Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Paul Ryan on Record: The Vice-Presidential Candidate on Hunting, Conservation, and Fixed-Blades vs. Mechanicals

Syndicate

Syndicate content
Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!

Newshound Recent Posts

Categories

Recent Comments

Archives

Newshound
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

October 01, 2012
Paul Ryan on Record: The Vice-Presidential Candidate on Hunting, Conservation, and Fixed-Blades vs. Mechanicals - 16

While under the national scrutiny that comes with a presidential campaign, Paul Ryan isn’t hiding the fact that he’s a hunter. The vice-presidential candidate is promoting it.  



The former co-chair of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus and avid bowhunter, stopped by the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance 16th Annual “Save Our Heritage” Rally in Columbus, Ohio last weekend to deliver the keynote speech. He told attendees: “Hunters are the original conservationists. Bureaucrats more and more these days think that public lands have to be protected from hunters. I myself see it the other way; I think hunters need to be protected from bureaucrats.” 

Ryan has a strong track record of defending hunters’ rights, including lowering taxes on domestic arrow manufacturers and working to decrease the background check waiting period for firearm purchases at gun shows.

But, there’s a section in Ryan’s ‘Path to Prosperity’ budget plan that proposes selling federally owned lands to help balance the budget.  This proposal has raised concerns among some public hunting land advocates.



Before delivering his remarks, Ryan sat down with Outdoor Life to talk about the role of government in wildlife conservation, the prospect of selling public lands, and the mechanical versus fixed-blade broadhead debate.

Outdoor Life: First of all, thanks for meeting with us. We appreciate the way you haven’t hidden your love for hunting and the outdoors.

Paul Ryan: Not in the least.

OL: We’re interested in your view on wildlife conservation. How does your small-government perspective square with sustainable fish and wildlife conservation?

PR: I think it’s a very legitimate role of government. Just because we’re conservative, doesn’t mean we want no government. We want limited, effective government, and we want government to do its job well in the area it’s supposed to do its job, and this is clearly an area for government. As chairman of the sportsmen’s caucus for four years, I championed the efforts to protect hunting and fishing conservation rights. Programs like WRP and CRP are part of that.

OL:
We’re glad that you mention that, actually. How does federal funding for key programs like CRP and endangered species management fit with your plans for a smaller, leaner government?

PR: Well, I think we need the Endangered Species Act reformed to make sure that hunting rights and access are protected. I know the WRP [Wetlands Reserve Program] well. I’m a big duck hunter. I think it’s an important program. I think it’s got to be an important part of reauthorization, and we think that’s an important, critical part. The Clean Water Act has been helpful too, in making sure that wetlands are protected so that there’s more than a one-for-one replacement in some instances. That’s a good thing. We believe that wetland conservation is a critical part of conservation. Don’t forget that hunters are the best conservationists there are in America.

OL: In your 'Path to Prosperity' budget plan, you have several proposals to sell government property, from things like automobiles to buildings to federal land. Can you give me an example of some type of public land that may fall under that plan?

PR: Not off the top of my head, I couldn’t.

OL: What criteria, though, will you use?

PR: That would be something you have to work with Congress on. There have been lots of hearings that Congress has had on excess federal properties. The ones that we’ve looked at from budget savings were more buildings and assets like cars and things like this, a lot of vacant properties. That is really where a lot of our concern for budget savings has been. With respect to federal lands, that would take a lot more research to give you a good answer.

OL: So that’s not really a main part of that, though?

PR: That part, we thought the savings was buildings.

OL: In 2011, Americans spent $145 billion on wildlife recreation. Isn’t that a good argument for investing in wildlife habitat as a job creator and engine of economic development?

PR: Well, look, I’ve always believed in the Pittman-Robertson program. I like the fee-financed system. I think it works very well. We use our ammo and our fishing tackle; the fees we pay go to wildlife conservation. I think that’s a very good program. We’ve got to make sure that the integrity of the program is for conservation and not for other things.

OL: Like what?

PR: Well, I think in the past, about 10 years ago, we had a lot of different hearings where we saw some of that conservation money wasn’t being used for conservation. It was being used for advocacy of different positions that were contrary towards, I think, sportsmen’s interests. That money should go to conservation. So I do believe a) this is very good for our economy; b) it’s an essential part of government to have conservation and wildlife conservation; c) we want to make sure that our conservation dollars, which come from the taxes hunters and anglers pay, go to these very programs that are actually there for conservation.

OL: The biggest impediment for a lot of hunters to participate in hunting and fishing is just a place to do it. How would you promote public access?

PR: We believe in public access. Taxpayers pay for this. So we very much believe in public access. In many ways, the frustrating issue about this is bureaucrats look for ways they think hunters are in the way. I would look at it a little differently – I think bureaucrats are in the way. I believe very much in access. We believe we need to open up public lands for access for hunting.

OL: Have any of President Obama’s policies positively or negatively impacted hunters and anglers?

PR: I think, on anglers, there are some concerning proposals on the horizon that we’ve been very worried about, about fishery management. About how the federal government is appointing the wrong kind of people to manage these agencies. Personnel matters a lot.

OL: Can you expand?

PR: I think some of the personnel from various government agencies have been more hostile toward hunting and fishing. Personnel matters a great deal. What I worry about as a hunter, as a person who believes in the Second Amendment, as a gun owner, is knowing that President Obama – in his earlier career, prior to his presidency – was an advocate for gun control. I worry about what his attitude will be once he never has to face voters again. And that to me is a concern just as a gun owner, that this is somebody who has a history of being hostile to the Second Amendment. He hasn’t, for political reasons I believe, done much to go after the Second Amendment, but his history, his party, lead me to be concerned about what he would be like in a second term.

OL: Now to more important political matters: Realtree or Mossy Oak, which camo do you prefer?

PR: I use Advantage as probably most of my camo, so Advantage is Realtree, isn’t it? You know the brand Advantage, it’s a type of camo?

OL:
Yeah, that’s Realtree. What about ladder stand versus climber?

PR: I have ladder stands because I take my kids ... I have those River’s Edge ladder stands, they’re the two-seaters … I have the River’s Edge two-seaters for my kids, and then for myself I use lock-on stands. For my bowhunting, I just put screw-in steps with lock-ons.

OL: Fixed blade or mechanical?

PR: Fixed. I don’t use mechanical. I’ve had some problems with mechanical.

OL: Thanks a lot. We appreciate it.

 

More Paul Ryan coverage
Romney Picks 'Avid Outdoorsman' Paul Ryan as Vice-Presidential Running Mate

He's a Hunter, but Paul Ryan’s Budget Deserves Scrutiny

 

Comments (16)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Realistic wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

I am a hunter with dozens of weapons, a USMC vet of Desert Storm and Outdoor Life subscriber for 40 yrs, also a conservationist that believes global warming science. In my opinion the 47% Romney was talking about that were sucking life from the federal government, includes farmer who get subsidies for crops and animals, cattlemen who get virtually free grazing on federal land, veterans who get disability payments, retirees on medicare, people collecting social security, children getting inoculations. That is the 47% he doesn't care about.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from GuyGene wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

The below is THE question for me:

OL: The biggest impediment for a lot of hunters to participate in hunting and fishing is just a place to do it. How would you promote public access?

Thanks, OL for asking this question!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from LovesOutdoors wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

These people against Romney-Ryan ticket may be on the Obama's "Good Ship Lollipop" already receiving the freebies and subsidies. Remember, you will never going to change the masses of asses. who are out there.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from DSMbirddog wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

I agree Mesarich. Lot's of -1's here for no good reason.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from mesarich wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

Seems to me a lot of people I have never seen before on OutdoorLife and who probably have never picked up a gun or fishing pole are on here making negative comments about Ryan. If you are an outdoors type, a hunter, or a fisher, and you vote for a liberal, then you are in my opinion, a fool.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim House wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

VRossi- Sorry, but that is a mistaken premise. Romney was NOT talking about Hunters and such as the 47%. He was talking about Welfare recipients, etc. on the government dole that don't pay taxes, just collect freebies. Unless, of course, you are one of them?

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Victor Rossi wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

CAREFUL

Be careful what you wish for. The Romney-Ryan ticket is just a bit too mealy-mouthed about matters important to us all. I guess Romney put it best when he described most hunters and fishermen as the 47% sitting on our fannies, doing nothing, and sucking up all of the government's benefits.
This writer looks at the situation as,
if Romney-Ryan win, all of us 47% commoners will loose.

-6 Good Comment? | | Report
from BwanaBubba wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

Great interview! Now America wake-up and make the correct choice in November 2012. We need men such as Paul Ryan and Romney in the big office. If you want for the future in relationship to the next generation the right to use the great outdoors of America, you better. A lot is riding on this, such as Fishing, Yep Fishing, Hunting, Rights to own a gun or rifle and even the fact of walking on government land. Now is the time!
Greatful for Outdoor Life and Paul Ryan doing an interview!
Frank aka BwanaBubba
U.S. Navy Retired Boots on the ground Vietnam 1970.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from DeerNick wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

I do not understand the comments commending Mr. Ryan's responses. To me they seem very slippery. He completely avoided the selling of lands question and used fear mongering of "what might happen" instead valid points backed by facts from the last 4 years. Further, one would think Mr. Ryan would feel at home in an outdoor publication but he seems very much on the defensive with comments like "Well, look, I’ve...". Kinda odd and suspicious.

I am undecided at this point but in my opinion this interview really hurt the republicans outdoor credibility.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Roderick K. Purcell wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

I think OL let Mr Ryan off easy. The GOP 2012 platform calls for the sale of national forests. Not buildings or vacant lots. National forests. Is he for that or against it? We still do not know. Certainly, that's more important than the brand of camo he prefers.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Erik Jensen wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

How any of you guys can claim this guy is in your interest as a sportsman is a joke. He was totally evasive in the interview about his claims that the Obama administration is anti-hunting and fishing. He wouldn't name the supposed personnel he was talking about, that's because the personnel that control any decisions affecting us are very pro-hunting and fishing, like Ken Salazar, the interior secretary. Ryan and the GOP want to sell off our hunting land and/or subdivide and motorize and industrialize it, as well as destroy important conservation laws, it's part of their official platform.

Just admit it - you dislike Obama on other policies and that will trump your interest as a sportsman, that's the reality.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bootheel Hunter wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

Thank you for pressing for details on the proposal to sell public lands. I was glad to see Mr. Ryan back away from that idea a bit. As Ben Lamb pointed out in the Open Country Blog, the Republican Party platform actually has language about promoting the transfer of public land into private hands--without even a mention about the effects on hunters and anglers. I think this is something where the party has gotten out of step with most sportsmen in their ranks. It's easy when you become a representative or senator to forget that most hunters and fishermen don't get offer after offer to hunt and fish on great properties, like they do. So it is terrific to see Outdoor Life pressing candidates on this issue, they need to keep hearing from us. Great job OL!

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from DSMbirddog wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

I think you have to look at the whole package and I had very little concern about Paul Ryan from the beginning. I think OL did a service to all of us by getting this interview. Thank you.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from officerdom1987 wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

Very well written and Pail Ryan did an excellent job during this interview in filling alot of open holes. I'm looking forward to voting for you this November!

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from LovesOutdoors wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

You guys have my vote and support, for the White House.
I can't wait and thank you.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

Thanks Darren, for doing something other outdoors writers refused to do! Get the answer from the horses mouth! But rather your colleagues on F&S speculate the worst and prove to be incorrect. Tehy rather push their love for the liberal democrat party than practice what they preach. Can't thank you enough!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)

from officerdom1987 wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

Very well written and Pail Ryan did an excellent job during this interview in filling alot of open holes. I'm looking forward to voting for you this November!

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bootheel Hunter wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

Thank you for pressing for details on the proposal to sell public lands. I was glad to see Mr. Ryan back away from that idea a bit. As Ben Lamb pointed out in the Open Country Blog, the Republican Party platform actually has language about promoting the transfer of public land into private hands--without even a mention about the effects on hunters and anglers. I think this is something where the party has gotten out of step with most sportsmen in their ranks. It's easy when you become a representative or senator to forget that most hunters and fishermen don't get offer after offer to hunt and fish on great properties, like they do. So it is terrific to see Outdoor Life pressing candidates on this issue, they need to keep hearing from us. Great job OL!

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Roderick K. Purcell wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

I think OL let Mr Ryan off easy. The GOP 2012 platform calls for the sale of national forests. Not buildings or vacant lots. National forests. Is he for that or against it? We still do not know. Certainly, that's more important than the brand of camo he prefers.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Tim House wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

VRossi- Sorry, but that is a mistaken premise. Romney was NOT talking about Hunters and such as the 47%. He was talking about Welfare recipients, etc. on the government dole that don't pay taxes, just collect freebies. Unless, of course, you are one of them?

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dcast wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

Thanks Darren, for doing something other outdoors writers refused to do! Get the answer from the horses mouth! But rather your colleagues on F&S speculate the worst and prove to be incorrect. Tehy rather push their love for the liberal democrat party than practice what they preach. Can't thank you enough!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from DSMbirddog wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

I think you have to look at the whole package and I had very little concern about Paul Ryan from the beginning. I think OL did a service to all of us by getting this interview. Thank you.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Erik Jensen wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

How any of you guys can claim this guy is in your interest as a sportsman is a joke. He was totally evasive in the interview about his claims that the Obama administration is anti-hunting and fishing. He wouldn't name the supposed personnel he was talking about, that's because the personnel that control any decisions affecting us are very pro-hunting and fishing, like Ken Salazar, the interior secretary. Ryan and the GOP want to sell off our hunting land and/or subdivide and motorize and industrialize it, as well as destroy important conservation laws, it's part of their official platform.

Just admit it - you dislike Obama on other policies and that will trump your interest as a sportsman, that's the reality.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from BwanaBubba wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

Great interview! Now America wake-up and make the correct choice in November 2012. We need men such as Paul Ryan and Romney in the big office. If you want for the future in relationship to the next generation the right to use the great outdoors of America, you better. A lot is riding on this, such as Fishing, Yep Fishing, Hunting, Rights to own a gun or rifle and even the fact of walking on government land. Now is the time!
Greatful for Outdoor Life and Paul Ryan doing an interview!
Frank aka BwanaBubba
U.S. Navy Retired Boots on the ground Vietnam 1970.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from GuyGene wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

The below is THE question for me:

OL: The biggest impediment for a lot of hunters to participate in hunting and fishing is just a place to do it. How would you promote public access?

Thanks, OL for asking this question!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from mesarich wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

Seems to me a lot of people I have never seen before on OutdoorLife and who probably have never picked up a gun or fishing pole are on here making negative comments about Ryan. If you are an outdoors type, a hunter, or a fisher, and you vote for a liberal, then you are in my opinion, a fool.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from LovesOutdoors wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

You guys have my vote and support, for the White House.
I can't wait and thank you.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from DeerNick wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

I do not understand the comments commending Mr. Ryan's responses. To me they seem very slippery. He completely avoided the selling of lands question and used fear mongering of "what might happen" instead valid points backed by facts from the last 4 years. Further, one would think Mr. Ryan would feel at home in an outdoor publication but he seems very much on the defensive with comments like "Well, look, I’ve...". Kinda odd and suspicious.

I am undecided at this point but in my opinion this interview really hurt the republicans outdoor credibility.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from DSMbirddog wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

I agree Mesarich. Lot's of -1's here for no good reason.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Realistic wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

I am a hunter with dozens of weapons, a USMC vet of Desert Storm and Outdoor Life subscriber for 40 yrs, also a conservationist that believes global warming science. In my opinion the 47% Romney was talking about that were sucking life from the federal government, includes farmer who get subsidies for crops and animals, cattlemen who get virtually free grazing on federal land, veterans who get disability payments, retirees on medicare, people collecting social security, children getting inoculations. That is the 47% he doesn't care about.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from LovesOutdoors wrote 1 year 40 weeks ago

These people against Romney-Ryan ticket may be on the Obama's "Good Ship Lollipop" already receiving the freebies and subsidies. Remember, you will never going to change the masses of asses. who are out there.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Victor Rossi wrote 1 year 41 weeks ago

CAREFUL

Be careful what you wish for. The Romney-Ryan ticket is just a bit too mealy-mouthed about matters important to us all. I guess Romney put it best when he described most hunters and fishermen as the 47% sitting on our fannies, doing nothing, and sucking up all of the government's benefits.
This writer looks at the situation as,
if Romney-Ryan win, all of us 47% commoners will loose.

-6 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment (200 characters or less)