"Sportsmen" Supporting I-177
- Thread starter BigHornRam
- Start date
BigHornRam
Well-known member
IMO, there is little difference between SFW and HHAA. Both are partisans couched as a sportsmen's group. That's why I wouldn't be a member of either.
RobG
Well-known member
Let's just say that if you gathered that from my comments someone could put a wire up your ass and snare your head.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Neither will first generation Bitterroot's have a problem finding a place to trap wolves, at least if they are polite.
They also can go to Idaho right next door and trap. At least Idaho has yet to be infested with as many anti-trapping, anti-logging, anti-ranching people as Montana has.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
BigHornRam
Well-known member
As usual, I'm about 50% with you.
Sounds to me like you are a member of HHAA, Ben. Not surprised.
Used to be. My membership is lapsed.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Rain got ya down Paul? You seem a bit more bitter then usual.
No. It's snow in the high country. I'm having fun. How about you?
Not bitter at all. Fist full of tags, its fall and elk in the freezer.
Last edited:
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Well, Ben. Maybe you should renew it so you can tell the anti-trapping president you are quitting his group in protest!
Stan & I have had that conversation already. But I should renew. HHAA does a lot of good work on forest planning and tentatives.
RobG
Well-known member
BHR - I don't appreciate people putting words in my mouth to try and elicit a response, especially when it was pretty obvious I didn't support I-177. I was just kidding about the snare; the price of scalps is so low these days that it don't cover the cost of cleaning the wire.
katqanna
Well-known member
This subject is one of the least black and white issues out there, and if you could be a fly on the wall seeing the votes of hunters, I think you would be very surprised for a number of reasons.
You have made Stan Fraiser a poster child of betrayal and treachery to hunting. This is not the case. Stan is a hunter, with diverse opinions, just as all other hunters have. There are a number of hunters who differ on the trapping on public lands issues, for a diversity of reasons even. So to go after, attacking one member in this manner, and then to spread it to his hunting angling group, like witch trial, Inquisition, and McCarthyism style - guilt by association, you risk furthering the divide for your cause, instead of bridging it; not just with those members, but others who know and respect Stan and the HHAA members. Just for the record, HHAA has quite the number of retired and current wildlife biologists in it, science, statistics and regulations being a big foundation for their perspectives and positions they take.
I personally know two hunters who have had their hunting dogs caught in traps on public lands in the Gallatin in the last couple of years. Dogs, they not only had an emotional investment in, but were hunting dogs that they had financial and time investments in. To say that they were not happy would be an understatement. I have listened to these outspoken hunter's positions develop over the years on trapping on public lands.
I personally know a few hunters that grew up hunting and trapping. They still hunt, but no longer trap and do not advocate for trapping, most especially on public lands. They had a variety of reasons for the shifts in their positions, mostly they sighted conservation as the reason why. I know these guys are quietly sharing their perspectives with others, they signed the petition for I-177 and they have stated they will be voting for it. They still hunt and are no less the hunter for not advocating for trapping.
I also know hunters that do trap, men I respect. Additionally I have friends that are wildlife biologists that have utilized trapping for research. I know sportsmen's groups that have not taken a position because of the internal membership conflict and some who did take a position, not all of the membership agrees.
I have had a number of personal and phone call conversations with general hunters, this subject becoming the more controversial these days - another one just this morning. I hear the conflict these guys are wrestling with. I don't even bring it up, this is one subject I really wish would just simply evaporate. I see the blowback from this and the longterm possibilities as being damned if you do and damned if you don't - harming general hunting either way.
Being a public advocate, I want to see the public have their chances to vote on issues that they may not get a voice/representation in a controlled/blocked legislature. On the other hand, just because the majority believe something, does not make it right for them to remove the rights of a minority, generally speaking. What if hunting as a whole becomes the minority they go after? I certainly would not want anti hunting advocates pushing their agenda on a general, uninformed public and losing my or anyone else's right to hunt.
When you add in divisive personalities to the mix, political associations/alliances that could sway individual hunters or groups a certain direction, the issue becomes exponentially compounded.
* Individuals like Paul Fielder, a director of MTA and husband of the notorious MT Senator Jennifer Fielder, who has been pushing an agenda of public land transfer, with the rumor that after the election, she is giving up her senator seat to her husband while she goes full time into ALC.
* Individuals like that woman from Footloose ( I can't remember her name and I don't want to take the time to look it up) who hates all hunting and believes it should be outlawed altogether.
I have not made a decision yet, as I have stated, I wish this whole divisive subject didn't exist. But what I can say with certainty, psychologically our brains are hardwired for tribalism, it is part of our survival. When personal attacks are made, ad hominem attacks which call into question who is really a member of the tribe, rather than positions/issues, it pits one part of the tribe against another part of the tribe, decisions are made and sects are created as a result.
So my question is - do you really want to embark on attacking an individual hunter, trying to get him shamed and thrown out of the tribe for standing up for a belief, then go after his hunting group, to shame them as well, attempting to get them expelled/ostracized from the larger community in an attempt to bring pressure to bear/sanction? Are you willing to take responsibility for your actions and any potential blowback this will have on the hunting community, even your cause?
I don't see personally attacking Stan Fraiser or any other hunter that you may know of, as not being a "true hunter", being a benefit to your cause; but I can see a hell of a lot of damage and downside to your words and actions.
You have made Stan Fraiser a poster child of betrayal and treachery to hunting. This is not the case. Stan is a hunter, with diverse opinions, just as all other hunters have. There are a number of hunters who differ on the trapping on public lands issues, for a diversity of reasons even. So to go after, attacking one member in this manner, and then to spread it to his hunting angling group, like witch trial, Inquisition, and McCarthyism style - guilt by association, you risk furthering the divide for your cause, instead of bridging it; not just with those members, but others who know and respect Stan and the HHAA members. Just for the record, HHAA has quite the number of retired and current wildlife biologists in it, science, statistics and regulations being a big foundation for their perspectives and positions they take.
I personally know two hunters who have had their hunting dogs caught in traps on public lands in the Gallatin in the last couple of years. Dogs, they not only had an emotional investment in, but were hunting dogs that they had financial and time investments in. To say that they were not happy would be an understatement. I have listened to these outspoken hunter's positions develop over the years on trapping on public lands.
I personally know a few hunters that grew up hunting and trapping. They still hunt, but no longer trap and do not advocate for trapping, most especially on public lands. They had a variety of reasons for the shifts in their positions, mostly they sighted conservation as the reason why. I know these guys are quietly sharing their perspectives with others, they signed the petition for I-177 and they have stated they will be voting for it. They still hunt and are no less the hunter for not advocating for trapping.
I also know hunters that do trap, men I respect. Additionally I have friends that are wildlife biologists that have utilized trapping for research. I know sportsmen's groups that have not taken a position because of the internal membership conflict and some who did take a position, not all of the membership agrees.
I have had a number of personal and phone call conversations with general hunters, this subject becoming the more controversial these days - another one just this morning. I hear the conflict these guys are wrestling with. I don't even bring it up, this is one subject I really wish would just simply evaporate. I see the blowback from this and the longterm possibilities as being damned if you do and damned if you don't - harming general hunting either way.
Being a public advocate, I want to see the public have their chances to vote on issues that they may not get a voice/representation in a controlled/blocked legislature. On the other hand, just because the majority believe something, does not make it right for them to remove the rights of a minority, generally speaking. What if hunting as a whole becomes the minority they go after? I certainly would not want anti hunting advocates pushing their agenda on a general, uninformed public and losing my or anyone else's right to hunt.
When you add in divisive personalities to the mix, political associations/alliances that could sway individual hunters or groups a certain direction, the issue becomes exponentially compounded.
* Individuals like Paul Fielder, a director of MTA and husband of the notorious MT Senator Jennifer Fielder, who has been pushing an agenda of public land transfer, with the rumor that after the election, she is giving up her senator seat to her husband while she goes full time into ALC.
* Individuals like that woman from Footloose ( I can't remember her name and I don't want to take the time to look it up) who hates all hunting and believes it should be outlawed altogether.
I have not made a decision yet, as I have stated, I wish this whole divisive subject didn't exist. But what I can say with certainty, psychologically our brains are hardwired for tribalism, it is part of our survival. When personal attacks are made, ad hominem attacks which call into question who is really a member of the tribe, rather than positions/issues, it pits one part of the tribe against another part of the tribe, decisions are made and sects are created as a result.
So my question is - do you really want to embark on attacking an individual hunter, trying to get him shamed and thrown out of the tribe for standing up for a belief, then go after his hunting group, to shame them as well, attempting to get them expelled/ostracized from the larger community in an attempt to bring pressure to bear/sanction? Are you willing to take responsibility for your actions and any potential blowback this will have on the hunting community, even your cause?
I don't see personally attacking Stan Fraiser or any other hunter that you may know of, as not being a "true hunter", being a benefit to your cause; but I can see a hell of a lot of damage and downside to your words and actions.
Nemont
Well-known member
Be specific on how disagreeing with Stan Fraiser's personal position on public lands trapping damages hunters. That very same argument was used by proponents of high fence hunting: That you can't cause a rift between hunters based on what one part of the hunting community believes vs another part. Personally calling out an individual for their position on any issue is not only right but also IMO sacrosanct to the way our Representative Republic works. If an individual is a "head/leader/honcho" of a hunting organization and takes a public position against what perhaps the majority of that organization's membership believes why is it not acceptable to call that person out?
If Gov. Bullock announced that he, as a private individual, was supporting the legalization of drugs and that was his position personally but that he was not speaking as Gov. do you think he would be called out for it?
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.
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.
Nemont
If Gov. Bullock announced that he, as a private individual, was supporting the legalization of drugs and that was his position personally but that he was not speaking as Gov. do you think he would be called out for it?
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.
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.
Nemont
We can't even talk among ourselves without this being so ugly.
I was in town the other day and saw a truck plastered in "smoke a pack a day" and "no I-177" stickers. What does the general public think about that kind of representation of trappers and their wildlife management values? I don't think it's good and if I-177 passes at least some have no one but themselves to blame.
The more we push each others buttons them more we hurt ourselves.
I was in town the other day and saw a truck plastered in "smoke a pack a day" and "no I-177" stickers. What does the general public think about that kind of representation of trappers and their wildlife management values? I don't think it's good and if I-177 passes at least some have no one but themselves to blame.
The more we push each others buttons them more we hurt ourselves.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
I wonder why they were not happy? What happened to the dogs?
katqanna
Well-known member
Taken to vets and eventually healed. Both traps on public lands, one trap had no markers or tags.
Similar threads
