Rokcast "end of hunting?"

[SoOreHunter]

Hey all, was just listening to the end of hunting podcast that was just released. I appreciate the HOWL group, but was thinking about my local group here in Oregon, OHA... At this time I can really only support one group. Do you think supporting local is better than something like HOWL that is more national? Just trying to put my money in the best location. Just curious what you all think.

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

 

[Johnny Tyndall]

National groups have bigger fundraising nets, so all else equal I'd stick with the locals. They also (may) be better attuned to local issues and have local connections to get things done. That said, maybe just split the $ between both? Even if the dollar amount is small, it helps them to take positions "on behalf of our ## members."

 

[GSPHUNTER]

Stick with what will serve you best for the area you hunt. If you still want to give other organization some money, never any real harm there, as long as you can afford it, and you think it may help you in some way.

 

[CorbLand]

@Howl For Wildlife

Would be interesting to hear what someone that runs the national org has to say about it. I could see arguments made both ways.

 

[displacedtexan]

I think the whole idea is a fake victim mentality.

Yeah, there's definitely people who would like to ban hunting.

But I've got some VERY far left friends. A couple hunt, a very few are indifferent, and most are interested in our hunts, and want some meat from them.

 

[MuleDeerMike]

I think the whole idea is a fake victim mentality.

Yeah, there's definitely people who would like to ban hunting.

But I've got some VERY far left friends. A couple hunt, a very few are indifferent, and most are interested in our hunts, and want some meat from them.

We're all entitled to our own opinions on this subject, but with all due respect, yours is very misguided and misinformed. In reality it doesn't matter what most people think about hunting. Good or bad. Like you said, most people don't care either way. What matters is what the hand selected wildlife commissioners, by far left liberal Governors, think. They're the only people that matter in this because they're the only ones who can make the decision to ban hunting or reduce seasons. Do some research on what's happening here in WA, there's no doubt the end of hunting here is in sight. Our new majority on the wildlife commission was hand selected by far-left environmental groups and then brought to Governor Inslee to appoint. Some of the new wildlife commissioners were former members of these groups, I shit you not. These environmental orgs are some of Inslee's biggest donors and it's no secret. He doesn't care what happens to hunting and fishing because he's just making good on his side of the bargain for accepting their campaign money. Most people might be indifferent or not care if hunting is legal, but those same people wouldn't give a rats ass if it actually got banned outside of supporting their few hunting friends for a total of 5 minutes before they forget or get distracted and move onto the next subject. Once it's gone, it's never coming back. And if you think that this cant spread to other states like every other social liberal mind virus then you're not paying attention.

 

[BigAl!]

@MuleDeerMike well said and unfortunately true. These commissioners are openly against hunting and won’t be satisfied until there is none.

 

[dirtytough]

I think the whole idea is a fake victim mentality.

Dude you can’t be that obtuse. Trolls like to troll.

 

[bozeman]

To the OP, support which you think brings the most benefit to your 'cause'. I am WAY past the fearmongering, and only support causes that I believe coincide with my way of life. Salaries, administrative costs, trips to functions/events.........seem to add up for a lot of the organizations. Dig deep into the one's you think you might want to support, ask questions of those in leadership and then decide from there.

 

[Rob5589]

Support both. HOWL is absolutely free to sign up and utilize. HOWL is looking for voices, in the form of emails, in order to get hunters opinions heard. You can join if you like, donate any amount of money, or just get involved for no cost other than a few minutes of your time.

 

[Tmac]

Hey all, was just listening to the end of hunting podcast that was just released. I appreciate the HOWL group, but was thinking about my local group here in Oregon, OHA... At this time I can really only support one group. Do you think supporting local is better than something like HOWL that is more national? Just trying to put my money in the best location. Just curious what you all think.

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

OHA. There are groups supporting a ballot initiative here in OR that will effectively end hunting, possibly ranching etc. too. If they get enough signatures to qualify it for the ballot, it‘s possible the liberals in the Willamette Valley and North Coast will have enough votes to pass it.

 

[SoOreHunter]

Support both. HOWL is absolutely free to sign up and utilize. HOWL is looking for voices, in the form of emails, in order to get hunters opinions heard. You can join if you like, donate any amount of money, or just get involved for no cost other than a few minutes of your time.

I appreciate all the comments, I agree with this here. I will support OHA, but we'll put my name in on the HOWL part of it. I talked to a lot of people about IP3 here in Oregon a few years ago and they just couldn't believe it was even a consideration. So not only with these organizations but with our own voices we need to be saying things.

Thanks everyone! Don't be quiet.

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

 

[skeptic]

I think the biggest question is if "they" ban hunting in whatever locale you live in, will you comply? It's hard to concentrate with this tinfoil hat on, but I would hope there was an awakening over the last few years with regards to government instituted bans and "rules".

 

[displacedtexan]

We're all entitled to our own opinions on this subject, but with all due respect, yours is very misguided and misinformed. In reality it doesn't matter what most people think about hunting. Good or bad. Like you said, most people don't care either way. What matters is what the hand selected wildlife commissioners, by far left liberal Governors, think. They're the only people that matter in this because they're the only ones who can make the decision to ban hunting or reduce seasons. Do some research on what's happening here in WA, there's no doubt the end of hunting here is in sight. Our new majority on the wildlife commission was hand selected by far-left environmental groups and then brought to Governor Inslee to appoint. Some of the new wildlife commissioners were former members of these groups, I shit you not. These environmental orgs are some of Inslee's biggest donors and it's no secret. He doesn't care what happens to hunting and fishing because he's just making good on his side of the bargain for accepting their campaign money. Most people might be indifferent or not care if hunting is legal, but those same people wouldn't give a rats ass if it actually got banned outside of supporting their few hunting friends for a total of 5 minutes before they forget or get distracted and move onto the next subject. Once it's gone, it's never coming back. And if you think that this cant spread to other states like every other social liberal mind virus then you're not paying attention.

I don't disagree with you at all. There are definitely people in power (or trying to be in power) with extreme anti hunting views. That's an issue, and worthy of people being involved.

I probably could have been clearer... I was particularly referring to the idea that the average person is so close to being anti hunting. The "most people" as you said.

The country is roughly 50/50 right and left of center... So that puts roughly half on the conservative side for hunters and less government regulation in general. Banning hunting is definitely a lot more government regulation.

Among the general public that's left of center there's definitely a sizable number who are pro hunting or hunters themselves...

I think that to assume that the majority of the left or average person on the left could easily get on board with banning hunting is the equivalent of assuming that the average person on the right could easily get on board with bringing back segregation and racial purity laws. Yeah, there's a few on either side with extreme views, but they're outliers.

Also, thanks for actually having a conversation instead of just calling me an idiot and/or troll.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I don't disagree with you at all. There are definitely people in power (or trying to be in power) with extreme anti hunting views. That's an issue, and worthy of people being involved.

I probably could have been clearer... I was particularly referring to the idea that the average person is so close to being anti hunting. The "most people" as you said.

The country is roughly 50/50 right and left of center... So that puts roughly half on the conservative side for hunters and less government regulation in general. Banning hunting is definitely a lot more government regulation.

Among the general public that's left of center there's definitely a sizable number who are pro hunting or hunters themselves...

I think that to assume that the majority of the left or average person on the left could easily get on board with banning hunting is the equivalent of assuming that the average person on the right could easily get on board with bringing back segregation and racial purity laws. Yeah, there's a few on either side with extreme views, but they're outliers.

Also, thanks for actually having a conversation instead of just calling me an idiot and/or troll.

you think someone on the left or even moderate left is going to change their vote over hunting? No they vote party line.

The Colorado and NM Gov are perfect examples and there is now plenty of examples of legislature and appointees that is currently chipping away at hunting in those states

 

[cuerro viejo]

I think the whole idea is a fake victim mentality.

And you wonder why people respond in a very pointed fashion

 

[fngTony]

Local hunting organizations and national conservation organizations. Animal herds and habitat zones cross state lines so I can’t simply pick based on the geographic boundaries of an organization’s mission. My voice is probably best used locally and my dollars spent nationally.

 

[displacedtexan]

Local hunting organizations and national conservation organizations. Animal herds and habitat zones cross state lines so I can’t simply pick based on the geographic boundaries of an organization’s mission. My voice is probably best used locally and my dollars spent nationally.

Exactly how I allocate time/energy versus money.

 

[Rob5589]

I think the biggest question is if "they" ban hunting in whatever locale you live in, will you comply? It's hard to concentrate with this tinfoil hat on, but I would hope there was an awakening over the last few years with regards to government instituted bans and "rules".

The question becomes; will you risk a criminal conviction for a hobby? And if you'd be willing then, why not just poach now? (I'm not singling you out, you just happen to be the one that brought it up.)

The best way to avoid having to make those decisions is to become involved and vocal on a local and national level.

 

[Tl15]

Reading your stories about the northwest really makes me appreciate living in Texas…