Thoughts on the anti-hunting movement

[Huntfly]

Accusing other members of having defeatest attitudes,bickering between hunters,the hunters are their own worst enemy.
Post #5 is a perfect example also.

You my friend hit the nail on the head. Our own worst enemy. We got to stick together. Never divide you forces! Sure we all have opinions and ideas about various things but we can let that tear at the seam our God given right to hunt and own a gun.

 

[Akcabin]

A post in another thread by @wllm1313 lamenting hunting opportunities that he's lost, while expressing confidence in keeping others got me thinking about where we are in protecting our hunting heritage, and while my logical side is prone to agree with his premise that the slippery slope isn't as big a concern as many make it out to be, another side of me has real concern.

I look at all CA has given up. I see the continued attacks on bear hunting, predator hunting, hound hunting, trapping, and high fence hunting. I see the train wreck that litigation can cause on the ESA. I see the hundreds and hundreds of social media responses wishing for death to a hunter and everyone who has ever met him because of a post with a picture of a legally harvested game animal that exists in plenty. I see more of the same cheering on posts calling 3 hunters injured by a bear in The Gravelly "karma". I see how much money organizations like HSUS and PETA are raising, and how mainstream they seem to be becoming. Despite western "crowding" I see hunter numbers in this country diminishing.

I see our opposition being very organized, cohesive, and passionate. These people do not believe that what we do is in fact conservation. They do not think that we have the best interest of animals in mind. They are convinced that the animals do not need our management, and it doesn't matter how many facts, figures, or how much science you show them, you can not change their minds. They are zealots.

What does the Hunt Talk community think? Are we doing enough to hold the ground we have? Will future generations enjoy the opportunities that we have, or is it just a matter of time before a modern society shifts so far from what we believe in that the things we treasure so much will be whittled away?

We will continue to see reduced numbers if outdoors folks continue to divide ourselves. Just because something doesn't effect them they let things pass. I buy a trapping license for $10 even if I don't go out. I do play around a bit . To support the outdoors heritage fund.

 

[Akcabin]

Agreed. If we do lose our rights, it will be due to complacency.

NRA endowment member. We bought our kids life membership on their 18th birthday

 

[Trap]

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

Give up trapping and hounds??? Predator hunting?? That’s 60-70 percent of what I do. I eat bear, mountain lion meat and use sell all furbearer hides I hunt or trap. Is it more ethical to shoot a whitetail and eat it than to shoot a bear and eat it? Look at California,Oregon and especially Washington. They eliminated hounds and many forms of trapping. Washington barely has any worthwhile deer,elk or moose hunting. Without predators hunters(using hounds and traps) the high road deer hunters won’t have much too hunt. Your statement scares the crap out of me. Study the North American wildlife model. Most successful in the world and functions by creating surplus game to sell tags and use that money to manage for future surplus game. I love predators but they HAVE to be controlled or you ethically superior deer hunters are sol. I want bears,lions AND wolves in the west forever but you let them take hunting of predators (or effective methods Like houndsmen)away and you will LOSE all hunting

 

[Rack Daniels]

Give up trapping and hounds??? Predator hunting?? That’s 60-70 percent of what I do. I eat bear, mountain lion meat and use sell all furbearer hides I hunt or trap. Is it more ethical to shoot a whitetail and eat it than to shoot a bear and eat it? Look at California,Oregon and especially Washington. They eliminated hounds and many forms of trapping. Washington barely has any worthwhile deer,elk or moose hunting. Without predators hunters(using hounds and traps) the high road deer hunters won’t have much too hunt. Your statement scares the crap out of me. Study the North American wildlife model. Most successful in the world and functions by creating surplus game to sell tags and use that money to manage for future surplus game. I love predators but they HAVE to be controlled or you ethically superior deer hunters are sol. I want bears,lions AND wolves in the west forever but you let them take hunting of predators (or effective methods Like houndsmen)away and you will LOSE all hunting

Give up all predator and varmint hunting…?? Hahahaha!! Mother Earth has become over populated with US- The humans… funny we conserve every animal passionately but don’t do the same for ourselves.
Ever heard the expression, F#<K like rabbits???
Even the fine state of California allows for varmint hunting

 

[Pucky Freak]

Give up trapping and hounds??? Predator hunting?? That’s 60-70 percent of what I do. I eat bear, mountain lion meat and use sell all furbearer hides I hunt or trap. Is it more ethical to shoot a whitetail and eat it than to shoot a bear and eat it? Look at California,Oregon and especially Washington. They eliminated hounds and many forms of trapping. Washington barely has any worthwhile deer,elk or moose hunting. Without predators hunters(using hounds and traps) the high road deer hunters won’t have much too hunt. Your statement scares the crap out of me. Study the North American wildlife model. Most successful in the world and functions by creating surplus game to sell tags and use that money to manage for future surplus game. I love predators but they HAVE to be controlled or you ethically superior deer hunters are sol. I want bears,lions AND wolves in the west forever but you let them take hunting of predators (or effective methods Like houndsmen)away and you will LOSE all hunting

I hunt predators. Perceived ethics by the non-hunting public matters if you I want to continue to enjoy the privilege of hunting predators. CO tried to ban lion hunting and people spoke out and testified that they eat lions. CA tried to ban bear hunting and people spoke out and testified about the importance of managing bear populations to reduce conflicts with pets, people, and livestock.

I wish I could enjoy what I do without trying to manage my non-hunting neighbor’s largely uninformed sentiments about hunting and trapping. Instead I choose to go on the offensive. For me this includes hunting in a manner that will be perceived by the majority of non-hunters as ethical, engaging with non-hunters about harvest, conservation, and population management, and inviting others to participate - which mostly takes the form of sharing deer sticks and jerky.

My wife and my sister are against bear hunting because of Disney. They don’t want the cute, cuddly animals being shot. To me it’s food…a big gulf between perceptions.

 

[Trap]

Laws are changeable, but if they aren't changed does it matter? Point being the law won't be changed, so you have to live with that reality. TABOR screwing with predator prey relationships is on no one's radar.

CO does have the largest elk population, and humans have created a situation where if it doesn't stay that way a whole host of other species suffer. Human recreation is definitely a factor, it's the main factor harming the herd where I grew up. It's not the only factor, predators do play a big role in some herds. Predators are the easiest factor for wildlife managers to control however.

Colorado is studying targeted predator management at critical times of the year, i.e., calving season to reduce ungulate mortality.

Adding a further source of ungulate mortality with wolves would certainly have a discrete effect on CPAW's budget.

So what I'm saying is I'm supporting CPAW doing what it can with the resources available. We lost our spring bear and trapping seasons, which makes things increasingly complicated.

I'm not saying that predator management is the best solution, but it's kinda the only realistic one right now for the agency, and how much management they can do is very limited.

I don’t see the roi problem Ben is referring too. Most of the predator management done in my state raises money for the state. I buy my bear,lion,wolf license every year add to that hound hunting permit trapping license it just keeps going. Lions wolves, coyotes and bears all eat deer and elk at different times. So there is no benefit to deer and elk numbers if we reduce their numbers? The math is a little fuzzy for me. I love predator hunting and really appreciate seeing them in the wild but it’s ridiculous to consider not controlling them with a hunting and trapping season. I have seen the study that the more coyotes you take out the more they reproduce so why bother? Between me and my trapping partner we took probably 15 coyotes off a ranch. This was over a few years and the owner asked us to trap because he had almost no deer fawns for a few years. Last year we trapped o coyotes on that property and I drove by the other day and seen quite a few does with brand new fawns. Coincidence or something more? I have made many bear hunting converts from purely elk hunters by just sharing some meat with them. We have the North American wildlife model for a reason and it’s been the most successful in the world. That is why I would be grateful tabor? was passed in your state. We managed mostly ungulates for a surplus to sell tags to create revenue to manage for a future surplus of deer and elk. To suddenly decide we should quit doing that so our 4 legged friends can eat more deer and elk is nonsense. Where will the funds come from to improve habitat etc when there is hardly any surplus ungulates to sell tags for ?The west hasn’t been in a state of predator prey balance for 150 years. and can not return to a natural state of balance unless we kill of a few hundred million people. I love predator hunting and I want all predators in the west forever but not controlling them is a HUGE mistake. I don’t understand why killing an elk and eating it is better than me killing a bear and eating it, which I have done every year for probably 30 years? What’s the obsession with protecting predators. Finally for those who say they don’t mind hunting but somehow don’t want predator hunting. Why? Do you hate deer and elk? Why would you put one animal on a pedestal at the cost of other wildlife. Predators eat elk and deer. You can’t have an abundance of predators and a huntable surplus of deer and elk. We can easily have surplus deer and elk along with controlled numbers of predators. By selling tags to weirdos like me who happily pay for the privilege. I will get flamed probably for this one but check back with me wilm in 10 years Colorado won’t have the nation’s largest elk herd due to the recent wolf vote. I am not a “smoke a pack a day” guy I actually like having them now that we have management. I just say this based on what happened in Idaho in some of my best elk hunting spots. Wolves eat elk. Some parts of your state won’t be impacted at all but some areas will be hammered if it’s anything like Idaho. Unfortunately when you have people voting to bring wolves in when they are already migrating there it’s probably not a good sign for any future management. Idaho is going to be fine but seems a lot on here think we’re idiots for aggressive predator management I will keep running hounds,trapping and eating delicious bear sausage carry on

 

[SAJ-99]

Most of the predator management done in my state raises money for the state.

How much? Ever calculate or Google it? I doubt it is meaningful to the state but you can prove me wrong with data. Most of hunting is about perception of the masses. That is the front line of the battle.

 

[Rack Daniels]

Mmmmm Bear Sausage

 

[Trap]

I hunt predators. Perceived ethics by the non-hunting public matters if you I want to continue to enjoy the privilege of hunting predators. CO tried to ban lion hunting and people spoke out and testified that they eat lions. CA tried to ban bear hunting and people spoke out and testified about the importance of managing bear populations to reduce conflicts with pets, people, and livestock.

I wish I could enjoy what I do without trying to manage my non-hunting neighbor’s largely uninformed sentiments about hunting and trapping. Instead I choose to go on the offensive. For me this includes hunting in a manner that will be perceived by the majority of non-hunters as ethical, engaging with non-hunters about harvest, conservation, and population management, and inviting others to participate - which mostly takes the form of sharing deer sticks and jerky.

My wife and my sister are against bear hunting because of Disney. They don’t want the cute, cuddly animals being shot. To me it’s food…a big gulf between perceptions.

I agree with engaging non hunters in conversation and also that there stomach is the best introduction. I live in Idaho so I deal mostly with hunters or at least people who grew up in a hunting family but I have made a few converts sharing lion and bear meat. Thanks for the comment and clarification that you do hunt predators that’s good to hear. I believe every deer and elk hunter should do at least some predator hunting. If someone is against predator hunting bears or whatever ask them why is a bear more valuable than a elk calf? Should we place a greater value on one species over another? My problem with your original post was you listed hounds, bear hunting and trapping as something we should consider giving up so I guess not to offend someone? That’s scary that fellow hunters feel that way that’s all. You can’t have great deer and elk hunting with uncontrolled predators. I think we stand together or we fall together. I have never done a deer drive. I have no desire to do one. I will fight just as hard for those hunters to retain that part of their heritage as I would to keep lion hunting with my hounds. If you lose predator hunting and trapping you will lose any worthwhile deer and elk hunting. I could see in Iowa that’s not as important as you probably only have coyotes? Imagine a deer in Idaho dealing with winter and coyotes, wolves,mountain lions and bears. Why value the predator at the expense of the elk?

 

[Trap]

How much? Ever calculate or Google it? I doubt it is meaningful to the state but you can prove me wrong with data. Most of hunting is about perception of the masses. That is the front line of the battle.

I will that’s a good idea. There’s a huge number of wolf,lion and bear tags sold. The return on investment argument i was making is no matter what revenue is created it makes money for the state. How can predator management have a bad roi when hunters are paying the state to do it ?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don’t see the roi problem Ben is referring too. Most of the predator management done in my state raises money for the state. I buy my bear,lion,wolf license every year add to that hound hunting permit trapping license it just keeps going. Lions wolves, coyotes and bears all eat deer and elk at different times. So there is no benefit to deer and elk numbers if we reduce their numbers? The math is a little fuzzy for me. I love predator hunting and really appreciate seeing them in the wild but it’s ridiculous to consider not controlling them with a hunting and trapping season. I have seen the study that the more coyotes you take out the more they reproduce so why bother? Between me and my trapping partner we took probably 15 coyotes off a ranch. This was over a few years and the owner asked us to trap because he had almost no deer fawns for a few years. Last year we trapped o coyotes on that property and I drove by the other day and seen quite a few does with brand new fawns. Coincidence or something more? I have made many bear hunting converts from purely elk hunters by just sharing some meat with them. We have the North American wildlife model for a reason and it’s been the most successful in the world. That is why I would be grateful tabor? was passed in your state. We managed mostly ungulates for a surplus to sell tags to create revenue to manage for a future surplus of deer and elk. To suddenly decide we should quit doing that so our 4 legged friends can eat more deer and elk is nonsense. Where will the funds come from to improve habitat etc when there is hardly any surplus ungulates to sell tags for ?The west hasn’t been in a state of predator prey balance for 150 years. and can not return to a natural state of balance unless we kill of a few hundred million people. I love predator hunting and I want all predators in the west forever but not controlling them is a HUGE mistake. I don’t understand why killing an elk and eating it is better than me killing a bear and eating it, which I have done every year for probably 30 years? What’s the obsession with protecting predators. Finally for those who say they don’t mind hunting but somehow don’t want predator hunting. Why? Do you hate deer and elk? Why would you put one animal on a pedestal at the cost of other wildlife. Predators eat elk and deer. You can’t have an abundance of predators and a huntable surplus of deer and elk. We can easily have surplus deer and elk along with controlled numbers of predators. By selling tags to weirdos like me who happily pay for the privilege. I will get flamed probably for this one but check back with me wilm in 10 years Colorado won’t have the nation’s largest elk herd due to the recent wolf vote. I am not a “smoke a pack a day” guy I actually like having them now that we have management. I just say this based on what happened in Idaho in some of my best elk hunting spots. Wolves eat elk. Some parts of your state won’t be impacted at all but some areas will be hammered if it’s anything like Idaho. Unfortunately when you have people voting to bring wolves in when they are already migrating there it’s probably not a good sign for any future management. Idaho is going to be fine but seems a lot on here think we’re idiots for aggressive predator management I will keep running hounds,trapping and eating delicious bear sausage carry on

I'm so confused lol

My point... 2 years ago... was that if wolves kill elk that means less elk tags and therefore a drop in CPWs budget.

State agencies aren't funded via taxes so if deer and elk herds decline due to predators then so does their budget.

TABOR is the Colorado law that basically makes CPW function as a business enterprise.

I'm pro management.

 

[Trap]

How much? Ever calculate or Google it? I doubt it is meaningful to the state but you can prove me wrong with data. Most of hunting is about perception of the masses. That is the front line of the battle.

Ok I did it rough calculations based on 2019 idfg report. Wow over 100,000 lion bear and wolf tags sold. For comparison antelope was 5500. Out of state elk 19500. So average price of resident tag 11.50 Idaho made 1,151,414 as a comparison made 171,875 on antelope tags. I didn’t include hound hunters permit required if you shoot lion or bear or bobcat over hounds. Also didn’t include bear baiting permit both of those are 12.50 each. Ironically in googling wolf revenue Idaho first thing that came up was Idaho fish and game report suggesting a loss of 24 million in revenue for non residents deer and elk tabs which they attributed to wolves reducing elk numbers. It was 2009 so I’m sure the economy played a role but that was peak wolf numbers before Idaho was allowed to resume management of them. No return on investment whatever

 

[Trap]

I'm so confused lol

My point... 2 years ago... was that if wolves kill elk that means less elk tags and therefore a drop in CPWs budget.

State agencies aren't funded via taxes so if deer and elk herds decline due to predators then so does their budget.

TABOR is the Colorado law that basically makes CPW function as a business enterprise.

I'm pro management.

Sorry I drifted a little. I agree 100 percent with your statement. Wolves eat elk and when there is less elk to sell tags for where do you get the money to manage elk in the future. I quoted you but was questioning Ben lamb suggesting the roi for managing predators was terrible.
it’s quite good since allowing hunting of predators actually produces revenue. By product of predator management by hunters is you still have surplus elk to sell tags for

 

[Trap]

Sorry I drifted a little. I agree 100 percent with your statement. Wolves eat elk and when there is less elk to sell tags for where do you get the money to manage elk in the future. I quoted you but was questioning Ben lamb suggesting the roi for managing predators was terrible.
it’s quite good since allowing hunting of predators actually produces revenue. By product of predator management by hunters is you still have surplus elk to sell tags for

I also didn’t clue in on the fact it was 2 years ago ha ha. Anyways I agree WITH you and was questioning the post you were replying too. Kinda new here I thought it would show the op and your response not just yours

 

[SAJ-99]

Wolves eat elk and when there is less elk to sell tags for where do you get the money to manage elk in the future. I quoted you but was questioning Ben lamb suggesting the roi for managing predators was terrible.

No,no,no, LOL. If the state does it right, it gets to sell the same number of elk tags AND wolf tags, thereby collecting off both sides of the argument. See Montana as an example. You just have to continue to convince voters there are too many elk.

 

[stevejfarms]

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.

I don’t know, 75% of one party voting for and 75% of the other voting against isn’t my definition of bipartisan.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don’t know, 75% of one party voting for and 75% of the other voting against isn’t my definition of bipartisan.

Apparently you've been asleep for the last 30 years of American politics.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Sorry I was being snarky, but if you flip on the news the modern definition of bipartisan seems to be 1 votes from the other party.

 

[Don Fischer]

Only two thing's matter to politicians concerning hunting. That would be vote's and income. Beyond that I doubt politicians care one way or the other.