A brawl brewing in spokane?

[Oak]

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.

To be fair, if we all waited until we held a position that allowed us to actually make the decisions, there would be no advocacy at all.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

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.

And this is where THEY need to see bigger picture and look for collaboration to address other parameters.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Do we push back the other way towards another extreme?

I don't think what "we" being a vague term push back with is an extreme in any way tho. We just want hunting and wildlife to be managed the best we can with the science provided. Hunting is as natural as a bear shitting in the woods. We would not be here if our ancestors didn't learn to hunt.

I believe "They" are the extreme to me. They literally want to take a resource and something we love to do away from us. We aren't hurting them or taking away from them in any way. I believe that is their end goal and do not trust them to engage truthfully. That is sad to me that I think this way, but across all spectrums this has proven to be true. I would gladly sit at the table with them, but they tend to be blinded by hate and emotions.

"CoExist" means do it our way or nothing.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

We aren't hurting them or taking away from them in any way.

But when we say we should kill all wolves, all lions, all grizzlies, all coyotes, whatever, then yes we are taking from them.

 

[thomas89]

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'.


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.

Yes you’re right my timeline was a bit off. That it had already snuck through. Good thing it’s just “suspended”.

I just think Washington is a super interesting situation of just how bad things can get. Speaking with my uncle who’s been a resident on the OP since around 1975, it just seems as if it’s gotten worse and worse and worse.

 

[Nickman123]

I agree that public lands and wildlife are owned by everyone. I also agree that everyone should try to be civil, respect the views of others, and compromise when necessary.

But, if you're a hunter, how can you compromise with people who either
A. Think animals are equal to people ("animal rights")
B. Think that wildlife and the outdoors are something that city people should drive or hike to on the weekends and look at but never touch (preservationists).

Where is the common ground?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

But, if you're a hunter, how can you compromise with people who either
A. Think animals are equal to people ("animal rights")
B. Think that wildlife and the outdoors are something that city people should drive or hike to on the weekends and look at but never touch (preservationists).

And in the alternative, how do the other folks compromise with someone who kills the animal they photograph every weekend?

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

But when we say we should kill all wolves, all lions, all grizzlies, all coyotes, whatever, then yes we are taking from them.

Understood, but the science does not say to kill all those things. Uninformed people who refuse to read a simple data chart say those things. And that's a problem. Those people hurt our collective goal. Radicals on both sides ruin any chance of faithful engagement and common ground and understanding.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I agree that public lands and wildlife are owned by everyone. I also agree that everyone should try to be civil, respect the views of others, and compromise when necessary.

But, if you're a hunter, how can you compromise with people who either
A. Think animals are equal to people ("animal rights")
B. Think that wildlife and the outdoors are something that city people should drive or hike to on the weekends and look at but never touch (preservationists).

Where is the common ground?

A. Pretty rough at/in a public forum, pretty easy one on one. I have a number of vegan and vegetarian friends. I've never actually had a really, F-u type conversation with someone one on one. Mostly I get "well you're not like most hunters..", "maybe, maybe I'm more articulate, but otherwise I am just like other hunters, and just because someone can't code switch and communicate to you in a way you are comfortable with and understand doesn't mean they are immoral."

B. They made it work

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Understood, but the science does not say to kill all those things.

Playing devils advocate here. Does the science say we SHOULD kill any of them, or does the science say the populations can withstand hunting? It’s fair to ask why do we NEED to?

 

[Yogithebear]

Given the new commission member’s first act was to cancel the 2022 spring bear hunt, contradicting the recomendation of biologists, its hard to see their agenda has anything to do with supporting non-game wildlife rather than what it clearly is, just an anti-hunting agenda. Otherwise their first act woulda been something more like a budget reallocation from a hunting related objective to wildlife viewing or something like that. Instead their first act was to stick it to hunters and do it loudly and clearly.

 

[Irrelevant]

I get the impression that many of you have never actually listened to their (anti-hunting) arguments. They definitely have science on their side. We also have science on our side. Science is not nearly as clearcut as we want it to be. "Science" was absolutely the bat used to beat us in the spring bear season. It was pointed out that WDFW hadn't done as much population survey and study as needed to justify a hunt. Similar science is done on other populations. What WDFW has been using is hunter harvest and anecdotal evidence. That was called out as anti-science or at least insufficient science.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Playing devils advocate here. Does the science say we SHOULD kill any of them, or does the science say the populations can withstand hunting? It’s fair to ask why do we NEED to?

Good question and I would answer with. Yes you are correct I do not need to hunt to feed myself or my family, but currently it's my right to do so and my goal is not to kill all animals it's to help with management, conservation, provide an alternative food source, and my own enjoyment. I also photograph wildlife year round. I enjoy them and want to preserve them just as much as you do. If I am doing these things legally and in a way that helps conserve the species why do you want to take from me when I'm not hurting you?

This is when the emotions more than likely would take over the conversation. Haha

 

[old270hunter]

Living in CA now, and remembering when mountain lion hunting was made illegal, and now bobcat, I can assure everyone pressures to stop hunting will come to your state. If you live in CO, NM, NV, WA, OR or CA, this should scare you straight. What’s going on in WA is no coincidence. Expect to see the push coming from groups in these other states as well. Exercise your votes today. That’s the only way to stop progressives. That is if you value hunting and fishing.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

If I am doing these things legally and in a way that helps conserve the species why do you want to take from me when I'm not hurting you?

If I am opposed to hunting grizzlies, for example, and you aren’t eating the meat, then my argument is why should the bear be killed? Is it necessary for “management” or is that a humanly imposed necessity?

I’m not arguing from emotion. From a logical standpoint, what is the imminent NEED to kill animals folks don’t eat?

Why does your right to kill an animal supersede my right to watch and photograph it?

 

[texwest44]

Oh yeah, we already have this stuff in MT and the other western states, I'm not saying we don't. What I'm driving at is that we in the interior west stand a chance against it. The culture of the public at large in the interior west is much more connected and focused on wildlife and lands as part of their day-to-day way of life. Every election will have parts that entirely revolve around these issues. The governor, supreme court judges, sheriffs, all of them have to make outdoor sporting and conservation a huge chunk of their platform or they don't stand a snowball's chance.

The flagrant anti-hunting rhetoric that exists in WA and some other states simply isn't the same. It's effectively non-existent out here, and what little there is gets hidden away in endangered species and trapping debates, because it is so unpopular with the public. Between the crummy leadership and disinterested public, WA is in for a bumpy ride that will make roads in the Baker-Snoqualmie look like paved highway.

Never stop being pro-WA, @neffa3. WA needs all the defense that can be mustered.

 

[TOGIE]

Playing devils advocate here. Does the science say we SHOULD kill any of them, or does the science say the populations can withstand hunting? It’s fair to ask why do we NEED to?

i think anyone who seriously thinks about hunting should have a solid answer to this. IMO there is actually one right answer here.

at least IMO the obvious answer is that of course we don't need to kill them and, generally speaking, nor does the science say we should. we might think it does, we might think we need to manage populations, but i would argue, no not really. a lot of populations objectives are half societal tolerance related, the other say habitat holding capacity related. but i'd find it hard to twist the science into an argument that we NEED to kill them. most particularly the only reason we can is because it can be withstood with science guiding the answer to whether or not it can be withstood.

i mean "need" is a real strong word. to mean require, i would say it means "can't do without". of course we can do without. in some cases might do better without if we're honest.

i think every user group needs to answer this question about the respective hobbies. do the skiers need to ski? the mountain bikers need to bike? the climbers need to climb? the list is nearly endless. of course no one needs to. the ultra spiritual types may say they need to climb the rocks to be a fulfilled fully nurtured spirit living a proper life. but weed out the bullshit and the answer is an obvious no. no one NEEDS to be doing it.

but these are wonderful experiences, all these outdoor hobbies, that can be done responsibly. and so long as they can be done responsibly, they should be allowed.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

It's effectively non-existent out here,

For now

 

[Yogithebear]

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.

That was a smart prop to get passed.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

If I am opposed to hunting grizzlies, for example, and you aren’t eating the meat, then my argument is why should the bear be killed? Is it necessary for “management” or is that a humanly imposed necessity?

I’m not arguing from emotion. From a logical standpoint, what is the imminent NEED to kill animals folks don’t eat?

Why does your right to kill an animal supersede my right to watch and photograph it?

If the animal being harvested is not being used as a resource I see no reason it should be hunted. Now on the other hand a grizzly bear hunt that has a limit that meets a scientific study for the population that will generate revenue for the conservation of all wildlife? I am not opposed I just have no desire to take part.

I do not think my right to harvest an animal supersedes your right to photograph animals because I'm not harvesting every animal. I'm harvesting within a model that's goal is to conserve them. I live in harmony harvesting and photographing year round with no shortage of wildlife to photograph. Why can't you?