Hunting in U.S. What has to happen to preserve it?

[Huntin_GI]

Hunting is a privilege I know many of you engage in. With that being said I would like you to take a moment and think about what steps you have taken to ensure these opportunities continue to exist for not only you, but for the generations that are still to come.

Politics and social tolerances have become and will continue to be relevant to the decisions that afford us these opportunities. Steve Wagner of Outdoor Life makes a compelling argument in the nessecary changes that will have to be made if we are to protect this way of living. Inaction on our behalf makes us as guilty of eroding those opportunities as PETA protesters getting naked in Time Square.

If extensive thought has to take place for you to be aware of your contributions to protecting the sport of hunting, all signs would indicate you could probably do more. Consider joining an organization that lobbies on the hunters behalf. There are literally 100s of organizations that do that very thing. Be involved. Make a difference. Do your part in protecting this way of life.

Attached is a link to the article I referenced in the articlehttp://docdro.id/CYdPN9s

 

[VAspeedgoat]

Good stuff

 

[Huntin_GI]

Thanks speedgoat

 

[Gr8bawana]

I sure hope none of you are thinking of getting naked in Times Square to fight PETA!

 

[bigskyblueman]

This is part of it.https://ballotpedia.org/Montana_Right_to_Wild_Game_Hunting_and_Fishing,_C-41_(2004)

 

[Huntin_GI]

What do y'all think of these recommendations? I especially like the landowner tag allocation ideas.

 

[JohnCushman]

The problem with PETA protesters getting naked, is that the ones you'd actually want to see naked end up being hippie chicks that don't shaves themselves and that's just gross

 

[hank4elk]

What do y'all think of these recommendations? I especially like the landowner tag allocation ideas.

Can't seem to find it. ? LO tags?

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

I study this quite hard and as I see it alot of the blame gets put on what party is in charge in Washington. That to me is a total cop out as you had to elect them at a county and then state level for them to get to be the azz clowns we are dealing with today. I make sure if something is available to me to put a bug in a Politician's ear or a Media Figure you have to do that while vetting the ones who get in line to reprsent us. John

 

[airlocksniffer]

The problem with PETA protesters getting naked, is that the ones you'd actually want to see naked end up being hippie chicks that don't shaves themselves and that's just gross

Oh shit, where's the weed wacker?

On a small level, explaining to people why I hunt (meat not racks) and encouraging my kids and other kids to consider hunting. As silly as they are, the hipster/locavore hunting interest is something we should nurture and encourage.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Missing principle 1 & 2 from the article.

 

[Huntin_GI]

Damn Technology.

Ok. For some reason I am able to view the Feb/Mar article on my PC but was able to screen shot the page that was missing from the above link.

Of course my reference was from the unattached page. With that being said, the 2nd principle HUNTING OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL. The retooling orders is suggests include several measures.

The 5th retooling order suggested is to "Cap the profits from private sales of LO tags. Make LO tags non-transferrable except through a buyback program administered by state wildlife agencies. Insist that LO-tag seasons conform to standard state seasons. No special extended seasons just for private-land hunters. " (Wagner, 2016)

Wagner also points out the need for absolute transparency from the nonprofit organizations selling special tags on behalf of states which I also concurred with.

 

[Huntin_GI]

Also, Cushman, I bet you got a gnarlier bush the than any of the hippies in Times Sq lol

 

[MiStickSlinger]

Ok. For some reason I am able to view the Feb/Mar article on my PC but was able to screen shot the page that was missing from the above link.

Of course my reference was from the unattached page. With that being said, the 2nd principle HUNTING OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL. The retooling orders is suggests include several measures.

The 5th retooling order suggested is to "Cap the profits from private sales of LO tags. Make LO tags non-transferrable except through a buyback program administered by state wildlife agencies. Insist that LO-tag seasons conform to standard state seasons. No special extended seasons just for private-land hunters. " (Wagner, 2016)

Wagner also points out the need for absolute transparency from the nonprofit organizations selling special tags on behalf of states which I also concurred with.

I have no problem with landowners getting whatever they can get, especially if someone is willing to pay them the money, if it incentivizes them to maintain good wildlife habitat, then I think that's a positive thing.

 

[airlocksniffer]

I have no problem with landowners getting whatever they can get, especially if someone is willing to pay them the money, if it incentivizes them to maintain good wildlife habitat, then I think that's a positive thing.

I disagree. The animals belong to the people. If we continue to have landowners charging premiums for access to our animals, hunting becomes an activity for people with means. For example, many landowners in MT charge for bull elk hunts w/o access to cows but piss and moan about too many cows and how FWP should pay for the reduction (see MT Shoulder Seasons). Too many elk on your land? Open it up for block management or other public access.

 

[mixedbag]

Me and Cushman should go get naked on times square to prove the need for fur clothing to cover us back up,lol
I see the problem as hunting being a hobby for most and most not getting to involved with an already busy life.While animal rights people hire full time employees and run massive propaganda ads to pull at the heartstrings of the majority though mostly false advertising.and, they have pretty much all been discovered to be frauds as relation to how much of the money donated is actually used in animal welfare.Yet, they keep pulling it in with their TV ads.Now wolves will be released into Co.why aren't we pushing TV ads showing the true destruction the wolves wolves have on wildlife populations?Why aren't we pushing the fact that these aren't even the same strain of wolves that were removed long ago.We need to get our voice in front of the public with the same TV ads they run.Little Ms soccer mom has no idea how much hunters contribute to conservation and wildlife,and feeding the hungry.All she sees is those animal rights ads on Tv showing us in a different light.these congressmen base their votes on the wants of the majority of their voting population.We need to get to those people probably more so then your local congressman
I'd love to see an ad on TV showing a pack of wolves doing what they do and showing them shredding a little elk calve ,or slowly eating one alive.With that, we could post a caption stating "coming to a park near you for your families viewing pleasure"We need to get out into the public eye and fight fire with fire,imo
Not sure the landowner tag stuff is a good idea.That causes in fighting between us,and would get ranchers against us as well.Though I'm not for it,sadly, I think that's here to stay,and don't see any gain from alienating ranchers who are on our side for the most part.I'd be more focused on keeping public land available to us for good.So some of this article makes sense to me other parts do not.I can live without being able to hunt someones PRIVATE property.How they make use of it should be up to them.Public land is a totally different argument altogether.I would like to see license cost more to be able to gain more public access to private land,but again, this is a hobby for most if not all hunters.I think most states are close to the limits a NR will pay
But, I still mainly think our focus should be on the average person watching TV to get our message to

 

[Huntin_GI]

LO Tags/Community Engagement/Cushman Naked

LO Tags-
The lack of engaging in honest debate due to the risk of losing support from Ranchers is a platform Randy and others point out is a serious problem within the hunting community. If we operate in a way is timid in the face of confrontation, this hobby we all enjoy will not survive the 21st century. We as a community must have the ability to engage in these discussions and move toward a more effective mean implementing necessary change.

I don't believe that landowners should have their tags stripped. I caveat this with they are as entitled to tags as everyone who is applying for tags across the west. If the goal is to incentivize habitat development, that is easily achievable by means that do not take resources from the people. As soon as you high wire a property you have essentially claimed ownership of all the animals living within those confines. In doing so you have stripped me of an opportunity at quality animals, meat for my family, and meaningful experiences.

I will refrain from diving into the issues associated with LO blocking access to public land for a later date.

Community Engagement-
Someone spoke to the importance of community engagement which got me to think how do we articulate the importance, we as a hunting community, play in scheme of wildlife well-being, public access for all, and our way of life without distancing ourselves from the soccer-moms and suburbanites that play and will continue to play a critical role in the political arena which will ultimately dictate our future?

TV is a start but is a market that is on the downward slide with more and more millennials cutting cable from their lives. I feel the next frontier in achieving the goal of improve our social status lies in social media, YouTube, and other on-demand video providers.

The HUSHIN channel over on YouTube does an excellent job of telling the stories that are the hunt. This alongside grass roots movements to engage youth and make hunting and procuring your own meat "cool" are critical to the future of hunting.

We have to distance ourselves from the high fenced hunt crowd due to the public's distaste for such practices. Hunting is an activity i am proud to say I take part in and when I have to defend such practices just because those types of operations identify their practices as hunting will degrade any attempts we make to further our positions.

Cushman Naked-
Now everytime I come back to this thread my first thought is Cushman is going to upload a full frontal nudie selfie and he will hairy that he appears to be wearing a chewbaca suit. lol Cushman I'm jk. But seriously no naked selfies.

 

[hank4elk]

Thanks.
As a guy who mostly hunted public for 45rs,but had access to a few ranches.I understand the outlooks.
I'm kinda torn.
I brought up the subject with BF here once, big ranches,access,LO tags...................and I saw him grimmice...I let it go. He was here to hunt.

Now I get them because I have what they need here,year round water,feed,some cover. Even on my little 140. Ranch Only. No leased public lands.
I do not get high dollar due to obvious limitations.But they get pushed onto and stay here due to outside pressure on public lands from draw hunters,and the huge outfitted places that surround me.
Old homestead with years of overgrazing.
What I have received in 6 yrs in program has not paid for neglected maintenance on one windmill&tank ,a solar pump system,seed/plants for habitat restoration,fence repair ,as it is to Keep Range Cattle Out& the few head I now can run,in. Basiclly redid fence to allow access by elk & antelope.
I have done all the work,myself.
NMG&F works with me, constantly observing and giving input. They even cut my tags in half and increased draw numbers in the unit due to huge increase in unit numbers last year.
I was OK with that too. I am seeing the improvements work for wildlife daily.
But the public lands reach carrying capacity.There is only so much to hunt.Only so much accessable public lands in my unit. Only so much food & water.
Others are furious that they were cut with no notice and lost huge.Feed bought to offset elk foraging & seed .
for rye.
But the thought of letting the general public have access without liability covered or just knowing the average NM hunter I see at times, there is no way in hell.
Sorry. I'll get out of system.
Elk do eat a bunch & do damage. If you cut livestock to increase elk feed,etc. you loose $.
NM is open range. Fencing costs are said to be $5-15k per mi.

As to ranches that lock up access to BLM & state,I'm totally against it.

And places that hold mass numbers as the public shoves them off stuff they can hunt or just has too many hunters is different story and needs rethinking.
I do believe the system is corrupt in NM with 1-20 ac places in Premium units getting UW MB tags that go for $5-10k is wrong.
It needs to be reworked. The public should have access to their lands locked by gates & fences.
I think access thru would be a win/win.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's my thoughts:

Still can't see #1, so I will refrain from that.

#2: He's got some good ideas relative to broadening what gear falls under PR/DJ/WB legislation and of course I like permanent reauthorization and fully funding the Land & Water Conservation Fund.

Some of the concepts he posits are good in theory, but in application would be next to impossible as they are subjective. What constitutes inefficiency in a state wildlife agency? 2B, a sales tax, would have to be done on a state by state basis, and even then you'll run in to issues regarding states that have no sales tax. Federally, sales taxes are political suicide. When the congress tried to tax internet sales, they had to back away from it quickly. Given the political climate, it would make much more sense to focus efforts like this at the state level, which many states are already doing, as is the Blue Ribbon panel on Hunting & Fishing, chaired by former Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal. 2E, the landowner tag issue is another one that each, individual state would have to take up, leading to either a perceived takings from landowners or in erosion of the NAM as the political process picks the "wrong" winner. It's not a bad idea, but one that needs to be approached very cautiously. Lest anything think I support transferable LO tags, I don't. I think they lead to greater privatization of wildlife and should be eliminated where possible, and never allowed to establish where they do not exist.

3: The Wildlife Management Institute has repeatedly said that the social sciences are important when it comes to wildlife management. Many professionals will tell you quietly that wildlife management is primarily people management. Glad to see he is recognizing that in his suggestions. As this section relates to public land management, I have concerns. Especially with EAJA. Under no circumstance, should Americans give up the right to seek redress against their government. That means we find a better way to eliminate the lawsuits including better funding for land management agencies and finding other paths, like what was in the last farm bill or possibly even changing how we engage in planning altogether. While we all agree that the level of lawsuits has hit an epidemic level, eliminating the rights of people in favor of development is anti-conservation, and should not be welcomed too eagerly. Prioritizing where funds go happens in every agency. I'm not sure what he means with that, especially given the science on predators is pretty clear in relation to increasing fawn survival and recruitment. If we want to do that, then let's prioritize funding for habitat improvement over wasting it on gov't spending for predator control, which has had no fruit borne from those very expensive loins. The last two seem fine to me. But I'm an opportunity kind of guy.

4.) I think the author gets that one pretty correct.

5.) The prohibition on the commercial sale of wildlife should not be messed with. Creating a market for wild goose pate sounds good when there is an over-abundance, but what happens to the resource when the market demand far outstrips available supply? Wildlife populations are cyclical, and creating a market based on consumption is what led us to the downfall we saw in the 1800's. Although I very much agree with his point 5A.

6.) Again, I think it is short-sighted to eliminate the will of the people when it comes to wildlife management. Montana, for example, would still have problems with game farms if not for ballot initiatives. Initiatives are important tools especially when we cannot get our legislatures to act appropriately. Yes, anti-hunters use them to limit activities not based on science or ethics, but on their feelings, but that's part of being an American - fighting for what you believe in. If we cannot withstand poorly thought out initiatives, I don't think it's worth reducing the level of freedoms we enjoy in this country. Scrapping# 6 is a very bad idea, especially since it simply removes the voice of the owner of wildlife - the people. All people. Not just hunters.

7.) On the surface, I think I could support that. It's important to remember, however, that the USFWS isn't a state game agency, focused on opportunity for hunters. They have a much broader role than that these days, as do all wildlife agencies. We can't get to a bright future by clinging to the past just as we can't find a better direction by ignoring the sucesses of yesteryear.

Thanks for posting. Nice, thought-provoking article. OL continues to put out good content.