Table of Contents

One thing that makes red states red, according to conventional wisdom, is their rural character and commitment to hardy outdoorsmanship. Hard-core hunters and fishermen, it is assumed, are reliably Republican and as unshakable as they come.

But could this be wrong? Are the nation's sportsmen not simply opponents of gun control but also strong supporters of environmental protections? Are the folks who spend time in the woods -- known as the "hook-and-bullet" set -- so turned off by President Bush's relentlessly pro-industry environmental positions that they're ripe for bagging by the Democratic Party? Could a combination of environmental concerns and the rise of pro-hunting, pro-fishing Democratic candidates put in play the votes of people who feel they've long been taken for granted by Republicans and dismissed by Democrats as out of reach?

There's mounting evidence that this is the case. Members of sporting groups have increasingly found themselves at odds with the Bush administration.

Last year, when the White House sought to relax federal regulations that protect wetlands -- and the fish and game that depend on them -- the administration was surprised to find itself besieged by sportsmen and sportswomen, many of them Republican voters. Roughly 20 hook-and-bullet groups went to the White House to express their concern about the proposed rule change. Although they share with mainstream environmental groups concerns about the health of the ecosystem, the hunters and anglers are also motivated by the dwindling number of places nationwide to hunt and to fish. To appease this important Republican constituency, the White House largely scrapped its plans to relax wetland protections.

This year, the White House incurred hook-and-bullet wrath with another initiative: a proposal to give coal-fired electric utilities more flexibility in regulating emissions of mercury, a potent toxin that can cause brain damage in people and reduce the populations of fish and game by impairing their reproductive capacities. The outdoors set responded in a loud voice; 475 hunting and angling groups -- representing 1 million potential voters -- sent a letter of protest to the administration urging it to back down.

The idea that these two cases are not isolated events but perhaps part of a broader trend was underscored by a recent poll released by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), one of the nation's oldest and largest wildlife advocacy groups. Among its findings, the NWF reports that hunters and anglers increasingly are dissatisfied with the president's environmental policies. Administered by an independent firm to respondents culled from hunting and fishing license lists, the poll found that 58 percent of respondents opposed the president's proposed wetlands policies, and 69 percent opposed his plan to give coal-fired electric utilities flexibility in the ways they reduce mercury emissions.

By putting conservation concerns on the environmental agenda, the hook-and-bullet community is staking out a middle ground in the debate and becoming an important voice in the quest to protect and promote America's environmental quality. This is a political opportunity that Democrats ignore at their peril.

Yet appealing to the hook-and-bullet crowd means Democrats must deal not only with environmental concerns but also with the rural-suburban split over gun control. To date, both Democrats and Republicans have failed to distinguish the issue of gun control and gun rights from larger hunting, fishing, and environmental concerns. The result is a stale debate that has Democrats on the losing end.

Too often, the nation's hunters hear Democratic proposals for gun safety as assaults on hunting traditions. This hurts the party in rural communities and among working-class voters. At the same time, National Rifle Association- driven Republican fanaticism on guns does not speak to the majority of the nation's hunters. As George Reiger noted in Field and Stream, worrying just about the Second Amendment means that hunters could soon "end up with a closet full of guns with no place but a shooting range to use them."

Yet faced with a Democratic party seemingly hostile to sporting traditions, the political choice for a lot of hunters is easy. This dynamic may have seriously hurt Al Gore in 2000 in West Virginia and other rural states. Conversely, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner during his successful 2001 campaign deliberately reached out to hunters and fishermen; "Sportsmen for Warner" groups sprang up in the state's rural regions.

Democratic candidates can change the political calculus by redefining themselves as pro-hunter, pro-outdoor sports, and pro-gun safety. Such positions stand in stark contrast to the NRA-defined Republican platform plank, which primarily is focused on resisting gun control. Democrats must instead embrace the commonly held view among sportsmen and sportswomen that commonsense gun control measures and hunting interests are not mutually exclusive.

Such views are buttressed by a recent unscientific poll of 2,897 readers and hunters in Field and Stream. The poll found that a majority of readers did not consider "assault-style rifles" to be legitimate sporting guns. Furthermore, 66 percent of readers said background checks should be done before people buy even rifles and shotguns.

Perhaps most noteworthy, only 43 percent of poll respondents said they were NRA members. As for the greatest threat to hunting, fully 41 percent cited "shrinking wildlife habitat," while only 25 percent cited "anti-gun legislation" as the source of their problems.

Hunters understand that the biggest threat to hunting is not an assault weapons ban, background checks, or a closing of the gun-show loophole. Rather, it is the dwindling number of accessible places to hunt, because of development and suburban encroachment increasingly unfriendly to the interests of hunters. In addition to having a direct and immediate impact on hunters, having fewer places to hunt also makes it harder for hunters to continue the cherished tradition of introducing their own children to the sport.

A Democrat who spoke to these issues, along with gun safety, would go a long way toward appealing to the some 13 million Americans who hunt, as well as many others who fish and enjoy the outdoors in other ways.

Pursuing the votes of hunters is not a quixotic quest. While hunting and fishing may be alien to liberal Democrats in the Northeast, along the California coast, and in other "blue" havens, these activities are, in fact, the way millions of Americans enjoy the outdoors and millions of children learn first-hand about the environment, conservation, ethics, and personal responsibility.

More importantly, from a political standpoint, hunters and anglers are well-organized, as their recent protests against the president's mercury and wetlands proposals illustrate. They're likely to belong to organizations and clubs that promote their sports and to associate with others who share common interests. It's an axiom of politics that more organized voters are easier to reach and mobilize and are more likely to vote.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry clearly understands all this. He's made a point of displaying his pro-hunting credentials, and he's proposed ideas that should appeal to sportsmen and sportswomen. The candidate frequently touts his passion for hunting pheasants. The stump speech pitch is part of a broader Kerry-Edwards "Sportsmen's Bill of Rights" designed to ensure that law-abiding Americans retain the right to own guns and have places to hunt. And, to expand dwindling access to hunting and fishing grounds, Kerry has proposed providing more funding for state "walk-in" access programs.

Yet even a presidential candidate cannot immediately overcome the perception created by the overall posture of a political party. That's why, no matter how many pheasants Kerry kills or shotguns he brandishes, it will be difficult for him to win the hook-and- bullet vote unless Democrats as a group embrace a more pro-hunting and pro-fishing posture. Failing to make inroads with this constituency would be a missed opportunity. Bush's policies have flushed the votes of sportsmen and sportswomen out into the open. Now it's up to Democrats to bag 'em.

Jan Mazurek directs the Center for Innovation and the Environment at the Progressive Policy Institute. Andrew J. Rotherham is director of PPI's 21st Century Schools Project.