What has being nice really done for us?

[average]

And being loud and shoving it in our faces. It’s out there for you to see, read, and hear whether we like it or not. Heck these days you can’t even just work without an employer sending you a banner to put on the bottom of your email for a month. Oh, and don’t forget your pronoun.

You're definitely letting hate cloud reality. That was clear from the first post tho. You can't tolerate people different than you existing but expect them to tolerate you. Many have mentioned here building bridges while you're focused on burning them

 

[Coveyleader]

You're definitely letting hate cloud reality. That was clear from the first post tho. You can't tolerate people different than you existing but expect them to tolerate you. Many have mentioned here building bridges while you're focused on burning the

Why should we tolerate people taking away one of the things we love? I do have a level of hate towards them. They’re taking away the very things many of us think about all day long. There isn’t an hour that goes by that Indont think about hunting, and the outdoors, and what it means to me. And then you have this group that wants to take it all away. You bet your ass there is hate involved here.

I digress

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I don’t think the opposition to hunting is as overwhelming or dire as everyone thinks. They just demand sensational stuff so it garners a disproportionate amount of attention.

The louder and more belligerent someone is in an argument should not be conflated with “winning” the argument. It just means they are usually a dumbass. I’m a lawyer. Deal with it weekly.

Everyone knows not to sink to the same level of dumbassery because they will beat you with experience and everybody witnessing won’t be able to tell who the real idiot is.

Completely disagree. In Colorado hunting, angling, and trapping is under attack at every wildlife commission meeting, every election, and every session of the state legislature. Many times it’s cleverly disguised. It never shows up as “100% ban on all hunting”. But it is absolutely there and it is a complete cancer in this state.

I do however agree with your comment about being the loudest. We need to be calm, collected, and professional.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I'm in the camp that isn't worried as much about "the anti's" taking away my hunting as I am many other factors out there, most of which involve the exchange of large amounts of money.

Even hunters themselves will freely vote to take away another hunter's right/privilege if it means that they themselves may have a more enjoyable experience. For years I was a believer in Pay to Play and would join and contribute to local conservation organizations in areas I hunted, some being 1000mi from home, was my way of helping them "preserve our heritage" as they often put it, in recent years that money has paid for exactly that....preserve OUR heritage, not YOUR heritage and many of those groups have been using those dollars to create laws that build their own little resident kingdoms and boot out the nonresident diy hunter. I don't stumble around kicking rocks and stewing on it because I've got lots of public land and great hunting right out my door, but it does change a person's attitude regarding future decisions on permits and management on the land outside my own door...maybe I want a kingdom too?

The concept of anti hunting has been around a long time, but many other factors like land fragmentation, public land sales and/or mismanagement, predator mismanagement, squeezing more and more motorized sports & random months long camping into wildlife areas, resident only kingdom building etc are fairly new on the scene and bigger risk so if you're going to yell make sure you yell at the right people.

The idea of hunting as a right is a good political platform come election time, but hunting is no more a right than the right to drive a car on the highway. The wildlife violator compact says that in most states you have the right to hunt as long as you do it the way the govt tells you, if not you lose the right...just like your drivers license.

I can understand the frustration with diminishing opportunities for DIY folks. But that doesn’t discount the reality that anti-hunting groups are growing in power and influence in places like Colorado. And the idea that if we just go in the corner and play nice then they will go away is very misplaced. Make no bones about it, they are coming for everything. We must organize and make a logical, science-based argument to maintain our sporting traditions. Are there bad apples in the hunting community? Sure. But no amount of cleaning house is going to make these anti groups go away. I know lots of people don’t like politics, but to survive we have to participate and make our voices heard.

 

[RockAndSage]

But that doesn’t discount the reality that anti-hunting groups are growing in power and influence in places like Colorado.

Yes - and it's absolutely critical that people understand these are not spontaneous, grassroots groups.

They are deeply interconnected at the leadership, strategy, and funding levels back to organizations that are orchestrating salami-slices of political wins against our interests. They recruit local karens around everything from local environmental issues and save the wolves/cougars/mustangs, etc, but they are also integrated with urban "planning" non-profits, and virtually anything related to getting people disarmed, disinterested, and out of rural areas.

If you want a start in grasping how big and integrated they are, just google "agenda 2030", and almost any karen issue you can think of, from "rewilding" to reintroduction of wolves.

And the idea that if we just go in the corner and play nice then they will go away is very misplaced. Make no bones about it, they are coming for everything.

100%.

We must organize and make a logical, science-based argument to maintain our sporting traditions.

This is where you're mistaken - our opponents are not operating on science, they just use biased perversions of it to justify their emotional and ideological worldviews.

These are values-based positions their activists have taken, and they will NEVER be argued out of them. It's quasi-religious. In public, those people must be shown to be against the values of the persuadable middle, and the worst thing that can be permitted is to allow them to be seen as rational and science-based.

They must be shown to be fundamentally emotional, biased, and emotionally unhinged.

That's what we need to do in a calm, rational manner. Get them to take their masks off, as emotionally unhinged, biased, and fundamentally against the interests of the average person. They must be seen and perceived as socially radioactive, to the point where people don't want to associate with them.

Among other things, that's exactly what they do to us - it's the Saul Alinksy playbook.

I know lots of people don’t like politics, but to survive we have to participate and make our voices heard.

Politics is war by other means - those who disengage get steamrolled. It's a disgusting reality, but reality isn't fair.

 

[Old Hickory 45]

The NRA was a moving force to reckon with until the NRA had poor leadership and lost many members.

 

[Macintosh]

Nationally, 5% of the US population hunts. Yet hunting has something around 80% approval. THAT is what being “nice” gets us (See edit below). As long as “nice” means being respectful, factual and staying within the bounds of the principals we profess to be important, and leading and collaborating on wildlife-related issues that are important to both hunters and non-hunters. Being nice does not mean being weak or compromising on principles.

Letting emotion get the better of you, digging in even when the science says there's an issue, failing to adapt to changing situations regardless of what we think of them, showing disrespect for any wildlife, or picking and choosing our science (looking at you guys calling state biologists incompetent, etc)—those are all things that can and will hurt us as hunters.

I live in a state that has a constitutional Right to hunt and fish. Its been in our state constitution since 1793. Hunting and fishing is unquestionably and undeniably a RIGHT, not a privilege, at least here. The population of my state also hunts at a rate almost triple the national average. But make no mistake, that has not stopped people from attacking it here, sometimes successfully. Do not make the mistake of thinking that hunting being a right vs a privilege will prevent that from happening. Disrespect toward wildlife such as wanton waste and attempted eradication of non-desired native species, are the most powerful ammunition the antis could ever wish for in their goal to end hunting. Every time someone smokes a predator and leaves the carcass in a parking area, or kills a litter of raccoons and dumps them on the highway, it creates more anti-hunters. Im happy to call anti-hunters the enemy, but Im also firmly in the camp that a few hunters do more damage to hunting than most anti-hunters ever will. Because its not the 5% of anti-hunters I worry about, its the massive majority in the middle that arent one or the other—yet.

Eta: latest survey Ive seen showed Americans approval of hunting at 77% as of 2023. This was DOWN from 81% just a few years earlier. This is the problem. This is both because of a coordinated attack, but also because we have provided the attackers with some good ammunition. Anti-hunters are a fringe group of extremists. The danger I see is when hunters create situations that play directly into the anti-hunting narrative, and normal folks have the opportunity to agree with something the anti’s say. We need to be proactive in telling our genuine story, AND we need to address the issues within our own ranks. Its not one or the other.

 

[RockAndSage]

Hunting and fishing is unquestionably and undeniably a RIGHT, not a privilege, at least here. The population of my state also hunts at a rate almost triple the national average. But make no mistake, that has not stopped people from attacking it here, sometimes successfully.

Great points. This one above - it's critical in understanding their worldview and why we keep failing.

Anti-hunters aren't just "anti-hunting" - it's merely one part of a more integrated worldview.

And, they are relentless in attacking what they disagree with - decades and lifetimes, each and as a bloc. They are always on the offensive. Which is why we keep losing salami-slices of the overall issue. Sometimes we may see it as "compromise", but it's better understood as a lost battle in a war we're steadily, consistently losing - largely because we never go on offense in expanding our hunting rights.

The Second Amendment community took the gloves off about 15 years ago, and has relentlessly been on the offensive. The result is a series of steady wins in the courts and most legislatures, right-to-carry laws in the vast majority of states, and silencers & SBRs no longer taxed and on the way to broader liberty in repealing the NFA altogether. Staying on the offensive keeps everything moving in the right direction, and keeps them from shifting the momentum - they're deploying all their resources to fighting losing battles.

Anti-gunners are now in the position that hunters have been in for 40 years - losing, by being on the defense.

As hunters, we must always be on the offensive in one way or another - and, you can be on the offensive without being offensive.

 

[omicron1792]

People that want to control what you do or want to make you conform to their way of thinking will steamroll you if they get the chance. If we haven’t learned that in that in the last 50 years we won’t ever get it. There is no appeasing them. Once you compromise they will ratchet it up to the next level. I wish it weren’t so but it just is.

Amen. Been preaching this. Some hunters think making these moral stands against hunters helps. It doesn’t. It gives them another in to take us all down.

It’s like having a cut on your finger and a leg blown off. Yes both need to be addressed. But let’s triage the missing leg first.

 

[ReaptheHeat]

Colorado is under attack. We have an anti hunting Parks and Wildlife Commission. Fur ban even though the biologists disagreed? Give me a break. Wolves placed "optimally" at a winter kill declining elk and deer herd and ranching capital of the state?

People voted for wolves. Thankfully the people turned down the lion hunting bill.

Gun control is in full swing. Barrels will need an FFL here soon in July. FFLs besides box box stores will cease to exist. "Assault weapons" ban here soon too. I'm betting mags and ammo are next. Ammo (including reloading components) needs to be signed for at delivery and locked up at the store. Oh yeah and citizens voted for a 6.5% firearms excise tax to top it off.

Hard to be optimistic and build bridges when the state and most of the citizens are hell bent on destroying it. This state was built on mining,ranching and oil and now look at it.

 

[omicron1792]

Colorado is under attack. We have an anti hunting Parks and Wildlife Commission. Fur ban even though the biologists disagreed? Give me a break. Wolves placed "optimally" at a winter kill declining elk and deer herd and ranching capital of the state?

People voted for wolves. Thankfully the people turned down the lion hunting bill.

Gun control is in full swing. Barrels will need an FFL here soon in July. FFLs besides box box stores will cease to exist. "Assault weapons" ban here soon too. I'm betting mags and ammo are next. Ammo (including reloading components) needs to be signed for at delivery and locked up at the store. Oh yeah and citizens voted for a 6.5% firearms excise tax to top it off.

Hard to be optimistic and build bridges when the state and most of the citizens are hell bent on destroying it. This state was built on mining,ranching and oil and now look at it.

Even more reason we stop arguing over thermals and public vs private land and unite in one voice against the antis.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Nationally, 5% of the US population hunts. Yet hunting has something around 80% approval. THAT is what being “nice” gets us (See edit below). As long as “nice” means being respectful, factual and staying within the bounds of the principals we profess to be important, and leading and collaborating on wildlife-related issues that are important to both hunters and non-hunters. Being nice does not mean being weak or compromising on principles.

Letting emotion get the better of you, digging in even when the science says there's an issue, failing to adapt to changing situations regardless of what we think of them, showing disrespect for any wildlife, or picking and choosing our science (looking at you guys calling state biologists incompetent, etc)—those are all things that can and will hurt us as hunters.

I live in a state that has a constitutional Right to hunt and fish. Its been in our state constitution since 1793. Hunting and fishing is unquestionably and undeniably a RIGHT, not a privilege, at least here. The population of my state also hunts at a rate almost triple the national average. But make no mistake, that has not stopped people from attacking it here, sometimes successfully. Do not make the mistake of thinking that hunting being a right vs a privilege will prevent that from happening. Disrespect toward wildlife such as wanton waste and attempted eradication of non-desired native species, are the most powerful ammunition the antis could ever wish for in their goal to end hunting. Every time someone smokes a predator and leaves the carcass in a parking area, or kills a litter of raccoons and dumps them on the highway, it creates more anti-hunters. Im happy to call anti-hunters the enemy, but Im also firmly in the camp that a few hunters do more damage to hunting than most anti-hunters ever will. Because its not the 5% of anti-hunters I worry about, its the massive majority in the middle that arent one or the other—yet.

Eta: latest survey Ive seen showed Americans approval of hunting at 77% as of 2023. This was DOWN from 81% just a few years earlier. This is the problem. This is both because of a coordinated attack, but also because we have provided the attackers with some good ammunition. Anti-hunters are a fringe group of extremists. The danger I see is when hunters create situations that play directly into the anti-hunting narrative, and normal folks have the opportunity to agree with something the anti’s say. We need to be proactive in telling our genuine story, AND we need to address the issues within our own ranks. Its not one or the other.

I agree with much of what you have said however you’re wishing away the anti movement as very small group of extremists with little ability to change things is likely something you can say from you position in a state with a constitutional right to hunt and fish. My perspective is much different living in Colorado, essentially ground zero for the anti-hunting movement, and differs greatly. We have an 11 person wildlife commission that conducts rulemaking regarding all hunting, fishing, trapping and wildlife management writ large. Anti-hunting activists now control 6 seats- a majority voting bloc- on the commission. They have already shown a willingness to defy agency recommendations and trump the will of the voters. That is far more than just an extremist 5% minority. That is real political power. They can do far and away more damage than a few bad apples in the hunting community. No amount of housecleaning and “storytelling” is gonna to right that ship. Sportsmen and women must unite and fight politically at every level- commission, legislature, and ballot box.

YMMV

 

[Macintosh]

@bayoublaster7527 thats fair. 2 points.

1, antis are a fringe group of extremists is what I said. I did NOT say they have little ability to change things. That is two very different things. I said that the vast majority of people in the space between hunters and anti-hunters, something like 90% of the population, THOSE are the people that I worry about, because those are the people who’s minds CAN be changed, and they are in the vast majority.

2) completely understand there is a different dynamic in every state with our fish and wildlife commissions. I am reasonably well acquainted with what’s going on in Colorado and other states, and I’m a former Colorado resident (albeit over 30 years ago). But, I also live in an extremely liberal state, made liberal by a few small population centers with the rest of the state being largely moderate or conservative. Sound familiar?Our states have a lot in common despite obvious differences. My point was not to say you don’t have things more difficult without a constitutional right, my point was only that having a constitutional right does not prevent these attacks from happening and succeeding. Just don’t get complacent those of you with a constitutional Right, that’s all.

 

[Coveyleader]

@bayoublaster7527 thats fair. 2 points.

1, antis are a fringe group of extremists is what I said. I did NOT say they have little ability to change things. That is two very different things. I said that the vast majority of people between hunters and anti-hunters, something like 90% of the population, THOSE are the people that I worry about. To the degree that we can, I’m simply saying that it’s in our best interests to win over more of that middle majority, than the antis can. That’s all.
2) completely understand there is a different dynamic in every state with our fish and wildlife commissions. You may very well be right, I am reasonably well acquainted with what’s going on in Colorado and other states, and I’m a former Colorado resident (albeit over 30 years ago). But, I also live in an extremely liberal state, made liberal by a few small population centers, with the rest of the state being largely moderate or conservative. Our states have a lot in common despite obvious differences. My point was not to say you don’t have things more difficult without a constitutional, right, my point was only that having a constitutional right does not prevent these attacks from happening and succeeding. Just don’t get complacent those of you with a constitutional Right, that’s all.

Don’t forget loud, something we’re not. Like many groups we see today, small, loud in your face, and look what it gets them vs being quiet, ‘sorry aunt bee’ types.

 

[velvet muley]

People that say it is not as dire as we make it out to be need to wake up a smell the coffee. Looks like this is going to qualify to make the Nov. ballot this go around, shows you how much steam these people have picked up over the years while we stay stagnant.

"Initiative Petition 28 (IP28), or the "PEACE Act," is a proposed Oregon ballot measure aiming to ban hunting, fishing, trapping, and commercial livestock slaughter by redefining these actions as animal abuse. Proponents need 117,173 valid signatures by July 2, 2026, to qualify for the November 2026 ballot, having gathered roughly 100,000+ as of February.
YouTube +1


Key Aspects of the Petition

• Goal: The initiative aims to change Oregon's animal cruelty laws (ORS 167.315–167.333) by removing exemptions for hunting, fishing, and farming.
• Impact: If passed, it would essentially outlaw hunting, commercial fishing, livestock ranching, and some forms of wildlife management, limiting killing to self-defense.
• Scope: The initiative also targets animal research, pest control, and certain breeding practices.
• Status: It is a 2026 campaign following previous failed attempts (IP13, IP3) to reach the ballot. "

 

[Hill Difficulty]

Am attempting to paraphrase something my prior pastor said before retirement.


Is your sky falling?

If you think the sky is falling, which "sky" and what do you mean by "fall?"

Though I can relate if your sky is something in this world that you love like hunting or the America we grew up in, be careful to make anything in this world your sky cuz it cannot last.

Jesus should be your sky. He's the only sky that will never fail.

My point being, what God has planned is far greater than anything we cling to in this life.


John 12:25
Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.