a new hunter 'advocacy' group

[Tenstrike]

Below is a clip from the Hunt Back Country Podcast (Exo website). Says his first year bow hunting was 2016, seems like an expert to me, I had 38 years of bow hunting by then and I don't consider myself an expert, just someone who likes bow hunting. I wonder if all the rock climbers, SF guys and firefighters all live in Wyoming.

"It isn’t about looking good. It isn’t about impressing someone in the gym. Rob Shaul’s experience-backed training philosophy is about forging mountain athletes that can perform when it matters, where it matters (in the mountains), and for what really matters (the outdoor pursuit of their choice, and often, profession). Rob’s clientele is comprised of a diverse array of individuals from an equally diverse array of professions: rock climbers, special forces soldiers, skiers, wildland firefighters, and more. But for us, for you, and for Rob — the passion is backcountry big game hunting.

Rob first joined us to discuss his training philosophy and programs waaaayyy back in Episode 5. He returns in this episode to discuss fitness, sure, but we also dissect Rob’s 2016 hunting season; his first as a bowhunter, after many years of meat hunting with firearms. We hear about the lessons that Rob learned this year, such as the distractions of chasing the “latest and greatest” gear.

As we usually say, and strive to make true: there’s something for everyone in this episode."

 

[sneaky]

You could say that about many of the 'Foundations' that serve to 'protect' our hunting interests. Like 'em or not, their 'altruistic' purpose is often dubious when you look under the hood. Non-profits are required to make some form of their financials public via the IRS 990 filing. Look 'em up and follow the money (google 990 lookup and go to foundation center). It will make you think twice about sending a 'donation'. My watermark for a nonprofit CEO's salary is about $250k. Check out St. Jude and you will want to puke (it requires looking through the many chapters to see how many folks rake in over $1M/year). Wild sheep CEO pulls in about $350k a year. RMEF sends well over $100k per year to some guy living in the CO boonies that does 'art framing'. Good work if you can get it.

You should try to make sense of the SFW filings. Lots of gaps....

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

This"group" is up to 4 followers on Instagram. He's gonna change the world....

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[MtGomer]

The 1st co host of The Hunting Collective Podcast...

 

[bowieknife50]

#michigandudescanhiketoo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Muledeerfanatic]

You have to understand that the newspapers here in Teton county are the most liberal you will find anywhere.
I feel like having a few beers at the bar next to this dingleberries office and smacking him around afterwards. No idea who he is and never met him but he reminds me of most of the tools around here. Maybe he is a part of the cougar fund.

 

[mntnguide]

You have to understand that the newspapers here in Teton county are the most liberal you will find anywhere.
I feel like having a few beers at the bar next to this dingleberries office and smacking him around afterwards. No idea who he is and never met him but he reminds me of most of the tools around here. Maybe he is a part of the cougar fund.

Exactly... any article published about anything related to hunting in the JH news and guide written by Mike Koshmrl will never paint hunters in a good way. He is a complete anti and writes articles entirely on stirring up the anti's and starting arguments. I don't even think twice about anything he "reports" because it will always be one-sided

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[GotDraw?]

Better yet @Sneaky, perhaps you can make logical statements to inform where my logic is wrong and should be redirected so we can focus our efforts toward strong arguments that retain or bolster our hunting rights.

Do the SWOT analysis yourself, I am simply pointing out our weaknesses and a potential reality. Perhaps you miss the Threat portion of SWOT... we need to get ahead of potential issues, your very clever statement to me does no help getting any of us there.

I have been hand loading and rifle hunting for over 40 years, archery for 10. The internet and technology are changing the way we hunt and the perception of it, not always for the better.

JL

Perhaps he can put you on his board of directors

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[KurtR]

Perceived weakness in your opinion

 

[sneaky]

Better yet @Sneaky, perhaps you can make logical statements to inform where my logic is wrong and should be redirected so we can focus our efforts toward strong arguments that retain or bolster our hunting rights.

Do the SWOT analysis yourself, I am simply pointing out our weaknesses and a potential reality. Perhaps you miss the Threat portion of SWOT... we need to get ahead of potential issues, your very clever statement to me does no help getting any of us there.

I have been hand loading and rifle hunting for over 40 years, archery for 10. The internet and technology are changing the way we hunt and the perception of it, not always for the better.

JL

Sp, I'll stick with my original assessment since you seem to think that legislation is the only means to dictate what is fair and ethical. Only the hunter can decide at that moment if it's an ethical shot. For every person that you think doesn't need to take long range shots, there's probably a hundred guys who could make that shot without second thought. Putting a legislatively determined limit on any weapon for any animal is asinine. Reduce the number of tags if you think that animals are at an unfair advantage. Doesn't seem like harvest numbers have taken a huge jump even with all the new technology on the market. Historical harvest percentages are about the same. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean we need another stupid ass law on the books. This Shaul guy is a farce, and if you support his logic then we have very little in common.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[GotDraw?]

@sneaky, you miss my point. Take a breath, brother. It's all good.

1) I'm not for legislation I wish everyone had solid ethics on long distance shots. My point is that not all hunters are ethical just like not all drivers are ethical. I wish we could rely on all hunters to make the right ethical decisions when no one else can see them, but at least on the highway there are laws with consequences so people think twice before... perhaps driving at 180 mph just because their car has the horsepower and traction control and anti-lock brakes and they have an open road in front of them. They may not get caught but there are consequences if they do.

2) Ethics vary for everyone, but can generally be measured as a median response to a given situation or opportunity. What I said was, at some distance/conditions shots become unethical. And, at some distance, game cannot use its natural defenses and there is no fair chase- @sneaky - do you deny either of these?

Your logic is incorrect regarding long distance shots. Across the overall population of hunters (which is what I'm talking about here), for every hunter that tries to make a 1000 +/- yd shot in field off a backpack in the rain, cold and wind and hit his precise point of aim, there are a hundred that can't and they will wound game. No, there is not a precise distance for ethics in given conditions, but there are hunters that think far too much of their equipment and skills and far tool little of ethics or wounding the game they're after.

What I am saying is perhaps we should consider a general set of enforceable ethics before non-hunters or panty-waisted whiners like Shaul decide to do so for us with distance limits that are simply ridiculous. Yes, this will limit those folks who can shoot at 1000, 1500+ yds, but it might beat the shit out of some fool like Shaul getting a 300yd limit in place. I was once a member of gun club in Annapolis that had been around for 50+ years, they held night time trap shoots under the lights from 8pm-10pm at night. A community was eventually built next door and asked them not to shoot at night. Rather than working on an amicable agreement, the gun club said f/u, we're "grandfathered" we've been here for years. Well, when it was all over, the club could shoot from 9am-4pm and also lost their high power rifle range for years. Lesson I learned here was to always consider the consequences of your position and the maximum downside of your position.

And BTW... I did not reference harvest numbers, but since you brought it up, I was actually thinking of wounded/lost animals, those are not reported.

Be well amigo,

JL

Sp, I'll stick with my original assessment since you seem to think that legislation is the only means to dictate what is fair and ethical. Only the hunter can decide at that moment if it's an ethical shot. For every person that you think doesn't need to take long range shots, there's probably a hundred guys who could make that shot without second thought. Putting a legislatively determined limit on any weapon for any animal is asinine. Reduce the number of tags if you think that animals are at an unfair advantage. Doesn't seem like harvest numbers have taken a huge jump even with all the new technology on the market. Historical harvest percentages are about the same. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean we need another stupid ass law on the books. This Shaul guy is a farce, and if you support his logic then we have very little in common.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Ryan Avery]

@sneaky, you miss my point. Take a breath, brother. It's all good.

1) I'm not for legislation I wish everyone had solid ethics on long distance shots. My point is that not all hunters are ethical just like not all drivers are ethical. I wish we could rely on all hunters to make the right ethical decisions when no one else can see them, but at least on the highway there are laws with consequences so people think twice before... perhaps driving at 180 mph just because their car has the horsepower and traction control and anti-lock brakes and they have an open road in front of them. They may not get caught but there are consequences if they do.

2) Ethics vary for everyone, but can generally be measured as a median response to a given situation or opportunity. What I said was, at some distance/conditions shots become unethical. And, at some distance, game cannot use its natural defenses and there is no fair chase- @sneaky - do you deny either of these?

Your logic is incorrect regarding long distance shots. Across the overall population of hunters (which is what I'm talking about here), for every hunter that tries to make a 1000 +/- yd shot in field off a backpack in the rain, cold and wind and hit his precise point of aim, there are a hundred that can't and they will wound game. No, there is not a precise distance for ethics in given conditions, but there are hunters that think far too much of their equipment and skills and far tool little of ethics or wounding the game they're after.

What I am saying is perhaps we should consider a general set of enforceable ethics before non-hunters or panty-waisted whiners like Shaul decide to do so for us with distance limits that are simply ridiculous. Yes, this will limit those folks who can shoot at 1000, 1500+ yds, but it might beat the shit out of some fool like Shaul getting a 300yd limit in place. I was once a member of gun club in Annapolis that had been around for 50+ years, they held night time trap shoots under the lights from 8pm-10pm at night. A community was eventually built next door and asked them not to shoot at night. Rather than working on an amicable agreement, the gun club said f/u, we're "grandfathered" we've been here for years. Well, when it was all over, the club could shoot from 9am-4pm and also lost their high power rifle range for years. Lesson I learned here was to always consider the consequences of your position and the maximum downside of your position.

And BTW... I did not reference harvest numbers, but since you brought it up, I was actually thinking of wounded/lost animals, those are not reported.

Be well amigo,

JL

**** that!

What's next we can only hunt on Fridays? We CONSTANTLY give ground. I'm tired of giving things up in the name of compromise or someone else's idea of logical.

 

[GotDraw?]

Ryan,

I hear you on your statement "**** THAT!", and I know it feels good to posture and put it out there.

However, you and I both know **** That! is not a defensible answer and is exactly the mentality that the Annapolis Club had... and they were the ones that got F'd in the end.

Given my prior experience in that matter, all I am doing is opening debate and discussion concerning Shaul's position.

FWIW... This is really a tempest in a teapot, Shaul effectively has zero traction at present. We'll see where this goes in a few years.

JL

**** that!

What's next we can only hunt on Fridays? We CONSTANTLY give ground. I'm tired of giving things up in the name of compromise or someone else's idea of logical.

 

[bsnedeker]

Ryan,

I hear you on your statement "**** THAT!", and I know it feels good to posture and put it out there.

However, you and I both know **** That! is not a defensible answer and is exactly the mentality that the Annapolis Club had... and they were the ones that got F'd in the end.

Given my prior experience in that matter, all I am doing is opening debate and discussion concerning Shaul's position.

FWIW... This is really a tempest in a teapot, Shaul effectively has zero traction at present. We'll see where this goes in a few years.

JL

Ethics are up to the individual....period, end of story. Trying to apply your own personal ethics either through legislation or some sort completely unenforceable "gentleman's agreement" does absolutely nothing to sway the minds of anti hunters. Anti's are antis and if we give ground to them we gain absolutely nothing...all we do is lose and fracture the already small hunting community even further by pushing people out of the sport. I appreciate where your coming from, thinking that if we police ourselves then the anti's will back off, but that is simply not reality.

We are already being backed into a corner in a lot of places as liberals invade our hunting grounds and bring their politics with them to areas where they would not have been welcome even 10 years ago. I'm not saying we should go on the offensive because that also will not do us any good, but giving ground to these people is a lose-lose scenario for hunters 100% of the time.

 

[CorbLand]

Its starts at limiting it to 500 yards, then its 250 then 125. Antis want to shut hunting down, period. It doesnt matter the method, its doesnt matter the take, they dont like it. You wont change that by simply limiting your range.

I dont agree with long range hunting but I will never tell someone that they cant do it. I sat on the glass and watched my buddy kill an elk a little of 700 this year. It was impressive, I would never shoot that far but I can respect those that do and dont push my personal beliefs onto others.

 

[Bronc]

I think “we as a group” have done a good job on the ethics front on our own. Minimum caliber sizes, minimum poundage on bows, Broadhead design requirements, hunting seasons, no spotlighting, not pursuing game by motor vehicle, taking all edible portions of meat, to name a few. The last thing we need is a group of anti hunters posing as a hunters group dictating our ethics.

 

[Jebuwh]

I gonna go with an Eff that as well on this one. If we try and set our own "ethics rules" then its a perfect starting place for anti's to begin reducing that down.

Eff that is absolutely the best answer. The gun club should have done better with a lawyer off the bat to guarantee the new development was aware where they were buying.

If the rule across hunting is be ethical and only do ethical things, there is nowhere for an anti hunter to push that. If we say well 800 yards and less is the most ethical, then the anti's have a starting place to say well why not 500, that seems better.

NO SIR.

NO MORE RULES, NO MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS! It has to stop!

 

[bsnedeker]

I think “we as a group” have done a good job on the ethics front on our own. Minimum caliber sizes, minimum poundage on bows, Broadhead design requirements, hunting seasons, no spotlighting, not pursuing game by motor vehicle, taking all edible portions of meat, to name a few. The last thing we need is a group of anti hunters posing as a hunters group dictating our ethics.

The only thing I'll add/point out is that most of what you have described are not things that we have decided "as a group". These are things that the various state departments of Fish and Game have decided, and they make their decisions based on science. When we try to add ethics into that equation that is where things get muddy and unclear. I believe very strongly that we should leave wild game laws and regulations up to the people that live and breath them every day. They aren't perfect but they are, in my opinion, the best-positioned group of people to decide what should be allowed, and what should not. They absolutely take wound-loss into account when they make their regulations and if it becomes a big enough problem that it affects the wildlife (not the personal beliefs and ethics of random individuals), they will take the appropriate action.

 

[MTElkChaser]

I hate to tell him, but your “Federal Land” in WY is actually my land, and everyone else’s land on here. Buy some private property if you don’t like it. What a douche ...

 

[Ryan Avery]

Ryan,

I hear you on your statement "**** THAT!", and I know it feels good to posture and put it out there.

However, you and I both know **** That! is not a defensible answer and is exactly the mentality that the Annapolis Club had... and they were the ones that got F'd in the end.

Given my prior experience in that matter, all I am doing is opening debate and discussion concerning Shaul's position.

FWIW... This is really a tempest in a teapot, Shaul effectively has zero traction at present. We'll see where this goes in a few years.

JL

I'm not saying **** that and do nothing. Just like when Idaho passed this new BS trespassing law I did everything I could to help stop it. But most Idaho hunters sat on their butts and let it happen.

I just don't get why we(hunters) are ok with more laws or rules that slowly erode our way of life. Yet, we always disguise it as a way to help appease anti or non-hunters when the truth is it will do little to change or sway their minds. Ethics are personal and I don't need any more nonprofits speaking for me.