Barack Obama Should Fish for Votes Among Hunters and Sportsmen

If he can make an environmental pitch to hunters and fishers, he could win in November

September 30, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (28)
A hunter in Utah.

A hunter in Utah.

Sportsmen and women love October. Hunting season is underway and, with winter coming, the fishing is often the best of the year. October is also the busiest month of the political year and, in a close presidential contest, campaign season and hunting season share more than the calendar. With the election turning on states like Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain will be hunting hard for support among hook and bullet voters. For Obama, making inroads with this group is one key to victory in November.

The best proxy and gathering place for fishermen and hunters is Cabela's, the outdoor gear supplier with 28 superstores coupled with a more than $1 billion Internet and catalog business. More than a retailer, Cabela's is a cultural barometer. As NBC's Brian Williams has pointed out, whether you've even heard of Cabela's says a lot about your lifestyle. The retailer is foreign to the millions of Americans who rarely venture farther outdoors than a city park, but a favorite of sportsmen who do. In most of this year's pivotal states, there is a warehouse-size Cabela's store, whether on the West Virginia-Ohio border, or in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin (which has two), or Minnesota (has three!).

For years, the sportsman's vote was assumed to be mostly impenetrable for Democrats because of cultural issues and the volatility of the gun issue. Yet the political terrain has shifted during the last eight years, putting the "Cabela's vote" more in play. Ironically, it's the Bush administration and the gun lobby that Democrats can thank for the opportunity.

Sportsmen have become increasingly dissatisfied with the Bush administration's corporate-friendly environmental policies, and hook and bullet organizations are increasingly working with environmental groups. For instance, more than 400 environmental, angling, and hunting organizations opposed a 2004 administration mercury proposal, and the concerns of waterfowl hunters helped derail some proposed changes to wetland rules.

At the same time, the gun issue is losing its potency. Sure, the National Rifle Association is running television ads implying that Obama wants to take away hunting guns, but that attack is weakened by the recent success of the gun lobby at the Supreme Court. In June, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees a private right to bear arms—a decision Obama promptly embraced. Such a backdrop makes the scare tactics less likely to stick.

That's good news for conservation because the emphasis on the gun issue creates lousy politics for hunters and anglers. In 2004, Field and Stream columnist George Reiger pointed out that the gun lobby's almost exclusive focus on the Second Amendment meant that hunters could "end up with a closet full of guns with no place but a shooting range to use them."

Today's hunters and anglers face problems that have little to do with gun control and a lot to do with clean air and water, access to land to hunt and fish, and challenges like global warming. These issues can help reshape traditional political alignments. A July poll commissioned by the National Wildlife Federation found that while hunters and anglers are more likely to be conservatives or independents, they're open to being courted by both parties on outdoor issues they care about besides guns.

About firearms specifically, the poll found that barely more than 1 in 3 sportsmen believed that gun rights were the most important issue facing hunters, while 2 in 5 hunters and 47 percent of sportsmen who hunt and fish believed that conservation is as important an issue as gun rights. Senator Obama is unlikely to win these voters decisively, but those numbers indicate an opportunity to compete for some votes.

Of course, that poll was commissioned before Senator McCain named America's most famous moose hunter as his running mate. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will undoubtedly appeal to many anglers and hunters because she's really a sportsman, not a posing pol. An AP/Yahoo poll after her nomination found that 2 in 5 gun owners said her selection made them more likely to support the Republican ticket. Yet Palin seems a better bet to succeed in the field or on a river than in public office advancing the interests of Cabela's voters.

Even leaving aside Palin's understandable support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—something most Alaskans favor—big questions remain about her overall environmental commitment. She's reticent about dealing with global warming, despite the possible impact on habitat and wildlife, and is taking the federal government to court over protection for endangered polar bears—something even the Bush administration supports. Of more immediate concern to anglers is Palin's unwillingness to oppose the proposed Pebble Mine project that threatens Alaska's famed Bristol Bay salmon fishery. Though it does not get many headlines in the lower 48, the proposed Pebble Mine project has more potential for adverse impact than the drilling proposal. Primarily a copper and gold mine, the massive project could irreparably harm the fragile Bristol Bay ecosystem, which explains why local and national conservation and fishing organizations are vigorously opposing the project.

Senator Obama is wisely not pretending to be an outdoorsman beyond, as he recently told Field and Stream, enjoying hiking. In doing so, he can avoid the perception of inauthenticity that has dogged other candidates. Instead, Obama is trying to make sure hunters and anglers know that he understands their concerns and cares about the environmental and land access issues that are vital to their sports. He is supporting expanded hunter education programs and provisions of the recent farm bill intended to put more land in conservation use.

This is essentially the same strategy that former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner employed successfully when "Sportsmen for Warner" efforts across the commonwealth helped him close traditional Democratic gaps with hook and bullet voters in 2001. Now, however, with Palin on the McCain ticket, Obama must do more to clearly show Cabela's voters that although he's not one of them, he understands their concerns and their hopes and will be a friend in office on the issues that matter.

Even in this economy, how much of the Cabela's vote a guy from Chicago can earn remains to be seen. But the answer will affect the outcome in the states upon which the election hinges. Although the idea of hunting, or even fishing, can seem alien in the blue enclaves where Obama is strongest, he cannot afford to write these voters off. In 2007, Cabela's did $2.3 billion in revenue. That was a billion more than fleece-laden REI and about 30 percent more than venerable L.L. Bean. So, whether or not you've heard of Cabela's is irrelevant. Those numbers underscore the political power of those who have.

Andrew J. Rotherham is cofounder and codirector of the think tank Education Sector and writes the blog Eduwonk.com. Rotherham has advised the Obama campaign on education policy but not about the issues this column discusses.

Tags:
2008 presidential election,
gun control and gun rights,
voters,
environment,
Barack Obama,
hunting

Reader Comments Read all comments (28)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Do not think these assassins Hunters are stopping the spread of disease in humane ways, because they are not. In fact while they are in their murder frenzy, they even kill animals that are not diseased. The fact is they have no idea which ones are and which ones aren’t.

If these so called NOBEL hunters truly cared about animal welfare, they would use a tranquilizer gun, test each animal for disease and then put each ill creature to sleep by euthanasia.

When a hunter says that they love and care about the animals they kill and that they want to ensure their compliance with the careful game management plans to ensure their survival. They do not realize how hypocritical they are.

A person would not kill or hunt the things they love. To hunt and kill the things you love for any reason is mentally and emotionally unsound it is also very foolish. A hypocrite is a person who pretends to have virtue and moral principles, that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie their stated beliefs. To Love means having a strong devotion, admiration, affection and tenderness while to kill and hunt is to terrorize, harm and cause death.

When you kill you destroy and put an end to the vital or active qualities of a living being and when you hunt, you invade a beings space while chasing, terrorizing and pursuing them with the intent to capture and sometimes kill. Hunting and killing is not loving nor is it caring. To care is to have regard, concern, and consideration for something in distress. to care is to protect, defend and tenderly attend to.

Nature takes care of her own without the interference of man. Hunters ensure nothing. Animals need someone to ensure their survival against hunters, not against nature.

Reverend Marie Carew of MA 9:09PM October 03, 2011

To defend, promote and endorse hunting is to defend, promote and endorse cruelty and murder.

It is a very disturbing sight to see an animal suffer and although hunters agree on not injuring an animal unless they can administer a one shot painless kill, they cannot guarantee this and in fact it is very rare that any hunter can kill an animal with just one shot.

It is a known fact that many animals suffer prolonged, painful deaths when they are injured and not instantly killed by hunters. It is very difficult to instantly kill an animal as large as a deer, bear, elk or moose. Many hunters must shoot the animal two and three times before death occurs. This of course causes the animal great distress and suffering, not to mention how the act of chasing and stalking an animal disrupts migration and hibernation patterns and destroys families.

For animals like wolves, who mate for life and live in close-knit family units, hunting can devastate entire communities. The stress that hunted animals suffer caused by fear and the inescapable loud noises and other commotion that hunters create—also severely compromises their normal eating habits, making it hard for them to store the fat and energy that they need in order to survive the winter.

It seems obvious that hunters do not reflect on their deeds for if they did, they would cease their path of violence, cruelty, suffering and destruction.

Many hunters sit on the sidelines with man made weapons while waiting to go into territory that they have no right being in, all so that they can play God and eliminate what every species they feel might be trying to take over the land and food supply that human beings have claimed for themselves.

Some hunters even wait to murder dying, wounded and starving animals all in an effort to put them out of their misery and suffering while stopping the spread of disease, but the truth of this is if the hunter truly cared about the animal, they would bring food into woods to feed them and spend their money on tranquilizer guns to relocate them to safer more bountiful land, while also taking them to veterinarian wildlife preservations for health care and survival.

It is obvious that hunters do not show animals the same courtesy or respect that they show human beings and this is wrong. When there is a human over population and plagues Human beings are allowed to die by nature. They are not hunted down and executed by false righteous eager assassins.

Hunters Play God.

Although they did not create the lives they take they feel they have the right to limit animal population and the right to stop animal diseases from spreading and wiping out entire herds, In other words, they are interfering with evolution and the natural order by going on a murder spree and shooting designated animals with bullets and cross bows, Instead of allowing nature to handle her own as they do for human life.

Do not think these assassins are stopping the spread of disease in humane ways, becaus

Reverend Marie Carew of MA 9:04PM October 03, 2011

obama is a marxist,and the congress is psicotic,i meam the demo next dominated congrees.This is beggining othe end of the U.S. AS WE KNOW.AND HIOSTORY WILL POINT TO THAT TIME AS A DARK TIME.A BLACK HOLE,WILL EAT UP AMERICA.Just wait after 4 years.you will tell me.i cant believe what is happening.this country helped squash comunism in latin america for manny years,now it hit the mainland.i was a marxist way long ago,i know their tactic,and i have seen it in the obama,new demo left.

sammy artista of CA 4:51PM October 27, 2008

advertisement

Latest Videos

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

President Obama's Code Pink Heckler Medea Benjamin Was Plain Rude

It's become acceptable for people to interrupt the president while he is delivering a formal speech on a deadly serious topic.

Obama Commerce Nominee Penny Pritzker’s Tax Problem

Obama’s Commerce Department nominee has some Romney-esque tax issues.

Oklahoma Tornado Reminds Us of the Value of Teachers

The Oklahoma tornado reminds us of all the roles teachers take on.

IRS, AP and James Rosen Scandals Strike at the First Amendment

The Obama scandals paint a picture of an administration at odds with the First Amendment.

Anthony Weiner Is Too Liberal to Be New York City Mayor

New York City doesn't need another Democratic mayor.

Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

advertisement