noharleyyet
Well-known member
Colorado's ideological alligator will simply eat the R's last...awake or not.
Cats Aren't Trophies
- Thread starter Oak
- Start date
And it won’t stop there
D
Deleted member 52098
Guest
I find this thread to be incredibly discouraging when it is brought down by issues of R / NR allocations, help, etc. I'll be very clear this is not directed at Treeshark, nor anyone else, but just a general commentary on the issues outlined here and at the same time, this colliding with what I would consider a reckoning that is coming for all conservation orgs... and that is the "what's in it for me" attitude that seems to be permeating this space.
I genuinely wonder, if in our current state of affairs, hunters would actually band together to do what was done in the last century to save the resource - or if it would boil down to whether they are R / NR, or whether they have what they deem a "fair chance" to hunt said creatures? While there are a lot of bright spots on this forum and the landscape of people putting the resource first - the MT deer group of HTers and their proposal comes to mind - there is a also a #*^@#* ton of bitching about fairness of draw systems, desires to change said systems for personal gain and constant complaints of R / NR allocation. and that includes on issues that are far bigger than whether or not you are a resident or non resident.
One of those issues is this exact thread... the Cat ban. Now before I dive in, it should be painfully obvious that we are not all fighting this tooth and nail because of the ability to hunt cats in Colorado. Hell, even the most vocal folks on this thread have straight up said they will likely never apply or want to hunt cats... this is about what comes next if this passes and the WAY IN WHICH THIS PROPOSED BILL is written. This is not made to be highly specific to cats, nope. You could literally replace all the cat species and drop in Bears, ungulates, etc and you would have a complete and total ban of hunting on any such species.
And remember, 20% of 0 is still zero. So while we make comments that 90/10 is only going to make NR not give a shit... well thats fine, but I could give you 50% of zero and you still have no tags. I get the NR concerns, I really do - after all I am a NR to 8 states I routinely apply to (AK, WI, ID, WY, NV, UT, NM, MT) and in most of those states there is little to nothing available to me and I have no complaints about that. I want to hunt those states, and I hope to one day do so - but my advocacy doesn't stop at my state line. I donated to the WY corner crossing fund - a fund that until appeal had no chance of truly affecting me on a grand scale. Now, if they lose the appeal it would be a district wide thumbs up on corner crossing (unless I am misunderstanding) - but before that, my donation was based on doing something for the greater good that one day, *might* affect me. I belong to ID WSF... never applied for a sheep tag there. I have donated to NV BHU... never hunted sheep there. I am not patting myself on the back, merely trying to articulate that whats best for the whole may not always be best for ME.
The latter half of that sentence is where I have grave concerns for the future of conservation. I am not saying I think we are doomed, but we have shifted from a "greater good" approach to one that typically is hinged on what helps the self out. Is that really the direction we want to go? Do we really think we can beat the juggernaut of fundraising and advocacy on the Anti side if we are so divided that we cannot band together on issues that will take ALL OF US? This comes up time and time again on this forum, but one of the reasons we continually lose to the anti hunting side is they have a unified and simplistic approach... we on the other hand would rather break an issue down to who should show up and whether they are incentivized to do so based on that state's tag allocations. Is that smart? no... we are too busy fighting amongst ourselves to even give the anti hunting side a good fight. While we bicker and bitch amongst ourselves, they keep raising money, keep on adverting and do a BETTER job than we do of pulling in the independent minds to our side.
I'm happy to have debates and arguments on tag allocations and the R / NR matrix when it comes to actual proposals of such things... but when it comes to fights like this, coming together is more important than worrying about 10% of tags...
I genuinely wonder, if in our current state of affairs, hunters would actually band together to do what was done in the last century to save the resource - or if it would boil down to whether they are R / NR, or whether they have what they deem a "fair chance" to hunt said creatures? While there are a lot of bright spots on this forum and the landscape of people putting the resource first - the MT deer group of HTers and their proposal comes to mind - there is a also a #*^@#* ton of bitching about fairness of draw systems, desires to change said systems for personal gain and constant complaints of R / NR allocation. and that includes on issues that are far bigger than whether or not you are a resident or non resident.
One of those issues is this exact thread... the Cat ban. Now before I dive in, it should be painfully obvious that we are not all fighting this tooth and nail because of the ability to hunt cats in Colorado. Hell, even the most vocal folks on this thread have straight up said they will likely never apply or want to hunt cats... this is about what comes next if this passes and the WAY IN WHICH THIS PROPOSED BILL is written. This is not made to be highly specific to cats, nope. You could literally replace all the cat species and drop in Bears, ungulates, etc and you would have a complete and total ban of hunting on any such species.
And remember, 20% of 0 is still zero. So while we make comments that 90/10 is only going to make NR not give a shit... well thats fine, but I could give you 50% of zero and you still have no tags. I get the NR concerns, I really do - after all I am a NR to 8 states I routinely apply to (AK, WI, ID, WY, NV, UT, NM, MT) and in most of those states there is little to nothing available to me and I have no complaints about that. I want to hunt those states, and I hope to one day do so - but my advocacy doesn't stop at my state line. I donated to the WY corner crossing fund - a fund that until appeal had no chance of truly affecting me on a grand scale. Now, if they lose the appeal it would be a district wide thumbs up on corner crossing (unless I am misunderstanding) - but before that, my donation was based on doing something for the greater good that one day, *might* affect me. I belong to ID WSF... never applied for a sheep tag there. I have donated to NV BHU... never hunted sheep there. I am not patting myself on the back, merely trying to articulate that whats best for the whole may not always be best for ME.
The latter half of that sentence is where I have grave concerns for the future of conservation. I am not saying I think we are doomed, but we have shifted from a "greater good" approach to one that typically is hinged on what helps the self out. Is that really the direction we want to go? Do we really think we can beat the juggernaut of fundraising and advocacy on the Anti side if we are so divided that we cannot band together on issues that will take ALL OF US? This comes up time and time again on this forum, but one of the reasons we continually lose to the anti hunting side is they have a unified and simplistic approach... we on the other hand would rather break an issue down to who should show up and whether they are incentivized to do so based on that state's tag allocations. Is that smart? no... we are too busy fighting amongst ourselves to even give the anti hunting side a good fight. While we bicker and bitch amongst ourselves, they keep raising money, keep on adverting and do a BETTER job than we do of pulling in the independent minds to our side.
I'm happy to have debates and arguments on tag allocations and the R / NR matrix when it comes to actual proposals of such things... but when it comes to fights like this, coming together is more important than worrying about 10% of tags...
D
Deleted member 52098
Guest
you know what man, you just proved my point. Congrats on keeping receipts - I've never hid my feelings on R / NR allocations, especially here where we already have a ton of leftovers. But if thats what you took from my entire post, then COOL
noharleyyet
Well-known member
The tag opportunity disparity in any state has never bothered me...if King's deer is what it is, it will be what it is. I sure don't blame you guys for getting 90% of the paper at a 90% discount. More power to ya. The least of your worries is what some NR types on a hunting forum...and as Togie posted, "it won't stop there, and quid quo pro NR advocacy don't mean chit."
Last edited:
Dang, this thread has devolved into what the opponents of hunting and wildlife management would hope. Pick off the Colorado and Washington hunters, first. Then Nevada hunters (yes, they’re already trying to reform the NV commission statutes). Then (insert vulnerable state here).
As a student and admirer of Tecumseh and his efforts consolidate a confederation of the indigenous tribes in 1810-1814, seeing these responses here and in other discussions makes it clear that the underlying foundations of the human condition is likely stacked against the idea of consolidated voices on topics of grave concern.
Much like the indigenous people facing a surge of land-hungry settlers, hunters have formed tribal bonds more tightly woven than the common bond of hunting. We shift among various tribes that reflect our self interests on that day and interject topics/concerns of much lower danger than the existential threats to our very existence; R v. NR, archers v. rifle hunters, elk hunters v. deer hunters, etc., etc.
History, especially the efforts by Tecumseh, shows how easy it is for tribes to be picked off one by one, often times by tribes aligning against the bigger cause and fighting the other tribes due to self interests, even when that self interest won’t really matter when the metaphorical “settlers make it over the Appalachian Mountains and steal your land.”
Tecumseh’s heroic, yet unsuccessful, example is the best historical lesson hunters could learn from and not repeat. Yet, it seems the factors that cause division, even fighting, among tribes with immense common interest, is present in the DNA of all humans and is expressed more when outside forces/dangers increase.
Let’s take this discussion back to the CAT ballot initiative in Colorado and save the distractions for other days and other threads.
As a student and admirer of Tecumseh and his efforts consolidate a confederation of the indigenous tribes in 1810-1814, seeing these responses here and in other discussions makes it clear that the underlying foundations of the human condition is likely stacked against the idea of consolidated voices on topics of grave concern.
Much like the indigenous people facing a surge of land-hungry settlers, hunters have formed tribal bonds more tightly woven than the common bond of hunting. We shift among various tribes that reflect our self interests on that day and interject topics/concerns of much lower danger than the existential threats to our very existence; R v. NR, archers v. rifle hunters, elk hunters v. deer hunters, etc., etc.
History, especially the efforts by Tecumseh, shows how easy it is for tribes to be picked off one by one, often times by tribes aligning against the bigger cause and fighting the other tribes due to self interests, even when that self interest won’t really matter when the metaphorical “settlers make it over the Appalachian Mountains and steal your land.”
Tecumseh’s heroic, yet unsuccessful, example is the best historical lesson hunters could learn from and not repeat. Yet, it seems the factors that cause division, even fighting, among tribes with immense common interest, is present in the DNA of all humans and is expressed more when outside forces/dangers increase.
Let’s take this discussion back to the CAT ballot initiative in Colorado and save the distractions for other days and other threads.
It’s turkey season, rampart parking area…
On the downwind side of the largest landfill you can find.
The anti-hunting movement has an advantage by having seized the moniker of “environmentalists” and “animal rights advocates”. Who in their right mind would be for destruction of the environment or animal abuse? Clever marketing trick, but dishonest.
We’re facing an uphill battle to win the support of the 90% of the middle ground, and idiotic infighting doesn’t help. Matter of fact, it’s exactly what they want.
Even if you don’t hunt Colorado, or you don’t hunt cats- if this opportunity is lost, it will 1- displace those hunters to your backyard, 2- give the opposition a win and strengthen their resolve, and 3- create a new normal they can effectively use to gain momentum with other states and other species. In bypassing the current management, they are stealing the hard-won resource outdoorsman have sacrificed over the course of decades to recover.
So put aside your petty schoolyard bullshit, grow up, and realize what is at stake here. This is the necrotizing fasciitis of hunting, and aggressive measures need to be taken immediately to prevent further spread and destruction.
Donation sent.
Ps- The “king’s deer” comment also rubs me wrong. That implies individual ownership of animals, not the public ownership we enjoy here. Citizens of the state own the animals of the state, not a single person. You own the animals of the state you live in, Coloradans own the animals of that state. They don’t have to give you any tags at all, but choose to (for a variety of reasons). Look at how many states don’t give out nonresident tags for elk- WI, ND, SD, MO, KS, etc.
We’re facing an uphill battle to win the support of the 90% of the middle ground, and idiotic infighting doesn’t help. Matter of fact, it’s exactly what they want.
Even if you don’t hunt Colorado, or you don’t hunt cats- if this opportunity is lost, it will 1- displace those hunters to your backyard, 2- give the opposition a win and strengthen their resolve, and 3- create a new normal they can effectively use to gain momentum with other states and other species. In bypassing the current management, they are stealing the hard-won resource outdoorsman have sacrificed over the course of decades to recover.
So put aside your petty schoolyard bullshit, grow up, and realize what is at stake here. This is the necrotizing fasciitis of hunting, and aggressive measures need to be taken immediately to prevent further spread and destruction.
Donation sent.
Ps- The “king’s deer” comment also rubs me wrong. That implies individual ownership of animals, not the public ownership we enjoy here. Citizens of the state own the animals of the state, not a single person. You own the animals of the state you live in, Coloradans own the animals of that state. They don’t have to give you any tags at all, but choose to (for a variety of reasons). Look at how many states don’t give out nonresident tags for elk- WI, ND, SD, MO, KS, etc.
Last edited:
I bet its light on facts and heavy on emotion.
bayoublaster7527
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2017
- Messages
- 485
Definitely light on facts. Probably the most compelling is their survey data that the majority of Coloradans oppose “trophy hunting”. Likely from Rebecca Niemec’s Center for Anti-Hunting Policy at Colorado State University, same folks that predicted the wolf reintroduction vote would be 60-40 then blamed the significant margin of error on far right misinformation.
Zach
Well-known member
The voters in this state have proven over and over again they could care less about facts....
Zach
Well-known member
and probably never set foot in a NF....
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Is Baskin 4th from the right?
elkduds
Well-known member
Sadly, you appear to be correct. If she is your big gun celebrity endorser. . .
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Dubious acclaim means nothing to well meaning self anointed sheep.
Similar threads
