Hunting Washington Forum
Community => Advocacy, Agencies, Access => Topic started by: MountainWalk on July 21, 2008, 05:39:32 PM
-
well?
-
All of the above except pollution.
-
All of the above except pollution.
+1
With the addition of slob hunters/poachers ruining hunter image and opportunities for the rest of us.
-
All of the above except pollution.
I voted other.
All of the above , any body that doesn't think that pollution has an effect needs to take a drive up through the L.T.Murray game range and especially the shooting range.It looked like a garbage dump 1 week after the cleanup day.
Slenk
-
what is other? and to you what is a slob hunter? i have my own ideas, but whats yours?
-
btw, if i had to pick the ONE thing, i would say habitat loss.
-
Wolves and Greenies with to much power.
Slenk
-
so, not being sarcastic, but you would say wolves are the number one threat to hunting?
-
Unless we get to hunt wolves... ;)
-
All of the above except pollution.
+1
With the addition of slob hunters/poachers ruining hunter image and opportunities for the rest of us.
I have to agree with this.
-
wolves are not in all 50 states. but they are the greatest threat to hunting? seems kind of illogical. i kind of wanted this to stay on topic guys.
-
all of the above but i feel that anti hunters have just a bit more weight than the others
-
pick ONE!
-
I voted for anti hunters and don't consider any of the other choices even a close second.
-
btw, if i had to pick the ONE thing, i would say habitat loss.
+1 That was my vote also, without habitat you will have nothing to hunt because if there is no habitat there isn't going to be any animals.
Anti's don't really concern me much they are a small majority and most of the public is favorable towards hunting. It is just a small majority that oppose it.
-
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.
-
thats a very well thought out reply cougeys. bravo.
-
pick ONE!
Dude, you need to R-E-L-A-X... :chuckle:
-
how do you spell that?
-
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
-
yessir, i understand.
-
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 :twocents:
-
I voted other. I think liberals are the #1 threat.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :twocents:
-
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.
-
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.
-
bobcat, once again, well put and spot on with real logic.
-
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.
-
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.
A conservative only by the name of the party he ran under. Really and truely a liberal. Same as McCain.
-
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.
A conservative only by the name of the party he ran under. Really and truly a liberal. Same as McCain.
Also I think it was the LIBERALS that voted to ban hound hunting, baiting, and trapping in washington state. I think it is LIBERALS that have closed bear hunting in something like 27 states. And it will be LIBERALS that one day make all hunting illegal. One animal and one state at a time.
-
Bigshooter-
Your Spot on!
The biggest problem we face are extremists, enviromental and liberal, the two seem to go hand in hand.
-
or you could keep killing everything until they are not around anymore. i wonder if we are paying for our grandfathers mistakes.
-
I love the fact that when ever a republican F#@$'s up he's really a "liberal", not a conservative that F*$#ed up. I agree with the fact that it was liberals that took our hound hunting and bear baiting, but I was talking about habitat loss.
-
WOLVES >:(
-
to blame wolves as the number one threat is illogical.
-
ok ok I pick the guy who wont let me kill wolves. :chuckle:
You asked an opinion. I did not realize it was a pass fail exam. Nor did I realize it was so serious.I apologize. I fail.
-
threats to hunting are very serious to me. hunters pride themselves on logic-and we accuse anti hunters as illogical. we hunters think that animal rights folks are do gooders who base their ideas on emotions, not sound science or fact. alot of folks who hunt fall into this same trap with the whole wolf issue. im just asking folks to employ their logic, and base their answers on factual things.
to me, habitat loss is the most logical.
-
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.
I don't think so. I think of all the groups I listed as the same thing. To me they're all environmentalists, which means they work towards protecting the environment and wildlife habitat. Sorry but I just don't see any difference between what the RMEF does and what The Nature Conservancy does. They both protect habitat and that is all that matters.
-
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.
I don't think so. I think of all the groups I listed as the same thing. To me they're all environmentalists, which means they work towards protecting the environment and wildlife habitat. Sorry but I just don't see any difference between what the RMEF does and what The Nature Conservancy does. They both protect habitat and that is all that matters.
I think you would piss off a lot of conservationists if you called them environmentalists.
And Bush is a liberal. Said it before he was elected the first time.
-
I think you would piss off a lot of conservationists if you called them environmentalists.
Maybe, but I doubt it, and I wouldn't care anyway.
-
I think you would piss off a lot of conservationists if you called them environmentalists.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
It's funny cause it's true. They probably would be upset, but in the end they really are the same, just with different end game agendas.
-
lack of new hunters is to me the biggest threat to hunting as a whole. Without new generations stepping up to fill the shoes of the older fellas, the industry, conservation, and habitat will continue to fall to the wayside.
I have one friend that I could talk into going hunting, it is a dying tradition in the American family, for shame.
-
I see the number one problem being lack of interest. As a young man I know for a fact that my generation is losing a grip on things that the "old timers" find interesting. Out of all of my 30 or so friends, 30 and under, I know 2 besides myself that hunt. That is a outrageous! Now of all my friends 31 and older I would have to say that roughly 70 percent of them are active hunters. Kids today are lazy and would rather practice hunting on a video game and buy meat at the store than get out there and hoof it to provide for themselves.
Now since I am studying Ecology at CWU, I have met many people and have found there is a minimal difference in enviromentalists and conservationists. Enviromentalists are all about preserving every aspect of the earth from water to air to the land itself, so hunting is a minimal thing to them because they work on a large scale. At least this is the feelings of the ones I am in contact with. Now Conservationists are all about conserving what wild lands we have left, and they understand hunting as an important tool to protect the land from over grazing. So in general the have the same mission in life, but sometimes the envirometalists can be more extreme.
Brandon
-
All of the above except pollution.
+1
With the addition of slob hunters/poachers ruining hunter image and opportunities for the rest of us.
:yeah:
And the alcoholic Indian poachers.
-
I see the number one problem being lack of interest. As a young man I know for a fact that my generation is losing a grip on things that the "old timers" find interesting.
Let us not forget how much easier it is to sit in front of a 50" flatscreen, with a bag full of McDonalds burgers and fries, playing with an XBox 360 or Sony Playstation, the deer and elk come right to you at the push of a button, why go work up a sweat outside when you can do it playing guitar hero :puke:
Just look at all the little fat *censored*s walking around the next time you're out, its sickening!!!
-
Just look at all the little fat *censored*s walking around the next time you're out, its sickening!!!
:chuckle:
-
Just look at all the little fat *censored*s walking around the next time you're out, its sickening!!!
Hey! Careful...
:chuckle:
-
Anti hunters especially if they include politicians and activist judges who oppose to our traditions and our way of life. They are serious about limiting or ending our hunting rights, no matter what. They are well funded, organized, and they have the mainstream media on their side.
Their tactics are to chip away at our rights by raising taxes, limiting ammunition, raising age limits for hunting, closing down gun shops, ending gun shows, ban the use of guns for self defense, ban more and more semi-automatic weapons, increasing waiting periods, and on and on. Little by little they will succeed unless we stop them with State by State constitutional amendments, which will guarantee hunters rights. Hunters can shoot and kill wolves if allowed. The anti-hunting nuts can kill hunting period.
Remember, the recent Supreme Court decision allowing for individual use was decided by ONE VOTE! Next time there is a test case I'm not so sure we will prevail.