Exclusively Bowhunters vs. General Rifle Hunters.... lend your thoughts

[airlocksniffer]

Who cares?

Cold hard truth = Nobody in D.C. gives a shit about you or me. They only care about lobby money and insider trading. They'll say ANYTHING that will get them elected. So hanging your hat on some political agenda, or party is probably just going to lead to disappointment.

To try and draw politics into hunting at EVERY turn of the road is exhausting....and pointless.

Well put.

I know the off season is making everybody a bit snappy but let's remember rifle or bow, we are all hunters. As Roksliders, let's keep this respectful and constructive.

 

[djsmith46]

BUT, if you want public land to hunt, the left seems to be a little better at providing this. The problem is much of the left would love nothing more than to see public land providing recreation exclusively for the non-gun toting demographic./QUOTE]

Nonsensical. Liberals do not want you to have guns or hunt. So saying they are better at providing public land to hunt is nonsense.

Their agenda fully realized leaves you with no guns, no hunting, no private land ownership, and begging them for a permit to access public land on their terms.

Read again what you quoted out of my post. I essentially said the same thing you just posted. The left in Washington state has, without a doubt, provided the citizens with a lot of public land relative to many states. And as of now we can hunt on much of this land. HOWEVER, now the left would love nothing more than to take away the hunting and provide exclusive access to the non-hunting population.

 

[Nogunjoe]

ok. If our points were the same great! I just took issue with "If you want public land to hunt, the left seems to be a little better at providing this".
Your next sentence does make my same point.

 

[couesbitten]

the left would love nothing more than to take away the hunting and provide exclusive access to the non-hunting population.

Exactly djsmith, you hit that nail on the head. I would love to see some specific examples of what Jason Snyder thinks that the two (in my opinion) worthless Senators from Washington have done to benefit hunters. I'd be willing to bet that whatever it was they voted on or proposed, any benefit that hunters got from it was just a matter of pure dumb luck, "collateral damage" so to speak.

 

[Coyote Commander]

One only needs to look at your own senator, John Tester to see the falsehood in this statement. He is a far cry better for sportsmen than his predecessor Denny Rehberg.

Tester ain't bad. But he's the exception, not the norm in the democrat party.

More of a "Kennedy era" dem.

Throw out his abysmal Obamacare vote and a few of his stances on "social" issues and he's more Republican than most coastal Republicans.

Look at the party as a whole without cherry picking members.

 

[BroodBuster]

Exactly djsmith, you hit that nail on the head. I would love to see some specific examples of what Jason Snyder thinks that the two (in my opinion) worthless Senators from Washington have done to benefit hunters. I'd be willing to bet that whatever it was they voted on or proposed, any benefit that hunters got from it was just a matter of pure dumb luck, "collateral damage" so to speak.

I've never voted for either one of them but Murrey did recently get the "Wild Sky Wilderness Act" passed thru the senate. Reichert, a Republican, sponsored it thru the house. I'd say adding thousands of valley acres in the Sky/Sultan river basin to the states wilderness areas is benificial for hunters. Not to mention that the Alpine Lake wilderness just added a thousand or so acres to the middle fork of the Snoqalmie river.

What I've always found funny is that the two biggest conservative groups in Wa, the farmers and ranchers, suck more off the Gov titty in one year than I will in a lifetime!

Just sayin.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Exactly djsmith, you hit that nail on the head. I would love to see some specific examples of what Jason Snyder thinks that the two (in my opinion) worthless Senators from Washington have done to benefit hunters. I'd be willing to bet that whatever it was they voted on or proposed, any benefit that hunters got from it was just a matter of pure dumb luck, "collateral damage" so to speak.

Well, as of late they both voted for full reauthorization of the Land & Water Conservation Fund, and have voted twice now to support the Bipartisan Sportsman's Act that was co-sponsored by John Tester.

We can also simply agree to disagree, I highly doubt I'm going to change your mind anyway.

Edit: I'm not a huge supporter of either one, but neither are they the death knell for hunters.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Tester ain't bad. But he's the exception, not the norm in the democrat party.

More of a "Kennedy era" dem.

Throw out his abysmal Obamacare vote and a few of his stances on "social" issues and he's more Republican than most coastal Republicans.

Look at the party as a whole without cherry picking members.

I'm not cherry picking, merely pointing out that it's pretty difficult to make an absolute statement and have it be true.

Teddy Roosevelt would likely be considered a liberal by the current Republican platform, and was one of the most visionary presidents ever when it came to preserving open spaces and providing the American public with a literal treasure of natural resources to enjoy.

 

[fastphin]

I only bow hunt at this point, haven't gun hunted for big game in years. I do shoot my rifles and love owning guns, in fact I would say I am way more into owning firearms then I am bows.
That's said I shoot, use and tune bows more.

At one point was died in wool republican, then I would say I shifted more and more conservative, as I seen the Republican Party didn't represent my views. as the years went buy and I see less and less difference in either party I would say My views that I once thought were conservative are way more in line with Libertarians.

We have a political system that is corporate partnership with an entrenched bureaucracy, and both parties politicians no longer represent the citizenry.

The last lines sound like a replay of recent conversations both major political parties are backed by corporations and their agendas. Heck where is T. Roosevelt and the Bull Moose party?

If I'm defined by a party it would be Libertarian. Love hunting quail with my dog and a shotgun. Enjoy bowhunting and the spiritual peace it brings me not all hunts end with a kill.

 

[bogeyboy555]

The new generation is promising though. Hipster hunters, highly health conscious people, and others have a more open mind. The city centers are producing these and it is good for Hunting.

I completely agree here. I am 30 years old, and the people who seem to be gravitating towards the true backcountry minimalistic bowhunting, are of that hipster type mentality. They are physically, diet, and environmentally conscious people. They are also the ones who seem to drop the liberal vs. conservatives act and focus on the meaningful aspects of hunting.

Is it safe to say that the modern backcountry bowhunter mentality attracts a new group of hunters, and is more acceptable to folks who are anti-hunting?

 

[charvey9]

I think that issues, not necessarily people, can safely be classified on one end of the spectrum or the other. Especially on hot button issues such as hunting, abortion, marriage equality, gun control, etc. Your opinion on that topic will generally fall into a liberal/democrat or conservative/republican view in terms of each parties public stance. I believe the mistake lies in assuming that a person who stands on one side of a particular issue affiliates with that point of view on all other issues. This obviously is not the case.

As far as rifle vs. bowhunting, I have not shared your experience. Although I do not prefer to speak politics while hunting, the vast majority of hunters I know tend to fall to the right on most issues.

 

[5MilesBack]

Is it safe to say that the modern backcountry bowhunter mentality attracts a new group of hunters, and is more acceptable to folks who are anti-hunting?

If they are anti-hunting, then they are anti-hunting. How we do it, why we do it, what we use to do it is irrelevant to an anti-hunter. Semantics shouldn't change a person's stance on what they believe in or don't believe in.

If someone approves of bowhunting, but disapproves of gun hunting, then they are not anti-hunting.

 

[Jason Snyder]

I think Dustin's statement would have been accurate had he used the term non-hunter instead of anti-hunter. I don't care about anti-hunters, you won't reason with or influence them. I do care about non-hunters, because they can be a very valuable ally.

 

[mmw194287]

I do care about non-hunters, because they can be a very valuable ally.

X2 on this one. Dividing the country into "hunters" and "anti-hunters" leaves out a vast majority of the population. Most people don't hunt, yet most people approve of hunting--and that approval is contingent on their perception of it. Hunting's future depends very much on its public image.

 

[bogeyboy555]

I think Dustin's statement would have been accurate had he used the term non-hunter instead of anti-hunter. I don't care about anti-hunters, you won't reason with or influence them. I do care about non-hunters, because they can be a very valuable ally.

Good point! non-hunters are the folks I am referring to. I guess I am just drawing from this experience I have had lately where people who are passively non-hunters completely change their tone when I describe and show them pictures from my backcountry bow hunts. I also talk about what great shape it gets me in, helps me reset in other areas of my life, and provides great interaction away from traffic and cell phones. I have taken a few folks with me on scouting trips and they all seem to discover a curiosity for hunting animals as well as an appreciation for how I have chosen to go about it.

QUESTION
If non-hunters are a valuable asset, which do you think they will be generally more supportive of?
1) Backcountry bowhunting, tough terrain, no ATV's, packing out your own animals, etc....
2) Glassing from the car with your .30-06 in a pair of blue jeans, taking an animal no more than a few hundred yards from a cozy cabin

I think there is a stereotype that people who hunt in general are simple minded guys looking to take the laziest route to kill an animal 200 yards away, sometime for meat, and sometimes just for fun.

I personally think if you want to have hunting appeal to a larger modern audience, it needs to be shown as an extremely difficult and educated process.

thoughts?

 

[WyoHnt300]

QUESTION
If non-hunters are a valuable asset, which do you think they will be generally more supportive of?
1) Backcountry bowhunting, tough terrain, no ATV's, packing out your own animals, etc....
2) Glassing from the car with your .30-06 in a pair of blue jeans, taking an animal no more than a few hundred yards from a cozy cabin

I think there is a stereotype that people who hunt in general are simple minded guys looking to take the laziest route to kill an animal 200 yards away, sometime for meat, and sometimes just for fun.

I personally think if you want to have hunting appeal to a larger modern audience, it needs to be shown as an extremely difficult and educated process.

Both of these are great questions, unfortunately, I don't know that there is a right or wrong answer. By classifying or prioritizing any specific hunting methods we would be dividing our own forces. Neither method violates any code or law (as long as shots aren't fired from said vehicle). Both have a different group of circumstances that interest those that execute those methods. Your last sentence dustin, is probably the proverbial hammer on the nail head statement. We as a conservationist community need to encourage and educate about all facets of our valued culture and lifestyle. That can be accomplished for both styles you've indicated, and doing so without a bias is key to the longevity of what we all value so greatly.

 

[Shrek]

Good point! non-hunters are the folks I am referring to. I guess I am just drawing from this experience I have had lately where people who are passively non-hunters completely change their tone when I describe and show them pictures from my backcountry bow hunts. I also talk about what great shape it gets me in, helps me reset in other areas of my life, and provides great interaction away from traffic and cell phones. I have taken a few folks with me on scouting trips and they all seem to discover a curiosity for hunting animals as well as an appreciation for how I have chosen to go about it.

QUESTION
If non-hunters are a valuable asset, which do you think they will be generally more supportive of?
1) Backcountry bowhunting, tough terrain, no ATV's, packing out your own animals, etc....
2) Glassing from the car with your .30-06 in a pair of blue jeans, taking an animal no more than a few hundred yards from a cozy cabin

I think there is a stereotype that people who hunt in general are simple minded guys looking to take the laziest route to kill an animal 200 yards away, sometime for meat, and sometimes just for fun.

I personally think if you want to have hunting appeal to a larger modern audience, it needs to be shown as an extremely difficult and educated process.

thoughts?

My first and last thought about you and your attitude toward other hunters who do not come at hunting with the same values as you do is you are an absolute elitist prick. I can't even begin to express how obnoxious I find you. Just because the guy in the pickup who glasses up a roadside animal and shoots it to fill his freezer and doesn't find value in making filling the freezer an epic struggle doesn't make his way invalid. You most certainly come from an urban environment so crave time in nature and your own mythology of what hunting should be. I'm sure that as you try to convince non hunters of your rightiousness you also spread your prejudice against rifle hunters , non backcountry hunters , and anyone who doesn't provide validation of your choices and values. Your choice reflects that you have both the luxury and desire to choose a less efficient method of take.

 

[Craig Van Arsdale]

The more and more of these threads I see on here the less it makes me want to even come on here!!! What a waste of time....

 

[Shrek]

The very title of this thread is devisive trolling.

 

[Take-a-knee]

Teddy Roosevelt would likely be considered a liberal by the current Republican platform

I'd really like to know what you base that assumption on. TR took on the money trusts, because he understood that cronyism was anathema to free-enterprise. Most of TR's positions would place him FAR to the right of anyone in today's Republican Party.