a new hunter 'advocacy' group

[WhiteOak]

They had a basically anti hunting protest on the square in Jackson today]

All you have to do is Google Jackson hole hunting protest. It was billed as a worldwide protest against trophy hunting. That seems to be the biggest angle being worked by the antis. That everyone who is proud to take game is a trophy hunter. Damn idiots, wonton waste laws already prohibit what thier perception of trophy hunting is.

How do we get ahead of this stupid trophy hunting bullshit? Every animal is a trophy. Some may want to hold out for exceptional animals but that is thier choice if they get one the meat must come with it. If not they gave money to sate wildlife and didnt remove any animals from the landscape.

There are already laws against "trophy hunting". ****ing nonsense.

 

[cmahoney]

So do they want us to shoot forked horns?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JWP58]

I would suggest that anyone looking for a workout plan to spend their money on some NSCA texts book, gain knowledge, and make their own workout plans. It's not rocket science.

Do not give your money to this anti hunting ding dong.

 

[Pro953]

All you have to do is Google Jackson hole hunting protest. It was billed as a worldwide protest against trophy hunting. That seems to be the biggest angle being worked by the antis. That everyone who is proud to take game is a trophy hunter. Damn idiots, wonton waste laws already prohibit what thier perception of trophy hunting is.

How do we get ahead of this stupid trophy hunting bullshit? Every animal is a trophy. Some may want to hold out for exceptional animals but that is thier choice if they get one the meat must come with it. If not they gave money to sate wildlife and didnt remove any animals from the landscape.

There are already laws against "trophy hunting". ****ing nonsense.

My suggestion. A “this is my trophy” marketing campaign. With a shot of a back-strap steak or something along that line. I am sure holes can be punched in the idea. It’s just what came to mind.

Like it was said above, sadly everything is about branding. Most folks hear the word trophy and the only thing that comes to mind is taxidermy. Speaking for myself here but the trophy is the whole experience the taxidermy is just the reminder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Okhotnik]

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."

That punk has only been hunting 2 years and is lecturing other hunters? I shot my first deer with a recurve over 40 years ago. Sounds like the Post Clown.

Maybe he can rep for Sitka too

 

[Okhotnik]

The NRA and gun owners try much harder than Hunters at that plan and still they lose ground at a steady pace.

So your solution is to give up ground proactively?



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

NRA is losing ground?

 

[TheCougar]

Just sent an email to Rob Shaul. It won’t change his mind, but I hit him in the pocketbook at least. His email is: [email protected] , in case anyone wants to sign up to be a charter member of his hyper elite hunter anti-hunting group.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

He's been bow hunting since 2016. He was a rifle meat hunter before that. He thinks trophy hunting is wrong because he sucks at hunting.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[jmden]

Trophy hunting is more defensible from a scientific standpoint and a wildlife conservation standpoint and raises more money per animal harvested for wildlife conservation as part of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation than hunting of younger animals is.

Paying big (more) money for 'trophy' license tags (goes back to support wildlife conservation as a whole, right?) to humanely and quickly kill an animal that is usually not too far from a natural death (A prolonged, painful death from starvation, predation or disease is how animals die 'naturally', right? A clean kill from a hunter means less suffering in the long run for the animal, right? Trophies are usually in the older ages classes, closer to death, right?) and because they are older, they have less opportunity left than younger animals to propagate future generations of the species (makes sense scientifically, right?) and so it makes more sense from a wildlife conservation standpoint to harvest them. And because hunters after true trophies are less likely to 'settle' for a younger animal, less animals are harvested overall. It actually makes more wildlife conservation sense in many ways than 'meat hunting'.

We should be supporting trophy hunting at every possible turn, NOT acting high and mighty because I'm a 'meat hunter', subsistence hunter, etc. Give me a break. That's fine too but don't knock trophy hunting! Especially as a fellow hunter! Get educated and get a backbone and take a stand for legal, responsible hunting. Period. It's like I said earlier in this thread, it is so short-sighted for hunters to divide hunters. Dumb. Don't do it.

 

[Rthur]

Another tool expounding on his opinion of "ethical" requirements.
Him and Post should get together for a circle jerk of social media "likes".
It would appear "they" have learned something from politicians.
It's easier to destroy something from the inside.

R

 

[dieselchessy]

Trophy hunting is more defensible from a scientific standpoint and a wildlife conservation standpoint and raises more money per animal harvested for wildlife conservation as part of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation than hunting of younger animals is.

Paying big (more) money for 'trophy' license tags (goes back to support wildlife conservation as a whole, right?) to humanely and quickly kill an animal that is usually not too far from a natural death (A prolonged, painful death from starvation, predation or disease is how animals die 'naturally', right? A clean kill from a hunter means less suffering in the long run for the animal, right? Trophies are usually in the older ages classes, closer to death, right?) and because they are older, they have less opportunity left than younger animals to propagate future generations of the species (makes sense scientifically, right?) and so it makes more sense from a wildlife conservation standpoint to harvest them. And because hunters after true trophies are less likely to 'settle' for a younger animal, less animals are harvested overall. It actually makes more wildlife conservation sense in many ways than 'meat hunting'.

We should be supporting trophy hunting at every possible turn, NOT acting high and mighty because I'm a 'meat hunter', subsistence hunter, etc. Give me a break. That's fine too but don't knock trophy hunting! Especially as a fellow hunter! Get educated and get a backbone and take a stand for legal, responsible hunting. Period. It's like I said earlier in this thread, it is so short-sighted for hunters to divide hunters. Dumb. Don't do it.

Your statements are either wrong or at least easily argued against depending on data set used.

It is widely accepted that selling off the finest trophy opportunities' to those who are well off doesn't fall in line with the #1 Principal of the NAMWC. There is a significant percentage of hunters who don't agree with Auction tags, Governor's tags, ect... That is not "equal access for all". It is accepted only because it is a small percentage of the tags and it offers so much conservation funding. If say for instance all sheep tags were auctioned off, I'm certain it would provide lots of funding per animal harvested, but also certain folks would agree it didn't fall under the #1 Principal and wasn't acceptable.

Its also accepted that humans selecting to harvest the older Trophy animals instead of following the lines of natural selection that tends to have a higher selection of the young can have a non-desirable affect on populations.

first one that popped up on Google:
https://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_1/9987

 

[jspradley]

Your statements are either wrong or at least easily argued against depending on data set used.

It is widely accepted that selling off the finest trophy opportunities' to those who are well off doesn't fall in line with the #1 Principal of the NAMWC. There is a significant percentage of hunters who don't agree with Auction tags, Governor's tags, ect... That is not "equal access for all". It is accepted only because it is a small percentage of the tags and it offers so much conservation funding. If say for instance all sheep tags were auctioned off, I'm certain it would provide lots of funding per animal harvested, but also certain folks would agree it didn't fall under the #1 Principal and wasn't acceptable.

Its also accepted that humans selecting to harvest the older Trophy animals instead of following the lines of natural selection that tends to have a higher selection of the young can have a non-desirable affect on populations.

first one that popped up on Google:
https://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_1/9987

I don't believe the NAMWC is the be-all end all gospel written in stone by Jesus himself but it is the best model devised so far.

With that said there is no good argument against the auctioned off governors tags other than "it doesn't fit the model". We could even go so far as to argue that charging ANYTHING at all to hunt isn't equal access for all so there has to be a balance there. The incredible amounts of conservation money raised by the tiny handful of Governors tags auctioned off every year far outweighs the "evil" of those tags being only for the rich who can afford them.

The science also seems to be contentious on human induced evolution on "trophy quality", there are good points on both sides and it is something that needs to be studied but the effects often seem to be negated by targeting mature animals since they have already passed on their genes.

Which all of that does bring into question the idea of what makes one animal a "quality animal" and another of "lesser quality"? It's really a pretty silly distinction and all extremely relative and subjective.

 

[jmden]

Your statements are either wrong or at least easily argued against depending on data set used.

It is widely accepted that selling off the finest trophy opportunities' to those who are well off doesn't fall in line with the #1 Principal of the NAMWC. There is a significant percentage of hunters who don't agree with Auction tags, Governor's tags, ect... That is not "equal access for all". It is accepted only because it is a small percentage of the tags and it offers so much conservation funding. If say for instance all sheep tags were auctioned off, I'm certain it would provide lots of funding per animal harvested, but also certain folks would agree it didn't fall under the #1 Principal and wasn't acceptable.

Its also accepted that humans selecting to harvest the older Trophy animals instead of following the lines of natural selection that tends to have a higher selection of the young can have a non-desirable affect on populations.

first one that popped up on Google:
https://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_1/9987

I never said anything about Governor's tags or auctioned tags but that's a hard argument to make I think--lotsa money though for sure. I was thinking mostly of non-residents that apply for tags in states or other nations and areas in hopes of being able to harvest a 'trophy' animal--big money is paid for this opportunity. Many don't harvest an animal at all. I could go on, but...

I read through part of the .pdf. I'd like to see some rigorous peer review of that article--I'm guessing it could be contentious. It seemed to me there were assumptions being used, something I wouldn't expect or hope to see in a scientific article/paper/study. But we see that all the time these days in some ways or another. Philosophical assumptions undergirding so-called scientific thought is common along with 'who's paying for the study', is it truly double-blind, what funding are they trying to secure by promulgating this so-called scientific information, etc. One among many--Look a the UN debacle a few years ago with all the admittedly made up 'science' about global warming. They wanted something so much to be true that they made it so and used science as a tool. Philosophy uses science all the time. Beware...quite a rabbit trail to go down there, but not germane to the issue at hand. 'Scientists' are human too and they bring bias to their science depending on the type of study, etc.

No matter what you believe as a hunter about other hunters, we should not be 'tearing each other apart' unless someone is hunting illegally or irresponsibly. Hunt legally. Hunt responsibly.

Certainly don't let the PC cops turn you/us against trophy hunting. Let's quit folding in the face of the first little PC police that show up on the scene.

And I've never even taken what I would call a trophy animal. I'm a meat hunter but realize the value of trophy hunting for everyone and wildlife as a whole.

 

[260madman]

Elite bow hunter being elite I guess. They sure complain the most around my AO. I bow hunt but I don’t complain about the regs. Long season is nice.

 

[WCS]

Your statements are either wrong or at least easily argued against depending on data set used.


Its also accepted that humans selecting to harvest the older Trophy animals instead of following the lines of natural selection that tends to have a higher selection of the young can have a non-desirable affect on populations.

first one that popped up on Google:
https://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_1/9987

One of the studies quoted in that study, the Coltwell et al. (2003) that concluded that 'trophy hunting' was to blame for changes in the horn size of bighorn sheep in the ram mountain area of Alberta. That study came under criticism for the small sample size and for using a somewhat isolated population of bighorns that had been subject to high hunting pressure or what some described as overhunting. More recent papers have shown that habitat quality is much more likely to have an effect on the phenotypic qualities exhibited by a population when compared to licensed hunting in North America. Jim Heffelfinger's article on the inefficiency of hunting induced genetic change is one of the better ones that I have read. Most biologists would agree though that "trophy" phenotypes would be reduced in a population subject to widespread overhunting (e.g. market hunting, the ivory trade affects on African elephants).

"No matter what you believe as a hunter about other hunters, we should not be 'tearing each other apart' unless someone is hunting illegally or irresponsibly. Hunt legally. Hunt responsibly." - jmden Great way to sum it up. I wish Rob Shaul would read that.

 

[Akwoodchuck]

One of the studies quoted in that study, the Coltwell et al. (2003) that concluded that 'trophy hunting' was to blame for changes in the horn size of bighorn sheep in the ram mountain area of Alberta. That study came under criticism for the small sample size and for using a somewhat isolated population of bighorns that had been subject to high hunting pressure or what some described as overhunting. More recent papers have shown that habitat quality is much more likely to have an effect on the phenotypic qualities exhibited by a population when compared to licensed hunting in North America. Jim Heffelfinger's article on the inefficiency of hunting induced genetic change is one of the better ones that I have read. Most biologists would agree though that "trophy" phenotypes would be reduced in a population subject to widespread overhunting (e.g. market hunting, the ivory trade affects on African elephants).

"No matter what you believe as a hunter about other hunters, we should not be 'tearing each other apart' unless someone is hunting illegally or irresponsibly. Hunt legally. Hunt responsibly." - jmden Great way to sum it up. I wish Rob Shaul would read that.

Bingo. Great response. My first thought was, "two fisheries scientists with little or no big game field work cherry-picking data to fit their ideology"....
....modern, data-driven sport hunting has helped bring North American wildlife back from the brink of annihilation....seriously, read some current writing by "trophy hunters" compared to the letters of Bill Cody and his cronies, it's pretty obvious!

 

[mitchellbk]

https://pastebin.com/mP0tkzz9

Here’s his newsletter hot off the press. He’s corrected his stance from 300yds to 400 also other background information and recent feedback. He did a couple podcasts in December (another Exo) should be out soon?

I guess you either show up to these Wyoming G&F meetings and voice your opinion, or trust that the G&F aligns with you. It’s good to see G&F already taking a firm negative stance to his opinions.

 

[sneaky]

If EXO gives him more airtime I'll delete them from my podcast selection. This guy is a moron. He says he's for the western subsistence hunter, yet he wants no one outside of Wyoming to actually hunt in Wyoming. He's just setting himself up to get paid by a bunch of anti hunting groups.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[mitchellbk]

"Mountain Pursuit Action Fund - Hope to file the paperwork with the state of Wyoming this week to create a separate non profit, the "Mountain Pursuit Action Fund." We currently have a 501(c)(3) application for "Mountain Pursuit" into the IRS for review. However, a 501(c)(3) designation will prevent us from doing any hard lobbying and endorsing political candidates. We'll need a (c)(4) non profit to do this - hence the separate organization. Folks can deduct donations to a (c)(3), but money donated to a (c)(3) can't be used for any lobbying or to endorse candidates .... hence the need for a (c)(4). "

When these are established - what's the process, or is there even a process to finding out who all donated money to the 501c 3,4s?

 

[cmahoney]

If EXO gives him more airtime I'll delete them from my podcast selection. This guy is a moron. He says he's for the western subsistence hunter, yet he wants no one outside of Wyoming to actually hunt in Wyoming. He's just setting himself up to get paid by a bunch of anti hunting groups.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I agree about the podcast, some of the podcasts I have been listening to are sounding too hipster/liberal PC for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk