Western Sportsmans Alliance?

[npaden]

Is there such a thing? Is such a thing even remotely practical?

Some type of organization that hunters could contribute to that would be effective in promoting hunting across the entire west and not a niche organization for one particular type of hunting, trapping, fishing, species, etc.? If you could organize such an entity it could be very strong with millions of members.

The difficulty is that almost no hunters agree on anything. You can't even get elk hunters to support the RMEF because of some decision made 10 years ago on some obscure dealing. The bow hunters are against the gun hunters and for sure no one wants crossbows and all the western states seem to want to significantly reduce tag allotments to nonresidents. Outfitters and guides are lobbying against nonguided hunters, everyone hates ATV's except the few folks that actually ride them legally on designated trails, some hate trapping so wouldn't support anything that had to do with that, others hate hounds or bait so forget supporting anything that deals with that...

What we end up with is a bunch of special interest groups that are species specific (RMEF, PF, DU, etc.) or niche specific (Bowhunters, trappers, hounds, etc.). Then these groups are fighting half the time against each other.

Then you get to residents of each state looking at everyone else as outsiders stealing "their" tags.

New Mexico has limited nonguided nonresidents to 6% of the available tags. Wyoming is headed that way for sure on the big 3, maybe on everything. There are still a few states that offer essentially unlimited nonresident hunting (Montana surplus tags, Colorado OTC) but how long is that going to last?

Colorado is becoming the new California with no spring bear hunting, new gun laws, etc. what's going to happen there in the next 10 - 15 years?


As I sit here in Texas and think about my 8 year old son I really start to wonder what kind of hunting opportunities are going to be available to him as he gets older? What about his kids?

It seems that the hunting community is too fragmented to effectively do much of anything except whine and complain (which is what I'm doing).

Is there a solution?

 

[npaden]

Is the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance a legit organization?

http://www.ussportsmen.org/about-ussa/

How big are they? Do you just throw money at several of these organizations and hope they do something good with it?

 

[Ben Lamb]

In 1936, Ding Darling, Franklin Roosevelt, Aldo Leopold and others called conservationsts to the Capitol to establish such a thing. It was the beggining of the National Widlife Federation and the different state wildlife federations. Some states still have strong chapters, others not so much but most of them are working day in and day out to fight for hunters, anglers, wildlife and wildlife habitat.

Not everybody likes the National Wildlife Federation or agrees with them on every issue, but they are still one of the largest NGO's who lobby for wildlife and those of us who hunt and fish.

USSA is mixed, IMO. They do some very good work, but they also don't understand western wildlife very well and advocate for bills that would reduce elk habitat in favor of increased logging and motorized use. Same with Safari Club (who has an oil and gas lobbyist as their lobbyist now), NRA, etc. Those are all political organizations more than sportsmen groups.

I also like Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership for their work at the Federal Level, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers and RMEF, for the obvious reasons.

 

[BuzzH]

A good first step would be for hunters to quit thinking that throwing a membership at some organization and buying a fishing license once a year is doing enough.

Seems everyone has vacation time and money enough to take little johnnie to the movies, Disneyland, Sea World, etc. etc. etc.. but very damn few seem interested and passionate enough to spend the same resources fighting for the future of hunting for little johnnie.

Much of what you can do to really make a difference doesn't even cost any money...just takes getting off the couch.

I can tell you right now, 99% of hunters/trappers/fishermen are not going to do a single extra of any kind for hunting, fishing, or trapping...they buy a license once a year and that's doing plenty.

I had this discussion with a friend of mine from Missoula a week before Christmas regarding a MTFWP meeting I attended in Missoula last summer regarding fee increases. I've been gone from Montana for 15 years and I knew over half the people that attended that meeting.

The faces of those doing the most haven't changed for a long, long, long time.

Stepping up to the plate and making a difference for wildlife and sportsmen isn't any kind of priority...Disneyland needs visiting.

 

[npaden]

Thanks for the reply.

So the only real thing that folks have a big issue with on the National Wildlife Federation is the wolf issue? They supported reintroduction but do support state control and aren't suing against delisting?

The New Mexico Wildlife Federation seems to work diligently against nonresident hunters as well, I guess the individual state chapters are strictly working on behalf of resident hunters and anglers?

Is NWF against trapping?

Thanks, Nathan

 

[roadhunter]

Nailed it. We will never accomplish anything fighting among ourselves or pretending that our brand of hunting is superior to the way others hunt. But that is what goes on here.

Buzz is a perfect example of this. Guy has lots of knowledge but spends his time insulting other hunters on the internet by telling them how many brain cells they have firing and trying to tell an accountant how to do simple math on tag costs. BTW Buzz $20/$826 = 41.3 times = 4,130% . Greenhorn just makes homophobic slurs toward anyone who he disagrees with. Ben likes to shock you with half truths and exaggerations like this,Some of them would radically attack the public trust doctrine, eliminate hunter opportunity, steal license dollars, eliminate public lands and turn wildlife into livestock - .

Accomplishes nothing.

I've gotten to where I tune out the crazies on both sides of the argument and try to find common ground with the mainstream hunters who don't hate other types of hunting like folks here seem to do so often.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Nathan,

Part of it with NWF is the wolf issue - they were strong supporters of reintroduction. They have been supporters of state management since delisting though. Others tend to think that they are too green and are part of the environmental community more than the sportsman's community, which can be an honest criticism at times, but at least in the west, I see them standing up for wildlife, public lands and hunters & anglers (their staff is full of die-hard hunters). I have never seen anything anti-trapping from NWF, personally.

NMWF is a product of it's board members who set the direction and policies for the organization. They have worked hard to restore parity to NM's licensing structure and that means taking opportunity away from NR's and putting it back to the R's.

Great post Buzz.

 

[Big Fin]

Nathan - What you ponder here is the topic of many discussions among the big groups, "How do we all get pushing the same direction?" Often, that happens that we all do push the same direction. In fact, probably happens more often than hunters realize.

But, is there a group that could somehow find harmony and common cause among all who hunt the west? Not sure. I would like to think so, but given the very nature of the issues, I have some doubts.

One thing that certainly has changed in the last 30 years is the amount of hunters travelling out of state. That has changed the revenues the states realize from NRs. It has brought more commercial aspects to the discussion. It has increased competition among NRs for the limited tags and competition between Rs and NRs as to what percentage each group should get.

We also see a lot of influence by industry lobbyists. There was a time when the archers and riflemen had kind of accepted the place each other had on the calendar. Over time, we've seen new weapons evolve and the industry representatives going to Legislatures trying to carve out new seasons for the weapon types that benefit them. The pie is only so big, so taking weeks to add new weapon seasons takes weeks from other weapon seasons. That results in a lot of infighting among the groups.

I am as guilty as anyone when it comes to adopting technology that helps my style of hunting. I look at my scope, my rangefinder, and my GPS chip and it makes a big difference in my success. As a general rule, we are much more effective at taking mature animals than we were thirty years ago, in some part due to technology advances. Those advances result in some form of reduced opportunity in periods of stable or declining herds. Just a function of how many animals are/aren't available to these more efficient hunters. End result of fewer opportunity is the divides mentioned above.

Some things that help all parties are investments in groups and campaigns that put more sheep on the mountain, more elk in the hills, more acres accessible to hunters. None of that changes overnight, but more sheep /elk/deer/acres lessens the pressures and competition for a scarce resource. The more abundant the resource, the more to go around, the more satisfaction among all.

I've went round and round in my mind about an organization that would be an umbrella to cover all the things you mention. Eventually, I concluded (maybe incorrectly) that such organization is unlikely to form and even less likely to be able to withstand the pressures of all the factions who want to use this umbrella organization for their own agenda.

The end result for me is to commit to doing what I can with my time, my money, my volunteerism, and my political activism, to hopefully put more critters on the landscape and make more acres available to hunters. Maybe that is myopic on my part, but after decades of contemplating the same question, it is where my logic leads me every time.

I know some are not going to like this last paragraph, but the best things I can think of to improve our collective situation and that of the wildlife and habitat we depend upon is for hunters to stand up and be counted when the rest of society is comfortable sitting in the back pew. We need to donate more of our time and money. We need to volunteer more. We need to be more active. We need to look further down that road than what tag we might draw next year. The legacy we were handed was built with a perspective of a century down the road. We need to keep that focal distance to make sure what we hand to our kids is better than what was handed to us. It won't be easy and it will only come by hunters putting their shoulder to the wheel and contributing what they can to the cause; whether it be their talent, their time, or their treasure. All are important and all of us have at least one of those to contribute.

 

[npaden]

I would think an organization with a huge membership roll would go along way toward influencing legislation and game and fish regulations.

I think my $1k or whatever I was going to contribute would go farther with something like this than me spending the $1k in travel costs to go to a meeting in Wyoming or Montana where I will just be told that I'm not a resident and my opinions don't matter.

The DIY nonresident has had a pretty good run of things over the last few decades and that is about to start crashing down and I'm not sure what can be done about it. We draw the short end of the stick on just about every decision that I see being made over the next few years.

EDIT - Posted this in response to Buzz before the other posts were made.

 

[BuzzH]

The mainstream hunter is full of apathy and excuses.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm serious about this though. I would think an organization with a huge membership roll would go along way toward influencing legislation and game and fish regulations.

I think my $1k or whatever I was going to contribute would go farther with something like this than me spending the $1k in travel costs to go to a meeting in Wyoming or Montana where I will just be told that I'm not a resident and my opinions don't matter.

The DIY nonresident has had a pretty good run of things over the last few decades and that is about to start crashing down and I'm not sure what can be done about it. We draw the short end of the stick on just about every decision that I see being made over the next few years.

I get 100% what you're saying. Consider this: Every non-profit has a board of directors who sets the direction and policies of an organization. They are corporations just like GE or Shell. The Board is responsible for determining the destination while staff or volunteer staff plot the direction. If there is a group already existing who you can agree with more than 60% of the time, consider becoming a volunteer, and then step up your involvement to the board level when appropriate. These organizations are truly led by their members and if the members force the conversation, then it happens.

 

[Big Fin]

I'm serious about this though. I would think an organization with a huge membership roll would go along way toward influencing legislation and game and fish regulations.

There is a group out there that is comprised of all the big groups. It is called the American Wildlife Conservation Partners (AWCP). It was formed for the purpose of putting out collective influence, membership, and experience into issues that benefit all of us. The groups in AWCP are all the big players in the hunting/conservation world, plus some smaller ones.

Not many people are aware of AWCP and how it works. Or, the efforts they take on. A lot of the Federal legislation affecting our past time is introduced by and promoted by AWCP.

Sometimes campaigns are not appealing to one of the partners. They can elect to not support a certain campaign. Being part of the AWCP organization does give a dissenting group the platform by which to voice their concerns on a topic and hopefully influence the entire AWCP position on the issue.

Not a traditional "paid membership" type organization, but an effective collaboration on many topics.

 

[BuzzH]

The DIY nonresident has had a pretty good run of things over the last few decades and that is about to start crashing down and I'm not sure what can be done about it. We draw the short end of the stick on just about every decision that I see being made over the next few years.

EDIT - Posted this in response to Buzz before the other posts were made.

All true, and likely a fight you'll be wasting your money on. Each state is taking a close look at how THEIR opportunities are dwindling in surrounding states.

The only logical response is to ensure maximum opportunity for their Residents. Further, its within their right, as a State to decide what they think is fair to NR's.

Tag allocations between R and NR's has very little to do with the future of hunting, yet seems to be something you want to spend a lot of money and time on fighting.

The shortest, of all shorter ends of sticks, are going to be felt the most when your kids lose access to public lands, when public lands are sold, when wildlife herds are destroyed by the Frank Robbin's of the world, when commercialization and profit trump proper management, etc. etc. etc.

A perfect example is the domestic sheep thread...Frank Robbins is about to single-handedly kill off a wild herd of sheep that number 600-800. Even if Wyoming reduces the NR allocation of sheep tags to 10%, losing a herd of that size will impact your CURRENT as well as FUTURE potential at a tag much, much, much more. If the brakes aren't applied, you're kids chance at sheep tag from that herd is about to become ZERO.

On the flip side, if we take steps to increase sheep numbers by 50%, even with reduced NR allocations, you will have more sheep tags to draw as a NR, so will your kids.

I think Randy hit a home run with his comment regarding the importance of drawing a tag this year is trumping the big picture for a vast majority.

 

[Oak]

On the flip side, if we take steps to increase sheep numbers by 50%, even with reduced NR allocations, you will have more sheep tags to draw as a NR.

People really need to spend more time on this side of the equation. Example: the primary reason for the ridiculous preference point creep for deer in Colorado? Tags have been reduced by about 50% in the last 7 years due to a dwindling population. Instead, we get the Colorado Outfitter's Association lobbying for a 40% license allocation to non-residents.

We fight over what is left instead of fighting to make more.

 

[Big Fin]

People really need to spend more time on this side of the equation. Example: the primary reason for the ridiculous preference point creep for deer in Colorado? Tags have been reduced by about 50% in the last 7 years due to a dwindling population..........

We fight over what is left instead of fighting to make more.

The exact same point exists in Montana for bighorn sheep. Everyone wants a sheep tag, but when the time comes to be active and do something to change the legislative venom toward wild sheep, the number of hunters who show up or who call/email is very small. End result is that sheep in Montana are on a downhill slide. The symptoms are hidden by the fact that Montana continues to produce huge rams in some units, so all think life is fine for sheep in MT.

In reality, we issue fewer ram tags now than we did five years ago; or ten years ago. And if we have some more die offs due to pneumonia and our legislature continues to prohibit sheep augmentation or reintroduction, drawing a sheep tag in twenty years will be a story of the past, not a hope of the future.

Point being is exactly what has been stated. Increasing numbers improves the odds of all to draw a tag; elk, deer, moose, goat, sheep. That is where the future lies, no matter a resident or non-resident.

 

[roadhunter]

I would think an organization with a huge membership roll would go along way toward influencing legislation and game and fish regulations.

I think my $1k or whatever I was going to contribute would go farther with something like this than me spending the $1k in travel costs to go to a meeting in Wyoming or Montana where I will just be told that I'm not a resident and my opinions don't matter.

The DIY nonresident has had a pretty good run of things over the last few decades and that is about to start crashing down and I'm not sure what can be done about it. We draw the short end of the stick on just about every decision that I see being made over the next few years.

EDIT - Posted this in response to Buzz before the other posts were made.

Might look at Ducks Unlimited. I've watched them step up and pay for several conservation projects on state land recently. I was really impressed with how they operate.

http://www.ducks.org/

This area you can look at conservation projects in each state. Pretty cool.
http://www.ducks.org/conservation/where-we-work?poe=hometxt

 

[roadhunter]

The mainstream hunter is full of apathy and excuses.

Thanks for once again proving my point about you and your attitude towards other hunters.

 

[TheShootist.41]

Nailed it. We will never accomplish anything fighting among ourselves or pretending that our brand of hunting is superior to the way others hunt. But that is what goes on here.*

Roadhunter got it right. For proof see the 1-3-15 thread on crossbows!

 

[have gun will travel]

It's been going on for years and I think it's just getting worse.. Everyone has an opinion and everyone thinks there's is right. They refuse to even look at someone else's opinion. If this continues for much longer our sport is doomed. No one wins. We need to stick together even the guys that just buy a hunting license. We need to find a way to reach out to them. Let's be honest most hunters are not die hard hunters that regularly visit these forums, doesn't make them bad people. We need one group to bring it all together. This probably won't happen untill we suffer some big losses. I just hope by then it's not to late.

 

[OriginalOscar]

We need a Grover Norquist type. He helped author the GOP No Tax Pledge and used it as litmus test for politicians.

A well drafted pledge to support sportsmen rights, access and balanced land use would be a good qualifier for politicians. Then sportsmen could vote accordingly.