You blindly assume and I find that rather funny and telling of your character. You have no clue what any of us do or don't do. Not everyone needs to pound their chest and scream look at me. I know a few guys on here and a bunch of guys not on here that do a hell of a lot. But what I find compelling about your argument which is the same as the clowns cited here is that all the negatives of their doings make it ok because they are championing for public land rights. Do you not see how dumb that really is? I am not going to need Public land hunting rights once the other side of the coin has accomplished their mission of destroying both our 2A rights and Hunting rights. But keep on guessing what others do and don't do.
That's funny...Pendleton asks a question about where the money is spent, is provided an answer, then its declared "chest pounding" by you.
This tells me you don't really want the answers, just a reason to deflect and continue to grind that ax.
As to the second argument, I happen to agree with you, but lots and lots of groups, while supportive of the 2nd don't have the expertise that many other groups have in dealing with the issue of gun rights. Not every group has to be involved with every single issue, its perfectly acceptable to me, and many others, to support groups that deal with wildlife habitat while supporting others that deal with public access, 2nd amendment rights, and so on.
You want to see an ineffective, do nothing group, find one that tries to solve every problem and be involved in every issue trying to appeal to everyone. They don't last long, there needs to be a focus or you're done before you ever start.
IMO, its great to have people involved that support wildlife in general, while others focus on individual species specific missions (RMEF, MDF, MFFF, WSF, FNAWS, DU, PF, etc. etc.). Its great that others focus on policy, public access, legislative stuff, etc. Still great that others fight for our second amendment rights.
Its idiotic, impractical, and ridiculous for anyone to expect, for say, the NRA to spend a [bleep] load of money dealing with bighorn sheep habitat. Its equally as dumb for the NRA to be involved with land acquisitions for elk habitat when that's the focus of RMEF.
Doesn't mean we cant all be supportive of the over-all collective efforts, just means that if individuals are more concerned with elk habitat than wetlands for ducks, then they should spend their money on groups/efforts for elk habitat.
These bullchit expectations that you and others place on every group, to be everything, for everybody is flat ridiculous. Lots of moving parts in the world of wildlife habitat, policy, management, and conservation.
Pick the stuff that matters to you and support it...and allow others to do the same.
Really simple...
