Thoughts on the anti-hunting movement

[Gila]

Those legal hunting practices are against YOU'RE percieved ethics. You have no right to establish what a "responsible public image of hunters" is or is not. mtmuley

It is his opinion and he is arguing his point like we all do. I don't agree with it but it is his opionion. As far as going out on limb I have a true story. I was rabbit hunting when I startled a marmot that ran up a tree. He crawled out on a limb. The limb snapped and the marmot fell. He died...

 

[mtmuley]

He died...

From? mtmuley

 

[kmott]

It is not about people who don't like hunting.

The enviro groups are the ones who play the lawsuits games and attend the F&G commission meetings. They are also the ones who make contributions to the legislators. You are talking about making up the minds of the urban dwellers who do not have hunting on their radar and never will. Lets say you performed a miracle and did reach the city folk. They say ok and go ahead and use your management tool. Elk is on the menus of every restaurant in LA and NYC. What is going to change?

Joe lives in Gotham City. He is a dock worker and is a member of the local union. Joe has hunted all of his life as did his father. Joe's sons are all hunters. Joe's local union made a huge contribution to Charlie Gomez who is expected to be elected. The NRDC also made a huge contribution to Charlie. After the election, the NRDC asks Charlie to sponsor a bill that would remove hunting as a public use on all state lands. Charlie does so and the bill is signed into law removing all hunting from state lands. Bottom line is public sentiment has little effect on hunting opportunity. The best thing hunters can do for their sport is to be a member of organizations like RMEF and SCI who can wield Thor's Hammer to fight NRDC's lobby monster! The small niche, state and local hunting groups have their own unique purpose. However, the enviro groups are a web of national and even international resources.

well ………….I guess that's where the batman comes in...……………………………….

 

[kmott]

I think this is key, for someone like @kmott I don’t think it’s a huge deal to justify your hunting methods because you probably aren’t communicating a ton with non hunters (from the sounds of it, I could be off base), whereas my social group is mostly non-hunters so I feel like I need to make sure I have really thought about the ethics and justifications of my hunting because I will be sharing those experiences with non-hunters. I’m not trying to duplicate meateater on my Instagram, but when we go to dinner with friends and they ask me what I did in AK, I want to be able to have a frank discussion that paints me and hunting in a good light.

actually most of the people I know don't hunt. only the ones I like do.

 

[mtmuley]

actually most of the people I know don't hunt. only the ones I like do.

Interesting. I suppose this is where my "disconnect" comes from. Here where I live most of us make no apologies for our hunting. mtmuley

 

[kmott]

Interesting. I suppose this is where my "disconnect" comes from. Here where I live most of us make no apologies for our hunting. mtmuley

……..…...……………….………….hmm.. yeah, I got nothing

 

[Gila]

Agree with the example, although probably would add Charlie’s opponent is very anti union, thinks that they his employer should be allowed to use contractors instead of employees so they don’t have to pay payroll taxes, healthcare, or overtime and so while Joe knows that Charlie will be bad for his hunting passion, he will keep him in a job.

Just trying to add the idea people are left with crap decisions, I’m not so high minded as to think people don’t have good reasons for voting for anti hunting/conservation etc politicians.

Yeah BHA, RMEF, etc orgs that can rally the troops and get politicians to vote the right way are important.

Joe voted like most of us do. He voted for the candidate most likely to preserve his livelyhood and health benefits for his family. Yes, Joe voted for Charlie. Joe has a lifetime family membership with the RMEF. He attended a RMEF banquet with his wife, his sons and their wives. They enjoyed great food and company. Joe won a silent auction for a guided elk hunt in New Mexico. Joe's youngest son won a raffle for a Randy Newberg Special Edition Howa in .308. Joe went on to acquire more elk and deer heads than he had the wall space for. His sons had sons of their own. Joe spent his remaining days hunting and fishing with his sons and grandsons.

 

[Gila]

From? mtmuley

From the fall....I was stunned!

 

[kmott]

From the fall....I was stunned!

ah.. unintended consequences.

 

[MTGomer]

A few weeks ago before I went on vacation to hunt for 12 days, after being surprised to learn that’s what I was leaving to do, a coworker told me(while eating chicken) “I could never hunt, it just seems so violent”. Then asked me if I ‘feel bad for going into their homes to try to kill them’.
I could tell she had some real negative notions of hunting.
I did the best I could to represent hunting in that quick moment. We were soon interrupted by another coworker who came in talking about the carnival. In which, the coworker with the questions about hunting said “did they have the bacon wrapped turkey legs again, those are so good?” I don’t think it even crosses their mind where meat comes from.


My wife had a coworker a few days ago, when finding out we came from montana ask.” So is it like settled, with houses and stuff or are there still free roaming wild animals”?
As if she’s totally clueless “free roaming wild animals” are like totally a thing here too, but I don’t think she’s ever left Phoenix. I don’t know how she feels about hunting but I know her vote counts the exact same as mine on a ballot initiative, and there are many more like her.

 

[Gila]

If she is a business partner she will most likely cast the right vote.

 

[BuzzH]

It is not about people who don't like hunting.

The enviro groups are the ones who play the lawsuits games and attend the F&G commission meetings. They are also the ones who make contributions to the legislators. You are talking about making up the minds of the urban dwellers who do not have hunting on their radar and never will. Lets say you performed a miracle and did reach the city folk. They say ok and go ahead and use your management tool. Elk is on the menus of every restaurant in LA and NYC. What is going to change?

Joe lives in Gotham City. He is a dock worker and is a member of the local union. Joe has hunted all of his life as did his father. Joe's sons are all hunters. Joe's local union made a huge contribution to Charlie Gomez who is expected to be elected. The NRDC also made a huge contribution to Charlie. After the election, the NRDC asks Charlie to sponsor a bill that would remove hunting as a public use on all state lands. Charlie does so and the bill is signed into law removing all hunting from state lands. Bottom line is public sentiment has little effect on hunting opportunity. The best thing hunters can do for their sport is to be a member of organizations like RMEF and SCI who can wield Thor's Hammer to fight NRDC's lobby monster! The small niche, state and local hunting groups have their own unique purpose. However, the enviro groups are a web of national and even international resources.

Posts like these constantly leave me shaking my head in total disbelief of how much hunters have their heads in the.....well, sand to be polite.

The notion that it takes large organizations to sway the legislature or Fish and Game commissions...that's simply not a fact. I have watched many people, myself included, testify at Legislative committee hearings and change the minds of Legislators. Sure, there's work that goes in before and after, it takes time to build relationships with the right folks, but make no mistake, looking a legislator in the eye with a salient point makes an impact. I have also heard over many years of attending Legislative sessions that the Legislators rarely hear from their constituents, and also that they place high value in those that take the time to talk to them.

Exact same thing with the GF commission meetings. I have had an incredible amount of success in getting a lot done with the commission. Aircraft/drone regulations, pushing the WY NR elk draw back to May, pushing for a GF foundation, and lots and lots of smaller things like Residents getting their allotted number of limited quota elk tags. All that stuff was the result of myself and my good friend Jeff. We just kept the pressure up, stayed with it, and we get things done. Some of the stuff we've accomplished Jeff and I were told, "there's no way you'll get that done". Well...not true, its all about the approach.

That's not to say we haven't been stone-walled and gotten our way 100% of the time.

While there is no doubt that the big organizations can swing a heavy hammer, its totally crap to just join a group as a member and let them do your heavy lifting. Again, in countless conversations with the Legislators, county commissions, even the Governor...hearing from the people they represent is impactful, very impactful. When Jeff and I tackled that Bonander land exchange and stopped that, we personally talked to the top 5 elected State officials and again were told how rarely they hear from citizens. It made a huge difference, as in all 5 voting in our favor to stop the land exchange and keeping public access to some of the best elk hunting in Wyoming.

Another thing that just doesn't work for me is "blaming" the other side for being organized, funded, and showing up at commission meetings, legislative sessions, etc. If hunting means as much to hunters as they say, then why are they not showing up? These are public meetings and I'm tired of the excuses for hunters not attending. Rather than taking vacation days to take the kids and old lady to Disney land, or chase your kids across several states for travel ball, take a couple days off a year to attend these things.

If hunters/anglers continue to:

1. Think that buying a license and dropping $30 on a membership is good enough
2. Make excuses for not showing up.
3. Keep blaming the other side for being better connected, organized and for showing up.

Well...then suffer the consequences of continued complacency and allowing yourself to be rolled.

I show up, I make things happen, and I'm just an average guy that grew up hunting and fishing. We need to stop with excuses and letting others pack our water...put the same effort into hunting/fishing advocacy as you do hunting and fishing.

 

[Gila]

Posts like these constantly leave me shaking my head in total disbelief of how much hunters have their heads in the.....well, sand to be polite.

The notion that it takes large organizations to sway the legislature or Fish and Game commissions...that's simply not a fact. I have watched many people, myself included, testify at Legislative committee hearings and change the minds of Legislators. Sure, there's work that goes in before and after, it takes time to build relationships with the right folks, but make no mistake, looking a legislator in the eye with a salient point makes an impact. I have also heard over many years of attending Legislative sessions that the Legislators rarely hear from their constituents, and also that they place high value in those that take the time to talk to them.

Exact same thing with the GF commission meetings. I have had an incredible amount of success in getting a lot done with the commission. Aircraft/drone regulations, pushing the WY NR elk draw back to May, pushing for a GF foundation, and lots and lots of smaller things like Residents getting their allotted number of limited quota elk tags. All that stuff was the result of myself and my good friend Jeff. We just kept the pressure up, stayed with it, and we get things done. Some of the stuff we've accomplished Jeff and I were told, "there's no way you'll get that done". Well...not true, its all about the approach.

That's not to say we haven't been stone-walled and gotten our way 100% of the time.

While there is no doubt that the big organizations can swing a heavy hammer, its totally crap to just join a group as a member and let them do your heavy lifting. Again, in countless conversations with the Legislators, county commissions, even the Governor...hearing from the people they represent is impactful, very impactful. When Jeff and I tackled that Bonander land exchange and stopped that, we personally talked to the top 5 elected State officials and again were told how rarely they hear from citizens. It made a huge difference, as in all 5 voting in our favor to stop the land exchange and keeping public access to some of the best elk hunting in Wyoming.

Another thing that just doesn't work for me is "blaming" the other side for being organized, funded, and showing up at commission meetings, legislative sessions, etc. If hunting means as much to hunters as they say, then why are they not showing up? These are public meetings and I'm tired of the excuses for hunters not attending. Rather than taking vacation days to take the kids and old lady to Disney land, or chase your kids across several states for travel ball, take a couple days off a year to attend these things.

If hunters/anglers continue to:

1. Think that buying a license and dropping $30 on a membership is good enough
2. Make excuses for not showing up.
3. Keep blaming the other side for being better connected, organized and for showing up.

Well...then suffer the consequences of continued complacency and allowing yourself to be rolled.

I show up, I make things happen, and I'm just an average guy that grew up hunting and fishing. We need to stop with excuses and letting others pack our water...put the same effort into hunting/fishing advocacy as you do hunting and fishing.

I am glad that you are doing well there as a general of an army of one. Try that somewhere else and you may get your butt handed to you. You come out of the chute with a derogatory first line. All that does is alienate people. They won't pay any attention to the rest of what you have to say or write. Apparently you don't like being an advocate. Advocates represent the group since there is power in an organization. As an advocate it is your responsibility to energize other members of the group to attend F&G commission meetings. Most of the time it is advantageous to just have one spokesman represent the group at the meetings. It depends on the issue. Not everyone can or should attend meetings. Sometimes it is advantageous for some members to not attend. Who do you think is more likely to move legislation? A lobbyist with 100,000 votes in his pocket or you with a phone call? I fully agree with you that sportsmen should do more than just give a yearly membership. Joe's RMEF banquet is one example. You could volunteer to maintain guzzlers or install trick tanks. If you are good with numbers fill in as treasurer for the local chapter. Pick up Sportsmen against hunger. Just some food for thought. There are a lot of ways to help the cause.

 

[88man]

Typically not, although trap bans, and specific hunting methods have made it on the ballot in a number of states.

As far in national elections, mostly no... although I might think twice about voting for a Utah republican or a super anti gun Dem.

Which party put the trapping and no bear hunting and no dog running on the ballot! Or at least 90% of the time the democratic party did.
Which party proposes some form of gun control 90% of the time. The democratic party.
The anti hunting movement is political> I am not making it political it is a political argument.
People want to soften hunting and gun ownership so it more aligns with the core of the democratic partys new core. Im sorry, thats whats at play here.

 

[RockinU]

Which party put the trapping and no bear hunting and no dog running on the ballot! Or at least 90% of the time the democratic party did.
Which party proposes some form of gun control 90% of the time. The democratic party.
The anti hunting movement is political> I am not making it political it is a political argument.
People want to soften hunting and gun ownership so it more aligns with the core of the democratic partys new core. Im sorry, thats whats at play here.

While I won't disagree with that, you can't make that point and then ignore that when public land transfer discussions happen, it's always brought to the table by the GOP...hell, it's a plank (or at least it was) in their national platform. Transfer may not be openly anti-hunting, but it is without question hostile to public land hunting, which many on this site feel is important. You have to see the whole picture.

 

[RockinU]

I am glad that you are doing well there as a general of an army of one. Try that somewhere else and you may get your butt handed to you. You come out of the chute with a derogatory first line. All that does is alienate people. They won't pay any attention to the rest of what you have to say or write. Apparently you don't like being an advocate. Advocates represent the group since there is power in an organization. As an advocate it is your responsibility to energize other members of the group to attend F&G commission meetings. Most of the time it is advantageous to just have one spokesman represent the group at the meetings. It depends on the issue. Not everyone can or should attend meetings. Sometimes it is advantageous for some members to not attend. Who do you think is more likely to move legislation? A lobbyist with 100,000 votes in his pocket or you with a phone call? I fully agree with you that sportsmen should do more than just give a yearly membership. Joe's RMEF banquet is one example. You could volunteer to maintain guzzlers or install trick tanks. If you are good with numbers fill in as treasurer for the local chapter. Pick up Sportsmen against hunger. Just some food for thought. There are a lot of ways to help the cause.

Alienate people?...heck, his post made me feel like I need to get off my ass, and I do advocate...different strokes I guess.

Lobbyists don't represent votes as much as they do money...Someone at a meeting with standing room only or overflowing crowds from all the people who do show up, and who are constituents carries more weight than you seem willing to give it credit for. When the people who elect these officials write letters, make calls, show up, make their voices heard...that's impactful. Finding some way to see it as advantageous to not be a part of that is not.

 

[BuzzH]

Which party put the trapping and no bear hunting and no dog running on the ballot! Or at least 90% of the time the democratic party did.
Which party proposes some form of gun control 90% of the time. The democratic party.
The anti hunting movement is political> I am not making it political it is a political argument.
People want to soften hunting and gun ownership so it more aligns with the core of the democratic partys new core. Im sorry, thats whats at play here.

People really need to try doing some research...a lot of gun control was pushed, and passed by Republicans. Read up on good ol' Uncle Ronnie Reagan, huge gun control advocate that passed gun control legislation while Governor. Something he carried on with during and after his Presidency. Nixon was also in favor of gun control...G.W. made the comment he would resign the AWB if it made it to his desk. Pretty sure he also quit the NRA.

Obama did exactly ZERO in regard to gun control, in fact, he signed legislation to allow firearms in National Parks and also to allow them on checked baggage for railroad transportation...expansion of gun rights.

We live in the information age, yet people refuse to let facts get in the way of their talking points and agenda...sad really.

 

[BuzzH]

I am glad that you are doing well there as a general of an army of one. Try that somewhere else and you may get your butt handed to you. You come out of the chute with a derogatory first line. All that does is alienate people. They won't pay any attention to the rest of what you have to say or write. Apparently you don't like being an advocate. Advocates represent the group since there is power in an organization. As an advocate it is your responsibility to energize other members of the group to attend F&G commission meetings. Most of the time it is advantageous to just have one spokesman represent the group at the meetings. It depends on the issue. Not everyone can or should attend meetings. Sometimes it is advantageous for some members to not attend. Who do you think is more likely to move legislation? A lobbyist with 100,000 votes in his pocket or you with a phone call? I fully agree with you that sportsmen should do more than just give a yearly membership. Joe's RMEF banquet is one example. You could volunteer to maintain guzzlers or install trick tanks. If you are good with numbers fill in as treasurer for the local chapter. Pick up Sportsmen against hunger. Just some food for thought. There are a lot of ways to help the cause.

I know a lot of people in this game of wildlife and hunting advocacy...all are "generals of an army of one". To a man/woman, they've always carried wayyyy more of the freight for all of us than they'll ever get credit for. Glad they didn't have your defeatist attitude and were not afraid they would get their butt's handed to them every once in a while. Showing up matters, not matter where "somewhere else" is.

I'm grateful for their commitment and I owe it to them to continue doing the same things they did...and have been for a long, long time.

I think it was Randy that said something to the effect of don't underestimate the influence one individual can make when dealing with these wildlife issues. Matter of fact, I think he's doing a series of stories on just that.

 

[Gila]

Alienate people?...heck, his post made me feel like I need to get off my ass, and I do advocate...different strokes I guess.

Lobbyists don't represent votes as much as they do money...Someone at a meeting with standing room only or overflowing crowds from all the people who do show up, and who are constituents carries more weight than you seem willing to give it credit for. When the people who elect these officials write letters, make calls, show up, make their voices heard...that's impactful. Finding some way to see it as advantageous to not be a part of that is not.

Please do read what I write before you comment.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Which party put the trapping and no bear hunting and no dog running on the ballot! Or at least 90% of the time the democratic party did.
Which party proposes some form of gun control 90% of the time. The democratic party.
The anti hunting movement is political> I am not making it political it is a political argument.
People want to soften hunting and gun ownership so it more aligns with the core of the democratic partys new core. Im sorry, thats whats at play here.

This is incorrect.

Trap and hunting bans in the west, are mostly ballot initiates and not driven by a particular party but rather special interest groups. Formal opposition is rarely made by the Dems or the Reps but by other special interest group. The fight is typical PETA/Human society etc versus RMEF, NRA, various hunting orgs, etc.

Example:
MT Trapping ban was put forth by Montanans for Trap-Free Public Lands

If you are curious:

Hunting and fishing ballot measures

ballotpedia.org

The original assault weapon ban was fairly bipartisan for its time, in our current political climate extremely bipartisan... honestly you would be hard pressed to find a major bill with as much bipartisan support in the last 10 years.

Voting yes for the ban
188 Dems
46 Rep
1 Indepent

Voting no
64 Dems
131 Rep

235 to 195 so 57% of the vote.


Hunting is not a party line vote, parties are rarely involved. The gun debate is a different conversation, as is public lands.