Junking the North American model podcast —retitled?

[Goodfish]

I thought the Junking the North American Model podcast was really well done. Should it just be retitled “Get Organized Washingtonians and wake the heck up Colorado”? As a former Washingtonian it makes me sick what Inslee did to the state. I have sent it to everyone I know in WA and CO.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Can’t wait to listen. Colorado hunters really do need to get organized and wake up before it’s all gone.

 

[Nicoli7153]

I thought the Junking the North American Model podcast was really well done. Should it just be retitled “Get Organized Washingtonians and wake the heck up Colorado”? As a former Washingtonian it makes me sick what Inslee did to the state. I have sent it to everyone I know in WA and CO.

Where can this podcast be found? Would like to listen

 

[Nicoli7153]

Where can this podcast be found? Would like to listen

Disregard .... found it

 

[DouglasR]

Personally, I was put off by the way the guests tried to paint the left as anti hunting because I’ve actually never met anyone who’s anti hunting.
I was also turned off by the fact that they all apparently ate $200 steaks.
That’s more than a weeks groceries for me.

 

[Goodfish]

Personally, I was put off by the way the guests tried to paint the left as anti hunting because I’ve actually never met anyone who’s anti hunting.
I was also turned off by the fact that they all apparently ate $200 steaks.
That’s more than a weeks groceries for me.

You are missing the point. The issue is that the commission is appointed by the left leaning governor and stacked with anti hunters. They are completely disregarding the science provided by their own biologists that has a proven successful track record. Now the Washington folks are getting the thrill of paying tax dollars to have professionals fix problems with wildlife that were formerly controlled by sportsman. The anti hunters on the commission have a clear end game to shut down hunting and it is working well if the sportsmen don’t continue organizing and retaliate. The entire state is controlled via the population of the Seattle area which is why there is a large movement where Central and Eastern Washington would consider creating a new state with Idaho to get away from the socialist loons that have taken over Seattle and King County.

 

[wa_archer]

While you make a good point, the east side of Washington will never get away from the west side. The west side has moved to the east side just like they have infiltrated other areas like Boise, Bozeman and i'm sure plenty in Colorado. It's the same ideaology of you have to accept everything and everyone but if we don't like what you do we wont accept it and want you to change. The commission is getting so far to one side they don't even listen to there own biologists, see spring bear hunting. Then when you listen to a commission meeting you are hammered by non hunters during the comments, one after another are just all about being vegetarian and not hurting animals. Although i can guarantee all of the same have never put any money toward habitat improvement and are so far from being naturalists they probably couldn't find an animal if you paid them too. I write in comments all the time and try to speak at the commission meetings but the meetings are conveniently when everyone is at work.

Unfortunately a lot of people think the lawsuit is going to change things. As was talked about on the podcast even having the judge step in with the commissioner who is sitting on to many positions it will get swept under the rug. The lawsuit will get drug out until all the damage is already done. maybe i'm being pessimistic but i have seen how these things politically work. The best chance is to engage and try to get as many people from the hunting side ringing the bell. hopefully this podcast will help. I would also like to see more groups that have a lot to loose if hunting gets reduced step up bigger like RMEF, DU, NRA. So far i see them not wanting to get involved due to it being a single state and close to political not specific to their species issue.

Ok ill jump off my soap box, sorry gets me fired up, but please write our commission with legitimate reasons this new plan is bad. Especially if your from WA but everyone will help, the antis are from the entire country. Have an actual message not just emotion, all of these commissioners are very smart and want you to have facts supporting your message. Even more so if your on the pro hunting side.

 

[Goodfish]

Stay on that soap box brother! Washington hunters need to take a lesson from Montana. In MT we have to rally to the capitol every 2 years to defend our rights and we are a red state! Granted the causes are different in MT compared to the anti hunting in movement in WA. But we have a sea of orange that shows up to make sure the legislators and public sees us and business is behind us as long as we stay active.

 

[SAJ-99]

The best chance is to engage and try to get as many people from the hunting side ringing the bell.

I honestly struggled to get through it. As much as I agree with the guests on the subject, mostly they were just on a rant without a plan. It’s like they don’t understand the demographics of the state and that everyone might not agree with their view. Your point is where I ended up, with a small change. I would engage with non-hunters. With current studies showing the impact on animals that non-consumptive users have, they should have some concern regarding the changes as well. Hunting is still accepted by the vast majority of Washingtonians, but they are unaware or apathetic to this news.

 

[javwa]

Listened yesterday, and don't quite agree that it was a "rant without a plan." I think it wasn't very clear or focused on what the plan was. What I heard was: "Show up and let your voice be heard. If nothing else, contribute to or join some of these pro-hunting organizations so that they can show up instead."

I think posting links to the commission videos with some of the times (e.g. starting listening at "1 hr 31 minutes") that demonstrate the most egregious anti-hunting, anti-science rhetoric would be helpful, instead of saying they are so long and bad that no one should listen to them.

One thing I wish could be changed is the Washington online comment system. Require physical address and some proof of who you are and where you are for each comment submitted online. One person shouldn't be able to submit multiple comments (but editing should be allowed). I keep wondering how many of the anti-hunting comments come from out-of-state. Non-residents should have a voice, but the stats might show that 90% of the anti-spring-bear comments came from non-residents, while 80% of the pro-spring-bear comments came from residents. These anti-hunting orgs are emailing all of their members, and a majority of the anti comments are probably coming from non-residents. Could be wrong, but I'm guessing we aren't getting many pro-hunting comments from non-residents.

 

[Gr8bawana]

You are missing the point. The issue is that the commission is appointed by the left leaning governor and stacked with anti hunters. They are completely disregarding the science provided by their own biologists that has a proven successful track record. Now the Washington folks are getting the thrill of paying tax dollars to have professionals fix problems with wildlife that were formerly controlled by sportsman. The anti hunters on the commission have a clear end game to shut down hunting and it is working well if the sportsmen don’t continue organizing and retaliate. The entire state is controlled via the population of the Seattle area which is why there is a large movement where Central and Eastern Washington would consider creating a new state with Idaho to get away from the socialist loons that have taken over Seattle and King County.

Ok so if the commission was formerly controlled by sportsmen why are there problems that need to be fixed? You would think everything was already hunky-dory.
Did the former sportsmen on the commission also disregard the science?

And in response to jawa about non-residents having a voice...they should not have a voice in any states' game commission other than their own state.
If a non-res wants to hunt or fish they must abide by the rules already in place.

 

[javwa]

And in response to jawa about non-residents having a voice...they should not have a voice in any states' game commission other than their own state.
If a non-res wants to hunt or fish they must abide by the rules already in place.

Maybe I wasn't clear regarding non-residents, but I was stating that I wish these online comment systems captured residency with some proof, because I am guessing that most of the anti-hunting comments come from non-residents and they should be assigned little to no weight. All you have to do to submit a comment regarding one of these commission activities is fill in your name and a comment and hit submit. No proof of who you are or where you are.

 

[Goodfish]

Ok so if the commission was formerly controlled by sportsmen why are there problems that need to be fixed? You would think everything was already hunky-dory.
Did the former sportsmen on the commission also disregard the science?

And in response to jawa about non-residents having a voice...they should not have a voice in any states' game commission other than their own state.
If a non-res wants to hunt or fish they must abide by the rules already in place.

Aside from salmon issues, WA was doing a pretty good job considering an extra million people moving there over the last 30 years. This is a blatant attack on hunting that has no basis in science. I think Randy said it best that it feels like he’s yelling Iceberg dead ahead and no one is listening.

 

[OverlordBear]

Washingtonians should just keep spring bear hunting and then when caught use their case as the springboard to sue. The government has no right to stop citizens from hunting. It is not the kings deer for a reason. I would retain a good attorney and council prior to this activity if one were to try this route.

 

[gunstar]

Can not wait to listen.

 

[Pack'n It]

I have been following this somewhat as I hunt in Colorado. I feel for you and I support organizations that are trying to help. I get informed thru the meat eater podcast. I live in Mississippi and we added Hunting, Fishing, and conservation of public lands into our constitution and that means they have to maintain or improve what we currently have and they cannot remove it from the constitution without a vote and a super majority. What in your opinions are the best organizations fighting against it?

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I think a constitutional right to hunt and fish may be the only way for Colorado hunters to weather the coming storm of “mutualism” and “compassionate wildlife management”. Or as Randy says “the iceberg”.

 

[Pack'n It]

I thought the Junking the North American Model podcast was really well done. Should it just be retitled “Get Organized Washingtonians and wake the heck up Colorado”? As a former Washingtonian it makes me sick what Inslee did to the state. I have sent it to everyone I know in WA and CO.

I'll add to your statement by saying it isn't just a WA & CO problem. It's them for now. Every sportsman in every state should be aware of these issues and contributing something to stop them. Even small $5 contributions help. We should also start pressuring these National Sporting Goods stores to help. A million here and there to Bass Pro Shops or Academy Sports is nothing. They need to put their money where their mouth is and support their own success. If they won't show them we can support other businesses.

 

[SAJ-99]

Listened yesterday, and don't quite agree that it was a "rant without a plan." I think it wasn't very clear or focused on what the plan was. What I heard was: "Show up and let your voice be heard. If nothing else, contribute to or join some of these pro-hunting organizations so that they can show up instead."

OK, agree, a bad plan. Kind of the same thing as no plan to me. Here are stats
Washington population = 7.74m
hunting licenses sold = 190k
(Colorado probably looks similar)

So 2.5% of the population hunts. On the latest survey published in 2022 we see some good news, 75% of the population supports hunting, 44% strongly supports. Bad news, that is down from 88% supporting in 2014 and there is growing apathy from the non-hunting public toward the issue. I think a lot of the problem is the changes (especially spring bear loss) are being driven by the 3-4% of the people that strongly oppose all hunting and we wonder how one of them got on the commission. Being upset isn't going to change anything and you aren't going to change those adamantly against hunting, but it also does very little good for hunters to just reach out to other hunters and tell them to get involved. There needs to be a plan with broader outreach. I would start with groups of non-consumptive users. The other issue the guest face is they are mostly focused on the bear season and their FB site pictures don't help in broadening outreach. The stats show support for predator hunting is substantially less than other game. The general public, especially in urban areas, tends to view predators in an almost mystical light.

It doesn't matter if we agree with the perspective of others, we just have to acknowledge we are the minority. In states with large urban areas, voters participate and cast ballots based on many other factors than just hunting and conservation. Broadening the base of support is key.

 

[Goodfish]

OK, agree, a bad plan. Kind of the same thing as no plan to me. Here are stats
Washington population = 7.74m
hunting licenses sold = 190k
(Colorado probably looks similar)

So 2.5% of the population hunts. On the latest survey published in 2022 we see some good news, 75% of the population supports hunting, 44% strongly supports. Bad news, that is down from 88% supporting in 2014 and there is growing apathy from the non-hunting public toward the issue. I think a lot of the problem is the changes (especially spring bear loss) are being driven by the 3-4% of the people that strongly oppose all hunting and we wonder how one of them got on the commission. Being upset isn't going to change anything and you aren't going to change those adamantly against hunting, but it also does very little good for hunters to just reach out to other hunters and tell them to get involved. There needs to be a plan with broader outreach. I would start with groups of non-consumptive users. The other issue the guest face is they are mostly focused on the bear season and their FB site pictures don't help in broadening outreach. The stats show support for predator hunting is substantially less than other game. The general public, especially in urban areas, tends to view predators in an almost mystical light.

It doesn't matter if we agree with the perspective of others, we just have to acknowledge we are the minority. In states with large urban areas, voters participate and cast ballots based on many other factors than just hunting and conservation. Broadening the base of support is key.

I’m not sure the “show up and be heard or contribute to others who will show up“ is a bad plan. When we are in the minority, doing nothing but hoping someone else will show up is the bad plan! Broadening the appeal is a huge factor. During the pandemic the hunter support saw a lot of increase from the natural foods and new wild foods fans. That’s a good thing.