M David Allen

[junior88]

Allen's editorial in the new Bugle issue is spot on. We hunters arguing amongst ourselves just drives me nuts. It's one of the things that drives me nuts the most about hunting forums, unfortunately this one sometimes. I know we can't always agree but it can be downright embarrassing at times. We need to unite because the upcoming public land battle is going to be the fight of our lives. The hunters of the future are depending on us.

 

[----]

What about the argument between hunters that are pro-public land and the ones that are pro-sell off or pro- transfer?

 

[RobG]

never mind...

 

[VAspeedgoat]

Allen's editorial in the new Bugle issue is spot on. We hunters arguing amongst ourselves just drives me nuts. It's one of the things that drives me nuts the most about hunting forums, unfortunately this one sometimes. I know we can't always agree but it can be downright embarrassing at times. We need to unite because the upcoming public land battle is going to be the fight of our lives. The hunters of the future are depending on us.

You are 100% right about hunters but also sportsmen in general. We would rather argue over crossbows, access, long range shooting, etc, than to stand together for more opportunity for all. Fly fishers to bait fishers, wilderness guy to the guy on the side of the road, crossbow vs compound, why do we care if someone else gets an opportunity as long as we get one. I truly do fear that we will all lose in the end and we will be the ones that did it to ourselves. It won't be PETA or the humane society, it will be us. We will all be used as pawns because we turn on each other.

 

[NKQualtieri]

Is there a link to this article so I can catch it online? Thanks!

 

[Nameless Range]

To me these "Why can't we all just get along" arguments are not useful.

So If someone wants to legalize baiting bear in Montana and I disagree I should just keep my mouth shut to present a united front? How about if someone wants to legalize scouting with drones during the season? At what point are sportsmen allowed to have an opinion? I just think we need to do our best to present our case, disagreement or not. This is sort of humorous coming from David Allen.

Those who think disagreement will be our downfall are missing the forest for the trees. Even if all hunters agreed on an issue, they would still constitute such a small portion of the electorate that against a majority opposition we would not stand a chance. Thus, we need to strive, and sometimes argue with one another, for a hunting ethic that is condoned by those who do not hunt at all.

I've quoted Rinella before:

"We hunt at the pleasure of non-hunters."

Hard to swallow but true.

 

[VAspeedgoat]

Nameless, I deffinately understand what you are saying but I still think we need to find common ground. Rinella is correct, but our own bickering has a huge effect on that. Using the bear bait example, if the baiter and houndsmen or even the long range shooter all bicker about ethics they are being used to squeeze bear hunters out of opportunity as a whole. Maine just went through some of this just last year and yes after they took baiting they were coming after hounds. Thankfully they didn't win.......yet. Conversly, drones shows the other side of the getting along debate. I agree with you that its not cut and dry to get along, but we need to try to be more inclusive when we can. Yes we are a minority, but we have money to spend on licenses and that has power. The more inclusive we are to keep participation high, then the more power we have. Just like mine and your viewpoint on this subject, I feel somewhere in the middle is probably best for the majority. Nothing is ever cut and dry right or wrong I just feel too often we can't have open dialogue without turning against each other over small issues. I don't know what the ultimate answer really is but I feel that if we argue over forests and trees we will eventually have our opportunities taken away.

 

[RobG]

Is there a link to this article so I can catch it online? Thanks!

Here's a scan. David has to come up with something for every Bugle issue and, quite frankly, this topic is what you write about when you run out of good ideas. Longbow hunters snubbing compound bow hunters won't hurt our sport because both parties support hunting.

The claim that "we need to stick together" comes up when someone divides the community by proposing change and then whines about needing to get along or the antis will get us. Sometimes it is better to oppose a bad idea than to just get along. Hunting with AR-style rifles casts us in a negative light with the other 95% but you get Zumbo'd if you speak out. That's wrong.

RMEF has come up with some dumb ideas such as their support of the Roadless Area Release Act and if us hunters simply drank their kool-aid we would be worse off.

 

[RockyDog]

Right on Robg!

 

[Cornell2012]

So if we are supposed to not argue with each other, who decides what the official "hunter/fisher/outdoorsperson" stance is? The NRA? The Boone and Crockett Club? The GOP?

 

[1_pointer]

So if we are supposed to not argue with each other, who decides what the official "hunter/fisher/outdoorsperson" stance is? The NRA? The Boone and Crockett Club? The GOP?

Me.

 

[sweetnectar]

We should do a HT poll on who the biggest arguers are on HT. Seem like when I visit this site there are the typical group of people arguing over who knows what. I've found I visit this form far less as a result.

 

[Cornell2012]

Me.

1_pointer for president.

 

[tjones]

To me these "Why can't we all just get along" arguments are not useful.

So If someone wants to legalize baiting bear in Montana and I disagree I should just keep my mouth shut to present a united front? How about if someone wants to legalize scouting with drones during the season? At what point are sportsmen allowed to have an opinion? I just think we need to do our best to present our case, disagreement or not. This is sort of humorous coming from David Allen.

Those who think disagreement will be our downfall are missing the forest for the trees. Even if all hunters agreed on an issue, they would still constitute such a small portion of the electorate that against a majority opposition we would not stand a chance. Thus, we need to strive, and sometimes argue with one another, for a hunting ethic that is condoned by those who do not hunt at all.

I've quoted Rinella before:

"We hunt at the pleasure of non-hunters."

Hard to swallow but true.

This.

 

[kansasdad]

Seem like when I visit this site there are the typical group of people arguing over who knows what. I've found I visit this form far less as a result.

.....and we are poorer for that....... I I mean it on both sentences.

 

[MT_elk]

I agree. David's article was right on the money. It is time for hunters to unite so we can stand up and preserve our heritage, wildlife, land, and pass it on to the next generation.

 

[Straight Arrow]

...there are the typical group of people arguing over who knows what.

'Too bad some think de bate only refers to what lures in de bear.

 

[RobG]

Does anyone know what ESA-based lawsuits he is talking about that "chip away at hunting"?

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Does anyone know what ESA-based lawsuits he is talking about that "chip away at hunting"?

Probably wolves and coming soon will be grizzlies when they try to delist them!

 

[Big Fin]

Does anyone know what ESA-based lawsuits he is talking about that "chip away at hunting"?

I just went out to Al Gore's internet and Googled "wolf hunting lawsuits." I got 219,000 results. The first page all being ESA lawsuits to stop wolf hunting in the Great Lakes states.

I Googled "grizzly bear hunting lawsuits." I got 88,000 results, with the first one being a lawsuit to close areas in western WY to elk hunting, as the carcasses left by elk hunters is supposedly increasing human-grizzly conflicts.

I just Googled "bison hunting lawsuits ESA" and got 824,000 results, with the first two about stopping bison hunting under some section of the ESA.

A guy as smart as you knows that the ESA is being used as a tool of abuse by many groups who want control over landscape-scale decisions, regardless of the peril that species is facing. Most people support the ESA in its original intent, but like much legislation, the more it gets abused, the less support for such.

I think the environmental community needs to do some reckoning among themselves. I predict that if a Republican wins the 2016 Presidential election (probably less than a 50% chance) and the Republicans maintain control of Congress (probably greater than 50% chance), one of the first things you will see is a gutting of the ESA. Congress passed that law and they can change it, removing the judiciary from the discussion.

When it happens, it will be an ugly day, as a swing of the pendulum never stops in the middle, rather goes well past any middle ground. If it does happen, the environmental litigators will have one group to thank for such; those they see when looking in the mirror.

If not for the abuse by many of these groups, the fringe operators of Big Game Forever and SFW would have almost no traction on issues such as wolves or sage grouse. Yet, the continual litigation under the ESA is fuel for the fringe world.