Like most people I don"t enjoy being controversial, but when something unpopular is said controversy naturally seems to follow. I think that the truth must be spoken in order to affect change in the status quo " regardless of what is thought of the person for doing so. So to that end I"d like to offer up to the hunting community the following food for thought from my book "The New Age Hunter." It has to do with how we hunters can advance the cause of hunting by ensuring that we spend our hard-earned dollars wisely.
""We should be members in hunting clubs, wildlife associations, and other national/local organizations that support wildlife management and conservation concepts. These organizations are spokespersons for the like minded and can wield considerable pressure on particular agendas from the quantitative (e.g., influencing legislation and government funding) to the qualitative (having a high profile and clout in the minds of Americans).
It is also a good idea for each of us to examine the organizations we currently belong to make sure that they truly represent our positions. For example, if we are passionate about conservation and hunting and we decide to budget $100 per year in memberships to various likeminded organizations, it is best use of our money to subscribe to organizations that support and promote both conservation and hunting agendas.
I used to be a member in a well-known wildlife conservation organization but learned that THEY DID NOT TAKE A STAND ON THE ISSUE OF HUNTING OR EVEN FIREARM OWNERSHIP, EVEN THOUGH THEY CATERED TO GUN OWNERS AND HUNTSMEN FOR THE MAJORITY OF THEIR FINANCIAL SUPPORT. Although this organization does noteworthy habitat conservation work, I decided to discontinue my membership and commit funds from my limited budget to two organizations that do exemplary habitat conservation work and aggressively lobby the preservation and enhancement of hunting and second amendment rights at the political level.
AS A CONSERVATIONIST, THE NEW AGE HUNTER WANTS HABITAT ENRICHMENT, BUT IF WE DON"T ALLOW OUR VOICES TO BE REPRESENTED REGARDING HUNTING AND GUN OWNERSHIP THEN WE ARE NOT SPENDING OUR DOLLARS WISELY. Needless to say, if we don"t spend prudently then we had better be prepared to appreciate wildlife as "watchers," because the forces working against hunting and the second amendment are escalating and without likeminded organizations being vocal on our behalf we will ultimately be silenced.
Getting back to the wildlife organization I left, think about this for a moment. It is my understanding that approximately 70% of the members of this organization are hunters. Just think of the leverage that hunters could exert if they declared that they might spend their membership dollars in an organization that paid greater heed to their agendas. Either the organization would change to include hunting and gun ownership interests, which would be a win for hunters without any change to important conservation efforts by the organization, or all the monies now committed simply to conservation could be spent promoting both hunting and conservation, which would still be a win for hunters.
Simply put, wildlife causes would continue to be supported, but there would also be a tremendous amount of dollars instantly available for use in representing hunters. Make sure the organizations you belong to represent all your issues, or at a minimum, the ones most important to you. If they do not, ask them to amend their bylaws or let them know that you will only support organizations that do."
Ant
__________________
* For more information on hunting or my travels visit... www.anthonypmaurosr.com
There are plenty of times a person shouldn't take a stance if they don't have to. But there are also times when riding the fence just doesn't cut it. And in my mind, there is no fence to ride between being an environmentalist and being a conservationist. Two completely different approaches to wildlife preservation. Environmentalism is a "hand's off" approach that removes man from the environment. Conservationism is a "hand's on" approach that does not seek to remove human influence, but seeks to use human influence and human resources for the benefit of the environment. Human utilization of the resource is just done so in a manner capable of sustaining a healthy ecosytem over the long term.
__________________
You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!
I wouldn't want to suggest a list of groups to support - or not support for that matter - becuase it is a personal choice. What I am suggesting is that each of us make sure that our dollars are spent wisely in that the money goes toward our agendas.
For example, if you donate or pay dues to the Sierra Club you are spending your money on environmentalism/conservation - certainly a noble cause. But if you happen to be hunting on property the Sierra Club help to conserve and your hunting traditions are threatened, they won't be there to help your cause. They may have used your money but their emphasis is soley environmental. As a matter of fact, the Sierra Club chapter in NJ is anti-hunting.
Same for Ducks Unlimited. This organization is big on conservation (especially wetlands. They are certainly not anti-hunting and sell lines of products specifically to duck hunters - but they do not support gun ownership or hunting. Sure, they have transformed a good portion of our nation's landscape, and approximately 70% of their contributions come from hunters - but should the tradition of hunting or gun ownership be challanged, well let's just say hunters won't be seeing all those dollars they spent coming back to support them. But they'll be able to do plenty of wildlife watching on these wetlands - just not any hunting.
I agree that there are different organizations that have agendas that overlap as they relate to hunting. The NRA is one (which I fully endorse). This group is focused on second amendment issues and let's face it most of us wouldn't be hunting if we couldn't make use of firearms.
My point is that hunters need to prioitize wghere they are spending their dollars. Gun ownership is a priority for the reason mentioned above. Preserving our hunting tradition is another, especially with all the lawsuits attacking hunting in almost each of the 50 states. The US Sportsmens Alliance has been nationally recognized not only in their efforts to defend our hunting traditions but for effectively managing their financial resources (making sure that a high percentage of dollars taken in is spent on defending hunting and not subsidizing administrative costs). Hunting is under attack from various anti-hunting groups and politicians across the country. Lawsuits against Fish and Game by these groups is siphoning funds from wildlife management projects to lawyers, along with time and attention that could be better spent on managing habitat. The US Sportsmens Alliance is constantly defeding hunting i courts throughout America. So is Safari Club International (to a lesser degree).
My point is that hunters should be contributing their hard earned dollars to organizatrions that concentrate on second amendment issues, hunting preservation issues (of course those organizations that do both hunting and conservation work too), THEN conservation groups like the Sierra Club or Ducks Unlimited (groups that are hunting "neutral").
Ant
__________________
* For more information on hunting or my travels visit... www.anthonypmaurosr.com
While I agree with a lot of what has been said, for the sake of conversation and accuracy, I would add that some of what has been posted is a dichotomized version of the picture.
For example, there is a great deal of ground between the given definitions of "environmentalist" and "conservationists."
Also some "conservationists" promote the eradication of "invasive species," which raises questions in my mind at least, as to the fundamental practice of wholesale eradiction practices and even the very definition of "invasive" when conveniently used in this context to produce the emotional rhetoric required to justify the actions.
The issues, as posed, also fail to take into account other variables such as farming practices, including the use of herbicides and pesticides, fertilizers, and various new age planting practices, as well as the now commonly accepted practices of using similar products for the sole purpose of "healthier lawns."
It is a bit more complicated than just an "us against them" mentality, although resolving complex issues to that degree is conducive to creating the "follow me" rally mindset necessary to keep the membership revenues flowing in copius quantities.
Well, I've been on public land where you can't walk a 100 yards or so without seeing someone's pop bottles or food wrappers. Makes hunters look terrible, IMO.
Well, I've been on public land where you can't walk a 100 yards or so without seeing someone's pop bottles or food wrappers. Makes hunters look terrible, IMO.
Maybe it's not just the hunters doing it.
Last year I found a pile of carb cleaner spray cans kids were huffing on a WMA area. Therre was even a sweatshirt that one of them had left.
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
It's time for some controversy
