Rokcast "end of hunting?"

[Hnthrdr]

Not to burst your bubble but TR was a Republican and a populist, he was not a progressive or anything near it by todays standards. He was a visionary when it came to realizing we needed to protect natural resources, specifically drinking water which is really what led him to do so what he did with the NP/ NF thing ( he did this early in his political career when he was in office in NY) protecting drinking water which came from the adarondaks. But yeah TR was a Republican. Also if you think it’s bad that the fish and game guy in Idaho killed a family of baboons, don’t read up on what TR killed in Africa or North America for that matter, he loved killing shit, once again super thankful that he decided that we should limit ourselves on killing shit. But yeah you are on some weird sub reddits if you think TR was a progressive I suggest picking up his two part biography and educating yourself on the man. He was pretty remarkable it is about 1200 pages or so of light reading

 

[Hnthrdr]

Eye_zick here is a good analogy that I think may stick for you…

Not all Republicans want to ban abortion.
It doesn’t matter that they have out right bans in several states or they severely limit it in some states. You are still able to do it in a lot of places…. It will never get fully banned. It’s a scare tactic to try and get money “fear mongering” if you will.

Does it start to hit home now?

 

[CorbLand]

Im only trying to facilitate conversation. But here is why I disagree with you.
If you can point to a few examples that ban hunting as proof of an anti-hunting agenda, then you should equally allow a few examples of new hunting opportunities as examples that there is a pro-hunter agenda, right?

Have I said that it hasn't been expanded?

Expansion in one area does not offset the loss of another in this case.

You said that you dont see an agenda that the far left wants to ban hunting but used Idaho as an example of expansion. I dont think I would be breaking any new ground here to point out that the states that are largely banning hunting lean one way on the political spectrum and the states that are expanding it, lean another. I dont know what more proof you would need than that.

The bottom line for me, I dont give a flying **** if you are left, right, blue, green or somewhere in between. If you support banning the hunting of a species that has a viable population, then you support banning hunting.

 

[eye_zick]

Not to burst your bubble but TR was a Republican and a populist, he was not a progressive or anything near it by todays standards. He was a visionary when it came to realizing we needed to protect natural resources, specifically drinking water which is really what led him to do so what he did with the NP/ NF thing ( he did this early in his political career when he was in office in NY) protecting drinking water which came from the adarondaks. But yeah TR was a Republican. Also if you think it’s bad that the fish and game guy in Idaho killed a family of baboons, don’t read up on what TR killed in Africa or North America for that matter, he loved killing shit, once again super thankful that he decided that we should limit ourselves on killing shit. But yeah you are on some weird sub reddits if you think TR was a progressive I suggest picking up his two part biography and educating yourself on the man. He was pretty remarkable it is about 1200 pages or so of light reading

Just because he ran under the republican party, doesn't mean he wasn't a progressive. TR was the face of progressive conservatism. Don't take my word for it, its a simple google search away.

I was saddened when the IDFG commissioner stepped down over the fiasco. I only brought it up as example that it was bad press for hunters.

I love TR hunting history. We need more politicians like him. But we are too divided over political identity to actually vote for ideas.

 

[eye_zick]

Have I said that it hasn't been expanded?

Expansion in one area does not offset the loss of another in this case.

You said that you dont see an agenda that the far left wants to ban hunting but used Idaho as an example of expansion. I dont think I would be breaking any new ground here to point out that the states that are largely banning hunting lean one way on the political spectrum and the states that are expanding it, lean another. I dont know what more proof you would need than that.

The bottom line for me, I dont give a flying **** if you are left, right, blue, green or somewhere in between. If you support banning the hunting of a species that has a viable population, then you support banning hunting.

Its true that we cannot offset losses with gains, but in terms of an argument for a pro-hunting agenda why couldn't we use examples of new hunting opportunities as proof of a clear pro-hunter agenda when you allow a few examples of bans to indicate a clear anti-hunter agenda?

 

[CorbLand]

Its true that we cannot offset losses with gains, but in terms of an argument for a pro-hunting agenda why couldn't we use examples of new hunting opportunities as proof of a clear pro-hunter agenda when you allow a few examples of bans to indicate a clear anti-hunter agenda?

You can argue all and what ever you want. Doesn't change the fact that every year there are attempts, some successful, to ban hunting.

It also doesnt take a rocket scientist to see which side of the political spectrum those that want to ban hunting generally fall on.

To argue this based on political affiliation is stupid.

 

[Rob5589]

haven't been able to hunt since 1972.


no changes were made to fall bear hunting. spring bears accounted for less than 10% of harvests in 2021...




Nothing substantive here. looks more like fear mongering than actual outright bans on big game hunting. Certainly if an outright ban or agenda against hunting was more factual than fear mongering we could come up with more.

Supply and demand are the issues of big game hunting. there has to be a reduction in either if we intend to perform as sportsman and conservationists... calling it a ban on hunting when seasons are reduced seems a little extreme.

off the cuff - I'll bet there have been as much expanded opportunities to hunt as there have been restrictions...

And that is exactly how they get us. "It's less than 10%," so what's the big deal? Are you going to wait to be pissed until they ban fall bear as well? Do you really think they'll stop at the spring season? Doesn't matter if it's 1%, a ban is a ban is a ban.

Same was said here in CA regarding trapping. The excuse to ban was there was only a minute number of trapping licenses sold per year. Maybe so but, it was an important part of those guys hunting/trapping season.

Just wait until it's, "Only a tiny fraction of elk are killed during archery season, so..."

So much complacency, it's really astounding.

 

[Hnthrdr]

Words matter: 1910 definition of “progressive conservative” would probably fit, 2023 definition of “progressive” for TR and you are outta your ever loving mind. He was progressive for his day, but today would be seen as “more extreme than hitler”

 

[sneaky]

Just like they will never sell public lands hahaha. Just fear mongering about selling public lands.

BS. Nevada has sold over 95% of the lands they were given by the Feds in different exchanges. States would have to sell nearly every damn acre to pay bills, only someone who is extremely short-sighted fails to see this.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[Hnthrdr]

Sneaky I think he was being sarcastic, dirty politicians would absolutely sell off public lands if they could and we should fight tooth and nail against it, like what has happened/ is happening with a land swap right now in NV

 

[sneaky]

progressive ideology gave us what western hunting is today.

Let me guess. You live in either Sun Valley, Boise, or McCall. That's usually where all the liberal transplants end up.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

progressive ideology gave us what western hunting is today.

No it didn't. Not even close.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

IMO you need more than a few data points to prove a clear anti hunting agenda. especiually considering the decades the data covers. but don't take my word for it. Again, i would retort with the clear expansion of hunting opportunities across every state that have been omitted from this conversation entirely.


That's factual, not trolling. Teddy Roosevelt gave us the national forest system and was a clear progressive. The BLM was created by Truman another democrat. without public land we wouldnt have western hunting.

And the BLM is trying their damndest to block people from using our public lands.

BLM Proposal Prefers People Not Be Able To Use Public Lands | Your Wyoming News Source

BLM Proposal Prefers People Not Be Able To Use Public Lands

Columnist Cat Urbigkit writes, “While most headlines about the Rock Springs Resource Management Plan note the agency’s preference to set aside 1.3 million acres … the BLM preference is ‘conservation of resource values with constraints on resource uses.’”

cowboystatedaily.com

But hey, keep on burying your head in the sand. You're all for points systems too, aren't you?

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Sneaky I think he was being sarcastic, dirty politicians would absolutely sell off public lands if they could and we should fight tooth and nail against it, like what has happened/ is happening with a land swap right now in NV

The deal they're trying to push through in Nevada right now is complete garbage for the public. They'll buy enough influence to make sure it sails through I bet. Usually how it works.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[Hnthrdr]

The deal they're trying to push through in Nevada right now is complete garbage for the public. They'll buy enough influence to make sure it sails through I bet. Usually how it works.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

Yes absolutely a raw deal anyway you look at it 80k for 240k acres are you flipping kidding me… doing it right before the corner hoping gets legally underway too…

 

[Arthas]

BS. Nevada has sold over 95% of the lands they were given by the Feds in different exchanges. States would have to sell nearly every damn acre to pay bills, only someone who is extremely short-sighted fails to see this.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

Hence the sarcastic tone with hahahahaha

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Agreed. Most people classify me as far left, yet hear I am.

They will never outright ban hunting. Its just plain fear mongering.

A ban on hunting is like a ban on firearms. All they'll accomplish is creating millions of felons.

If you are trying to make the point that the majority of self-described “liberals”, “progressives” and/or “the left” don’t have an anti-hunting agenda, then I agree. These folks are some of the greatest supporters of habitat preservation and improvement. Echo chambers aren’t productive, as hunters we need thoughtful dialogue and engagement. I also agree that it won’t be a single outright ban on hunting; it will be a long, slow erosion of individual big game seasons (predators first) with no science-based justification. But if you cannot see a clear anti-hunting agenda taking root in Washington, Oregon, and Colorado then you are just in denial. Ban on mountain lion hunting in Colorado was proposed in the legislature but defeated in 2022. It will be proposed again in 2024 with likely more support as Dems increased their majority in the 2022 elections. If defeated they will put a mountain lion (possibly black bear too) hunting ban on the ballot in the fall. This will happen, this is not fear-mongering. Wildlife conservation organizations are already aware of the proposals and ballot initiative filings. A CPW Commissioner even mentioned it in a recent CPW commission meeting, open to the public. In closing, I really hope I am wrong on this and in ten years you can classify me as a full-blown category 5 alarmist, “chicken little”, and fear-monger. Nothing would make me happier.

 

[displacedtexan]

It's comical to call it fear mongering since if progressives had their way, not a single firearm would be in private citizen hands and not a single animal would be taken by citizen hunters for conservation puposes.

Wrong. I am friends with plenty of progressives who are gun owners. A couple even have Class III stuff...

Things aren't black and white.

Look at the shades of gray and you'll be better able to understand, act and react.

 

[SoOreHunter]

If you are trying to make the point that the majority of self-described “liberals”, “progressives” and/or “the left” don’t have an anti-hunting agenda, then I agree. These folks are some of the greatest supporters of habitat preservation and improvement. Echo chambers aren’t productive, as hunters we need thoughtful dialogue and engagement. I also agree that it won’t be a single outright ban on hunting; it will be a long, slow erosion of individual big game seasons (predators first) with no science-based justification. But if you cannot see a clear anti-hunting agenda taking root in Washington, Oregon, and Colorado then you are just in denial. Ban on mountain lion hunting in Colorado was proposed in the legislature but defeated in 2022. It will be proposed again in 2024 with likely more support as Dems increased their majority in the 2022 elections. If defeated they will put a mountain lion (possibly black bear too) hunting ban on the ballot in the fall. This will happen, this is not fear-mongering. Wildlife conservation organizations are already aware of the proposals and ballot initiative filings. A CPW Commissioner even mentioned it in a recent CPW commission meeting, open to the public. In closing, I really hope I am wrong on this and in ten years you can classify me as a full-blown category 5 alarmist, “chicken little”, and fear-monger. Nothing would make me happier.

IP3 in Oregon is next level crazy.

“Wisten to the whythmic whythm of the woodwinds as it wowws awound and awound…and it comes out here!” — Elmer Fudd

 

[skeptic]

The question becomes; will you risk a criminal conviction for a hobby?

Absolutely. Hunting isn't really a "hobby" for me. My grandpa taught my dad, my dad taught me, and I will teach my daughter. It's as much of a part of my life as my job is. It's part of living in a free society where I can choose to live my life how I want to. At least 80% of the protein my family eats is from hunting. Everything I harvest is done legally, and 100% within the rules and regs of the state I live in. As of now, the laws surrounding it in my state are reasonable and far from tyrannical.

I am extremely wary of organizations that collect money to benefit a cause. Whatever cause. Many of them start out with good intentions, but as soon as large sums of money are involved, things tend to get muddy at best. There are numerous organizations out there that have been fraught with corruption on even the noblest of causes. Wounded Warrior foundation comes to mind, American Heart Assocation is another. I tend to keep my circles small, and try to direct my efforts on a personal level.