doesn't exactly see things your way is futile and counterproductive. In the end you'll be all alone, talking to yourself and angry at everybody who isn't you. Sad that it has come to this.
 
Longwalker said:
I'm so disappointed in Canadian gun enthusiasts not discerning who is friend or foe. A conservation organization does not need to fight the gun fight. The gun fight is something else. Enjoy the outdoors and waterfowl whether or not you are a hunter or gun owner. Please take the the gun ban people to task. That is a good fight. But refusing to support a conservation organization? Vey foolish. Being angry at everybody who doesn't exactly see things your way is futile and counterproductive. In the end you'll be all alone, talking to yourself and angry at everybody who isn't you. Sad that it has come to this.
Click to expand...

Good post. It's very hard to act united and be supportive of all gun owners when you see this online temper tantrum. Sad is right.
 
If they don't support me owning my semi Ithica Mag 10 Roadblocker i'll blast their ducks . I'll blast 'em so bad they'll have to change their name to Ducks Limited . I got at least 30 boxes of 3.5 inch 10 gauge 000 buck so the opening of duck season is going to be like Pearl Harbour . Get some .:ar15:
 
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...

This is THE post of the whole situation
Well said
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom