Fishing Vs Shooters Parties

Shooters Party MP Robert Brown is chasing the fishing vote. Just about every newsletter he issues now mentions fishing. However, he is quite a latecomer. There is already a Fishing Party and it does not think much of the idea of another party pinching its votes.

This is what the Fishing Party’s Chairman Bob Smith had to say about who to vote for in the NSW election in March:

I’m afraid most fishermen are not shooters and there is 1 million of them in NSW.
History shows that the Shooters have voted with the government on fishing matters since Mr JT was elected
Sorry but they have had 12 years of that so it is time to give TFP a go. TFP can vote on shooting matters if they get the chance and still oppose the greens on appropriate and supporter base matters.

Bob Smith
The Fishing Party

The Shooters Party is venonomous in its attitude to any other party with pro-shooting policies. Just look at its hostility to the LDP and the Nationals. But that doesn’t seem to prevent it from sneaking into someone else’s patch.

Of course, in the end votes are not owned by any party. They must be won every election. That’s something no party can afford to forget.


16 Responses to Fishing Vs Shooters Parties

  1. Robert Borsak says:

    Thought some more useful stuff on hunting in State Forest’s may make more interesting reading than this stuff. It is the proven result of a successful Shooters Party effort in NSW.

    And Oh yes Mr Bob Smith JT’s record was very pro fishers, please check your facts if you are an aspiring pollie. One example comes to mind whilst I was Chairman of TSP, he voted against king fish traps, or doesn’t that count?

    Back to more interesting stuff, hunting in State Forests:

    Nundle SF is a good forest, heaps of pigs, geting a fair bit of pressure now, need to use your powers of observation & shanks pony.

    Was up there in June, saw about 23 pigs, plenty of rooting, we got about 8 without dogs, hunting early at dawn & on dusk, moving very quietly, into the wind & with the sun behind us if possible.

    I suspect that the animals in Nundle with pressure are starting to get more scarce, not to say that they aren’t still there. As I previously quoted, overall we are only getting about 16% of all animals sighted!

    A few deer also around!

    Good hunting & yes I also fish!

  2. “….The Shooters Party is venonomous in its attitude to any other party with pro-shooting policies. Just look at its hostility to the LDP and the Nationals…..”


    Stoner made a complete goose of himself and thoroughly deserved the SP’s opprobrium. He’s so unfamiliar with hunting and shooting he even mentioned ‘crossbows’, in his motion to Parliament. How can someone who’s ‘pro-shooting’ be so uninformed as to think that crossbows are legal in NSW?

  3. David Leyonhjelm says:


    Andrew, the Shooters Party’s attitude towards the Nationals didn’t start withStoner’s recent comments. It’s been hostile towards it for many years. It seems to think it owns the shooters vote, without doing anything for them in return.

  4. Cowboy Joe says:

    If TSP is hostile to the Nationals what adjective is applicable for David L and his attitude towards TSP?

    Some people derive endless pleasure over the intrigue and skullduggery while in the philosophical trenches fighting it out spurred on by their testosterone fueled egos. One thing for certain, it certainly requires less creativity than formulating strategies to promulgate our agenda.

    While some seem hell bent on using their associates as whipping posts the antis are logging on, taking notes and moving forwards. Fortunately there are other well organised firearm groups who work together; intent on the common foe instead of the bloke seated across from them at the ideological conference table.

  5. David Leyonhjelm says:

    Er, I think you might have that a bit wrong CJ. My “attitude” towards the Shooters Party is largely indifference. Some disappointment at lost opportunities perhaps. Certainly nothing like the party’s attitude toward the Nationals.

    I care much more about restoring lost liberty, including for shooters. That’s why I’m now involved with the LDP.

    I didn’t realise my ego was fueled by testosterone. At my age I suspect that’s a compliment.

    By “our agenda” I guess you must mean yours. Mine is as stated above.

  6. Cowboy Joe says:

    our agenda = better & fair treatment for firearm owners

    I thought we were on the same page so thought it would be understood.

  7. David Leyonhjelm says:

    That might be the objective, but it’s not an agenda. Indeed, there are numerous ways in which the objective could be achieved.

    My point above was that the Shooters Party not only expects everyone to share the objective, but also employ the same means. When some prefer to do it their own way (eg the Nationals), it becomes venomous towards them.

    I am not hostile to anyone who shares the objective. I’m happy to let them choose their own means.

  8. Cowboy Joe says:

    You seem to be saying that the Nationals are reliable supporters of shooters rights and that TSP has no business criticizing the Nationals because TSP have not acieved any thing of benefit to shooters.

    Is this correct?

  9. David Leyonhjelm says:

    I am saying that anyone who supports shooters rights should not be criticised for going about it another way.

    The Nationals are favourably disposed towards shooters, much more than Labor or the Liberals. However, the Shooters Party (and its cheer squad) is forever bagging them and rarely criticises Labor.

    Robert Brown even criticised the LDP in his inaugural speech, much to everyone’s amusement. The LDP’s firearms policies are actually better than the Shooters Party’s. Go figure.

  10. Cowboy Joe says:

    Writing policies that the majority of shooters would agree with is probably much easier than outlining policies that have some degree of achievabiltiy in our socio-political environment.

    I can’t figure or explain your observation.

    But I have noted your criticism of RB for criticising the the NP & LDP as you believe it is not in our best interests. Being critical of others appears to be justifiable for you to do it, but not RB.

    Wouldn’t it be better for you invest your time by criticising the antis? Once again, they are not airing their factional differences on the WWW. Go figure.

  11. David Leyonhjelm says:

    I don’t understand your comment.
    What criticism of others are you referring to?
    And what makes you think I don’t criticise the antis?

  12. Cowboy Joe says:


  13. David Leyonhjelm says:

    As I thought, no substance. Whenever these vague criticisms are raised (Andrew has said similar sorts of things), they are not supported. It’s as if you have been told what to say without bothering to ask why or find out for yourself.

    ” … they are not airing their factional differences on the http://WWW..”

    When people like you say things that this, iit illustrates how necessary it is to be aired in public. This is not a factional difference. This is like shining a light into a dark corner – the cockroaches don’t like it.

  14. South of the Border Mike says:

    It is interesting to see the attacks from supposed similar pro gun people against each other instead of a combined effort against the anti’s. But i find it interesting that NSW who has a shooters representative in Parliment ( and the band plays on )still have no better gun laws than they did after the Howard Gun Theft. Its lucky we in Vic only have to wait 24hrs to get a permit to purchase. Home invasion, Granny basher bills great bills but nothing to do with shooters just ego supporting i think. TSP from what i have read thinks they are the Gods of Shooting lording over you and no one else can touch their domain for they alone speak for shooters, interesting they now cry we are for fishos, what next dare i say the outdoor recreationalists. I am also a SSAA (vic) member the support for Roy Smith but we are yet to hear anything that is not previous TSP spin I wonder if Roy actually now has a mind or voice of his own. Interesting though Roy needs a job since he close to retiring.

  15. Scott says:

    Unfortunately it is the divisions within shooters groups that have allowed the anti-gun groups to make such in roads into our hobby.

    Targets shooters not caring what happens to hunters, Pistol shooters not caring about what happens to rifle owners and the clay pigeon guys looking down on both. Of course there are plenty of internals divisions in each group as well.

    The anti-gun groups have just one unified goal – the removal of ALL firearms from civilian hands. Sooner that ALL pro-gun groups realise this, the better it will be. It was these divisions that allowed the anti-gun groups to take our semi-autos and pump action shotguns back in 1996 with the pro hunting group mumbling that semi-autos weren’t hunting rifles so they didn’t care. Then in 2003 the pistol guy lost their standard capacity magazines and larger caliber handguns while the rifles guys breathed a sigh of relief that it wasn’t them copping it for a change.

    Divide and conquer – that is the master plan of the anti-gun group and we better be ready for the next attack because they haven’t finished yet.

  16. True Blue says:

    The trouble is, how should we unite? If we follow the wrong person, we’ll be like the lemmings and all go off the cliff.
    Better if everyone pushes the cause in their own way. Then if one is on the wrong track, the others still have a chance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: