Most Important Issue in US Conservation

[BustedRagHorn]

I was reading through some of the discussion on this forum regarding issues in Colorado. I was going to add to the thread but I want more people's input. I see an issue that I feel plagues the hunting community when it comes to activism. I think most of the hunting groups are too educated on the problems. Hear me out, arguably this has to be one of the most pro hunting forums on the interwebs. Yet many people are arguing about the biggest problem, how to win the fight, and who is responsible. These fights turn into division, division of a force is how you beat a strong opponent. Compare that to the folks who are out and close getting enough signatures to outlaw hunting, ranching, and fishing in Oregon as an option on the ballot. They hit the people with one phrase "end animal suffering in Oregon" no information dumping, no who is responsible, no information on how to win, or the biggest problem. Just one catchphrase and people who are uneducated flock to sign the petition and probably vote for the issue if they do not have further education. To me the 2nd amendment crowd, livestock crowd, and hunting crowd all have a reason to join forces. Yet, a handful of people on a very pro hunting site cannot agree on what the most important next step is for just hunting in just Colorado. To be honest, I don't know what the most important next step is. They all seem so valid and on the right track. I have selection difficulty and if I am going to spend my dollar on what I think is most important on fighting. I would think many others feel the same. I do support several different groups and split my $200 in 10 ways, I don't like it but that is what I do. This means a division in money, division in people, and a division in message. My question to you, what is the most important issue, how would you fight it, and most importantly how would you bring more people together?

 

[Eship]

I think you may see a lot of division on here because most everyone is aware that we are all pro hunting, and as such, we feel more comfortable airing the intricacies of the issues at hand, which can look a lot like division. But when it comes to supporting the cause, donating to any one or all of the pro hunting organizations will do good because if one gets money and spends it in a certain area that their organization prioritizes, it makes it so others can specialize in their area without worrying about another area being completely overlooked.

That is all to say, contribute/donate where you can because as long as you’re doing something, it’s better than nothing. Obviously there is always room for improvement in supporting pro 2A, pro hunting stuff, etc.

A different issue is just lack of funding and overall advocacy, and you’re right, it is difficult when we don’t have easy one liners to sell people with. I supposed that is part of the challenge of being on the side steeped in logic with lots of data from biologists instead of a rich history of Hollywood support of cartoon animals and evil hunters

 

[MuleyFever]

The division of hunters is constantly cited as one of the biggest threats to hunting. Everyone knows it and yet here we are. We have 2 broad groups in relation to your topic, I think. We have hunters and we have anti-hunters. The problem for hunters is that hunting is broad. So, in the anti camp you maybe have people that want to ban all hunting and people that want to ban certain hunting. Its not hard to get either side to agree as long as a hunting ban is on the table. In the hunter camp you have casual hunters, hardcore hunters, landowner hunters, public land hunters, NR hunters, resident hunters, old hunters, young hunters, bow hunters, gun hunters, muzzleloader hunters, hunters that use a combination of weapons, hunters using dogs, hunters that dont like using dogs, long range hunters shooters, traditional hunters, elk hunters, deer hunters....you get the point. When an attack on hunters comes forward how do you get all those hunters to care? Thats the question. I do think there is something to you comment on a singular phrase. Can you get more non-hunters on board to vote by asking to "protect hound hunting for bears" or by just simply asking to "protect our tradition of hunting"? Interesting topic.

Also, yes, I did that on purpose as an example.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

To me the 2nd amendment crowd, livestock crowd, and hunting crowd all have a reason to join forces.

No. I'm pro-2nd Amendment, pro-meat, own part of a cattle farm, pro-property rights, and love hunting, but there is no commonality of interest with "the livestock crowd." Livestock agriculture is not directly related to my right to keep and arm bears. And livestock are usually in direct composition with wild animals. When I see "the livestock crowd" being overwhelmingly in favor of conservation, then I will support their direct interests. But the only time large businesses - like large ranches or farms - ask for more regulation, it is to drown out smaller competition.

That's not to say that I wouldn't align with them when it is in our mutual interest. Given the choice between animal rights activists and big ranchers, I will support the ranchers. But I haven't seen any evidence that they seriously support any conservation positions. Trotting out one dude who does rotational grazing won't cut it when most of the public grazing land I saw in Montana last fall was an overgrazed hellscape. And certainly not when devastating the public land serves a dual purpose of then enabling the landowner to charge people to come hunt the animals forced onto his land after his cattle have grazed the grass down to the roots and destroyed all the natural water sources. And if we didn't let him charge for the hunting access, then he'd just kill them using damage permits.

And this isn't something limited to the West. Here in the East, there were almost no deer or turkeys because everyone ran pigs in the forests and they ate up all the mast. That only ended when most Americans moved to the cities and new meatpacking regulations dictated how hogs had to be raised for slaughter.

The only way to get most of my neighbors to practice anything conservation-related is to pay them. And then they bitch incessantly about the "gub'mint" sticking its nose into their business when it tries to make sure they actually do what they are being paid to do.

The inherent problem with Conservatism is that it seeks to maintain the status quo. It's a constant battle against powerful and well-funded enemies who don't need to win big once. They can win via death by 1000 cuts. Keeping a bunch of people excited about maintaining the status quo is the real challenge.

I'm all in favor of "protecting some American traditions" - like hunting, farming, trapping, ranching, etc. But I won't let some billionaire with 468 lobbyists in his pocket try to claim affinity with me as "owner of a family farm." My ancestors already lead that charge, literally, in the Civil War (on both sides).

I don't care how someone else hunts, as long as they respect property rights and a very basic set of ethics. If someone wants to sit in a box blind over bait and shoot animals, I don't care as long as it is legal. If someone wants to put on a silly old-fashioned uniform and ride over the countryside after a fox yelling "tally-ho" and "yoicks," they can go right ahead. Neither of those is how I like to hunt, but that's not my business.

But, I think marketing hunting as "an American tradition" is the best message we have. And our representative examples should be as pure as Caesar's wife. And we should never post grip and grins, but pictures of us and our families, majestic backgrounds, our beautiful dogs, or delicious looking cooked meat.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

If you are wondering where to put your money so it goes directly to protecting hunting in Colorado, look no further than Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management. They are on the frontlines everyday fighting the anti-hunting push here.

Colorado Commercial Fur Ban - Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management

Colorado Commercial Fur Ban Call to Action: Defend Science-based Mildlife Management in Colorado Outside activist organizations are pressuring the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission to bypass science, ignore voters, and impose a commercial fur ban that Colorado has already rejected. A...

savethehuntcolorado.com