As you might imagine, we spend a good deal of time talking to lawmakers about legislation that could cause problems for sportsmen or asking for their support for pro-hunting proposals.
Sometimes you get a direct, to-the-point answer like “yes, I support your position” or “no I don’t.” But many other times careful listening is required.
The language of the lawmaker can be a crafty and evasive dialect. To my knowledge, no one has yet to create a good “politician to English/English to politician field guide” for translating and no university has it listed as a foreign language class.
Whether you’re making calls to defeat California Senate Bill 1221, which would ban hunting bears with hounds, or working to support legislation such as HR 4089, which protects hunting, fishing, and shooting on public land, here are a few responses you might hear from lawmakers and a few hints about what they are really saying.
1. The No Answer-Answer
Here’s the situation – you call, send a letter, visit, or email your representative about an issue and receive this response:
“Thank you for contacting me, I’ll keep your thoughts in mind as the bill moves through the process.”
Translation:
- It could mean that your representative doesn’t want to tell you the truth that he/she is going to vote against what you’re asking but just doesn’t want to tell you; or
- It could mean that your representative hasn’t yet made up his or her mind on the issue; or
- It could mean your representative hasn’t read your letter or email and you simply got a form letter that a staffer quickly typed up.
Regardless of what your representative really means your follow up should be the same. Don’t let them off the hook! Follow up with another phone call, visit, or letter and ask them to clarify where they stand. Have other sportsmen, friends, and family do the same thing. Let them know that you appreciate them keeping you in their thoughts but that you want where they stand to know when they’ve make up their mind.
We received an example of the No Answer-Answer in a letter from U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan in response to our request that she support S. 2066, which is now a part of the HR 4089, the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act. Senator Stabenow is a key vote, so it will be important for Michigan hunters and shooters to contact her as she decides.
2. That’s Not My Intent
Another situation that comes up more than it should occurs when a lawmaker introduces a bill that contains potentially harmful language to hunting. Let’s use the example of an “animal cruelty” bill that makes it illegal to “intentionally injure or kill an animal” with no exception for hunting, fishing, or trapping.
You go to the representative to let him/her know that the bill could be interpreted to prohibit hunting (or fishing and trapping) because hunters go into the woods with the intent to kill game. The representative gives you one of these responses and in the same breath also refuses to change anything in the bill to clarify that hunting will not be considered animal cruelty:
“No one would ever interpret my bill to ban hunting!” or “That’s not what I meant.”
Here’s what this answer could mean:
- The representative doesn’t understand that there are plenty of anti-hunters out there that would jump at the opportunity to use this ambiguous language to file a lawsuit to try and ban hunting, fishing, or trapping; or
- The representative might be telling you that he/she doesn’t care about the impact it could have on sportsmen.
If you get either of these answers, work to educate the lawmaker how anti-hunting groups could use the bill against sportsmen. If unwilling to listen, it’s time to start spreading the word to other sportsmen that the bill is bad news, so that the legislator receives more feedback.
Don’t allow the elected official to convince you to leave it alone. The U.S. Sportsmen Alliance Foundation’s Legal Defense Fund was created because of lawsuits that exploit vague language that was likely created in much the same fashion.
3. I’m Always Looking Out for Sportsmen
You’re visiting your representative on a specific issue and before you can ask where he or she stands on the bill they cut you off and reply:
“Don’t worry, I’m always looking out for sportsmen.”
It’s great to have a representative looking out for sportsmen. However, the problem with this answer is it doesn’t tell you if the representative has your back on this issue. Often times this answer is used as a distraction that keeps them off the hot seat from having to commit to a side.
If you get this answer follow up with: “We appreciate having you on our side and we can really use your support on this issue. Can we count on your vote?” In the end, you need a commitment from the legislator that he or she is on our side on this issue, not just sportsmen generally.
What type of answers have you gotten from lawmakers that leave you scratching your head?
Follow Jeremy on Twitter @Jeremy_USSA
Protect What's Right 
Barbara Mikulski of Maryland is an accomplished practitioner of the “No Answer-Answer.”
Petr,
Thanks for the comment. Many elected officials have honed this answer over years of practice. That’s why it is vital to keep following up to let them know you’re still there and watching what they do!
You people are really fighting a losing battle. The majority of Californians are against sb 1221. You are the extreme minority. What do you think is going to happen if sb 1221 fails? It;s going to the voters of CA and we will ban this practice. Fight battles you know you can win.
Sorry Ken. Sportsmen are not just going to roll over and allow their hunting rights to be taken away. These folks don’t deserve to have their life’s passion taken away by intolerant animal rights sympathizers. So we will continue to fight.
Ken,
Sorry, a majority of Californians are not in favor of SB1221 especially once they find out the true meaning of it’s intent
I want Sunday hunting in Pa like the other states in the US , Most people have off and I don’t think our ancestors and countrymen cared what day it was they went out hunting whatever day it was because they wanted to or had to.
There is a greater danger than California and dog bans. HSUS through the Wildlife Land Trust is offering to ANYone a legal animal sanctuary for their homestead for $30. You’ll get a lovely plaque designating your property as a wildlife sanctuary. What you don’t know is that you’ve sold the “hunting rights” to your property for perpetuity. Just like mineral rights or air rights. How can a plane fly over your house? Because the government owns the “air rights”. Once the WLLT owns your hunting rights, no one can hunt on your property without their permission which they will not give. They own thousands of acres so far. No one is doing anything about this.
Didi,
Thanks for the comment. There is a common theme to both the CA hound hunting ban and the Wildlife Land Trust – both are attempts by HSUS to eliminate hunting and both are important to our rights as sportsmen and women.
The portion of HSUS’s Wildlife Land Trust (HSWLT) you are referring to concerns conservation easements. The program tries to get people to donate a conservation easement that comes with the hunting prohibition for the land. To quote HSWLT: “All HSWLT conservation easements prohibit recreational and commercial hunting and trapping, and development within protected areas.”
What this means is the landowner keeps their land but HSUS gets to “police” it to make sure no one ever hunts or traps on it.
For sportsmen, it is appalling that HSUS refers to this as a “conservation easement” when hunting and trapping are not allowed. After all, sportsmen are this countries greatest conservationists.
It is also another example of how HSUS is against ALL hunting and trapping and not just the so-called “worst abuses” that they claim.