New threat to hunting

[JLS]

Constitutional rights are taken from people all the time after committing crimes. How would this be any different?

Constitutional rights aren't taken away for misdemeanors or civil infractions, which many fish and wildlife violations are classified as such.

 

[Keeptrying]

Constitutional rights aren't taken away for misdemeanors or civil infractions, which many fish and wildlife violations are classified as such.

Good point.

 

[onpoint]

Interesting. I see the RMEF, SCI, and the MTA all supported this bill. The article brings up some good points that could easily be written into the bill, versus not passing it. I see how Montana has a constitutional law right to harvest game, fish, and trap. Not seeing how those laws are different, or could not also be used to challenge game and fish enforcement

As to the support for this from these groups...

Most Montana trappers I know are more concerned about their trapping than any and all other things combined. Probably rightfully so, as trapping is pretty much done anymore by a very devoted relative few, and they and what they do is under attack on many fronts. They are looking for help however they can get it.
RMEF (while continuing to do some good on the ground work), under the leadership of David Allen, has taken some questionable stances on various issues - IMO.
And as far as SCI - who cares what they think....................

 

[propane_cooker]

I'm from Canada, Manitoba not BC though. This ban on Grizzly hunting is really disturbing to me. It is a total vote grab by the government in that province and not based on science at all. Thanks for pointing out that Shane Mahoney podcast. I was looking for a voice of reason who could give some unbiased direction so I will definitely give that a listen. I need to re-listen to that Rinella podcast which covered the perception of different reasons for hunting. On topics like the BC grizzly hunt I personally find myself in my own head always saying "we need to manage the population" which I know isn't a very well perceived reason. I don't use that argument out loud anymore but I need to bone up on some better arguments. It's not even really true, removing around 1% of a population isn't likely to affect it much. It's frustrating that everyone looks at the "eco-toursim" bear tours as such low impact, because I have a hard time believing that thousands of bear watchers has no impact on the environment. I read some comments on a Canadian news website and guess what was brought up as next to ban? Wolves... Just because they are charismatic mega fauna. The BC wolf management report states that they are stable and increasing.

My opinion on the OP's question as to what should be done is that we need to be listening and absorbing what guys like Rinella, Mahoney and Newberg are saying. We need to take that information and prepare ourselves to engage with non-hunters (not anti) in a polite, thoughtful and engaging manner. Explain our stories and give our great reasons for why we do things. I also think that we need to be extremely careful how we represent ourselves on social media. I don't know that is wise to be putting up pictures of dead animals on Facebook. I think that if a person wasn't raised or exposed to hunting it's pretty easy to see how that might be disturbing to them. At the very least the pictures need to be accompanied with a detailed story so that they can't be taken out of context. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be proud of their hunting but I shudder at what happened with the hunter "Hijack" of the PETA Shoot Selfies Not Animals frame that went around. Hunters were just handing ammunition to the anti's with that.