Most Important Issue in US Conservation

[WoolOverAll]

Uphill battle that’s probably lost.

I think an over looked public aspect of hunting at least in CO is the debris and trash left behind by hunters and that is readily observed by non hunting recreationists. Recreationists are every where year round in CO. I doubt many of them believe those uncovered piles of shit, cigarette butts, Coors cans, MRE’s, meat poles wired up to living trees, that plastic tarps next to a gut pile, that abandoned cheap tattered Walmart tent, that blue tarp, outfitter stoves and tent timbers, toilet seats, those green long fuel bottles, those Snickers wrappers all left in the middle of nowhere were left by any other user group. That’s our image to the non hunting public and last I heard from DOW, hikers are the largest recreational group in CO. Good luck maintaining their support. Our image is left behind everywhere. None of these photos are near a road and not all of them are outfitters.

As someone who has eaten over their fair share of MREs, why would you willing bring chili with beans over tortellini.

Hunters can do a better job of rehabbing their image. The alcohol part is something we should be in favor of reducing. Leaving any sort of trash is not aligned with 'leave it better than you found it' ethos I was taught. Its hard to tell people we are stewards of wild lands when we leave trash like this behind.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

The main thing to remember is that we aren’t trying to win over anti-hunting zealots. We are trying to avoid alienating non-hunters. That’s where the respectful stewardship, conservation focus, and American tradition aspects matter.

 

[mt terry d]

Uphill battle that’s probably lost.

I think an over looked public aspect of hunting at least in CO is the debris and trash left behind by hunters and that is readily observed by non hunting recreationists. Recreationists are every where year round in CO. I doubt many of them believe those uncovered piles of shit, cigarette butts, Coors cans, MRE’s, meat poles wired up to living trees, that plastic tarps next to a gut pile, that abandoned cheap tattered Walmart tent, that blue tarp, outfitter stoves and tent timbers, toilet seats, those green long fuel bottles, those Snickers wrappers all left in the middle of nowhere were left by any other user group. That’s our image to the non hunting public and last I heard from DOW, hikers are the largest recreational group in CO. Good luck maintaining their support. Our image is left behind everywhere. None of these photos are near a road and not all of them are outfitters.

View attachment 1029285
View attachment 1029286View attachment 1029287View attachment 1029288View attachment 1029289View attachment 1029290View attachment 1029292View attachment 1029293View attachment 1029294

If that was really a factor for the antis or non-hunters then anyone who has driven under an underpass would demand the interstates to be shut down

 

[Q_Sertorius]

If that was really a factor for the antis or non-hunters then anyone who has driven under an underpass would demand the interstates to be shut down

No, you are totally missing the point.

Drivers aren’t a group. I can drive by litter on the side of the road and think, “people are slobs.” But when I find a trashed hunting camp, I can ascribe that to a group.

Additionally, “drivers” don’t claim to play an important role in caring for the interstates. Hunters do claim to play an important role in caring for public lands and wildlife.

The goal is to find allies, not to become “the other.”

 

[mt terry d]

Point taken.

The Allie’s we really need are the F&G agencies

But they’re beholden to the politicians.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

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.

Do we have to wait until they are effective to take a stand? Then it’s too late. Dead in the water? Hahahaha, I wish. The Cats Aren’t Trophies (CATS) folks are alive and well. They are at every commission meeting clamoring to end hound hunting and harvest of mountain lions, bears, coyotes, even bighorn sheep. And they have a commission now that is favorable to them, hand selected by anti-hunting activists in the governors office.

Samantha Miller now works for Center for Biological Diversity, a powerful national anti-hunting group, as their Colorado campaign director. They have a citizen fur ban petition that will go before the commission this week. They are demanding an end to mountain lion and furbearer harvest. Tried to ban live bait from fishing back in the fall. We now have Colorado Wildlife Alliance, Science for Colorado Wildlife, Colorado Wild, Project Coyote, and Colorado Sierra Club all pushing anti-hunting, anti-trapping and anti-agriculture measures here. Most are led by folks from the failed CATS lion hunting ban organization.

 

[WoolOverAll]

I meant Prop 127 was not passed. I am not against every issues those groups bring forward. It would be more beneficial for us to work towards compromises. The big wins I could briefly find were expanding endangered species protections and reducing oil leases, which if you have an argument against I'm curious.

Looks like you have a good ally on CPW's side then.

"Newly named CPW Director Laura Clellan recommended the commission deny two citizen petition requests to be heard at the meeting, prohibiting the sale of furbearer furs with some exemptions and mandatory checks for bobcats, swift fox and beaver."

Colorado's growing furor of furbearer management

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission is set to hear both sides of how to manage coyotes, foxes and other wildlife at its meeting March 4.

www.yahoo.com

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I meant Prop 127 was not passed. I am not against every issues those groups bring forward. It would be more beneficial for us to work towards compromises. The big wins I could briefly find were expanding endangered species protections and reducing oil leases, which if you have an argument against I'm curious.

Looks like you have a good ally on CPW's side then.

"Newly named CPW Director Laura Clellan recommended the commission deny two citizen petition requests to be heard at the meeting, prohibiting the sale of furbearer furs with some exemptions and mandatory checks for bobcats, swift fox and beaver."

Colorado's growing furor of furbearer management

The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission is set to hear both sides of how to manage coyotes, foxes and other wildlife at its meeting March 4.

www.yahoo.com

Which of their issues are you not against? Ending trapping? Eliminating mountain lion harvest? Maybe ending furbearer harvest? Hound hunting? Or maybe black bear hunting?

These groups aren’t trying to expand endangered species protections or limit oil and gas leases. Colorado Parks and Wildlife commission really isn’t involved in oil and gas leases.

What should we “compromise” on? Who should we sell out first? The trappers? The mountain lion hunters? Maybe the black bear hunters? Or the bow hunters? That is the issue, sportsmen and women need to stand together.

I wouldn’t say Clellan is ally. More like not an enemy currently. Never held a fishing or a hunting license. The least bad choice of some really bad options. CPW as an agency is a definitely an ally.

It’s almost like you can’t acknowledge the real threat that anti-hunting activists represent in states like Colorado. Despite the clear proof of their existence, political influence, and stated intent. But you don’t have to take my word for it, just peruse the social media of Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management (CRWM).

 

[WoolOverAll]

Which of their issues are you not against?

I'm open to their arguments against commercial fur harvesting. You are welcome to add your argument for commercial fur harvest and how it aligns with conservation.

These groups aren’t trying to expand endangered species protections or limit oil and gas leases. Colorado Parks and Wildlife commission really isn’t involved in oil and gas leases.

Those issues are plastered across their website. Center for Biological Diversity, front page.

What should we “compromise” on?

I could see a reasonable compromise on prohibiting the commercial sale of fur.

Straight from one of the petitions:

"The proposed amendment covers
only the for-profit sale of furbearer parts, including hides, pelts, skins, claws, and similar items,
with limited exemptions, and does not impose any restrictions on the hunting or trapping of
furbearers."

It’s almost like you can’t acknowledge the real threat that anti-hunting activists represent in states like Colorado. Despite the clear proof of their existence, political influence, and stated intent. But you don’t have to take my word for it, just peruse the social media of Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management (CRWM).

I do acknowledge it. Show me the clear proof then. What laws or regulations have changed in Colorado due to these groups? How has your pursuit been diminished by them? Have they changed the amount of tags issued? Can you not hunt a specific animal anymore? From the outside looking, these groups seem like they could be conservation allies with some concessions from both sides. I'm not going to write off potential allies just because their goals and language aren't 100% aligned with mine. I will certainly back some of these groups over agricultural lobbies.

 

[Chris in TN]

I'm open to their arguments against commercial fur harvesting.

I cannot think of a single *legitimate* conservation issue that springs from commercial fur harvest unless it's something like the worry of catching a lynx. If you're bothered that people might profit from a fur trapped on public lands...ehhh, so? Such trapping literally drove the creation of our nation and sure as heck isn't making many trappers wealthy. It would take an awful lot of coyote pelts to pay for the lifestyle of a legit backcountry trapper.

My trapping here at home is irregular and inconsistent but is 100% for wildlife management purposes - getting rid of chicken and turkey predators, mainly. We usually leave the entire carcass laying for the vultures, without apology. It's hard to grasp being upset that someone might sell the fur and make the animal useful for something.

But then again I live in the east so perhaps I'm missing something here. What anti-fur arguments are you seeing that you think are reasonable? Are their specific species that are non-target that are in need of stricter protection? I'm genuinely curious here - but, admittedly, also highly likely to push back against weak arguments, so there's that.

 

[Chris in TN]

Straight from one of the petitions:

"The proposed amendment covers
only the for-profit sale of furbearer parts, including hides, pelts, skins, claws, and similar items,
with limited exemptions, and does not impose any restrictions on the hunting or trapping of
furbearers."

Are you familiar with how government worls?

If government proposes an act to protect puppies, especially the cute ones, you can pretty much guarantee that by the time it passes, there'll be a bounty on them, the cuter the higher.

 

[KurtR]

Seems we have a plant here. Fur is a renewable resource and should be used as such. But due to the price being drove down now less people do it and populations like turkeys are taking a dive.

 

[WoolOverAll]

What anti-fur arguments are you seeing that you think are reasonable? Are their specific species that are non-target that are in need of stricter protection? I'm genuinely curious here - but, admittedly, also highly likely to push back against weak arguments, so there's that.

I'll stick to quoting what they are legally pushing forward. I can see their point that 'big game' is treated differently and not commercialized. Is there a conservation case the opposite way? As in, why should we allow the commercialization of wildlife harvest? Their proposal does not remove personal use unless I missed it. So our trapper/furbearer hunter brothers are still able to go out and get fur for personal use.

In the PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO AMEND 2 CCR 406-018 being discussed today/tomorrow:

"
The NAM emphasizes eliminating markets for wildlife products to prevent overexploitation.5
The NAM holds that markets for wildlife are “unacceptable,” inevitably leading to
overexploitation.6 CPW’s management for big game hunting aligns with this principle and
commercial hunting of big game is unlawful in Colorado. CPW already prohibits commercial
hunting, acknowledging elimination of the game markets is a core tenant under the NAM.
"

Are you familiar with how government worls?

If government proposes an act to protect puppies, especially the cute ones, you can pretty much guarantee that by the time it passes, there'll be a bounty on them, the cuter the higher.

Read what their petitions say. You may end up agreeing with some of it. All of the doom and gloom around Colorado yet I haven't found passed legislation that directly attacks hunting rights. Feel free to prove me wrong. According to other posters, it should be clear proof.

Seems we have a plant here. Fur is a renewable resource and should be used as such. But due to the price being drove down now less people do it and populations like turkeys are taking a dive.

I am sympathetic to some of the anti's points. Having a mixed view point does not make someone a plant. I have rehabilitated wild animals for years and become friends with many 'typical' antis. Most of them have goals that can be compatible with hunting. It going to be tough to convince them killing beavers for their fur is good though.

I kill raccoons to help turkeys. I don't go and sell their fur for coats. How about throwing some of our tax dollars towards management incentives if it worries you so much.

 

[KurtR]

I'll stick to quoting what they are legally pushing forward. I can see their point that 'big game' is treated differently and not commercialized. Is there a conservation case the opposite way? As in, why should we allow the commercialization of wildlife harvest? Their proposal does not remove personal use unless I missed it. So our trapper/furbearer hunter brothers are still able to go out and get fur for personal use.

In the PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO AMEND 2 CCR 406-018 being discussed today/tomorrow:

"
The NAM emphasizes eliminating markets for wildlife products to prevent overexploitation.5
The NAM holds that markets for wildlife are “unacceptable,” inevitably leading to
overexploitation.6 CPW’s management for big game hunting aligns with this principle and
commercial hunting of big game is unlawful in Colorado. CPW already prohibits commercial
hunting, acknowledging elimination of the game markets is a core tenant under the NAM.
"

Read what their petitions say. You may end up agreeing with some of it. All of the doom and gloom around Colorado yet I haven't found passed legislation that directly attacks hunting rights. Feel free to prove me wrong. According to other posters, it should be clear proof.


I am sympathetic to some of the anti's points. Having a mixed view point does not make someone a plant. I have rehabilitated wild animals for years and become friends with many 'typical' antis. Most of them have goals that can be compatible with hunting. It going to be tough to convince them killing beavers for their fur is good though.

I kill raccoons to help turkeys. I don't go and sell their fur for coats. How about throwing some of our tax dollars towards management incentives if it worries you so much.

You dont sell the fur for coats because it is not worth any thing. South dakota does have a program where you get paid for tails i dont know that it really works as people scam the system now you have to be under 18 to get any money. Bounties dont really work that well overall its been tried before. The fur market being strong would be the best option.

As for Colorado and hunting rights hows that spring bear season working out? Or hows that mountain lion season in California? What about the esa being weaponized so there are no seasons for wolves in the great lakes region?

I align with absolutely nothing with the anti hunters not one single thing they are all frauds and want nothing more than to end hunters and fisherman way of life. There are alot of grey areas in life but this is not one of them its pretty black and white

 

[scottbot]

I kill raccoons to help turkeys. I don't go and sell their fur for coats.

You are telling me if raccoons were worth $20 a pelt you would rather throw it in the ditch than contribute to the fur industry?

How brave of you to not sell a worthless $2 raccoon pelt.

 

[scottbot]

I'll stick to quoting what they are legally pushing forward. I can see their point that 'big game' is treated differently and not commercialized. Is there a conservation case the opposite way? As in, why should we allow the commercialization of wildlife harvest?

There are no commercial businesses in the US that only trap to make money, no business could survive off the low fur prices. This does not include commercial pest control, they make money per animal or job, not from selling the furs.

The only commercial businesses that pertains to trapping are fur buyers that skin, flesh, and dry the pelts to send to auction.

The amount of recreational trappers that actually profit off of trapping and selling pelts has to be in the 100s for the continental US. I can’t even cover my gas cost trapping coyotes, badgers, skunks in SD.

 

[WoolOverAll]

There are no commercial businesses in the US that only trap to make money, no business could survive off the low fur prices. This does not include commercial pest control, they make money per animal or job, not from selling the furs.

The only commercial businesses that pertains to trapping are fur buyers that skin, flesh, and dry the pelts to send to auction.

The amount of recreational trappers that actually profit off of trapping and selling pelts has to be in the 100s for the continental US. I can’t even cover my gas cost trapping coyotes, badgers, skunks in SD.

So what is the downside eliminating markets for wildlife products? "Commercial pest control" is a compromise area you could make valid arguments for.

How brave of you to not sell a worthless $2 raccoon pelt.

You missed the point to try make a sarcastic insult. $2 or $20 does not change my view. I am not pro commercial fur. If you want to hunt some raccoons for your own furs I'm all for that. Follow the same line of thinking and ask would you be okay with commercial hunting of elk or moose? Do you want to share the woods with someone doing this for profit?

You dont sell the fur for coats because it is not worth any thing. South dakota does have a program where you get paid for tails i dont know that it really works as people scam the system now you have to be under 18 to get any money. Bounties dont really work that well overall its been tried before. The fur market being strong would be the best option

Are you implying our ethics should change when fur prices go up? Fur market implies the commercialization of wildlife products. How does that fit into the North American Conservation Model? Straight from US Fish and Wildlife.

"Prohibition on Commerce of Dead Wildlife: Commercial hunting and the sale of wildlife is prohibited to ensure the sustainability of wildlife populations. The Lacey Act, which the Service has a role in enforcing, prohibits trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, possessed, transported or sold."

I align with absolutely nothing with the anti hunters not one single thing they are all frauds and want nothing more than to end hunters and fisherman way of life. There are alot of grey areas in life but this is not one of them its pretty black and white

Its clear we will not come to anything close to an agreement with a statement like that. Our entire back and forth has been that there are area for compromise. If you are not willing to see the areas for change in the fur market I don't know where we can go from there on a conservation sub forum. I go back to the point of this thread and say inability to compromise and see different perspectives is going to be hunters biggest issue.

Good luck in your pursuits.

 

[KurtR]

So what is the downside eliminating markets for wildlife products? "Commercial pest control" is a compromise area you could make valid arguments for.


You missed the point to try make a sarcastic insult. $2 or $20 does not change my view. I am not pro commercial fur. If you want to hunt some raccoons for your own furs I'm all for that. Follow the same line of thinking and ask would you be okay with commercial hunting of elk or moose? Do you want to share the woods with someone doing this for profit?


Are you implying our ethics should change when fur prices go up? Fur market implies the commercialization of wildlife products. How does that fit into the North American Conservation Model? Straight from US Fish and Wildlife.

"Prohibition on Commerce of Dead Wildlife: Commercial hunting and the sale of wildlife is prohibited to ensure the sustainability of wildlife populations. The Lacey Act, which the Service has a role in enforcing, prohibits trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, possessed, transported or sold."


Its clear we will not come to anything close to an agreement with a statement like that. Our entire back and forth has been that there are area for compromise. If you are not willing to see the areas for change in the fur market I don't know where we can go from there on a conservation sub forum. I go back to the point of this thread and say inability to compromise and see different perspectives is going to be hunters biggest issue.

Good luck in your pursuits.

No i am not willing to throw other people under the bus like trappers and hounds man. To get a false sense of security. What have the anti ever compromised for hunters all they do is take and take and take till more rights are taken away. They have bastardized the esa as a political weapon against real animal management.

You sound like the people from the trap free montana/wyoming facebook page. As they post the same garbage about fur use and also try to twist the lacey act in a way its not intended.

With a strong fur market the pelts get put to good use now they just lay and rot out in the field.

 

[WoolOverAll]

No i am not willing to throw other people under the bus like trappers and hounds man. To get a false sense of security. What have the anti ever compromised for hunters all they do is take and take and take till more rights are taken away. They have bastardized the esa as a political weapon against real animal management.

You sound like the people from the trap free montana/wyoming facebook page. As they post the same garbage about fur use and also try to twist the lacey act in a way its not intended.

With a strong fur market the pelts get put to good use now they just lay and rot out in the field.

I don't know man, I can't get behind your all or nothing attitude. Maybe read less facebook if its warping your world view this much. Blocking sale of furs does not stop you from trapping. Trappers can run around all they want and keep their hides. That quote was straight from US Fish and Wildlife, no twisting necessary. I am increasingly sure that some of you think Roosevelt and Leopold were radical antis for their conservation views.

 

[Chris in TN]

So what is the downside eliminating markets for wildlife products? "Commercial pest control" is a compromise area you could make valid arguments for.


I'll stick to quoting what they are legally pushing forward. I can see their point that 'big game' is treated differently and not commercialized. Is there a conservation case the opposite way? As in, why should we allow the commercialization of wildlife harvest? Their proposal does not remove personal use unless I missed it. So our trapper/furbearer hunter brothers are still able to go out and get fur for personal use.

In the PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO AMEND 2 CCR 406-018 being discussed today/tomorrow:

"
The NAM emphasizes eliminating markets for wildlife products to prevent overexploitation.5
The NAM holds that markets for wildlife are “unacceptable,” inevitably leading to
overexploitation.

I kill raccoons to help turkeys. I don't go and sell their fur for coats. How about throwing some of our tax dollars towards management incentives if it worries you so much.

1) The downside to eliminating small game markets is that they are the very thing that give people an incentive to engage in management. There's absolutely no reason to eliminate market uses of fur. It's essentially a commodity, in a way that we decided long ago, not to let big game be. Two very different things.
2) We have *ALWAYS* allowed the commercial use of wildlife. It would frankly be criminal to stop allowing people to take fur and make fur things from it. There is nothing inherently wrong with a profit motive. Plenty of people go to national forests with a profit motive to harvest timber - which is what the NF system existed for in the first place.
3) The NAM mentions overexploitation but this is a wholly theoretical concept. no modern species under current management rules has *any* threat of overexploitation that I am aware of. It's a boogeyman to appeal to simpletons. Otherwise, it hasn't been an issue in a century.
4) When you say 'how about throwing some of our tax dollars' you lose me, if you hadn't already. It would be utterly insane to stop people from doing the very things God designed fur to be useful for, then try to tax people to subsidize recreational trapping.

I mean, seriously, there's no use in us pretending to discuss this anymore. You've lost me and I don't think you're going to get much traction on this board in general.