A brawl brewing in spokane?

[Hilljackoutlaw]

There is a lot to unpack here. I don't completely disagree with the non hunting side of things, my problem is that I 100% don't trust them to work together with hunters in good faith.

@neffa3 @Hunting Wife opinions??

In Washington State, Hunters May No Longer Be "Necessary to Manage Wildlife"

An emerging wildlife war has its first skirmish this week in Spokane where a reformist group is looking to deprioritize hunting and hunters.

www.outdoorlife.com

 

[Hunting Wife]

That’s a great article. Pretty accurately describes what I’ve personally experienced on the agency side.

It is absolutely true that wildlife are held in trust for all citizens, not just hunters. And agencies have ignored the non-hunting segment of the public for a long time. That isn’t going to fly much longer. So, do you figure out how to bring them to the table, where you can discuss, and perhaps influence or educate? Or do you alienate them and get ever more extreme ballot-box biology?

This article is about hunters and anti-hunters, but substitute any two game stakeholder groups and it would be the the same- hunters vs landowners, DIY vs outfitters, resident vs nonresident, urban vs rural dwellers, “trophy” hunters vs “meat” hunters, etc. The only constant is that no one agrees on anything.

At the end of the day, I don’t think anyone does much of anything in good faith anymore. And that is a reflection of much larger societal problems right now. If anyone isn’t getting their way, they’ll just take things to the absolute extreme…lie, cheat, sabotage, win at all costs. Its a long, arduous path to build trust at this point, but what’s the alternative? If we keep going down the path we’re on now, we’re definitely screwed. I don’t know the answer.

Everyone says they care about the resource, though often their behavior directly contradicts that and they really only care about the resource as it fits into their world view. I’ve posted this before about other topics, but it holds true here too…as long as people continue to fall into this all-or-nothing, everyone else is an enemy, black or white, ends justify the means mentality, it’s just going to continue to get worse.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Elections have real consequences, even for the future of hunting. I don’t know if you can really influence or “bring to the table” a group like “wildlife for all”. They seem pretty bent on ending hunting as a management tool in favor of more “compassionate” management practices. They profess to want “democratization of wildlife management”, as long as that leads to an end to hunting.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Elections have real consequences, even for the future of hunting. I don’t know if you can really influence or “bring to the table” a group like “wildlife for all”. They seem pretty bent on ending hunting as a management tool in favor of more “compassionate” management practices. They profess to want “democratization of wildlife management”, as long as that leads to an end to hunting.

Could be true, could be false. But they are citizens for which wildlife are held in trust too.

So what are you going to do?

 

[Hem]

That’s a great article. Pretty accurately describes what I’ve personally experienced on the agency side.

It is absolutely true that wildlife are held in trust for all citizens, not just hunters. And agencies have ignored the non-hunting segment of the public for a long time. That isn’t going to fly much longer. So, do you figure out how to bring them to the table, where you can discuss, and perhaps influence or educate? Or do you alienate them and get ever more extreme ballot-box biology?

This article is about hunters and anti-hunters, but substitute any two game stakeholder groups and it would be the the same- hunters vs landowners, DIY vs outfitters, resident vs nonresident, urban vs rural dwellers, “trophy” hunters vs “meat” hunters, etc. The only constant is that no one agrees on anything.

At the end of the day, I don’t think anyone does much of anything in good faith anymore. And that is a reflection of much larger societal problems right now. If anyone isn’t getting their way, they’ll just take things to the absolute extreme…lie, cheat, sabotage, win at all costs. Its a long, arduous path to build trust at this point, but what’s the alternative? If we keep going down the path we’re on now, we’re definitely screwed. I don’t know the answer.

Everyone says they care about the resource, though often their behavior directly contradicts that and they really only care about the resource as it fits into their world view. I’ve posted this before about other topics, but it holds true here too…as long as people continue to fall into this all-or-nothing, everyone else is an enemy, black or white, ends justify the means mentality, it’s just going to continue to get worse.

You nailed it HW.
Good commentary pertaining to this thread but ,sadly, the larger picture,as well.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Public trust doesn’t say “only for hunters”.

Public trust doesn’t care who buys tags.

Public trust doesn’t care who you voted for.

The agencies managing the animals, held in public trust may have a legislative mandate to provide hunting and fishing opportunities. They may not.

It’s a great article that points out a lot of stupidity and polarization surrounding the public trust.

#*^@#* your feelings, right?

 

[Irrelevant]

McKean writes another gem.

@Hunting Wife nailed it, no one acts in good faith.

Having listened to almost every commissioners meeting for the last year, I don't have any faith in WA, and sometimes in humanity at all. Tribalism is the only ism alive and well.

I also know that compromise is a fallacy. You one wants it or seeks it or would accept it.

I also know that the WDFW commission has pushed me further RIGHT as a voter in general elections.

That's all I got for now. I hate writing on this damn phone...

 

[thomas89]

This has such a great chance of becoming reality it's really quite sad.

This is the state that shut down fishing in the wake of COVID. I wouldn't put anything past them. They'll give any fringe/extremist group a soap box and a microphone and label everyone else "anti-(whatever they're mumbling about)". Once these groups figure out how to get the money generated from hunters, it will certainly be a matter of time before hunting is outlawed.

Hunting and fishing have only gotten worse in Washington, and it will continue to do so until it is completely off the radar.

 

[OriginalOscar]

Very thankful Utah passed Prop 5 in 98. Super majority of ALL voters required on any wildlife ballot referendum.

Management of wildlife; game and non-game is best left to science and it's hunters/anglers who pay and put hands to work for wildlife.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Partisinism is a disease ... actually a pandemic. Thinking for oneself outside the box is pretty much taboo anymore. Looking for diplomatic solutions is also no longer fashionable because 1) it requires decision makers with the equipment to think, and 2) greed has replaced the Golden Rule.

 

[texwest44]

Hunting and fishing have only gotten worse in Washington, and it will continue to do so until it is completely off the radar.

Truth. WA government does a crummy job with this stuff, and the public at large doesn't care or know enough to tackle the problem. The outdoor sportsman's voice in WA is a cricket's chirp.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

This isn’t about Washington and what you think of its politics or fish/wildlife management. It’s a little bigger than that.

 

[Irrelevant]

This isn’t about Washington and what you think of its politics or fish/wildlife management. It’s a little bigger than that.

Exactly, this is coming for you in MT and WY and ID and UT and TX... you can't hide from it. It isn't just progressive policies, it's a disconnect with natural and wild processes.

What I've found to be fairly disheartening is that WA has a really strong localism, farmer's market, organic, healthy food cultural, one that seems to generally support hunting as a potential option for just the food component. Yet at the same time there's this growing animal rights side. The two are sometimes even the same people! And they just don't see the irony.

It seems we're in a downward death spiral or a maybe it's just a catch 22. We need people to connect with nature. The real nature, not the BBC version, not the Disney version. But the real thing, where creatures live and die and spend their whole lives struggling in the balance. We can push people to get outside, but the more we get people outside, they less wild outside becomes. IDK how many people I know who are "very outdoorsy" who have never seen a predator kill anything. They may see a deer or two, maybe a rabbit, or an owl, but never real nature, which is incredibly hard to find when people are constantly using a wild space. What is the likelihood of seeing a natural interaction on Mt Si on a Saturday with 1,000 other people (not an exaggeration) also on the trail (6-10' wide)? There's no "answer" as you can rabbit hole the actual problem down deeper and deeper to almost every facet of our society, our laws, our assumptions/expectations, ourselves as individuals. When something is that complex there is not silver bullet. But do we stop engaging? Do we push back the other way towards another extreme? Do we compromise ourselves out of the equation?

I harken back to a similar thread from earlier this year.

Missed Opportunities: Hunters and Environmentalists

Hunters can, at times, find themselves in an awkward position. They benefit greatly from a public land system which places the 'common good' over private exploitation and maximum profits. Hunters also benefit from 'The Public Trust doctrine' which, again, places the 'common good' and 'sustained...

www.hunttalk.com

But I think my opinion has evolved since them, become less optimistic and more fatalistic.

 

[thomas89]

This isn’t about Washington and what you think of its politics or fish/wildlife management. It’s a little bigger than that.

Respectfully, yes, this particular article is about Washington. The commissioners on the board are appointed by the governor of Washington...who's decisions could be generalized as anti-hunting/preservation minded. Washington is a lost cause.

From what I've read the feedback to continue the spring bear season was very much pro-spring bear hunt, but it fell on deaf commissioners. Still got canned. Because the board was handpicked by the governor, the majority of whom align with his ideologies.

That's not to say I don't see the forest through the trees. Once it takes hold in Washington, it will be a scary precedent. Outside influences having massive impacts on communities they aren't a part of is scary stuff. Local elections matter.

These commissions are already formed in many states, and as lots of us already know are already corrupted. Washington would be a good example of how not to model wildlife management.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Respectfully, yes, this particular article is about Washington. The commissioners on the board are appointed by the governor of Washington...who's decisions could be generalized as anti-hunting/preservation minded. Washington is a lost cause.

From what I've read the feedback to continue the spring bear season was very much pro-spring bear hunt, but it fell on deaf commissioners. Still got canned. Because the board was handpicked by the governor, the majority of whom align with his ideologies.

That's not to say I don't see the forest through the trees. Once it takes hold in Washington, it will be a scary precedent. Outside influences having massive impacts on communities they aren't a part of is scary stuff. Local elections matter.

These commissions are already formed in many states, and as lots of us already know are already corrupted. Washington would be a good example of how not to model wildlife management.

Yeah, the particular article is about Washington. However, if you look bigger than that it directly addresses the bigger picture of public trust and how to manage for that with increasingly widening differences in how that public trust views wildlife management.

Many folks feel disenfranchised about what they want wildlife management to look like. Hunters have relied on the premise of “we pay the bills” for far too long. It doesn’t matter who pays.

Some members of the public trust are tired of the “hunters must manage populations” mentality, particularly when they demand predator control to increase prey populations.

Public trust is public trust.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Public trust doesn’t say “only for hunters”.

Public trust doesn’t care who buys tags.

Public trust doesn’t care who you voted for.

The agencies managing the animals, held in public trust may have a legislative mandate to provide hunting and fishing opportunities. They may not.

It’s a great article that points out a lot of stupidity and polarization surrounding the public trust.

#*^@#* your feelings, right?

Two thoughts came to mind reading this article.

1. Couple years ago CO was revising some mtn lion regs. Essentially how to deal with bag limits/methods of take etc for the Glenwood area where there were a lot of cats and those cats were having tons of problematic interactions with people, stalking kids, living under peoples houses etc.

Jay Tutchton one of commissioners, tried to make the argument that sportsman shouldn't be allowed to use electronic calls because they weren't fair chase, but then in the same monologue said APHIS should be used to kill the cats.

That's basically management in CA, gloves off management of predators, but you have to have a badge.

2. The article I don't think quite get's there with my personal issue with the Cecil thing... personally I think sportsman should "share" wildlife, if a critter has a name and people enjoy photographing it, it's being "used" by another group. Go hunt elsewhere, don't shoot the road moose.

At the same time the Cecil group only care about the animals they are using, I.E. those in national parks. Folks from NJ want there to be elk in Yellowstone or Rocky Mountain that they can take pictures of but don't care about preserving landscapes so there is enough habitat that the species can thrive.

 

[Irrelevant]

Respectfully, yes, this particular article is about Washington. The commissioners on the board are appointed by the governor of Washington...who's decisions could be generalized as anti-hunting/preservation minded. Washington is a lost cause.

From what I've read the feedback to continue the spring bear season was very much pro-spring bear hunt, but it fell on deaf commissioners. Still got canned. Because the board was handpicked by the governor, the majority of whom align with his ideologies.

That's not to say I don't see the forest through the trees. Once it takes hold in Washington, it will be a scary precedent. Outside influences having massive impacts on communities they aren't a part of is scary stuff. Local elections matter.

These commissions are already formed in many states, and as lots of us already know are already corrupted. Washington would be a good example of how not to model wildlife management.

Respectfully, not all of that is true.

The commission received almost an order of magnitude more comments against spring bear then for spring bear, almost all of the anti hunting comments came first, before they voted to "suspend" it, with the pro-hunt ones coming after the fact, when we were desperately trying to get it back.

Part of me hopes WA is not a lost cause. But that part is being starved and slowly dying. I've been about the staunches pro-WA person I know, about all kinds of things. And I'll never actually give up on it, or stop fighting for causes I support. But hunting isn't going to be much of a "thing" in WA in the future. So... you Montanans, expect to see more blue plates coming your way. Don't worry, we're more than happy with 2-pts and does, heck even is spike is good eatin'.

Two thoughts came to mind reading this article.

1. Couple years ago CO was revising some mtn lion regs. Essentially how to deal with bag limits/methods of take etc for the Glenwood area where there were a lot of cats and those cats were having tons of problematic interactions with people, stalking kids, living under peoples houses etc.

Jay Tutchton one of commissioners, tried to make the argument that sportsman shouldn't be allowed to use electronic calls because they weren't fair chase, but then in the same monologue said APHIS should be used to kill the cats.

That's basically management in CA, gloves off management of predators, but you have to have a badge.

2. The article I don't think quite get's there with my personal issue with the Cecil thing... personally I think sportsman should "share" wildlife, if a critter has a name and people enjoy photographing it, it's being "used" by another group. Go hunt elsewhere, don't shoot the road moose.

At the same time the Cecil group only care about the animals they are using, I.E. those in national parks. Folks from NJ want there to be elk in Yellowstone or Rocky Mountain that they can take pictures of but don't care about preserving landscapes so their is enough habitat that the species can thrive.

But you're coming from a place of compromise and reason, both of those are checked at the door when discussing wildlife and politics, and especially wildlife politics.

 

[Oak]

There's a whole lot of blaming what we hate the most happening on both sides of the argument. Hunters blame anti-hunters and predators. Anti-hunters attacking hunting. Meanwhile, there are a whole host of things "eating" your deer and elk that nobody wants to get excited about.

What's eating your big game?

Drought
Cows
Mountain bikes
Hikers
Cars
Ski areas
Subdivisions
Traditional energy development
Renewable energy development
ATVs
Cross country skiers
4x4 enthusiasts
Etc
Etc
Etc

Tl;dr...

Everyone says they care about the resource, though often their behavior directly contradicts that and they really only care about the resource as it fits into their world view.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

this. It’s not a silver bullet issue across the board.

This is a very complicated case, Maude. You know, a lotta ins, a lotta outs, a lotta what-have-yous.

 

[Irrelevant]

There's a whole lot of blaming what we hate the most happening on both sides of the argument. Hunters blame anti-hunters and predators. Anti-hunters attacking hunting. Meanwhile, there are a whole host of things "eating" your deer and elk that nobody wants to get excited about.

What's eating your big game?

Drought
Cows
Mountain bikes
Hikers
Cars
Ski areas
Subdivisions
Traditional energy development
Renewable energy development
ATVs
Cross country skiers
4x4 enthusiasts
Etc
Etc
Etc

Tl;dr...

To be fair, in this case those anti-hunting commissioners in WA are actually very good on your list. But by the very nature of their position, cannot make any measurable changes to any of that. But they can limit hunting.