Straight Arrow
Well-known member
The Constitution does not usurp a grandfather's right, responsibility, and inclination to provide guidance to his offspring.
Thoughts on the anti-hunting movement
- Thread starter RockinU
- Start date
onpoint
Well-known member
Fair enough.
Just my term for someone who utilizes a firearm only as a tool, solely for the purpose of obtaining game. I am not a lawyer nor a terminologist.
In no way does that indicate I don't appreciate firearms, as witnessed by the nearly 20 in my safe. Including a couple semi-auto shotguns.
antlerradar
Well-known member
Got to love your optimism about Williams. The reality is she lost badly to a carpet bagging MMA wannabe from New Jersey in the best election cycle the Democrats have had in ten years. For her to win in 2020 the Republicans will need to nominate an even poorer candidate. There is hope for Williams, Rosendale may be available.
Last edited:
now your just being silly. no one said it did. it does however give anyone the right to ignore that advice, wether it is sound or foolish to do so.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
So true ... and if you haven't already experienced it, your kids usually ignore that advice.
I've found most people doSo true ... and if you haven't already experienced it, your kids usually ignore that advice.
. people very seldom take advice that is in opposition to what they wish to do. don't stop me from giving it though.
i'm guessing it is trying to bribe support with dinner fare.
Which are? mtmuley
Gila
Well-known member
jryoung
Well-known member
Sharing meat beyond friends and family to those who dont have much perspective on hunting. It's amazing what can be accomplished over a meal and thoughtful discussion.
Thanks jr. But why is it my responsibility to defend something my family has done for generations? Almost feels like some guys here are somewhat ashamed they hunt and have to validate it to those that don't. Sorry, I don't feel that way. That being said, I'm betting the circles we run in are miles apart. mtmuley
one ate E grain
Active member
The problem is that if others define what is acceptable, then all hunting is cruel. The disdain for trophy hunting is pretty much universal amongst non hunters, yet how many here throw away the horns of the bull elk or buck deer they harvest? yes you take the meat, and maybe the head is a distant second in importance, but it goes above the barn or the mantle anyway.
Trapping? That thread Big Fin wrote about trapping muskrat with his uncle has to be one of the finest pieces of writing I've read on this forum. I still think of it to this day. Many, perhaps most, consider trapping to be cruel.
I'm a lefty, a Democratic partisan, but a lot of what 88 is saying I find to be true. Lotta country outside Montana, and it's not pretty. Us Dems are all for public land until it's the public land behind our house, then it's a "heck no you can't access it over my property". While it's true that hunting isn't an enumerated right, it is a natural right in my book, just as is self defence, or freedom from a tyrannical government.
all hunting practices are unpopular to the antis. but I suspect he is referring to those things that are offensive in his mind. or maybe the better way to put it is, the practices he doesn't personally care about.
Last edited:
The problem with this thinking is that you have to understand that this is a competition for the hearts and minds of the 90% of Americans who don't hunt (a fair portion of which do not care as you say) between us and those who would take away our rights as hunters. We have our ambassadors who are converting those "don't cares" in our direction like Rinella and Randy, but we also have a fair number giving assists to the antis (go look at @VikingsGuy wall of shame post from a while back).
We hunt at the discretion of the vast majority who do not hunt, and if we fail to actively promote the good in what we do, we will fail at protecting what we do.
jryoung
Well-known member
It's not a defense, it's an offense, a marketing campaign. If we let the worst actors speak for us, with their voice amplified by those that want to end us we will get what we deserve for our apathy.
No one is ashamed, we're just trying to reconnect the disconnection.
Not many privileges in life just stand on their own, they take work to maintain support.
Man we can play this game all day. Only one party wants to transfer your public lands as well. Only one party wants to limit or deny your access to those public lands. This is where the "broaden your perspective" comment comes from. If you play strictly on party lines without keeping the bigger picture in focus, you'll end up cutting your own throat.
Pelican
Well-known member
As of right now, I believe we as hunters are doing enough to maintain most of what we have currently, but we could do more. How many non-game species and how many acres of habitat is protect by conservation groups such as DU, PF? How many acres of public land are now accessible to hikers, bird watchers, etc due to RMEF? The hunters who support conservation groups understand their donations benefit other user groups, but I don't think the general public knows how extensive hunter funded benefits are to wildlife as a whole. Anti-hunters supposedly care about animals, how would they responded when confronted with XX millions of acres are protected due to hunters. We should play up the benefits of our dollars that don't just benefit hunters.
In Colorado, we lost bear baiting, bear hunting with dogs, and spring bear season in the early 1990's by a ballot initiative. I never baited or used dogs before the ban and didn't have an issue with either, but I can't help but think that if baiting or hunting with hounds for bears had been illegal at that time, we would still have a spring season. The idea of throwing some hunters or trappers under the bus to save the rest of us is appalling to me though.
As for the AR debate, it seems prudent to me for hunting orgs. to stay out of it all together. It's obviously a very divisive issue, even among hunters, so let the NRA continue to catch the hell.
In Colorado, we lost bear baiting, bear hunting with dogs, and spring bear season in the early 1990's by a ballot initiative. I never baited or used dogs before the ban and didn't have an issue with either, but I can't help but think that if baiting or hunting with hounds for bears had been illegal at that time, we would still have a spring season. The idea of throwing some hunters or trappers under the bus to save the rest of us is appalling to me though.
As for the AR debate, it seems prudent to me for hunting orgs. to stay out of it all together. It's obviously a very divisive issue, even among hunters, so let the NRA continue to catch the hell.
Where do you think the disconnect came from? When?. I still don't feel I need to explain myself to non hunters. I used to keep my killing of a wolf amongst people I trusted. No more. And it is a defense, at least how I see it. mtmuley
Gila
Well-known member
Does anyone really think that these people give a rat's patootie about hunters' ethics or image? Do you think they are willing to make any concessions or negotiate? What good is public land if you can't hunt there?
www.nrdc.org
How Can I Protect Wildlife in My Community?
NRDC conservation expert Sylvia Fallon offers tips for being a better neighbor to local animals....
