akchuck

Amen! I live in an area of Alaska that has been under intensive management for several years. IM areas are areas that have more predators than prey species it has been 10 years since I have been able to hunt moose in my back yard. Since I live a 60 mile air charter out of Anchorage I depend on a lot of local food.
The saving grace is I am able to get a permit from the state to take as many black bears as I want.
I'll never understand the Walter Mitty mentality of protect predators and not the animals that feed people. I hunt to feed my family if I come home empty handed we eat rice & beans (insert barf here)

homers brother

Just a suggestion? Park your sarcasm. It detracts - and significantly - from the argument you seem to be attempting to formulate.

I have relatives in New Jersey. They want a bear season reestablished. They've had bears on their deck trying to get into the house. Their neighbors, ALL OF THEM NON-HUNTERS, are now all of the same mind-set. For that matter, most of their township is tired of being saddled with the state's bear problem. Bears were "good", until they saw what bears really are, not what they've seen in Disney movies. That's pretty consistent with the dynamic now at work in South Dakota with the cats.

Nonetheless, you seem to have bought into the very arguments that the environmentalists use to recruit the non-hunting public. Particularly dangerous, your apparent assumption or leap in logic that all non-hunters are environmentalists. So, it probably seems to you that the public, by-and-large, are against hunting. I hate to say it, but by your assertion, the environmentalists have already won.

Muley70

Wrong again, as usual for finnbear. This "it's about hunting" and not killing crap is getting old. Why is it that hunters seem to feel the need to separate themselves from the kill? The indians celebrated the kill. finnbear, if it isn't about the kill then why carry a rifle? Can you not feel comaraderie with the mountains w/o carrying a rifle? It is about the kill, and if it wasn't you would be carring a camera instead of a rifle. Now if one were to say it is not "just" about the kill, I might be inclined to agree, but saying it isn't about the kill is total BS. The sooner hunters come to grips with that the better off we will all be. I like the meat, my family depends on it, you bet your azz it is about the kill and the day that it isn't I will stop hunting. I find it ironic that somebody who claims it isn't about the kill knows exactly how many elk he has killed, what are you keeping tally? I have no idea how many elk or deer I have killed.

rather_be_huntin

Sigh....I think you misunderstood what Genesis was trying to say.

Let's review....

1 - maniac99 acussed me of hunting for ONLY the purpose of killing crap and that he really only does it for the experience. (seems like a holier than thou comment, but what ever)

2 - My response was it's true there is more to hunting than harvesting an animal but if there is no game around to harvest then we can't really call it hunting now can we? With no game (this is where the wolf discussion comes in, title of the thread) then we are just camping with guns.

3 - Then Genisis chimed in. I think he was also referring to the holier than thou comment where I (others too I'm sure) was acussed of hunting ONLY to kill crap.

Now to tie it all together in a neat little bow. We shouldn't hunt ONLY for the harvest. But the harvest is the goal (like Muley said) and we should not feel guilty about doing ALL we can to harvest an animal on every hunt and celebrate our harvests with excitement and joy. This also means we should be doing all we can to preserve our hunting opportunities which includes speaking up when a predator is not being properly managed, whether it be the wolf, cougar, bear, disease, parasites, or even humans. The "experience" is only valuable after a hard hunt with a legitimate chance at a harvest. Now if some choose to buy a hunting license as an excuse to go camping with family and friends, that's fine too but don't call it hunting.

cataraft

Thanks for the criticism. But I believe that it would more appropriately be called cynicism not sarcasm. I'm glad to hear that you are seeing a changing public opinion. I am not, and that's what I've written. It is good to look at the positives and the negatives. I have relatives in Maryland and they have, many years after they should have, started hunting bears again. That is indeed a good thing but it was a struggle every step of the way and what they ended up getting was in the end a very poor compromise. I have spent some time in South Dakota and I have enjoyed the company of almost everyone that I've meet there. They seem like very reasonable people in my estimation and I have no doubt that they look at predators in terms of the way that they impact their lives. But throughout most of the country I see a different story being told. I do believe that the environmentalists have already won many battles, but I don't believe that the fight is over. I think that it is our responsibility to educate ourselves and others about what living with large predators really means. It is not enough for me to say that when things get bad enough people's opinions will change. Rather, I would say things already have gotten bad enough and these are the results that we are seeing today. Do not let the problem continue to grow. I do believe that it has been ingrained in the American psychology that man as a hunter is bad, that we should "leave only footprints and take only pictures" that nature is more complete without us conducting our affairs in it and that wherever man inhabits soon nature flees or suffers severe impoverishment. I do believe that many people feel that when their actions attract and encourage an abundance of wildlife that they are actually encroaching on nature rather than what is actually happening-- the creation of habitat due to human activity.
Out of curiosity, and a lack of understanding, I would like to know what arguments you think I am using that the environmentalist have used to recruit the non-hunting public and why? I do not think that all non-hunters are environmentalists, but I do think that they have a larger voice in the world today than outdoors men/hunters and that their perspectives create a more "hands off" tendency among most people than ever before. I also believe that most people are uneducated about the natural world in the sense that they are told man is not a part of it. The truth is that man is as much a part of nature as any other animal. Man helped to create the prairie as much as he has helped to destroy it-- I don't hear that story being told. Where is the story of man when you watch a Discovery series like Planet Earth?
When it comes to large predators I would love to believe that as soon as they grow to a level that impacts our lives negatively peoples attitudes will change. Perhaps in South Dakota that will happen. But what I can tell you is that from what I've seen even the loss of human life has not been enough in most cases. Just look to California, Oregon and other places where predators have grown to unprecedented numbers- there is still nothing being done of any substance because the solutions are not politically correct or jive with the "natural world" philosophy where man is merely an observer and not a participant. The same thing is happening now with wolves, and in another 20 years or less you are going to be cutting wolf tracks and mountain lion tracks in your state. They are only 400 miles from your western border now, maybe even closer. Are you willing to wait until they're in your garbage before you let others realize that they were removed for good legitimate reasons? And are you willing to be held hostage and unable to act by the rest of the country that says "the wolf belongs there, but people don't." That is exactly what has happened in Idaho. Now there are wolves in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and soon Colorado, Utah, and yes, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska and then ......... It doesn't end until we step up to the plate and take a stand against it, it is not enough in my opinion to wait for public opinion to change through natural courses, we have to change it ourselves for our benefit just like environmentalists changed it to be cohesive to their beliefs. If I seem to be using an environmentalists arguments then that's because I've seen how effective they can be and I'm tired of getting my ass kicked around by them. As hunters and stewards of the land we need to update our arsenal and fight back for what we love.

My apologies, homers brother, I thought you were in SD and didn't realize you were in WY. So please forgive me, I don't want to rewrite this post. I appreciate your input and am glad that you see positive things out there. I wish that I did. For me the whole argument is not too dis-similar from the other posts here about whether we should just be enjoying ourselves out in nature or whether our real purpose is meat. I guess IMHO that just depends on how affected you have been by the man as observer vs. man as participant philosophies.

homers brother

When you introduce irony and express that "it's man's fault", when that's the opposite of what you argue, it's sarcasm. Cynical in that you can't control the perceptions of the non-hunting public, yeah - I feel that as well from time to time.

Not to call you out, particularly because this is a very complex issue, but recalling something I practiced in the military, "If you're not here with a solution, then you're a part of the problem."

Okay, so your concern is with public opinion. I wholly agree that it's the center of gravity in most of these arguments. So, why should we be concerned that we might be losing the support of the public? If the message the environmental bloc presents is more effective than ours, whose problem is that? We can't blame them for outwitting us. Is it the perception they portray of us? Is it that they hold a corner on truth and science?

The easiest people to influence in this debate are those who, geographically, will play no real part in it. These are the people who experience nature through "Discovery" and "Animal Planet". These are the people who read about nature in "National Geographic" and "Newsweek". These people WANT to absolve themselves of any guilt in harming the environment by buying hybrid cars, by joining Sierra Club, by supporting what, on the surface, seem rational and reasonable arguments. And they'll never put on a backpack and venture into bear country. None of us are ever going to encourage them to do so.

The beauty of the argument environmentalists make is that it comes in a pretty package, it requires no proof, and offers only that you feel better about yourself in the end. Oh, and that you then donate and vote.

How do we fight that? What do YOU propose? We're nowhere near as organized or well-funded as they are. By the time we get there, the fight will be over. Even then, it becomes a matter of message. Does the non-hunting public want to believe us ("blood on our hands", "killers", etc.) or them ("peace", "harmony", etc.)? Just as they'll never see nature for what it is, they'll never see hunters for what we are, either. They run TV shows about the happy animals, we run TV shows about killing them. Not that I'm opposed to them, but it's not about what any of us perceive of ourselves, it's what someone outside percieves of us. And, I'm not sold that it's up to me to change to become a more "marketable" image. I hunt, I enjoy nature, I kill, and I eat. Nonetheless, that is likely the very image the environmentalists rely upon to influence non-hunters. What to do?

No, I think nature has to come to the very people isolated from it. It has to eat their ornamental shrubs, total their car when it collides with them, knock out the engines in the Airbus they're flying in, consume their pet, ... And, that's what's starting to happen. The truth is just going to have to be painful to more people. And here's where I think I'm actually far more cynical than you are, not that I wish misfortune on people. I fly on airliners, too.

Just as we're be debating now whether cessation of logging was the right thing to do in light of the Rocky Mountain Pine Beetle infestation, we'll be arguing in twenty years how industry has caused this "global cooling" phenomena, and we'll be wondering when something's going to be done about all the nuisance predators (the pretty cover shot of a wolf on National Geographic will be long-forgotten). As time goes by, the environmental industry will be seen for what it is - an industry. Until now, its success lies in its relative youth, and that it can't be tied (yet) to its betrayals and failures. Truth is our friend.

finnbear

muley muley muley...wrong again as usual, provin u know nothing about me, I spend lots of time in the hills without a gun. I'm sorry I did not phrase it right but U knew I ment it was just not the killin!!! but U have taken it upon yerself to belittle me every chance U get... U come in here and say that the indians celebrated the kill well most indians I know DO NOT celebrate the kill they celebrate the success of the hunt, they also take time to apoligize to the amimal for killing it and thank it for giving it's life so others might live!!! and as for knowing how many elk I've gotten ..is because I started a knecklace with the whistlers of the first one and have continued to do so!!!! yes I also like the meat as does my family but we do eat other meat as well, it is not life or death to get a deer or elk as it was in the old days...

Muley70

I do not belittle you every chance I get, and have in the past defended your position when I thought you were right. I do attack your position when it is wrong, and your position on the entire wolf issue is wrong. Lets take for example your stance in your last line of the above post: "it is not life or death to get a deer or elk as it was in the old days...". That is almost a direct quote from much of the anti-hunting literature out there. In fact, it is the nexus for much of the anti-hunting rhetoric.

I do not think you are an anti-hunter, however, I do see you as a representative of too many hunters that slip dangerously close to getting in bed with the environmentalist that are opposed to hunting. Many of your quotes such as "they where here first" regarding wolves are the exact arguments made by the anti-hunting leftist. If you sit down and look at the angle environmentalist and anti-hunters take, it always comes in the form of some sort of predator enhancement. Ever wonder why?

We have anti-baiting, anti-dog/anti-bear hunting legislation proposal almost every election cycle. We have anti-hunting cougar legislation, and wolf re-introduction. We have anti-trapping coalitions which is a predator heavy sport. If one sits backs and evaluates the MO of the antis, it becomes clear that they have a serious objective in perpetuating and enhancing predators in North America. I believe the long range goal is to ultimately eliminate the human hunter as the primary method of controlling animal populations. With humans no longer the primary control valve, and the food issue no longer a valid concern, hunting really has no place in a progressive society.

I personally think that more people need to get on board. I also think that too many hunters are more focused on the latest gadget they can buy, then they are on learning about their prey and the environment it lives in. Antis are misguided, but they are not stupid, and right now I would say they are in the lead. They engaged in a process of infiltrating the USFS, BLM, etc and they have been very effective in stopping logging operations over the last three decades. They have also been very effective in closing roads and limiting access and establishing wilderness areas or attempting to. Limited access by humans, and predator heavy areas means one thing, no hunting, and that is their goal.

cataraft

"Not to call you out, particularly because this is a very complex issue, but recalling something I practiced in the military, "If you're not here with a solution, then you're a part of the problem."

My solution is that we educate others on the real impacts and implications of living with large predators like the wolf. That we address the continuing loss of hunting opportunities and the real natural cycle of nature where any animal that is not limited reaches a saturation level that destroys an ecosystems natural balance. That we use sound biology and scientific truth to support our arguments. That we encourage each other and help to organize ourselves, and that we befriend non-hunters and "nature lovers" and share our experience and perspectives. Inviting a non hunting friend over and cooking him/her a elk steak for dinner, or a fresh fish, or sharing some wild mushrooms goes a long way in changing peoples perspectives (provided you can cook). Sharing information from RMEF like rather be hunting has shared, also helps back up our opinions with evidence and not just emotion.

"Okay, so your concern is with public opinion. I wholly agree that it's the center of gravity in most of these arguments. So, why should we be concerned that we might be losing the support of the public? If the message the environmental bloc presents is more effective than ours, whose problem is that? We can't blame them for outwitting us. Is it the perception they portray of us? Is it that they hold a corner on truth and science?."

This is most definitely our problem and perhaps the greatest threat to the future of our sport and the opportunities that we enjoy today. We can blame ourselves for letting them outwit us. They have presented themselves as having held a corner on truth and science and we have let them do it. We have often been, and unfortunately continue to be, the source of the very portraits that they use against us. When will we learn not to portray ourselves in such a negative sociopathic light? Here on this forum hunters continue to make posts about killing animal pups, blowing up squirrels with high powered rifles etc. and very few of us stand up and say anything about it (myself included). Here in Oregon we have what is probably (because no one knows actually how many there are- best guess is 5,000-6,000) the second highest cat population in the country next to California and it is because of public opinion about films that hunters have made of cat hunting were the animal suffered what most people would agree with as an unnecessarily undue amount. Twice by referendum we can no longer hunt cats with dogs because of what we have silently supported and let other hunters do-- now we are losing our opportunities to hunt other game as well through reduced deer and elk tags. We should be looking more towards the great American hunters and conservationists like Aldo Leopold and Teddy Roosevelt for role models and trying to preserve our heritage based on their example than simply following Ted Nugent's "kill them and grill them" chants. The former appeal to all Americans and all people who enjoy nature and the latter to only our own specific interests as opposed to those of the American people. We should have in our hearts and minds the best interests of the country as a whole and back it up with scientific facts. I believe that we can do just that because it has been our heritage as the greatest conservationist group in the entire world to do so. American hunters are without a doubt the most successful and least appreciated conservationists in the world and it is our responsibility and no one else's to make other people aware of that fact.

"The easiest people to influence in this debate are those who, geographically, will play no real part in it. These are the people who experience nature through "Discovery" and "Animal Planet". These are the people who read about nature in "National Geographic" and "Newsweek". These people WANT to absolve themselves of any guilt in harming the environment by buying hybrid cars, by joining Sierra Club, by supporting what, on the surface, seem rational and reasonable arguments. And they'll never put on a backpack and venture into bear country. None of us are ever going to encourage them to do so."

Here I just plain disagree. The easiest people to influence in this debate are the ones who are closet to it and can play a real part in it. No one who ever tasted an elk medallion wrapped in bacon is going to disagree with the fact that Elk Hunting is a good thing. I think you would be surprised how many of these people do put on backpacks and how much time they spend in the outdoors. I encourage them to go out, to listen to elk bugle and to learn about nature-- whether it is bird watching, mushroom hunting, fishing, or whatever. The people that come in contact with nature regularly are the easiest ones to get to support hunting when they are educated about it. Most of us scoff at backpackers, mountain bikers, and climbers but they are generally the most open to hunting than any other group of non-hunters I've encountered and the easiest to get to go hunting. We have a lot in common with these people and often the only thing missing for them is another hunter in their life that sets a good example for them and forms a favorable image of how man can respectfully participate in nature. The reason for this is because these people really want to participate themselves but that they either don't know how or have been taught that they should be ashamed to do so. They are the ones reading the magazines and contributing the dollars to anti-hunting organizations like defenders of wildlife and sierra club and ironically they are the one group of anti-hunters with the most in common with us and the easiest to convert. I don't recommend getting in bed with them or compromising principles for them, like the purity of nature and the natural cycle of life BS, not to mention the Native American Mythos. But being honest about killing, harvesting, and making meat is generally effective with this crowd, because they all secretly want to be a part of the natural world themselves. Many of them really like meat too. And if not meat, then mushrooms, pine seeds, fiddle heads, maybe even fish-- they might just like you for being honest and not BS'ing them despite what you have to offer to eat. The way to win a good friend in life is through their stomach. Most people crave the natural experience deep in their gut and can relate to it.

cataraft

"The beauty of the argument environmentalists make is that it comes in a pretty package, it requires no proof, and offers only that you feel better about yourself in the end. Oh, and that you then donate and vote.


How do we fight that? What do YOU propose? We're nowhere near as organized or well-funded as they are. By the time we get there, the fight will be over. Even then, it becomes a matter of message. Does the non-hunting public want to believe us ("blood on our hands", "killers", etc.) or them ("peace", "harmony", etc.)? Just as they'll never see nature for what it is, they'll never see hunters for what we are, either. They run TV shows about the happy animals, we run TV shows about killing them. Not that I'm opposed to them, but it's not about what any of us perceive of ourselves, it's what someone outside perceives of us. And, I'm not sold that it's up to me to change to become a more "marketable" image. I hunt, I enjoy nature, I kill, and I eat. Nonetheless, that is likely the very image the environmentalists rely upon to influence non-hunters. What to do? "


Actually, if you look at the whole picture including license sales, Pittman/Robertson's funds, federal duck stamps, etc. not to mention groups like RMEF & D/U among others, we as a group are way more funded than they could ever hope to be. I've seen the studies but I don't have the info to quote here. Hunters probably contribute $5 dollars or more to the environment to every $1 dollar that environmentalists do. Even environmentalists know that one of the best things they can do to support wildlife is to buy a federal duck stamp and support the NWR's. What we lack is organization. We also sit back and let those dollars be appropriated by non-hunters and we are to blame for that. What if hunters in Idaho refused to buy licenses? Things would change pretty quick. It is our fault for letting our dollars be hijacked without adding our voice to the lobbies that influence that legislation and sitting back and letting others determine our fate. As far as fighting that, we form hunting organizations (like the OHA here in Oregon) that operate on the state level with local chapters, we lobby legislators, we demand to have a say in who determines where our dollars go, we run adds, we encourage other hunters to make films that do justice to the sport and appeal to a more general audience and when the government stops serving us in a legitimate interest we pull our funding for that government. It is that simple. It is time that hunters stopped letting their dollars be used to fund anti-hunting bureaucrats and environmentalists. If you don't have such an organization in your state, then you should get one. If you need help with that then contact the one's in other states to find out how they did it and to see if they can help you to do it too. We also need to join and support organizations like RMEF that do make efforts to have hunters voices heard on a political level as well as to protect habitat and increase hunting opportunities.
As to the image that environmentalist use to influence non-hunters, again I would say that it is not our image but usually something entirely different from us like the market hunters of the 19th century or Buffalo Bill Cody-- and we all know that they were not hunters, but merely business men and hired guns. It was hunters, not environmentalists, who put a stop to those practises and it is our responsibility to let people know that. Also those hunters that do create a negative image for us should not be encouraged to do so.

"No, I think nature has to come to the very people isolated from it. It has to eat their ornamental shrubs, total their car when it collides with them, knock out the engines in the Airbus they're flying in, consume their pet, ... And, that's what's starting to happen. The truth is just going to have to be painful to more people. And here's where I think I'm actually far more cynical than you are, not that I wish misfortune on people. I fly on airliners, too."

This just doesn't work. I would love to have faith in common sense and believe that people are pragmatic when it comes to their own well being, but they are not. They are more like sheep and will continue to believe whatever they're told despite their own experience. That is why we also have to tell our story and do it well. This hasn't happened in my state, it hasn't happened in California, Idaho, Montana, in fact, I don't know of it happening anywhere. Pretty soon if nothing is done of substance throughout at least 5 western states we will have even less tags, fewer hunts and everybody who wants to spend time outside will just be backpacking or fishing. Then the only animal we might have the opportunity to hunt might just be a wolf, but of course the tag would have to cost as much as an elk tag to make up for the loss of license sales because of the reduced numbers of elk. To let that happen without speaking out against it would just be pure stupidity. To wait for that point for public opinion to change is essentially a non-solution because that is what is already happening.

Be generous with what you have experienced and taken and others will see the benefit of it, be honest about participating in nature and back up your grievances about management with scientific facts and solid biology and others will understand that perspective. Better yet, construe it in a way that people can feel better about themselves by supporting you as a hunter because of all that hunters have done to conserve and protect America's natural resources. Make sure that people know that it was hunters who created the national park system, national wildlife refuges, national forest system and generally all the protected interests of wildlife for their preservation. Do not let the anti-hunters continue to hijack our hard work and claim that they are the only stewards and protectors of the land and that man does not belong in nature.