"Sportsmen" Supporting I-177

[shoots-straight]

Best I can do to defeat I-177 is to vote and convince my wife not to listen to the anti-trapping dorks at RML. Maybe also by shaming folks like Rob and other like minds on this site into voting no as well.

I think the initiative will likely pass. All the media taken out is on right wing radio stations that are preaching to the choir. I heard Toby on Voices of Montana last week, again preaching to the choir.

Coors?

The one thing that keeps wolves at bay the best, and all you can do is hope to keep your wife from voting for it sounds really lame. Come on man? Not a big surprise considering who's wearing the pants.


If you saw the polls today you would have known that your wrong about the chance I-177 has in passing. Just as you were about the possibility of ever getting to hunt wolves. Coors beer is what you owe me for that bet. You know that, as well as any Hunt Talker from 6 years ago.

 

[MTGomer]

I always thought hunters were on the same page about ballot box biology.

To me its not about trapping. I don't trap. Wouldn't mind doing it, but I don't. Don't know how, don't have time, etc..

To me, its about whether or not we find it acceptable to take wildlife management decisions out of the hands of biologists and place them in the hands of a mostly uninformed and emotion based populous. And if that is what we want, can't we agree that we should get rid of taxpayer funded biology positions? We obviously don't need them. We'll just vote on everything. Facts science and rule number 9 of the North American model need not be relevant.

This country isn't a pure democracy, and for good reason.

I want a draw unit sheep tag and a goat tag. So do most of you. How a bout a ballot initiative to just make them over the counter?

 

[James Riley]

I always thought hunters were on the same page about ballot box biology.

To me its not about trapping. I don't trap. Wouldn't mind doing it, but I don't. Don't know how, don't have time, etc..

To me, its about whether or not we find it acceptable to take wildlife management decisions out of the hands of biologists and place them in the hands of a mostly uninformed and emotion based populous. And if that is what we want, can't we agree that we should get rid of taxpayer funded biology positions? We obviously don't need them. We'll just vote on everything. Facts science and rule number 9 of the North American model need not be relevant.

This country isn't a pure democracy, and for good reason.

I want a draw unit sheep tag and a goat tag. So do most of you. How a bout a ballot initiative to just make them over the counter?

I'm sure the biologist wouldn't care if you snared the sheep or goat. So surely the ballot box has to have some say? We abhor a wounded elk suffering for a day and shot later. Snared animals, not so much. Just saying, it's a tangle web.

 

[BuzzH]

Snared animals, not so much. Just saying, it's a tangle web.

Just saying, I don't think you've snared many animals.

 

[James Riley]

Just saying, I don't think you've snared many animals.

I've snared quite a few, actually. Piano wire is part of the kit.

 

[BuzzH]

I've snared quite a few, actually. Piano wire is part of the kit.

Hmmm? I've snared a good number of furbearers and predators, not a one with piano wire. Not had many "wounded" for a day either. Snaring squirrels and such with piano wire isnt really pertinent to this discussion.

 

[James Riley]

Hmmm? I've snared a good number of furbearers and predators, not a one with piano wire. Not had many "wounded" for a day either. Snaring squirrels and such with piano wire isnt really pertinent to this discussion.

Pigs, sambar and mongoose, primarily. And when I snare a larger animal by the foot, yeah, it's wounded and fighting until I kill it. Not all snares are designed for the neck. Snaring any animal, from squirrels to elephant is pertinent to this discussion. The argument was biology vs ballot box (i.e. method).

 

[BuzzH]

In regard to this bill, I don't believe it's about sambar, pigs, and mongoose in foot snares. I trapped and snared furbearers and predators in Montana a lot. I don't recall any trappers ever setting a foot snare, ever. I had a coyote or two in a snare that weren't dead, but they weren't fighting the snare...or they would have been dead. You're out in the weeds with your hogs and piano wire...nothing to do with legal trapping and this bill. What this does illustrate is the misconceptions regarding legal trapping.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Don't know about trapping in your neighborhood, Riley, but this initiative is about trapping in Montana on public land and the incidence of snare trapping with piano wire is minimal, if not negligible.

Like much of this campaign season, the emphasis is on over-exaggeration, emotional manipulation and drama. Whatever happened to factual, rational reasoning and actual debate regarding the pros and cons of any given issue?

 

[JLS]

I've used foot snares for bears. It's very effective and perfectly humane.

 

[James Riley]

Good Morning Buzz and Straight Arrow:

You are failing to see the point. Let me slow it down for you:

I was *not* the one who brought up the distinction between the biological sciences, on the one hand, and the ballot box on the other hand. Get that?

Okay, now that you got that, let's proceed to the next step: The biological sciences don't concern themselves with the ethics or method of take, except to the extent the method won't accomplish the scientific goal of population management (i.e. archery might not be as effective as rifles in achieving certain goals under similar circumstances, etc.). It is public sentiment and social tradition (i.e. the ballot box) that determines method of take and thus what the biologists must consider when doing their job. Get that? Okay, next step:

When the post I was responding to implied a desire to get away from the ballot box and stick to the science, it was simply my point, which flew over your head, that an absence of the ballot box, and science alone, would allow the use of snares on sheep and goat. Hell, let me do you one better: it would allow the use of poison. Get it? Organized drives and slaughter might be effective.

Now you might also, in this light, see my question to kat about the dogs was rhetorical. If trapping is so innocuous, then why were the hunters pissed about what happened to their dogs? It should have been no big deal, right?

Likewise my comment about wounding: Most elk/goat/sheep hunters seem to prefer a quick, clean shot, dropping the animal post haste. While we forgive ourselves for mistakes, there is a great deal of hand-wringing and consternation about time lapses and suffering and stress, etc. But not when it comes to trapping. Why? Why is trapping not a legal method of take for elk, sheep, goat, deer, etc? After all, according to the post above, it's perfectly humane for bears.

Answer: Ballot box. It has shit to do with biology and everything to do with psychology.

Which brings me to the conclusion that the ballot box is an important part of the equation. And a part some folks want to dance around, and sweep under the rug, is the nature of trapping. They'd be better off to own it, without the gloss. We already have a population that thinks meat comes from the refrigerator, and who shrug their shoulders about hunting and domestic beef slaughter only because they don't see it. Do we have something to hide? Or are we more concerned about killing the messenger?

Kat says she/he (?) wishes the issue would go away. I can understand the feeling, but I don't think it will. Social sentiment, even among hunters/trappers, is expressed at the ballot box. Education, without gloss, is, in my opinion, key. Refusing to engage, or hiding what some perceive as the “ugly” nature of an activity, will be it's downfall.

If openly and honestly embracing what some perceive is “ugly” likewise results in downfall, that does not mean the next thing on the chopping block is hunting. We don't poison elk, or trap them. I don't think anyone could seriously argue that our inability to do so means bows and rifles are next.

Side bar: As to my snaring, it was for immediate consumption in self-imposed survival situations. As good little trappers, you can look down your noses at me. I'm good with that. LOL!

 

[katqanna]

Nemont, did not mean to ignore your post, I was in the process of answering when a call came in, then to answer some of my own questions I called Stan to talk with him directly.

My post was not about debating the specific points of trapping - pro or con. My post was about attacking a person and the hunting /angling group he happens to be head of, simply because his name, as a hunter, was associated with supporting I 177.

I originally typed a question to you or anyone else attacking Fraiser or Helena Hunters & Anglers - What are the specific points that Fraiser stood for that you disagreed with? Please cite the source. Because I had not seen a single thing attributed to Stan come across my feed, I did not know what Stan was stating. At that point I did a google search and nothing was coming up. So I paused my reply and decided to call Stan and see for myself. I will not relay the specifics of our conversation, as I opened it with telling him my call was off the record ( I have to say that some times because people know I write and report in the newsletter and some have said that in a conversation). He said he wasn't worried, he has been around these controversial issues a long time, he could take it, was a past president of MWF, twice if I recall. I asked if he had written any articles anywhere that could be cited, he had not. He very clearly laid out his points, based on facts, biology, stats, science; not emotion, not "just because". He had some points I had not heard before. I encouraged him to write something up.

After that I had to rush to our Region 3 CAC meeting, which again, I was the only hunter/angler there, so I lost my reply to you and any others. My original question to y'all still stands, even more so after I called him and found he had not published anything with his name associated to it that y'all could have cited, yet he and HHAA were being tarred and feathered.

What are the specific points that Fraiser stood for that you disagreed with?

Nemont, I have absolutely no problem with calling a person out - as an individual or as head or part of an organization/agency. I do it all the time - but, I do it on issues, quotable, citable, documented issues, not ad hominem. How many of y'all actually got in touch with Stan or HHAA besides Ben?

If you have a public image and decide to take a stance on a public issue then expect some fire. I am sure Stan Fraiser understood that when he came out as pro I177.

From what he relayed, he absolutely did and has no problem with any of the fire, but my concern was none of the "fire" against him or HHAA was based on anything other than a hunter supported I 177. And I don't think the real ire is that a hunter had an opposing view, I think the real ire is that hunters, any hunters, supporting I 177 perceptionally adds credibility, legitimacy to the position, so that people can't offhandedly dismiss it as a PETA, Humane Society agenda against hunters. Kind of like how politicians seek to cite bipartisan support for a bill.

In the years I have been dealing with hunting/angling conservation, I have yet to see a single issue that all MT hunters/anglers were in 100% agreement on. In fact, I frequently request submitted public comments on issues and am always surprised to see certain hunters/anglers written position comments that differed from what I heard spoken publicly or they were silent on, if it went against the outspoken majority. Knowing that fact and the comments that other hunters from across the state have made, I know there are other hunters in support of this initiative. Having this differing opinion, or any other issue, does not make them not a "real" or "true" hunter though, which was another point I tried to express.

Nemont, I am in total agreement with you, "It is a dangerous thing to put on the ballot such a thing because where does it stop. What is next on the agenda? If they can stop trapping on Federal public lands then they can certainly stop or at least curtail hunting on Federal Public lands." This part of the related issue is freaking me out.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Good Morning Buzz and Straight Arrow:

You are failing to see the point. Let me slow it down for you:

You can slow it to snail speed ... and it will still be blather.

 

[James Riley]

You can slow it to snail speed ... and it will still be blather.

You mean I can slow it to snail speed and you still won't get it? LOL! If it were blather, then you'd demonstrate as much on the merits. Instead, you fail to do so. The record speaks for itself and you stand corrected.

To quote a wise man: "Like much of this campaign season, the emphasis is on over-exaggeration, emotional manipulation and drama. Whatever happened to factual, rational reasoning and actual debate regarding the pros and cons of any given issue?"

 

[Straight Arrow]

...you stand corrected.

Yes, 'must concede and point to eloquence of arrogance exceeded only by brilliance of blather.

To others, if voting in Montana, please vote NO to I-177, but do vote.

 

[James Riley]

Yes, 'must concede and point to eloquence of arrogance exceeded only by brilliance of blather.

To others, if voting in Montana, please vote NO to I-177, but do vote.

Too bad you can't rise to your own eloquence in search of logical argument. A post suggests the ballot box would award tags where and to whom science would not award them; Then I demonstrate how science would award tags how and where the ballot box (and even you) would not award them. And you refuse to take it up. Hardly blather. It's just you wanting to sweep it under the rug, pretend it didn't exist, and encourage others to vote your way when you won't even abide your own case.

As I said before, I can understand the fear of addressing the issues, but let's not pretend we wish folks would argue facts and reason while turning our back on facts and reason.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Pros and cons of trapping on public land have been discussed here as well as through news media articles, editorials and opinions. Riley, why you are skewing this discussion and attempting to goad others into a argument regarding biological science versus political basis for tags is certainly beyond me and not even relevant to the I-177 ballot issue, for which you have no say in the first place.

My own opinion and vote on I-177 is based on the information I have gathered, both pros and cons, regarding this Montana ballot issue. I have not asserted anything regarding issuance of "tags". You are correct, I don't get it, so really won't debate (argue with you). So blather on; I have already voted.

 

[James Riley]

Pros and cons of trapping on public land have been discussed here as well as through news media articles, editorials and opinions. Riley, why you are skewing this discussion and attempting to goad others into a argument regarding biological science versus political basis for tags is certainly beyond me and not even relevant to the I-177 ballot issue, for which you have no say in the first place.

My own opinion and vote on I-177 is based on the information I have gathered, both pros and cons, regarding this Montana ballot issue. I have not asserted anything regarding issuance of "tags". You are correct, I don't get it, so really won't debate (argue with you). So blather on; I have already voted.

I'm not goading anyone. I already told you that I did not start the biology/ballot box issue. I also did not raise the issue of a ballot box basis for tags. Straight Arrow, why don't you go educate yourself by reading the post by MTGomer to which I responded. My innocuous response was jumped on by you and Buzz. You are the only one goading here. If you don't like what you perceive as a digression, then you might want to consider holding your counsel next time.

The records speaks for itself. Analytic reading will show the relevance of my posts. Kat's post further clarifies it. Lots of folks just want it to go away. I get that. I cede the floor this morning as I have errands to run.

 

[BigHornRam]

Toby was on KGVO radio Tuesday morning doing question and answer about the issues revolving around I-177. The paid spokesman for Footloose Montana was also on at the same time. Night and day on who was prepared to speak about this issue.

Wish NPR and MSM outlet's would allow for similar forums.