Thoughts on the anti-hunting movement

[3855WIN]

California is the most restrictive state when it comes to hunting and buying ammo. One political party dominates that state.

 

[88man]

say what you want. It goes like this> DONT LET THE ONE POLITICAL PARTY that is aligned with anti hunters and gun control in power. If that party stays out of control hunting has no major worries, yes I'm sure there will be some changes over time as everything changes a bit. How can you vote for a party that is telling you they want to take guns out of YOUR hands. What maybe they will be nice and allow you a single shot to hunt. Ha ha. This same party fought wolf hunting and stops grizz hunting in WY the same party stopped trapping in Ca.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

say what you want. It goes like this> DONT LET THE ONE POLITICAL PARTY that is aligned with anti hunters and gun control in power. If that party stays out of control hunting has no major worries, yes I'm sure there will be some changes over time as everything changes a bit. How can you vote for a party that is telling you they want to take guns out of YOUR hands. What maybe they will be nice and allow you a single shot to hunt. Ha ha. This same party fought wolf hunting and stops grizz hunting in WY the same party stopped trapping in Ca.

Thinking of every conversation in terms of them or us is problematic. Both US political parties are broad coalitions made up of diverse membership often with conflicting views. Even when one party controls everything it's hard to get things done because the membership in those parties don't agree on very much, for many their membership in a party is less about shared views and beliefs as it is getting elected.

Saying one political party wants to take your guns or stop wolf hunting is inaccurate, there are a group of individuals who want to do this certainly, but not everyone or even a majority of those tend to vote democratic hold those views. Similarly, it would be inaccurate to say that republicans want to destroy the environment, certainly there are members who want to gut the EPA and the like, but Nixon was the president who created the EPA and devoted a third of his state of the union address to environmental protection.

I'm not advocating you vote for either party, but try to think beyond the parties. Look at specific candidates and evaluate their platform and vote for the one that aligns most with your values, don't worry about the name of the party. This is especially important on the local level.

 

[JLS]

If that party stays out of control hunting has no major worries, yes I'm sure there will be some changes over time as everything changes a bit.

No offense, but this statement borders on delusional.

 

[onpoint]

Delusion - on a website forum?
That "border" was breached a long time ago.

Kinda' like asking if there are any "country" bars anymore in Bozeman. The real Stacey's characters are either dead or (if still breathing') now geriatric members of a 12 step program ..........................................

 

[jryoung]

California is the most restrictive state when it comes to hunting and buying ammo. One political party dominates that state.

One of the best advocates for hunting in CA is a democrat named Jim Frazier. He is a strong proponent for the department and more importantly annually hosts a Legislative shoot. My buddy teaches hunter ed in Marin county.....they put the left, in left coast. Every class he teaches is loaded with 20/30 somethings, that work in tech, and border on hipster.....they want to hunt their own food and go through the experience of hunting.

There's work to be done and many challenges ahead, but like Ben said, more Newberg, Rinella, Mahoney.....less SSS and Nugent.

 

[88man]

Hunting will continue to be a common past-time in America so long as hunters don't lose the support of the American people. We're great at alienating those people because we think we can do things the way they were done in the past without any repercussions.

A bigger threat to hunting is hunters.

Smoke a pack a day

The only good bear is a dead bear

I love to run down coyotes with my snowmachine

We need to kill off the predators to save the species we hunt & care for.


All of those will do more to end hunting than some vegan in Brooklyn who thinks Cecil was murdered.

Study from a couple of years ago that shows where the public support for hunting comes from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5704112/

Maybe I'm just to old school but I think predator management "killing predators" is a part of game management.

 

[88man]

States with constitutional amendments preserving hunting and fishing heritage in perpetuity: these can be overturned with another amendment vote

In Iowa the big anti story of the year (or decade) is Iowa City tree huggers feuding over over what to do with urban deer overpopulation in that city. They are divided over birth control, no intervention, and baiting/sharpshooting. Inability to form a coalition has resulted in a win for the remaining plurality of residents who support urban bowhunting to reduce the population, which will now be allowed. Case in point: hunting laws are overwhelmingly a state issue, and the culture of most states will continue a hunting heritage far beyond our lifetimes. About 99.9% of hunting activity in Iowa is not facing any kind of immediate risk of being taken away.

Some types of legal hunting will continue to erode more rapidly in urbanized, liberal states. California is really an exception to the rule, in that while liberals are much less common than conservatives nationwide, there are tons of them in CA and they turned the state into a neo-European liberal paradise, and conservatives sick of what their home state was becoming emigrated by the millions, leaving the dumpster fire to burn itself out (and hopefully not spread to the rest of the states).

I feel it is largely unnecessary for hunters to find a way to band together to consolidate our political capital and preserve out hunting heritage. Maybe locally, such as community or in-State organizations, but not nationwide. Instead, like others have mentioned, we get out ahead of the fight through making choices individually to give up hunting practices that have fallen out of favor in modern America. This wins support of the general public, which is 100% absolutely necessary in order for us to be able to hunt in the US. Only about 10% of Americans hunt, so anything we do to alienate public support is our own fault. It's up to us to choose to project an ethical and genuine public image.

This is not a slippery slope. It's simply the evolution of ethics in a country that has made a transition from being a rural nation to a dominant urban nation.

Here are some things to consider giving up, even though they are legal, for the purpose of maintaining hunting privileges for generations to come:
-trapping
-hounds
-catch and release
-shooting from aircraft
-thermal imaging
-drives
-continuing to hunt a tag after wounding and failing to recover an animal
-killing fawns/calves and other immature animals
-snag and release
-grip and grin
-safaris
-obtaining more meat than one's family can consume
-predator hunting
-bear hunting
-varmint hunting
-killing furbearers
-game farms
-canned hunting
-international hunting where the meat is not taken home

I continue to practice some things on this list, but every year I consider the cost of continuing them

that list will be never ending my friend. The supporters of that list will limit everything that involves hunting

 

[bushman13]

I see a similarity with media's treatment of "white men" and the anti's treatment of hunters. A vocal minority given a great voice by the left leaning factions within alphabet agencies. You can only poke a sleeping bear for so long.

A post in another thread by @wllm1313 lamenting hunting opportunities that he's lost, while expressing confidence in keeping others got me thinking about where we are in protecting our hunting heritage, and while my logical side is prone to agree with his premise that the slippery slope isn't as big a concern as many make it out to be, another side of me has real concern.

I look at all CA has given up. I see the continued attacks on bear hunting, predator hunting, hound hunting, trapping, and high fence hunting. I see the train wreck that litigation can cause on the ESA. I see the hundreds and hundreds of social media responses wishing for death to a hunter and everyone who has ever met him because of a post with a picture of a legally harvested game animal that exists in plenty. I see more of the same cheering on posts calling 3 hunters injured by a bear in The Gravelly "karma". I see how much money organizations like HSUS and PETA are raising, and how mainstream they seem to be becoming. Despite western "crowding" I see hunter numbers in this country diminishing.

I see our opposition being very organized, cohesive, and passionate. These people do not believe that what we do is in fact conservation. They do not think that we have the best interest of animals in mind. They are convinced that the animals do not need our management, and it doesn't matter how many facts, figures, or how much science you show them, you can not change their minds. They are zealots.

What does the Hunt Talk community think? Are we doing enough to hold the ground we have? Will future generations enjoy the opportunities that we have, or is it just a matter of time before a modern society shifts so far from what we believe in that the things we treasure so much will be whittled away?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Maybe I'm just to old school but I think predator management "killing predators" is a part of game management.

I think @Ben Lamb was addressing the rhetoric associated with predator management rather than the practice.

 

[RockinU]

Here are some things to consider giving up, even though they are legal, for the purpose of maintaining hunting privileges for generations to come:
-trapping
-hounds
-catch and release
-shooting from aircraft
-thermal imaging
-drives
-continuing to hunt a tag after wounding and failing to recover an animal
-killing fawns/calves and other immature animals
-snag and release
-grip and grin
-safaris
-obtaining more meat than one's family can consume
-predator hunting
-bear hunting
-varmint hunting
-killing furbearers
-game farms
-canned hunting
-international hunting where the meat is not taken home

I continue to practice some things on this list, but every year I consider the cost of continuing them

I would like to address your list with some counter arguments for consideration:

trapping: How would you explain giving this up to people who still derive a portion of their income from the practice?

hounds: There are animals for which the only efficient means of hunting is hounds, and there are people who would argue that hound hunting allows for a more selective harvest.

catch and release: That's a wild one, and I'm not sure how you would square that with slots, and the needed release of some older bigger fish...bridge pretty far

shooting from aircraft: I'm from Texas, we have a lot of hogs, ranchers need every tool at their disposal in mitigation attempts

thermal imaging: see shooting from aircraft.

drives: this is a regional thing with which I have no experience so I have no idea why it would need to be given up. pass.

continuing to hunt after wounding an animal: not something I would do

killing immature animals: there is no scientific reason of which I'm aware that this is something that shouldn't happen

snag and release: I'm not familiar with this one

grip and grin: you want to not allow people to have a photograph memento of their hunting experience? I'm not tracking...

safaris: I'm not personally interested in African hunting, but it's important to the people and animals in Africa, it provides the communities with revenue, and the animals with value enough to hopefully insure their continued protection. Without that value, I'd question their future...

predator and bear hunting: this is a tool by which game agencies try to maintain a balance, do you think that if bear numbers didn't need to be controlled CO would be pushing bear tags so hard right now? Black bear numbers across the nation are at incredible numbers...I can't think of a viable reason to give this up.

varmint and fur bearers: varmint see predator and bear, fur bearer see trapping.

game farms: I have concerns about game farms to be sure. I also recognize that while everyone bashes high fence exotic operations in Texas, that there are some animals that are extinct in the wild like Pere David's Deer, and Scimitar Oryx, and others that are near extinct in the wild like the Addax that exist in robust numbers on game ranches, and that those ranched populations have a recognized potential to return a sustainable population to the wild...complicated issue.

canned hunting is despicable, and not legal in many places that I'm aware of. Not saying it doesn't happen, but if it's already not legal, I would think that for the most part we have given it up.

international hunting where the meat is not brought home: This is a legal issue. It is not legal to bring in game meat from another country...not sure what can be done about that.

Basically it looks like most things not involving hunting wild ungulates or birds are disposable to you, and while I'm glad that you do want to protect that, I'm not sure it's right to throw so many other people, and the things they love to do under the bus in order to maintain the things that others like.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I would like to address your list with some counter arguments for consideration:

trapping: How would you explain giving this up to people who still derive a portion of their income from the practice?

hounds: There are animals for which the only efficient means of hunting is hounds, and there are people who would argue that hound hunting allows for a more selective harvest.

catch and release: That's a wild one, and I'm not sure how you would square that with slots, and the needed release of some older bigger fish...bridge pretty far

shooting from aircraft: I'm from Texas, we have a lot of hogs, ranchers need every tool at their disposal in mitigation attempts

thermal imaging: see shooting from aircraft.

drives: this is a regional thing with which I have no experience so I have no idea why it would need to be given up. pass.

continuing to hunt after wounding an animal: not something I would do

killing immature animals: there is no scientific reason of which I'm aware that this is something that shouldn't happen

snag and release: I'm not familiar with this one

grip and grin: you want to not allow people to have a photograph memento of their hunting experience? I'm not tracking...

safaris: I'm not personally interested in African hunting, but it's important to the people and animals in Africa, it provides the communities with revenue, and the animals with value enough to hopefully insure their continued protection. Without that value, I'd question their future...

predator and bear hunting: this is a tool by which game agencies try to maintain a balance, do you think that if bear numbers didn't need to be controlled CO would be pushing bear tags so hard right now? Black bear numbers across the nation are at incredible numbers...I can't think of a viable reason to give this up.

varmint and fur bearers: varmint see predator and bear, fur bearer see trapping.

game farms: I have concerns about game farms to be sure. I also recognize that while everyone bashes high fence exotic operations in Texas, that there are some animals that are extinct in the wild like Pere David's Deer, and Scimitar Oryx, and others that are near extinct in the wild like the Addax that exist in robust numbers on game ranches, and that those ranched populations have a recognized potential to return a sustainable population to the wild...complicated issue.

canned hunting is despicable, and not legal in many places that I'm aware of. Not saying it doesn't happen, but if it's already not legal, I would think that for the most part we have given it up.

international hunting where the meat is not brought home: This is a legal issue. It is not legal to bring in game meat from another country...not sure what can be done about that.

Basically it looks like most things not involving hunting wild ungulates or birds are disposable to you, and while I'm glad that you do want to protect that, I'm not sure it's right to throw so many other people, and the things they love to do under the bus in order to maintain the things that others like.

The biggest issue with all these activities is their importance/efficacy is not immediately apparent if you aren't knowledgeable about conservation and hunting.

Rather than get rid of any of the practices, I think having figures in the community that can provide cogent explanations of the activities using the vocabulary and addressing the ethical concerns of non-hunters is important.

That is not to say that Rinella or Randy needs to go on a nation wide campaign, but rather that if you hear Randy or the like discuss the benefits of say trapping, parrot those discussion points.

Personally I have a little bit of a hard time with catch and release fishing, but I think that practice is wildly popular with non-hunters to the extent that I think of any hunting and fishing activity, catch and release fly fishing this the most widely accepted practice. We gotta figure out who did those fellas PR cause that team crushed it.

 

[VAspeedgoat]

Curious why anyone is against catch and release or more important to this thread why it is something to give up? Is catch and keep a better practice?

Also, this thread best illustrates the concern of the op. We can't agree on much of anything but those that are opposed to hunting are unified in taking anything they can get and well funded. Conversely we seem very content in giving up things we don't agree with. This usually depends on where we were raised more so than how we were raised. Dogs, bait, drives, and trophy tags all have regional aspects. It is this willingness to sacrifice another hunters heritage to the other side who is happy to take anything that will eventually lose it all. I know this isn't a popular thought on this thread but I haven't seen anything written that shows how it is wrong. I hope I am though.

 

[RockinU]

The biggest issue with all these activities is their importance/efficacy is not immediately apparent if you aren't knowledgeable about conservation and hunting.

Rather than get rid of any of the practices, I think having figures in the community that can provide cogent explanations of the activities using the vocabulary and addressing the ethical concerns of non-hunters is important.

That is not to say that Rinella or Randy needs to go on a nation wide campaign, but rather that if you hear Randy or the like discuss the benefits of say trapping, parrot those discussion points.

Personally I have a little bit of a hard time with catch and release fishing, but I think that practice is wildly popular with non-hunters to the extent that I think of any hunting and fishing activity, catch and release fly fishing this the most widely accepted practice. We gotta figure out who did those fellas PR cause that team crushed it.

I agree, I also think Shockey's Uncharted does a good job demonstrating the importance of hunting abroad to the people and animals in other countries, and that's something hunters should be talking about to counter all the anti African trophy hunting stuff.

I think catch and release fishing has different meanings in different fisheries. I do a lot of inshore fishing, and we have slots on our redfish where all fish below 20 inches or above 28 inches must be released, and speckled sea trout have a slot of 15-25 inches. There are also lots of other fish that have minimums. The health of some fisheries depends on release. Of course the point of this fishing isn't to release, as it seems to be in a lot of fly fishing.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Maybe I'm just to old school but I think predator management "killing predators" is a part of game management.

It's not, really. It's a part of our past and present in terms of management of livestock depredation, but as far as actual wildlife management, killing predators to boost or maintain game populations on terrestrial wildlife is an issue that's not backed by any credible science nor by any agency that's actually done the work and seen the results.

Idaho notwithstanding.

To be clear though, I support hunting of predators. How we do such is what matters to the mind of the larger public who doesn't hunt, yet maintains a positive view of hunting.

 

[RockinU]

It's not, really. It's a part of our past and present in terms of management of livestock depredation, but as far as actual wildlife management, killing predators to boost or maintain game populations on terrestrial wildlife is an issue that's not backed by any credible science nor by any agency that's actually done the work and seen the results.

Idaho notwithstanding.

To be clear though, I support hunting of predators. How we do such is what matters to the mind of the larger public who doesn't hunt, yet maintains a positive view of hunting.

I won't completely disagree, but we do have some anecdotal accounts like the Kaibab in the early 20th century, that demonstrate extreme predator control allowing a runaway ungulate population. There is research showing that decreased black bear numbers increases recruitment. We also know that there are proponents of targeting predators around the time of fawning/calving.

The recent Hunt Collective podcast featuring Val Geist (yes, I know he's seen by many as controversial) where he talked about "predator pits" was interesting, and while I haven't had time to follow up on it, I would like to learn more about it.

How to present predator hunting/control to the public in a way that doesn't diminish overall support for hunting is something that needs a lot of thought.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I won't completely disagree, but we do have some anecdotal accounts like the Kaibab in the early 20th century, that demonstrate extreme predator control allowing a runaway ungulate population. There is research showing that decreased black bear numbers increases recruitment. We also know that there are proponents of targeting predators around the time of fawning/calving.

The recent Hunt Collective podcast featuring Val Geist (yes, I know he's seen by many as controversial) where he talked about "predator pits" was interesting, and while I haven't had time to follow up on it, I would like to learn more about it.

How to present predator hunting/control to the public in a way that doesn't diminish overall support for hunting is something that needs a lot of thought.

Anecodotes are not science. WHen you put habitat conservation above all else, you end up with a system that supports the ebbs & flows of natural ecological cycles. We expect game numbers to be managed at or above objective for our purposes, and we want stable populations but that's not how these systems were designed, just as decreasing habitat leads to other issues.

The real problem with predator management is threefold - the ethics of it are shaky at best, the economics suck and the lasting impact is short. The ROI on predator reductions to bolster game populations is awful. As one coyote PhD researcher I got to know said - it's like trying to dig a hole in the ocean.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Curious why anyone is against catch and release or more important to this thread why it is something to give up? Is catch and keep a better practice?

Also, this thread best illustrates the concern of the op. We can't agree on much of anything but those that are opposed to hunting are unified in taking anything they can get and well funded. Conversely we seem very content in giving up things we don't agree with. This usually depends on where we were raised more so than how we were raised. Dogs, bait, drives, and trophy tags all have regional aspects. It is this willingness to sacrifice another hunters heritage to the other side who is happy to take anything that will eventually lose it all. I know this isn't a popular thought on this thread but I haven't seen anything written that shows how it is wrong. I hope I am though.

Personally, I prefer catch and keep, I didn't grow up hunting or fishing and did quite a bit of hunting before I started fishing so the idea of messing with a critter and not eating it is a little weird. Not really sure you could convince me that catch and release fishing is that difference than chasing elk on winter range with a ATV... especially in the summer when there is a pretty high mortality rate on those released fish. Slots are a bit different, and I don't think anyone should ban it, it just feel weird to me. I've done some catch and release fishing but I've probably kept 70-80 percent of the fish I've caught. Total digression but I want to get into spear fishing as that feels way more ethical to me... I'm sure 5 years down the road my perspective will change as I get exposed to more stuff.

How to present predator hunting/control to the public in a way that doesn't diminish overall support for hunting is something that needs a lot of thought.

100% agree, some on here may think it's stupid but I try to be mindful of how I articulate stuff. I don't tell non-hunters I'm hunting bear or have hunted bear or bring up the subject in general unless I have the time to give what I feel is a nuanced discussion of the topic. I'm sure it feels like sitting through an Obama speech so I try to limit how many people get subjected to it. I'm a bit less pedantic if I have some bear meat to feed someone as that kinda speaks for itself.

 

[onpoint]

My guess is that, for the vast majority of Americans, hunting is way down the list of their concerns. So far down that most could care less whether it exists or not.
Just a couple articles I pulled up from a search of American's Opinions on Hunting:

Public Opinion On Hunting in North America | Conservation Visions

Perceptions of Hunting and Hunters by U.S. Respondents

An online survey of 825 U.S. residents was conducted to determine their views on hunting, hunters, and hunting practices within the United States. Overall, 87% of respondents agreed that it was acceptable to hunt for food. However, only 37% agreed that ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

In the first, Mahoney touts a figure of % support among some survey's respondents without even listing the source of his information - poor form.
The second, the survey's data results from a whopping 825 respondents. Probably about as reliable a method for this purpose as MFWP's phone harvest survey is to determine actual harvest......

I would argue that hunting is for HUNTERS TO LOSE (via our actions, political choices, attitudes, unfortunately - social media presence, and plain old APATHY/COMPLACENCY).

The anti-hunter thing is a boogeyman that's easier to be afraid of than the Sitka clad, OnX enabled dude in the mirror......................................................

 

[RockinU]

Anecodotes are not science. WHen you put habitat conservation above all else, you end up with a system that supports the ebbs & flows of natural ecological cycles. We expect game numbers to be managed at or above objective for our purposes, and we want stable populations but that's not how these systems were designed, just as decreasing habitat leads to other issues.

The real problem with predator management is threefold - the ethics of it are shaky at best, the economics suck and the lasting impact is short. The ROI on predator reductions to bolster game populations is awful. As one coyote PhD researcher I got to know said - it's like trying to dig a hole in the ocean.

Of course I agree that anecdotes aren't science, but when viewed objectively, there can be lessons learned from them. Isn't part of habitat conservation managing the pressure on that habitat? In working with biologists down here, our population objectives were in line with what the habitat could support in a bad year, and it was quite difficult to do because of the ebbs and flows of which you speak, so I understand that for sure.

I also understand the problems with predator control you describe, especially with population dependent breeders like coyotes, it's efficacy is questionable for sure, but in the case of severely depressed game populations, where things get out of balance, isn't some form of control necessary?

If you haven't read "Coyote Man" by Ray Alcorn, I highly recommend it.