Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

Dan Ashe: former USFWS director, “useful idiot” for the anti-hunting movement

bayoublaster7527

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
451
Just another article from a nationally-acclaimed “Hunter-Conservationist” parroting more disinformation on behalf of the anti-hunting CATS campaign. Former USFWS Director Dan Ashe publicly endorses Colorado Prop 127 to ban mountain lion hunting. Does he realize that he is be used by the openly anti-hunting community as a “useful idiot” and reputable “hunter”? I also saw some of his prior media events with TRCP. Apparently he doesn’t believe sportsmen’s group should waste their time on issues like “right to hunt and fish”. What a disgrace.

 
Didn't read but depending on his stance, his take on enshrining rights to hunting and fishing is not wrong.

People often don't look behind to the impacts...rights can't be regulated or taken away. Passing such measures....if not clearly worded to expressly allow regulation of hunting/fishing and enforcement of laws pertaining to them....could be disastrous.
 
My major concern is his stance on Prop 127 in completely ignoring the negative long term implications and terrible precedent it will set. All laid out many times on this forum in various threads. Your assertion that rights can’t regulated or taken away is false in my estimation. Numerous examples of other rights being limited ie can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater, felons can’t vote or own firearms, current existing gun control laws, etc. Most constitutional rights are not completely absolute. What’s even more shocking is that numerous states have “right to hunt and fish” laws or constitutional amendments and each of those states has a whole pamphlet of hunting and fishing laws and regulations. Sort of discredits that whole argument. This is a straw man argument consistently used by anti-hunting factions to further their campaign to eliminate hunting.
 
Think of a bad management proposal, and there's a good chance CWD could be used to justify it. Not saying CWD isn't an issue, just that, from ending predator hunting to massively hammering already thin ungulate herds, it's used as a reason of persuasion.

What the hell is "Trophy Hunting"? Where is the definition so that I can understand it? I think if we were to replace the symbol with the substance, the definition for it is simply "hunting and trapping certain animals certain folks don't want hunted and trapped".
 
Think of a bad management proposal, and there's a good chance CWD could be used to justify it. Not saying CWD isn't an issue, just that, from ending predator hunting to massively hammering already thin ungulate herds, it's used as a reason of persuasion.

What the hell is "Trophy Hunting"? Where is the definition so that I can understand it? I think if we were to replace the symbol with the substance, the definition for it is simply "hunting and trapping certain animals certain folks don't want hunted and trapped".
From the text of 127

(2) AS USED IN THIS SECTION:19
(a)(I) “TROPHY HUNTING” MEANS INTENTIONALLY:20
(A) KILLING, WOUNDING, PURSUING, OR ENTRAPPING A MOUNTAIN LION, BOBCAT, OR LYNX; OR21
(B) DISCHARGING OR RELEASING ANY DEADLY WEAPON, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-1-901(3)(e), AT A MOUNTAIN LION, BOBCAT, OR22
LYNX.23
 
My major concern is his stance on Prop 127 in completely ignoring the negative long term implications and terrible precedent it will set. All laid out many times on this forum in various threads. Your assertion that rights can’t regulated or taken away is false in my estimation. Numerous examples of other rights being limited ie can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater, felons can’t vote or own firearms, current existing gun control laws, etc. Most constitutional rights are not completely absolute. What’s even more shocking is that numerous states have “right to hunt and fish” laws or constitutional amendments and each of those states has a whole pamphlet of hunting and fishing laws and regulations. Sort of discredits that whole argument. This is a straw man argument consistently used by anti-hunting factions to further their campaign to eliminate hunting.
Funny then how game wardens and professionals who manage our fish and game cried out in alarm over legislation that would have enshrined a right in my state. You really think those people are part of some "anti-hunting faction"? Thankfully our legislature listened. We ended with solid legislation recognizing the valued traditions that should "forever be preserved", with language expressly requiring management and regulation...without the word "right".

There's a host of complaints about things on this board that could easily be made worse with an enshrined right in place.
 
Funny then how game wardens and professionals who manage our fish and game cried out in alarm over legislation that would have enshrined a right in my state. You really think those people are part of some "anti-hunting faction"? Thankfully our legislature listened. We ended with solid legislation recognizing the valued traditions that should "forever be preserved", with language expressly requiring management and regulation...without the word "right".

There's a host of complaints about things on this board that could easily be made worse with an enshrined right in place.
Sounds like a great outcome if you were able to get legislation passed that recognized valued traditions, such as hunting, forever to be preserved. Congratulations, that is an incredible accomplishment. If those biologists and game wardens wanted language that expressly required management and regulation, then no they would not be a “anti-hunting” faction. Unfortunately, the state of play in Colorado is that our valued traditions (hunting) are not preserved and are currently under attack through ballot initiatives.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
113,159
Messages
2,011,234
Members
36,024
Latest member
Smithwltr19
Back
Top