Non- and anti-hunters on game commissions

[Koda_]

I largely agree with you, but legitimately game department’s mandate is to manage the state’s game for its residents - not just hunters. Where is see the issue is where management takes a turn away from science and toward initiatives that are driven more by anthropomorphism.

I agree management is for all its residents, but its more problematic than just the animal rights group anthropomorphic feelings. The science can be skewed in any political direction these days. When game populations dwindle due to bad science, feelings, the argument will be that people don't "need" to hunt. Other non hunters will be sympathetic to the simplest answer, without understanding its the anti hunting polices that caused the game loss (banning dogs, wolves).
I dont have a very positive outlook of the direction things are going.

 

[MattB]

I agree management is for all its residents, but its more problematic than just the animal rights group anthropomorphic feelings. The science can be skewed in any political direction these days. When game populations dwindle due to bad science, feelings, the argument will be that people don't "need" to hunt. Other non hunters will be sympathetic to the simplest answer, without understanding its the anti hunting polices that caused the game loss (banning dogs, wolves).
I dont have a very positive outlook of the direction things are going.

Therein lies the problem. Science can’t be skewed, but there are lots of folks these days who will refer to something that is emotional or political as “science” - or go so far as to explicitly ignore science based on an alternate criterion they think is more important or is more favorable to their agenda.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

Whoever does the most should be the only ones that have a say in how wildlife should be managed. Copy copy.

Hikers don’t want wildlife they own getting killed by people. And because we as hunters disagree with that, hikers should not have a voice. Copy copy.

(Not sure why hikers got singled out)

And I’m not for anti hunters at all. But it’s not just hunters that own the wildlife. I’m trying to understand how 5% of the population should get to make all the decisions.

Do you think that the 5% who are anti hunters should get to make all the wildlife management decisions because it isn’t just about hunters not being able to make decisions, that seems to be the only alternative they want. If it were just ordinary everyday non hunting people using science based wildlife management decisions it wouldn’t be the issue that it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CMP70306]

Whoever does the most should be the only ones that have a say in how wildlife should be managed. Copy copy.

Hikers don’t want wildlife they own getting killed by people. And because we as hunters disagree with that, hikers should not have a voice. Copy copy.

(Not sure why hikers got singled out)

And I’m not for anti hunters at all. But it’s not just hunters that own the wildlife. I’m trying to understand how 5% of the population should get to make all the decisions.

Because one group generally operates in a fantasy world of how things should happen and the other has been proving for over 100 years that their method works.

Generally speaking the people with the most skin in the game are more likely to have a vested interest in a positive outcome. To most animal rights people and anti hunters the majority of wildlife to them is a brief interlude of “that’s neat” on a walk through the woods or a video on a screen. They are so far removed from nature they don’t have the faintest idea of what is required to keep animal populations sustained at healthy levels.

Completely removing hunting from the equation results in one of two things, either a new predator is reintroduced to an area to control animal populations or they proceed to multiply to the point that they detrimentally affect their habitat leading to a crash in populations.

Take for example here in PA, there are an estimated 1.5 million deer and hunters kill on average around 400,000 deer a year which keeps the population in check. Now imagine hunters stopped killing them, in the first year the population would jump by 600,000 based on the deer not killed and their fawns bringing the total to 2.1 million. The following year they are up an additional million to 3.1 million and the deer are putting a severe strain on their environment. Other animals start to suffer due to the deer eating all of the understory, does start aborting their fawns due to lack of food, car accidents and diseases start taking a larger number and you are one severe winter away from a huge population crash that takes decades to recover due to the greatly diminished habitat.

The other alternative is predators, people already have issues with coyotes so how would they feel about the 20,000 wolves or 8,000 mountain lions required to harvest as many deer as the hunters do?

 

[dirtytough]

Do you think that the 5% who are anti hunters should get to make all the wildlife management decisions because it isn’t just about hunters not being able to make decisions, that seems to be the only alternative they want. If it were just ordinary everyday non hunting people using science based wildlife management decisions it wouldn’t be the issue that it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did I say that?

Because one group generally operates in a fantasy world of how things should happen and the other has been proving for over 100 years that their method works.


Generally speaking the people with the most skin in the game are more likely to have a vested interest in a positive outcome. To most animal rights people and anti hunters the majority of wildlife to them is a brief interlude of “that’s neat” on a walk through the woods or a video on a screen. They are so far removed from nature they don’t have the faintest idea of what is required to keep animal populations sustained at healthy levels.

Completely removing hunting from the equation results in one of two things, either a new predator is reintroduced to an area to control animal populations or they proceed to multiply to the point that they detrimentally affect their habitat leading to a crash in populations.

Take for example here in PA, there are an estimated 1.5 million deer and hunters kill on average around 400,000 deer a year which keeps the population in check. Now imagine hunters stopped killing them, in the first year the population would jump by 600,000 based on the deer not killed and their fawns bringing the total to 2.1 million. The following year they are up an additional million to 3.1 million and the deer are putting a severe strain on their environment. Other animals start to suffer due to the deer eating all of the understory, does start aborting their fawns due to lack of food, car accidents and diseases start taking a larger number and you are one severe winter away from a huge population crash that takes decades to recover due to the greatly diminished habitat.

The other alternative is predators, people already have issues with coyotes so how would they feel about the 20,000 wolves or 8,000 mountain lions required to harvest as many deer as the hunters do?

What state is hunting illegal in? And if that is what the citizens of the state decide, to make all hunting illegal that is their right since they own the animals.

 

[CMP70306]

Did I say that?

What state is hunting illegal in? And if that is what the citizens of the state decide, to make all hunting illegal that is their right since they own the animals.

As a whole hunting is not banned in any state as there isn’t the support for it but there are multiple states banning certain animals from being hunted despite robust populations capable of supporting a season. Many of these bans were voted for predominantly by people with no concept of what they were voting for as they are isolated from the effects of their choices.

Take for example mountain lions, wolves and bears, all are protected to some degree in specific states where it is illegal to hunt them. And in all of those states many of them are killed by Fish and Game because they are over populated. So instead of having people pay for the opportunity to hunt them the state is paying people to get rid of them, the result is the same dead animal but with a significant cost to tax payers.

For other examples you have Catalina island in CA which is so over run with deer due to hunting permits being nearly impossible to acquire that they are resorting to killing them from helicopters and letting them rot in the hills.

New Jersey banned black bear hunting in 2018 due to politics which lasted until 2022 when they had to reinstate the hunt due to the increase in human/bear conflicts.

Wolves and mountain lions are another example where their total protection has resulted in reduced hunting opportunities via reduction in game populations.

Then there is the question if they are allowed to vote for things with no basis in sound wildlife management then how far are they allowed to go? If 50.1% of the state votes to clear cut all the state property to get a discount on their taxes should that be allowed? Or how about getting rid of all the animals they don’t like just because they voted to?

 

[Macintosh]

The issue is probably not a ban on all hunting. And science can be legitimately applied in different ways. The current system is specifically designed to leverage OPPORTUNITY into dollars, those dollars driving conservation, which is the mission of the state agency. Opportunity looks like creating longer seasons via archery, ML, rifle, etc in order for people to make more of a lifestyle out of it or so more people have the opportunity to participate, while still achieving the same management result. It also looks at compensatory versus addative mortality, and says “in order to have a stable population of x critter, we dont NEED to kill ANY, but we COULD kill up to X amount without affecting the overall population—therefore we will offer a season for this animal to be harvested below that level in order to generate opportunity, which drives conservation $”. The alternative to that, which I think is most likely as these game commission changes evolve, is that hunting becomes viewed more and more as a “necessary evil” and we are only allowed to hunt animals where there is a biological NEED to harvest some, and we dont get to hunt where we “could” harvest some. Yes, predators could have some impact on that, as well as other things. Its the difference between maximizing opportunity versus minimizing opportunity, both can be equally scientific, but the fundamental difference is whether we view hunting opportunity as something good that should be maximized, or if its viewed as a last resort to be utilized only where absolutely necessary. I dont think thats something that would happen overnight, but thats the shift in thinking that the anti’s are pushing toward.