Free: Contests & Raffles.
A large part of the reason our voice is smaller is that we do not stick together. Bow is better than rifle. Traditional bow is better than these new age bows. I will never pay private trespass and only hunt public. Guided vs unguided. Trophy hunting vs i see its eyes it dies. Native vs non native. Hunters with money and hunters without. Huge scoring trophies vs a trophy in the eye of the beholder. I constantly see posts where the person says "It is not the biggest but....". As if their trophy is not important. We all have the same goals. TO ENJOY THE OUTDOORS IN OUR OWN LEGAL WAY. The anti's send letters, join groups and put money forth. If I ask a friend for $20 to get a free magazine and $25 knife so DU, SCI, RMEF etc can have their name on their registrar they balk at the cost. These names on paper give our hunters power. This is how you combat the antis. The antis who don't have money to contribute contribute time for rallies and protests. Yet we as hunters don't. We complain, complain, complain. I know all our conservation groups have faults. BUT, what is better. Supporting a group with faults and banding together or loosing it all. In this state if we do not come together we will loose it all. I GUARANTEE that hunting will become a rich mans sport in 50 years if we do not stick together. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE support one or all groups with our time and $. $5 each from 150000 sportsmen in this state goes a long way.
Why Hunters and the Hunting Industry Should WorryBy Ace LucianoHunters and the Hunting Industry should be worried… Really, really worried.We, as an industry, are in a state of decline that, while there are some things to be excited about, there are many more reasons for concern.My grandchildren may not hunt. Not because they won’t desire to or be “against” it (although that is of increasing concern), but because we, as hunters can’t seem to “get our act together” and stop fighting.Concern Number 1: HOLLYWOOD AND MONEY Recently, Leonardo DiCaprio et.al held a fundraiser for endangered tigers.Nobody argues that tigers are endangered and that there is a need for their preservation. Also, nobody argues that raising money to help save tigers is bad.What’s concerning is how and how much money was raised. $25 MILLION in one evening. That’s right.More than most groups on the hunting side raise in YEARS. What happens when they decide to go after Elephant Hunting? Lion? Mountain Lion?What happens when they pool their funds to buy huge swaths of land here and abroad, or lobby against hunting? If you thing the closure of hunting in Botswana and Zambia had nothing to do with money, you need to wake up. Africa and its various corrupt governments are easily bought for what most would consider paltry sums. Then the government thugs in power have free reign to poach and sell the animals that remain.They will happily take Leo’s money, and then take the poacher’s money as well… and remember, there has been NO LEGAL TROPHY HUNTING IN KENYA SINCE THE 70′s…Concern Number 2: ANTI HUNTER MOBILIZATIONRecently, as part of a little “social experiment,” I published an article with a very “Attention-Drawing” headline: “Hi, My Name is Ace, And I Kill Animals.” What was the experiment? I wanted to prove that anti-hunters, while passionate about their cause, would largely ignore me because, after all, I was a white, Christian male that hunted and not a young, attractive female. While I was 100% correct, there were several things I noticed that are of “concern.” I actually had to go after some of the groups with some “strategic” posts and messages before they “found” me, and find me they did. For the most part, these people are ignorant, rude, crude, vulgar, and quite violent in nature for a group that professes to be so “compassionate” about animals. I was threatened, called vile names (it appears that there is quite a fondness “across the pond” for the pejorative term for female genitalia) and ridiculed on my Facebook page. One said he wanted to “fight me” (a very amusing thought, as it came from a 130 lb. pot and paraphernalia store owner…people- we can see WHO YOU ARE, REMEMBER???) It was also very good for my post reach and rankings.However… The coordination and absolute unification in their message and drive to end all hunting should be of concern.Concern Number 3: HUNTER VS. HUNTERIt is looking more and more like I will not hunt a lion or elephant in my lifetime. Regardless of what you think, that in and of itself is a disappointment to me. I was fortunate to sit in on a press meeting that addressed the violent attacks on several outdoor personalities as well as the loss of television show venues and sponsors. Everything that was said in that meeting was true, and it was appalling at some of the treatment that these people received.Even more appalling was the LACK OF SUPPORT THEY RECEIVED FROM OUR SIDE.What do I mean? Here are some quotes from discussions that I found:From a waterfowl forum- “I hunt, but I would never shoot a lion or an elephant. Shame on them for doing that. ” From Facebook- “I’m a ‘meat hunter’ and believe that you should eat everything that you harvest. People that go to Africa and just kill a bunch of stuff to prove their manhood disgust me.” “She’s not a ‘Hunter’ anyway- just a spoiled rich girl that daddy sent on some expensive trip.” – From a LinkedIn Group.This should concern all of us. You know what? I’m happy that girl’s father is so successful that he can spend $150K on hunting for his daughter. Success should be celebrated, not castigated. Think how many jobs his money provides. Think how many people were FED as a result of that safari! I say GOOD FOR THEM.…But I am in the minority, and that’s a BIG PROBLEM. While we fight, argue and spit at one another about baiting, leases, bow vs. gun, trapping, hunting with dogs, hunting in enclosures, trophy vs. meat hunting, television celebrities, women, etc., the “other side” is ABSOLUTELY UNIFIED in their ONE MISSION……To STOP ALL HUNTING.and if you’re NOT worried, you SHOULD be.
Quote from: JLS on December 18, 2016, 11:24:53 AMQuote from: Bob33 on December 18, 2016, 10:04:00 AMIt's a lot easier to unify those who are opposed to hunting, than those who aren't.This is so true Bob. It's easy to have a loud political voice when your message is unified into one consolidated goal.I admittedly don't know much about the HHC, and will do some research into it. It's worth noting though, that some of us on this board (myself included) support groups that have opposing goals to other groups supported by board members. An example of this is BHA and the Blue Ribbon Coalition. Some opposing beliefs will be difficult to reconcile, but it is possible so long as people maintain open minds and open dialogue.I firmly believe that we all should be pressing for several things;1) A sound, science based approach to wildlife management. Agreed, however the issue is "science" is often dictated by agenda, with results ultimately leaning toward the "opinions" of those funding the studies.
Quote from: Bob33 on December 18, 2016, 10:04:00 AMIt's a lot easier to unify those who are opposed to hunting, than those who aren't.This is so true Bob. It's easy to have a loud political voice when your message is unified into one consolidated goal.I admittedly don't know much about the HHC, and will do some research into it. It's worth noting though, that some of us on this board (myself included) support groups that have opposing goals to other groups supported by board members. An example of this is BHA and the Blue Ribbon Coalition. Some opposing beliefs will be difficult to reconcile, but it is possible so long as people maintain open minds and open dialogue.I firmly believe that we all should be pressing for several things;1) A sound, science based approach to wildlife management.
It's a lot easier to unify those who are opposed to hunting, than those who aren't.
Quote from: Bob33 on December 18, 2016, 09:30:01 AMQuote from: Special T on December 18, 2016, 09:04:16 AM.. what hunting needs is an organisational element to bring the different factions together. It's sadly evident to me that bringing the different factions together isn't likely to happen. Start a thread about any hunting/firearms/conservation organization, and you'll get a slew of comments about why they're not an organization that hunters should support. RMEF, Safari Club, NRA, Ducks Unlimited, WA WSF, BHA - pick any one, start a thread, and watch the mud fly.None of them are without fault. I think the best you can hope for is to support as many of them as you feel comfortable with and do your best to reserve judgement on the others. Together, a lot of good for hunters is being accomplished.Agreed. It's just like how at times the different weapon type groups argue. Archery guys want more days then rifle, muzzleloader want more than archery, etc. The previous was just an example, it doesn't do anything other than break us hunters apart.
Quote from: Special T on December 18, 2016, 09:04:16 AM.. what hunting needs is an organisational element to bring the different factions together. It's sadly evident to me that bringing the different factions together isn't likely to happen. Start a thread about any hunting/firearms/conservation organization, and you'll get a slew of comments about why they're not an organization that hunters should support. RMEF, Safari Club, NRA, Ducks Unlimited, WA WSF, BHA - pick any one, start a thread, and watch the mud fly.None of them are without fault. I think the best you can hope for is to support as many of them as you feel comfortable with and do your best to reserve judgement on the others. Together, a lot of good for hunters is being accomplished.
.. what hunting needs is an organisational element to bring the different factions together.
Longtime follower here, first time poster. Brief intro on me. I have spent 25 years in Olympia working for two republican senators throughout the years. The things I will post are MY views but are very in line with the senators I have worked for.Yes CCA has a lobbyist in Olympia. Yes Hunters Heritage Council has a lobbyist in Olympia. For a long time the HHC lobbyist was Ed Owens, it is now Tom Echols who basically took on Ed's caseload.I have worked with both organizations. The difference I see between the fishing CCA group and the hunting HHC group is the following:HHC is great at getting bills stopped, or supporting bills.CCA is great at stopping bills, supporting bills, but also creating new policies for WDFW and getting them approved by either the Fish and Wildlife Commission or the legislature. I can point to certain fishery management changes and say that this decision/policy is because of CCA. There are great things that did happen to WA fisheries because of CCA and only because of CCA.Unfortunately I cannot say the same for HHC. HHC represents approximately 11 groups but 6 of those are SCI chapters.So I agree with both bigtex and hunter4life on the issues here. But I do think if we want to see change and not just prevention of bad things hunters need a CCA type group.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Everyone should peruse the "weakly wildlife report" and see where the money goes. There's an awful lot on there about Non-game species especially endangered or rare species management that has no benefit (and in some cases like wolves) or even a negative impact on hunters. Bats, turtles, snowy plover, Columbia White-tailed deer, pygmy rabbits etc. Endangered species management should is a general fund obligation, period. Funds from hunters should not be siphoned off for endangered species management. Another big cost is planning--which is multi-faceted and continuous. Each state grant requires a plan that must be updated and there are layers upon layers of plans. They pile up on shelves and in many cases no real implementation before the next state or federal required planning cycle. Just one example is the Mount St. Helens wildlife area that has had a "plan" for legal public access from the beginning of ownership, but has no legal public access today after many, many planning cycles. Take that planning money and put it on the ground.
Too bad we don't have stiffer penalties for our limited tax dollars when we do catch people abusing the system. I believe there is very little deterrence factor for intentional poachers.
We all know that CONSERVATION NORTHWEST controls every step of the WDFW..
Quote from: huntnphool on December 18, 2016, 11:54:44 AMQuote from: JLS on December 18, 2016, 11:24:53 AMQuote from: Bob33 on December 18, 2016, 10:04:00 AMIt's a lot easier to unify those who are opposed to hunting, than those who aren't.This is so true Bob. It's easy to have a loud political voice when your message is unified into one consolidated goal.I admittedly don't know much about the HHC, and will do some research into it. It's worth noting though, that some of us on this board (myself included) support groups that have opposing goals to other groups supported by board members. An example of this is BHA and the Blue Ribbon Coalition. Some opposing beliefs will be difficult to reconcile, but it is possible so long as people maintain open minds and open dialogue.I firmly believe that we all should be pressing for several things;1) A sound, science based approach to wildlife management. Agreed, however the issue is "science" is often dictated by agenda, with results ultimately leaning toward the "opinions" of those funding the studies. However, if you have an open mind and are willing to accept what the observed data/facts are pointing to, you CAN sort through the BS.
Quote from: CAMPMEAT on December 18, 2016, 04:00:09 PMWe all know that CONSERVATION NORTHWEST controls every step of the WDFW..I'm intrigued. Can you expound?
