Hunters, Who Should You Vote For?

[JoseCuervo]

WH,
I think animals have a "right" to live and a place to live, so we set up the ESA as the "minimum right".

If we, as Hunters, want more than the "minimum", then we have to provide the habitat for healthy populations for us to shoot. I think the individual animal does not have the "rights", but the collective herd does...

It is funny how many people in this thread can not answer a simple question. Some, like Ten Beers, posted the same irrelevant answer twice, just like he was taught in 3rd grade, in order to remember how to write his name...

 

[Ten Bears]

EG, the weed free hay is not a good substitute for your prescribed meds...... Maybe you should think about what you read before you try to belittle another with your nonsensical responses.

 

[nmtaxi]

WH, sorry I used the word "rights". Maybe "interests" sounds better to you. If an animal has the right to a place to live, I guess that means they have the right to "live" period. That's what the anti's have been arguing all along. I just feel that Bush is much more likely to listen to sportsmen's groups, than Kerry. Kerry will listen to the Sierra Club, and PETA, and all these groups that carry the Endangered Species Act on their hip, and draw it any chance they get. And they always point it in the same direction : the hunter's. I just know that if Bush is elected again, my "interests" will still be intact, and any issues involving the deer herd in my state can be handled at the local and state level. If I don't want a road through my favorite hunting spot, I'll deal with my local represtentatives, and the people who make those decisons.

 

[JoseCuervo]

DSims,
Is the road you don't want on Federal land or on State land?

What about cross-border animals (Salmon) and the Federal responsiblitly to manage them?

Are you sure that the Conservation groups are anti-hunting???

 

[Washington Hunter]

D Sims, I just think it's humorous when hunter's "rights" are brought up, that's all. As far as I know we as hunters don't have any specific rights. The Endangered Species Act I actually see as a benefit to hunters, and to me if Kerry supports the ESA that would be a reason to vote for him. I also see groups like the Sierra Club as being allies to us as hunters. I realize many hunters somehow think they are the enemy, but I will never understand why. If they are for protecting wildlife habitat and the environment then they are on our side. But again, I see neither presidential candidate as a good choice from a hunter's perspective. (or any perspective)

 

[nmtaxi]

EG, I'll have to plead ingnorance on the salmon issue. What I do know, is that the SFW, by organizing sportsmen in Utah, and fighting for conservation at the local level, has done more for conservation and habitat than the Sierra Club, or any of these other anti...errrr..conservation groups ever have. And it needs to happen in every state.

Am I sure that the Conservation groups are anti-hunting? Well, I damn sure they aren't being run by sportsmen. They'll "join forces" with us when it pushes their agenda, but they'll go against at any time for the same reason. So I don't see any need to give them any more power. I'll send my money to the SCI, SFW, RMEF anyday over the Sierra Club.

 

[JoseCuervo]

DSims,
All of these groups are nothing more than the sum of the members. I support many of them, and they know I do it as a hunter and a fisherman.

Don't you think that makes them realize the importance of hunting and fishing? I have found very few (none) conservation groups that are against hunting. (There might be individual members who are opposed, but not the Org.)

Does anybody know of any???

And can you back up your claim that SFW has done more than the Sierra Club and all the other groups?

 

[nmtaxi]

EG, here is a link to the SFW site where they break down the money and projects they've done in Utah. http://www.sfwsfh.org/currentevents/site.pl?page=70904
I guess organizations are a sum of their members, but every anti-hunter I know (and I work with a lot of them) belong to the Sierra Club. I'm guessing they wouldn't belong if they felt the group was pro-hunting.

This is an interesting thread. Animal's have rights, hunters don't, and the Sierra Club Rules!!!! Sounds like it's copied and pasted from the PETA website.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Yes and fish have a right to swim up free-flowing rivers like their ancestors have done for hundreds of thousands of years, until we humans came along and dammed them up, right EG?

 

[Ten Bears]

As a VETERAN \ HUNTER \ FISHERMAN, I can guarantee I'll vote. Who I vote for is my business. That I VOTE should be enough.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ten Beers,
We are all proud of you voting. Do you also vote for student body president, and home room representative??? Do the Cafeteria ladies give you chocolate milk on "election" day???

If you were to just consider Hunting issues, and vote as a Hunter, who should you vote for???

 

[1_pointer]

On hunting issues along, I'd vote for Jack Ward Thomas. From what I can see he's done a fair share of good for hunters. If I'm mistaken on his tour of duty as head of the USFS let me know. I'd REALLY like to vote for Val Geist, but being dead and a Canadian that's not possible. That guy was a hunter-conservationist of the highest rank.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Val Geist dead? Since when? I never heard anything about it.

 

[JoseCuervo]

You ever see the SNL game show "Dead or Canadian"? They would list somebody's name, and the contestants had to decide if they were dead, or Canadian....

Bryan Adams
Lorne Greene
John Candy
Val Geist

 

[IdahoCritterGetter]

We as hunters do have rights! The Right to hunt or not to hunt and every "True Hunter" should believe in and practice conservation and the management of Wildlife habitat. I would love for my kids and their kids to enjoy hunting and fishing the way I have. People should vote regardless, nothing else vote for Moosie...lol. Voteing is a Right too, after all thats what made America this wonderful country to live in!

EG,
Bush gets my vote!

 

[Ithaca 37]

Anyone who wants wildlife managed so there will be some for future generations would be nuts to vote for Bush. He's destroying more wildlife habitat than any President in history.

 

[JohnSWA]

Not true Idahocrittergetter. We do not have the "right" to hunt. Hunting is a privildedge that we have to pay for ie license and tags. No where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it state "The Right to Hunt".

I don't mean to sound anal or intrusive, but it bothers me when people spout out about rights that they don't really have.

 

[1_pointer]

True JohnSWA. I think there are a few states that have tried and may have gotten a 'right to hunt' clause put into their state constitutions. However, I think all have the requirement that the animal populations need it for control. I think Georgia was the first.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Critter Getter,

Why does Bush get YOUR vote, as a HUNTER? I am not interested in who you ARE going to vote for, but mereley, as a HUNTER, who SHOULD you vote for, and why?

 

[Nemont]

Ithaca

Anyone who wants wildlife managed so there will be some for future generations would be nuts to vote for Bush. He's destroying more wildlife habitat than any President in history .

I hear this all the time but nobody seems to be able to come back with facts that support that position. You may want to go back and read up on your history. Look at FDR and his presidency, remember all the dams built then or perhaps LBJ and what he did to the environment.

Or did you just hear that the president is raping the planet and decide that must be true because a liberal said it?

Nemont