LopeHunter
Well-known member
Yes, drew a decent tag I won't hunt this year in WA. Biologists are less than helpful. Glad am moving soon.
A brawl brewing in spokane?
- Thread starter Hilljackoutlaw
- Start date
My guess, they’ll continue to hammer away on WA sheep and trophy bulls
I’m totally missing something.
Haven’t we been doing these very things?
Hasn’t there been concentrated efforts to bring more women, youth and others into the hunting community?
Haven’t we tried to improve our image by not strapping critters on the hood and such?
Started donating animals to food banks etc.?
Created and protected critical habitat through conservancies and such? (RMEF)
The list goes on and on with efforts being taken to be more inclusive and improve stereotypes and negative images of the past.
How have we dropped the ball?
Imperfect, probably.
There’s always been hikers, biker, berry pickers, photographers, nature lovers and flower sniffers of every sort. This guise of not being included is horse crap.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I do not understand what this sentence actually means. What exactly should we have been doing and within whom? I don't mean this negatively, I just don't know what we should have been doing differently. Running PR campaigns like the "Hug a Hunter"? Engaging these groups... I just don't see how you do that. I mean my wife ran the local Human Society animal shelter. She eats wild game most nights, supports hunting, but she would come home and say, "wow, these people are totally disconnected from reality." And that coming from what I'll call a borderline crazy cat lady.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
*cough* both of which are doing just fine.
It means we've given up the best position for the coming debate on whether or not hunting is truly necessary by being exclusionary and condescending as a community to an entire subset of the population that actually thinks like us on most matters.
The crazy cat ladies will always be with us. Hunting currently enjoys wide public support if it's viewed as being for meat and for management. It is viewed negatively when it's for trophy only, which is why HSUS, et al go after carnivore hunting first - it's easier to wedge away people who support hunting for meat into the animal rights camp on that issue, so they get hteir way.
For us, it means we lose valuable allies in the overall fight to protect hunting for future generations.
It's late on a Tuesday, and I'm a bit punch-drunk. Apologies for lack of clarity.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Maybe that's true nationally, but I'm going to take issue with that on a WA State level.
We have had numerous positions held by non-consumptive users historically.
The issue I have is when people are appointed, then vote in ways that are contrary to WDFW's own mandate.
"That legislative mandate directs the department to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage fish and wildlife and to provide fishing and hunting opportunities"
IMO we've always had "non hunters" involved.
There are far too many organizations involved to list here.
We've had wolves "re-introduced" in Colorado, Grizzlies fought tooth and nail for keeping on ESA, on and on. Multiple organizations involved far beyond our own State lines. $$$ flowing in, internationally, adjusting our wildlife.
There are far too many organizations involved to list here.
We've had wolves "re-introduced" in Colorado, Grizzlies fought tooth and nail for keeping on ESA, on and on. Multiple organizations involved far beyond our own State lines. $$$ flowing in, internationally, adjusting our wildlife.
idelkslayer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Messages
- 266
Something that seems to have been missed here is that hunters are only consumptive users for 2-3 months out of the year. I am a non-consumptive user for the other 9 months. In no way do I think that my consumptive use negatively impacts my ability to view/photograph and otherwise enjoy wildlife and wild places the rest of the year. Organizations that argue that consumptive use takes something away from other users are presenting a dishonest view of the situation. For one thing, they became enamored with wildlife and viewing wildlife while hunting happened all along; has anything changed? If they were able to view wildlife for that last 50 years or more; why does hunting suddenly reduce that opportunity now?
As far as funding is concerned, I am leery of increased funding coming from general tax funds. Just think of all of the things that your tax dollars are spent on that you don't approve of, it gets us fired up and we start to pay attention to things that we normally wouldn't. There are many people that currently don't care much about wildlife issues that might take a greater interest if their tax bill increases. Hunters will always be on the losing end in a numbers game. The only thing that sustains us the overwhelming approval of hunting by the general population.
I would prefer a sales approach to increasing funding for non-game species of wildlife. If hunters and anglers are providing the majority of current funding by voluntarily purchasing elk and deer tags and fishing licenses, then the state fish and game agencies can start selling conservation stamps for other species. Then all these people who say they care about other species can voluntarily purchase conservation stamps that would designate those funds to be used for those species or categories of species. Their money wouldn't directly fund consumptive use and hunters money would continue to be used primarily on game species. I may be missing something but the main reason I think other groups would be opposed to this is because they aren't actually as interested in species and habitat as they are in just putting an end to hunting.
As far as funding is concerned, I am leery of increased funding coming from general tax funds. Just think of all of the things that your tax dollars are spent on that you don't approve of, it gets us fired up and we start to pay attention to things that we normally wouldn't. There are many people that currently don't care much about wildlife issues that might take a greater interest if their tax bill increases. Hunters will always be on the losing end in a numbers game. The only thing that sustains us the overwhelming approval of hunting by the general population.
I would prefer a sales approach to increasing funding for non-game species of wildlife. If hunters and anglers are providing the majority of current funding by voluntarily purchasing elk and deer tags and fishing licenses, then the state fish and game agencies can start selling conservation stamps for other species. Then all these people who say they care about other species can voluntarily purchase conservation stamps that would designate those funds to be used for those species or categories of species. Their money wouldn't directly fund consumptive use and hunters money would continue to be used primarily on game species. I may be missing something but the main reason I think other groups would be opposed to this is because they aren't actually as interested in species and habitat as they are in just putting an end to hunting.
A couple of random thoughts as I read this thread.
1. I would like to explore and possibly rename the term "non-consumptive". As more people utilize and impact wildlife habitat (think more trails, campgrounds, hikers, etc), there is a negative impact to wildlife populations. I don't like the term as it implies there is no impact to wildlife by some of these other uses and that is false.
2a. What can we do as a hunting community? For starters, we need to get our best and brightest to lead the charge. That can take many forms (Senator Ben Lamb and Governor Newberg?). These type of people need to feel encouraged to lead.
2b. We need to hire lobbyists. Plural. Many of them. Maybe we need to organize on a national level. Right now, we lean on RMEF, DU, PF, etc to carry that lobby torch and that is not their core mission. We are a fragmented community and we need to organize. Hunters have a history of putting their money behind the cause. But where would you put it right now? I envision a national organization with chapters in each state lobbying both at the state and national level.
1. I would like to explore and possibly rename the term "non-consumptive". As more people utilize and impact wildlife habitat (think more trails, campgrounds, hikers, etc), there is a negative impact to wildlife populations. I don't like the term as it implies there is no impact to wildlife by some of these other uses and that is false.
2a. What can we do as a hunting community? For starters, we need to get our best and brightest to lead the charge. That can take many forms (Senator Ben Lamb and Governor Newberg?). These type of people need to feel encouraged to lead.
2b. We need to hire lobbyists. Plural. Many of them. Maybe we need to organize on a national level. Right now, we lean on RMEF, DU, PF, etc to carry that lobby torch and that is not their core mission. We are a fragmented community and we need to organize. Hunters have a history of putting their money behind the cause. But where would you put it right now? I envision a national organization with chapters in each state lobbying both at the state and national level.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Let me elaborate on that a bit. We have historically allowed everyone environmental lawyers from Olympia to Bainbridge Is marine biologists a seat at the commission table (I can try to find actual people if it's needed). But what has recently changed is that those people used to stick to things they knew well and defaulted to others or the Dept on things they didn't. Not so much anymore. We literally have a wildlife agency staffed with professional biologists doing wildlife agency things, studies, counts, other forms of management, making recommendations based on their science, and now have a group of people who either spent their lives in politics or working for non-profits geared towards protectionism, telling the department it's wrong.
This is exactly the same thing that we ALL complained about with the FS and the Feds. Defund it the FS, hamstring it to the point where it can't function effectively, pull more and more money from the General Fund, then use the "will of the people" to end hunting. We were outraged at this when it was the Feds. I don't see why we're not now with hunting? What am I missing?
WA already has a VAP vehicle access pass and a Discovery Pass that are required for all users to purchase. R and NR.
Not really relevant to big picture funding.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
I understand that. But that is a very vague mandate, and subject to every individual citizen’s world view, is it not?
How many and what type of hunting opportunities must be provided? Who decides, and who gets a say?
What does the first part mean, exactly? Who decides whether that is being adequately achieved, or not?
Is the first part of that bolded statement more important than the second part? Does everyone feel that way?
What we hunters have a very hard time recognizing is that we always place our opinions above everyone else’s. The simple fact of the matter is that we are no better, more right, or more entitled than any one else,
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I guess why is that this^ is a flaw in hunters, that in this case we're being selfish and not valuing others opinions, but
But this^ is crazy.
In both cases we clearly have vested interest in our opinions. But clearly other people with equal voting rights, concerns, and opinions differ, yet we, and I do me WE because basically all of HT was on the same page, think anti-public land advocates are idiots.
Under a not so difficult to image SOTUS the Federal Government could be called upon to divest itself of non-essential lands. Would we not fight tooth and nail, to the very bitter end for it?
I would say no more than those who oppose hunting. It's engrained in our psyche. Organized or independent.
We "hunters" understand there are highly funded opposition groups crafted to counter what, we "hunters" find as reasonable management models, that we fight to improve and oppose in the process of wildlife management.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
I agree with both of you to a degree @Sytes and @neffa3. Just trying to illustrate the very real questions and ideas being mulled and grappled with by those charged with managing a public trust resource. I fully admit, some of the hard questions make me uncomfortable. Difficult to disengage and be objective.
OriginalOscar
Active member
Disagree 100%. Look at Feral Horses and the people and process which have developed and mismanaged them. People who deny or fail to accept wildlife and wildlands need to be managed deserve NO seat at the table!
States like CA and others have already replaced sportsmen and science of wildlife management with people who refuse to accept consumptive use including hunting/fishing.
Similar threads
