Just to raise your blood pressure...
- Thread starter Ben Long
- Start date
LuketheDog
Well-known member
Gotta do a little Trump voter mudslinging at the end there just to get the Google hits up, very deep thinking. I'm beginning to recognize that theres a vast demographic of people who consider themselves "educated", for whom that "education" has only served the purpose of cramming their own head even farther up their rear-end than it was before...
3855WIN
Well-known member
Western Montana, from Glacier to Yellowstone, needs to turn into a wilderness area where griz can roam. We hear, "keep it public". But I also hear, "let me live in the middle of it". Hard to have it both ways. If we don't want to do this, we may have to be ok with griz being mainly a Canadian animal.
After reading that I would take his Scientific "credentials" to wipe my backside. He is obviously peeved about the possible griz hunt.
Also, while I am a white male that hunts I am neither uneducated nor did I vote for Trump.
I've read better rants.
I also where where the funding came from that paid his salary all those years?
Also, while I am a white male that hunts I am neither uneducated nor did I vote for Trump.
I've read better rants.
I also where where the funding came from that paid his salary all those years?
Last edited:
Thats not true at all.
OriginalOscar
Active member
Maybe Yvon could invite the Dr. to future BHA talk to explain the enlightened views they share.
MNH20FowlHunter
Member
What vanish said.
whiskeydog
Active member
counterpunch is a worthless rag! they don't even have enough subscribers to support their business and instead have to resort to donations from those that hold their same political beliefs. you could say they are left wing, but they aren't even that. they are more in line with jill stein and the green party. I doubt you could find a single hunting related opinion that you believe in that counterpunch would support. I went to high school with the managing editor...his opinions on things are so far out there that it's not even worth arguing about.
BluegrassBilly
Active member
Take the first half of the article (before he turns to bears), and his criticisms of the hunting community have some merit. This is the sort of image of hunting that Randy and his guests have been talking about for years. It's the image our media has projected - all about the kill and no respect for the animal. And the fact that our game and fish boards are comprised almost entirely of white men chosen from within the hunting community is undeniable. Are there justifications for the way we as a community conduct ourselves? Maybe, but then again not always. Socrates had something to say about not examining the life you lead.
I'm not saying I agree with the guy, but if we can't defend the allegations leveled against us, and address our deficiencies, our days of essentially self-regulation might be numbered.
I'm not saying I agree with the guy, but if we can't defend the allegations leveled against us, and address our deficiencies, our days of essentially self-regulation might be numbered.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I generally agree with your thoughtful remarks, but I doubt the audience for this type of hyperbole is seeking a more respectful, introspective and diverse hunting crowd - to them these animals are sentient beings worthy of the same rights and protections as people -- so no killing is OK, regardless of the manner of the hunter. I am not saying outdoorsman still shouldn't seek to become more respectful, introspective and diverse -- I am just saying we should do it because it is the right thing to do and not be under any illusion that it will mollify the antis. The antis will not be satisfied until every hunt is illegal and every gun & bow are melted down.
Ben Long
Well-known member
I think both Vikingsguy and Bluegrass Billy make valid points here. It's a waste of time to argue with people who have already made up their minds and are dead set against you. At the same time, the die-hard antis make up a small slice of the spectrum of people out there. The real point is to address the open-minded people who haven't set a firm opinion. Mattson raises some valid points, but then goes overboard with broadside smears and name-calling, along with selective amnesia about history. There's room for improvement without blowing up the North American model. Mattson throws the buck out with the gutpile, so to speak.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ben, I agree with you here, that both Vikingsguy and Bluegrass Billy have valid points and concerns.
Where I disagree is that Mattson raises any kind of valid point at all, and even if there may be a valid point mixed in somewhere within that crap he wrote, he squanders those points.
I also have to wonder where Mattson was while the recovery of grizzly bears was taking place and why he chooses NOW to take his pot shots at the North American Model?
I know the answer, he's all sored up that the North American Model as well as the ESA has been shown to be successful in recovering species like grizzly bears and wolves. Sportsmen have for a long, long time used the same model to recover elk, deer, pronghorn, wild sheep, bison, waterfowl and the list goes on and on. Also, the NAM and hunter dollars have done an incredible job of funding all wildlife, both game and non-game species.
Mattson can cry all he wants, but I think its fair to keep in mind that in Wyoming hunters and anglers have funded grizzly bear management to the tune of $50,000,000, yes 50 MILLION, over the last 20 years. This is money that was directly earmarked for grizzly recovery via the NAM that he claims is such a "failure".
I would like to know how much money Mattson, and those with his mindset have contributed to grizzly bear recovery. I seriously doubt anything close to 50 million.
Whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees with hunting grizzly bears is not the point, the point is that the NAM works and provides funding for all wildlife found within the borders of our 50 states. The ESA has been proven to work via a number of recovered species.
What Mattson doesn't have behind him is the actual facts, science and the successful history of the NAM of wildlife conservation.
I also believe that hunters and anglers should do a better job of trumpeting successes like the recovery of wolves and grizzly bears to the point that states regain management control. We should do a better job of reminding everyone just how much money and time we spend enhancing habitat, recovering species, maintaining wildlife populations, protecting public lands, access to public lands, all that stuff.
Hunters and Anglers do all that and more...and IMO, much too quietly.
JM77
Well-known member
This article make me want to go bear hunting with Greenhorn.
TheNorthStar
Well-known member
dannyb278
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 574
We live in this amazing world that allows for multiple opinions, nuisance and something beyond binary "if not this, than that" so while I can say I disagree with Chouinard on some issues, I can shake his hand for having a conversation.
We would all do better to remember a time when respectful discussion and disagreements went beyond 140 word twitter rants and FB memes.
To the OP, the article clearly shows a scientist who does not now, or maybe ever really believed in the Scientific Method, the North American Model or is able to have a nuanced (there's that word again) view of history.
To Dukes, not having a nuanced view is what got us into this mess, the wholesale eradication of apex predators and game species in the 1800s, resulted in this pendulum swing.
Last edited:
COEngineer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,526
same
Stillhunterman
Member
https://medium.com/@gbryja/navigati...-the-grizzly-bears-in-the-age-of-800e61b691c2
"Aldo Leopold, in 1933, first described wildlife management as “the art of making land produce sustained annual crops of wild game for recreational use.” [1] But after shooting a wolf and watching “a fierce green fire dying in her eyes” [2], he realized how wrong he was about this utilitarian approach to wildlife management. Leopold’s views changed dramatically over his lifetime, but we still largely follow the approach to conservation he first put forth. "
the developers of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation continue to portray recreational hunters as saviours of wildlife and principal actors behind our wildlife conservation efforts."
"Firstly, by focusing on hunters as the main actors in enacting conservation policies, the model fails to acknowledge a more recent reshaping of the conservation movement. Some researchers, including Canadian environmental scientist Paul Paquet, argue that since the 1960s the whole environmental movement — and with it, wildlife conservation — has been largely shaped by non-hunters and nature enthusiasts — groups that the North American Model disregards. Furthermore, the original model fails on ethical grounds. For example, the interests of hunters who are focused on the management of ungulates for hunting purposes are often in conflict with conservation principles that recognize the ecological role of predators. "
The movement is growing, and lest 'we' become more vocal/proactive as Buzz suggests, we just may find ourselves and our hunting heritage unrecognizable in the near future.
archer wapiti
Member
I was curious and clicked on the link, which takes me to a page where I can sign a petition to the President... Obama?
Stillhunterman
Member
lol...the link works for me just fine. Here's the title of the article, just google it. :0)
Navigating the Anthropocene: embracing compassion and empathy for the grizzly bears in the age of uncertainty and unpredictability
Navigating the Anthropocene: embracing compassion and empathy for the grizzly bears in the age of uncertainty and unpredictability
The author needs to lay off the thesaurus. Like others have said, this makes me want to put in for the Wyoming grizz draw purely out of spite for him being a pretentious asshat.
