Right or Wrong? Idaho Game Commissioner hunts Africa

[Btaylor]

I think the point some of us are trying to make is that we aren't giving them power, they have the power right now. Hunters are 3-5% of the population. As far as I know, there is no constitutional right to hunting, it can be taken away. Look at what happened to bear hunting in New Jersey! The only way to 'fight back' on that one is to elect a different politician. Posting tasteless hunting photos will not get a pro-hunting politician elected.

We are not talking about what and how you hunt legally, it's about what you put into the world.

Several states have made hunting a constitutional right. I for one think it is way past time for it to be a federally protected right.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Point taken.

What do you think is the easier undertaking? Asking hunters to be more mindful or educate the Western World about African issues with baboon culling?

Remember, antis have nothing to lose, we have everything to lose.

We have to do both, his biggest mistake is humanizing them has a family and not calling them a troop.

Simple context, helped the local villagers cull a pillaging troop of baboons. They where wrecking hell on crops and animals. Massive problem.

Reason why no one screams over pig pics.. or atleast loudly

 

[Shrek]

Hmm. And yes, I agree the individual in question did not post to social media, but sending the pics to 100 people is the same. No one has 100 friends they can trust, so this was an error in Judgement.

This is the real tragedy. The people he thought were friends are who stabbed him in the back. This was a personal and political hit job. Someone he thought of as a friend and wildlife professional wanted his job or had a personal grudge. It’s not just that someone on the list confronted him , they sent it out to an anti hunting group to publish and attack him. That means there’s an anti hunter hidden on that email list. No one on that email list can trust anyone else on that list.

 

[robby denning]

That means there’s an anti hunter hidden on that email list. No one on that email list can trust anyone else on that list.

exactly why I'd never let a photo like this go to anyone.

 

[sndmn11]

I'm not saying to back down, I'm saying don't give them ammo to use against us.

Believe it or not, my own mother is NOT pro-hunting (dad got her off the anti-side, but still not pro), so I don't show her my trophy photos unless asked, and I never show her anythhing with blood, gore, whatever. I don't talk about the death of the animal, the gory details, nothing along those lines. Keeps the peace, keeps her on my side.

You could say that I'm conceding if that means that I don't want to offend the offendable. But that's just common sense to me.

By not standing up for someone who is participating in an activity that you participate in comes across as conceding.

Can you imagine if a person walked into the place of employment of a homosexual person and demanded that they be fired because the demander saw that person expressing their relationship with a public kiss?

Or if someone demanded the resignation of a person who was Muslim because they saw them praying?

Neither thing is illegal. Would you expect Muslims or homosexuals to turn on the person in either scenario and say they should have used discretion? I doubt it, the demander would be metaphorically lynched because both groups would stick together. "I'm offended" has become a tool used by groups of absolutism to divide groups who are courteous enough to be considerate. "I'm offended" has a great ally in those who concede and are apathetic and I think there was a quote by a famous person about evil and men doing nothing that might be a good reference.

The guy was hunting and shared pictures of that with people. I do not think that is wrong and it sounds a lot like the first amendment. You could play a fill in the blank game all day long, and I would feel the same...."The guy was (_____insert legal act_____) and shared pictures of that with people".

 

[robby denning]

sorry sndmn11, I'm not tracking with your example but that's just my limited brain power... but if you need me to say it, here you go

"I concede that that photo is offensive to a very high percentage of the population, both hunting and non-hunting, and shouldn't be shared".

I just know if this guy didn't send out that pic, this thread and all the drama wouldn't exist. It's only hurting us, it will never strengthen us.

 

[sndmn11]

sorry sndmn11, I'm not tracking with your example but that's just my limited brain power...

I just know if this guy didn't send out that pic, this thread and all the drama wouldn't exist. It's only hurting us, it will never strengthen us.

What part are you not tracking?

The thing hurting hunting is hunters not standing up for hunting. The guy was legally hunting, shared photos of the hunt, and people in this thread are throwing him under the bus. How about standing up for someone who legally hunts just like you legally hunt? How about standing up for a person who exercises this country's first amendment? So, in my eyes, a person throwing this guy under the bus is either anti-hunting, or anti-first amendment, or conceding both to demands because they are afraid to offend. Where is the "us" when hunters won't stand up for other hunters?

I can think of at least two threads in recent months where people admitted to poaching, and they were applauded....that is something that a person should have trouble tracking.

 

[robby denning]

I’m not against his legal hunt.

I’m not against exercising 1st amendment, but I’m not going to use it to empower my enemy

And send me those links to poaching threads so I can delete (if true).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ndbuck09]

Here's the overarching issue with all this:

Most people at my work don't hunt and fall into the category of continually shaping their perceptions of hunting. I routinely get questions about hunting, trophy hunting, populations ets. As a result of this picture, I am now faced with questions about what I think of it. Do I think it looks bad? Is this how most hunters view their animals? If an Idaho commission member treats his animals this way it must represent hunters? etc. etc.

This leads me to have to deflect and try to communicate that these animals are a pest species with high reproduction etc. and the people in Africa want them to be managed and hunting is a method in that. In the end, it's not a positive for hunting in people's minds. The image is remembered because it is shocking and stark. It no question negatively affects all of the effort I have made to communicate why I hunt for the meals year round, the camaraderie, the landscapes, the honor of a species, the memories on the wall, etc. etc.

Killing the animals was quite fine given the animal and situation in that locale, but the image of bloodthirstiness and a no-care attitude conveyed is damaging to all of our efforts in the fickle space of public opinion, particularly those in the middle, not at the anti-hunting extreme.

Would you rather be able to hunt and not stack animals on top of each other for pictures or not hunt at all?

 

[PathFinder]

I have a picture a lot like that on my IG page. Troop of baboons came in one morning, I shot 3 with my bow before they spooked out. Took a picture just like any critter.
The biggest problem here is that hunters, and all citizens, treat their government (and by proxy the opinion of the democratic mob) as a benevolent god. Democracy is an abomination. This country (the US) is technically supposed to be a republic, in which certain rights can't be taken away. The defense of our rights shouldn't be negotiable with a mob of morons. Rights should be defended politely when possible, and violently when necessary.
Do you really all just plan to roll over and show your bellies if hunting is banned? Government isn't a god, it's a collection of sociopaths and morons hell bent on enforcing their opinions at gunpoint. They need to know that certain rules/laws will not be obeyed, because they're wrong. Rather than being on the defensive all of the time, we should be pushing legislation to block any proposed hunting bans by vote. Utah and some other states already have. I get sick of people thinking we have something to hide. We don't. We're right, they're wrong, and nothing is going away.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[robby denning]

Do you really all just plan to roll over and show your bellies if hunting is banned?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Nope, I just don't want to see any of it banned in the first place. We have the power now, I don't want to give it up just because I have a right to post anything I want.

 

[Btaylor]

Nope, I just don't want to see any of it banned in the first place. We have the power now, I don't want to give it up just because I have a right to post anything I want.

The problem is that hunters have never really unified and formed the appropriate argument to garner constitutional protection of our right to hunt at the federal level. To busy looking down our noses at each other.

 

[hflier]

This is a good statement and mission.

"The problem is that hunters have never really unified and formed the appropriate argument to garner constitutional protection of our right to hunt at the federal level."

 

[sndmn11]

I’m not against his legal hunt.

I’m not against exercising 1st amendment, but I’m not going to use it to empower my enemy

And send me those links to poaching threads so I can delete (if true).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course they are true. Maybe I should be offended that you didn't seem to take my word and start making demands! haha
A cautionary tale / dealing with game wardens
The Cave and the Heartbrake: a 10 yr old boys first goat hunt

My point is that the "enemy" is empowered when they make demands and nobody stands up for the person the demands are against. Regardless of the point of contention this holds true. The "enemy" wants to find points of division in "us" so that they can have less opposition on each issue and have small victories on the way to a complete triumph.

Here's the overarching issue with all this:

Most people at my work don't hunt and fall into the category of continually shaping their perceptions of hunting. I routinely get questions about hunting, trophy hunting, populations ets. As a result of this picture, I am now faced with questions about what I think of it. Do I think it looks bad? Is this how most hunters view their animals? If an Idaho commission member treats his animals this way it must represent hunters? etc. etc.

This leads me to have to deflect and try to communicate that these animals are a pest species with high reproduction etc. and the people in Africa want them to be managed and hunting is a method in that. In the end, it's not a positive for hunting in people's minds. The image is remembered because it is shocking and stark. It no question negatively affects all of the effort I have made to communicate why I hunt for the meals year round, the camaraderie, the landscapes, the honor of a species, the memories on the wall, etc. etc.

I think this is an example of what I am trying to express. In this situation explaining the benefits and reasons for that harvest unapologetic-ally would be standing up for the now former commissioner. Doing so without wavering in that support and sticking to the positives would leave no room for a negative image. "Killing the animals was quite fine given the animal and situation in that locale". Why not just stick to that? Nature is full of life and death, it is unavoidable. A hunter does not have to pander to those against hunting by trying to be sensitive to those feelings in an effort to be PC. Throwing in a "but" just so you can feel like you are playing a fair game is legitimizing the position of those who are against hunting and wish it to end.

NDbuck09, I see in your avatar a dead sheep. That guy is just as dead as the baboons in that picture, and who is to say that since these demands were successful, it doesn't open up the door to jobs being in jeopardy for any hunting picture?

 

[robby denning]

sndmn11,
thanks for posting the links. I'll look into them. I wasn't implying you were posting anything that wasn't true, but I learned over the years that not everything on the internet is true. That's all I meant and I'm sorry if it seemed like I meant you.

Also, if I didn't say this in earlier posts, I'll say it now:

"I support the right of the commissioner to hunt any legal animal that the people of Africa have given the green light to hunt through sound wildlife managment, including baboons."

Hope that clears that up.

 

[FLAK]

His poorest choice was resigning. I would have made them take me to court.
He did nothing illegal or immoral. Was a good chance to make a Statement and
stand up for hunters.

 

[vanish]

In this situation explaining the benefits and reasons for that harvest unapologetic-ally would be standing up for the now former commissioner.

Pretty hard to do considering the way the commissioner portrayed it. I can absolutely stand for baboon population control, but the photo and comments he made to go along with it make it clear that he was just there to get his jollies from killing as much as he could as quickly as possible.

Sorry, I cannot respect that and will not defend it. There must be some compassion.

For those of you asking for unification, why should I accept the lowest common denominator?

 

[sndmn11]

sndmn11,
thanks for posting the links. I'll look into them. I wasn't implying you were posting anything that wasn't true, but I learned over the years that not everything on the internet is true. That's all I meant and I'm sorry if it seemed like I meant you.

Robby, I was joking, that is why I put the haha at the end of it.

The poopy thing about reading type is that audible cues aren't present.

 

[sndmn11]

Pretty hard to do considering the way the commissioner portrayed it. I can absolutely stand for baboon population control, but the photo and comments he made to go along with it make it clear that he was just there to get his jollies from killing as much as he could as quickly as possible.

Sorry, I cannot respect that and will not defend it. There must be some compassion.

For those of you asking for unification, why should I accept the lowest common denominator?

I would have to ask why involve the comments then? Why vilify the hunt because of that? The result of dead baboons does not change whether he wrote a rock ballad about how rad it made him feel or whether he said nothing.

If someone asked me about his comments I would just say "That's his thing" or "Meh, I guess that's his right", but I sure as baboons on bananas wouldn't lump the act of hunting in with my opinion of a person's comments.

I absolutely agree that his only mistake, free speech and all, was resigning.

 

[robby denning]

Robby, I was joking, that is why I put the haha at the end of it.

The poopy thing about reading type is that audible cues aren't present.

you're good, no worries.