A brawl brewing in spokane?

[Yogithebear]

Ah, you did come back. Since you couldn’t find a quote from me to support your previous accusations, I’ll just assume you concede you are full of s@!&.


I can only answer the question. I can’t understand it for you.

Since you guys continue to dodge the questions and intentionally ignore the main crux of the topic at hand (i.e. PUBLIC resource, ALL citizens), it is pointless to continue. I know my facts. Just because Oscar and Yogi choose to ignore them doesn’t make what everyone else here is saying untrue. And if hunters are such delicate snowflakes that we can’t even talk about and critically evaluate our own shortcomings in how we’ve operated in the past, the anti-hunters are going to eat us alive. They are evolving. We just sit here in the corner repeating “hunting is conservation” and “don’t apologize”. That’s not going to be nearly good enough.

There is a stark difference between celebrating our past successes, and resting on our laurels. Some people are content to double down on stupid. Some others would rather see us elevate our game. Pretty clear which is which.

Have a good weekend.

You and a few people here could benefit from increasing your self awareness. Your comments generalizing all hunters and apparently thinking we all need some kind of comeuppance are insulting to many on this board. I get you and others this board are very important people in the space. It doesn’t mean you know everything or represent everyone. You all continually act as gatekeeper to discusions with fly-by comments and quips. What you clearly don’t like is any challenge to a single point, and you jump to each others defense with the same generlizations and insults. “I have explained it to you x times and you apparently just don’t get it”, or you clearly don’t have experience in this area”, yada yada. No, you all just aren’t addressing what was said and seem more interested in winning the arguement by moving it to another point. You constanltly use selective quotes out of context of what the original discussion was about then turn around and accuse others of the same. Just like someone mentioned you were being a contrarian and shortly after you accused me of being obtuse. You have made the attacks personal and pulled the selective quote nonsense as the string shows; not as a way to have a conversation, but as a way to redirect my and others’ comments and questions to off topic points you want to make. I more or less quoted your entire message where you generalize all hunters as this or that.

Normally I don’t directly confront in discussions as I know that is not helpful. But sometimes when people are being insulting and disingenuous in the “discussion“ it has to be called out. I imagine there are many who have been turned off these discusions and perhaps getting more involved in the hunting defense/advication cause by similar experiences by gatekeepers of the movement.

 

[JLS]

https://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ptd_10-1.pdf

 

[Deleted member 28227]

No, you all just aren’t addressing what was said and seem more interested in winning the argument by moving it to another point.

Seems like you just didn't like the answers.

1: How will inviting Washington Wildlife First and Wildlife for All help wildlife management?

Answers:

I must not be doing a very good job of articulating my position, because I am absolutely not in any way optimistic about some of these groups in their intentions. I know full well what they are, what they’re about, and what their end goal is. There’s no denying that.

If they want a seat at the table to try and end all hunting, that’s absolutely their right. They are part of the public trust. End stop.

I’m not saying anti-hunters should make all the rules, agencies should prioritize their views, or anything even close to that. What I, and the article, are saying is that public agencies have to work within public opinion. And public opinion says hunters have called all the shots for too long. And public servants are being held to account on that, like it or not. And if we are managing a public resource, we should be doing so with the WHOLE public in mind. Not just the people we like. That is what we are legally mandated to do.

If I may put words in folks mouths, direct answer: Depends on your definition of "help", if you mean expand opportunities for predator hunting it will not, we could have an argument about benefits but even if we "agree " that inviting them won't help in any way your question is a bit irrelevant as it supposes there is a choice in "inviting" them. There isn't, it's a public resource.

2: How have hunters specifically excluded non-hunters from the outdoors?

Agencies are legally mandated to listen to all stakeholders. Thus far, certain voices have been excluded, by hunters, from revenue streams (disagree all you want but it doesn’t make it less true), and barred from participation by “others” (via lobbying and other shenanigans) in working groups, advisory boards, etc where management recommendations are often formed.

 

[Yogithebear]

Seems like you just didn't like the answers.



Answers:




If I may put words in folks mouths, direct answer: Depends on your definition of "help" for one, if you mean expand opportunities for predator hunting it will not, we could have an argument about benefits but even if we "agree " that inviting them won't help in any way your question is a bit irrelevant as it supposes there is a choice in "inviting" them. There isn't, it's a public resource.

1: They are not answers to what I was asking, they are reframing their argument without actual SPECIFIC facts.

2: Yes, I meant to say include, not invite, as in there is no reason to have anti-hunting groups involved in wildlife management discusions as they bring nothing to table. They start and end with no hunting at all so its pointless. I had stated this in the discusion previously, comparing it to having anti-death penalty activists on a board to decide on using the death penalty on someone. Again, since they start and end with no, no matter what, it is pointless inclusion. Someone else compared it to having someone with the opposite mindset, like someone who thinks there should be no hunting regs and its a free for all. Yes, 100% agree with that analogy. But there is nothing to be gained by helping legitimize the anti-hunting groups mentioned in the article. Working with other groups is obviously worth it but thats not what the article was about nor what we were discussing.

3: The JLS quote you cite wasn’t responding to me or a discussion I was involved in.

4: As it regards to hunterswife’s comments and your added commentary, see #2. And I disagree with her quote in what YOU SELECTIVELY CITED THERE, I didnt do that lol, but her continual blaming of “HUNTERS” for keeping others out of wildlife management decisions is not accurate. As I have said, yes, SOME have done that, or tried, but its absurd to make such an insulting generalization about all hunters based on personal experiences. There are millions of hunters across our 50 states. Don’t confuse the loudest angriest minority that you all have encountered for the majority. As I noted in the discussions, the fact dozens of the largest and most prestigious hunting organizations support RAWA and have supported the “backpack tax” and supported efforts to update PR to allow state agencies to better fund NON HUNTING programs. WITH HUNTER DOLLARS. Sorry, I just don’t share what appears to be a bleak attitude towards where the hearts of the majority of hunters are when I look at that compared to the few small personal examples others cited. Do hunters want people supportive of hunting making decisions? Of course, what advocacy group doesn’t, someone adversarial to your activity is a non-starter. But show me a state where hunters decide on the game commission board, and the state DNR type agency, all officials and biologists, and so forth are hunters. The idea that “hunters“ have excluded non-hunters from wildlife management, especially to their points that it has hurt these other users, is nonsense. If anything, hunting dollars, interest, and efforts have vastly expanded opportunities for other users and certainly benefited non-game species.

We can agree to disagree, or continue this ad nauseum. I recently retired and because we just moved back to California and they have a six month residency requirement to get a hunting or fishing license… I have free time.

 

[JLS]

as in there is no reason to have anti-hunting groups involved in wildlife management discusions as they bring nothing to table.

Except the state is legally obligated to allow them to.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

1: They are not answers to what I was asking, they are reframing their argument without actual SPECIFIC facts.

They are stating facts, not trying to win a logical argument.

2: Yes, I meant to say include, not invite, as in there is no reason to have anti-hunting groups involved in wildlife management discusions as they bring nothing to table.

That is your opinion, no one is arguing against it.

That is not legally how wildlife management in the United States works. If you would like to make that a fact based argument about the law rather simply sharing your opinion about how you wish something works you could cite a federal or state statute and/or case law that supports the idea that any individual or group of residence of a particular state may be excluded from management of said states wildlife.

Maybe that exists, I'm not aware of it. My understanding is that statutes and case law say that it's a "public trust" and therefore exclusion would be a violation of the 14th amendment.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

 

[Yogithebear]

They are stating facts, not trying to win a logical argument.

That is your opinion, no one is arguing against it.

That is not legally how wildlife management in the United States works. If you would like to make that a fact based argument about the law rather simply sharing your opinion about how you wish something works you could cite a federal or state statute and/or case law that supports the idea that any individual or group of residence of a particular state may be excluded from management of said states wildlife.

Maybe that exists, I'm not aware of it. My understanding is that statutes and case law say that it's a "public trust" and therefore exclusion would be a violation of the 14th amendment.

“That is your opinion, no one is arguing against it”. Good one, try reading the previous comments.

The meeting we are discussing is the Wildlife Society’s annual conference which was this week in Spokane. I know the law pretty well, nothing you said applies.

 

[TOGIE]

 

[Hunting Wife]

View attachment 249415

What is “does a bear shit in the woods”?



Was I close?

 

[Elktrack]

I can appreciate the concern about the other parties right to be heard and their right to the Public Trust. This isn’t about other Americans not having a say.

It seems that some commenters here are so concerned about making sure these other groups are represented that they’re missing the point that these groups aren’t coming to the table with anything that promotes the long term sustainability of the resource. What they are trying to accomplish is eliminating the need for hunting as a part of the game management system.

The self loathing by some here is interesting to me. After reading some of the comments you’d think that we deserve to lose our hunting heritage because we’ve been such bad stewards of the resource and have been vehemently against including any group that didn’t want to kill wildlife.
Simply not true.

What’s next? Reparation’s to groups that have been unfairly discriminated against by us hateful hunters?

The lack of unity on this is disturbing. We’d rather point out how the poor antis need a seat than come together and say enough is enough.

It’s become unpopular and taboo to look at something and call it for what it is. Wouldn’t want to come across as offensive or insensitive would we?
At the end of the day we need to unify and take a stand for our side.
“They” are the ones that drew the line between us and them despite what some of you say about how we’ve brought this on ourselves.

Either way, pick your side and get to work protecting it or lose it. Plain and simple.

Have a good day! I’m heading out to enjoy my slice of the Public Trust and celebrating 247 yr Bday by being a consumptive user.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

“That is your opinion, no one is arguing against it”. Good one, try reading the previous comments.

The meeting we are discussing is the Wildlife Society’s annual conference which was this week in Spokane. I know the law pretty well, nothing you said applies.

Is your assertion that WWF was invited by the commission, ie that WDFG sent them some sort of letter or made a call and said "Please come down" and that you think that invitation was problematic?

Legitimately just trying to understand your position.

 

[TOGIE]

What is “does a bear shit in the woods”?



Was I close?

maybe shoulda used this one:

 

[TOGIE]

I can appreciate the concern about the other parties right to be heard and their right to the Public Trust. This isn’t about other Americans not having a say.

It seems that some commenters here are so concerned about making sure these other groups are represented that they’re missing the point that these groups aren’t coming to the table with anything that promotes the long term sustainability of the resource. What they are trying to accomplish is eliminating the need for hunting as a part of the game management system.

The self loathing by some here is interesting to me. After reading some of the comments you’d think that we deserve to lose our hunting heritage because we’ve been such bad stewards of the resource and have been vehemently against including any group that didn’t want to kill wildlife.
Simply not true.

What’s next? Reparation’s to groups that have been unfairly discriminated against by us hateful hunters?

The lack of unity on this is disturbing. We’d rather point out how the poor antis need a seat than come together and say enough is enough.

It’s become unpopular and taboo to look at something and call it for what it is. Wouldn’t want to come across as offensive or insensitive would we?
At the end of the day we need to unify and take a stand for our side.
“They” are the ones that drew the line between us and them despite what some of you say about how we’ve brought this on ourselves.

Either way, pick your side and get to work protecting it or lose it. Plain and simple.

Have a good day! I’m heading out to enjoy my slice of the Public Trust and celebrating 247 yr Bday by being a consumptive user.

reading this.. makes you wonder if you've actually critically read what anyone has been saying.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It seems that some commenters here are so concerned about making sure these other groups are represented that they’re missing the point that these groups aren’t coming to the table with anything that promotes the long term sustainability of the resource. What they are trying to accomplish is eliminating the need for hunting as a part of the game management system.

Okay, this is a/the misunderstanding. They (anti's) are going to take that seat at the table whether we like it or not, this isn't a reach across the aisle, warm fuzzy thing.

Anyone is allowed to show up at a meeting, you can vote in a governor who in turn appoints the commissioners (there's your seat), or you could start a ballot initiative to pass regs, or even to create seats on the commission, hell you could get state constitutions changed.

We live in a democracy, if folks are pissed about things and they are the majority changes are going to take place.

Point is that sentiment exists, those things are happening. Folks here are saying they are seeing this play out in person.

 

[JLS]

It seems that some commenters here are so concerned about making sure these other groups are represented that they’re missing the point that these groups aren’t coming to the table with anything that promotes the long term sustainability of the resource.

Incorrect. I’ve noted several times hunters have nothing to gain from them being part of the process.

The lack of unity on this is disturbing. We’d rather point out how the poor antis need a seat than come together and say enough is enough.

I’m pointing out the legal mandates. You aren’t legally entitled to say enough is enough.

The self loathing by some here is interesting to me. After reading some of the comments you’d think that we deserve to lose our hunting heritage because we’ve been such bad stewards of the resource and have been vehemently against including any group that didn’t want to kill wildlife.

Um no. I have no self loathing at all. Just a realization of what legal reality is.

 

[Hunting Wife]

It’s not self loathing. It’s called self-awareness. I was told some of us would benefit from more of it.

Serious question…Is it not ok to point out the chinks in our armor to ourselves, so that we can tighten up our messaging and mitigate the things that are going to cause us serious trouble moving forward?

Or should those of us that see the train wreck that’s coming our way just STFU and let it happen?

Once again, if it hurts people’s feelings too much to even consider that hunters as a group have not been perfect, the anti’s should have no trouble taking what we have left.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Serious question…Is it not ok to point out the chinks in our armor to ourselves

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

The misunderstanding going on here is mind boggling

 

[Yogithebear]

Is your assertion that WWF was invited by the commission, ie that WDFG sent them some sort of letter or made a call and said "Please come down" and that you think that invitation was problematic?

Legitimately just trying to understand your position.

The commission isnt running the meeting nor deciding who is invited. It is the Wildlife Society’s meeting. I assume you know who they are, they are an NGO and can invite or not whomever they want. They CHOSE to invite two anti-hunting groups to their annual meeting. I see no point as I’ve said ad naseum for stated reasons. Others here apparently disagree but when explaining why they twist the discussion to other topics.