Wolf poachers - would you turn one in?

[pianoman9701]

Bob,

Hunters aren't a homogenous or even an affiliated group. We aren't a club. Neither are hikers or bike riders or any other outdoor users. Now RMEF is a club. If an RMEF exec is caught poaching or if RMEF is caught allowing it's membership to openly promote poaching that would be a problem.... FOR RMEF.

The public takes out it's anger at organizations or individuals but not against user groups that are unaffiliated in any way.  As I said before. No one is going to attack Sierra club tomorrow if some eco-warrior burns some logging equipment, because they weren't involved and didn't promote it. Nor will the public at large blame the green/enviro movement. Poachers aren't "hunters" as a group anymore than eco-terrorists are environmentalists as a group.

You can find non membership goup, non affiliated blogs or message boards for environmentalists that promote or accept the acts I described above. That doesn't create some sort of cascade against the law abiding movement as a whole.

Actually I can prove you wrong on this very site, most likely this very thread. A great many hunters lump all greenies into one group of anti-hunters. To them, Elf is no different than the Sierra Club and PETA is no different than the Nature Conservancy. It is human nature to lump people into groups, even when those groups have nothing in common. It happens out of ignorance the same way that people will label all hunters as cruel when they read about one who is.

[Bob33]

Although a bit dated, here's an interesting read on the public perception of hunting: http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/NAMWC_Public_Opinion_Hunting.pdf

Hunter behavior. Another common reason that people oppose hunting is poor behavior of
hunters themselves. One study found that hunter behavior strongly affected opposition to hunting, with
the researchers concluding that, in general, the public is not against hunting, but the public “sure feels
differently about the hunter” (Rohlfing 1978). These researchers found that the top problems perceived
by the public to be associated with hunting had little to do with hunting itself (at least not ethical hunting), but were associated with individual hunters and their poor behavior (e.g., hunters fail to track wounded animals, hunters shoot animals that they are not allowed to shoot, hunters ignore safety regulations, hunters trespass, hunters shoot too close to highways, hunters don’t know what they are shooting at). The aforementioned study of Minnesota residents found that 73% agree that they are “bothered by disrespectful conduct of some hunters” (MNDNR 1992). Another researcher found that disrespectful and unethical conduct of some hunters was among the reasons given for opposition to hunting (Kellert 1980).
Even among hunters, poor behavior of other hunters is a reason for opposing hunting strictly for
recreation: 27% of hunters in one study opposed hunting strictly for recreation, and they most commonly said their opposition was because of the disrespectful conduct of some hunters (MNDNR 1992)."

[Colville]

You haven't proven anything.

That "some" people lump other "some" peoples into groups they don't belong in, hunters with poachers, eco-terrorists with environmentalists, isn't evidence that those people thinking that way have any affect on public policy or rises to the level of broad public agreement.  I don't really care if there's a segment of the public that thinks poacher when they hear hunter. They are not the majority by any stretch and they've not caused any loss of hunting opportunity.

Broadly incidents of poaching don't even rise to public consciousness. When they do, there's no hew and cry against hunters in general, but against poaching. Even if some of the public believes incorrectly that more hunters are poachers than is reality.

This MB does not raise to any level of public awareness. Period. the anonymous rants of a handful of hunters in a non affiliated message board isn't something the public can act against. They need a target. An organization or an individual. Wolf poaching, even if cheered by some, doesn't provide any specific means to target hunters as a group.  Like I said before, I wouldn't want to be a business, or organization that is caught poaching or promoting it.   If we were going to face this ground swell as the result of poaching it should have happened.  There's been poaching as long as there's been hunting laws so apparently that ground swells very little.

I remind you that the trapping, bear and cougar situations weren't driven by "hunting" but by perceived animal cruelty. Killing wolves is already illegal.

[pianoman9701]

You haven't proven anything.

That "some" people lump other "some" peoples into groups they don't belong in, hunters with poachers, eco-terrorists with environmentalists, isn't evidence that those people thinking that way have any affect on public policy or rises to the level of broad public agreement.  I don't really care if there's a segment of the public that thinks poacher when they hear hunter. They are not the majority by any stretch and they've not caused any loss of hunting opportunity.

Broadly incidents of poaching don't even rise to public consciousness. When they do, there's no hew and cry against hunters in general, but against poaching. Even if some of the public believes incorrectly that more hunters are poachers than is reality.

This MB does not raise to any level of public awareness. Period. the anonymous rants of a handful of hunters in a non affiliated message board isn't something the public can act against. They need a target. An organization or an individual. Wolf poaching, even if cheered by some, doesn't provide any specific means to target hunters as a group.  Like I said before, I wouldn't want to be a business, or organization that is caught poaching or promoting it.   If we were going to face this ground swell as the result of poaching it should have happened.  There's been poaching as long as there's been hunting laws so apparently that ground swells very little.

I remind you that the trapping, bear and cougar situations weren't driven by "hunting" but by perceived animal cruelty. Killing wolves is already illegal.

Yes, killing wolves is already illegal. And, if you don't think it gives all hunters a black eye when some promote the poaching of them, I believe you're mistaken.

[Colville]

We agree to disagree.  There are hundreds of thousands of hunters. A tiny few post anonymous remarks on a hunting MB that no one sees and no i don't think we get a black eye. Anymore than I feel like I get one when hostile posts are made on random message boards supporting:

Some Christian says all x/y/z people should be killed or are going to hell.
When someone of my political persuasion promotes vote fraud, he doesn't rep the party or me.
When some fisherman say kill every dogfish you catch.
When some white man makes a racist comment.

In general is our image important? You bet. But that image is driven by audience.  This place has a tiny fraction of the state's hunters and their audience is just themselves and maybe, maybe a few curious outsiders... and of course LE who are paying close attention to what is posted in wolf poaching threads. Posters can scream out support of poaching wolves and like a tree falling in the woods, it'll make no sound. But how they've posted will be recorded and certain people are watching.

Only large scale news events have the chance to really do damage and I'd argue that hunters shooting other hunters and non hunters does 100's X the damage of any individual poaching event and millions of times the damage of some anonymous posts on a message board.

[Bob33]

Colville, I agree that major damage is done when a hunting story hits a major media source. Everyone remembers the Skagit elk fiasco, and the woman hiker shot by the 14 year old bear hunter. Those events changed the face of hunting with a large number of people.

Posts on here may or may not have much effect. However, an act of illegal or "unethical" hunting may. The Alki octopus story is a recent example.