Good Luck Oregon

[axeforce6]

That article is a disaster to read.

 

[WhatToHunt]

These two statements early in the piece got me:

“The North American Model of Conservation, which has guided fish and game agencies since the turn of the 20th century, is outdated and no longer an appropriate and workable framework for wildlife management…”

“The new director should be someone with a conservation background, not an old-school “wildlife management” degree who looks to the best science to guide policy.”

Ummm. What?

Agreed. Got me like:

 

[Oregon]

Football bat meet soup sandwich.

 

[Bluumoon]

The article brings up wildlife being held in Trust.

Newberg did a great podcast on wildlife being a "public trust" resource, I encourage a listen. Newberg explains that as part of his day job he is charged with managing "Trusts". The gist of his argument is that while wildlife is held in trust for the people of the state, everyone is not entitled to equal say into how that wildlife is managed. In a trust those who fund the trust are required to have primary say in how the trust is managed, nor are the trust resources required to be distributed equally....Newberg suggests that sportsman may in fact have legal standing to sue when wildlife agencies stray into everyone has an equal voice territory when Sportsmen and women fund the majority of the Trust.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

So much wrong with this article. Author clearly has an anti-hunting bias. Throwing out the NAMWC makes no sense. The public trust doctrine is a part of the NAMWC. He just wants to completely exclude hunters from wildlife management. I hope Oregon residents can see the agenda with folks like this and find a balanced, pragmatic Director. IP3 ballot initiative or whatever they are calling now is the greatest threat to hunting, fishing, and even agriculture.

 

[wapitibob]

It's the Bio's and Commission where the ideals make the difference. I don't care who they put in the seat if he/she can change the mindset of those two groups and put some more Deer on the landscape.

Past people, and Commissions brought us to where we are today.

 

[Vaultman]

Can I claim asylum in Montana or Wyoming now so when we move I don’t get looked at like we look at the Californians?

#metoo

 

[idelkslayer]

The article is cringy and full of false implications but it will be effective in convincing the public to agree with him. I am as horrified by this type of scenario as anyone but let me play the devils advocate for a minute.

The author, however misguided, has brought up some true issues that we as the "hook and bullet" crowd tend to ignore. And since we ignore it or can't educate the general public in our favor they will win because their talking points sound reasonable to the general public.

He points out that studies have repeatedly shown that hatchery steelhead and salmon stocks have long term detrimental impacts on wild fish populations. Despite that, anglers don't care as long as there is a steady supply of hatchery fish for them to catch. The science is true on both points, stocking is bad for wild fish, and stocking provides renewable recreational opportunities. So which science should we give priority to? Anglers have proven to be unwilling to sacrifice fishing opportunity in favor of managing for a fully wild population so what is the solution? Have angler put forward any viable solutions that would preserve fishing opportunity while also increase wild populations or are we just maintaining the status quo on the edge of sustainability? We can say it isn't our problem because anything we do is minor compared to the impacts of dams but which side will the general public support?

He delves more into half truths with his statement that "we now know and appreciate the presence of wolves, mountain lions and other predators in our ecosystems. They help control disease among ungulates, plant-eating hoofed animals like elk and mule deer, and provide for safer meat consumption for humans." He didn't say anything that is untrue (although the safe meat consumption comment is a stretch) but he ignores that predator populations are high and growing even while states have managed hunting seasons for both predator and prey animals for decades with great success. However, his message resonates with the general public because our side is often represented by the "Kill 'em all" crowd and that isn't going to win over the public.

He does it again with "The 200 or so beaver trappers in the state must not be allowed to deprive our 4.4 million residents of the ecosystem services having healthy beaver populations provides. We must protect beavers for the expansive wetland habitats they create that foster natural fire breaks, water storage, water filtration, carbon capture and more. " Again, scientific studies would support everything he says about the benefits that healthy beaver populations provide, but he ignores that managed trapping seasons do not eliminate those benefits.

A lot of the science that enviros use is based on the study of small scale wildlife benefits and then extrapolating that to the entire state or ecosystem. The facts aren't wrong but they are trumped up into something that doesn't actually apply at large scales. Everything he says about beavers is true but healthy beaver wetland systems aren't going to prevent wildfire, save us from global warming, or ensure clean drinking water for 4.4 million people as he seems to imply. Hunters/trappers/anglers don't need to disagree with the scientific benefits he cites but we can agree while also pointing out that limited hunting and trapping does not disrupt the natural system.

If hunters and anglers want to successfully fight these movements we can't do it by simply saying it's ridiculous and self evident why it is so wrong. They are using facts and science that suit their narrative and that resonate with the general public. Do we have a counter message that resonates with the public?

I think the "hook and bullet" crowd is more correct on these issues than anyone else but that doesn't mean that our views are going to win when it matters. The title of this thread is perfect; good luck Oregon, you're gonna need it.

 

[Oregonboy]

I've never heard of that website before. Does anyone in Oregon actually read articles from this site or is it just the same 100 crazy liberals anytime this guy posts something?

Never heard of it either. Also, this author is a complete clown. Writers like this are why the word "Journalist" is becoming a pejorative.

 

[Shortz]

Everyone has an opinion...

 

[4cMuley]

This is an opinion piece, and almost reads like satire lol. I clicked the guys bio and in a different article he talks about how he’s been hunting for 20-some years. How the hell can a hunter have this opinion? We moved to Oregon 2 years ago and live in a small town. People in Eugene and Portland are some of the strangest individuals I’ve encountered anywhere and no doubt would salivate reading this article.

 

[IDVortex]

So glad I moved from there, miss my archery opportunities, but realistically, they've been now gone to trash. ODFW decisions are made like Bidens, out of their ass.

 

[jmez]

I don't know anything about where it came from. It just popped up on my feed.

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2023 using Tapatalk

 

[Hnthrdr]

The article is cringy and full of false implications but it will be effective in convincing the public to agree with him. I am as horrified by this type of scenario as anyone but let me play the devils advocate for a minute.

The author, however misguided, has brought up some true issues that we as the "hook and bullet" crowd tend to ignore. And since we ignore it or can't educate the general public in our favor they will win because there talking points sound reasonable to the general public.

He points out that studies have repeatedly shown that hatchery steelhead and salmon stocks have long term detrimental impacts on wild fish populations. Despite that, anglers don't care as long as there is a steady supply of hatchery fish for them to catch. The science is true on both points, stocking is bad for wild fish, and stocking provides renewable recreational opportunities. So which science should we give priority to? Anglers have proven to be unwilling to sacrifice fishing opportunity in favor of managing for a fully wild population so what is the solution? Have angler put forward any viable solutions that would preserve fishing opportunity while also increase wild populations or are we just maintaining the status quo on the edge of sustainability? We can say it isn't our problem because anything we do is minor compared to the impacts of dams but which side will the general public support?

He delves more into half truths with his statement that "we now know and appreciate the presence of wolves, mountain lions and other predators in our ecosystems. They help control disease among ungulates, plant-eating hoofed animals like elk and mule deer, and provide for safer meat consumption for humans." He didn't say anything that is untrue (although the safe meat consumption comment is a stretch) but he ignores that predator populations are high and growing even while states have managed hunting seasons for both predator and prey animals for decades with great success. However, his message resonates with the general public because our side is often represented by the "Kill 'em all" crowd and that isn't going to win over the public.

He does it again with "The 200 or so beaver trappers in the state must not be allowed to deprive our 4.4 million residents of the ecosystem services having healthy beaver populations provides. We must protect beavers for the expansive wetland habitats they create that foster natural fire breaks, water storage, water filtration, carbon capture and more. " Again, scientific studies would support everything he says about the benefits that healthy beaver populations provide, but he ignores that managed trapping seasons do not eliminate those benefits.

A lot of the science that enviros use is based on the study of small scale wildlife benefits and then extrapolating that to the entire state or ecosystem. The facts aren't wrong but they are trumped up into something that doesn't actually apply at large scales. Everything he says about beavers is true but healthy beaver wetland systems aren't going to prevent wildfire, save us from global warming, or ensure clean drinking water for 4.4 million people as he seems to imply. Hunters/trappers/anglers don't need to disagree with the scientific benefits he cites but we can agree while also pointing out that limited hunting and trapping does not disrupt the natural system.

If hunters and anglers want to successfully fight these movements we can't do it by simply saying it's ridiculous and self evident why it is so wrong. They are using facts and science that suit their narrative and that resonate with the general public. Do we have a counter message that resonates with the public?

I think the "hook and bullet" crowd is more correct on these issues than anyone else but that doesn't mean that our views are going to win when it matters. The title of this thread is perfect; good luck Oregon, you're gonna need it.

Start dropping off beavers in people’s neighborhoods and yards… they will beg for trappers haha. It’s like most things in life people don’t care or vote with emotions until it directly effects them, then their eyes open a bit… ie illegal migrants lighting fires in open space near expensive homes near my station, I’m sure most of the folks that live their fancy themselves progressives, but not when someone is trying to stay warm 60 yards from your 1.5 mil tract home

 

[DakotaBPNW]

If you shut down your media and don’t listen to others, Oregon is actually a pretty sweet place to live.

 

[Cameron.25]

Start dropping off beavers in people’s neighborhoods and yards… they will beg for trappers haha. It’s like most things in life people don’t care or vote with emotions until it directly effects them, then their eyes open a bit… ie illegal migrants lighting fires in open space near expensive homes near my station, I’m sure most of the folks that live their fancy themselves progressives, but not when someone is trying to stay warm 60 yards from your 1.5 mil tract home

I live on and build floating homes/docks on the columbia near i-5.. beavers are cool but once they get established underneath a home, it can be a nightmare to try and keep them out. They even eat the pressure treated wood lol

Edit to add: that article makes me wanna puke, what a buffoon

 

[Hnthrdr]

I live on and build floating homes/docks on the columbia near i-5.. beavers are cool but once they get established underneath a home, it can be a nightmare to try and keep them out. They even eat the pressure treated wood lol

Edit to add: that article makes me wanna puke, what a buffoon

That sounds rad! ( the living on the floating home and building docks, not the beavers eating your house) can you fish off your porch?

 

[Cameron.25]

That sounds rad! ( the living on the floating home and building docks, not the beavers eating your house) can you fish off your porch?

Yep the salmon run through here, but usually you have more success out in the main river and honestly i mostly just bowfish for carp. I mostly just hunt big game and go crabbing at the beach. The beavers have never tried to eat on my house far as I know, i built my house brand new a couple years ago but there is a family of 5 or 6 under my neighbors older home. Seems like they like the older homes more

 

[Fujicon]

If you shut down your media and don’t listen to others, Oregon is actually a pretty sweet place to live.

Sweet huh? That is so yesteryear. In addition to media you'd have to shut down your eyes, nose, and ears, not to mention your brain. You want homeless? We got em in droves. You want drugged-out zombies? Welcome to Portland. You want one of the highest income tax rates in the entire country? That's Oregon. If bureaucracy run amok (on steroids) is your thing, then Oregon is your nirvana. And surely Oregon is as sweet as it gets for those wo love high crime rates coupled with low school quality.
I could go on, but you get the point. "Sweet place to live" Oregon used to be, but no longer.

 

[full choke]

Am I the only one who gets the urge to hurl when anything is mentioned about Oregon policy, law and politics?
Damn shame, such a gorgeous state run by complete morons, and that's probably too kind.

Washington state- "Hold my beer..."