Still think they deserve a seat at the table.

Hilljackoutlaw

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
6,126
This has been discussed some on other theads, but just stumbled onto this article. I hate to say it this way, but this is what we get when we bend and let people in. For being dumb enough and soft enough to actually believe these types of people would join the table in good faith. They use the same tactics in everything they infiltrate and we continue to be naive. They never act in good faith. They lie, cheat, and con their way to what they want. I've heard the arguments on why they deserve a seat, but I feel they hold no water when they prove over and over again they will not act in good faith. Montana, idaho, wyoming, etc...better be on high alert cause it's coming!

 
You get 48hrs free then it's a pay wall.

OPINION Anti-hunting groups are lying. WA Fish & Wildlife commissioners are taking the bait |
Opinion

BY RYAN GARRETT UPDATED FEBRUARY 08, 2024 9:26 AM

On Dec. 15, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission voted 7-2 to begin rulemaking on cougar and bear hunting at the behest of special interest groups whose primary aim is to dismantle hunting piece by piece. The day after the vote, citizens voiced their frustrations to the commission. Mandy Carlstrom summed things up: “It is no longer fair to ask why the public does not trust you.” In response to the outcry, Commissioner Steve Parker stated, ”…it seems that many of the commenters this morning are reacting more to the source of the petition than to the substance of petition.

This flippant dismissal deserves a direct response. As hunters, we have legitimate issues with both. Prior to the vote, I testified to the commission about statistical flaws contained within one of the main studies cited in the petition, which is popular with anti-hunting campaigns nationwide. The Peebles study, as it’s called, claims to provide evidence that more cougar hunting increases the frequency of cougars killing livestock, the opposite of what a reasonable person would expect.

The study is deeply flawed, and the commission has been told this repeatedly. A review panel composed of nearly a dozen wildlife scientists from throughout the Northwest pointed out basic methodological errors that make the conclusion unreliable. As recently as Dec. 7, carnivore research scientist Brian Kertson, Ph.D., discussing the study with the commission, stated that the idea that more hunting spurs more wildlife conflict is “just a theory,” and even suggested that the current data state biologists have on cougars paint an entirely different picture.

This did not serve to dissuade the commission from taking the petition at face value. The source of the data is questionable as well. These organizations have demonstrated their willingness to lie about material facts. Currently in Colorado, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Humane Society of the United States, and an activist group called Cats Aren’t Trophies (whose leadership has been present at several commission meetings), have it in their campaign material that cougars are not edible and are only hunted for trophies.

Cougars taste like pork, and in Colorado it would be a criminal offense to kill a cougar without harvesting its meat. These are the same people who presented the Washington petition. If they are so emotionally invested in the outcome that they are willing to lie about something this basic, what else are they willing to obfuscate? The commission was swayed by the 50 scientists signing the petition, disregarding the cherry-picked nature of those signatures. They also ignored our state staff (and scientists) who manage these populations directly. In fact, most state-level biologists in charge of wildlife management would be prohibited from signing such a letter because it would be considered lobbying. By accepting this petition, the commission has given credibility to its lies and the liars behind it. What is worse is that in doing so the commission has knowingly diverted staff from completing a multi-year study on cougars and bears which would have been completed this April. Instead, staff will commence rulemaking. Framed this way, the decision made clear the mockery of the commission’s commitment to “using the best available science.” That commitment seems about as good as the “science” in the petition they accepted. Ryan Garrett is a farmer and hunting mentor living in Northeast Washington state. He hosts the Hunter Farmer Artisan Podcast examining WDFW policy issues.

Read more at: https://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/article285152612.html#storylink=cpy
 
Can’t overstate the importance of the author’s point in this article. We have to call out the blatant dishonesty of the anti-hunting proponents in Washington and Colorado. The folks behind the WA petition are the same folks behind the ballot initiative and mtn lion hunting ban in CO. This is a national anti-hunting strategy. Samantha Miller Bruegger was the director of Washington Wildlife First, now the lead for the CO hunting ban. She openly brags about her success in ending WA spring bear season and shifting WDFW policy to disfavor hunting. During the NOV CPW commission meeting, she provided public comment regarding mtn lion hunting ban and a commissioner questioned her use of the term “trophy hunting” when the initiative actually banned all hunting. She deflected. These folks can’t be trusted and will not act in good faith. They know they have the support of both Governors. Center for Biological Diversity has two seats on the Colorado Wildlife Commission currently and will likely pick up more as more appointments are made. We have to be unified and proactive in our messaging that hunting is a net positive for wildlife, the landscape, and the public. We have a compelling story. Every hunter in these states needs to vote also. And for all the HuntTalkers who say “anti-hunters aren’t real, no one is trying to really end hunting, they don’t have any influence”, you are dead wrong in Colorado or Washington.

What can you do? Donate to Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management or get involved!

 
Last edited:
Does anyone know who the board members are for that organization?
Dan Gates is the spokesman and may be the board. He is and has been involved in everything related to hunting and trapping in CO. He is on the Habitat Stamp Committee and CPW’s Executive Summit Council, he runs the CO Sportspersons Caucus meetings, attends regional Sportsperson Caucus meetings, frequently speaks at CPW Commission meetings and has hosted Sportspersons Day at the Capital (including wild game feeds open to the public). He has probably introduced more people to eating wild game than any other person I know or have even heard of.

CRWM is a member of the CWCP (CO Wildlife Conservation Project) https://www.cowildlifeconservationproject.org/legislation-policy-issues - it's like what TRCP is to the nation, but for CO.
 
"These organizations have demonstrated their willingness to lie about material facts."

Isn't lying about material facts the new American Way?

All sides skew the facts presented to the commission to try and get their way. I don't know how many times I have been asked to fill out a questionnaire to be presented to the Game commission in an attempt to influence their decisions. It has questions like, what do I think is the greatest threat to the elk population? What the hell difference does it make what I or 99% of all hunters think? We haven't spent years studying the plight of elk populations. All our opinions come from guess work and product of our echo chamber, with little care as to its validity.

As to the question, "Do they deserve a seat at the table?" Of course they do. Like it or not, we hunters don't own the wildlife of the state and we don't dictate to the commission appointed to manage that wildlife. All citizens of the state have an equal voice in how wildlife should be managed. All we can do is fight the good fight and accept that we are not going to always win.
 
Can’t overstate the importance of the author’s point in this article. We have to call out the blatant dishonesty of the anti-hunting proponents in Washington and Colorado. The folks behind the WA petition are the same folks behind the ballot initiative and mtn lion hunting ban in CO. This is a national anti-hunting strategy. Samantha Miller Bruegger was the director of Washington Wildlife First, now the lead for the CO hunting ban. She openly brags about her success in ending WA spring bear season and shifting WDFW policy to disfavor hunting. During the NOV CPW commission meeting, she provided public comment regarding mtn lion hunting ban and a commissioner questioned her use of the term “trophy hunting” when the initiative actually banned all hunting. She deflected. These folks can’t be trusted and will not act in good faith. They know they have the support of both Governors. Center for Biological Diversity has two seats on the Colorado Wildlife Commission currently and will likely pick up more as more appointments are made. We have to be unified and proactive in our messaging that hunting is a net positive for wildlife, the landscape, and the public. We have a compelling story. Every hunter in these states needs to vote also. And for all the HuntTalkers who say “anti-hunters aren’t real, no one is trying to really end hunting, they don’t have any influence”, you are dead wrong in Colorado or Washington.

What can you do? Donate to Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management or get involved!


Colorado reshaped eco-enviros agenda to bypass legislative bodies and State wildlife commissions/agencies.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, a few bitch the hunters are not involved yet we raise the most $ for conservation of our wildlife.

Our organizations need to co-op and form a $ fund to counter this international threat against State management.
Each of our organizations need to have a seat at our table and have a vote whether to use "x" funds to oppose such eco-enviros action.

Losing to city slicker ballot box biology, internationally funded in Colorado is NOT about Colorado. It SHOULD open our eyes that we lost by 0.91% of the vote w/ 1/2 the funds to oppose.

We lost is the key.

Once, shame on you. Twice, shame on all of us.
 
Yep. I think this is already happening to some degree in Colorado with CWCP and CWRM. At the national-level, I don’t know. I believe that the lesson from Prop 114 (Wolf Reintroduction) is that we as hunters should not fall into the trap of apathy and defeatism. The election results for the mountain lion ban are far from a forgone conclusion and things are actually trending in a positive manner. We can impact the outcome if we are active in the process and work in a unified manner.
 
it’s not much of a stretch to assume the same people on these commissions are in bed with the same people complaining/petition/comment and then commissioner’s have a reason to bring the issues to the commission for vote. This is a very well thought out plan in both wa and col. and to the next western state . Not a conspiracy thoery just truth of what is actually happening whether you want to believe it or not.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
111,422
Messages
1,958,207
Members
35,173
Latest member
240shooter
Back
Top