BS anti hunting article from the hill.

[mikemulligan32]

Anyone with more knowledge, a higher IQ and more time care to submit a rebuttal to the emotionally driven article.

https://thehill.com/changing-americ...ering-innocent-wildlife-in-montana-and-beyondLet's stop slaughtering innocent wildlife, in Montana and beyond | TheHill

 

[SAJ-99]

We can't chase every shadow. Not enough time. This is an opinion piece and I suspect it will die away like those before it. Right now hunters in MT are too busy fighting some lawmakers and ranchers.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

What a random article. I had a hard time really pulling out the main thesis of the op-ed, if there ever was a central one.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

What a random article. I had a hard time really pulling out the main thesis of the op-ed, if there ever was a central one.

Agreed, incredibly disjointed, not really a central argument. To be honest I'm not sure how it got published.

 

[MTGomer]

It’s a great article and I hope more of them get written in national publications particularly ones with California and East Coast reader bases.

The sooner word gets out that Montana is a state full of dangerous, violent, racists the better.
You don’t want to move there. Your neighbor will trap and skin your dog and you’ll be bullied by xenophobes for your accent. Get the word out!

 

[LuketheDog]

This is the author, did you expect rational thought?

Stephen Capra is the Executive Director of Footloose Montana, a non-profit dedicated to ending trapping on public lands in Montana.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It’s a great article and I hope more of them get written in national publications particularly ones with California and East Coast reader bases.

The sooner word gets out that Montana is a state full of dangerous, violent, racists the better.
You don’t want to move there. Your neighbor will trap and skin your dog and you’ll be bullied by xenophobes for your accent. Get the word out!

Gomer's already describing R1. So...

Stupid article, but MT is heading down a dark and dangerous path with large carnivores and the legislature. Their zeal to kill wolves, bears & lions will backfire when it comes to finishing the delisting of grizz. Especially in the NCDE.

Bounties, devaluing native wildlife, snaring, etc are all really bad ideas in terms wolf management, and it will lead to increased conflict. Not to mention abandoning the science of those management plans.

 

[KB_]

"Montana, Hemingway’s state, is being turned upside down. It is the number one state in hate, fear and intimidation and a lot of it is being directed towards the innocent and the most magnificent beings America has to offer, its wildlife. If Montana continues its present trajectory in killing, in ways that amounts to a war on wildlife, some may even reconsider their travel arrangements. A once incontestable grandeur will have been sacrificed to very special interest groups whose specialty is perverse. It is anti-life. "

this guy or girl is basing this on pure opinion and no facts. Facts Montana is growing in population like crazy, I don't see a lot of people changing their minds on moving to Montana based on the fact that hunting takes place in Montana. Actually there is more hunters every year hunting in Montana I wonder why? Could it possibly be that people are moving here and wanting to begin hunting? I don't think this person actually did any legitimate research, their too busy showing up to Bridger Bowl early in the morning in a subaru outback with their vintage wooden skis and self knitted clothing.

 

[SAJ-99]

this guy or girl is basing this on pure opinion and no facts.

Have you read a thread on wolves or grizzly delisting yet? You will see lots of hate and fear. Pure opinion, sure, but let's not pretend it is just a figment of his imagination. That said, I didn't realize we were #1. Way to go Team Montana.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Bounties, devaluing native wildlife, snaring, etc are all really bad ideas in terms wolf management, and it will lead to increased conflict. Not to mention abandoning the science of those management plans.

This.

The article was as coherent as I am after a half a bottle of Pendleton. Regardless, when do we things that align with the emotional arguments (term used loosely) within the article, i.e. bounties, unlimited seasons, aerial shooting, it provides support for the opposition.

Follow the science.

 

[KB_]

Have you read a thread on wolves or grizzly delisting yet? You will see lots of hate and fear. Pure opinion, sure, but let's not pretend it is just a figment of his imagination. That said, I didn't realize we were #1. Way to go Team Montana.

Gotta win something! lol

 

[shrapnel]

I would ask them what their view is on abortion.

If they were for abortion, I would question their virtues and ask why they could defend animals and continue to abort babies. If they were against abortion, I would propose they get involved in the effort to stop aborting human fetuses as that is really something they could actively participate in and stop the slaughter of nearly 800,000 babies/year.

 

[Shangobango]

I got about 1/3 of the way through and gave up.

I can appreciate concise arguments supported by facts. It only took 1/3 of this op-ed to realize that it was not going that direction.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Fact: Most people prefer to eliminate wild animals from the landscape in order to raise livestock to eat.

But don’t shoot and eat Bambi...that’s barbaric and inhumane. Most people in the middle can engage in a logical conversation about the merits of hunting.

Then you have the extreme anti-hunting left who espouse views like the ones seen in the article. A lot of these folks are vegan and you’ll have a really tough time convincing them to change their minds on hunting/trapping.

It’s easy for us to look at the article and think how silly (and disjointed) it is. Instead, it might be more productive to take the opportunity to clean up our own act as hunters in order to give the antis fewer legitimate gripes against us.

 

[BuzzH]

I would ask them what their view is on abortion.

If they were for abortion, I would question their virtues and ask why they could defend animals and continue to abort babies. If they were against abortion, I would propose they get involved in the effort to stop aborting human fetuses as that is really something they could actively participate in and stop the slaughter of nearly 800,000 babies/year.

We have too many people and not enough wildlife...if only obviously.

 

[Irrelevant]

I would ask them what their view is on abortion.

If they were for abortion, I would question their virtues and ask why they could defend animals and continue to abort babies. If they were against abortion, I would propose they get involved in the effort to stop aborting human fetuses as that is really something they could actively participate in and stop the slaughter of nearly 800,000 babies/year.

Man... I just don't understand how you can devolve a topic so quickly. Or why you feel the need to. Do you think before you speak? WTF do abortions and anti-hunting Op-Eds have to do with each other? Nothing. Absolutely F-ing nothing.

 

[mtmuley]

What's wrong with snaring wolves? mtmuley

 

[shrapnel]

Man... I just don't understand how you can devolve a topic so quickly. Or why you feel the need to. Do you think before you speak? WTF do apportions and anti-hunting Op-Eds have to do with each other? Nothing. Absolutely F-ing nothing.

Obviously, preservation of life is lost on someone like yourself. The whole premise of the video was about saving animals, yet the value of a human life isn’t much of a concern. I have never understood the passion by those people to save an animal at any cost, then disregard a human life so easily.

We have too many people and not enough wildlife...if only obviously.

That's a mighty cavalier way to approach human life.

 

[rwc101]

 

[mtmiller]

Village 24 called, they are missing someone.