threats to hunting

[Cougeyes]

All are great choices, but if I had to pick one I would say lack of new hunter recruitment.  If we're thinking of short term then I wouldn't have picked this. It is the new generations that have to continue the battle, without them there will be more habitat loss, more anti-hunter battles won etc.... if our numbers drop significanlty i see hunting losing out. The more numbers, the better chances of hunting persisting for generations to come.

[MountainWalk]

thats a very well thought out reply cougeys. bravo.

[sisu]

pick ONE!

Dude, you need to R-E-L-A-X...

[MountainWalk]

how do you spell that?

[Houndhunter]

i see the biggest as lack of knowledge, thats the only way i can think of to put it. from what ive seen alot of people dont realize how important hunting is, and what really goes on while hunting. on quite a few occasions i've had people suprized when i told them we eat the animals, apparently they thought they hunters left them to waste. stuff like that though, people just see the medias view point. like movies for instance, how many times in movies have you seen where hunters get a bad image, "bambi" had a huge effect in my opinion and even cartoons like "out of season" or somthin like i cant remeber the name. I dont know, i have a hard time putting my thoughts into words but you can get the idea

[MountainWalk]

yessir, i understand.

[Red Dawg]

I am going to say habitat loss. Mostly loss of natural winter grounds. Wolves are now a problem because of that alone. Before when game could go where ever they wanted it may not have been a problem but now with a lack of habitat they suffer. Anti's aren't as bad as they seem. I think they help in way. They are definitely all for preserving habitat and that is what game needs to survive. They do hurt us in a way but the state makes so much money off of hunting that they will never get rid of it. Who knows a guy could go on and on for days about this topic. Just my 

[Bigshooter]

I voted other.  I think liberals are the #1 threat.

[bobcat]

Red Dawg, I agree with habitat loss being the number 1 issue, but I sure don't agree that anti-hunters are "definitely all for preserving habitat."  That could be true for some of them but many anti-hunters spend all their time in the big cities and know nothing about wildlife and what they need to survive, and they really don't care either. They may think it's wrong to kill an "innocent" animal but they won't spend their money on wildlife habitat either.

[ThePascoKid]

you say liberals are the biggest threat, however I believe it was a conservative president that opened up all that BLM winter range to drilling in Montana and Wyoming.  My vote is habitat loss, I agree with who ever said, if the animals have no where to live we have nothing to hunt.  I also agree that most of the anti's don't have a clue about habitat, ecology or the natural order of things.  Most of them would rather save a rat than a human being, they disgust me. The anti's that is not the rats.

[rackattack]

I think new recruitment will be the biggest problem we face.  Less people to fight for what we believe in, which will allow other choices to take control.

[Red Dawg]

I guess what i meant was tree huggers. Anti was the closest thing to that in this thread. They may not want us to hunt but they do support the enviroment and that is half the battle. I dont agree with what they say but they serve a cause.

[bobcat]

Red Dawg, I get what you're saying but there are two types of people. There's the animal right fanatics that think animals should have all the rights that people have, and then you have your environmentalists, many of which are not against hunting and maybe some of them ARE hunters. The animal rights people are members of groups like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States.) The environmentalists could be members of groups like The Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, Ducks Unlimited, the Rocky Mtn. Elk Foundation, Pheasants Forever, etc. I just think many times people get these two different types of people confused and they are not the same.

[MountainWalk]

bobcat, once again, well put and spot on with real logic.

[Bigshooter]

Red Dawg, I get what you're saying but there are two types of people. There's the animal right fanatics that think animals should have all the rights that people have, and then you have your environmentalists, many of which are not against hunting and maybe some of them ARE hunters. The animal rights people are members of groups like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States.) The environmentalists could be members of groups like The Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, Ducks Unlimited, the Rocky Mtn. Elk Foundation, Pheasants Forever, etc. I just think many times people get these two different types of people confused and they are not the same.

I think you have environmentalists mixed up with conservationists.

(Conservationist: One that practices or advocates conservation, especially of natural resources.)


 (Environmentalists: 1.  Advocacy for or work toward protecting the natural environment from destruction or pollution.
2.  The theory that environment rather than heredity is the primary influence on intellectual growth and cultural development.)

I think that the animal right fanatics and the environmentalists are nearly the same.