Sportsmen & Enviros

[smarandr]

The numbered halfwit's rant last night got me to thinking about conservation groups and who is and isn't an ally to "the cause." Anyway, I came across this article from Field and Stream and found it intriguing.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/the-conservationist/sportsmen-and-environmentalists-together-politically-an-unstoppable

There are major issues that most sportsmen and most non-consumptive enviros will always disagree on--wolf management and proposals to ban lead rifle bullets, for example. It’s fine to disagree. Sportsmen and non-consumptive enviros don’t even need to like each other. In fact, it’s okay for them to dislike each other. What’s not okay is for them to go their separate ways.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Amen.

Tovar Cerulli had a great piece in the Atlantic about this as well: http://www.theatlantic.com/national...r-how-hunters-can-save-the-wilderness/284416/

 

[katqanna]

Just had this forwarded to me, it is from Oct., but it is Bermans game plan that he spoke at an energy industry talk secretly taped.

Hard-Nosed Advice From Veteran Lobbyist: ‘Win Ugly or Lose Pretty’

Ironic and hypocritical

“People always ask me one question all the time: ‘How do I know that I won’t be found out as a supporter of what you’re doing?’ ” Mr. Berman told the crowd. “We run all of this stuff through nonprofit organizations that are insulated from having to disclose donors. There is total anonymity. People don’t know who supports us.”

oops, forgot the transcript link - “Endless War” and Other Rallying Points

 

[smarandr]

great piece in the Atlantic

That liberal rag? pshh.

 

[Pinecricker]

IMO - there really isn't as much "common ground" between the two groups as some claim. Its best to keep (a long) arms lengths distance from them. Even if some enviro groups claim not to be anti-hunting, they are generally chocked full of very unreasonable animal rights types.

With this, they are also too wrapped up spinning their wheels with lost causes like "fighting" global warming, etc. As such, not many people take them seriously, or they are viewed as a threat, or outsiders. All cases are counter productive to grass roots habitat conservation.

I would actually go so far as to say that enviro groups have actually done far more harm that good for conservation of public lands, at least in my state. After the way they ridiculously opposed wolf delisting, no reasonable person wants anything to do with any thing that even smells like "environmentalism".

 

[BuzzH]

I think to say there isn't much common ground on a lot of these issues, is out of line and irresponsible.

A lot depends on your definition of "enviro". I have seen a lot of collaborative work lately to defend things like public lands and access to public lands, T&E species, etc.

I still struggle with how any hunter cannot be an environmental advocate...without secure habitat, clean water, etc. the species we hunt and fish wouldn't exist.

IMO, its high time to stop the labeling and start getting all interested parties to the table when it comes to public lands, public wildlife, habitat, etc.

Not saying that all groups/individuals have to agree on every issue and even with each other all the time, but there are big-picture items that most all can agree on.

I personally don't care if a PETA member, wilderness advocate, rancher, logger, miner, hunter, fishermen, etc. speaks against the Transfer of Public lands for example. The important thing is to stop that ridiculous idea, and I'd welcome anyone into the fold to stop it.

My thoughts.

 

[James Riley]

A lot depends on your definition of "enviro". . . . IMO, its high time to stop the labeling . . . .

Agreed. It's like the term "liberal." It has a long and honorable history in America, starting with the enlightenment and all of our founding fathers. But there came a time in the mid-1980s when it started to become a dirty word, so much so that even liberals started to shy away from it, adopting new monikers such as "progressive" etc. When you allow the opposition to define you, and the terms of the debate, you begin to lose yourself which, in turn, is used as evidence against you.

I think some folks are trying their best to do the same thing with the term "environmentalist". Those who would divide environmentalists of any stripe have an agenda which is not in accord with the best interests of the hunting stripe. I'm not a big fan of the way some folks choose to hunt, and I think it can do a lot of harm to the cause, but they pale in comparison to those who would sell our heritage for a buck.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Good post BuzzH!

 

[OriginalOscar]

I think to say there isn't much common ground on a lot of these issues, is out of line and irresponsible.

A lot depends on your definition of "enviro". I have seen a lot of collaborative work lately to defend things like public lands and access to public lands, T&E species, etc.

I still struggle with how any hunter cannot be an environmental advocate...without secure habitat, clean water, etc. the species we hunt and fish wouldn't exist.

IMO, its high time to stop the labeling and start getting all interested parties to the table when it comes to public lands, public wildlife, habitat, etc.

Not saying that all groups/individuals have to agree on every issue and even with each other all the time, but there are big-picture items that most all can agree on.

I personally don't care if a PETA member, wilderness advocate, rancher, logger, miner, hunter, fishermen, etc. speaks against the Transfer of Public lands for example. The important thing is to stop that ridiculous idea, and I'd welcome anyone into the fold to stop it.

My thoughts.

Enemy of my enemy is my friend. Enemy number 1 are those who want to seize public lands. Protecting the environment and access are common interests.

 

[Pinecricker]

Its a little more nuanced that what you describe Buzz. In rural states like Wyoming or Montana or Idaho, legislative representation is always going to be skewed towards our strong agriculture, livestock and natural resources communities.

At least here in Idaho, our legislature will generally listen to hunters, even on matters of habitat, etc. We aren't the ones constantly threatening them with litigation, like many of the environmental groups are. If we were to partner with environmental groups, the doors to the state house would automatically be locked. You don't partner with some one's enemy then expect them to help you out.

In my experience, sportsman's groups are a lot more pragmatic in achieving their conservation goals. We don't do things like declare war on public lands grazing, like many environmental groups have done. You also don't see sportsman's organizations doing shady things like milking equal access to justice funds, committing acts of eco-terrorism, spreading blatantly false information, etc.

Sometimes you can be guilty by association, so be prudent about whom you associate with.

I think to say there isn't much common ground on a lot of these issues, is out of line and irresponsible.

A lot depends on your definition of "enviro". I have seen a lot of collaborative work lately to defend things like public lands and access to public lands, T&E species, etc.

I still struggle with how any hunter cannot be an environmental advocate...without secure habitat, clean water, etc. the species we hunt and fish wouldn't exist.

IMO, its high time to stop the labeling and start getting all interested parties to the table when it comes to public lands, public wildlife, habitat, etc.

Not saying that all groups/individuals have to agree on every issue and even with each other all the time, but there are big-picture items that most all can agree on.

I personally don't care if a PETA member, wilderness advocate, rancher, logger, miner, hunter, fishermen, etc. speaks against the Transfer of Public lands for example. The important thing is to stop that ridiculous idea, and I'd welcome anyone into the fold to stop it.

My thoughts.

 

[BuzzH]

Pinecricker,

Really, " You also don't see sportsman's organization spreading blatantly false information, etc."

Ever heard of SFW?

Ever heard of WYOGA?

Come on, you're trying to paint with a pretty broad brush, and there's plenty of orgs and individuals that are less than sincere in their motives and methods. To put that all into one camp only is being pretty naïve...and dishonest.

Again, you need to be careful defining "enviro's",...what you're describing is not the mainstream "enviro", what you're describing is the far fringes of the environmental community, the lunatic fringe.

So, if you believe in the guilty by association, are you guilty by association of being a poacher because some within the hunting community choose to do so?

Of course not, and its equally unfair for you to lump people that happen to care about the environment as "eco-terrorists" and "spreading blatant misinformation".

There is also no reason to not get all interested, and reasonable, parties to the table to help solve some of the issues we have in common...I don't care what they call themselves.

 

[RobG]

Pinecricker - I think you are painting one side with a broad brush and skipping a lot on the hunter sides. SFW, etc are not good organizations. When I lived in Idaho the legislature "listened" to the hunters only when they bitched about things that could be used to weaken the IDF&G ability to manage for habitat, forcing stocking of trout and pheasants, and feeding of game instead. The agency was always starved financially because it was putting F&G in front of industry. The leg. didn't even hide the fact why they weren't increasing license fees. Unfortunately, there were uninformed hunters fanning those flames and giving the legislature cover. Any hunter or fisherman that fought for habitat and funding was dismissed as a phoney sportsmen, using the stereotype you put forth. Idaho's legislature was far worse than Montana's. I doubt if it has changed.

[edit... Buzz beat me to it]

 

[Pinecricker]

Of the environmental groups that are active in my state, there is only one I consider reasonable, which is the Idaho Conservation League. Nature Conservancy is here, but they are 50/50 on allowing hunting, and they don't have much political support. In contrast, people will actually listen to ICL.

The rest are absolutely bat shit, lunatic fringe, crazy and counter productive to any real conservation goals. We'd all be better served if they took a long walk off a short dock. i.e:

Friends of the Clearwater
Western Watersheds
Defenders of Wildlife
Kootenai Environmental Alliance
Greater Yellowstone Coalition
North Idaho Wolf Alliance
Wild Earth Guardians

I am sure I am missing a few, but these are the most active. There are a handful of others that really only recycle press releases from other organizations.

I am actually fairly active in conservation efforts through another sport I am involved in, whitewater boating, so don't think I am opposed to conservation. Its just that I've seen first hand what works and what doesn't.

 

[RobG]

GYC is probably more tolerable now that Marv "The Hunter" Hoyt is gone.

Whitewater yackers... now there is a group that can be painted with a not-so-broad brush as a non-conservation group. I and others wound up fighting them when they wanted to turn the Bear into a waterslide with midsummer whitewater flows. I think their moto was "F* you fishermen" or something like that. Real helpful folks to the sportsmen. They've been trying to get paddling in Yellowstone for decades, and they have a pretty well funded lawsuit brigade.

 

[Pinecricker]

GYC is probably more tolerable now that Marv "The Hunter" Hoyt is gone.

Whitewater yackers... now there is a group that can be painted with a not-so-broad brush as a non-conservation group. I and others wound up fighting them when they wanted to turn the Bear into a waterslide with midsummer whitewater flows. I think their moto was "F* you fishermen" or something like that. Real helpful folks to the sportsmen. They've been trying to get paddling in Yellowstone for decades, and they have a pretty well funded lawsuit brigade.

Then there is always this

 

[James Riley]

I practiced environmental and public lands law in Idaho, on issues from north to south, east to west, for a decade, working with or representing many groups mentioned in this thread. None of the causes could be construed as anti-hunting and all of them actually worked in support of a place to hunt un-hindered by various forms of "progress" and "development." I remember a great many of the members being zealous hunters. I'm just speaking from personal experience during the 90s. Maybe it's changed. (Funny, but back then the only bunny huggers I remember were in the ICL; only 2, mind you, but the only ones I knew).

Was the Idaho legislature and governor's house sympathetic to ranchers, loggers, miners, developers, etc.? Yes. No doubt. Follow the (real) money. That is why all my time was spent in Federal Court or before Federal agencies. I suppose I could paint everyone in a hat and boots as a Cliven Bundy or Claude Dallas but that would be akin to painting all enviros as bunny huggers.

 

[RobG]

I practiced environmental and public lands law in Idaho, on issues from north to south, east to west, for a decade, working with or representing many groups mentioned in this thread.

Well, I suppose you think that makes you feel qualified to speak on the matter

 

[RobG]

Then there is always this

Ah yes, the nuts picking up a few salmon before they head to Townsend to hunt elk. I remember a place that sounds a lot like pinecricker where you could hike away from the yahoos and catch 30# chinook on a fly rod.

 

[mdunc8]

They've been trying to get paddling in Yellowstone for decades, and they have a pretty well funded lawsuit brigade.

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.co...top&utm_source=block_937344&utm_campaign=blox

 

[RobG]

I guess this will be an annual thing with Lummis. I hate American Whitewater unless they are suing for something I support . Last I heard the packrafters were trying to stick their tip in by getting into the Thorofare.