Okay, Gatekeeper
A brawl brewing in spokane?
- Thread starter Hilljackoutlaw
- Start date
Any chance we could move on to ideas for solutions?
Is the TRCP in a position as a national org without an animal focus to lead the charge of organizing hunters in a national or state by state fight? Is there a better org out there? Is a new one needed? Would we as hunters fund them to the level they need? They are trying to raise $35 million. I would like to see the challenge amended to include the topic of this discussion.
From TRCP website:
Is the TRCP in a position as a national org without an animal focus to lead the charge of organizing hunters in a national or state by state fight? Is there a better org out there? Is a new one needed? Would we as hunters fund them to the level they need? They are trying to raise $35 million. I would like to see the challenge amended to include the topic of this discussion.
From TRCP website:
OUR MISSION
To guarantee all Americans quality places to hunt and fish.OUR CHALLENGE
As our outdoor heritage comes under attack through shrinking investments in conservation, loss of public access, disease and invasive species, the expansion of human development, and climate change, the TRCP needs to mobilize to address these threats.Yogithebear
Member
Touche. Ok, but dont claim you responded to my comment if you instead move it off topic.Okay, Gatekeeper
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Looks like anyone can register to go to the conference and/or sign up as an exhibitor. There's probably a process of reviewing exhibitors?
TWS 2023 Annual Conference: Sponsor/Exhibitor Registration
Thank you for your interest in The Wildlife Society's Annual Conference. For additional information visit twsconference.org or contact [email protected]. Complete the form below to reserve your space as a sponsor or exhibitor. The reservation deadline is August 31, but exhibitor...
forms.monday.com
Yes Gatekeeper.
Taking a break on a windy hill after watching a lot of pheasants flush wild. Seemed like a good time to offer some additional thoughts.
The states I am familiar with allow the governor to appoint the fish and wildlife commission. If your state is cherry red, you probably don’t have to worry about having an anti hunter appointed to the commission. If your state is blue, you certainly do. At very least, you may end up with one that is entirely sympathetic to NGOs like the two mentioned earlier in this tragic comedy of a thread.
Even in more conservative states, I expect to see more lawsuits related to fish and wildlife policy and management. If a faction of a state’s citizenry can show they are not being represented and are taken into consideration WRT to public trust decisions, they then have grounds for a lawsuit.
IMO, the lowest hanging fruit are hunts where the animal carcass can be left in the field, ie bears in Idaho.
To answer the question of what do you do? I don’t know the answer to that. Probably a good place to start is be willing to listen. These folks don’t GAF about hug a hunter ads or being told hunting is conservation.
Back to hunting.
The states I am familiar with allow the governor to appoint the fish and wildlife commission. If your state is cherry red, you probably don’t have to worry about having an anti hunter appointed to the commission. If your state is blue, you certainly do. At very least, you may end up with one that is entirely sympathetic to NGOs like the two mentioned earlier in this tragic comedy of a thread.
Even in more conservative states, I expect to see more lawsuits related to fish and wildlife policy and management. If a faction of a state’s citizenry can show they are not being represented and are taken into consideration WRT to public trust decisions, they then have grounds for a lawsuit.
IMO, the lowest hanging fruit are hunts where the animal carcass can be left in the field, ie bears in Idaho.
To answer the question of what do you do? I don’t know the answer to that. Probably a good place to start is be willing to listen. These folks don’t GAF about hug a hunter ads or being told hunting is conservation.
Back to hunting.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
They have panel discussions covering a wide variety of prescient topics at these meetings. This is the first time I’ve ever heard of anyone threatening the organization with a boycott over a panel discussion.Looks like anyone can register to go to the conference and/or sign up as an exhibitor. There's probably a process of reviewing exhibitors?
TWS 2023 Annual Conference: Sponsor/Exhibitor Registration
Thank you for your interest in The Wildlife Society's Annual Conference. For additional information visit twsconference.org or contact [email protected]. Complete the form below to reserve your space as a sponsor or exhibitor. The reservation deadline is August 31, but exhibitor...
What was the name of the group petitioning to shut down the discussion again?
I agree TRCP might not work at the right scale. Unfortunately, the issue would likely need to be addressed at the individual state level which complicates things. Maybe an org with state chapters would be better poised for the task? Nothing is coming to mind immediately.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Definitely not hunters
The vice president of marketing and communications for the Sportsmen’s Alliance, Lynn has called on some sponsors of the conference to pull their support, claiming that TWS is “allowing an organization intent on destroying a century of scientific management to air their anti-hunting beliefs at a national conference to a roomful of biologists.”
I just signed up for, and bought a tshirt from TRCP, so there. I have done my part and all should be swell moving forward!
This is probably as good of time as any to renew your memberships and create new ones for your favorite conservation org. That is something we can all do, right now. Baby steps.
This is probably as good of time as any to renew your memberships and create new ones for your favorite conservation org. That is something we can all do, right now. Baby steps.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
New poll suggests Washington wildlife management is 'out of touch with the public,' may have political implications
A majority of Washington’s believe that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife should focus first and foremost on “preserving and protecting fish and wildlife” according to poll commissioned by a nonprofit dedicated to reforming the state wildlife management agency.
www.spokesman.com
“I don’t believe good policy that mostly has to do with societal values is made by imposing majority values, especially when they completely lock out a minority culture,” she said in an email.
^Current Commissioner Thorburn not likely to be reappointed next month.
Last edited:
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Money well spent. They’ve been working hard on national funding for CWD research of late, among other things.
idelkslayer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Messages
- 266
Poll questions are always so ambiguous that the results can be used to support a predetermined conclusion.New poll suggests Washington wildlife management is 'out of touch with the public,' may have political implications
A majority of Washington’s believe that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife should focus first and foremost on “preserving and protecting fish and wildlife” according to poll commissioned by a nonprofit dedicated to reforming the state wildlife management agency.
“I don’t believe good policy that mostly has to do with societal values is made by imposing majority values, especially when they completely lock out a minority culture,” she said in an email.
^Current Commissioner Thorburn not likely to be reappointed next month.
Take for example one of the questions that they cite in the article: "Pollsters also asked respondents if they “support or oppose the use of taxpayer money to recruit and reactivate more hunters,” a reference to a portion of WDFW’s recently published recreation plan part of which calls for new hunter recruitment. Of those polled 56% opposed using taxpayer money for that effort and 27% supported doing so."
I would have answered no. A response that is being used by Washington Wildlife First to show a lack of support for hunting in wildlife management. I would answer no not because I oppose hunting but because I think hunter recruitment is doing fine and we don't particularly need to make additional effort to recruit more hunters, therefore, I would oppose spending tax dollars or any other funding sources for hunter recruitment. There are no qualifiers to help paint a better picture in that polling question.
Another questionable poll question related to spring bear hunting: "Respondents also had strong views on carnivore management with 80% opposing spring bear hunting. In households with active hunters 69% opposed the spring bear hunt." Really? 69% of households with active hunters opposed bear hunting? If that's true then the problem in Washington isn't the anti-hunters, it's the hunters. Or it is an indication that something is way off in their polling methods.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Like you said, you can design a poll to find whatever answer you want. I don't put any merit in those findings. I shared because it shows intent, and what others are saying about it. WDFW was pretty quick to counter the findings with their own, with WWF agreeing(?) which makes no sense.
Yogithebear
Member
Brilliant.
44hunter45
Well-known member
I've stayed out of this until now. This post will probably get me in the same box as the burn your poop in the campfire post.
Advocating for hunting is becoming more like Whack-a-mole every day. There is no unified "they". The attacks come from many different angles. Too often we are giving them the darts.
I am sure you are aware there is an attempt to afoot to cancel Shane Mahoney and anyone who cites him. If you cite Shane, you ain't woke, you're just another Fudd. What can this be but an attempt to kill the NAMC by killing its prophet?
CPW director on leave after complaint of racist comment
When Colorado Parks and Wildlife employee Alease “Aloe” Lee heard the agency’s director refer to her on a conference stage last week as being in “the back of the bus,”
www.gjsentinel.com
I enjoyed hearing Randy's podcast series with Shane this summer, but the truth is, he got a softball on this. It is obvious that Shane has been made a straw man to be burned, but I would have liked to hear him address this directly.
On the positive side -
This paper. "Indigenizing the North American Model of Conservation". I heard Mateen on a panel discussion at BHA Rendezvous this year. I was impressed enough to read his paper. Then I was REALLY impressed. This was well researched and well presented.
Indigenizing the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
Although a diversity of approaches to wildlife management persists in Canada and the United States of America, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAM) is a prevailing model for state, provincial, and federal agencies. The success of the NAM is both celebrated and refuted amongst...
www.facetsjournal.com
This thread got TLDR somewhere around page 4. "My science is better than your science" is as old as science itself. Especially when you can buy the science you want. I always told my sons that science was a great tool, but a shitty religion.
I fled California in 1993 after the passage of Prop 117. The science used to sell it to the middle 60% of Californians was honestly paid for and then re-sold to the voting public. Nice ROI. At the time the fear in the hunting community was that lion prey species would be next to be protected. Let them eat pigs...
We see today that the number of lions killed by cold blooded professionals was never the issue. It was stopping anyone who might get some satisfaction from it. Although my Hobbseian outlook tells me those "professionals" are getting plenty of satisfaction out of it, and getting paid to boot.
So it will be when all this shakes out. In the end "professional" management will be tolerated. Civilian killing of wildlife will not. The Fudds must be eradicated.
Animals die at the hand of man all the time. Road kill aside - To hunt is a verb, poachers hunt, the wealthy dentist who buggered up an archery kill on Cecil was hunting, indigenous people hunt. The paid professionals who kill nuisance lions in California hunt.
We take great pains to distance ourselves from poachers by beating our chest and saying, "Those aren't hunters!" Still, it is pretty easy to see that the 60% in the middle don't place as much weight on the noun vs verb argument. And still we post grip and grins.
Finally - Are indigenous hunters safe from this? Not if they den bears on Federal lands. Not if they shoot swimming Caribou from a boat. While indigenous subsistence hunting will no doubt be allowed, many traditional practices have already been condemned. A reading of the 2017 HJ Res #69 is very educational. Or more specifically, the Audubon's open letter to Congress begging them not to pass it. The Audubon very much wants to have a say in what you do on Federal land.
I do not understand the amount of shit @neffa3 is having to take on this thread. Other than the same HTers who hate Washington always give Neff shit. He's the one guy on here who has fought this fight with the commission. I thank him for it.
Yogithebear
Member
Great retort, better than others with the “don‘t you know who am” comments. That always impresses.
I’m just a nobody.
Good points. Except @neffa3 is a putz. Prove me wrong.I've stayed out of this until now. This post will probably get me in the same box as the burn your poop in the campfire post.
Advocating for hunting is becoming more like Whack-a-mole every day. There is no unified "they". The attacks come from many different angles. Too often we are giving them the darts.
I am sure you are aware there is an attempt to afoot to cancel Shane Mahoney and anyone who cites him. If you cite Shane, you ain't woke, you're just another Fudd. What can this be but an attempt to kill the NAMC by killing its prophet?
CPW director on leave after complaint of racist comment
When Colorado Parks and Wildlife employee Alease “Aloe” Lee heard the agency’s director refer to her on a conference stage last week as being in “the back of the bus,”www.gjsentinel.com
I enjoyed hearing Randy's podcast series with Shane this summer, but the truth is, he got a softball on this. It is obvious that Shane has been made a straw man to be burned, but I would have liked to hear him address this directly.
On the positive side -
This paper. "Indigenizing the North American Model of Conservation". I heard Mateen on a panel discussion at BHA Rendezvous this year. I was impressed enough to read his paper. Then I was REALLY impressed. This was well researched and well presented.
Indigenizing the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
Although a diversity of approaches to wildlife management persists in Canada and the United States of America, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (NAM) is a prevailing model for state, provincial, and federal agencies. The success of the NAM is both celebrated and refuted amongst...www.facetsjournal.com
This thread got TLDR somewhere around page 4. "My science is better than your science" is as old as science itself. Especially when you can buy the science you want. I always told my sons that science was a great tool, but a shitty religion.
I fled California in 1993 after the passage of Prop 117. The science used to sell it to the middle 60% of Californians was honestly paid for and then re-sold to the voting public. Nice ROI. At the time the fear in the hunting community was that lion prey species would be next to be protected. Let them eat pigs...
We see today that the number of lions killed by cold blooded professionals was never the issue. It was stopping anyone who might get some satisfaction from it. Although my Hobbseian outlook tells me those "professionals" are getting plenty of satisfaction out of it, and getting paid to boot.
So it will be when all this shakes out. In the end "professional" management will be tolerated. Civilian killing of wildlife will not. The Fudds must be eradicated.
Animals die at the hand of man all the time. Road kill aside - To hunt is a verb, poachers hunt, the wealthy dentist who buggered up an archery kill on Cecil was hunting, indigenous people hunt. The paid professionals who kill nuisance lions in California hunt.
We take great pains to distance ourselves from poachers by beating our chest and saying, "Those aren't hunters!" Still, it is pretty easy to see that the 60% in the middle don't place as much weight on the noun vs verb argument. And still we post grip and grins.
Finally - Are indigenous hunters safe from this? Not if they den bears on Federal lands. Not if they shoot swimming Caribou from a boat. While indigenous subsistence hunting will no doubt be allowed, many traditional practices have already been condemned. A reading of the 2017 HJ Res #69 is very educational. Or more specifically, the Audubon's open letter to Congress begging them not to pass it. The Audubon very much wants to have a say in what you do on Federal land.
I do not understand the amount of shit @neffa3 is having to take on this thread. Other than the same HTers who hate Washington always give Neff shit. He's the one guy on here who has fought this fight with the commission. I thank him for it.
Yogithebear
Member
Well thats one thing we have in common
Similar threads
