Home > Uncategorized > Folks Over At AMMO LAND Support the “Forest Stewardship” Bill

Folks Over At AMMO LAND Support the “Forest Stewardship” Bill

Which Side Are You On?

Guns or Trees?

Sometimes, it’s helpful to know who is opposing and supporting various legislation and why they are doing so.

That often helps to get a sense of exactly what is going on.

So we thought we would inform the public of exactly who is supporting the “Forest Stewardship” bill and why.

That bill is sponsored by Democrats and supported by some so called “conservation groups”, one of which, NJ Audubon, has a gross undisclosed conflict of interest and is acting more like a lobbyist for a consulting firm than a conservation group.

(there will but much more to come on NJ Audubon later. But make no mistake, the fact that NJ Audubon has a monopoly in NJ in Forest Stewardship Council Certification makes them a consultant, and is a huge ethical and political problem).

The below message is brought to you by right wing gun nuts (and KIG members) over at AMMO LAND – who are backing “Forest Stewardship”.

Why would guns and ammo types be supporting a  bill to promote forest health? Are they closet tree huggers over at AMMO LAND?

Or could it be that the “Forest Stewardship” bill has nothing to do with forest health and will be used as an excuse to log forests in order to to increase habitat for game species for the AMMO LAND types to slaughter?

I hope the Democratic sponsors of the Forest Stewardship bill and NJ Audubon are proud of their coalition and their supporters.

My mom alway said, judge a man by the company he keeps.

Take a look at who they are:

Show Your Support for Science Based Management of NJ’s Forests

“PLEASE NOTE: ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUPS AND A FEW RADICAL ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS ARE ATTEMPTING TO DEFEAT THE BILL TO ADVANCE PERSONAL AGENDAS AGAINST CONSERVATION.”
Full Post:
http://www.ammoland.com/2012/03/show-your-support-for-science-based-management-of-njs-forests/#axzz2Wigm4u9p
Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. Candy Rohdes
    June 20th, 2013 at 08:47 | #1

    Did it ever occur to you that it maybe as simple as they believe in conservation…your paranoia has you know even doubting Audubon??

  2. June 20th, 2013 at 09:13 | #2

    @Candy Rohdes
    Yes Candy, that had occurred to me, but did you read the link I posted from the NJ Outdoor Alliance?, see it again here:

    http://www.wolfenotes.com/2009/09/corporate-republican-manipulation-of-moran-nation-green-is-the-new-red/

    I am veery concerned about right wing ideology and can not tolerate being called a “terrorist” or “terrorist sympathizer” or a “radical”. That is not paranoia, those are just facts. Look at the language NJOA uses and who their members are. Gun worship drown out any support they can provide for conservation.

    Regarding NJ Audubon, are you aware of their role and some of the projects they are supporting? More o come on that. Yes, I doubt Audubon.

    Ask Eric Stiles how he and Audubon went from Audubon’s long standing forest policy of protecting large continuous tracts, minimizing disturbance, and maximizing canopy cover, to the current forest policy of logging to open the canopy (thereby increasing invasives and deer browse edge habitat) and further disturbance and fragmentation of forests by commercial logging.

    Could it be revenues from FS consulting?

    Could it be revenues from PSEG and gas pipeline right of way “mitigation”?

    Ask him, then reconsider if I’m “paranoid” or the only one to voice this concern, which MANY people have expressed to me..

    How and why that shift? Explain Eric.

  3. Robin O
    June 22nd, 2013 at 09:57 | #3

    Wolfe,

    Paranoid you are not. I agree with your rant. In my experience, Audubon looks out for Audubon, no one else. So if they are now for forest logging, you are smart to follow the money. KIG has never impressed me as being very effective. And some of the money that was previously appropriated toward open space and parks management never made it there as far as I can tell. I’d be hard pressed to support another open space referendum at this point (and as you know I worked very hard to support these in the past). And you make a good economic case for opposing it in your blog.

  1. May 10th, 2018 at 14:17 | #1
You must be logged in to post a comment.