D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Public trust includes all aspect’s of wildlife management, to include hunting. To say the shouldn’t and can’t be a part of hunting regulations is exactly the crux of the article.
A brawl brewing in spokane?
- Thread starter Hilljackoutlaw
- Start date
OriginalOscar
Active member
Hunt Talk has lots of Green Decoys. Forum would improve if registration required your true name and profile pic with something shot or caught.
Oh and $8!
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Point to where I said hunting doesn’t play a role.
I’ll check tonight when I get back to see what you found.
Ohh FFS.
Yogithebear
Member
What are you talking about that hunters have screwed over non-hunters? You are echoing a non-sensical theme that the anti-hunting extremists organizations are trying to use to divide hunters from other outdoors users, a unity that has been made closer by much effort over the past few decades. As if you can’t have both. Yes their are extremists in both camps who believe that and shout get off my lawn, but most rational people on both sides are supportive. Anecdoatal, but I have never had someone say something negative or give me stink eye… and that includes hunting in southern California.Not being intentionally contrarian or overly critical at all. Just apparently more willing than most to try to be objective and entertain the idea that it’s possible that my group (which happens to be hunters) may have screwed over other user groups to get to where we are today. If we are unwilling to critically look at ourselves, we have problems. Having worked in wildlife for a couple of decades now, it frustrates, embarrasses and angers me to admit there is some truth to the accusations, and it’s still happening. Oscar’s posts are the perfect illustration of what plays out in wildlife agency politics all the time.
Serious question- are “Wildlife for All”members citizens? Yes or no, no buts.
I’m not saying anti-hunters should make all the rules, agencies should prioritize their views, or anything even close to that. What I, and the article, are saying is that public agencies have to work within public opinion. And public opinion says hunters have called all the shots for too long. And public servants are being held to account on that, like it or not. And if we are managing a public resource, we should be doing so with the WHOLE public in mind. Not just the people we like. That is what we are legally mandated to do.
Just for S’s and G’s, I looked this up this morning to read it again with this discussion in mind. I don’t see anything in here that elevates hunting or hunters to a status higher or more important than other citizens. If we hunters are going to hide behind the NAM while advocating that hunters should have more say in wildlife management decisions than other citizens, we are engaging in some seriously hypocritical thinking, are we not?
Just like hunters want scientific management of wildlife, unless the science doesn’t support their desires, I think we often fervently preach about the NAM, unless it means we have to let others play in the sandbox.
- Wildlife resources are conserved and held in trust for all citizens.
- Commerce in dead wildlife is eliminated.
- Wildlife is allocated according to democratic rule of law.
- Wildlife may only be killed for a legitimate, non-frivolous purpose.
- Wildlife is an international resource.
- Every person has an equal opportunity under the law to participate in hunting and fishing.
- Scientific management is the proper means for wildlife conservation.
I’m not asking people to accept any of this, just to at least try to honestly think about it from some other angles.
On the road today, so I’m bowing out. I think it’s been a pretty good discussion.
Anti-hunting groups are pretending these people are aggrieved to get their nose under the tent. As a wildlife photographer, how have hunters screwed me over? As a forager? As a hiker? As a horserider? They haven’t, duh! Thanks to hunting dollars there are tons of places I can do these activities, and miles of trails built. I WMA I hunted when I was in Virginia is a perfect example, super popular with horse riders, people walking their dogs, campers, foragers, birders, etc… 100% funded by hunting dollars. Did I ever hear hunters say keep all those other people out? No. Might a few have thought it? Probably… but again, this exclusion you and others are peddling is not accurate.
Again, anti-hunters, whether individuals or groups, should not be involved in wildlife management. It just can’t work. Can non-hunters? Sure. Can predator advocates? Sure. And they have been all along. But if you are against hunting then there is no actual thought or perspective. You are starting and and finishing at no.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
@neffa3 @TOGIE if you really want to pick the scab...
Makah Tribe v. Farro Islands v. Saint Vincent and the Grens then compare that to the Non-local hunting ban of caribou in AK then compare that to the Crow poaching case.
Doesn't matter who the parties to that conversation are, there is a zero percent that someone doesn't say something racists.
Me (Left) between some early morning rabbit hunting & my shift at the Ford plant outside of Ypsilanti.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Agreed... Ben and Huntingwife have a bunch of trip threads, you just seem to have a bunch of posts yelling about shit, so pony up buckaroo
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
This maybe your ideology, but it is absolutely contrary to the public trust doctrine.
I’m right there with @Hunting Wife . This stuff may be uncomfortable, but it’s reality.
When you zoom out and look at human existence on a timeline, the view that hunting is not acceptable is an extremist view.
I’m not going to argue with some weirdo whether I should poop if I need to, eat when I’m hungry or have sex with my wife, especially if we decide to have kids, so why would I entertain some equally crazy ideology that I shouldn’t hunt? Hunting is every bit as natural and normal as the others.
I’m not going to argue with some weirdo whether I should poop if I need to, eat when I’m hungry or have sex with my wife, especially if we decide to have kids, so why would I entertain some equally crazy ideology that I shouldn’t hunt? Hunting is every bit as natural and normal as the others.
There's an easy argument to be made that anti-hunting sentiments are actually racist, especially in these times.
Yogithebear
Member
You’re reaching bro and you know it. Two groups I’ve never heard of and a couple of gaggles of people… who opposed it somehow…
How about NWTF, NWS, IWLA, BHA, DU, the list goes on, these are the largest and most diverse hunting organizations in the US.
I will concede there is a perception and fear among a small group of hunters who fear losing power if other fund wildlife agencies. But its a misplaced fear. If the public didn’t stongly support hunting it would have ended ling ago. Sustainable, ethical hunting sells… because the cliches we say are true.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
So I've thought about this quite a bit, mainly because that was a response given by one of the Commissioners at their last meeting in Colville, effectively, it really doesn't matter what you think Small Town Living With Wildlife, the MAJORITY of this state feels differently so... you're SOL.
This is were the nuance between a democracy and a democratic republic come to play is it not? Our government, for all it's faults and short comings, supports both the opinion of the majority while in the other hand protecting the minority from that very majority. When we elect representatives, in any form not just to the US House, we're granting them to responsibility to make good, informed decisions, for us. We the public are not asked to vote on every topic. This was very deliberate as public opinion is largely driven by emotion, and emotions can swing wildly over a very short period of time. These elected officials are assumed to have a bit more of an even keel and take a more balanced approach. This is what I feel is lacking in the current decision making at the WDFW commission. - Which, I would like to remind everyone, is still what this thread is about. Yes, it may have broader implications, but let's still keep this focused on WA for now.
I've been trying to provide actual public comments, via Teams, at every meeting since May, I've never been called on. The point I really want to make, though others have also made it, is to remind the commission they are in a leadership role, and that public opinions cannot and should not infringe upon minority groups. Just because King County says, "Jump" doesn't mean the commission immediately has to say, "How high?" I'll readily concede some tags, some objectives, some population goals, if they acknowledge minority rights. I also don't understand why they feel the need to view the entire state through King County's lens of opinion. If King County wants more wolves, then by all means, I'll vote to have my license dollars help relocate more. But when the people living with wolves or cougars in the Blues say, "you know, we'd like fewer wolves, not no wolves, just fewer... I don't understand why that's such an issue." I certainly want fewer cougars in my neighborhood. I wouldn't mind fewer bears. As I pointed out recently, WDFW recommends that I don't have a bird feeder because of the increase risk of bears in my area (even though I don't exactly live in the woods). But the vast majority of King County can. There's not necessarily a direct correlation yet, where this current Commission is making decision that increase the bear populations around my house, but WA via voter initiative ended hound hunting and we've since seen a large increase in bears(totally qualitative statement), and most unfortunately, suburban or light rural bears in areas where hunting isn't an option. The WA populous is then disproportionately exposed to the implications of statewide wildlife decisions, that doesn't sit well with me. We should at least try to be accommodating to those most impacted by statewide decisions, similar to our efforts with ranchers and wolves.
Last edited:
Just because you aren't familiar with the issue outside of the federal sphere, doesn't mean there aren't active & organized groups working in this space at the state level.
DouglasR
Well-known member
This reminds me of this thread:
jryoung
Well-known member
Eleventy billion %, unfortunately we are the last of our kind still willing/wanting to do it and folks think is somehow more normal.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Devils advocate, this is about wildlife across the state, held in trust for all citizens, irrespective of county.
Certainly there are local impacts and considerations that must be take into account when decisions are made. But, now you’re flirting with the attitudes identified in the MT thread that you worry about your part of the state and I’ll worry about mine.
Yogithebear
Member
The groups I cite can be verified very easily. You are citing two groups and gaggles we wouldn’t know, they live in the Niagra Falls area, right?
Similar threads
