Thanks for the post. Several of my local conservation groups are listed as signatories. Given the conservative membership of some of them, I'm surprised.

This is very interesting. I wonder what proportion of the members of these rod and gun clubs support the call for legislation? I don't belong to any R&G clubs, but I've interacted with several of them, and from that limited experience I think I can say that the leadership often comprises a higher proportion of biologists and wildlife technicians than the main body. It makes sense. A lot of people working for fish and wildlife agencies got interested via fishing and hunting, and their training, positions, and contacts make them appropriate leaders for the R&G clubs. I used to think this was bad in that the biologists responsible for conservation of species would focus on conservation for use (sensu Gifford Pinchot) rather than ecocentric conservation (sensu John Muir or Aldo Leopold). Now I suspect that the scientists who I think likely head these R&G clubs are more likely to throw their weight behind a call for action on AGW. It's a big positive that I didn't appreciate before.