Governor Polis appoints three new members to the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission

[MtnElk]

So I've been mulling this all over while I decide on how best to approach this issue, and similar the issues in Washington.

And some of the things I genuinely wonder about are the following:

1. Does the non hunting public and the anti hunting faction have any idea how low success rates are on hunts? or do they genuinely think we're all just out here up to our balls in Elk, etc and are just choosing which one to shoot this year?

2. Have we - as hunters, conservations orgs, etc - really laid out what the end of hunting looks like in response to anti hunting efforts from A) wildlife management perspective (predators aren't going to take care of as many as they think); B) replacing wild animal protein with domestics protein sources and the associated costs of doing so (See RMEF ad below from latest Bugle issue)

3. Do we - as hunters, conservation orgs, etc - do a REALLY bad job of displaying / portraying / articulating the conservation work actually being done? Yes, conservation results in more animals, which could increase tags. But it's not a 1:1 ratio, but I worry we don't portray enough of the actual conservation work being done. We tend to promote big hunts, successful hunts, etc rather than bragging about the genuine good that has been done. We too often focus on dollars and raffles and fundraising, rather than genuinely awesome outcomes (IMO). I also firmly believe that overly aggressive / hard stances on certain issues (wolves, etc) really paint us in a bad light and again, take away from the great work a lot of orgs and individual hunters have done.

All in all, I think we need to be more savvy and less defensive. We have a lot of facts and figures on our side that demonstrate our worth and huntings' worth, but we tend to play with fire / scare tactics / etc.

 

[MNElkNut]

I will have to read that article as I haven't gotten to it yet. I would love to see that article printed in some mainstream publication. THAT would be a big win. To your point, we haven't gotten the message out well to nonhunters and articles like this would go a long way if we could get it in the public eye.

 

[MtnElk]

I will have to read that article as I haven't gotten to it yet. I would love to see that article printed in some mainstream publication. THAT would be a big win. To your point, we haven't gotten the message out well to nonhunters and articles like this would go a long way if we could get it in the public eye.

its just an ad of some sort, page 28 off the July / August issue. At the states are WY take alone, which is staggering to think about when spread across the western US.

 

[noharleyyet]

If you people can't hunt you don't need those evil guns...

As inconceivable as one of a thousand cuts.

 

[DouglasR]

If you people can't hunt you don't need those evil guns...

As inconceivable as one of a thousand cuts.

But all of the grad school guys on here make fun of me for worrying about muh freedoms...

 

[rideold]

Good points about how the hunting world communicates. Isn't there a bit of an elephant in the room? We, as hunters want to keep hunting and would be pretty happy if we didn't have to constantly defend our way of life. On the other hand, it seems that most, if not all of the efforts towards reductions in our opportunities are based more on removing one way of life (hunting, firearm ownership) in favor of another (no hunting, no firearms, no killing of animals by humans, only viewing "nature" from afar). Personally, I don't really care if someone wants to go through life never hunting and I don't feel a need or desire to force them to live a different lifestyle than the one they choose. The dichotomy is that we have efforts to fundamentally change a group of peoples' chosen way of life that has been part of our society/culture/heritage since we became conscious of it millions of years ago. Perhaps looking at things on that level changes things. For argument's sake, how would those attacking hunting feel if they were faced with not being able to pursue life, liberty and happiness of their choice (isn't there something in the constitution about that?)? I'm not suggesting someone from the hunting world try to put together a ballot initiative taking away something of value to those opposed to hunting but I think it's a conversation point worth considering....and yea, the impact on the food production system that would result from replacing protein harvested by hunting with that produced by ranchers would be large and potentially impossible.

 

[Green Hunter]

So I've been mulling this all over while I decide on how best to approach this issue, and similar the issues in Washington.

And some of the things I genuinely wonder about are the following:

1. Does the non hunting public and the anti hunting faction have any idea how low success rates are on hunts? or do they genuinely think we're all just out here up to our balls in Elk, etc and are just choosing which one to shoot this year?

2. Have we - as hunters, conservations orgs, etc - really laid out what the end of hunting looks like in response to anti hunting efforts from A) wildlife management perspective (predators aren't going to take care of as many as they think); B) replacing wild animal protein with domestics protein sources and the associated costs of doing so (See RMEF ad below from latest Bugle issue)

3. Do we - as hunters, conservation orgs, etc - do a REALLY bad job of displaying / portraying / articulating the conservation work actually being done? Yes, conservation results in more animals, which could increase tags. But it's not a 1:1 ratio, but I worry we don't portray enough of the actual conservation work being done. We tend to promote big hunts, successful hunts, etc rather than bragging about the genuine good that has been done. We too often focus on dollars and raffles and fundraising, rather than genuinely awesome outcomes (IMO). I also firmly believe that overly aggressive / hard stances on certain issues (wolves, etc) really paint us in a bad light and again, take away from the great work a lot of orgs and individual hunters have done.

All in all, I think we need to be more savvy and less defensive. We have a lot of facts and figures on our side that demonstrate our worth and huntings' worth, but we tend to play with fire / scare tactics / etc.


View attachment 285705

Your 3rd point is exactly right. I don't believe that the non-hunting public understand or appreciate the impact that the hunting community provides to natural resources. Beyond the instagram influencers there is very media out there educating those in the city who aren't exposed to it. The public wants to be informed actively, they don't want to seek out the truth and if the hunting public wants to remain relevant they need to show the benefits and embrace collaboration.

I attended the Sportsman's Day at the Capital and was disappointed by the number of negative remarks about coming to the city of Denver. That isn't going to help sway people to appreciate your contribution.

 

[Zach]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… I really hope the Republican Party is working on a moderate, non election denier, who is neutral on abortion for CO. If they are truly all three they could win.

SO... A libertarian....

 

[SAJ-99]

able to pursue life, liberty and happiness of their choice

I think you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence. To your question, none of our freedoms are absolute.

 

[WildWill]

Anti-Hunters Appointed To Colorado Wildlife Commission Could Be A Warning For Wyoming

A former Wyoming Game and Fish commissioner says Wyoming doesn't need to worry about anti-hunters infiltrating its wildlife commission now, but is concerned with "up-and-coming wildlife biologists" because of the bias they are taught in the university system.

cowboystatedaily.com

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Words do matter and with the new Washington wildlife department’s stated policy, they have completely removed any mention of hunting from wildlife conservation policy. They are setting up the long, slow demise of hunting in Washington. Are all democrats to blame? Of course not. We have to be precise in our language. Governor Inslee is to blame. He has personally appointed numerous anti-hunters, animal rights activists to the commission in order to create a majority voting block and implement a long term strategy of excluding hunting from wildlife management. We are seeing the exact same strategy from Governor Polis in Colorado. He recently switched out two active hunters/anglers (Hauser, Adams) for two career anti-hunting, animal rights activists (Beaulieu-law professor, Murphy-dog catcher) on the CPW commission. In addition, Governor Polis completely ignored the recommendations of numerous reputable wildlife conservation organizations in the appointment of Gary Skiba, the designated sportspersons representative. This should be a call to action for every Colorado hunter and angler, call/email their Senator and urge them to vote against the confirmation of these commissioners. Probably need a Howl For Wildlife on this when Senate confirmation comes around. Has drawn some press, links below.

Gov. Jared Polis' appointees to parks and wildlife commission draws criticism

Yet another controversy arose out of Gov. Jared Polis' appointments to the state parks and wildlife commission after he picked the author of Colorado's wolf conservation plan as a representative for hunters and anglers.

www.coloradopolitics.com

RMEF Life Member: Colorado Governor’s Actions Show ‘Hunters and Anglers Don’t Matter’

“It was a clear message from the governor’s office: ‘hunters and anglers don’t matter!’” Those pointed and direct words came from Grant Jerry, a Colorado [...]

www.rmef.org