Anti Hunting Tweet

Oh I've totally let those POSs over at the ALT....(there's several organizations) have a piece of my mind with regard to conservation.
 
“Yet that 5% are required by law in almost every state to hold over 50% of the voting seats of wildlife management commissions”

Maybe I’m dumb but can anyone explain to me what this actually means?
 
they make a great point, the 5% of people who deal with and understand wildlife the most, and likely comprise the majority of funding for the existence of said wildlife, should (and luckily do) have at least a 50% stake in it

unfortunately it can be easily twisted in the negative for those that don't have a clue about anything... which in this case could be said to be up to 95% of the population according to their numbers
 
“Yet that 5% are required by law in almost every state to hold over 50% of the voting seats of wildlife management commissions”

Maybe I’m dumb but can anyone explain to me what this actually means?

Many state wildlife commissions are mandated by law to have a certain make up based on industry or stakeholder status. Generally that's been Ag & sportsmen focused. They're complaining about the commission system that until recently has been dominated by those interests. Now that non-consumptive wildlife users are engaging at the sate level more, they want seats on commissions in order to have their views reflected in the commission make-up, as well as have someone more favorable to their general position in a place of authority.

There's a legitimate point on both sides for how things are, and that some things may need to change. Wildlife (except in a few states, like Texas) is owned by noone and is managed for all citizens, including the non-consumptive user.

I would disagree with the tweet being anti-hunting. I don't see that, but I do see sportsmen reverting to the tired idea that we or Ag should be the only ones who have a voice in wildlife management. While these two interests pay the freight in state management (Ag pays in habitat provided, sportsmen with license dollars), there is a legitimate place for non-consumptive users to have their voice heard & represented at the commission level.
 
They want the wolf to have a bigger seat at the table.

Not to pick on you or anything, but let me tell you the reality of the "wolf having the bigger seat at the table".

I attend a good number of Wyoming Commission meetings and the last few I've attended where wolves were on the agenda, I didn't see many, if any, hunters there pushing for higher wolf quotas. What I do see, are the people that don't want wolves hunted at all, attending and making comments supporting their position.

The view from here is that hunters like to whine on internet forums (I can only imagine what they post on face book)...but when it comes to attending meetings, they're too busy doing other things.

So, while its convenient to blame everything under the sun for the wolf woes, the fact is, 99.99999% of the hunting population doesn't do a single thing to make a difference.

The size of the voice/seat you have is determined by those that show up.

I also agree with Ben Lamb that even though we may not like it, the non-consumptive users have a voice in wildlife, as they should. I grow weary of those that buy a license once a year, and run a hook or bullet through an animal, thinking their voice is the only one that matters.
 
I've found a very different view shared at the MT FWP meetings regarding wolves. IMO, where wolves are a dominant competitor with hunters, the hunters are present and speak their piece.
The past couple meetings in NW MT (largest population of wolves for MT) it's hard not to run through a meeting w/o the wolf topic rearing it's head.

As with anything, the main issues facing hunters are typically the main topics discussed during open mic public comments or even interruptions during a biologist speaker or others discussing topics that don't necessarily meet the average Hunter's take of the situation.

Regarding others with a seat, I believe it's necessary for commissions to keep all parties involved with a voice. I may not like their view, though I respect such, unlike the usual few in the internet forum world. Montana's PLPW committee seems to seat the various parties of mutual and differing views.
 
Last edited:
I would disagree with the numbers on a state level. I bet hunters make up more than 4% or 6% of the population in many, many states. The numbers wouldn’t be so lopsided if you excluded the parts of the population from areas with little to no wildlife like New York City or Los Angeles.
 
Hunters show up at meetings and get told that fuzzy animals are off limits. They have a Louisiana Black Bear meeting to say that it is recovered. My cuz in law ask, “since the bear is recovered, when do we have a season?” You’d have thought it was the end of the world to the game and fish folks.
 
I would disagree with the numbers on a state level. I bet hunters make up more than 4% or 6% of the population in many, many states. The numbers wouldn’t be so lopsided if you excluded the parts of the population from areas with little to no wildlife like New York City or Los Angeles.

Bozeman America is about as hunter laden as anyplace in America. I know more non (not anti) hunters than hunters. And I know a lot of hunters. Rural places in Montana have a higher proportion of people who hunt in the population, but many of their views are more ag oriented (including how they view hunting) than the views of the vast majority of hunters on this forum.
 
Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
112,938
Messages
2,004,738
Members
35,903
Latest member
Jg722
Back
Top