A brawl brewing in spokane?

[Yogithebear]

@Yogithebear You may want to pump the brakes on your rhetoric. You're out over your skis and don't even know it. Not everyone on here is a Joe Schmoe. There are some very high level people you're interacting with who've forgotten more than you'll ever know. One of the things about HT as opposed to elsewhere on Al Gore's internet is that we have actual experts and maintain I high level of decorum in our communications with each other (oh, and meme, lots of memes and gifs). You're still new here, so we'll cut you some slack, but do at least as much listening (reading) as talking (typing); no KB warrior-ing.

What exactly have I said that is wrong? Where did I make it personal vs arguing a fact or a point?

What I am seeing is frequent snark and smug attitudes generalizing hunters broadly as selfish exclusionists. I disagree with that assessment.

I do a lot more reading than typing, always have.

Maybe take some of your own advice, the only person who is keyboard warrioring here is you trying to tell me what to think. If you are an administrator and want to ban me over these comments than so be it, I guess that tells me what this site is all about.

 

[Yogithebear]

Weird, why isn’t it referrrd to as hunting management?

It’s been a good discussion until recently. I’m out.

I guess because not every species is a game species.

 

[Yogithebear]

how much time have you spent in statehouses during legislative sessions in more than one state? or DC?

Does watching C-Span count?

 

[TheJason]

The two groups cited in the article, Washington Wildlife First, and Wildlife For All, are absolutely extremeists groups who are 100% anti-hunting. They are selling themselves in their slogans as if they are there to represent all these purportodly aggreived outdoor users in wildlife matters, which is a complete hustle. Their agenda is to stop hunting. It is crystal clear on their websites which more or less mirror each other in their goals. Though Washington Wildlife First also mentions plans to go after the state DNR for destruction of their forests… ya, that is after they ban hunting. There is no working with groups that absolutely oppose hunting.

However there are other groups which hunters can and do frequently work with, from the Sierra Club, to even the World Wildlife Foundation which espouse frequent anti-hunting sentiments. This article is about something very different, two organizations who want to fill F&G commissions with anti-hunters. They have seen success so far in Washington.

Thanks for enlightening me

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The two groups cited in the article, Washington Wildlife First, and Wildlife For All, are absolutely extremeists groups who are 100% anti-hunting. They are selling themselves in their slogans as if they are there to represent all these purportodly aggreived outdoor users in wildlife matters, which is a complete hustle. Their agenda is to stop hunting. It is crystal clear on their websites which more or less mirror each other in their goals. Though Washington Wildlife First also mentions plans to go after the state DNR for destruction of their forests… ya, that is after they ban hunting. There is no working with groups that absolutely oppose hunting.

My 2cents looking at their websites, they are anti predator hunting specifically... probably look down on but as orgs are fine with hunting birds/ungulates.

I would guess specifically they don't like "trophy" hunting predators, I bet they don't have any idea about the percentage of folks that eat bears and cats.

Certainly on the spectrum of wildlife management they are far to one side, but no less extreme that the SSS crowd is on the other.

 

[TheJason]

Does watching C-Span count?

You keep asking for examples of how nonhunters have been excluded, here are some.

What is the representation across the wildlife commission? Most commissions are mandated to include hunters, outfitters, landowners. Are they mandated to include non-hunters?

Second way, what is the opportunity for comment for a non-or anti-hunter to comment on wildlife management and or hunting regulations. What is the notification process? Is notice only given via emails to people who have bought hunting licenses? Or is it done through a state wide SEPA process where there is broad notification?

 

[Hunting Wife]

T minus 4 posts till Ben get's called a commie

 

[BucksnDucks]

@Yogithebear You may want to pump the brakes on your rhetoric. You're out over your skis and don't even know it. Not everyone on here is a Joe Schmoe. There are some very high level people you're interacting with who've forgotten more than you'll ever know. One of the things about HT as opposed to elsewhere on Al Gore's internet is that we have actual experts and maintain I high level of decorum in our communications with each other (oh, and meme, lots of memes and gifs). You're still new here, so we'll cut you some slack, but do at least as much listening (reading) as talking (typing); no KB warrior-ing.

Maybe, but keep your opinions flowing in a cordial manner. The last thing this informative thread or any debate needs is complete control by just a few. Hunting wife, JLS and Lamb are capable of articulating opinions and theories without the need of defenders in this manner.
There are important issues here that may require more than three- or four-people's input.

 

[Yogithebear]

My 2cents looking at their websites, they are anti predator hunting specifically... probably look down on but as orgs are fine with hunting birds/ungulates.

I would guess specifically they don't like "trophy" hunting predators, I bet they don't have any idea about the percentage of folks that eat bears and cats.

Certainly on the spectrum of wildlife management they are far to one side, but no less extreme that the SSS crowd is on the other.

Man, read their page on “Is hunting really conservation”, seems clear what they are about. Also their “a new paradigm” page. What is interesting is their use of “public trust” in their action plan. I’ve never heard the phrase used outside hunting/conservation groups but now its being turned around… probably because it was seen as such a positive concept to explain things.

 

[Yogithebear]

You keep asking for examples of how nonhunters have been excluded, here are some.

What is the representation across the wildlife commission? Most commissions are mandated to include hunters, outfitters, landowners. Are they mandated to include non-hunters?

Second way, what is the opportunity for comment for a non-or anti-hunter to comment on wildlife management and or hunting regulations. What is the notification process? Is notice only given via emails to people who have bought hunting licenses? Or is it done through a state wide SEPA process where there is broad notification?

I am not familiar where any person is excluded from public comment. You say most wildlife commisons, you basing that on an assumption or those you are familair with? As in literally 26 of the state commissions are only made up of hunters? True, I am only familiar with a few, but none are like that.

 

[BucksnDucks]

Again, anti-hunters, whether individuals or groups, should not be involved in wildlife management.

This maybe your ideology, but it is absolutely contrary to the public trust doctrine.

I’m right there with @Hunting Wife . This stuff may be uncomfortable, but it’s reality.

I don't think it's that black and white of a reality. The staunch anti hunter with opinions formed on emotion and fairy tales has the same value of input in wildlife management as a poacher that advocates for no limits, no season, whack and stack em all.
Hunting Wife commented something to the effect, that hunter's opinions are no better or more right than others. I think it depends on the hunter. In extreme cases like zero hunting or unlimited killing I would argue the general, ethical hunter's opinion is absolutely "more right" than either end of the extreme.
Give them a seat at the table for discussion, destroy their arguments with logic, science, and historical examples. Do not concede a position of authority in the name of equity.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Man, read their page on “Is hunting really conservation”, seems clear what they are about. Also their “a new paradigm” page. What is interesting is their use of “public trust” in their action plan. I’ve never heard the phrase used outside hunting/conservation groups but now its being turned around… probably because it was seen as such a positive concept to explain things.

They also have a Rob Shaul aversion to R3, lots I don't agree with but that is beside the point, folks who I disagree with me still have a right to be at the table.

Further, it's easier to complain than it is to govern wouldn't you agree?

Genuine question here, how do you think folks with that world view will deal with the hard management questions? Lions getting pushed out of habitat and stalking kids in town? Grizzlies killing folks in city limits? You're not re-habilitating those animals, there aren't non-lethal options. So "those" folks have to make the tough call and explain their decision to their constituents.

Sportsman are absolutely going to lose some ground, but perhaps it also has a moderating effect on the conversation?

Maybe I'm totally naïve.

Sometimes I think it's good for the dog to catch the car every once in a while... builds character

 

[BWALKER77]

And in the alternative, how do the other folks compromise with someone who kills the animal they photograph every weekend?

Obviously you have to try to marginalize and thwart those that oppose hunting by any and every means possible. They get this, we dont.

 

[Yogithebear]

They also have a Rob Shaul aversion to R3, lots I don't agree with but that is beside the point, folks who I disagree with me still have a right to be at the table.

Further, it's easier to complain than it is to govern wouldn't you agree?

Genuine question here, how do you think folks with that world view will deal with the hard management questions? Lions getting pushed out of habitat and stalking kids in town? Grizzlies killing folks in city limits? You're no re-habilitating those animals, there aren't non-lethal options. So "those" folks have to make the tough call and explain their decision to their constituents.

Sportsman are absolutely going to lose some ground, but perhaps it also has a moderating effect on the conversation?

Maybe I'm totally naïve.

I think it would play out similar to as it did here in California with mountain lions.

They will quietly pay wildife services type agencies and contractors or have their own wardens kills animals to control numbers, along with issuing depredation permits to farmers and ranchers for the loss of livestock and crops. This behind the scenes killing is more palitable than the specticle of hunting.

 

[BWALKER77]

One other concern I have is if these groups get there way and hunting is severly restricted or eliminated on public land what effect will this have on the transfer movement? How many hunters would give two chits about public land if they couldn't hunt it.

 

[BucksnDucks]

I think it would play out similar to as it did here in California with mountain lions.

And more recently and greater numbers with bears

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think it would play out similar to as it did here in California with mountain lions.

They will quietly pay wildife services type agencies and contractors or have their own wardens kills animals to control numbers, along with issuing depredation permits to farmers and ranchers for the loss of livestock and crops. This behind the scenes killing is more palitable than the specticle of hunting.

WDFW seems pretty pissed at the government gun approach per their website.

 

[Yogithebear]

Yes, from what I’ve read the numbers are crazy and luckily the effort to end bear hunting in California lost out. Which tells me the game commission is still rational.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Clap, clap, clap.

Ya, I didn’t attempt to educate you on who DU is. You sure like your red herring fallacies don’t you.

You decided to repond to a comment I made regarding people generalizing hunters as against RAWA and other efforts to “bring others to the table“ by my noting evidence doesn’t back it up beyond a few fringe groups and extremes. Rather, more hunters and hunting organizations support RAWA. You then cited a two groups I had never heard of and added some andectodotal tales of people you’ve heard it from or something. I pointed out how that didnt contradict what I stated and you continually respond with the same. Ok, I googled the TWO small orgs you cited. BGF’s search feature doesnt work so I can’t search how they feel about RAWA. Google searches of BFG and SFW don’t reflect an opinion on RAWA or similar measures. But let me give you that most or at least some of their members or leaders do and have voiced that opinion to you for the reasons you stated. Still doesn‘t change what I originally said or have continued to state; most of the big, known, local and national hunting organziations support RAWA and similar measures.

You and many others on here keep generalizing all hunters as exclusionists who need some kind of commupence for not letting others play in the outdoor space. That is beyond absurd. Who hunters, in general, have tried to exclude for obvious reasons is anti-hunters from being involved in wildlife management decsions. Period,

Yogi,
respectfully, I didn't respond about RAWA. The record there is pretty clear on who is supporting it and who isn't. It's a great bill with tons of support. Still looks like passage is not 100% guaranteed though.

I was clearly speaking about the state level issue of how state agencies are funded when I was mentioning the other groups who haven't stepped up an been part of that conversation. In the states of MT, WY, ID, UT, NM, NV, those more conservative hunting groups are heavily influencing politics of wildlife management and not for the better.

You seem to want to talk exclusively about RAWA, I'm talking about state level funding mechanisms outside of RAWA. Just because 99% of the conservation world supports that form of funding, doesn't mean many of those people were sitting at tables with local commissioners screaming about not sharing the resource with non-hunting people. It's been the driving opposition behind alternative funding at the state level for decades out in the Rockies.

 

[Yogithebear]

Yogi,
respectfully, I didn't respond about RAWA. The record there is pretty clear on who is supporting it and who isn't. It's a great bill with tons of support. Still looks like passage is not 100% guaranteed though.

I was clearly speaking about the state level issue of how state agencies are funded when I was mentioning the other groups who haven't stepped up an been part of that conversation. In the states of MT, WY, ID, UT, NM, NV, those more conservative hunting groups are heavily influencing politics of wildlife management and not for the better.

You seem to want to talk exclusively about RAWA, I'm talking about state level funding mechanisms outside of RAWA. Just because 99% of the conservation world supports that form of funding, doesn't mean many of those people were sitting at tables with local commissioners screaming about not sharing the resource with non-hunting people. It's been the driving opposition behind alternative funding at the state level for decades out in the Rockies.

If you follow the specific discussion I was involved in regarding RAWA with a few people back before you joined it, I was using RAWA as a point regarding certain people generalizing hunters as exclusionists and who deserve some kind of comeuppance for not being more inclusive of other groups. As I pointed out, I don’t agree with those generalizations, I think many people in this space have pre-conceived notions they apply to the broader group based on their narrow and often local experiences. For a broad perspective, looking at the broadest group will be more accurate. Hence looking at large and diverse hunting organizations with large mmemberships for their perspectives. Support for RAWA being almost absolute from those large and diverse groups being the example I sited.

I note you mention this: “many of those people were sitting at tables with local commissioners screaming about not sharing the resource with non-hunting people.” Yes, screaming is not helpful and too often is an image of hunters people see, not only locally, but nationally as well. But it can also be the image many of us see as representative of the larger group, leading people to become arrogant, dismissive, and divisive. I see a lot that here, as if people are happy with what is going on in Washington so they can say how right they were.