Thoughts on the anti-hunting movement

[slatebuilder]

Thoughts on the anti-hunting movement......I have no time for stupidity.

 

[88man]

I think hunting needs the homesteaders to plant a big acre plus garden and get wiped out a few times by a bear or deer or rabbits or crows. Then when they find religion and a gun they will protect their garden. Pretty tuff to explain or really talk about hunting to an urbanite living in a big city or a subdivision who has their own thoughts of Utopia. I know this example really isn't why we hunt and it isn't really hunting but it creates a feeling its purpose.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Pretty tuff to explain or really talk about hunting to an urbanite living in a big city or a subdivision who has their own thoughts of Utopia.

Have you tried? I live a pretty “purple” life and regularly interact with people in very rural areas + conservative and very liberal and urban people. Anecdotally, I can convince a urban liberal that bear hunting should be legal and is ethical much easier than I can get a rancher to eat a piece of bear meat.

 

[Gila]

Thoughts on the anti-hunting movement......I have no time for stupidity.

There is no anti hunting movement and there never was. There are only enviro groups (most are child groups of the NRDC) who are against any form of wildlife extraction. They want public lands to be animal parks and botanical gardens. Their vision of Shangrila and peace on Earth. Hunting and trapping are merely easy targets for them and gleen support from the urban dwellers who seldom use public lands to begin with. There is no issue with hunter ethics. To say that there is only plays into their hands and gives credence to their agendas. Veganism is just a preferred way of life. There are the peta types however their numbers are too low to be a threat. Politicians jump on the train because it takes the spotlight off of the social issues that cannot be solved.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

There is no issue with hunter ethics. To say that there is only plays into their hands and gives credence to their agendas.

Yeaaaaaaaahhh, so about that...

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/RulesRegs/LawEnforcement/2018AnnualReport.pdf

 

[Gila]

There are always a few in every walk of society that project repugnance and engage in abhorrent behavior.

 

[Keeptrying]

States with constitutional amendments preserving hunting and fishing heritage in perpetuity: these can be overturned with another amendment vote

In Iowa the big anti story of the year (or decade) is Iowa City tree huggers feuding over over what to do with urban deer overpopulation in that city. They are divided over birth control, no intervention, and baiting/sharpshooting. Inability to form a coalition has resulted in a win for the remaining plurality of residents who support urban bowhunting to reduce the population, which will now be allowed. Case in point: hunting laws are overwhelmingly a state issue, and the culture of most states will continue a hunting heritage far beyond our lifetimes. About 99.9% of hunting activity in Iowa is not facing any kind of immediate risk of being taken away.

Some types of legal hunting will continue to erode more rapidly in urbanized, liberal states. California is really an exception to the rule, in that while liberals are much less common than conservatives nationwide, there are tons of them in CA and they turned the state into a neo-European liberal paradise, and conservatives sick of what their home state was becoming emigrated by the millions, leaving the dumpster fire to burn itself out (and hopefully not spread to the rest of the states).

I feel it is largely unnecessary for hunters to find a way to band together to consolidate our political capital and preserve out hunting heritage. Maybe locally, such as community or in-State organizations, but not nationwide. Instead, like others have mentioned, we get out ahead of the fight through making choices individually to give up hunting practices that have fallen out of favor in modern America. This wins support of the general public, which is 100% absolutely necessary in order for us to be able to hunt in the US. Only about 10% of Americans hunt, so anything we do to alienate public support is our own fault. It's up to us to choose to project an ethical and genuine public image.

This is not a slippery slope. It's simply the evolution of ethics in a country that has made a transition from being a rural nation to a dominant urban nation.

Here are some things to consider giving up, even though they are legal, for the purpose of maintaining hunting privileges for generations to come:
-trapping
-hounds
-catch and release
-shooting from aircraft
-thermal imaging
-drives
-continuing to hunt a tag after wounding and failing to recover an animal
-killing fawns/calves and other immature animals
-snag and release
-grip and grin
-safaris
-obtaining more meat than one's family can consume
-predator hunting
-bear hunting
-varmint hunting
-killing furbearers
-game farms
-canned hunting
-international hunting where the meat is not taken home

I continue to practice some things on this list, but every year I consider the cost of continuing them

You are dreaming if you think that list is enough to appease the antis.

Look at the nonsense over feral horses and tell me any degree of common sense will be present once the right combination of people have the power to enact their will upon our nation. Look at California. Think about that on a national scale. It's coming and plenty of people who will enable it will insist it won't happen, but it will.

 

[Gila]

You are dreaming if you think that list is enough to appease the antis.

Look at the nonsense over feral horses and tell me any degree of common sense will be present once the right combination of people have the power to enact their will upon our nation. Look at California. Think about that on a national scale. It's coming and plenty of people who will enable it will insist it won't happen, but it will.

Probably a few things on the list that the enviros have not used against us yet but would like to. It is a rather comprehensive list.

 

[88man]

Have you tried? I live a pretty “purple” life and regularly interact with people in very rural areas + conservative and very liberal and urban people. Anecdotally, I can convince a urban liberal that bear hunting should be legal and is ethical much easier than I can get a rancher to eat a piece of bear meat.

I just don't want to convince the urban liberal that bear hunting should be legal. I don't think we should need to justify it or explain our ethics. We don't need to be putting it on the table for their approval. Somehow thats what I'm hearing or the message I take from a few guys here.
I don't think we need to get approval from the patagonia crowd or the greenies or the climate change zealots on the species we want to hunt or the methods of take that have been legal or socially accepted in that region for years.
I truly believe the urbanites who don't hunt or the majority of them are fine and don't care that people are hunting and owning guns. Its the seekers of this crazy utopia of no sexually identity no religion and its bad if you make money because you work hard the justification of what is the use or purpose of the gun you own. I just don't think we as hunters should put hunting on the table with that crowd. I just wonder the motive of hunters trying to make it appealing to that crowd?

 

[BrentD]

Actually, 88man, you DO need their approval. They are owners of the wildlife, exactly like you.

And by lumping all these issues that are irrelevant to hunting (.g., sexual identity, religion, etc) and then throwing in some derogatory vocabulary all you have accomplished is to slice off a few more of those people that are ambivalent and giving them good reason to care in a very negative fashion about hunting, firearms and a host of other things you hold near and dear.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I just don't want to convince the urban liberal that bear hunting should be legal. I don't think we should need to justify it or explain our ethics. We don't need to be putting it on the table for their approval. Somehow thats what I'm hearing or the message I take from a few guys here.
I don't think we need to get approval from the patagonia crowd or the greenies or the climate change zealots on the species we want to hunt or the methods of take that have been legal or socially accepted in that region for years.
I truly believe the urbanites who don't hunt or the majority of them are fine and don't care that people are hunting and owning guns. Its the seekers of this crazy utopia of no sexually identity no religion and its bad if you make money because you work hard the justification of what is the use or purpose of the gun you own. I just don't think we as hunters should put hunting on the table with that crowd. I just wonder the motive of hunters trying to make it appealing to that crowd?

All of these people you mentioned are the same voters who have the ability to change your life with the mark of a ballot.

Broaden your perspective.

 

[88man]

Actually, 88man, you DO need their approval. They are owners of the wildlife, exactly like you.

And by lumping all these issues that are irrelevant to hunting (.g., sexual identity, religion, etc) and then throwing in some derogatory vocabulary all you have accomplished is to slice off a few more of those people that are ambivalent and giving them good reason to care in a very negative fashion about hunting, firearms and a host of other things you hold near and dear.

Im not doing the best job at putting it to words so please accept my apology. I agree all own the wildlife. IMO I just don't want to start the social change aspects of hunting an get away from the core. It is a strategy soften and water down. If what we currently have and do is all well and good and accepted in that region don't water it down. Fight for it when it finally comes to the table.

 

[88man]

All of these people you mentioned are the same voters who have the ability to change your life with the mark of a ballot.

Broaden your perspective.

who is putting anti hunting initiatives on the slate? Which party? Which Party is pushing for gun control?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

who is putting anti hunting initiatives on the slate? Which party? Which Party is pushing for gun control?

I’m not talking about political parties. You’re being a close minded, bigoted fool. I don’t care WHO puts the anti hunting measures on the ballot as a citizen initiative. I care that we as hunters have done a good job of portraying what we do in an accurate light so we are not measured by the yardstick of some fool on TV.

I just don't want to convince the urban liberal that bear hunting should be legal. I don't think we should need to justify it or explain our ethics. We don't need to be putting it on the table for their approval.

A little time explaining can pay off many times down the road.

 

[88man]

I’m not talking about political parties. You’re being a close minded, bigoted fool. I don’t care WHO puts the anti hunting measures on the ballot as a citizen initiative. I care that we as hunters have done a good job of portraying what we do in an accurate light so we are not measured by the yardstick of some fool on TV.

I agree with you. Im sorry a spade is a spade in my book. Anti hunting laws are introduced and passed by one political party! 90% of the time or greater, Limiting hunting rights or species we hunt is a political issue. You are missing the point. People who hunt who are very liberal want to make hunting acceptable to their political party and friends. Only one party pushes the agenda of the anti hunter I'm sorry thats the way it is. They are trying and working very hard from within us to change hunting to fit that utopia.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

People who hunt who are very liberal want to make hunting acceptable to their political party and friends. Only one party pushes the agenda of the anti hunter I'm sorry thats the way it is. They are trying and working very hard from within us to change hunting to fit that utopia.

Got it, so they are Trojan Horses?

 

[88man]

Got it, so they are Trojan Horses?

Not necessarily, You can't go to the democratic party mixer with your dog cages in the back of your lifted truck running 35in tires after Lion hunting and think you will be getting the party nomination.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Not necessarily, You can't go to the democratic party mixer with your dog cages in the back of your lifted truck running 35in tires after Lion hunting and think you will be getting the party nomination.

You can in Montana ... esp if you tell of hunting our public lands in a hunting district with too many predators. Case in point reflected by images of Kathleen Williams, Democratic candidate often shown with her shotgun and hunting dog, who very likely will replace our body-slamming Republican Congressman in the House.

 

[88man]

You can in Montana ... esp if you tell of hunting our public lands in a hunting district with too many predators. Case in point reflected by images of Kathleen Williams, Democratic candidate often shown with her shotgun and hunting dog, who very likely will replace our body-slamming Republican Congressman in the House.

You see its softend a bit, Public lands Yah!!! Fishing Yah !! Clean Water Yah!! Hunting yah !!! She wants to limit gun rights and does not believe I have a right to own an AR or other semis.

 

[Straight Arrow]

She wants to limit gun rights and does not believe I have a right to own an AR or other semis.

You sure about that? Her shotgun is a semi. I have not heard or seen anything regarding AR's from her, but it would not surprise me.
Not trying to get you upset, but as explained previously, as a thirty year military guy, I think there should be some reasonable limitations on ownership and employment of "assault" type weapons.
Please redirect any animosity toward me in a more positive direction supporting your beloved NRA.