A brawl brewing in spokane?

[Hunting Wife]

…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.

Or do we perhaps collectively have many decades of first-hand experience across multiple states and at the federal level working on the exact issues you keep telling us we have no idea about?

Many members here work on these issues, some at a very high level, though you haven’t been around long enough to know the types or depth of experience present within this membership.

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.

Anti-hunting groups are pretending these people are aggrieved to get their nose under the tent. As a wildlife photographer, how have hunters screwed me over? As a forager? As a hiker? As a horserider? They haven’t, duh! Thanks to hunting dollars there are tons of places I can do these activities, and miles of trails built. I WMA I hunted when I was in Virginia is a perfect example, super popular with horse riders, people walking their dogs, campers, foragers, birders, etc… 100% funded by hunting dollars. Did I ever hear hunters say keep all those other people out? No. Might a few have thought it? Probably… but again, this exclusion you and others are peddling is not accurate.

Again, anti-hunters, whether individuals or groups, should not be involved in wildlife management. It just can’t work. Can non-hunters? Sure. Can predator advocates? Sure. And they have been all along. But if you are against hunting then there is no actual thought or perspective. You are starting and and finishing at no.

Not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse, or you really can’t see past your own blind spot here.

The point is that you can not exclude portions of the public you don’t agree with from participating in the discussion of how public trust resources are managed.

Agencies are legally mandated to listen to all stakeholders. Thus far, certain voices have been excluded, by hunters, from revenue streams (disagree all you want but it doesn’t make it less true), and barred from participation by “others” (via lobbying and other shenanigans) in working groups, advisory boards, etc where management recommendations are often formed. If we’re really going to take the “extremists shouldn’t even be allowed to participate” stance, many many people in this country could argue the NRA should be excluded from gun control discussions. I imagine that would go over well now, wouldn’t it?

Does including these people mean that their opinions and demands must be met? No. That is not what anyone here is saying. Those opinions and demands should have to pass the smell test scientifically, fiscally, and socially, just like hunters opinions and demands. But trying to have some kind of double standard where some peoples ideas are heard and others aren’t is disingenuous.

My criticism of hunters is far from non-sensical and has nothing to do with being divisive. On the contrary, the point is to draw attention to our weaknesses so we can address them and put ourselves on a better footing and in a better bargaining position going forward. If we are so weak that we can’t withstand criticism of ourselves, we certainly aren’t going to withstand criticism from outside.

Or we can stay in our echo chamber, double down on our own propaganda, look like real jackasses, and lose all credibility with non-hunters. The choice is ours.

It’s been mostly a good discussion here. Thanks to those who have been willing to engage.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I’m going to go out on a limb here and just make some big picture predictions. I don’t honestly think that the underlying goal of the majority of these groups is to end hunting across-the-board.

If you look at public opinion surveys, there is actually quite strong public support for hunting for food. There is very little public support for hunting from a “trophy“ aspect, and/or killing stuff you don’t consume. I firmly believe the goal of this push is to largely limit predator hunting where the animals are not used for food, or they are simply killed so that we can increase herd numbers of ungulates, so we have more of those to kill.

I most certainly could be wrong, and I am not going to hold strong and fast to this prediction. We’ll see how it plays out because it most certainly is going to. This isn’t going away in Washington, and it’s only a matter of time before it starts happening. In other states, were you might not expect it. People move, demographics, change, and lung health traditions come under fire.

Unfortunately I don’t share your optimistic view, especially after looking closely at the group in question, Wildlife for All. When they call for more “compassionate” wildlife management and viewing animals as individuals that is usually code for “end hunting” and not just predators, but they have to start somewhere. It’s death by a thousand cuts, the long struggle. But I hope you are proven correct in the future.

I also much appreciate this dialogue. Helps us all clean up our narrative as hunters, looking at the blind spots.

 

[Yogithebear]

Or do we perhaps collectively have many decades of first-hand experience across multiple states and at the federal level working on the exact issues you keep telling us we have no idea about?

Many members here work on these issues, some at a very high level, though you haven’t been around long enough to know the types or depth of experience present within this membership.


Not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse, or you really can’t see past your own blind spot here.

The point is that you can not exclude portions of the public you don’t agree with from participating in the discussion of how public trust resources are managed.

Agencies are legally mandated to listen to all stakeholders. Thus far, certain voices have been excluded, by hunters, from revenue streams (disagree all you want but it doesn’t make it less true), and barred from participation by “others” (via lobbying and other shenanigans) in working groups, advisory boards, etc where management recommendations are often formed. If we’re really going to take the “extremists shouldn’t even be allowed to participate” stance, many many people in this country could argue the NRA should be excluded from gun control discussions. I imagine that would go over well now, wouldn’t it?

Does including these people mean that their opinions and demands must be met? No. That is not what anyone here is saying. Those opinions and demands should have to pass the smell test scientifically, fiscally, and socially, just like hunters opinions and demands. But trying to have some kind of double standard where some peoples ideas are heard and others aren’t is disingenuous.

My criticism of hunters is far from non-sensical and has nothing to do with being divisive. On the contrary, the point is to draw attention to our weaknesses so we can address them and put ourselves on a better footing and in a better bargaining position going forward. If we are so weak that we can’t withstand criticism of ourselves, we certainly aren’t going to withstand criticism from outside.

Or we can stay in our echo chamber, double down on our own propaganda, look like real jackasses, and lose all credibility with non-hunters. The choice is ours.

It’s been mostly a good discussion here. Thanks to those who have been willing to engage.

Hunting is one thing I do; I also hike, backpack, camp, forage, fish, mountainbike, ski, do photography, stargaze, trail run… generally a lot in the outdoors, using tons of acres of state and federal lands, trails, facilities, etc. right alongside other non-hunting users including the above and birders and horseback riders, ATVers, etc…

How have we and other “other users” been excluded from doing all this by hunters? I have never felt it and don’t see it. I’ve lived all over this country.

How will including Washington Wildlife First and Wildlife for All, two groups clearly against all hunting (check their site, its very clear) in wildlife management decisions reverse whatever exclusion you think is going on?

I haven’t accused anyone of ignorance. I pointed out where they are generalizong hunters because “one time this person said” or this small local group I work with which you no nothing about said” blah blah blah…. Those experiences don’t represent all hunters. I get that you and a few others have been involved in this for a while, its been mentioned a few times in a way to gatekeep the discusion.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Hunting is one thing I do; I also hike, backpack, camp, forage, fish, mountainbike, ski, do photography, stargaze, trail run… generally a lot in the outdoors, using tons of acres of state and federal lands, trails, facilities, etc. right alongside other non-hunting users including the above and birders and horseback riders, ATVers, etc…

How have we and other “other users” been excluded from doing all this by hunters? I have never felt it and don’t see it. I’ve lived all over this country.

How will including Washington Wildlife First and Wildlife for All, two groups clearly against all hunting (check their site, its very clear) in wildlife management decisions reverse whatever exclusion you think is going on?

I haven’t accused anyone of ignorance. I pointed out where they are generalizong hunters because “one time this person said” or this small local group I work with which you no nothing about said” blah blah blah…. Those experiences don’t represent all hunters. I get that you and a few others have been involved in this for a while, its been mentioned a few times in a way to gatekeep the discusion.

Whatever you say.

No one is gatekeeping. Multiple people have provided repeated clarification, explanations, examples and answers to your questions in this thread. If you choose to ignore those, that’s your prerogative.

Have a good evening.

 

[Yogithebear]

Whatever you say.

No one is gatekeeping. Multiple people have provided repeated clarification, explanations, examples and answers to your questions in this thread. If you choose to ignore those, that’s your prerogative.

Have a good evening.

No one has addressed the actual points I raised, rather they twist the discussion to something else.

1: How will inviting Washington Wildlife First and Wildlife for All help wildlife management?

2: How have hunters specifically excluded non-hunters from the outdoors?

I don’t think they will but I, like you, might be wrong…

Good evening to you as well.

 

[JLS]

 

[JLS]

No one has addressed the actual points I raised, rather they twist the discussion to something else.

1: How will inviting Washington Wildlife First and Wildlife for All help wildlife management?

2: How have hunters specifically excluded non-hunters from the outdoors?

I don’t think they will but I, like you, might be wrong…

Good evening to you as well.

1. From a hunter perspective it won’t. No one said it would that I’m aware of.

2. I gave you examples which you dismissed.

 

[Hunting Wife]

1: How will inviting Washington Wildlife First and Wildlife for All help wildlife management?

I have answered this at least 5 times in this thread. They do not need an invitation. They are entitled to participate because they, like hunters, are citizens for which the state manages wildlife in trust. That is what the legislative mandate of state wildlife agencies says. Manage for the benefit of all citizens. If you can’t understand that, I can’t help you. I also asked you earlier whether Wildlife for All members are citizens- yes or no? You ignored my question.

2: How have hunters specifically excluded non-hunters from the outdoors?

No one said non-hunters were excluded from the outdoors. We said certain groups (non hunters and anti hunters) have been excluded from engaging in the management process, either via sabotaging them as a revenue stream to justify not giving them a voice (@Ben Lamb Lamb has provided numerous examples, and our own @Big Fin could provide more evidence if he isn’t off filming episodes somewhere) or intentionally structuring management advisory groups, working groups, and various Commissions to leave out groups that don’t agree with hunters.

You’ve thus far continued to argue while ignoring all of it, so frankly it isn’t worth spending any more time talking in circles with you.

 

[Dakotakid]

Montana does have a provision in the constitution that protects hunting and fishing.
Section 7. Preservation of harvest heritage. The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state and does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminution of other private rights.

I skipped past some of the… discussion. It might have been previously mentioned.

 

[Yogithebear]

I have answered this at least 5 times in this thread. They do not need an invitation. They are entitled to participate because they, like hunters, are citizens for which the state manages wildlife in trust. That is what the legislative mandate of state wildlife agencies says. Manage for the benefit of all citizens. If you can’t understand that, I can’t help you. I also asked you earlier whether Wildlife for All members are citizens- yes or no? You ignored my question.


No one said non-hunters were excluded from the outdoors. We said certain groups (non hunters and anti hunters) have been excluded from engaging in the management process, either via sabotaging them as a revenue stream to justify not giving them a voice (@Ben Lamb Lamb has provided numerous examples, and our own @Big Fin could provide more evidence if he isn’t off filming episodes somewhere) or intentionally structuring management advisory groups, working groups, and various Commissions to leave out groups that don’t agree with hunters.

You’ve thus far continued to argue while ignoring all of it, so frankly it isn’t worth spending any more time talking in circles with you.

You and others were not saying certain groups, you were saying “hunters“ have been excluding people from the meetings and such as described in the article, generalizing that all hunters have been doing this and this exclusion hurts these other groups interests and they need a seat at the table. You only narrowed it down to “certain groups“ of hunters when I called you all out on it.


Post in thread 'A brawl brewing in spokane?'
https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/a-brawl-brewing-in-spokane.316366/post-3492917

From one of your comments:

“Allowing non consumptive users to have a voice in wildlife management is absolutely one area where hunters have not bargained in good faith.”

”that this is only true because hunters have torpedoed at every turn efforts to bring others into the fold.”

“It’s a truth that McKean points out in the article. And one we will now likely pay the piper for.”

I am not aware of any states where only hunters decide who is on the game commssions/boards, nor any that only allow hunters to serve on boards. So yes I don’t see what you are talking about how hunters have excluded anyone. I’m sure there are some hunters who want it that way and make efforts to push that agenda through. Ben provided some anedotal personal experiences of that but I still do not see how it in anyway supports the generalizations you all have made about hunters being exclusionary. Many hunters clearly more than you all seem to think if you look at the overwhelming hunter support for RAWA, have no issues with others at the table… because others are already at the table, at least in most of the United States. Your personal experiences don’t speak for the rest of us.

 

[OriginalOscar]

I have answered this at least 5 times in this thread. They do not need an invitation. They are entitled to participate because they, like hunters, are citizens for which the state manages wildlife in trust. That is what the legislative mandate of state wildlife agencies says. Manage for the benefit of all citizens. If you can’t understand that, I can’t help you. I also asked you earlier whether Wildlife for All members are citizens- yes or no? You ignored my question.


No one said non-hunters were excluded from the outdoors. We said certain groups (non hunters and anti hunters) have been excluded from engaging in the management process, either via sabotaging them as a revenue stream to justify not giving them a voice (@Ben Lamb Lamb has provided numerous examples, and our own @Big Fin could provide more evidence if he isn’t off filming episodes somewhere) or intentionally structuring management advisory groups, working groups, and various Commissions to leave out groups that don’t agree with hunters.

You’ve thus far continued to argue while ignoring all of it, so frankly it isn’t worth spending any more time talking in circles with you.

Do all sportsmen a favor; learn facts, proclaim successes, and don't apologize to people who seek to end hunting or hunters leadership on wildlife and wildlands.

 

[JLS]

Do all sportsmen a favor; learn facts, proclaim successes, and don't apologize to people who seek to end hunting or hunters leadership on wildlife and wildlands.

Who said anything about apologizing?

 

[OriginalOscar]

Who said anything about apologizing

Read from page 1. What's your real name? I'm Troy Rushton - Riverton UT. You?

 

[JLS]

Read

LOL. This is now a waste of time. You and yogi can be this.

 

[Hydrophilic]

There is a lot to unpack here. I don't completely disagree with the non hunting side of things, my problem is that I 100% don't trust them to work together with hunters in good faith.

@neffa3 @Hunting Wife opinions??

In Washington State, Hunters May No Longer Be "Necessary to Manage Wildlife"

An emerging wildlife war has its first skirmish this week in Spokane where a reformist group is looking to deprioritize hunting and hunters.

www.outdoorlife.com

It seems like you are assuming 'hunters' as a group are distinctly different than 'wildlife conservation groups'. If so, you share that assumption with many members of the general public who have realized modern hunting is really just an extraction industry with little interest in meaningful wildlife conservation.

These groups should not be mutually exclusive. I'm a lifelong deer and elk hunter. I'm a deer and elk advocate. I'm also a wolf advocate, a cougar advocate, a bear advocate, a beaver advocate, a salmon advocate, a pollinator advocate, a tree advocate, a prairie advocate, a wildflower advocate, clean water advocate, animal rights advocate, etc. I love hunting, but I cannot count how many times I've been called an anti-hunter by hunters. This is the age of identity politics so I must be one or other.

Elk and deer extraction is fine but if hunters won't bother with, or support, comprehensive conservation then why fight efforts from wildlife conservation groups who are interested in comprehensive conservation? Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Do all sportsmen a favor; learn facts, proclaim successes, and don't apologize to people who seek to end hunting or hunters leadership on wildlife and wildlands.

Ah, you did come back. Since you couldn’t find a quote from me to support your previous accusations, I’ll just assume you concede you are full of s@!&.

You and others were not saying certain groups, you were saying “hunters“ have been excluding people from the meetings and such as described in the article, generalizing that all hunters have been doing this and this exclusion hurts these other groups interests and they need a seat at the table. You only narrowed it down to “certain groups“ of hunters when I called you all out on it.


Post in thread 'A brawl brewing in spokane?'
https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/a-brawl-brewing-in-spokane.316366/post-3492917

From one of your comments:

“Allowing non consumptive users to have a voice in wildlife management is absolutely one area where hunters have not bargained in good faith.”

”that this is only true because hunters have torpedoed at every turn efforts to bring others into the fold.”

“It’s a truth that McKean points out in the article. And one we will now likely pay the piper for.”

I am not aware of any states where only hunters decide who is on the game commssions/boards, nor any that only allow hunters to serve on boards. So yes I don’t see what you are talking about how hunters have excluded anyone. I’m sure there are some hunters who want it that way and make efforts to push that agenda through. Ben provided some anedotal personal experiences of that but I still do not see how it in anyway supports the generalizations you all have made about hunters being exclusionary. Many hunters clearly more than you all seem to think if you look at the overwhelming hunter support for RAWA, have no issues with others at the table… because others are already at the table, at least in most of the United States. Your personal experiences don’t speak for the rest of us.

I can only answer the question. I can’t understand it for you.

Since you guys continue to dodge the questions and intentionally ignore the main crux of the topic at hand (i.e. PUBLIC resource, ALL citizens), it is pointless to continue. I know my facts. Just because Oscar and Yogi choose to ignore them doesn’t make what everyone else here is saying untrue. And if hunters are such delicate snowflakes that we can’t even talk about and critically evaluate our own shortcomings in how we’ve operated in the past, the anti-hunters are going to eat us alive. They are evolving. We just sit here in the corner repeating “hunting is conservation” and “don’t apologize”. That’s not going to be nearly good enough.

There is a stark difference between celebrating our past successes, and resting on our laurels. Some people are content to double down on stupid. Some others would rather see us elevate our game. Pretty clear which is which.

Have a good weekend.

 

[JLS]

Read from page 1. What's your real name? I'm Troy Rushton - Riverton UT. You?

None of your business, and it isn’t germane to the conversation.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Read from page 1. What's your real name? I'm Troy Rushton - Riverton UT. You?

Troy,

it's good to see you back here. In case folks forgot, Troy was leaning in hard on the corruption around the Hunt Expo back in 15 and trying to get some accountability there.

 

[Sawtooth]

I can only answer the question. I can’t understand it for you.

Since you guys continue to dodge the questions and intentionally ignore the main crux of the topic at hand (i.e. PUBLIC resource, ALL citizens), it is pointless to continue. I know my facts. Just because Oscar and Yogi choose to ignore them doesn’t make what everyone else here is saying untrue. And if hunters are such delicate snowflakes that we can’t even talk about and critically evaluate our own shortcomings in how we’ve operated in the past, the anti-hunters are going to eat us alive. They are evolving. We just sit here in the corner repeating “hunting is conservation” and “don’t apologize”. That’s not going to be nearly good enough.

There is a stark difference between celebrating our past successes, and resting on our laurels. Some people are content to double down on stupid. Some others would rather see us elevate our game. Pretty clear which is which.

Have a good weekend.



Signature worthy.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I can only answer the question. I can’t understand it for you.

Sound track