New threat to hunting

[Gabenzeke]

With the BC grizzly bear hunting ban, one thing that is concerning is that the party that pushed this agenda openly admitted that science and facts were not part of the discussion. They used 'morality' as the reason for the ban. Stateside, I think we've seen hunting various animals or even trapping attacked one by one. What are everyone's thoughts on how we get in front of this? I think some of the folks that used to say, well it's okay as long as you are eating what you kill could now be swayed to say no hunting at all is okay. We've got to do something or we may very well be in trouble.

 

[375H&H]

This isn't new. Look what has happened in WA, OR, CA, and NJ all from a morality stance. Best way to get ahead of it is to do what Fin and others did in Montana to defeat the trapping ban. That was impressive to me considering the amount of blue that has been moving to MT.

 

[JLS]

We've got to do something or we may very well be in trouble.

We're already in trouble. Not reversibly so, but we are certainly in trouble.

Shane Mahoney has done some wonderful podcasts on this subject, and I would recommend everyone give them a listen. Similarly, a guest of Steve Rinella's had some fascinating data from graduate studies where he examined the acceptability of hunting to the general populous, and how the reasons for hunting influenced acceptability. I found it fascinating that one of the lamest reasons people found to justify hunting was "population control", yet that is still a primary reason taught in Hunter Education.

 

[stillkickin]

I found it fascinating that one of the lamest reasons people found to justify hunting was "population control", yet that is still a primary reason taught in Hunter Education.

I agree, rates right there with “sport” hunting

 

[Gabenzeke]

We're already in trouble. Not reversibly so, but we are certainly in trouble.

Shane Mahoney has done some wonderful podcasts on this subject, and I would recommend everyone give them a listen. Similarly, a guest of Steve Rinella's had some fascinating data from graduate studies where he examined the acceptability of hunting to the general populous, and how the reasons for hunting influenced acceptability. I found it fascinating that one of the lamest reasons people found to justify hunting was "population control", yet that is still a primary reason taught in Hunter Education.

I did listen to Rinellas podcast and thought that study was interesting. It just shows that it's all about the verbiage used. I know this is an old tactic too, but it just seems like the science justifying hunting is no longer enough. How do we maintain a positive image in the mind of some suburban cat lady? That's the new bar that is being set.

 

[RobG]

I remember when I took hunter's education almost 40 years ago they said hunting was necessary for population control (mostly because we killed all the predators). I don't think they mentioned population control when my kids took it 3-5 years ago.

rg

 

[OriginalOscar]

Get this on your ballots.

Utah Proposition 5, also known as the "Resolution Establishing Wildlife Numbers", was on the November 1998 statewide ballot in Utah, where it passed, with 56.1% in favor. It was one of six statewide ballot measures that year in Utah. All six measures, including Proposition 5, were legislative referrals.

The language on the ballot said:

Proposition 5 amends present provisions of the Utah Constitution regarding the power of the people of the state to initiate legislation and submit it to a vote of the people for approval or rejection by majority vote. This proposition requires a two-thirds vote in order to adopt by initiative a state law allowing, limiting, or prohibiting the taking of wildlife or the season for or method of taking wildlife.

 

[Keeptrying]

A constitutional amendment that protects hunting and fishing would help. I was surprised South Dakota doesn't have one. I think I may ask around about that.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Get this on your ballots.

I haven't read the UT constitution or referendum rules, but this seems a little illusory, as it appears that 51% could remove the two-thirds requirement in one election cycle and then pass limitations by majority vote thereafter.

 

[VikingsGuy]

. . . a guest of Steve Rinella's had some fascinating data from graduate studies where he examined the acceptability of hunting to the general populous, and how the reasons for hunting influenced acceptability.

Any chance you recall the podcast number? I looked through his meat eater podcast list and didn't find it.

 

[onpoint]

A constitutional amendment that protects hunting and fishing would help. I was surprised South Dakota doesn't have one. I think I may ask around about that.

This is one of those things that has a sounds good feel to it - until the wide reaching and potential negative effects are realized. Nothing is simple in the world of law making.......

 

[u1299]

This is one of those things that has a sounds good feel to it - until the wide reaching and potential negative effects are realized. Nothing is simple in the world of law making.......

You’re correct, unfortunately the public is easily duped by those who claim to have all the answers and solutions and some sort of magic wand to make it all happen overnight!

 

[Keeptrying]

This is one of those things that has a sounds good feel to it - until the wide reaching and potential negative effects are realized. Nothing is simple in the world of law making.......

Such as?

 

[onpoint]

Here's one point of view:
http://mtstandard.com/no-need-to-ad...cle_b2890274-3a8d-5d18-aa4a-59d4dedac1f5.html

 

[JLS]

Any chance you recall the podcast number? I looked through his meat eater podcast list and didn't find it.

Just found it, episode 53.

The "Beyond the Kill" podcast had Shane Mahoney on right after this ban was implemented, and he had some brilliant insight, as always.

 

[JLS]

Such as?

Not being able to revoke hunting/fishing RIGHTS after committing violations.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Just found it, episode 53.

The "Beyond the Kill" podcast had Shane Mahoney on right after this ban was implemented, and he had some brilliant insight, as always.

Thanks!

 

[OriginalOscar]

I haven't read the UT constitution or referendum rules, but this seems a little illusory, as it appears that 51% could remove the two-thirds requirement in one election cycle and then pass limitations by majority vote thereafter.

registered voters equal to 10 percent of those who voted in the latest gubernatorial election. For now, that means 67,188 signatures. And those John Hancocks must be collected from at least 20 Utah counties.

Once on the ballot, a citizen initiative is approved or rejected by a simple majority. If one more vote is cast in favor of the measure than against, it passes.

What Proposition 5 would do is change the criteria for how citizen initiatives dealing with hunting or fishing are approved or rejected. If Proposition 5 passes, an initiative proposing any change in current wildlife regulations - such as a ban on cougar hunting - would need a two-thirds majority of votes to become law.

In the electoral process, that supermajority is a pretty high ceiling. And considering the requirements for getting an initiative on the ballot are more stringent here than in other states, it just might eliminate the chance that Utah's hunting and fishing practices could ever be changed through a ballot initiative.

The folks who helped draft Prop 5 were brilliant in giving it layered requirements.
1) Any wildlife ballot initiative requires signatures from at least 10 percent of voters in 20 counties who voted in the last gubernatorial election. Prevent progressive do gooders in urban areas from dictating law.

2) Supermajority 2/3 is very high bar.

3) This link gives overview including the folks who helped draft. Not a SFW fan on many positions but they got this one right and Utah is fortunate to have Prop 5 added to our constitution. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/660005/Proposition-5-Shootout.html

Good luck!

 

[Keeptrying]

Here's one point of view:
http://mtstandard.com/no-need-to-ad...cle_b2890274-3a8d-5d18-aa4a-59d4dedac1f5.html

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

 

[Keeptrying]

Not being able to revoke hunting/fishing RIGHTS after committing violations.

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