Hunters For Non-Game Species

[MNH20FowlHunter]

I was listen to a Hunting Collective Podcast with Shane Mahoney in it, the 2 part one. I highly recommend listening to both of them Episodes 51 and 52. https://www.themeateater.com/listen/the-hunting-collective-2 One thing that Shane brought up and I'm curious on would be the idea of hunting groups directly supporting Non-Game Species. I know almost all of our current hunting groups out there support habitat which in turn supports more then just the game those groups represent. I think we as hunters all like animals and the proper management of all animals. My questions to everyone would be. As hunters would you support a group made of hunters that support just those non-game species? It would be a group of hunters/lead by hunters that purely support the non-game species. This isn't a full thought but hopefully enough to start a discussion.

My opinion: I know there are other groups out there that do support non game species but I'm guessing the hesitations to support those groups are the anti hunting sentiment that those groups carry. That's why I would be curious to see if those non-game species would gain the support if the group supporting them was a hunting group. To the point that Shane was making in those podcast if we as hunters are going to remain relevant we need to do what we did with the game species that we almost wiped off the face the the earth 100 years ago and apply that to non game species that are in trouble. Yes I know we carry and have carried a large load for conservation for a long time but I think to remain the leaders in that realm we need to step out beyond the species we hunt.

 

[Nameless Range]

The day the Rocky Mountain Rock Chuck Society comes to fruition, I will be their first member.




That said, when I see the efficacy of some of the conservation orgs out there that understand hunting's role in conservation, it definitely makes me think there is room for more species-centric groups, as the ones that are out there make a large and positive difference that ripples beyond their focus. I've no reason to believe this wouldn't be true for non-game species as well.

I'll have to give those episodes a listen.

 

[88man]

20 years ago my favorite hunting was groundhog hunting.

 

[Gary]

What are examples of "non-game species"? I'm not sure that "chucks" or ground hogs would be(?). I can see 90+% of birds would be classed as such. Mice, voles, shrews and rats, sure, but what are some others?
I've been a bird feeder (watcher) for most of my life and get a kick out of a new sighting. Getting trail cam pics of flying squirrels on a bird feeder (at night) is cool, too. ALL wild life is interconnected. If non-game species disappear in a habitat, the habitat is probably unsuitable for game species, too.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

^ Raptors, amphibians, bats, marine mammals, fish, etc.
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/us-species.html

 

[NEWHunter]

I’d say come up with Pittman-Robertson type acts for other consumers. Maybe they already exist, but what about a tax on boats for water related issues or campers to support some of those non game species?

 

[OverlordBear]

They need a Pittman Roberts Act for skiing, rock climbing, backpacking, mountain biking, and all construction materials for human development. If a human activity disrupts wildlife and their habitat then it should have to offset that disruption with excise taxes to promote and increase the quality of the remaining habitat and wildlife.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Our Nevada Department of Wildlife used to be the Nevada Department of Fish & Game. I wonder how much $$$ was siphoned away to promote all other wildlife?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

They need a Pittman Roberts Act for skiing, rock climbing, backpacking, mountain biking, and all construction materials for human development. If a human activity disrupts wildlife and their habitat then it should have to offset that disruption with excise taxes to promote and increase the quality of the remaining habitat and wildlife.

The REI side of the recreation spectrum has rejected the backpack tax on a number of occasions. Sportmen and women wanted the P&R tax, not sure if your average weekend skier cares if they see any animals on their excursions.

But hey Patagonia won’t sell logo wear to the energy industry so the planet is totally going to be fine.

 

[MNH20FowlHunter]

The more thought I put into it isn't necessary about who carries the load but more about how hunters are perceived. A common comment I get from non-hunters when you bring up all the different conservation groups is "yea that's great, you conserve habitat so that there are more animals you can hunt". I would love to be able to counter that with something else out there that we can point to and go well no not only do we do that but here is another group that hunters contribute to/operate that the mission isn't more of a single game animal on the landscape to hunt but the expansion of a non game species. I think something like that would carry a lot of weight in the future. It would at least give us (hunters) another foot to stand on when defending what we do and why we do it.

 

[BigHornRam]

This is an example of hunting and conservation groups coming together in the Bitterroot to get youth involved in conservation across the board.

Teller Wildlife Refuge hosts 6th annual Youth Expo

CORVALLIS — There's nothing quite like seeing a kid catch their first trout.

ravallirepublic.com

I dont think we need more conservation groups. I think we need more conservation group doing work like this.

 

[Gary]

Our Nevada Department of Wildlife used to be the Nevada Department of Fish & Game. I wonder how much $$$ was siphoned away to promote all other wildlife?

One hand feeds the other - if habitat is improved for deer, so too is the habitat improved for non-game species living within the habitat. All the groups that work to improve conditions for one species are working to improve conditions for all (natural) species living in conjunction with each other. That is the true benefit of organizations such as RMEF, DU, NWTF and others.

 

[ARKANSASHUNTER]

The more thought I put into it isn't necessary about who carries the load but more about how hunters are perceived. A common comment I get from non-hunters when you bring up all the different conservation groups is "yea that's great, you conserve habitat so that there are more animals you can hunt". I would love to be able to counter that with something else out there that we can point to and go well no not only do we do that but here is another group that hunters contribute to/operate that the mission isn't more of a single game animal on the landscape to hunt but the expansion of a non game species. I think something like that would carry a lot of weight in the future. It would at least give us (hunters) another foot to stand on when defending what we do and why we do it.

Exactly my thoughts and I am pretty sure this is what Shane is eluding to except he advocates that groups such as Buckmasters, RMEF, WTF, Ducks Unlimited etc designate a small percentage of their funds specifically to non game species just to eliminate the anti hunting argument that hunters only care about animals they hunt.
Being a scuba diver I split my donations every year between hunting/conservation groups and ocean conservation groups.

I think Shane is a visionary and that when he speaks we should listen, for the future of hunting. The culture is always changing and we need to change our approaches as well.