BS anti hunting article from the hill.

[EYJONAS!]

O/U this thread makes it to page 3 and I'm not even involved.....

 

[Marshian]

Obviously, preservation of life is lost on someone like yourself. The whole premise of the video was about saving animals, yet the value of a human life isn’t much of a concern. I have never understood the passion by those people to save an animal at any cost, then disregard a human life so easily.

That's a mighty cavalier way to approach human life.

Under this logic, literally any topic either happy, sad, lighthearted or serious is fair game to bring up abortion. Just shot the elk of lifetime? Who cares, innocent babies are dying! China is involved in numerous cover ups and human rights abuses? Well, at least they have their life cuz we have daily abortions! A loved one passed away? Well so did 800,000 babies! This is a hunting forum, not a pro-life forum. Try to stay on topic.

 

[tjones]

Man... I just don't understand how you can devolve a topic so quickly. Or why you feel the need to. Do you think before you speak? WTF do abortions and anti-hunting Op-Eds have to do with each other? Nothing. Absolutely F-ing nothing.

24 called, their idiot is missing.

Schaaf would call this dunking on the dude.

 

[BuzzH]

Village 24 called, they are missing someone.

Yeah, or he could at least get off the 'net and show us all how big of a "man" he is and how much he "values life" by pounding on some more grounds squirrels, prairie dogs and porcupines...

The dude never evolved past 12 years old...

 

[dgc1963]

Sorry guys I liked the article im 100% against killing of innocent animals
I the ones I kill are all guilty

 

[Ben Lamb]

What's wrong with snaring wolves? mtmuley

Wolf trappers will have significant incidental take on a variety of species, including elk, deer, lions and bears.

Snaring will also put recreationists at risk of losing dogs. Upland hunters & Houndsmen will lose dogs, livestock guardian dogs will be impacted, all are at increased risk.

It's also unethical to pursue these kinds of measures on a species that is only 10 years removed from an endangered species listing. By removing the approved regulatory mechanisms, and if MT does get the harvest that some folks want (taking the wolf population down to 150 wolves/15 pairs), you are inviting a relisting of the animal.

The esa exists because of crap like this. If states won't manage all wildlife for sustainability and based on science, then the Federal Gov't has a compelling interest to step in and take control of their management. MT is providing the ammunition to kill their own program.

 

[AlaskaHunter]

One potential problem is "preaching to the choir".
The general public sees a different portrayal of "science".

For example, Science Friday is a radio show on NPR.
Last Friday, they had an episode on Wisconsin's wolf hunt.
"Wisconsin Oversteps in Wolf Hunt"

The "scientist" they interviewed was not a population biologist,
but a professor in Environmental Studies specializing in
human dimensions of wildlife management.
He was preaching how shooting wolfs during the mating season
was wrong, killing the alpha was a potential problem for the entire pack,
and smaller packs are more likely to kill livestock.

 

[KB_]

Anybody seen alice in wonderland? yea this thread just fell down that hole.

 

[Panda Bear]

We can't chase every shadow. Not enough time. This is an opinion piece and I suspect it will die away like those before it. Right now hunters in MT are too busy fighting some lawmakers and ranchers.

I understand your point, but articles like this one becomes "science" and "fact" to some depending on how much traction it receives. IMHO every article, anti meeting, needs to be countered. But, I repeat, your point is well made and understood. We, all of us, only have so much time in each day, plus whatever time we do have needs to be directed where it will have the most impact,

Gomer's already describing R1. So...

Stupid article, but MT is heading down a dark and dangerous path with large carnivores and the legislature. Their zeal to kill wolves, bears & lions will backfire when it comes to finishing the delisting of grizz. Especially in the NCDE.

Bounties, devaluing native wildlife, snaring, etc are all really bad ideas in terms wolf management, and it will lead to increased conflict. Not to mention abandoning the science of those management plans.

Wolf trappers will have significant incidental take on a variety of species, including elk, deer, lions and bears.

Snaring will also put recreationists at risk of losing dogs. Upland hunters & Houndsmen will lose dogs, livestock guardian dogs will be impacted, all are at increased risk.

It's also unethical to pursue these kinds of measures on a species that is only 10 years removed from an endangered species listing. By removing the approved regulatory mechanisms, and if MT does get the harvest that some folks want (taking the wolf population down to 150 wolves/15 pairs), you are inviting a relisting of the animal.

The esa exists because of crap like this. If states won't manage all wildlife for sustainability and based on science, then the Federal Gov't has a compelling interest to step in and take control of their management. MT is providing the ammunition to kill their own program.

I am in agreement with both of these posts

In the first two paragraphs of the article, the following happen and not by accident. This was a very well thought out hit piece.

They connected, poaching to trophy hunting. used the words "slaughtered", "snares", "bear bait", "hate", "braggadocio", --"killing and bigotry--not science" --all in the first two paragraphs.

This hit piece gets repeated enough to the general public and to some it will becomes "fact" and "science"

I do not have a wolf in this fight so to speak, but I have been fighting this crap for a long time. Won some, lost some. The most recent lost was the banning of grizzly hunting in B.C.----But I have not and will not quit fighting. I would not discount this piece, and would attempt to have a counter opinion published.

My last thought is do everything you can to keep the federal government out of it. Keep it in Montana or the decisions that will be made for you will be made in New York, Calif and of course Wash D.C. just as the bear ban was made by people back east and in Vancouver and Victoria.

One potential problem is "preaching to the choir".
The general public sees a different portrayal of "science".

For example, Science Friday is a radio show on NPR.
Last Friday, they had an episode on Wisconsin's wolf hunt.
"Wisconsin Oversteps in Wolf Hunt"

The "scientist" they interviewed was not a population biologist,
but a professor in Environmental Studies specializing in
human dimensions of wildlife management.
He was preaching how shooting wolfs during the mating season
was wrong, killing the alpha was a potential problem for the entire pack,
and smaller packs are more likely to kill livestock.

another example from Alaskahunter of the point I was trying got make.

Again please forgive the intrusion as I am not from your country

Good luck fellows

 

[Trial153]

Anti hunters are a bit nutty. Anti wolvers are bit nutty too. Nice to see they found common ground

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Sorry guys I liked the article im 100% against killing of innocent animals
I the ones I kill are all guilty

Yep. I post my trail camera's on the highway.

Been layin' down the law on all those deer jaywalking... I whisper under by breath before each shot, "This is America and we have laws."

 

[SAJ-99]

I understand your point, but articles like this one becomes "science" and "fact" to some depending on how much traction it receives. IMHO every article, anti meeting, needs to be countered. But, I repeat, your point is well made and understood. We, all of us, only have so much time in each day, plus whatever time we do have needs to be directed where it will have the most impact.

The contra argument is that by responding to the article, you give it more weight than it deserves. There is nothing in there that is science or fact. That is why it was in the opinion section. Media outlets of all types, flavors, and colors like to post controversial things in the opinion sections so they can 1) get people to click on it and 2) don't have to verify any of the statement contained within. To be inflamed by this one seems like an overreaction. Hence my view it will slowly disappear like smoke in the wind if we just ignore it.

The larger problem is we live in an age of salience (or pseudo-salience is probably a better description) where people can build the appearance of being important on social media, create "alternative facts" and repeat then enough times to get another person to believe it is true. Objective, independent thought is practically dead.

 

[SAJ-99]

He was preaching how shooting wolfs during the mating season
was wrong, killing the alpha was a potential problem for the entire pack,
and smaller packs are more likely to kill livestock.

Can't comment about the right or wrong stuff, but the other two have studies to back them up. So again, if we agree, it is science, if we disagree, it is "science".

 

[Volk]

Wolf trappers will have significant incidental take on a variety of species, including elk, deer, lions and bears.

Snaring will also put recreationists at risk of losing dogs. Upland hunters & Houndsmen will lose dogs, livestock guardian dogs will be impacted, all are at increased risk.

It's also unethical to pursue these kinds of measures on a species that is only 10 years removed from an endangered species listing. By removing the approved regulatory mechanisms, and if MT does get the harvest that some folks want (taking the wolf population down to 150 wolves/15 pairs), you are inviting a relisting of the animal.

The esa exists because of crap like this. If states won't manage all wildlife for sustainability and based on science, then the Federal Gov't has a compelling interest to step in and take control of their management. MT is providing the ammunition to kill their own program.

lol good for a laugh

 

[mtmiller]

lol good for a laugh

Please elaborate and let us get to know you.

 

[Panda Bear]

The contra argument is that by responding to the article, you give it more weight than it deserves. There is nothing in there that is science or fact. That is why it was in the opinion section. Media outlets of all types, flavors, and colors like to post controversial things in the opinion sections so they can 1) get people to click on it and 2) don't have to verify any of the statement contained within. To be inflamed by this one seems like an overreaction. Hence my view it will slowly disappear like smoke in the wind if we just ignore it.

and again, I can not disagree with you as you make a good point and I certainly hope that you are correct ( that it will just disappear )

If you read what I believe was the 13th paragraph, it starts with " I sensed a wistfulness " He obviously isn't trying to reach anyone who is looking at the issue from a scientific point of view. The one sentence in that paragraph is an attempt to bring horse lovers, bird lovers, cattle ranchers, dog lovers, and others to his side of the table. People who dont know, dont care, and possibly dont want to know any more about the issue than what they read in this article could use it as their reason to be anti trapping, hunting, --

This article could be the only thing some people will know if it isn't countered. BUT, believe me I dont have all the answers, if I am so damn smart about these issues why did we lose the ban bear hunting in B.C. fight !

However; the just ignore it and it will go away strategy does work sometimes and I hope it does in this case.

Again, please excuse the intrusion as I do not even live in the U.S., but have seen similar "opinions" written up here that somehow turned into being a fact by some and not viewed or remembered as an "opinion" piece.

 

[mtmuley]

Wolf trappers will have significant incidental take on a variety of species, including elk, deer, lions and bears.

Snaring will also put recreationists at risk of losing dogs. Upland hunters & Houndsmen will lose dogs, livestock guardian dogs will be impacted, all are at increased risk.

It's also unethical to pursue these kinds of measures on a species that is only 10 years removed from an endangered species listing. By removing the approved regulatory mechanisms, and if MT does get the harvest that some folks want (taking the wolf population down to 150 wolves/15 pairs), you are inviting a relisting of the animal.

The esa exists because of crap like this. If states won't manage all wildlife for sustainability and based on science, then the Federal Gov't has a compelling interest to step in and take control of their management. MT is providing the ammunition to kill their own program.

Thanks for the response. Snaring works in Idaho. Not sure if I'm against it. I am for killing more wolves. mtmuley

 

[SAJ-99]

and again, I can not disagree with you as you make a good point and I certainly hope that you are correct ( that it will just disappear )

If you read what I believe was the 13th paragraph, it starts with " I sensed a wistfulness " He obviously isn't trying to reach anyone who is looking at the issue from a scientific point of view. The one sentence in that paragraph is an attempt to bring horse lovers, bird lovers, cattle ranchers, dog lovers, and others to his side of the table. People who dont know, dont care, and possibly dont want to know any more about the issue than what they read in this article could use it as their reason to be anti trapping, hunting, --

This article could be the only thing some people will know if it isn't countered. BUT, believe me I dont have all the answers, if I am so damn smart about these issues why did we lose the ban bear hunting in B.C. fight !

However; the just ignore it and it will go away strategy does work sometimes and I hope it does in this case.

Again, please excuse the intrusion as I do not even live in the U.S., but have seen similar "opinions" written up here that somehow turned into being a fact by some and not viewed or remembered as an "opinion" piece.

It just comes down to only so much time in the day and knowing when to pick the fight.

I always value a well thought out opinion, regardless of where it comes from. thanks.

 

[MTGomer]

If the mandatory trapper education bill passes, I would support wolf snaring but I feel like Montana has way bigger issues at the moment ( like trying to commercialize hunting.

 

[RobertD]

"Montana, Hemingway’s state"

Nevermind that old Papa Hemongway was born in Illinois and is much more closely associated with Idaho (and Cuba, France and parts of Africa) than Montana in the minds of literally everyone.

Someone else mentioned how poorly written this article is. I've noticed that almost all of the opinion pieces on The Hill are chit awful independent of their point of view on an issue. The Hill in general has gotten to be a pretty garbage site overall.