List of Companies Still Sponsoring/Partnering with Convicted Wildlife Violators

[KurtR]

Wow your really twisting my words there huh? The point is those younger kids are staying engaged because of hunting media. Thats it.

Where I live and hunt in NW WY, the hunting is as I am told by life long locals, terrible compared to what it was 20 years ago. Elk numbers way down and elk are not in the places they used to be. Mule deer are decimated compared to 20 years ago. Hunting culture is life here. Everyone hunts and everyone talks about herd health and numbers constantly. I talk to biologist multiple times a year.

There are many factors making the hunting worse. No one, and I mean no one has ever pointed to the hunting industry as the decline to our quality of hunting. We have wolves, we have bears, we have lions, we had a devastating winter for 3 years straight, 2015, 2016 and 2017 with 100% fawn mortality. There is no aspect of the hunting industry causing my quality of hunting to suffer. If thats not the case in other places in the west it is completely out of my reality. I have yet to experience it.

Im not saying it isn't happening. Im not trying to argue, its just from my perspective and my experience where I live and hunt it's not happening here. So I am genuinely curious as to what aspect of the hunting industry is ruining hunting for you guys? Im not concrete in my opinion on anything. New I formation can change my perspective.

Sent from my SM-S931U using Tapatalk

Its an easy target like blaming flooded corn from stopping the migration. People dont want to see the reality because alot of the factors are not controllable

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Wow your really twisting my words there huh? The point is those younger kids are staying engaged because of hunting media. Thats it.

Where I live and hunt in NW WY, the hunting is as I am told by life long locals, terrible compared to what it was 20 years ago. Elk numbers way down and elk are not in the places they used to be. Mule deer are decimated compared to 20 years ago. Hunting culture is life here. Everyone hunts and everyone talks about herd health and numbers constantly. I talk to biologist multiple times a year.

There are many factors making the hunting worse. No one, and I mean no one has ever pointed to the hunting industry as the decline to our quality of hunting. We have wolves, we have bears, we have lions, we had a devastating winter for 3 years straight, 2015, 2016 and 2017 with 100% fawn mortality. There is no aspect of the hunting industry causing my quality of hunting to suffer. If thats not the case in other places in the west it is completely out of my reality. I have yet to experience it.

Im not saying it isn't happening. Im not trying to argue, its just from my perspective and my experience where I live and hunt it's not happening here. So I am genuinely curious as to what aspect of the hunting industry is ruining hunting for you guys? Im not concrete in my opinion on anything. New I formation can change my perspective.

Sent from my SM-S931U using Tapatalk

Hunting isn’t supposed to be an industry. It’s not supposed to be an important part of the local economy. It’s supposed to be something that average people just do.

Those average people are gone. When I was a kid in rural Virginia, on the edge of the coalfields, everyone hunted. There wasn’t a male over the age of 12 in school on opening day. And no one hunted more than the coal miners and mining-adjacent-industrial workers (welders, machinists, mechanics, etc.). They flooded the public land every fall or they had a place where they had permission. But when all those jobs went away, so did that culture. Now, a few farmers still hunt and a few professionals and business owners pay for hunting rights on private land, but the woods are practically deserted.

And it’s even worse in the more suburban parts of the state, because no one will let you hunt. Hunting is an unusual and violent activity. They’d rather look at the deer and pay for them to be on birth control than have them hunted.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Hey so I haven't read this thread in a while...but if we haven't already please scratch BlackOvis from the list (lol).

Probably went under from their sponsoring bad actors…

 

[fatlander]

Forgive me if I don’t see commercializing tourism hunting as better for it than strong traditions of local hunting.

Is it better to have more hunters in America? Absolutely, yes.

Do I think that hunting becoming more oriented on a tourism and trophy thing than hunting locally, being a family-thing, and putting meat on the table is ultimately worse for hunting? Yes, I do.

Of course, that is subjective. I don’t like trophy hunting (and neither do something like 60% of Virginians if the elk reestablishment polls are accurate)). I think public emphasis on trophy hunting ultimately costs more hunting support than it recruits.

Definitions matter.

The definition of trophy hunting is as follows, according to SPCA (one of the largest group of anti hunters on earth): “hunting of wild animals for sport, not food.”

That’s wanton waste, and it’s already illegal in the entirety of the US, spare nuisance species.

The resource doesn’t care if you kill a buck with his first set of antlers or a buck at his peak of maturity. Practically speaking, all that matters is a buck was taken off the landscape. I concur that the push for growing and killing larger antlered ungulates has been detrimental to everyone’s access and overall experience, but calling it trophy hunting is building a bridge with people that I don’t think anyone with an interest in preserving hunting wants or needs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KurtR]

YouHunting isn’t supposed to be an industry. It’s not supposed to be an important part of the local economy. It’s supposed to be something that average people just do.

Those average people are gone. When I was a kid in rural Virginia, on the edge of the coalfields, everyone hunted. There wasn’t a male over the age of 12 in school on opening day. And no one hunted more than the coal miners and mining-adjacent-industrial workers (welders, machinists, mechanics, etc.). They flooded the public land every fall or they had a place where they had permission. But when all those jobs went away, so did that culture. Now, a few farmers still hunt and a few professionals and business owners pay for hunting rights on private land, but the woods are practically deserted.

And it’s even worse in the more suburban parts of the state, because no one will let you hunt. Hunting is an unusual and violent activity. They’d rather look at the deer and pay for them to be on birth control than have them hunted.

Pretty much everyone is hunting here and its a huge part of our local and state economy. With out the income we would have hundreds of thousands of less acres of public land.

 

[Harvey_NW]

So I am genuinely curious as to what aspect of the hunting industry is ruining hunting for you guys?

In the last decade we've gone from being able to buy 2 tags in Idaho, to quotas but could still secure OTC tags, to a first come first serve queue lobby with most of the good units selling out on opening day, to a full NR draw system. Influencers pimping OTC hunts in the west and showing videos encouraging "anybody can do it, guys. Use code "bro" to get 10% off a GoHunt subscription and check my vid on how to navigate the app that will narrow down a good area" has definitely created a huge increase in pressure in many places in the West.

I'm not saying predation, management strategies, climate, and factors like that didn't have an effect as well. But in regards to "the industry", places we used to be able to buy tags for and have to ourselves had a massive increase in popularity once all the information was confined in an app.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Definitions matter.

The definition of trophy hunting is as follows, according to SPCA (one of the largest group out anti hunters on earth): “hunting of wild animals for sport, not food.”

That’s wanton waste, and it’s already illegal in the entirety of the US, spare nuisance species.

The resource doesn’t care if you kill a buck with his first set of antlers or a buck at his peak of maturity. Practically speaking, all that matters is a buck was taken off the landscape. I concur that the push for growing and killing larger antlered ungulates has been detrimental to everyone’s access and overall experience, but calling it trophy hunting is building a bridge with people that I don’t think anyone with an interest in preserving hunting wants or needs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This isn’t about resource management. It’s about how it is seen in the public eye. When the Fish and Game folks ask people about “hunting for meat”, they get highly favorable feedback. When they ask about “trophy hunting” they get majority negative responses.

If you want to keep hunting a thing, you are going to have to build some bridges with some soccer moms.

Edit - and hope the insurance companies stay pro-hunting.

 

[KurtR]

In the last decade we've gone from being able to buy 2 tags in Idaho, to quotas but could still secure OTC tags, to a first come first serve queue lobby with most of the good units selling out on opening day, to a full NR draw system. Influencers pimping OTC hunts in the west and showing videos encouraging "anybody can do it, guys. Use code "bro" to get 10% off a GoHunt subscription and check my vid on how to navigate the app that will narrow down a good area" has definitely created a huge increase in pressure in many places in the West.

I'm not saying predation, management strategies, climate, and factors like that didn't have an effect as well. But in regards to "the industry", places we used to be able to buy tags for and have to ourselves had a massive increase in popularity once all the information was confined in an app.

The 400,000 more residents that moved there may have had an affect on tags.

 

[Blake C]

Every company is associated with trash of all kinds. Its like the epstein list.
Every single mainstream company. We only hear about it when they get charged but the people near the top of the industrie know there's dirt all around

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Pretty much everyone is hunting here and its a huge part of our local and state economy. With out the income we would have hundreds of thousands of less acres of public land.

Where is “here”? And how many voters live there?

 

[Dos Perros]

If you want to keep hunting a thing, you are going to have to build some bridges with some soccer moms.

LOL, no. Maybe in CA or OR WA, places like that. But many states have a constitutional right to hunt.

 

[KurtR]

This isn’t about resource management. It’s about how it is seen in the public eye. When the Fish and Game folks ask people about “hunting for meat”, they get highly favorable feedback. When they ask about “trophy hunting” they get majority negative responses.

If you want to keep hunting a thing, you are going to have to build some bridges with some soccer moms.

Edit - and hope the insurance companies stay pro-hunting.

Why do they even bring up trophy hunting its a bs name given by people who make stuff up. Just call it hunting what people choose to shoot is then just hunting. I havent shot a deer in four years im not interested in just killing any deer but i dont say im going trophy hunting im just hunting. People like justifying what they are doing for some greater cause but most those people the meat lays in the bottom of the freezer till next year and throw it out.

 

[KurtR]

Where is “here”? And how many voters live there?

South Dakota not very many and we want to keep it that way. Its cold and its sucks balls for any one wondering

 

[RockAndSage]

Why do they even bring up trophy hunting its a bs name given by people who make stuff up.

It's a lesson in labels, semantics, and emotional impact when formulating polling/voting questionnaires. He who controls the language controls the votes.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

If you guys think you are better off with 15 million MuleyFreak wannabe’s than 30 million “average Americans” hunting, I don’t know what else to say. There aren’t enough pro-hunting people living in the right parts of this country to ensure good state or national policies remain in place.

It doesn’t matter if you have a right to hunting if the competing interests on each side destroy or close off the access.

 

[fatlander]

This isn’t about resource management. It’s about how it is seen in the public eye. When the Fish and Game folks ask people about “hunting for meat”, they get highly favorable feedback. When they ask about “trophy hunting” they get majority negative responses.

If you want to keep hunting a thing, you are going to have to build some bridges with some soccer moms.

Edit - and hope the insurance companies stay pro-hunting.

It actually is about resource management and being a good steward and spokeshole for the role hunters play.

I begrudgingly was forced into moving into a neighborhood by my wife. I’ve built those bridges with soccer moms and people indifferent and even opposed to hunting. None of those bridges were built by shitting on legal methods of take, while aligning with anti hunting jargon.

They were built by preparing and sharing delicious wild game. They were built on them seeing the dude rucking at 4am and shooting his bow almost every day of the year, then asking and me explaining why I do what I do and what benefit it has for wildlife and wild places. They were built by showing them and their kids large antlers that are tastefully displayed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Q_Sertorius]

It actually is about resource management and being a good steward and spokeshole for the role hunters play.

I begrudgingly was forced into moving into a neighborhood by my wife. I’ve built those bridges with soccer moms and people indifferent and even opposed to hunting. None of those bridges were built by shitting on legal methods of take, while aligning with anti hunting jargon.

They were built by preparing and sharing delicious wild game. They were built on them seeing the dude rucking at 4am and shooting his bow almost every day of the year, then asking and me explaining why I do what I do and what benefit it has for wildlife and wild places. They were built by showing them and their kids large antlers that are tastefully displayed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly my point. And exactly the way it should be done. Not by more Muleyfreaks or grip-and-grins on Facebook and Instagram. My “brand ambassador” for hunting is right here.

 

[Customweld]

The 400,000 more residents that moved there may have had an affect on tags.

Except that 2nd tags came out of the NR pool, that tag number hasn't changed in 3 decades.

 

[KurtR]

If you guys think you are better off with 15 million MuleyFreak wannabe’s than 30 million “average Americans” hunting, I don’t know what else to say. There aren’t enough pro-hunting people living in the right parts of this country to ensure good state or national policies remain in place.

It doesn’t matter if you have a right to hunting if the competing interests on each side destroy or close off the access.

I dont think any one is saying that. I think your over stating there reach. Outside of this forum i bet not many even know who these people are. Hell 90 percent of my friends dont even know who they are. Its like that in every smaller community they are big in it but outside little to no one knows who they are. It would be like me asking if you know who mike lardy or danny farmer is but not being into dogs. Or who Scott bloomquist or Jonathan Davenport is and not into super latemodels. In those places everyone knows them but an average person has no clue.

 

[KurtR]

Except that 2nd tags came out of the NR pool, that tag number hasn't changed in 3 decades.

Ya i know that but the increased pressure everyone cries about the nr are easy fruit to pick off. So if .03% of the new residents started hunting that would be equal to nr tags. So those new residents tell there buddies they should come hunt with them that wipes out what was ever left over. Im sure the influencers had some affect but grand scheme of things its an easy target for people to get mad at. Then add the winters, loss of habitat and over all lower populations you have pissed off people looking to take it out on some thing. Money is what drives it all so if people want to get rid of influencers make them have no value to the companies that use them and they will be gone. People are suckers though and will just keep spending