# Hunters no longer necessary.



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

They are coming right out in the open with their agenda now. If you think this is just a coastal hippie state thing that will never effect you, then you are sadly mistaken.





__





In Washington State, Hunters May No Longer Be "Necessary to Manage Wildlife"






www.msn.com


----------



## TPrawitt91 (Sep 1, 2015)

I doubt it gets much traction, but you never know.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Just linked the same article in a different thread. We must have similar search histories.

Such groups have always spoken transparently about not needing or wanting hunters. They are now just focusing their energy and monies at state wildlife boards which is strategically intelligent on their part. 

And those groups are counter balanced by those who believe the only good predator is a dead predator. Those groups have had their paws in wildlife boards for ages given the age old animus towards wolves, coyotes and cougars. 

Question will be where the chips settle which will be determined by how well stakeholders and managers compromise on outcomes. That's going to be different in each state. Utah probably has another decade or more before anything like the WA example materializes here; and even then they'll have a headwind against our state constitutional rights.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

TPrawitt91 said:


> I doubt it gets much traction, but you never know.


Ban a spring bear hunt here, ban hound hunting there, sprinkle in a few anti-hunters on state game commissions. Nope. No traction at all...😉


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

backcountry said:


> Just linked the same article in a different thread. We must have similar search histories.
> 
> Such groups have always spoken transparently about not needing or wanting hunters. They are now just focusing their energy and monies at state wildlife boards which is strategically intelligent on their part.
> 
> ...


Holy crap! We posted that article at almost exactly the same time. Get out my brain!


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)




----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Humans and other top predators(bears, wolves and cougars) simple do not mix very well.

In this area in Washington(northeast Washington) mentioned in this article, hunting mountain lions has almost been completely eliminated, resulting in a glute of cats. I have an intimate knowledge of this area and can testify that the number of sightings and interaction between humans and mountain lions in particular is reaching an epidemic proportion resulting in a climate of fear in the residents of that area. People fear for not only their pets and farm animals, but their children. You don't let your dogs out at night, you educate your kids to be weary of the outdoors and be on constant lookout. I have a brother that lives right in the heart (Fruitland) of that area and I have hunted and fished for almost thirty years up there. Just this fall for example I saw two different cats run across the road in broad daylight and my brothers security cameras around his house regularly show cats wondering though his yard. The cats are becoming much more brazen and are starting to lose their fear of man.

As lovely an idea as having a natural, self regulating ecosystem may sound, in the real world where mankind has taken root, other large predators need to be controller, and in my opinion, hunting is still a good, viable tool for that purpose. Not only can mountain lion numbers be controlled, but a good natural fear of man can and must be re-established. Only then can man and other top predators live together.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I tend to fall somewhere close to that balance. I don't believe the system needs such action yet I do believe locals obviously benefit from managing predators to a certain level. I personally value having predators in our ecosystems, even to and including the loss of ungulates. Yet I know I wouldn't want to live with cougar populations of that density in my neighborhood.

Unfortunately there is a push & pull that rarely lands at such a maintainable balance. Americans have a long and well documented history of demonizing predators in the wild. Many civilizations do. And we continue to develop policy around such mythology. The activist groups described in this article are pushing against hunting activist who have dominated western management for generations. And we are seeing what happens when a different group finally has the numbers to overcome that influence.

Americans increasingly disfavor the sort of management and politics I just described. Variations of the Leopold "land ethic" model of functioning ecosystems have largely taken hold. As such the bounty system we see across the west became a justified target. But with enough momentum politics can and does blow past original goals like that into similarly unsustainable and problematic territory (in this case abandoning the benefits of hunting and decreasing the safety of locals).

If we don't find a way for diverse groups of stakeholders to communicate together (instead of fighting a solely us v them battle) then we will continue to see these types of battles playing out largely based upon the brute force of numbers. And hunters will by and large lose that war steadily over time given we are a diminishing minority. That should give us serious pause at moments like this.

I also always laugh when any one side claims the mantle of science. That's not how it works. Science will always be affected by value based choices at the point of management and implementation. Those who value a more "holistic" ecosystem can and do have science on their side as much as those who value hunting as a primary mechanism of management. The primary difference is what the desired outcomes are. That drives everything else. The last 15+ years that make it seem like science can be implemented without that level of subjective values has been a disservice to everyone.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Backcountry said...

"If we don't find a way for diverse groups of stakeholders to communicate together (instead of fighting a solely us v them battle) then we will continue to see these types of battles playing out largely based upon the brute force of numbers. *And hunters will by and large lose that war steadily over time given we are a diminishing minority.* That should give us serious pause at moments like this."

...YUP! Pretty well sums it up.


----------



## jewbacca (Jan 27, 2020)

colorcountrygunner said:


> Ban a spring bear hunt here, ban hound hunting there, sprinkle in a few anti-hunters on state game commissions. Nope. No traction at all...😉


As a native Washingtonian, this article makes my blood pressure rise. Stacking the game commission is outrageous.

This is the long-term goal of wolf reintroduction. Replace hunters.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I know there were some, even on here, arguing against it, but that constitutional amendment that passed in 2020 is looking like a wiser move every year.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I didn't love the exact wording but I ultimately voted for it to preserve the legacy of hunting. It's definitely provided a buffer against the excesses of various activist groups. I hope I don't grow to regret the choice as it could be used in an unbalanced way down the road (ie too much emphasis on hunting when other methods are more effective and viable).


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

backcountry said:


> It's definitely provided a buffer against the excesses of various activist groups. I hope I don't grow to regret the choice as it could be used in an unbalanced way down the road (ie too much emphasis on hunting when other methods are more effective and viable).


I can't remember which member of the (semi ) esteemed UWN legal staff said it, but one of them said once "constitutional amendments are not present to protect the majority, but the minority."
What that means is as long as hunters and fishers are a significant plurality of the population, it is doubtful that the amendment would need to be invoked. However, if the point comes that Utah becomes the liberal dystopian hellscape that some posters seem to expect, then the amendment becomes very useful to protect our rights.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

You mean we aren't already in said hellscape? Why are you wearing your Madmax outfit then?

Agreed on purpose. My family gave up hunting a generation ago so I don't have much of heritage to draw upon but I think it's an important part of Utah & the West. And I could see a time 15+ years from now when dynamics change and Utah faces what places like WA are. The amendment limits the scale of said change and influence.

Most of my friends voted against it and thought it was an overreaction and unnecessary. I think the writing is on the wall that it was smart to be proactive. I just hope we keep a "balance" over time that respects other stakeholder values and preferences. But that's a nebulous moving target.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

backcountry said:


> You mean we aren't already in said hellscape? Why are you wearing your Madmax outfit then?


The Mad Max outfits are for post atomic hellscapes, a *liberal* dystopian hellscape would have us all wearing Patagonia jackets and driving Subarus.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

In the longer, wider view, you can't have a cultural revolution without destroying the four olds.
Old Ideas, Old Culture, Old Customs, and Old Habits .
Hunting, falls into at least three of the four.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

What is happening to not only Washington, but, the entire Country? Why is "hunting" rights, privilege's, even in the political arena? Granted the politicians make the rules but dang Joe Dirt, this is getting out of control.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Out of curiosity, how would a hunting privilege regulated by the government not be in the political arena? Even in Utah with our constitutional right it still remains a political issue affected by politicians and bureaucrats. It's unavoidable.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Once the states get the amount of predators that the folks want and they start doing their business of keeping the game animals in check there will be no need of a "right to hunt" in the constitution since there won't be any game animals left to hunt.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Maybe elsewhere but in Utah the constitutional amendment included language that prioritizes hunting as a form of management. Anti-hunting activist would have quite the uphill legal battle to achieve an outcome you describe. It was the word "preferred" in the constitutional clause that gave me pause as it's more likely to be interpreted and applied in an overly broad manner for management. There are just times and places when hunting/fishing isn't a preferable tool.

Hopefully sane minds prevail and Utah maintains a healthy balance. Only time will tell on what challenges hunting will face here and how the law plays out.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

I wish these people would just leave everyone alone. They probably spend more time ordering a frapacnino at their local starbucks then they spend outdoors.


----------



## rtockstein (Mar 17, 2019)

I prefer black Dunkin donuts coffee. But hey man.... Frappacinios taste good. 

What really gets me, is the "self regulating ecosystem" mantra where all native species need to continue to exist in pre-settlement era population ratios. 

Are we humans that are supposed to eat meat not part of that ecosystem?

Do they realize that functional ecosystem they're attempting to achieve is destroyed and not salvageable in most places of the west due to suburban sprawl, agriculture, and all those GD housing developments they likely live in?


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

rtockstein said:


> I prefer black Dunkin donuts coffee. But hey man.... Frappacinios taste good.


Maxwell house is my mainstay.


> What really gets me, is the "self regulating ecosystem" mantra where all native species need to continue to exist in pre-settlement era population ratios.


Only way that probably works is if you remove billions of people from the planet, all the side roads, highways, cities, and towns that divide up the land.



> Are we humans that are supposed to eat meat not part of that ecosystem?


I'm not being sarcastic, but in *their *view, NO. We are not part of the ecosystem. I honestly think they believe that human habitation is separate. If you read comments by anti-hunters or liberals in general, you'll see a common trend in their thinking. There are Human areas, and their are wildlife areas. They two are mutually exclusive. Example, "That is the bear's home". or "Your in it's home", as they subsequently cheer for the attacking lion or bear in whatever animal attack article, or mourn the death of said animal.

What they fail to realize or understand, is that there is no line between the two areas. You can't just run to the city, and pretend the wild areas will manage themselves, because everything we do influences those places, including doing nothing. They fail to realize that their living spaces are probably on prime wintering land, and ungulates die every year because of it, albeit somewhat indirectly. Or how our spaces hem wildlife into areas that have limited carrying capacity, or to say nothing about the untold number of wildlife lost as roadkill every day.

They have this fantasy of two separate worlds where ours has no effect on the other so long as we stay in our own space. I could go on, but I think you get the idea by now.



> Do they realize that functional ecosystem they're attempting to achieve is destroyed and not salvageable in most places of the west due to suburban sprawl, agriculture, and all those GD housing developments they likely live in?


No they don't.

Which is one reason why I commented about starbucks. The things that you or I might know, is because we've spent enough time in the woods to realize these things. Most of the people making these decisions, don't do what we would do, aren't engaged with wildlife at the same level. I call them observers or tourists. Hunters, or folks that hunt, or hunting, I think of as participating in or with nature. You might not know concepts by name, but youll see them in action. Like carrying capacity. Anyway, they simply do not have the same level of understanding, and they never will because their ideologically opposed, based on their false premise I outlined above. (edit: toss in veganism in here too. )

Now on to my second cup of coffee....


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I’m on the legal staff? When do I start getting paid for this?!?!? Yes, constitutional rights exist to protect the minority.

This “what do we do when they came after hunting” topic is always a tough topic for my brain. I’m generally one that favors dialogue and building bridges, but for the true anti-hunting crowd, there is no bridge between them and my philosophies. Their mission is to end hunting, and there is no compromise to be reached. Quite frankly, I don’t see a compromise from my side either. I would never sign up to end just some hunting, and they would never sign up for that either, because to them all hunting is evil.

There just really isn’t a bridge between the way I think and the way they think. That makes it really hard to have dialogue.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Compromise is tough with activist on the fringes of any movement. Tough or impossible.

Luckily most people play in the realm of being moderate. The key seems to be making that known and developing policy accordingly.

Unfortunately we see places, like this story highlights, that expose the center not being held. Pinpointing when that happens is difficult as it's rarely one side that can be blamed. 

And at moments like that the extreme narrative like LoneHunter posits becomes more appealing to those currently on the losing side. The notion that the "other side" is less intelligent and knowledgeable is an easy narrative to tell ourselves. Getting into the grey of different values and why those exist is the difficult work. 

As I said earlier, there are unfortunately strategies that will lose for hunters. Othering anti-hunting activist like Lone has done is one of them and not just because it's based on mistruths. But we are seeing more and more of it across just about every aspect of American life. Buyer beware.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

What is the “moderate” position here?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

A position that hunting/fishing is valued and a viable tool for wildlife management, in most places. I would say a moderate position is some form of functioning ecosystem that also values non-consumptive wildlife. That's a broad range of diverse options and opinions.

I use moderate here to encompass what is likely the most commonly held range of values.

I don't think "deep ecology" on the left fits that term nor does an anti-predator (ie only good one is dead) mindset in the hunting community. Folks in those camps obviously have their reasons but it's hard to square that with the term "moderate" as there is no room for compromise.

I think most Americans would be happy settling in the aforementioned range.

I tend to believe it you don't have views that allow some range of compromise then it's hard to consider that moderate. For example, I'm a moderate in overall politics but I'm not moderate in regards to defending classical (l)iberalism. I think the scenario unraveling in WA is heading outside the bounds of "moderate" if those in power are hoping to eliminate hunting all together as a management tool.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> I’m on the legal staff? When do I start getting paid for this?!?!? Yes, constitutional rights exist to protect the minority.


You get paid when the rest of us with over 2000 UWN posts start getting compensated as "outdoor influencers" . 



Vanilla said:


> What is the “moderate” position here? and "Their mission is to end hunting, and there is no compromise to be reached. Quite frankly, I don’t see a compromise from my side either."


This is true. I see this in my professional and past life more than most of you and can attest to its accuracy. 

That said, I do believe there may be an answer to the "moderate" question. It is true that hunting enthusiasts and the hard core animal rights crowd have very little common ground. However, these groups encompass a pretty small minority of the overall population. A much larger majority frankly don't care about animal rights or hunting that much. Like it or not, these are the people that will ultimately decide hunting's fate. If hunters are good stewards of the resource and land, behave ourselves, and conduct our hunting to show the activity as a wholesome source of recreation, exercise, and procurement of nutritious food, we probably will be OK. If we constantly jack up the environment, commit adzhat acts, and come across as the people the animal rights crowd try to caricature us to be, then we may be in trouble, even with safeguards in place.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Well said, Catherder.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Wall O' Text:


I wonder what percentage of the population is moderate, from past, to present. Personally, I believe "moderate positions" are in decline, though I wonder how fast or slow of a decline that is. What is apparent (at least to me) is that as time goes on, what is considered moderate is shrinking. The goal posts have been shifting for years. Ideas that were considered left leaning 20 or 30 years ago, are now considered conservative.

Generally speaking people base their opinions on what they personally see, or hear on what they consider trusted sources. Trouble is, EVERY source now bends news to an ideological slant of one sort or another. I'm comfortable in saying that unbiased news categorically does NOT exist. Certain bits of news are completely omitted by one source, and played loudly by another. Or carefully worded to give a specific portrayal. We do think in language, control language and you can influence and control thought. 

The point I think I'm trying to get to is that i don't know if hunting's PR battle is a winnable one in todays news media. It will probably come down to personal interactions that we all have while out in the mountains, though I admit I'm pessimistic in today's environment. I do not believe you can convice most people of anything in todays environment. They have to see things, for themselves, and change their minds for themselves. You can't do it for them. You can provide a good example, but there's still over arcing social / cultural issues at play.

One example that comes to mind is someone posting the other day in the upland section about people getting on his case for carrying a shotgun, accusing him of pointing it at them. I don't remember the thread offhand, I just remember saying some people (lefty's) are scared of guns. I wasn't there, maybe he was careless. Or maybe the people he encountered were overtensioned douche bags, it doesn't really matter. The encounter is an example how current politics, social division, and news media plays into hunting's PR battle. I can think of few subjects more culturally and politically divisive that directly effects hunting as much as firearms. (Have you seen what Oregon is doing on that subject? Ballot measure 114)

At the end of the day, hunting may end up like the second amendment in general. Okay in some areas, forboden in others. I think the reality of the times,, as over dramatic as it sounds, is the country is literally falling (or tearing) apart, and it's showing in every facet of life, to include hunting. I know my personal views exemplify that schism, however I think that ship already left port. I've just been paying attention to it more then most, and I'd rather face reality then BS myself. It's not something I'm happy about, and I wish we could rewind the clock back 15-20 years to stop the coming apart, but it is what it is. Sometimes you just have to draw a line and say "This far and no further".


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

Some cats are mousers, some cat's aren't. Can you explain to me why that is?


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

BPturkeys said:


> Some cats are mousers, some cat's aren't. Can you explain to me why that is?


Only fat, well fed cats aren't mousers. We have a society full of fat, well fed cats. Despite being a fat, well fed cat I am still a mouser! I guess when you grow up mousing it gets in your blood.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Well, if hunting is going the way of the second amendment than we don't have much to be worried about at all. 2A has more robust legal precedent now than it did 3 to 4 decades ago. And that holds true across even liberal states who are seeing their restrictive gun laws regularly being ruled unconstitutional, even age old ones. And the current SCOTUS is one of the most friendly to such philosophy we've ever had and they could be on the bench for decades.

It's almost like such doom and gloom conclusions aren't supported by facts. Talk about bias and propaganda. 🤔🙄


----------



## LungBuster (Feb 24, 2016)

That’s quite an article. The concern I have is the complete contradiction of the Bible with this quip from the article.


----------

