I don't get how you can extrapolate "the end of hunting" because of one season being reduced. That doesn't make me complacent. I dont agree with WA state removing the tags, but economically there was little displaced. These facts don't equate the extremism of the phrase, "end of hunting"
haha...
Its true that we cannot offset losses with gains, but in terms of an argument for a pro-hunting agenda why couldn't we use examples of new hunting opportunities as proof of a clear pro-hunter agenda when you allow a few examples of bans to indicate a clear anti-hunter agenda?
Just because he ran under the republican party, doesn't mean he wasn't a progressive. TR was the face of progressive conservatism. Don't take my word for it, its a simple google search away.
I was saddened when the IDFG commissioner stepped down over the fiasco. I only brought it up as example...
Im only trying to facilitate conversation. But here is why I disagree with you.
If you can point to a few examples that ban hunting as proof of an anti-hunting agenda, then you should equally allow a few examples of new hunting opportunities as examples that there is a pro-hunter agenda, right?
IMO you need more than a few data points to prove a clear anti hunting agenda. especiually considering the decades the data covers. but don't take my word for it. Again, i would retort with the clear expansion of hunting opportunities across every state that have been omitted from this...
I promise I'm not being snarky or arguing semantics, but I would not classify prohibition of hunting mountain lions as a ban on hunting. for contrast there are elk, antelope, bighorn sheep, pronghorn, wild pig, and bear to hunt in cali. For contrast - Idaho has expanded hunting of mountain lions...
haven't been able to hunt since 1972.
no changes were made to fall bear hunting. spring bears accounted for less than 10% of harvests in 2021...
Nothing substantive here. 🤷♂️ looks more like fear mongering than actual outright bans on big game hunting. Certainly if an outright ban or agenda...
you mean like using lead shot? poison for wolves? there are forms of hunting that don't portray hunters as sportsman. ie IDFG commissioner stepped down after a photo of him killing a family of baboons surfaced.
that was a beating? thanks daddy :giggle:
For clarity- we agree that only via socialism can we have public land.
Secondly - your assertion about selling public lands omits the inclusion of private lands purchased by state entities. It also omits the opportunities state's have created for public use of private lands.
to me the...
Agreed. Most people classify me as far left, yet hear I am. :ROFLMAO:
They will never outright ban hunting. Its just plain fear mongering.
A ban on hunting is like a ban on firearms. All they'll accomplish is creating millions of felons.
This was my point.
don't take my sentiment as anti rancher/farmer. I have 2 wishes - that we didnt graze every acre of USFS/ BLM (or allowed off years etc) and there were stiffer penalties for the cows that trample and washout the creeks, overgraze etc.
They are allowed to graze on winter range. Historically big game didn't live off the ranchers hay stacks. I'll also add every state has programs to reimburse for these losses.
nobody is getting rich off public land grazing? sounds like these 'nobodies' don't have the business sense to make money hand over fist. the ones that do are going to buy out the little guys.
either that or lets argue over the semantics of 'rich' vs agreeing that public land welfare grazing...
You're conflating two things - cost and profit.
You state the price of meat is based on supply and demand, true.
Then it seems you stretch that to mean nobody is making profit because of the low input cost.
There's nothing you can do involving the sheriff or the BLM that will result in your desired outcome.
Complain about welfare ranchers to the system? Join the crowd. You'll find out these fake ranchers have learned they can basically get away with everything.
Dont take my word for it, read...