TheJason
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2024
- Messages
- 18,592
Public trust includes all aspect’s of wildlife management, to include hunting. To say the shouldn’t and can’t be a part of hunting regulations is exactly the crux of the article.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Public trust includes all aspect’s of wildlife management, to include hunting. To say the shouldn’t and can’t be a part of hunting regulations is exactly the crux of the article.
Hunt Talk has lots of Green Decoys. Forum would improve if registration required your true name and profile pic with something shot or caught.It's like saying hunters shouldn't have any input on the management of nongame species.
Point to where I said hunting doesn’t play a role.When I asked what role hunting should play in managing bison; she paused and said none because nature would best manage bison. When I asked what role native people hunting had in managing the bison she looked baffled.
That's you!
Ohh FFS.Hunt Talk has lots of Green Decoys. Forum would improve if registration required your true name and profile pic with something shot or caught.
Oh and $8!
What are you talking about that hunters have screwed over non-hunters? You are echoing a non-sensical theme that the anti-hunting extremists organizations are trying to use to divide hunters from other outdoors users, a unity that has been made closer by much effort over the past few decades. As if you can’t have both. Yes their are extremists in both camps who believe that and shout get off my lawn, but most rational people on both sides are supportive. Anecdoatal, but I have never had someone say something negative or give me stink eye… and that includes hunting in southern California.Not being intentionally contrarian or overly critical at all. Just apparently more willing than most to try to be objective and entertain the idea that it’s possible that my group (which happens to be hunters) may have screwed over other user groups to get to where we are today. If we are unwilling to critically look at ourselves, we have problems. Having worked in wildlife for a couple of decades now, it frustrates, embarrasses and angers me to admit there is some truth to the accusations, and it’s still happening. Oscar’s posts are the perfect illustration of what plays out in wildlife agency politics all the time.
Serious question- are “Wildlife for All”members citizens? Yes or no, no buts.
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.
Just for S’s and G’s, I looked this up this morning to read it again with this discussion in mind. I don’t see anything in here that elevates hunting or hunters to a status higher or more important than other citizens. If we hunters are going to hide behind the NAM while advocating that hunters should have more say in wildlife management decisions than other citizens, we are engaging in some seriously hypocritical thinking, are we not?
Just like hunters want scientific management of wildlife, unless the science doesn’t support their desires, I think we often fervently preach about the NAM, unless it means we have to let others play in the sandbox.
- Wildlife resources are conserved and held in trust for all citizens.
- Commerce in dead wildlife is eliminated.
- Wildlife is allocated according to democratic rule of law.
- Wildlife may only be killed for a legitimate, non-frivolous purpose.
- Wildlife is an international resource.
- Every person has an equal opportunity under the law to participate in hunting and fishing.
- Scientific management is the proper means for wildlife conservation.
I’m not asking people to accept any of this, just to at least try to honestly think about it from some other angles.
On the road today, so I’m bowing out. I think it’s been a pretty good discussion.
@neffa3 @TOGIE if you really want to pick the scab...Haha now your picking at the scabs!
Hunt Talk has lots of Green Decoys. Forum would improve if registration required your true name and profile pic with something shot or caught.
Oh and $8!
This maybe your ideology, but it is absolutely contrary to the public trust doctrine.Again, anti-hunters, whether individuals or groups, should not be involved in wildlife management. It just can’t work.
When you zoom out and look at human existence on a timeline, the view that hunting is not acceptable is an extremist view.
I’m not going to argue with some weirdo whether I should poop if I need to, eat when I’m hungry or have sex with my wife, especially if we decide to have kids, so why would I entertain some equally crazy ideology that I shouldn’t hunt? Hunting is every bit as natural and normal as the others.
You’re reaching bro and you know it. Two groups I’ve never heard of and a couple of gaggles of people… who opposed it somehow…While not the federal level, I've seen Big Game Forever, Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife, Outfitter groups, local chapters of national orgs, rod & gun clubs all oppose state level alternative funding for fish & game agencies.
At the federal level, I've seen many groups simply not show up or let their support be known, which provides space for politicians to kill bills through partisan chicanery.
So I've thought about this quite a bit, mainly because that was a response given by one of the Commissioners at their last meeting in Colville, effectively, it really doesn't matter what you think Small Town Living With Wildlife, the MAJORITY of this state feels differently so... you're SOL.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.
You’re reaching bro and you know it. Two groups I’ve never heard of and a couple of gaggles of people… who opposed it somehow…
How about NWTF, NWS, IWLA, BHA, DU, the list goes on, these are the largest and most diverse hunting organizations in the US.
I will concede there is a perception and fear among a small group of hunters who fear losing power if other fund wildlife agencies. But its a misplaced fear. If the public didn’t stongly support hunting it would have ended ling ago. Sustainable, ethical hunting sells… because the cliches we say are true.
Devils advocate, this is about wildlife across the state, held in trust for all citizens, irrespective of county.I also don't understand why they feel the need to view the entire state through King County's lens of opinion.
Just because you aren't familiar with the issue outside of the federal sphere, doesn't mean there aren't active & organized groups working in this space at the state level.