Most Important Issue in US Conservation

[WoolOverAll]

The first two you could just say social media because my grandpa has grip and grins from the 60's in his gun cabinet no one cared. Coyote calling contests are fine and with no reason to kill them because fur isnt worth any thing and the trophy hunting thing is a tag word antis just use and in reality hunting the old mature animals is a good thing

Social media drives public perception. It would be a mistake to discount it. I'm not sure what you mean by discounting drinking. It is absolutely a negative to the public for drunk men to be wandering in the woods with guns and has been a problem long before social media. Making a game out of killing animals is not going to shine hunting in a positive light. People pay good money to shoot the biggest bucks and exotics. There wouldn't be a massive market for antlers if hunters didn't care about deer scores.

 

[BustedRagHorn]

I would like to highlight a theme I think is getting missed and would appreciate y'all's thoughts. Looking through the lens of legislation for the mass of people in the middle. Hunters and ranchers have a lot in common. Now sure, how we want to manage the resources on public land we could have a fist fight over (why I think we are too educated). From my point of view that is not as soon of a risk as just loosing the right to hunt. For example in CO we lost spring bear hunting, lost the right to use foot hold traps, gained an apex predator, and are looking down the barrel of a fur ban statewide. Not to mention Oregon is looking at a full on hunting and ranching ban. My grandpa once told me "Kid, they are going after hunting so one day they can go after your guns and go after your beef. Once they have control of your protection and your food, you have to abide." I thought he was senile, I see it now. The opposition prays we fight with ranchers, 2nd amendment folks, fishermen (commercial too), loggers, and hunters from every category. If we cannot find ways to bring more people into the fold with our messaging we loose. The other side has an absolute goal "end animal suffering at the hands of man". That overall message has hundreds of activist groups and others who follow it. Those groups will come to the fight if they hear that rally cry. We have 1000 different messages and if I was an outsider looking in I would see a disorganized, argumentative group with out any clear understanding of what they stand for. Or a very small group that has a stance that doesn't mean much to me. If I was on the fence I would go with the other side because animal suffering at the hands of a man sounds like a noble goal. Instead of saying why it is awful to work with someone you don't agree with, what messaging would you use to gain support from those exact same people? Specifically some of the folks that mentioned ranching and agriculture are the wrong people to gain support from, I challenge you to find something you would agree with them on and how you would get them to support your hunting rights.

 

[KurtR]

Social media drives public perception. It would be a mistake to discount it. I'm not sure what you mean by discounting drinking. It is absolutely a negative to the public for drunk men to be wandering in the woods with guns and has been a problem long before social media. Making a game out of killing animals is not going to shine hunting in a positive light. People pay good money to shoot the biggest bucks and exotics. There wouldn't be a massive market for antlers if hunters didn't care about deer scores.

So whats your solution?

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Broadly, yes, anti-hunting groups are a threat to hunting. Anti-hunting groups being a threat to conservation is more questionable. By 'community', do you mean neighbors and people who live there? In that case, yes I would generally align with those groups. If 'community' means the enormous agriculture and ranching lobby, no absolutely not.


Science based management sounds ideal. No issues there. It fits right into the North American model.

Protecting 'traditions' is a topic I would want them to define. There are plenty of hunting and fishing traditions that make us look terrible to the public. Happy to elaborate on any of these if you want.

It seems you have intentionally avoided the tangible, current anti-hunting efforts in places like Colorado, Washington, and Oregon. When I say community, I typically mean the state and local level stockgrowers and cattlemen associations. When I show up to Colorado wildlife commission meetings or legislature committee hearings, I am usually testifying shoulder to shoulder with those folks from the agriculture community. Fighting against the numerous anti-hunting organizations here.

I disagree, anti-hunting groups are a huge threat to conservation. From a funding standpoint and also looking at it conceptually. Conservation allows for consumptive use, those uses actually fund it. It recognizes the sustainable use nature of the resource. There is a difference between conservation and preservation.

As far as “traditions”, that is what concerns me with some in the hunting community. The anti-hunting groups have taken a clear “divide and conquer” strategy. Separate the hunting community based on those same “traditions”. Then pick them off, one species and method of take at a time. In Colorado, we have seen attempts to eliminate mountain lion hunting, hound hunting, harvest of furbearers, trapping. and initial discussion of eliminating harvest of black bears and bighorn sheep. Heck they even wanted to eliminate use of live bait in fishing. Are those the “traditions” that you believe are suspect?

 

[Gila]

What I recall from the research was that other predators like bear and coyotes were having a higher impact on the elk calf recruitment.

Yes…bears and coyotes make up most of the predation in some units. However wolf predation wasn’t occurring at the rate it is now.

 

[WoolOverAll]

It seems you have intentionally avoided the tangible, current anti-hunting efforts in places like Colorado, Washington, and Oregon. When I say community, I typically mean the state and local level stockgrowers and cattlemen associations. When I show up to Colorado wildlife commission meetings or legislature committee hearings, I am usually testifying shoulder to shoulder with those folks from the agriculture community. Fighting against the numerous anti-hunting organizations here.

I did not intentionally avoid them. My first statement you are responding to is "Broadly, yes, anti-hunting groups are a threat to hunting.". So we are aligned then on who we support on a local level, "In that case, yes I would generally align with those groups."

I disagree, anti-hunting groups are a huge threat to conservation. From a funding standpoint and also looking at it conceptually. Conservation allows for consumptive use, those uses actually fund it. It recognizes the sustainable use nature of the resource. There is a difference between conservation and preservation.

We will have to slightly disagree here then. I agree funding from licenses and tags is a major component of state ran wildlife departments.

As far as “traditions”, that is what concerns me with some in the hunting community. The anti-hunting groups have taken a clear “divide and conquer” strategy. Separate the hunting community based on those same “traditions”. Then pick them off, one species and method of take at a time. In Colorado, we have seen attempts to eliminate mountain lion hunting, hound hunting, harvest of furbearers, trapping. and initial discussion of eliminating harvest of black bears and bighorn sheep. Heck they even wanted to eliminate use of live bait in fishing. Are those the “traditions” that you believe are suspect?

Grip and grin pictures, the prevalence and acceptance of drinking while hunting, round ups/predator eradication treated as a game or festival, and obsession with trophies to name a few.

 

[WoolOverAll]

So whats your solution?

As for how to help, bring new hunters out with you and be willing to teach. A lot of people do not have family that hunt and have no idea where to start. Donate to groups that champion public lands and access for everyone. Be a respectable representation of hunting and fishing.

 

[KurtR]

I did not intentionally avoid them. My first statement you are responding to is "Broadly, yes, anti-hunting groups are a threat to hunting.". So we are aligned then on who we support on a local level, "In that case, yes I would generally align with those groups."


We will have to slightly disagree here then. I agree funding from licenses and tags is a major component of state ran wildlife departments.


Grip and grin pictures, the prevalence and acceptance of drinking while hunting, round ups/predator eradication treated as a game or festival, and obsession with trophies to name a few.

What org do you consider the good ones. Seems they are few and far between.

 

[WoolOverAll]

What org do you consider the good ones. Seems they are few and far between.

I'll flip the conversation effort over to you and let you provide some substance to this thread.

 

[KurtR]

I'll flip the conversation effort over to you and let you provide some substance to this thread.

Just thought you have the answers. I dont agree that trophy hunting is a bad thing it is when you let the antis and hunting for meat is the only reason( and if thats why any one hunts i fully support shooting what ever legal animal you want) people to spin it that way. In all my years I havent seen a bunch of people out drinking and hunting and all the kids hunt here hell they have pictures in the paper with stuff they killed we dont hide from our way of life. Coyote tournaments raise a bunch of money and bring people into our small town and surrounding areas. The crazy antis have no respect for any one that hunts, fishes or traps and sitting back a letting them dictate how and where the fights will take place isnt working. More states need a right to hunt in their constitution. Wildlife management should never be put on a ballot. From stick bow hunters to houndsman to long range hunters and every one in between better start getting together or they just keep piecing us up. Hiding and pandering to the crazies is what have got us we have been silent for to long and the loud people are the only voice heard.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I did not intentionally avoid them. My first statement you are responding to is "Broadly, yes, anti-hunting groups are a threat to hunting.". So we are aligned then on who we support on a local level, "In that case, yes I would generally align with those groups."


We will have to slightly disagree here then. I agree funding from licenses and tags is a major component of state ran wildlife departments.


Grip and grin pictures, the prevalence and acceptance of drinking while hunting, round ups/predator eradication treated as a game or festival, and obsession with trophies to name a few.

So state run wildlife departments don’t contribute to conservation? I have to say that is more than a slight disagreement. What about the work various hunting orgs do in creating conservation easements and opening up public access? Does that constitute conservation? The anti-hunting orgs want to eliminate consumptive use. Are you tracking their efforts in states like Oregon, Colorado, and Washington? I don’t see how you can’t clearly see how their efforts to eliminate hunting, fishing and trapping would negatively affect conservation. I guess we just see things differently.

I will agree that some of the issues you brought up can be weaponized by anti-hunting in an effort to turn the public against sportsmen. I have no issue with someone being proud of a successful hunt and taking a photo to remember it. Not familiar with these contests or festivals, don’t see them in my area. Unaware of predator eradication, however the anti-hunting orgs in Colorado consistently state that sustainable, regulated harvest is “state-sanctioned eradication”, is that what you are describing? Trophy hunting is a term the anti-hunting organizations regularly use to try and villainize hunters. For that it is particularly important to define it. And the drinking piece, don’t operate firearms while drinking. Pretty basic safety rule, sort of solves that one.

It seems many of the traditions you are concerned with fall more in the hunting culture category and I am much focused on actual policy and regulations. I’ll keep fighting the anti-hunting folks every chance I get, speaking on the positive impacts of hunting and angling, for hunters and non-hunters. And also working to the benefit of conservation and wildlife management, for me they go hand in hand.

 

[WoolOverAll]

Unaware of predator eradication, however the anti-hunting orgs in Colorado consistently state that sustainable, regulated harvest is “state-sanctioned eradication”, is that what you are describing?

No, I'm referring to events like rattlesnake round ups. Those are still alive and well near me and do not paint hunting in a positive light. Events that are not effective tools for management and continue for traditions sake.

Are there particular anti groups that have been effective in Colorado? I looked into the anti cat hunting issue and that seems dead in the water. Its hard to tell if the wolf issue is anti-hunting or a bureaucratic mess of competing regulations. From what I can tell, its a butting of heads between agriculture and CPW.