Rokcast "end of hunting?"

[SoOreHunter]

Lots of great discussion here. Make sure and take the time to listen to the episode if you haven't: https://www.rokslide.com/the-end-of-hunting/

“Wisten to the whythmic whythm of the woodwinds as it wowws awound and awound…and it comes out here!” — Elmer Fudd

 

[Swamp Fox]

Agreed. Most people classify me as far left, yet hear I am.

They will never outright ban hunting. Its just plain fear mongering.

A ban on hunting is like a ban on firearms. All they'll accomplish is creating millions of felons.

Welcome aboard ... (or wElkome aboard as a buddy on an old, defunct BB used to say).

Now for your beating:

Outright ban hunting? Will never happen?

Tell that to the folks whose form of hunting has been outright banned.

You're dreaming if you think illegal hunting as a form of "resistance" will replace what we have now.

But let your freak flag fly ...

 

[Hnthrdr]

Welcome aboard ... (or wElkome aboard as a buddy on an old, defunct BB used to say).

Now for your beating:

Outright ban hunting? Will never happen?

Tell that to the folks whose form of hunting has been outright banned.

You're dreaming if you think illegal hunting as a form of "resistance" will replace what we have now.

But let your freak flag fly ...

I’m with swampfox:
For Co:
Spring bear banned

trapping outside of box traps that have to be tagged and checked daily: banned

Attempt at lion/bobcat hunting: fended off for now….

But yes they will never ban hunting… heck I could go into how banning trapping and spring bear , has had a major negative effect on the wild Turkey and deer population in the some of the drainages that I would trap/ bear hunt in. Just haven’t figured out how to get 5/6 box traps on my back with snow shoes outrageous!

 

[eye_zick]

Just like they will never sell public lands hahaha. Just fear mongering about selling public lands.

For clarity- we agree that only via socialism can we have public land.

Secondly - your assertion about selling public lands omits the inclusion of private lands purchased by state entities. It also omits the opportunities state's have created for public use of private lands.

to me the extremism of sale of all public lands or the outright ban on hunting fall in the same category. Fear mongering to buy your votes and get your money.

 

[eye_zick]

Welcome aboard ... (or wElkome aboard as a buddy on an old, defunct BB used to say).

Now for your beating:

Outright ban hunting? Will never happen?

Tell that to the folks whose form of hunting has been outright banned.

you mean like using lead shot? poison for wolves? there are forms of hunting that don't portray hunters as sportsman. ie IDFG commissioner stepped down after a photo of him killing a family of baboons surfaced.

You're dreaming if you think illegal hunting as a form of "resistance" will replace what we have now.

But let your freak flag fly ...

that was a beating? thanks daddy

 

[CorbLand]

you mean like using lead shot? poison for wolves? there are forms of hunting that don't portray hunters as sportsman. ie IDFG commissioner stepped down after a photo of him killing a family of baboons surfaced.

Mountain lion hunting in California.
Spring bear hunting in Washington.
Grizzly bear hunting in BC.
Bear hunting in New Jersey. (I think this was reversed but was still banned)

Buy hey, if you can still hunt grouse, they technically didnt ban hunting.

 

[eye_zick]

Mountain lion hunting in California.

haven't been able to hunt since 1972.

Spring bear hunting in Washington.

no changes were made to fall bear hunting. spring bears accounted for less than 10% of harvests in 2021...

Grizzly bear hunting in BC.

Bear hunting in New Jersey. (I think this was reversed but was still banned)

Buy hey, if you can still hunt grouse, they technically didnt ban hunting.

Nothing substantive here. looks more like fear mongering than actual outright bans on big game hunting. Certainly if an outright ban or agenda against hunting was more factual than fear mongering we could come up with more.

Supply and demand are the issues of big game hunting. there has to be a reduction in either if we intend to perform as sportsman and conservationists... calling it a ban on hunting when seasons are reduced seems a little extreme.

off the cuff - I'll bet there have been as much expanded opportunities to hunt as there have been restrictions...

 

[Arthas]

haven't been able to hunt since 1972.


no changes were made to fall bear hunting. spring bears accounted for less than 10% of harvests in 2021...




Nothing substantive here. looks more like fear mongering than actual outright bans on big game hunting. Certainly if an outright ban or agenda against hunting was more factual than fear mongering we could come up with more.

Supply and demand are the issues of big game hunting. there has to be a reduction in either if we intend to perform as sportsman and conservationists... calling it a ban on hunting when seasons are reduced seems a little extreme.

off the cuff - I'll bet there have been as much expanded opportunities to hunt as there have been restrictions...

Go ahead move to Seattle where you can be with others that think and vote as you do. Instead you are residing in a state that has been conservative forever.

I live and work in a state that has been overtaken by people with your foolish ideology. I posted a simply string of logic about hunting and conservation. Progressive ideology is perverting science based conservation and with it hunting opportunity. It's comical to call it fear mongering since if progressives had their way, not a single firearm would be in private citizen hands and not a single animal would be taken by citizen hunters for conservation puposes.

 

[CorbLand]

haven't been able to hunt since 1972.


no changes were made to fall bear hunting. spring bears accounted for less than 10% of harvests in 2021...




Nothing substantive here. looks more like fear mongering than actual outright bans on big game hunting. Certainly if an outright ban or agenda against hunting was more factual than fear mongering we could come up with more.

Supply and demand are the issues of big game hunting. there has to be a reduction in either if we intend to perform as sportsman and conservationists... calling it a ban on hunting when seasons are reduced seems a little extreme.

off the cuff - I'll bet there have been as much expanded opportunities to hunt as there have been restrictions...

Doesnt matter that you havent been able to hunt them since 1972...still is a ban on hunting big game. There is a viable population to be hunted that you cannot. This was not done due to not enough lions.

Doesnt matter that they only accounted for less than 10% of the take...still is a ban on hunting big game. There is a viable population to be hunted. This was not done due to not enough bears.

BC has a viable population of Grizzly Bears that you cannot hunt. This was not done due to not enough bears.

Nothing substantial in my post? Minus the fact that it complete proves that the attempt is to ban hunting outright, just one thing at a time.

I agree about supply and demand but completely removing a season (that has a viable population to be hunted) is not reducing it. That is eliminating it.

But hey, as long as you can hunt one minute of your life, they technically didnt ban hunting, right?

 

[Hnthrdr]

haven't been able to hunt since 1972.


no changes were made to fall bear hunting. spring bears accounted for less than 10% of harvests in 2021...




Nothing substantive here. looks more like fear mongering than actual outright bans on big game hunting. Certainly if an outright ban or agenda against hunting was more factual than fear mongering we could come up with more.

Supply and demand are the issues of big game hunting. there has to be a reduction in either if we intend to perform as sportsman and conservationists... calling it a ban on hunting when seasons are reduced seems a little extreme.

off the cuff - I'll bet there have been as much expanded opportunities to hunt as there have been restrictions...

Those are actual bans. Actual examples, and the gas lighting continues from you dude. I get it they aren’t banning hunting that you want to do so it doesn’t matter yet. Did you listen to the actual podcast?

Not to mention the trophic cascade caused by less opportunities, especially when it comes to predator management. Reducing predators can give more opportunities back to human hunters via more game on the landscape

 

[eye_zick]

Go ahead move to Seattle where you can be with others that think and vote as you do. Instead you are residing in a state that has been conservative forever.

I live and work in a state that has been overtaken by people with your foolish ideology. I posted a simply string of logic about hunting and conservation. Progressive ideology is perverting science based conservation and with it hunting opportunity. It's comical to call it fear mongering since if progressives had their way, not a single firearm would be in private citizen hands and not a single animal would be taken by citizen hunters for conservation puposes.

progressive ideology gave us what western hunting is today.

 

[Arthas]

progressive ideology gave us what western hunting is today.

Stop trolling. Progressive ideology in the western states is exactly what is calling for hunting bans. Also leading the nation in firearm restrictions. Plus people in those states get to have robust debate about how many genders there are and whether 2 + 2 = 4 or 5. Very science based.

 

[eye_zick]

Doesnt matter that you havent been able to hunt them since 1972...still is a ban on hunting big game. There is a viable population to be hunted that you cannot. This was not done due to not enough lions.

Doesnt matter that they only accounted for less than 10% of the take...still is a ban on hunting big game. There is a viable population to be hunted. This was not done due to not enough bears.

BC has a viable population of Grizzly Bears that you cannot hunt. This was not done due to not enough bears.

Nothing substantial in my post? Minus the fact that it complete proves that the attempt is to ban hunting outright, just one thing at a time.

I agree about supply and demand but completely removing a season (that has a viable population to be hunted) is not reducing it. That is eliminating it.

But hey, as long as you can hunt one minute of your life, they technically didnt ban hunting, right?

I promise I'm not being snarky or arguing semantics, but I would not classify prohibition of hunting mountain lions as a ban on hunting. for contrast there are elk, antelope, bighorn sheep, pronghorn, wild pig, and bear to hunt in cali. For contrast - Idaho has expanded hunting of mountain lions in the last few years.

If the banning of one species in one state in the last 5 decades indicates a clear anti hunting egenda by the far left, then, your absolutely right and hunting is banned. I personally refrain from calling for a reduction in a hunting season as a ban on hunting.

I wont opine on Canada. I'm not well versed in their politics.

I will say that your prior post doesnt have substantial information to me to draw the conclusion of a movement or clear agenda by the far left to ban hunting.
I respect you and will read what you have to say. Clearly I took the time to do that previously.

 

[eye_zick]

Those are actual bans. Actual examples, and the gas lighting continues from you dude. I get it they aren’t banning hunting that you want to do so it doesn’t matter yet. Did you listen to the actual podcast?

Not to mention the trophic cascade caused by less opportunities, especially when it comes to predator management. Reducing predators can give more opportunities back to human hunters via more game on the landscape

IMO you need more than a few data points to prove a clear anti hunting agenda. especiually considering the decades the data covers. but don't take my word for it. Again, i would retort with the clear expansion of hunting opportunities across every state that have been omitted from this conversation entirely.

Stop trolling

That's factual, not trolling. Teddy Roosevelt gave us the national forest system and was a clear progressive. The BLM was created by Truman another democrat. without public land we wouldnt have western hunting.

 

[CorbLand]

I promise I'm not being snarky or arguing semantics, but I would not classify prohibition of hunting mountain lions as a ban on hunting. for contrast there are elk, antelope, bighorn sheep, pronghorn, wild pig, and bear to hunt in cali. For contrast - Idaho has expanded hunting of mountain lions in the last few years.

If the banning of one species in one state in the last 5 decades indicates a clear anti hunting egenda by the far left, then, your absolutely right and hunting is banned. I personally refrain from calling for a reduction in a hunting season as a ban on hunting.

I wont opine on Canada. I'm not well versed in their politics.

I will say that your prior post doesnt have substantial information to me to draw the conclusion of a movement or clear agenda by the far left to ban hunting.
I respect you and will read what you have to say. Clearly I took the time to do that previously.

Like I said, as long as you can hunt grouse right? As long as you can hunt one minute out of your life right? It doesnt matter that you can hunt all of those other things. Banning hunting of one big game species is a ban on big game hunting. Is it a ban on it as a whole? No but it is still a ban.

It isnt just one species in one state...it is happening all over the US and world right now. One at a time.

Those examples were not a reduction in hunting season, they were banned. A reduction in hunting season is a season going from 7 days to 5 days not you can longer do it.

Those examples were the ones that worked...not the ones that have been tried.

If my first post didn't provide substantial information to show that the the goal is to ban hunting...I really dont know what to tell you.

 

[Arthas]

IMO you need more than a few data points to prove a clear anti hunting agenda. especiually considering the decades the data covers. but don't take my word for it. Again, i would retort with the clear expansion of hunting opportunities across every state that have been omitted from this conversation entirely.


That's factual, not trolling. Teddy Roosevelt gave us the national forest system and was a clear progressive. The BLM was created by Truman another democrat. without public land we wouldnt have western hunting.

Well the thing about being progressive is those people are racist bigot imperialists and their legacy must be destroyed by progressives.

 

[IdahoElk]

Are they a non profit? what are the board members salaries?

 

[eye_zick]

Like I said, as long as you can hunt grouse right? As long as you can hunt one minute out of your life right? It doesnt matter that you can hunt all of those other things. Banning hunting of one big game species is a ban on big game hunting. Is it a ban on it as a whole? No but it is still a ban.

It isnt just one species in one state...it is happening all over the US and world right now. One at a time.

Those examples were not a reduction in hunting season, they were banned. A reduction in hunting season is a season going from 7 days to 5 days not you can longer do it.

Those examples were the ones that worked...not the ones that have been tried.

If my first post didn't provide substantial information to show that the the goal is to ban hunting...I really dont know what to tell you.

Im only trying to facilitate conversation. But here is why I disagree with you.
If you can point to a few examples that ban hunting as proof of an anti-hunting agenda, then you should equally allow a few examples of new hunting opportunities as examples that there is a pro-hunter agenda, right?

 

[eye_zick]

Well the thing about being progressive is those people are racist bigot imperialists and their legacy must be destroyed by progressives.

I prefer the term shorter term - politicians.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Not to burst your bubble but TR was a Republican and a populist, he was not a progressive or anything near it by todays standards. He was a visionary when it came to realizing we needed to protect natural resources, specifically drinking water which is really what led him to do so what he did with the NP/ NF thing ( he did this early in his political career when he was in office in NY) protecting drinking water which came from the adarondaks. But yeah TR was a Republican. Also if you think it’s bad that the fish and game guy in Idaho killed a family of baboons, don’t read up on what TR killed in Africa or North America for that matter, he loved killing shit, once again super thankful that he decided that we should limit ourselves on killing shit. But yeah you are on some weird sub reddits if you think TR was a progressive I suggest picking up his two part biography and educating yourself on the man. He was pretty remarkable it is about 1200 pages or so of light reading