a new hunter 'advocacy' group

[Beendare]

What I am saying is perhaps we should consider a general set of enforceable ethics before non-hunters or panty-waisted whiners like Shaul decide to do so for us with distance limits that are simply ridiculous.
JL

JL, earlier in this^ post you -essentially- state correctly that "Ethical Shots" will vary between hunters, conditions, etc

But then you say we need guidelines?

I'm with Ryan. There is no such thing as a hard and fast all encompassing rule for everyone.[seems like common sense to me]

I do think its a benefit to our hunting heritage to have campfire discussions amongst friends that are hunters on what constitutes our effective range...as I've seen guys stretch that at the moment of truth.

To the critics trying to cast doubt Hunters;

I'm happy to say that most of the experienced hunters I know personally DON'T stretch those effective range distances....and ethical practices play a big part in what we do.

 

[sneaky]

I believe the only legislation that should be passed is one that says we have all the nonprofits we need and we're full, thanks. I would be far more interested in changing the law that says these greenie groups can use taxpayer funding to sue the govt. That's why we can't get any animals delisted, or new hunts. They just sue at zero cost to them and delay the whole process through litigation. That's the only thing I want to see tackled.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[rokslideguy]

You all have to start thinking about hunting laws as a form. Like playing cards: Five-card draw, you get five cards from a certain kind of deck of cards, and you can draw new cards if you don't like the ones you have. The rules (the form) set out which hands beat other hands. It's a form that everyone agrees upon ahead of time in order to have a game in that form that is enjoyable. The height of a basket in basketball, the length of base paths in baseball, etc., etc.. They're rules of certain forms designed for fun in participating. Hunting rules, although having certain complexities involving safety and animal welfare, are rules of a form that can be agreed upon ahead of time. They are mostly set by our state governments, hopefully based on science and fairness. The form can and is changed constantly, based on changing conditions, but the form is set before we head out. Thinking in those terms (hunting is a form) can we change the form and still enjoy the "game"? I say yes, of course. For example, what if we decided (and I don't advocate this) that we would change the rules of the form to limit hunting to archery only? There would be more game (less killing), less hunter conflict (more hunters could hunt in the same area for most species), no thousand yard shots beyond the animal's defenses of hearing, seeing, smelling, and so forth. But many people like guns, like to shoot, and so forth. OK, what do we do? We try to work together to come up with rules that allow the same level of enjoyment, but don't not allow technology to end the enjoyment by de facto changing the game or form. What some are saying on here is that they feel it is best if we get out in front of coming up with the best rues of the form so that we don't lose the enjoyment of the game, or worse, lose the whole game. I advocate doing that ... critical THINKING and trying to come together, rather than calling each other "liberal douche bags," or "uneducated redneck donkeys." Am I hopeful that it will happen? No.

 

[Chesapeake]

I'm not saying **** that and do nothing. Just like when Idaho passed this new BS trespassing law I did everything I could to help stop it. But most Idaho hunters sat on their butts and let it happen.

I just don't get why we(hunters) are ok with more laws or rules that slowly erode our way of life. Yet, we always disguise it as a way to help appease anti or non-hunters when the truth is it will do little to change or sway their minds. Ethics are personal and I don't need any more nonprofits speaking for me.

Its not about appeasing the anti's. Its a given that will never happen. Its about a community that is largely "not in favor" of the activity in question.
Just like the gun range. Only a small segment of the overall community was in favor of the night shoots. So when the dispute came to a vote (symbolic) the larger portion not in favor of night shoots let it go by the wayside.

The same happened with dogs chasing cougars, trapping, baiting bears, and will or would probably happen with long range hunting if there was an easy way to enforce it.

Most hunters would be "not in favor" of long range hunting or at least not interested in defending it. So if it came to a vote it would lose the vote.

I always hear these comments "Hunters need to support hunters and stop the infighting". I think the infighting exists because many hunting activities are only practiced by small fringe groups. Often those activities aren't approved of or supported by the greater group of hunters. Those activities are easy for the Anti's to pick off.

Personally I think the answer lies much closer to having those fringe groups retreat back into the fold of the greater population so hunters can stand their ground at a point that's acceptable to the greater population of hunters and those who don't hunt but aren't against it. I don't think you'll ever get the greater population of hunters and those who don't but support to rally for the cause of these fringe activities.

Sad to lose ground no doubt, but sometimes you've got to cut of the limb to save the body.

Hunters are too small of a population segment to vote in/out laws. We need the support of those who don't hunt but aren't against it. I think you'd be hard pressed to get them folks to rally to the cause of 1000 yard shots on game. Most hunters wouldn't rally to that cause and many hunters wouldn't even consider that hunting at all. It easy to let something go when you don't think it affects you.

 

[bsnedeker]

At the end of the day, each and every person on this thread that is in favor of regulating things like shot distances is saying that we should legislate hunting ethics and take the decision making power away from the scientists at the Fish and Game department because of feelings. Ya'll may as well sign sign up for HSUS for the good you are doing to the community of hunters.

 

[sneaky]

You all have to start thinking about hunting laws as a form. Like playing cards: Five-card draw, you get five cards from a certain kind of deck of cards, and you can draw new cards if you don't like the ones you have. The rules (the form) set out which hands beat other hands. It's a form that everyone agrees upon ahead of time in order to have a game in that form that is enjoyable. The height of a basket in basketball, the length of base paths in baseball, etc., etc.. They're rules of certain forms designed for fun in participating. Hunting rules, although having certain complexities involving safety and animal welfare, are rules of a form that can be agreed upon ahead of time. They are mostly set by our state governments, hopefully based on science and fairness. The form can and is changed constantly, based on changing conditions, but the form is set before we head out. Thinking in those terms (hunting is a form) can we change the form and still enjoy the "game"? I say yes, of course. For example, what if we decided (and I don't advocate this) that we would change the rules of the form to limit hunting to archery only? There would be more game (less killing), less hunter conflict (more hunters could hunt in the same area for most species), no thousand yard shots beyond the animal's defenses of hearing, seeing, smelling, and so forth. But many people like guns, like to shoot, and so forth. OK, what do we do? We try to work together to come up with rules that allow the same level of enjoyment, but don't not allow technology to end the enjoyment by de facto changing the game or form. What some are saying on here is that they feel it is best if we get out in front of coming up with the best rues of the form so that we don't lose the enjoyment of the game, or worse, lose the whole game. I advocate doing that ... critical THINKING and trying to come together, rather than calling each other "liberal douche bags," or "uneducated redneck donkeys." Am I hopeful that it will happen? No.

Those rules are already in place. I believe we are well covered, thanks. Nothing says anyone has to shoot long range, that's up to the individual, AS IT SHOULD BE. You give an inch, they take a mile. Game and fish departments take all of that into account when they set seasons and bag limits. It isn't just random. They do their research. I believe we are going to self regulate ourselves out of existence trying to appease a group that cares less about us.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Its not about appeasing the anti's. Its a given that will never happen. Its about a community that is largely "not in favor" of the activity in question.
Just like the gun range. Only a small segment of the overall community was in favor of the night shoots. So when the dispute came to a vote (symbolic) the larger portion not in favor of night shoots let it go by the wayside.

The same happened with dogs chasing cougars, trapping, baiting bears, and will or would probably happen with long range hunting if there was an easy way to enforce it.

Most hunters would be "not in favor" of long range hunting or at least not interested in defending it. So if it came to a vote it would lose the vote.

I always hear these comments "Hunters need to support hunters and stop the infighting". I think the infighting exists because many hunting activities are only practiced by small fringe groups. Often those activities aren't approved of or supported by the greater group of hunters. Those activities are easy for the Anti's to pick off.

Personally I think the answer lies much closer to having those fringe groups retreat back into the fold of the greater population so hunters can stand their ground at a point that's acceptable to the greater population of hunters and those who don't hunt but aren't against it. I don't think you'll ever get the greater population of hunters and those who don't but support to rally for the cause of these fringe activities.

Sad to lose ground no doubt, but sometimes you've got to cut of the limb to save the body.

Hunters are too small of a population segment to vote in/out laws. We need the support of those who don't hunt but aren't against it. I think you'd be hard pressed to get them folks to rally to the cause of 1000 yard shots on game. Most hunters wouldn't rally to that cause and many hunters wouldn't even consider that hunting at all. It easy to let something go when you don't think it affects you.

Once again, be like everyone else, right? That's what you're saying. Cut off the limb blah blah blah. When did talking individual responsibility become such a foreign idea to people? I'm not going to tell anyone what they can do if the method they choose is a legal method of take as determined by the state they are in. Period.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Kootenay Hunter]

Science-based decisions, not opinions and feelings.

We had the griz hunt shutdown in BC due to feelings of the non and anti hunting public. There are hunters that support the hunt and those that don't and those that don't care either way, but what should have galvanized everyone was the lack of science based decision making, which is now the rallying cry going forward.

For those that have different values and ethics, you do you, but don't push it down on me. Don't like hunting? Then don't hunt. I don't see hunters organizing anti-soy protests outside of whole foods.

It becomes really clear really quickly when these groups pop up that it's really centered on a specific selfish view/value/belief shared by a few that are able to convince others that it's the way to go. It's thinly veiled as ethics and best for man or animal kind, but at the end of the day it's to benefit numero uno.

 

[rokslideguy]

Those rules are already in place. I believe we are well covered, thanks. Nothing says anyone has to shoot long range, that's up to the individual, AS IT SHOULD BE. You give an inch, they take a mile. Game and fish departments take all of that into account when they set seasons and bag limits. It isn't just random. They do their research. I believe we are going to self regulate ourselves out of existence trying to appease a group that cares less about us.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

So, what you're saying is, you like the rules now, you like the form now, and nobody can take it away. Guess what: you're outnumbered. It's not about ethics. It's more about the concept of what is fair, what is fair chase. People who don't hunt are tolerant of hunting if it is what they consider fair chase, if it is for food, and if it is not what they consider trophy hunting. It's not about your ethics, or mine, or anyone else's on this forum. If you think that the rules set by the game and fish departments is not influenced by politics, the will of the voters; or if you think the non-hunters, as voters can't change the actual rules directly, you need to check out cougar hunting in California, bear hound hunting in California, grizzly hunting in B.C., and so forth I'll say it again: we're outnumbered, and we can get out ahead of the changes coming and still have an enjoyable sport with changes we can live with, or we can be stubborn and lose it all. If you don't think that can happen in the new world of social media, you aren't paying attention.

 

[204guy]

I'll never understand rolling on your back with your tail between your legs before the fight starts?

What I will do is fight anyone that wants to push their "ethics" on me. I usually find these people to be grossly ignorant.

 

[sneaky]

So, what you're saying is, you like the rules now, you like the form now, and nobody can take it away. Guess what: you're outnumbered. It's not about ethics. It's more about the concept of what is fair, what is fair chase. People who don't hunt are tolerant of hunting if it is what they consider fair chase, if it is for food, and if it is not what they consider trophy hunting. It's not about your ethics, or mine, or anyone else's on this forum. If you think that the rules set by the game and fish departments is not influenced by politics, the will of the voters; or if you think the non-hunters, as voters can't change the actual rules directly, you need to check out cougar hunting in California, bear hound hunting in California, grizzly hunting in B.C., and so forth I'll say it again: we're outnumbered, and we can get out ahead of the changes coming and still have an enjoyable sport with changes we can live with, or we can be stubborn and lose it all. If you don't think that can happen in the new world of social media, you aren't paying attention.

Bullshit. You'll never be able to "get ahead" of any of this. Your naive if you think you can. All of those hunts were lost due to emotion, and nothing to do with science based facts. You self regulate a small group of hunters because YOU don't think it's a great idea, then the non hunting groups change their criteria again... and then YOUR style of hunting is on the chopping block. Guess what? By the time you realize you've been had it's too late. Who decides what is fair anyways? You? Please. It's 100% true, hunting will be destroyed from within by people like you who don't and won't stand up for every legal method because you don't agree with it. Guess you should realize it's not about you and what you think. Every hunter has a different set of beliefs and ethics, and i'm not going to try and change them. What I will do is stand up for them against any anti hunting group trying to curtail their rights. If you can't see that, then perhaps hunting isn't the best hobby for you.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[jmden]

Bullshit. You'll never be able to "get ahead" of any of this. Your naive if you think you can. All of those hunts were lost due to emotion, and nothing to do with science based facts. You self regulate a small group of hunters because YOU don't think it's a great idea, then the non hunting groups change their criteria again... and then YOUR style of hunting is on the chopping block. Guess what? By the time you realize you've been had it's too late. Who decides what is fair anyways? You? Please. It's 100% true, hunting will be destroyed from within by people like you who don't and won't stand up for every legal method because you don't agree with it. Guess you should realize it's not about you and what you think. Every hunter has a different set of beliefs and ethics, and i'm not going to try and change them. What I will do is stand up for them against any anti hunting group trying to curtail their rights. If you can't see that, then perhaps hunting isn't the best hobby for you.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Agreed.

This baloney of folks within our own ranks decrying someone else's legal choice of way to hunt is deplorable. I could name a well known hunting organization and a well known name of someone that do this, but I'll resist that urge. But, it makes me sick. It is so short sighted.

We will NEVER APPEASE anti-hunters and it is ridiculous to try. If we try this we will appease them right out of us being able to hunt.

Let's stop separating hunters into groups and let's all hang together or we will certainly hang apart in terms of hunting.

We r in and will always be in a fight for hunting. Period. Get used to it and GET IN THE FIGHT!

 

[sneaky]

Exactly. Even if we stand 100% united we are still vastly outnumbered. Fracturing into subsets does nothing to help our cause.

Agreed.

This baloney of folks within our own ranks decrying someone else's legal choice of way to hunt is deplorable. I could name a well known hunting organization and a well known name of someone that do this, but I'll resist that urge. But, it makes me sick. It is so short sighted.

We will NEVER APPEASE anti-hunters and it is ridiculous to try. If we try this we will appease them right out of us being able to hunt.

Let's stop separating hunters into groups and let's all hang together or we will certainly hang apart in terms of hunting.

We r in and will always be in a fight for hunting. Period. Get used to it and GET IN THE FIGHT!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

snip from this article: New nonprofit seeks to be ‘RAND Corp. of hunting’ | Environmental | jhnewsandguide.com

Regulation demanding ethical behavior is needed to save big-game hunting, says Jackson Hole hunter Rob Shaul, who is starting a new nonprofit to advance his cause.

Ya, and demanding that people use the brains that God gave them is needed as well, but we certainly don't need a governmental regulation that requires that. Sheesh. Does he also propose that the ethics police accompany each and every hunter to ensure that ethics are followed? And that raises even more issues.........who made this guy God that he wants to impose HIS ETHICS on everyone else? My goodness what a moron.

 

[Chesapeake]

Exactly. Even if we stand 100% united we are still vastly outnumbered. Fracturing into subsets does nothing to help our cause.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

There wouldn't be any fracturing. Its not like you would be breaking up some united group of hunters. We are already broken up by our own personal ethics and ideals. I didn't support the clubbing of baby seals, did you? I certainly didn't support remotely operated firearms video hunting in Texas, did you? Would you support running down hogs with dogs and then sticking them with a knife? I'm not sure I would. Do you support NVG aerial gunning of hogs and just leaving them lay for the scavengers? Again, not sure what I think about that. What about falconry. Would you be fighting right along side the bird handlers? What about the game farm operations. Are you in support of that type of hunting?

Every hunter has their own ideals that dictate what they will support and where they draw the line. But its not hunters we need on our side. Its the non-hunters who are still open to voting for and supporting hunting.

But to be clear, I don't support the ideas mentioned in that article. I'm just discussing the (Stand your ground and don't give an inch) mindset/plan that hasn't seemed to work in the political realm while I've been alive. The NRA and gun owners try much harder than Hunters at that plan and still they lose ground at a steady pace.

 

[bsnedeker]

The NRA and gun owners try much harder than Hunters at that plan and still they lose ground at a steady pace.[/QUOTE]

So your solution is to give up ground proactively?



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Beendare]

Science-based decisions, not opinions and feelings.

We had the griz hunt shutdown in BC due to feelings of the non and anti hunting public. There are hunters that support the hunt and those that don't and those that don't care either way, but what should have galvanized everyone was the lack of science based decision making, which is now the rallying cry going forward.

For those that have different values and ethics, you do you, but don't push it down on me. Don't like hunting? Then don't hunt. I don't see hunters organizing anti-soy protests outside of whole foods.

It becomes really clear really quickly when these groups pop up that it's really centered on a specific selfish view/value/belief shared by a few that are able to convince others that it's the way to go. It's thinly veiled as ethics and best for man or animal kind, but at the end of the day it's to benefit numero uno.

Great post^

Yeah, lets not overlook the fact some of these folks are in it to bump up their social media presence.... which correlates to $$$ in their pockets. We've seen a perfect example recently, Charles Post. These folks aren't beyond making up their own statistics....or just plain making shit up as Mr Post did in his "Gun Violence" rant. "Lets stop mass shootings"....Duh...who doesn't want that? Got him a few likes...and a few possible sponsors to take notice. Folks like Mr Post put their finger to the wind and say whatever it takes to make a buck from their social media presence.

No thanks^. I will get my info from respected hunters and colleagues that have been there done that...like my buddy with the archery NA Slam....not some hack with a selfie stick.

That could be the case here with this Gym owner turned Hunting ethics expert. Say anything popular to get funding $$. These non profits can be very profitable for the folks in charge.

[Example; Just take a look at Humanewatch.org to see the $$ and benefits the Humane Society is raking in with almost nothing going to the actual cause...instead it goes to "Administration"]

In the end, the moniker, "Follow the money" has never been more accurate

 

[Chesapeake]

The NRA and gun owners try much harder than Hunters at that plan and still they lose ground at a steady pace.

So your solution is to give up ground proactively?



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

Given that the current plan (I hesitate to call it a plan) clearly isn't working, what would you suggest as a plan moving forward?

 

[bsnedeker]

So your solution is to give up ground proactively?



Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Given that the current plan (I hesitate to call it a plan) clearly isn't working, what would you suggest as a plan moving forward?[/QUOTE]Basically the opposite of what you are saying. You know, sticking up for myself and my fellow hunters. Crazy idea right!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[Fatcamp]

Bullshit. You'll never be able to "get ahead" of any of this. Your naive if you think you can. All of those hunts were lost due to emotion, and nothing to do with science based facts. You self regulate a small group of hunters because YOU don't think it's a great idea, then the non hunting groups change their criteria again... and then YOUR style of hunting is on the chopping block. Guess what? By the time you realize you've been had it's too late. Who decides what is fair anyways? You? Please. It's 100% true, hunting will be destroyed from within by people like you who don't and won't stand up for every legal method because you don't agree with it. Guess you should realize it's not about you and what you think. Every hunter has a different set of beliefs and ethics, and i'm not going to try and change them. What I will do is stand up for them against any anti hunting group trying to curtail their rights. If you can't see that, then perhaps hunting isn't the best hobby for you.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

This. 100%.

People who hunt are becoming the biggest enemies of the sport by siding with anti-hunting groups in some naive attempt at cooperation without realizing that only complete eradication of all hunting in the goal. Same with guns. Everytime you give ground the goalposts will be moved. Every damn time.

Fools.

- - - Updated - - -

There wouldn't be any fracturing. Its not like you would be breaking up some united group of hunters. We are already broken up by our own personal ethics and ideals. I didn't support the clubbing of baby seals, did you? I certainly didn't support remotely operated firearms video hunting in Texas, did you? Would you support running down hogs with dogs and then sticking them with a knife? I'm not sure I would. Do you support NVG aerial gunning of hogs and just leaving them lay for the scavengers? Again, not sure what I think about that. What about falconry. Would you be fighting right along side the bird handlers? What about the game farm operations. Are you in support of that type of hunting?

Every hunter has their own ideals that dictate what they will support and where they draw the line. But its not hunters we need on our side. Its the non-hunters who are still open to voting for and supporting hunting.

But to be clear, I don't support the ideas mentioned in that article. I'm just discussing the (Stand your ground and don't give an inch) mindset/plan that hasn't seemed to work in the political realm while I've been alive. The NRA and gun owners try much harder than Hunters at that plan and still they lose ground at a steady pace.

How so? Firearms ownership in most places is booming and over the last 20 years concealed carry has been legalized in waaay more states than I would have ever imagined. Including National Parks.

The NRA is starting to give ground. Not sure why. Probably because of people who pull in large checks who believe as you do.

- - - Updated - - -

Given that the current plan (I hesitate to call it a plan) clearly isn't working, what would you suggest as a plan moving forward?

Basically the opposite of what you are saying. You know, sticking up for myself and my fellow hunters. Crazy idea right!

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

Sticking up for the guy we are discussing? Really? Not a chance. He is the one attacking hunters. He is outside the fence acting like an elitist snob.