Views » December 14, 2004

Green + Red = Blue

By David Sirota

As a key faction of the Republican base, hunters and anglers, often hailing from rural, culturally conservative areas, are seemingly the last people on earth who would call themselves environmentalists or progressives. The GOP has for years courted this demographic by stressing an unwavering support for gun ownership rights, and by vilifying urban Democrats who have pushed for modest gun control.

But now the GOP is increasingly trying to erode other protections for outdoorsmen. As the old saying goes, “That dog won’t hunt.”

In states and localities throughout America, more and more Republican lawmakers are taking orders from wealthy landowners, developers and energy companies. These fat cats want to weaken laws that mandate hunting and fishing access rights, sell off public lands, privatize hunting licenses, and allow drilling and mining in the most sacred natural preserves. That puts the GOP squarely at odds not only with hunters and anglers, but also with exurbanites concerned about open space and sprawl.

In the 2004 Montana statewide elections, public lands and hunting and fishing access rights became central. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Brian Schweitzer sharply criticized his opponent for previously trying to restrict the state’s treasured Stream Access Law at the behest of wealthy private landowners. Schweitzer called for keeping public lands in the state’s hands, and for spending more money to maintain them. It was one of the key ways he outperformed previous Democrats in rural areas and won his race in a solidly Republican state.

In Colorado, where Democrats won a U.S. Senate seat, a U.S. House seat and the state legislature, the Bush administration has riled up locals by trying to weaken the Clinton-era Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Specifically, the White House is pushing a court case that would make sure the law does not stop industrial development in designated roadless areas. According to the Denver Post, the gas drilling that such a case would allow “generally horrifies locals in the Roaring Fork Valley”—a traditionally conservative area. “This is all about quality of life for folks in the Carbondale area—quality of air, water, hunting, fishing, recreation and ranching,’’ said town trustee Scott Chaplin.

Not to be deterred by this kind of grassroots anger, Republican Colorado Gov. Bill Owens’ administration is now considering providing more big-game hunting licenses to private landowners—effectively making the wealthy the arbiters of hunting policy. Colorado outdoorsmen oppose the measure because landowners would be able to sell their licenses for whatever price they see fit. As one local newspaper columnist wrote, the move would “greatly diminish access to prized bull elk, buck deer and buck antelope for anyone who doesn’t pay the increasingly large fees for a privately controlled tag. … Such a trend takes Colorado hunting increasingly toward the European model of privatization of game.”

In Wyoming, the Bush administration’s land policy took center stage in Republican Rep. Barbara Cubin’s reelection battle. “I don’t think we should sell any of our federal lands,” Democratic challenger Ted Ladd said in one debate, “and I think we need to return to true multiple use—where it’s not just corporations who get access, but it’s hunters, it’s fishermen, it’s recreationalists—to ensure that our public lands are not only the foundation of our economy, but they’re the foundation of our culture.” Ladd ultimately held the five-term Cubin to her smallest margin of victory despite being far outspent.

In solidly blue states that have Republican governors, similar radical land policies are on the agenda. In Maryland, where suburban sprawl is a top-tier concern, Republican Gov. Bob Ehrlich is moving forward with plans to sell off state land for development. Internal documents obtained by the Washington Post show that Ehrlich’s plans are being driven by his backers in the real estate and development industries.

Similarly, in California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has gutted funding for the Parks Department. Environmentalists and outdoorsmen alike fear this has deliberately left the state unable to manage its public lands, until eventually they will have to be sold off. Schwarzenegger has also prohibited the addition of new lands to the park system.

These and countless other battles about public lands and hunting and fishing rights have the potential to radically alter the national electoral map, especially in the Mountain West. Democrats already occupy four Senate seats and four governor’s mansions in six Rocky Mountain states—and there are bound to be more gains at the electoral college level if the GOP continues to ignore outdoorsmen.

Bloviating about the supposedly vast divide between “red” and “blue” states ignores the possibility that if progressives continue to make green environmentalists out of red-state outdoorsmen, the election night map may look a lot more blue the next time around.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  So just great!! First the liberals want all the guns taken away now the repubs want to build friggin Wal-Marts on hunting land. I know I list my name as Redstate but I have no love for big-biz republicans. I hate both the left and the right in this country. I realy want a democrat to come out and stand up for the second ammendment and the right to hunt and fish and fight the corporate-ization of this country. I want a politician to stand up for everybody’s rights!!! even rights thay may not particularly agree with. We lose so much in this country daily and yearly to those who benefit most from dividing us and it makes me sick. This squabbling over rights just emboldens and empowers the people who want to take everything from us. This is not the country I grew up in.

  Posted by redstate on Dec 14, 2004 at 9:50 PM

  Only a couple of months earlier, however, Feinstein had gone on 60 Minutes to announce, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban…I would have done it.”

  Moderate Gun Laws?

  Posted by Kenneth L. Olson on Dec 15, 2004 at 12:09 AM

  I’m a democrat and angler. fished all my life and even write about it in major publications. you don’t want to end up like NJ…overdeveloped and so many deer that you have to watch out while driving even in the freakin city…black bears showing up in suburbia and even one case where a jogger was attacked. we are losing so much farmland that you turn around one day and there is another development where a farm used to be, and this has gone on under both dems and repubs. Good luck out there in them red states.

  Posted by dan mazza on Dec 15, 2004 at 12:46 AM

  you are 110% right people like Schumer, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein and all the other radical anti gun zealots should be taken to task and dismissed from their positions in governmnent. They are sworn to uphold the constitution and have not done so. They are traitors as far as I am concerned and should be treated as such. these towns like Morton grove Ill. and the District of columbia and other anti gun feifdoms are in violation of the basic civil rights enshrined in the bill of rights.
    Having said that I do believe that certain people should not have access to firearms. Doing a backround check and making sure that there are no felony convictions, mental or substance abuse problems and such should enable; just like a drivers license to have unrestricted access and mobility to excercise their right to keep and bear arms.
    this one issue above all else has switched me from Democrat to republican. i will NEVER vote for an anti- gun politician EVER!
    What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t these people get???

  Posted by redstate on Dec 15, 2004 at 12:52 AM

  Hey Redstate: which part of “a well-regulated militia” don’t YOU get?

  Posted by winter patriot on Dec 15, 2004 at 3:05 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 43 posts.

Also featured A Long Climb
Cutting Our Benefits
People vs. Empire

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by David Sirota

• We Are What We Trade and How We Trade It
  Trade and globalization--when not referencing blockbuster sports transactions or raucous street protests, debates… morePosted on November 7, 2009
• TARP on Steroids
  I recall that September day like it was yesterday--the explosion so stunning, so… morePosted on October 31, 2009
• A Party With No Punch
  Three parables for progressives and the Grand Old (Democratic) Party. Posted on October 26, 2009
• A Tale of Two Supermen
  For better or worse, our American Idiocracy has come to rely on athletes… morePosted on October 24, 2009
• Say It Ain’t Snowe
  I don't get it. I know that's the simplistic refrain of every 10-year-old,… morePosted on October 17, 2009