Junking the North American model podcast —retitled?

[Deleted member 28227]

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)
.

CO had ~240k resident applicants for limited elk tags last year … doesn’t include OTC.

Pardon my being blunt but I think the fact that hunting sucks in WA puts it slightly different footing than CO.

Though I’m sure to your point it’s like 5%-7% of the total pop that hunts.

 

[SAJ-99]

CO had ~240k resident applicants for limited elk tags last year … doesn’t include OTC.

Pardon my being blunt but I think the fact that hunting sucks in WA puts it slightly different footing than CO.

Though I’m sure to your point it’s like 5%-7% of the total pop that hunts.

Yes, not comparing the states’ hunting quality at all. Just saying those states with a large urban center put hunters in a minority. At some point you need to “read the room”, if you get the metaphor. In that sense, CO isn’t much different. They did vote to reintroduce wolves after all. I don’t know exactly where to start, and I certainly don’t have the skills required to maneuver through the politics. There are some on here that can though.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Yes, not comparing the states’ hunting quality at all. Just saying those states with a large urban center put hunters in a minority. At some point you need to “read the room”, if you get the metaphor. In that sense, CO isn’t much different. They did vote to reintroduce wolves after all. I don’t know exactly where to start, and I certainly don’t have the skills required to maneuver through the politics. There are some on here that can though.

I would say the percentage is greater in Colorado, 5.8 mil population. Still hunting for stats on total resident hunting license sold though. That being said hunters are still in the minority. Hunters will always be in the minority, doesn’t mean we cower to a powerful, vocal anti-hunting minority (likely even smaller than hunters) and ditch the NAM. I wouldn’t read too much into the wolf vote. Razor thin margin there and I wouldn’t equate that vote with ditching the NAM in favor of mutualism and ending hunting. Lots of folks voted for wolves just cause they thought it would be cool to have em, had nothing to do with hunting. Multi-pronged approach will be required: get current hunters involved in advocacy, expand the base of hunters into non-traditional demographics, and outreach to non-hunters, other outdoor users.

 

[SAJ-99]

I would say the percentage is greater in Colorado, 5.8 mil population. Still hunting for stats on total resident hunting license sold though. That being said hunters are still in the minority. Hunters will always be in the minority, doesn’t mean we cower to a powerful, vocal anti-hunting minority (likely even smaller than hunters) and ditch the NAM. I wouldn’t read too much into the wolf vote. Razor thin margin there and I wouldn’t equate that vote with ditching the NAM in favor of mutualism and ending hunting. Lots of folks voted for wolves just cause they thought it would be cool to have em, had nothing to do with hunting. Multi-pronged approach will be required: get current hunters involved in advocacy, expand the base of hunters into non-traditional demographics, and outreach to non-hunters, other outdoor users.

I agree, it just is easier said than done. We need to do a better job of selling the NAM and all it has done, and continues to do, but sell it directly to non-hunters. To your statement "Lots of folks voted for wolves just cause they thought it would be cool to have em, had nothing to do with hunting." shows a couple of things 1) The almost all people vote in their interest and the majority of non-hunters and those without a direct interest just vote at face value what they think sounds good, and 2) we need to build coalitions with others that will be impacted by these decisions. In that case, ranchers and stock owners certainly helped bump up the vote, even if it was still a losing effort. What we are battling is lack of knowledge on NAM and growing apathy. Somehow, we have to stop just speaking to ourselves.

 

[HUNT JR]

I agree, it just is easier said than done. We need to do a better job of selling the NAM and all it has done, and continues to do, but sell it directly to non-hunters. To your statement "Lots of folks voted for wolves just cause they thought it would be cool to have em, had nothing to do with hunting." shows a couple of things 1) The almost all people vote in their interest and the majority of non-hunters and those without a direct interest just vote at face value what they think sounds good, and 2) we need to build coalitions with others that will be impacted by these decisions. In that case, ranchers and stock owners certainly helped bump up the vote, even if it was still a losing effort. What we are battling is lack of knowledge on NAM and growing apathy. Somehow, we have to stop just speaking to ourselves.

I am extremely interested in how the presentation by John Organ during this next commission meeting August 10-12 on the NAM. I really hope it will help open up the eyes of the middle ground commissioners as to why things have been done the way they have been historically. Even on the spring bear issue we have been deadlocked and if even 1 commissioner sees enough to "swap sides" then that is a huge victory. I really think Lehmkuhl could change his mind.

 

[Irrelevant]

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.

Ok, but the minority has rights too. Those very same people laud minority rights... ALL THE TIME. What I really don't understand is why tribes are allowed and even encouraged to maintain their cultural traditions while non-tribal hunting culture is attacked, belittled, and reduced. If that isn't racist then Webster and I don't know it is.

I really think Lehmkuhl could change his mind.

Having watched almost every meeting since he was appointed, following him here in Wenatchee as a board member for the land trust, and trying (desperately at times) to get him to meet up, I disagree. He won't change his mind, he'll double down before he shifts at all. Wolf in sheep's clothing.

...


I little introspection. I used to align more left, and on a lot of social issues I still do. But the WA Spring Bear issue has absolutely shifted my perspective. WA doesn't have good hunting, we don't have very many elk compared to most western states, deer at least on the east side is in substantial decline, birds outside of ducks, geese, and chukar, are a rarety (though the recent changes to forest grouse hunting I think will help them)... But we do have great bear hunting. We have some of the densest black bear populations in the lower 48. I could go out today and easily find half a dozen within a couple hours of a trailhead, and could do that in most counties in the State. You could use "science" to support a reduction in hunting for almost every other large mammal in WA before it makes sense to reduce it for bears.

 

[Big Fin]

Part of communication and advocacy is awareness. That was accomplished with this podcast.

The next step is consideration. Given folks in this thread and elsewhere are asking, "What can I do?" I would say the consideration step was accomplished.

The final steps are a call to action and retention of those taking action. Those were touched on in this podcast, but none of them are at a mature state of organization, as this is still a rapidly changing situation that has groups trying to organize resistance and advocacy.

There was made a call to action to organize, join, and start engaging with your WA Commission and elected leaders. It is not like there is a group standing on the sidelines that was waiting for this to happen. I am very impressed with the response of many grassroots groups in Washington that sprouted up in the last year in response to the spring bear issue.

Andrew McKean and I have scripted four more podcast episodes that talk about Washington, Colorado, how the NA Model is being used/abused in this process, Commission structure and governance assumptions that might need to be amended, the dangers of hunters/anglers handpicking science to fit their own narratives the same as these groups do, the well-funded plans groups have for overtaking commissions in states where they feel they have sympathetic Governors, and a host of other topics on what I feel might be one of the biggest threats hunting and fishing will face in the next couple decades.

Here are some groups that are very active on these issues in Washington:

https://washingtonwildlifefederation.org/

Washington

https://nwsportsmanmag.com/new-wa-fish-and-wildlife-conservation-partnership-launched/ that consists of these groups - Sportsmen’s Alliance, Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, HOWL for Wildlife, SCI, Inland NW Wildlife Council, Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation, Washington State Archery Association, American Sportfishing Association, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, NWTF, TRCP, Northwest Steelheaders, and Puget Sound Anglers.

Point being, there are plenty of ways to take action in Washington, whether formally, informally, as part of a group or as an individual. I hope folks in Washington do just that.

I suspect there are hunters and anglers in Washington who have access to those with decision authority. Hopefully some of those hunters and anglers will engage and jump into the fray.

 

[Nicoli7153]

Part of communication and advocacy is awareness. That was accomplished with this podcast.

The next step is consideration. Given folks in this thread and elsewhere are asking, "What can I do?" I would say the consideration step was accomplished.

The final steps are a call to action and retention of those taking action. Those were touched on in this podcast, but none of them are at a mature state of organization, as this is still a rapidly changing situation that has groups trying to organize resistance and advocacy.

There was made a call to action to organize, join, and start engaging with your WA Commission and elected leaders. It is not like there is a group standing on the sidelines that was waiting for this to happen. I am very impressed with the response of many grassroots groups in Washington that sprouted up in the last year in response to the spring bear issue.

Andrew McKean and I have scripted four more podcast episodes that talk about Washington, Colorado, how the NA Model is being used/abused in this process, Commission structure and governance assumptions that might need to be amended, the dangers of hunters/anglers handpicking science to fit their own narratives the same as these groups do, the well-funded plans groups have for overtaking commissions in states where they feel they have sympathetic Governors, and a host of other topics on what I feel might be one of the biggest threats hunting and fishing will face in the next couple decades.

Here are some groups that are very active on these issues in Washington:

https://washingtonwildlifefederation.org/

Washington

https://nwsportsmanmag.com/new-wa-fish-and-wildlife-conservation-partnership-launched/ that consists of these groups - Sportsmen’s Alliance, Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, HOWL for Wildlife, SCI, Inland NW Wildlife Council, Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation, Washington State Archery Association, American Sportfishing Association, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, NWTF, TRCP, Northwest Steelheaders, and Puget Sound Anglers.

Point being, there are plenty of ways to take action in Washington, whether formally, informally, as part of a group or as an individual. I hope folks in Washington do just that.

I suspect there are hunters and anglers in Washington who have access to those with decision authority. Hopefully some of those hunters and anglers will engage and jump into the fray.

A worthwhile endeavor!

 

[SAJ-99]

Ok, but the minority has rights too. Those very same people laud minority rights... ALL THE TIME. What I really don't understand is why tribes are allowed and even encouraged to maintain their cultural traditions while non-tribal hunting culture is attacked, belittled, and reduced. If that isn't racist then Webster and I don't know it is.

I don’t want to equate bear hunting to civil rights, but I get your point. I think the issue with tribes is that they live in some strange world of being both citizens of the US and sovereign nations. That is a can of worms I don’t want to open because i don’t know enough to have the discussion and just end up confused.

It is hard to understand while something as effective and successful as NAM isn’t well know by most. I would bet 95% of Americans don’t know what it is.

 

[Irrelevant]

I don’t want to equate bear hunting to civil rights, but I get your point. I think the issue with tribes is that they live in some strange world of being both citizens of the US and sovereign nations. That is a can of worms I don’t want to open because i don’t know enough to have the discussion and just end up confused.

Ok, then don't use tribes, use another minority, any other minority. I can think of a dozen examples in the last decade of someone lauding the efforts of a minority group to preserve or revive their culture. And while I specifically am irritated by the bear hunting decision due to the complete lack of science to support it, the "Conservation Plan" is worse for it's almost complete removal of hunters from the management equation. Every person on earth is here because their ancestors, at some point, were very successful hunters. It's one of the MOST human activities that exist. We have so many traditions centered around it... Thanksgiving Turkey for godsake! To attack it, to repress it, seek to eliminate it, is the best example of the Tyranny of the Majority I can think of.

It is hard to understand while something as effective and successful as NAM isn’t well know by most. I would bet 95% of Americans don’t know what it is.

Sure, 95% of American's don't understand lots of things, but every member of the WDFW commission does understand it and still disregards it.

 

[44hunter45]

(diatribe deleted)

If you ever taken a cat to an animal shelter and been lavished with free food, spay & neuter coupons, kitty litter, etc; you can begin to understand that there are people whose tithe goes to the church of the USPCA. Their war chest is huge.

They will oppose us every step of this fight. It is their interpretation of God's work.