A brawl brewing in spokane?

[Yogithebear]

i think anyone who seriously thinks about hunting should have a solid answer to this. IMO there is actually one right answer here.

at least IMO the obvious answer is that of course we don't need to kill them and, generally speaking, nor does the science say we should. we might think it does, we might think we need to manage populations, but i would argue, no not really. a lot of populations objectives are half societal tolerance related, the other say habitat holding capacity related. but i'd find it hard to twist the science into an argument that we NEED to kill them. most particularly the only reason we can is because it can be withstood with science guiding the answer to whether or not it can be withstood.

i mean "need" is a real strong word. to mean require, i would say it means "can't do without". of course we can do without. in some cases might do better without if we're honest.

i think every user group needs to answer this question about the respective hobbies. do the skiers need to ski? the mountain bikers need to bike? the climbers need to climb? the list is nearly endless. of course no one needs to. the ultra spiritual types may say they need to climb the rocks to be a fulfilled fully nurtured spirit living a proper life. but weed out the bullshit and the answer is an obvious no. no one NEEDS to be doing it.

but these are wonderful experiences, all these outdoor hobbies, that can be done responsibly. and so long as they can be done responsibly, they should be allowed.

Well, they banned mountain lion hunting in California in 1990 (officially) but since then the state has killed or approved the successful killing via depredation permits of close to the same number of mountain lions. So in answer to your question “do we need to kill” x number of animals, generally, yes. Perhaps if we had not so altered the landscape nature would be able to balance things out on its own, but we have altered the landscape of earth so much we do need to manage everything, from wildlife, to wildfires, because if we don’t, we might lose it permanently.

 

[JLS]

I do not think my right to harvest an animal supersedes your right to photograph animals because I'm not harvesting every animal. I'm harvesting within a model that's goal is to conserve them. I live in harmony harvesting and photographing year round with no shortage of wildlife to photograph. Why can't you?

And I think this is one of the major cruxes McKean identified. A large share of folks associate with animals as individuals instead of just another face in the crowd. I don’t know how you change this mentality.

I appreciate the dialogue.

 

[Irrelevant]

i think anyone who seriously thinks about hunting should have a solid answer to this. IMO there is actually one right answer here.

at least IMO the obvious answer is that of course we don't need to kill them and, generally speaking, nor does the science say we should. we might think it does, we might think we need to manage populations, but i would argue, no not really. a lot of populations objectives are half societal tolerance related, the other say habitat holding capacity related. but i'd find it hard to twist the science into an argument that we NEED to kill them. most particularly the only reason we can is because it can be withstood with science guiding the answer to whether or not it can be withstood.

i mean "need" is a real strong word. to mean require, i would say it means "can't do without". of course we can do without. in some cases might do better without if we're honest.

i think every user group needs to answer this question about the respective hobbies. do the skiers need to ski? the mountain bikers need to bike? the climbers need to climb? the list is nearly endless. of course no one needs to. the ultra spiritual types may say they need to climb the rocks to be a fulfilled fully nurtured spirit living a proper life. but weed out the bullshit and the answer is an obvious no. no one NEEDS to be doing it.

So what about tribal hunting rights (and rites)? Are they allowed to hunt? Why?

 

[JLS]

So what about tribal hunting rights (and rites)? Are they allowed to hunt? Why?

Haha now your picking at the scabs!

 

[Irrelevant]

Haha now your picking at the scabs!

I think this is a relevant pivot. If they can hunt because it's their heritage, because it's part of their culture, who they are, because their religion is founded upon hunting and fishing and gathering, then why can't I for those same reasons?

 

[TOGIE]

Well, they banned mountain lion hunting in California in 1990 (officially) but since then the state has killed or approved the successful killing via depredation permits of close to the same number of mountain lions. So in answer to your question “do we need to kill” x number of animals, generally, yes. Perhaps if we had not so altered the landscape nature would be able to balance things out on its own, but we have altered the landscape of earth so much we do need to manage everything, from wildlife, to wildfires, because if we don’t, we might lose it permanently.

i'd still argue "need" needs to be defined here.

are they killing them because they're killing live stock and scaring urbanites? or do they need to because they're self imploding themselves by having too many cats in the habitat?

i mean really, why do we need to? is it a societally defined subjective need based on economic loss? or is it a scientifically defined need based on if we didn't intervene they'd cease to exist?

 

[TOGIE]

I think this is a relevant pivot. If they can hunt because it's their heritage, because it's part of their culture, who they are, because their religion is founded upon hunting and fishing and gathering, then why can't I for those same reasons?

because we're dirty white boys.

can i say that? sorry big fin.

but, seriously, i'm thinking about how that seinfeld episode about jerry's dentist becoming jewish just for the jokes could have some analogous relevance here.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

@Big Fin
If you have time I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on this article.

 

[JLS]

I think this is a relevant pivot. If they can hunt because it's their heritage, because it's part of their culture, who they are, because their religion is founded upon hunting and fishing and gathering, then why can't I for those same reasons?

It absolutely is a relevant pivot.

At risk of being labeled woke, I think it is absolutely appropriate to also include Shane Mahoney’s work on describing how the use of wild game as a source of protein is one sustainable and two ecologically sound. When you look at environmental impacts of large-scale agricultural production relative to wild game production, it absolutely has a place in today’s modern society.

 

[Irrelevant]

It absolutely is a relevant pivot.

At risk of being labeled woke, I think it is absolutely appropriate to also include Shane Mahoney’s work on describing how the use of wild game as a source of protein is one sustainable and two ecologically sound. When you look at environmental impacts of large-scale agricultural production relative to wild game production, it absolutely has a place in today’s modern society.

Between our two points, maybe there's some hope after all.

 

[texwest44]

Um... Tribes get expanded hunting and fishing privileges due to treaty agreements and supreme court rulings. I don't think y'all want to go through what they did to get that stuff lol.

 

[Elktrack]

We hunters seem to talk about other user groups and their right to enjoy the resources just as much as we do. We talk about the “need” to kill animals and what the science says. All of these are good points and should be considerations in the management of our resources. We assume that these other groups are sitting at the table to discuss things with the best intentions of management practices that benefit all groups.

Like @old270hunter and others have pointed out, this isn’t the case. A lot of these other groups don’t give two shits about hunting, your rights to the resources, or anyone else’s.

I appreciate others views and playing devils advocate but it’s really about defending our hunting culture and opportunity. The only reason these other groups even have wildlife to enjoy in whatever way or non hunting manner they choose, is due directly to hunting and the conservation work that we have done.

It’d be ignorant of me to say that we shouldn’t take these other groups desires into consideration but at the end of the day it feels like we are always the ones taking the high road and getting screwed over in the end.

 

[JLS]

It’d be ignorant of me to say that we shouldn’t take these other groups desires into consideration but at the end of the day it feels like we are always the ones taking the high road and getting screwed over in the end.

And that exactly what they are saying. For years it’s a hunter driven model and they want a place at the table.

Trying to play the victim here doesn’t benefit anyone.

 

[Elktrack]

They haven’t had a place at the table thus far???

The place at the table they want is ours. It’s not about how can they find a seat next to hunters.
I’d say that if the victim card is being played it’s from them. Stating the truth about us losing more and more isn’t victim mentality.

 

[JLS]

They haven’t had a place at the table thus far???

The place at the table they want is ours. It’s not about how can they find a seat next to hunters.
I’d say that if the victim card is being played it’s from them. Stating the truth about us losing more and more isn’t victim mentality.

Okay…

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Does WA have license and tag revenue going into their general fund?

 

[BucksnDucks]

ever more extreme ballot-box biology?

This is the worst-case scenario. Animal rights /anti hunting groups in CA figured this one out years ago with great success. They had victories with lions, bears, and wolves but were stopped currently with coyote legislation. Perhaps the cartoon depictions of skinny, mangy, chicken eating coyotes had something to do with it. Stand by for a PR agency campaign makeover of cute fluffy coyotes.

 

[Yogithebear]

i'd still argue "need" needs to be defined here.

are they killing them because they're killing live stock and scaring urbanites? or do they need to because they're self imploding themselves by having too many cats in the habitat?

i mean really, why do we need to? is it a societally defined subjective need based on economic loss? or is it a scientifically defined need based on if we didn't intervene they'd cease to exist?

Yes, hunting and trapping are tools used by wildlife agencies for the purposes you describe. They are NEEDED tools and the NEED fluctuates by a littany of circumstances.

People also NEED to eat. Hunting has been a way people have fed themselves for thouands of years continuing through today.

 

[JLS]

Does WA have license and tag revenue going into their general fund?

No. General fund money goes into the agency account though.

 

[BucksnDucks]

A. Pretty rough at/in a public forum, pretty easy one on one. I have a number of vegan and vegetarian friends. I've never actually had a really, F-u type conversation with someone one on one. Mostly I get "well you're not like most hunters..", "maybe, maybe I'm more articulate, but otherwise I am just like other hunters, and just because someone can't code switch and communicate to you in a way you are comfortable with and understand doesn't mean they are immoral."

B. They made it work
View attachment 249018

In the big picture it worked fabulously, but obvious mistakes along the way in conservation