Just to raise your blood pressure...

[Ben Long]

and stir the pot.... But while retaining civility and rationality, how would you respond to this essay, which claims the North American Model of Wildlife Management "the most corrupt and despotic of modern institutions"? https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/01/the-cult-of-hunting-and-its-timely-demise/

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It would be interesting to sit down with Dr. Mattson and see if in person/ around a campfire he is a bit more reasonable. This rant seems like a bad FB rejoinder or diatribe given by your drunk uncle at thanksgiving.

"Such is the nature of Liberals willing to widdle all over themselves in an effort to demonstrate their “reasonable” intentions. Well…not me. If nothing else, Trump has reformed me. In fact, virtually all of the white, male, rural, ill-educated people who devote themselves to hunting also voted for Trump, despite the self-evident fact that he is one of the vilest human-beings to ever take political center stage."

That isn't a 'liberal' statement it's just close minded.

 

[scubohuntr]

Someone forgot his meds, it seems. I wouldn't bother to respond. The author is clearly not interested in a discussion, he just wants to throw mud. When someone comes up with a way for birdwatchers to match the funding of Pittman/Robertson and nationwide license sales, not to mention the billions that hunting contributes to economies across the country, we'll move over and let 'em have a seat at the table. They have no skin in the game. Many of them hike or mountain bike, some can actually tell a nuthatch from a vireo, but none of them pay for conservation. They pay for lobbyists, ecoterrorists, and strident journalists like the author of this piece of puppy liner. I'll just keep right on being corrupt, despotic, rural, and ill-educated, thanks.

He forgot to point out that Choice B on the 2016 ballot was equally as vile.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It's too bad the author needed to bury some worthwhile concerns and perspectives under a pile of DefCon 1 terminology such as "cult", "despotic", "reactionary", "frenzied", "genocide", "sensient" animals with equal rights, etc.

 

[OriginalOscar]

Anyone from BHA want to explain? https://www.keepgrizzliesprotected.com/the-scientsts

The Dr and Yvon on same page. Can't make this stuff up.


BHA Podcast https://www.backcountryhunters.org/bha_podcast_blast_episode_21

 

[MooseCaboose]

A diatribe, and a strangely political one for a purported scientist. He is clearly an ideologue peddling an extreme viewpoint shared by no residents of reality. Many issues with this post, too many to highlight.

One thing in particular was the YouGov poll he references refers to “sport hunting” which he then equates with hunting as a whole. Sport hunting in the poll is the equivalent of “hunting an animal for its fur.” Which, as we all know, is illegal in every jurisdiction—save a few exceptions (bears with trich, etc.). Essentially this question is a meaningless stat. A majority of Americans polled support hunting for meat etc.

This is a perfect example of manipulating a poll result to suit your own needs and completely undermines whatever point this “biologist” was trying to make. Shame shame.

 

[Deleted member 22670]

I'll admit it, I had to google "despot"....

 

[406LIFE]

How do you respond to rhetoric that has so very few facts and is even more just a regurgitated thesaurus written to impress a clearly liberal and anti hunting audience? I wouldn't. There is no profit in such a venture. I wish that I could take my visit to his site off the counter, lest he think that he is reaching a larger target.

Perhaps the only response is indirect; we need to continue to ensure that we are doing it better than we have previously, promoting the successes of the North American Model, and putting forth simple and clear proofs of what is effective.

It is articles like this, and people attached to them that make it difficult to hold hands over the walls we have built in order to unite for common causes. Sure Yvon might be pro-public lands, but his intentions behind use and espousal of other ideas cause you to never loose suspicion. The ally today is the enemy tomorrow.

 

[vanish]

Anyone from BHA want to explain? https://www.keepgrizzliesprotected.com/the-scientsts

The Dr and Yvon on same page. Can't make this stuff up.

I have no problem agreeing with Yvon Chouinard on some things and disagreeing with him on others.

 

[walking buffalo]

I have been warning of this perspective for many years. The anti-hunting community needs a way to defeat "Science" that they disagree with in order to achieve their goals.

Anyone heard of the Compassionate Wildlife management model?

The desire is for this ideology to replace the NAMWM.

Don't take these rantings lightly. That would be a Big mistake.

 

[ID_to_NV2012]

One thing I've learned with the USGS and the FWS IS that there are some folks in those agencies that think they are head and shoulders above everyone else. This joker seems to be one of those people. He may be very intelligent but he should know that science, seemingly unbiased, can be used to push an agenda. He can paint whatever picture he wants about hunters. As hunters we have to put our best foot forward, not give in to the temptation of firing back at this rhetoric. Let Shane Mahoney talk to this guy.

 

[BWALKER77]

This train of thought is typical of the liberal elite. Which is why hunters should be very leery of jumping into bed with democrats..

 

[Deleted member 22670]

This train of thought is typical of the liberal elite. Which is why hunters should be very leery of jumping into bed with democrats..

I wish my world was this black and white....

 

[Irrelevant]

If there's one thing this site should have taught people is that there are hardcore liberal hunters with an garage full of guns just as there are well intentioned sensible republicans that actually care about clean air and clean water and the environment as a whole.

Yet it's like half a the posters can understand that.

 

[scubohuntr]

It depends on the issue, too. Pro-gun congresscritters tend to be anti public lands.

 

[one ate E grain]

how would you respond to this essay, which claims

I wouldn't. A supposed scientist who rejects peer review as well as apparently the scientific method just doesn't rate a response. The writer and his wife have dropped out of working for any orgs to allow themselves to pontificate from the extreme fringes of wildlife advocacy. He is regularly quoted at HCN, a publication I stopped subscribing to. I just can't respond to someone who has formed such extremist opinions over a lifetime, and with a lot of education. I've never achieved anything from responding to people like him.

 

[Point Creep]

The article makes me want to go bear hunting.

 

[BWALKER77]

If there's one thing this site should have taught people is that there are hardcore liberal hunters with an garage full of guns just as there are well intentioned sensible republicans that actually care about clean air and clean water and the environment as a whole.

Yet it's like half a the posters can understand that.

But the facts are most of the anti hunters and anti gunners are liberals.

 

[BWALKER77]

It depends on the issue, too. Pro-gun congresscritters tend to be anti public lands.

This is true. In amny cases progun people are also anit public lands. Thats the chit sandwich that is American politics.

 

[Irrelevant]

But the facts are most of the anti hunters and anti gunners are liberals.

And most people who hate clean air, water, and defacto our wildlife are Conservatives