A brawl brewing in spokane?

[bayoublaster7527]

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?

I am active in many pro-hunting conservation organizations, donate time and money, I get out and vote. I call politicians to express my opposition to the many anti-hunting bills we see come up. I go to meetings to provide public comment. I don’t support politicians who align themselves with these anti-hunting groups and appoint anti-hunting activists to state commissions. I try to be a good ambassador for hunting in my community, sharing wild game meals and harvests with my neighbors. I try to thoughtfully explain the important role hunters play in the success story that is the NAM to people I interact with socially and at work. Is that enough? What exactly could be false?

 

[Hunting Wife]

Disagree 100%. Look at Feral Horses and the people and process which have developed and mismanaged them. People who deny or fail to accept wildlife and wildlands need to be managed deserve NO seat at the table!

States like CA and others have already replaced sportsmen and science of wildlife management with people who refuse to accept consumptive use including hunting/fishing.

So hunters are the sole paragons and deciders of what is right and true? Cuz I’ll tell you right now, hunters are no better at accepting science that doesn’t fit their narrative than crazy horse people. So if that’s the metric, then maybe hunters don’t deserve a seat at the table either. Food for thought- most arguments like this made by hunters cut both ways if we’re honest.

What exactly could be false?

The implication that hunter’s opinions are more valid, more important, or more right than the opinions of other citizens.

 

[TheTone]

They also going to move to eliminate fishing? I mean fishing for food is one thing but look at all the barbaric catch and release fishing that’s just done for a little excitement

 

[bayoublaster7527]

So hunters are the sole paragons and deciders of what is right and true? Cuz I’ll tell you right now, hunters are no better at accepting science that doesn’t fit their narrative than crazy horse people. So if that’s the metric, then maybe hunters don’t deserve a seat at the table either. Food for thought- most arguments like this made by hunters cut both ways if we’re honest.


The implication that hunter’s opinions are more valid, more important, or more right than the opinions of other citizens.

I wasn’t trying to imply my opinion was more important than other citizens. I am sure the anti-hunters from “Wildlife for all” 100% believe their opinion is more right. I disagree. You asked what I was going to about it and I explained pretty clearly. I think hunters need to be more active in these discussions, defending our position and presenting a positive message regarding hunting and conservation.

 

[OriginalOscar]

So hunters are the sole paragons and deciders of what is right and true? Cuz I’ll tell you right now, hunters are no better at accepting science that doesn’t fit their narrative than crazy horse people. So if that’s the metric, then maybe hunters don’t deserve a seat at the table either. Food for thought- most arguments like this made by hunters cut both ways if we’re honest.


The implication that hunter’s opinions are more valid, more important, or more right than the opinions of other citizens.

Your assessment and statement "hunters are no better at accepting science" is wrong and 100+ years of hunters actions as conservationists prove it!

Hunters are the people who established protections, committed funding, and established wildlife agencies to propagate species; game and non-game.

Hunters opinions are more valid, more important, and right on issues associated with management and protection of wildlife and wildlands.

 

[Yogithebear]

I don’t get where many of you are saying hunters have kept “non-consumptive users” from having a seat at the table. Since when have hunters themselves blocked non-hunters from being involved in wildlife management? For one, hunters have no say in who manages or works for wildlife agencies and I think all hunters know many of those officials are not all about hunting and they do other things. I don’t think many hunters complain about a state spending resources on non-hunting wildlife projects. Second, this article is not about ”non-consumptive users wanting a seat at the table. Its about anti-hunters wanting a say in setting hunting regulations. Period.

They are trying to sell the public that they are looking out for these other users who have to date been ignored. How have they been ignored? Other than not having had to pay their fair share and still being able to use and enjoy the resource, I don’t see how other outdoorist have been ignored. The state and local government create new parks, mountain bike trails, there are thousands of miles of hiking trails, forests, grasslands, and thousands of species are flourishing. The agencies absolutely respond to the needs and desires of non-hunters in the outdoor space. The only group that hunters push back against is anti-hunters (duh) and only in regard to attacks on hunting.

Worth noting, I do more hiking, backpacking, photography, rockhounding, mountainbiking, skiing, surfing, and many other things than I do hunting. Especially fishing. In every place I’ve lived I’ve never wanted for opportunities to do any of that. But it seems hunting is the only activity under constant attack not because it damages the earth but because some people just don’t like it.

 

[huntnpack]

I don’t get where many of you are saying hunters have kept “non-consumptive users” from having a seat at the table. Since when have hunters themselves blocked non-hunters from being involved in wildlife management? For one, hunters have no say in who manages or works for wildlife agencies and I think all hunters know many of those officials are not all about hunting and they do other things. I don’t think many hunters complain about a state spending resources on non-hunting wildlife projects. Second, this article is not about ”non-consumptive users wanting a seat at the table. Its about anti-hunters wanting a say in setting hunting regulations. Period.

They are trying to sell the public that they are looking out for these other users who have to date been ignored. How have they been ignored? Other than not having had to pay their fair share and still being able to use and enjoy the resource, I don’t see how other outdoorist have been ignored. The state and local government create new parks, mountain bike trails, there are thousands of miles of hiking trails, forests, grasslands, and thousands of species are flourishing. The agencies absolutely respond to the needs and desires of non-hunters in the outdoor space. The only group that hunters push back against is anti-hunters (duh) and only in regard to attacks on hunting.

One example: There are segments of the hunting community opposed to sharing funding such as a backpack tax etc. They argue that without being a primary or majority source of funding, we'd lose our influence and therefore don't want additional funding from non-hunting sources.

 

[Yogithebear]

One example: There are segments of the hunting community opposed to sharing funding such as a backpack tax etc. They argue that without being a primary or majority source of funding, we'd lose our influence and therefore don't want additional funding from non-hunting sources.

Ya, I’ve heard that said on message boards, havent actually seen anyone actually take steps to rally people to that cause. I see more hunters, myself included, take steps to push for the backpack tax. I would assume anyone who opposes the “backpack tax“ opposes RAWA for the same reason, but I haven’t seen opposition to that from hunting groups. Quite the opposite. I think you attribute some comments in chat forums to a larger movement. What hunting organizations have opposed these efforts?

Regardless, its irrelevent to what the article was about which was anti-hunters wanting to play a part in dictating game reglations and pretending they will be serving a different unrepresented (but not really) interested party by doing so.

 

[antlerradar]

Ya, I’ve heard that said on message boards, havent actually seen anyone actually take steps to rally people to that cause.

When I was on the licensing and funding committee ways to get non hunters to help pay was discussed. Ultimately all the ideas were canned because most of the committee did not want non hunters to have more influence over FWP.

 

[huntnpack]

Ya, I’ve heard that said on message boards, havent actually seen anyone actually take steps to rally people to that cause. I see more hunters, myself included, take steps to push for the backpack tax. I would assume anyone who opposes the “backpack tax“ opposes RAWA for the same reason, but I haven’t seen opposition to that from hunting groups. Quite the opposite. I think you attribute some comments in chat forums to a larger movement. What hunting organizations have opposed these efforts?

It’s layed out in the article: “I’ve had sportsmen tell me point-blank that they don’t want anyone else having an opportunity to pay because they don’t want anybody to have an opportunity for a say, says Nevada’s Wasley”

Think they’re referencing message boards? I wasn’t.

 

[huntnpack]

Regardless, its irrelevent to what the article was about which was anti-hunters wanting to play a part in dictating game reglations and pretending they will be serving a different unrepresented (but not really) interested party by doing so.

It seemed like “deep ecologists”, large carnivore advocates, and animal rights activists were all included. There’s something about labeling them all as anti-hunting that’s a little too simplistic for me.

Ie. people who value increased predators on the landscape over ungulate abundance etc. ?

Are they all “anti-hunters” and therefore shouldn’t be included?

 

[Hunting Wife]

I wasn’t trying to imply my opinion was more important than other citizens. I am sure the anti-hunters from “Wildlife for all” 100% believe their opinion is more right. I disagree. You asked what I was going to about it and I explained pretty clearly. I think hunters need to be more active in these discussions, defending our position and presenting a positive message regarding hunting and conservation.

What I’m getting is your response is still a 100% focus on hunters and our perspective, and trying to get them to support/accept hunting. Which is great, but I’m saying that’s been the status quo way of operating forever with regard to wildlife agencies, and the tide of public opinion says agencies need to be more responsive and considerate of non-hunter opinions. Your response seems to skip over that.

Making people understand hunting better is still a one-way street mentality, and is the very problem these groups are calling agencies out for. So again, what are you going to do?

I am not trying to pick on you, or anyone else here. These are actual talking points from real discussions that have happened. I don’t think hunters are privy to this stuff on a daily basis. This subject is a hard one, and the poking at “my” group makes me uncomfortable too, especially when I have to admit the other user groups aren’t wrong.

I appreciate the dialogue.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Your assessment and statement "hunters are no better at accepting science" is wrong and 100+ years of hunters actions as conservationists prove it!

Hunters are the people who established protections, committed funding, and established wildlife agencies to propagate species; game and non-game.

Hunters opinions are more valid, more important, and right on issues associated with management and protection of wildlife and wildlands.

You illustrate my point, and Mr. McKean’s points, and the non-hunter’s point beautifully. Thank you.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

What I’m getting is your response is still a 100% focus on hunters and our perspective, and trying to get them to support/accept hunting. Which is great, but I’m saying that’s been the status quo way of operating forever with regard to wildlife agencies, and the tide of public opinion says agencies need to be more responsive and considerate of non-hunter opinions. Your response seems to skip over that.

Making people understand hunting better is still a one-way street mentality, and is the very problem these groups are calling agencies out for. So again, what are you going to do?

I am not trying to pick on you, or anyone else here. These are actual talking points from real discussions that have happened. I don’t think hunters are privy to this stuff on a daily basis. This subject is a hard one, and the poking at “my” group makes me uncomfortable too, especially when I have to admit the other user groups aren’t wrong.

I appreciate the dialogue.

Ok….. I think I understand, you are being intentionally contrarian and terribly critical of hunters. I don’t have a problem sharing the public trust with other non-hunting users and honestly I don’t really have a choice. Bikers, hikers, skiers, anglers, bird watchers, etc are all great. However, there is an important distinction between those groups and “Wildlife for all” and their like. “Wildlife for all” is looking to end hunting completely in favor of more “compassionate” management practices and they view those animals as “individuals” with rights that are blatantly violated through the practice of hunting. Being considerate of non-hunter opinions is one thing……. ending hunting is different and very extreme. Back to what am I going to do…… I will continue to advocate for hunters and also open myself up to dialogue with non- hunters and their opinions. That being said, I will not concede to these well-funded, politically powerful activists bent on erasing hunting from the US landscape one politically appointed commissioner and ballot initiative at a time…..

 

[Hunting Wife]

Ok….. I think I understand, you are being intentionally contrarian and terribly critical of hunters. I don’t have a problem sharing the public trust with other non-hunting users and honestly I don’t really have a choice. Bikers, hikers, skiers, anglers, bird watchers, etc are all great. However, there is an important distinction between those groups and “Wildlife for all” and their like. “Wildlife for all” is looking to end hunting completely in favor of more “compassionate” management practices and they view those animals as “individuals” with rights that are blatantly violated through the practice of hunting. Being considerate of non-hunter opinions is one thing……. ending hunting is different and very extreme. Back to what am I going to do…… I will continue to advocate for hunters and also open myself up to dialogue with non- hunters and their opinions. That being said, I will not concede to these well-funded, politically powerful activists bent on erasing hunting from the US landscape one politically appointed commissioner and ballot initiative at a time…..

Not being intentionally contrarian or overly critical at all. Just apparently more willing than most to try to be objective and entertain the idea that it’s possible that my group (which happens to be hunters) may have screwed over other user groups to get to where we are today. If we are unwilling to critically look at ourselves, we have problems. Having worked in wildlife for a couple of decades now, it frustrates, embarrasses and angers me to admit there is some truth to the accusations, and it’s still happening. Oscar’s posts are the perfect illustration of what plays out in wildlife agency politics all the time.

Serious question- are “Wildlife for All”members citizens? Yes or no, no buts.

I’m not saying anti-hunters should make all the rules, agencies should prioritize their views, or anything even close to that. What I, and the article, are saying is that public agencies have to work within public opinion. And public opinion says hunters have called all the shots for too long. And public servants are being held to account on that, like it or not. And if we are managing a public resource, we should be doing so with the WHOLE public in mind. Not just the people we like. That is what we are legally mandated to do.

Just for S’s and G’s, I looked this up this morning to read it again with this discussion in mind. I don’t see anything in here that elevates hunting or hunters to a status higher or more important than other citizens. If we hunters are going to hide behind the NAM while advocating that hunters should have more say in wildlife management decisions than other citizens, we are engaging in some seriously hypocritical thinking, are we not?

1. Wildlife resources are conserved and held in trust for all citizens.
2. Commerce in dead wildlife is eliminated.
3. Wildlife is allocated according to democratic rule of law.
4. Wildlife may only be killed for a legitimate, non-frivolous purpose.
5. Wildlife is an international resource.
6. Every person has an equal opportunity under the law to participate in hunting and fishing.
7. Scientific management is the proper means for wildlife conservation.

Just like hunters want scientific management of wildlife, unless the science doesn’t support their desires, I think we often fervently preach about the NAM, unless it means we have to let others play in the sandbox.

I’m not asking people to accept any of this, just to at least try to honestly think about it from some other angles.

On the road today, so I’m bowing out. I think it’s been a pretty good discussion.

 

[Yogithebear]

When I was on the licensing and funding committee ways to get non hunters to help pay was discussed. Ultimately all the ideas were canned because most of the committee did not want non hunters to have more influence over FWP.

You are talking about individuals, not hunters broadly. Again, show me organized hunters who oppose things like RAWA or the backpack tax; now compare that to hunting organizations that support them. Now you see why I disagree with the generalizations being put forth on this string about hunters.

 

[Yogithebear]

It’s layed out in the article: “I’ve had sportsmen tell me point-blank that they don’t want anyone else having an opportunity to pay because they don’t want anybody to have an opportunity for a say, says Nevada’s Wasley”

Think they’re referencing message boards? I wasn’t.

uh, message boards like this are made up of individual hunters…. So not shocked you or the person you quote has heard this from them.

As I said to antlerradar, you are talking about individuals, not hunters broadly. Again, show me organized hunters who oppose things like RAWA or the backpack tax; now compare that to hunting organizations that support them. Now you see why I disagree with the generalizations being put forth on this string about hunters.

 

[Yogithebear]

It seemed like “deep ecologists”, large carnivore advocates, and animal rights activists were all included. There’s something about labeling them all as anti-hunting that’s a little too simplistic for me.

Ie. people who value increased predators on the landscape over ungulate abundance etc. ?

Are they all “anti-hunters” and therefore shouldn’t be included?

If a person is anti-hunting, then they shouldn’t be involved in hunting regulations. That should be obvious. There are many other things they can be involved in.

It would be like having people against the death penalty on a board to decide when to use the death penalty. Their vote is always going to be no so no value is added.

There are people who are large carnivore advocates, who are also hunters. Some are not hunters, Some are not hunters who support hunting. Some like gum, some don’t. They are irrelevant labels to what I am talking about and what the article’s primary topic is, which is that anti-hunters, who use other labels for obvious reasons, want to set fish and game regulations.

 

[OriginalOscar]

You illustrate my point, and Mr. McKean’s points, and the non-hunter’s point beautifully. Thank you.

Several years back I had discussion with group in Yellowstone which was surveying the public about Bison management and specifically the hunts on the northern border which were in the news at the time. Spoke with nice lady and she noted the return of wolves and increase in other predators would help control the numbers. Of course she also knew about disease and conflicts with public/private land issues north of the park. When I asked what role hunting should play in managing bison; she paused and said none because nature would best manage bison. When I asked what role native people hunting had in managing the bison she looked baffled.

That's you!

 

[Ben Lamb]

uh, message boards like this are made up of individual hunters…. So not shocked you or the person you quote has heard this from them.

As I said to antlerradar, you are talking about individuals, not hunters broadly. Again, show me organized hunters who oppose things like RAWA or the backpack tax; now compare that to hunting organizations that support them. Now you see why I disagree with the generalizations being put forth on this string about hunters.

While not the federal level, I've seen Big Game Forever, Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife, Outfitter groups, local chapters of national orgs, rod & gun clubs all oppose state level alternative funding for fish & game agencies.

At the federal level, I've seen many groups simply not show up or let their support be known, which provides space for politicians to kill bills through partisan chicanery.