Free: Contests & Raffles.
Idahohuntr, So basically you cannot back up your assertions and inferences. Both Defenders and Cascadia Wildlands have well-documented and hard-fought neutral positions on hunting http://www.animalliberationfront.com/AR_Orgs/Wildlife%20Organizations%20Positions%20on%20Hunting.htm and http://www.cascwild.org/about-us-2/to characterize us as otherwise in any manner is dishonest and inaccurate. Your percentage argument is specious because we live in a society where most people no longer hunt but all of us own the wildlife resources. But in this there should also be an understanding that these positions in these organizations are also the way they are because hunters like myself work very, very hard and often at personal and financial risk to protect these positions from those who would push them in a direction that ultimately damages and jeopardizes hunting or hunters--it often involves kicking, screaming, holding one's breath and sometimes standing by your principles and walking away. This is the tight rope walked by many wildlife biologists who are grounded in conservation biology and therefore work for the restoration of full ecosystem function within organizations whose missions are biodiversity protection and whose memberships--tend to reflect the views of the general population. It is therefore understandably offensive to those folks engaged in this delicate dance when someone not only incorrectly characterizes then as anti-hunting but also discounts the very tangible value of keeping those organization in a defensible position vis a vis science and not allowing emotion and "cuddliness" to rule the day.
Quote from: bobferris on June 20, 2014, 12:45:09 PMIdahohuntr, So basically you cannot back up your assertions and inferences. Both Defenders and Cascadia Wildlands have well-documented and hard-fought neutral positions on hunting http://www.animalliberationfront.com/AR_Orgs/Wildlife%20Organizations%20Positions%20on%20Hunting.htm and http://www.cascwild.org/about-us-2/to characterize us as otherwise in any manner is dishonest and inaccurate. Your percentage argument is specious because we live in a society where most people no longer hunt but all of us own the wildlife resources. But in this there should also be an understanding that these positions in these organizations are also the way they are because hunters like myself work very, very hard and often at personal and financial risk to protect these positions from those who would push them in a direction that ultimately damages and jeopardizes hunting or hunters--it often involves kicking, screaming, holding one's breath and sometimes standing by your principles and walking away. This is the tight rope walked by many wildlife biologists who are grounded in conservation biology and therefore work for the restoration of full ecosystem function within organizations whose missions are biodiversity protection and whose memberships--tend to reflect the views of the general population. It is therefore understandably offensive to those folks engaged in this delicate dance when someone not only incorrectly characterizes then as anti-hunting but also discounts the very tangible value of keeping those organization in a defensible position vis a vis science and not allowing emotion and "cuddliness" to rule the day. Bob- You just proved my point...you had to fight tooth and nail to get those groups to take a "neutral" position on hunting. Why? Because they are so full of anti-hunters!!! If you don't want to kick and scream about positions on hunting (which is overwhelmingly supported by the public) then don't work for anti-hunting agendas and organizations. Perhaps if you could steer your group towards more responsible paths on wolf management we could really have something here...I appreciate that you have contributed to this forum discussion and hope you continue to participate as I think it is valuable to hear all the various sides on an issue even if we disagree.
Idahohuntr, Certainly the easiest path would have been for me to work for a hunting or fishing organization and be done with it. There was a time when I had a choice between pursuing jobs at Defenders and the Wildlife Management Institute. I thought long and hard about it and came down to being another voice saying the same thing to a few people or being a different voice saying something different to a lot of people. If you have followed my history you would find that I am not one to take the easier of two paths. So could we get back to the topic at hand?One of the reasons that it is important to maintain these connections--what I have called bridges--is the simple expedience of numbers, organizing capacity and campaign infrastructure. The hunting community tends to lack these attributes while the environmental community is constantly enlarging and refining theirs. So if you create a big tent--i.e., make room for multiple interests yet get access to numbers and other tools that you may not have at your finger tips.
Quote from: bobferris on June 20, 2014, 01:32:50 PMIdahohuntr, Certainly the easiest path would have been for me to work for a hunting or fishing organization and be done with it. There was a time when I had a choice between pursuing jobs at Defenders and the Wildlife Management Institute. I thought long and hard about it and came down to being another voice saying the same thing to a few people or being a different voice saying something different to a lot of people. If you have followed my history you would find that I am not one to take the easier of two paths. So could we get back to the topic at hand?One of the reasons that it is important to maintain these connections--what I have called bridges--is the simple expedience of numbers, organizing capacity and campaign infrastructure. The hunting community tends to lack these attributes while the environmental community is constantly enlarging and refining theirs. So if you create a big tent--i.e., make room for multiple interests yet get access to numbers and other tools that you may not have at your finger tips.I wish you well in building connections and "expanding the tent". I think you, as executive director of Cascadia Wildlands, could significantly expand the tent in Washington if you dropped your petition on lethal wolf removal and worked more in concert with hunters and WDFW staff to help line out the path for de-listing, and where appropriate, hunting of wolves. Either way, your presence on this forum is valuable and I hope we have more opportunities to debate solutions to complex problems, or better yet, work together to solve them. I think we have beaten this horse to death though.
Now that we've had our wolf fun, perhaps we could get back to the matter at hand i.e., what needs to be done about this situation? My sense is there is a need to: 1) Open up the process including more people with a broader set of interests and big picture visions; 2) Gain needed funding for independent research that can be trusted to look at all potential causes without conflicts; and 3) Conduct a comprehensive review of herbicide use and more controls on the use of these substances because even if they are not the proximate cause of this current situation they are certainly not helping the situation by degrading elk and deer habitat across a broad range. Progress on the first one can be made with public pressure. We have posted an action alert and more than 200 people have already sent comments into WDFW on this issue. Send our alert in or create one of your own. Numbers 2 and 3 likely require legislative action which means that you have to organize--probably a broad based coalition--that would include hunters and anglers with concerns over this specific issue as well as groups working traditionally on the forestry and herbicide fronts. You also need to attract a band of independent experts willing to lobby on your behalf which means developing relationships with biologists, ecologists and conservation leaders many of whom you have been beating up over the wolf and other issues. If participation in the Natural Resource Summit of America in the mid 1990s that I mentioned in a previous post taught me one thing it was the importance of maintaining relationships with people with whom you might disagree because you will eventually need them as allies on those issues where you agree. And once you have burnt the bridges, they are awfully, awfully hard to rebuild.
