A brawl brewing in spokane?

[TOGIE]

Yes, hunting and trapping are tools used by wildlife agencies for the purposes you describe. They are NEEDED tools and the NEED fluctuates by a littany of circumstances.

People also NEED to eat. Hunting has been a way people have fed themselves for thouands of years continuing through today.

i still thinking you're using the word "need" a little bit loosely here.

if i "need" to eat more than anything hunting is among the worst ways to go about it. meat via modern hunting is luxury.

hunting and trapping are a great tool to help manage wildlife, especially because it's self paying. really an amazing way to do it. the NAM is remarkable. but we're kidding ourselves if the hunting component of it is the ultimate and only way to get the job done. i sure think it is the best way tho.

hunters aren't needed to get the job done, trappers aren't either. there are other ways, and we could even just let the wildlife be and they'd probably ultimately stabilize their populations themselves.

hunters have been brainwashed to think we're the jesus christ for wildlife, the ultimate servants, doing the lords will.

with the flick of a pen the funding could come from somewhere else. the populations could be managed via different methods and there be a chit ton of used 30-06s for sale that have no use and the wildlife would be doing just fine.

hunters are too full of themselves. nobody needs us.

 

[Elktrack]

Okay…

@JLS I appreciate your discussion and effort to look at this in an objective way. I’m not completely disagreeing with you. I do think you’re more optimistic about these other groups and their intentions.
Maybe I’ve gotten cynical. The incessant creep on our hunting rights is nothing new. California is the poster child. I’m honestly all for different user groups utilizing the resources that belong to us all. When their seat at the table is just a guise to remove hunting I get cranky.

I don’t like them pissin down my back and tellin me it’s raining.

What’s truly at stake here is what the OP article headline said. Hunting being “un necessary” as a management tool.

 

[jryoung]

As if holding by breath and deciding which end of the turd in the booth looked slightly better today didn't dampen my spirits enough, McKean delivers a sober spoonful to let me know they can go lower.

 

[Elktrack]

i still thinking you're using the word "need" a little bit loosely here.

if i "need" to eat more than anything hunting is among the worst ways to go about it. meat via modern hunting is luxury.

hunting and trapping are a great tool to help manage wildlife, especially because it's self paying. really an amazing way to do it. the NAM is remarkable. but we're kidding ourselves if the hunting component of it is the ultimate and only way to get the job done. i sure think it is the best way tho.

hunters aren't needed to get the job done, trappers aren't either. there are other ways, and we could even just let the wildlife be and they'd probably ultimately stabilize their populations themselves.

hunters have been brainwashed to think we're the jesus christ for wildlife, the ultimate servants, doing the lords will.

with the flick of a pen the funding could come from somewhere else. the populations could be managed via different methods. and there but a chit ton of used 30-06s for sale that have no use and the wildlife would be doing just fine.

hunters are too full of themselves. nobody needs us.

@TOGIE The “need “ argument is a waste of time.
We either fight for what we love or others are going to ensure it’s no longer available.

Your idea of the self stabilization of wildlife has been studied and proven that it doesn’t work. Can’t work.
And in fact we hunters have been the saviors of wildlife and continue to be so.

 

[Yogithebear]

i still thinking you're using the word "need" a little bit loosely here.

if i "need" to eat more than anything hunting is among the worst ways to go about it. meat via modern hunting is luxury.

hunting and trapping are a great tool to help manage wildlife, especially because it's self paying. really an amazing way to do it. the NAM is remarkable. but we're kidding ourselves if the hunting component of it is the ultimate and only way to get the job done. i sure think it is the best way tho.

hunters aren't needed to get the job done, trappers aren't either. there are other ways, and we could even just let the wildlife be and they'd probably ultimately stabilize their populations themselves.

hunters have been brainwashed to think we're the jesus christ for wildlife, the ultimate servants, doing the lords will.

with the flick of a pen the funding could come from somewhere else. the populations could be managed via different methods. and there but a chit ton of used 30-06s for sale that have no use and the wildlife would be doing just fine.

hunters are too full of themselves. nobody needs us.

I think you are overthinking things a bit much. And hunting as I grew up is anything but luxury and the same applies to many people both in the US but also around the world. Not everyone does it like I do it, and certainly not everyone does it like you do it.

Yes, states could end hunting and just have Wildlife Services type agencies shoot, trap, and poison to maintain a balance so we completely turn nature into Disneyland. I don’t think that is likely.

I don’t think most hunters see themselves as the JC of wildlife. Some do, sure. Many don’t even think of it like that though. Most hunters don’t take part in message boards like this, they don’t define themselves as hunters, its just something they do as part of their lives. For those who do, those who like to wax philosphical on it or are active in conservation, most I would opine think of the game biologists and organizations as the JC of wildlife.

I don‘t know of a single hunter who thinks they are the savior of the wild turkey, but I know plenty who would agree with me that the NWTF and state game agency folks are the heros there.

 

[TOGIE]

What’s truly at stake here is what the OP article headline said. Hunting being “un necessary” as a management tool.

i think we may need to accept this as fact. we aren't exactly necessary. back to the work "need" again.

here's a quote from the article that we should read a few times:

“We have an increasing mutualist population that we need to figure out how to deal with or they’re going to deal with us. Ignoring or demonizing the population of Americans who cherish wildlife and value the habitats that they require is not the path forward.”

@TOGIE The “need “ argument is a waste of time.
We either fight for what we love or others are going to ensure it’s no longer available.

Your idea of the self stabilization of wildlife has been studied and proven that it doesn’t work. Can’t work.
And in fact we hunters have been the saviors of wildlife and continue to be so.

nobody is saying we don't fight for what we love. but the tired axioms hunters beat their chests with are just that, tiring. nobody cares anymore. the act of hunting isn't conservation, it's not, period. killing an animal isn't conserving an animal. it's the quotas, laws, and biological work to determine them that's conserving animals so they dont' all get shot. and yes, the opportunity to shoot one is how it the work gets' paid for. it's certainly is a beautiful good system.

but the more we beat our chests as the only thing that matters the more we're gonna be pushed into a corner by society. we gotta be honest about ourselves to save ourselves i think.

we're not gonna change the anti hunters, they don't care one way or another what we say. but the indifferent non hunting public does and the chest thumping will turn them off. trying to convince people hunting is necessary isn't going to work, because to me there's too many arguments to be made that it's not necessary. we just need to make sure people understand that it's not bad, and actually very good, and that's it sustainable.

but we aren't necessary. like i said, flick of a pen and the funding comes from somewhere else.

 

[WapitiBob]

The problem stems from governor appointed commissions in the west. This wasn’t a problem when life was simple, now we’ve moved to a population filled with special interests.
Policies and procedures need to change with the times and commission selection is one of them. They need to be elected so a governor with an agenda can’t control the agency.

 

[Elktrack]

i think we may need to accept this as fact. we aren't exactly necessary. back to the work "need" again.

here's a quote from the article that we should read a few times:

“We have an increasing mutualist population that we need to figure out how to deal with or they’re going to deal with us. Ignoring or demonizing the population of Americans who cherish wildlife and value the habitats that they require is not the path forward.”



nobody is saying we don't fight for what we love. but the tired axioms hunters beat their chests with are just that, tiring. nobody cares anymore. the act of hunting isn't conservation, it's not, period. killing an animal isn't conserving an animal. it's the quotas, laws, and biological work to determine them that's conserving animals so they dont' all get shot. and yes, the opportunity to shoot one is how it the work gets' paid for. it's certainly is a beautiful good system.

but the more we beat our chests as the only thing that matters the more we're gonna be pushed into a corner by society. we gotta be honest about ourselves to save ourselves i think.

we're not gonna change the anti hunters, they don't care one way or another what we say. but the indifferent non hunting public does and the chest thumping will turn them off.

Hunting is absolutely a Conservation tool. Not being insulting when I say there’s a big difference in conservation and preservation. I think that difference is getting commingled here.

Either public hunting is the “harvest “ method used in wildlife conservation or it’s going to be done by state/ govt agencies or perhaps the landowners.

These “other Americans that cherish wildlife and value the habitat” are using that platform to make it look like hunting is negatively impacting those very things. It’s completely opposite of the truth. They have wildlife to view and the habitat that these critters need due to hunting.
Think Pittman Robertson, RMEF, NWTF, and hundreds of other sources that have done the work.

 

[Irrelevant]

The problem stems from governor appointed commissions in the west. This wasn’t a problem when life was simple, now we’ve moved to a population filled with special interests.
Policies and procedures need to change with the times and commission selection is one of them. They need to be elected so a governor with an agenda can’t control the agency.

How would this solve anything? We'd still end up with a commission elected by the same people that elected him. He appointed all of these people, including the pro hunters, so he's still allowing the east side to be represented, but is putting more people sympathetic to the western voting block on the commission. It almost perfectly mimic's what the populous would vote in.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

The problem stems from governor appointed commissions in the west. This wasn’t a problem when life was simple, now we’ve moved to a population filled with special interests.
Policies and procedures need to change with the times and commission selection is one of them. They need to be elected so a governor with an agenda can’t control the agency.

If the citizenry elected the commissions in some states hunting would absolutely be doomed.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I do think you’re more optimistic about these other groups and their intentions.

I must not be doing a very good job of articulating my position, because I am absolutely not in any way optimistic about some of these groups in their intentions. I know full well what they are, what they’re about, and what their end goal is. There’s no denying that.

If they want a seat at the table to try and end all hunting, that’s absolutely their right. They are part of the public trust. End stop.

This then circles back to the point I was trying to make. It really doesn’t matter how much I agree or disagree with someone else’s stance on how wildlife should be managed. They are part of the public trust. They get a say in it and if we try and keep them away from the table for discussion they will find some way to do it via ballot box or stacking a commission that speaks for them. It is what it is.

 

[BucksnDucks]

How would this solve anything? We'd still end up with a commission elected by the same people that elected him. He appointed all of these people, including the pro hunters, so he's still allowing the east side to be represented, but is putting more people sympathetic to the western voting block on the commission. It almost perfectly mimic's what the populous would vote in.

For states that still have hope, the answer is lobbying for legislation that puts wildlife decisions in the hands of wildlife professionals. Follow the science, right?
With that there has to be some accountability for decisions. I believe as mentioned in this thread Utah has this in place. I think some other states do as well but I don't recall which.

 

[Elktrack]

I must not be doing a very good job of articulating my position, because I am absolutely not in any way optimistic about some of these groups in their intentions. I know full well what they are, what they’re about, and what their end goal is. There’s no denying that.

If they want a seat at the table to try and end all hunting, that’s absolutely their right. They are part of the public trust. End stop.

This then circles back to the point I was trying to make. It really doesn’t matter how much I agree or disagree with someone else’s stance on how wildlife should be managed. They are part of the public trust. They get a say in it and if we try and keep them away from the table for discussion they will find some way to do it via ballot box or stacking a commission that speaks for them. It is what it is.

I completely agree with you.
I guess I just don’t recognize how they haven’t had a seat thus far. Or maybe that’s not even the case? Maybe I see them as a new group that wants a seat. Or as the same group using another angle? A group that is threatening to what I cherish. A group that I perceive as asking for their slice of the pie while taking ours away. Either way they have a right to the discussion as you point out.

 

[Ben Lamb]

because we're dirty white boys.

@TOGIE with the sig worthy line. Nice.

For over 20 years, I've been asking the question about what it means when this happens and how do we bring the nonconsumptive user into the fold. For 20 years, the overwhelming voice of the hunting community has been "F'em. We can't let them in, even a little bit."

And now we're suddenly concerned when they start to build political power.

Mega lulz, y'all.

We made this bed.

 

[Irrelevant]

@TOGIE with the sig worthy line. Nice.

For over 20 years, I've been asking the question about what it means when this happens and how do we bring the nonconsumptive user into the fold. For 20 years, the overwhelming voice of the hunting community has been "F'em. We can't let them in, even a little bit."

And now we're suddenly concerned when they start to build political power.

Mega lulz, y'all.

We made this bed.

Interesting take. Your opinion is that if we'd have worked with them decades ago that the current push to neuter hunting wouldn't be occurring?

I suppose that's possible, but I think it's equally possible that we've successfully defended our house, our culture for decades but the tide is finally starting to overtake us.

I would encourage people interested in the process, even if you don't live in WA, listen to the meetings and form your own opinions. At first I thought the opposition was merely ignorant or honestly bringing up valid points that needed to be addressed. I no longer think either of those. This is a very deliberate, passive aggressive move, cleverly and succinctly organized to whittle away all hunting. Our hope lies in the organic food and hunting heritage/culture aspects.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Our hope lies in the organic food and hunting heritage/culture aspects.

Which is probably where it should have been all along.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Interesting take. Your opinion is that if we'd have worked with them decades ago that the current push to neuter hunting wouldn't be occurring?

I suppose that's possible, but I think it's equally possible that we've successfully defended our house, our culture for decades but the tide is finally starting to overtake us.

I would encourage people interested in the process, even if you don't live in WA, listen to the meetings and form your own opinions. At first I thought the opposition was merely ignorant or honestly bringing up valid points that needed to be addressed. I no longer think either of those. This is a very deliberate, passive aggressive move, cleverly and succinctly organized to whittle away all hunting. Our hope lies in the organic food and hunting heritage/culture aspects.

Not really -

If we would have taken the time to actively engage with these folks, the general public ( eliminating hunting is not widely supported by the general public just as trophy hunting isn't supported by the general public) we would have elevated our position for the coming war. We would have also splintered their ranks and created a wedge where most of the more thoughtful groups would have sided with the average joe hunting orgs rather than the anti-hunting clubs. Now, we'll have the parachutists at the Sportsmen's Alliance, etal, coming in to to run nasty, mean-spirited campaigns that drive people further from the general hunting public because some jackwagon consultant loves to spend other people's money on political negative campaign ads rather than organizing and community development.

The TLDR is we gave up the high ground, so we're no longer Obi Wan. And that's when some jackass takes your legs.

 

[Elktrack]

Interesting take. Your opinion is that if we'd have worked with them decades ago that the current push to neuter hunting wouldn't be occurring?

I suppose that's possible, but I think it's equally possible that we've successfully defended our house, our culture for decades but the tide is finally starting to overtake us.

I would encourage people interested in the process, even if you don't live in WA, listen to the meetings and form your own opinions. At first I thought the opposition was merely ignorant or honestly bringing up valid points that needed to be addressed. I no longer think either of those. This is a very deliberate, passive aggressive move, cleverly and succinctly organized to whittle away all hunting. Our hope lies in the organic food and hunting heritage/culture aspects.

Well said!

 

[Hunting Wife]

Allowing non consumptive users to have a voice in wildlife management is absolutely one area where hunters have not bargained in good faith.

Generating revenue streams that allow non-consumptive users to pay into wildlife management is another.

So all the chest beating about who funds conservation, who really is to thank for the wildlife the public currently enjoys, yada yada yada shines a giant spotlight on a very uncomfortable and inconvenient truth- that this is only true because hunters have torpedoed at every turn efforts to bring others into the fold.

It’s a truth that McKean points out in the article. And one we will now likely pay the piper for.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

And with that mic drop, I’m heading out hunting.