Nemont, did not mean to ignore your post, I was in the process of answering when a call came in, then to answer some of my own questions I called Stan to talk with him directly.
My post was not about debating the specific points of trapping - pro or con. My post was about attacking a person and the hunting /angling group he happens to be head of, simply because his name, as a hunter, was associated with supporting I 177.
I originally typed a question to you or anyone else attacking Fraiser or Helena Hunters & Anglers - What are the specific points that Fraiser stood for that you disagreed with? Please cite the source. Because I had not seen a single thing attributed to Stan come across my feed, I did not know what Stan was stating. At that point I did a google search and nothing was coming up. So I paused my reply and decided to call Stan and see for myself. I will not relay the specifics of our conversation, as I opened it with telling him my call was off the record ( I have to say that some times because people know I write and report in the newsletter and some have said that in a conversation). He said he wasn't worried, he has been around these controversial issues a long time, he could take it, was a past president of MWF, twice if I recall. I asked if he had written any articles anywhere that could be cited, he had not. He very clearly laid out his points, based on facts, biology, stats, science; not emotion, not "just because". He had some points I had not heard before. I encouraged him to write something up.
After that I had to rush to our Region 3 CAC meeting, which again, I was the only hunter/angler there, so I lost my reply to you and any others. My original question to y'all still stands, even more so after I called him and found he had not published anything with his name associated to it that y'all could have cited, yet he and HHAA were being tarred and feathered.
What are the specific points that Fraiser stood for that you disagreed with?
Nemont, I have absolutely no problem with calling a person out - as an individual or as head or part of an organization/agency. I do it all the time - but, I do it on issues, quotable, citable, documented issues, not ad hominem. How many of y'all actually got in touch with Stan or HHAA besides Ben?
If you have a public image and decide to take a stance on a public issue then expect some fire. I am sure Stan Fraiser understood that when he came out as pro I177.
From what he relayed, he absolutely did and has no problem with any of the fire, but my concern was none of the "fire" against him or HHAA was based on anything other than a hunter supported I 177. And I don't think the real ire is that a hunter had an opposing view, I think the real ire is that hunters, any hunters, supporting I 177 perceptionally adds credibility, legitimacy to the position, so that people can't offhandedly dismiss it as a PETA, Humane Society agenda against hunters. Kind of like how politicians seek to cite bipartisan support for a bill.
In the years I have been dealing with hunting/angling conservation, I have yet to see a single issue that all MT hunters/anglers were in 100% agreement on. In fact, I frequently request submitted public comments on issues and am always surprised to see certain hunters/anglers written position comments that differed from what I heard spoken publicly or they were silent on, if it went against the outspoken majority. Knowing that fact and the comments that other hunters from across the state have made, I know there are other hunters in support of this initiative. Having this differing opinion, or any other issue, does not make them not a "real" or "true" hunter though, which was another point I tried to express.
Nemont, I am in total agreement with you, "It is a dangerous thing to put on the ballot such a thing because where does it stop. What is next on the agenda? If they can stop trapping on Federal public lands then they can certainly stop or at least curtail hunting on Federal Public lands." This part of the related issue is freaking me out.
