Curmudgeon

This is what happened metaphorically. You called my mother a street walker. In response, I called your mother a street walker. Then you went ballistic.

I'm glad a couple of people got the point.

mmkay - I didn't read the second and third articles past the first paragraph's. I was just looking for information on the topic to illustrate a point. i found it in a google search. As I said earlier, the real purpose of the discussion was about how people treat each other, how this affects new hunters, and how whether the moderators have some responsibility.

nyantler - Hey, you hurt my feelings. As you can tell from all my posts, I am extremely sensitive to criticism. But back to being serious. I have a lot of respect for your intelligence. I read what you write. Do you not think that the attitudes such as VJP's affect new hunters, especially young women, negatively?

No. Don't blow smoke up there ass. If you want new hunters to understand, you have to teach them. If they are spouting crap, then they need to be corrected. I agree, an arrogant ignorant is different from newbies who may not either share anyone in particulars views, or understand compelling political issues. Remember what happened on the thread with the guy who wounded a buck and shot at another's butt. I don't approve of what he did. Let me ask this, are we as hunters better off having driven him away?

I can't imagine a new hunter doing anything like this. They would just go away. New hunters need encouragement, teaching and respect - regardless of whether or not you agree with them. I have not discussed politics with my mentee, and I won't. My relationship with her is about teaching her to hunt. To respect life when she does so.

Unfortunately, some of us have way too much time to think about why?

It is not about freedom of speech. It is not about me "picking a fight". I already said it was a mistake for me to call out the NRA on its non-lead information. It caused a reaction, but that reaction happens often whether or not I am involved. How do we make others, especially new hunters feel welcome? If every effort to be inclusive ends up ruined by strong views expressed in insulting ways, how can we expect new hunters - a new type of hunter - to feel welcome? Will they join with us? Will they choose to understand the political issues?

First, what anyone thinks of me is insignificant. The concern is that there are people who are afraid to speak - I have heard from them - because of reactions like VJP's. There is a whole new class of hunters coming - the "foodies". If we want them to feel welcome, we must be able to keep them from being abused. How do you suggest this be done? Do we expect VJP to think about others before he posts? Do we as hunters want him driving away the young "idiots" and the "brainwashed"?

Culver - It is not the site. It is a good site. I don't mind arguing as you might have noticed. However, the problem here is issues are getting conflated. Then, aggressive, bullying people cause others to back down or hide. A new site isn't needed. I really like this one. I've been a moderator for several discussion groups. When someone is out of line, the moderator can put them on "moderated" status. When they are in this mode, their posts don't go up until a moderator has read and approved each one. Usually just the threat of being moderated is enough to keep people civil and on-topic. Keeping things civil is the job of the moderators.

Thanks Papist. That is helpful.

Mike - Your ability to cut through the crap and make sense is amazing. You seem to have been doing this on this forum for a long time. Thanks.

Doc - I have found that you and I agree on most things. Sometimes we differ to degrees, but there is a large overlap in our views. We could probably be good friends. In this case you are entirely wrong. There is a litmus test. It isn't official, but if you dissent, if you question the NRA, you will be bullied and forced into the crowd of skulkers. You will be followed from thread to thread and harassed. The moderators on this forum will scold someone for using a word like "****" but they will let someone let VJP state a bunch of imaginings about someone he knows very little about without a comment. Bullying keeps everyone in line. I assume the same result would happen if someone questioned far right politics. Should I do another test on the "I'm so right, the middle of the road looks like left to me" people? It may be hard for some of you to imagine but I have tried to keep my personal feelings out of the provocative discussions I started. The thoughts, the questions, were offered as opportunities for others to engage. Opportunities to bring ideas out for discussion. They were also intended to test the wind. I slipped when I responded to VJP's claim that some environmental groups were guilty of "outright lies" by pointing out that the NRA provides "outright lies" on lead-free ammo. That was my mistake. I suggested the NRA might not be perfect. It went downhill quickly. I have started a few thought provoking threads. These have gotten people talking about ethics, image, recruiting new hunters, visceral emotional reactions. Yes,, I have poked 4 seasons with a stick a few times but only to serve a larger interest. He is so transparent, he provides regular opportunities to discuss coyote science. Otherwise, I try not to get personal. I apologize for those few times I have failed. My motivations have been questioned several times. I am not a "zealot" as VJP imagines. I am an educator who uses the tools at his disposal. I do have one motivation that is not stated in my posts, I had hoped to offer myself as a lighting rod so as to make these discussions safe for those with different points of view. Do you recall me suggesting that to recruit the new breed of "foodie" hunters, that political and gun rights discussions should be kept out of hunting discussions? The bullying is why. This post shows that my hope of making these people feel safe has failed miserably. The moderators have also failed in this regard. Everything is not always what it seems. I have been called "an enigma wrapped in a burrito inside a peirogi". It isn't obvious but this thread was never intended to be about the NRA, or what anyone thinks about it. It is about huntingny.com.

That's the name of this article - http://alibi.com/food/43794/Pro-Gun-Anti-NRA.html After being called an anti in another thread because I have trouble with the NRA (anti hunting or guns I am not sure), I went looking for information on how many hunters are NRA members. It turns out no more than 20%. Interesting. Here are some other views on the NRA from hunters - not surprisingly from sources that are not right leaning: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/18/hunters-gun-rightshavenothingtodowithhunting.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/opinion/i-hunt-but-i-oppose-the-nra.html?_r=0 Is there a litmus test for being on this forum? Do you have to support the NRA to belong? I thought is was a hunting forum.

The only thing I am anti about is zealotry.

Agreed.

This is an NRA project - http://www.huntfortruth.org/. Do you believe everything on this site? We can debate reality till the cows come home. It doesn't change anything. No, I am not a member. I come from a family of cops, including one who died from lung impacts at ground zero after an agonizing death. I got entirely disgusted with the NRA years ago, as did my retired cop father. Are you part of the club sponsoring the coyote contest?

This sentence: Quote "If one goes back to the 1940's & 50's, when hunting wasn't being attacked, you can see the emergence over time of animal rights groups, environmental groups and gun control groups that all work in concert to attack hunting and gun ownership. Their "scientific" evidence supporting their positions have been proven to be inaccurate, false and even outright lies on many occasions."

"Primal" is right. I think it's genetic. We evolved to hunt; hunting as groups; family/clan groups; hunting with dogs; hunting to eat; hunting for clothing and shelter. I think that what makes it so hard to explain to the non-hunter is that it is so hard to articulate. Thanks Mike for sending the link to that great article. For those who didn't read it, below you will find the last paragraph. Twice on this forum people have suggested I am not a hunter because I love and respect wildlife. I have killed more deer than the average age of readers on this forum yet I am questioned because I do not fit some people's stereotype. I am what the article refers to as a "nature hunter". ...“in order to assure the future of hunting, we don’t need more hunters; we need better hunters.” We do not need a Homo sapiens equivalent of domestic housecats torturing their prey for amusement. We need “nature hunters,” as described by Kellert, who regard their prey with affection and respect and consider how both the prey and the hunters themselves fit into their environment. An easy first step centers on self-identity in the same spirit that Grinnell and Roosevelt showed when redefining hunters to save hunting at the turn of the nineteenth century. By redefining hunting within an ethical framework we may begin to satisfy public concerns about hunting, but, more importantly, we can revitalize the hunting experience. We successfully restored the populations of game animals. Now, more than ever, we need to restore hunters and the meaning of hunting. I will begin by redefining what type of hunter I am. I am a “nature hunter” and this helps make me human.

Mr. VJP - Did you answer my question about whether the CA ban was directly enacted because of a lawsuit? Starting with your last post, the economic impacts were from a poll that was biased and flawed. The survey was such that they inflated the costs of lead-free ammo then asked hunters if ammo cost "this much" would they quit hunting. The numbers are nonsense. There was no reduction in waterfowl hunting when it went non-lead. I have searched. Please show me some data that confirms that hunter numbers have declined in CA because of the ban. This on condor lead blood levels and bans vs. voluntary use of non-lead - http://outdoorchannel.com/article.aspx?id=24145&articletype=article&key=keeping-lead-out-of-condors You discuss "junk" science,. I have found that "junk science" is science people disagree with. "Sound science" is what they do agree with. "Peer reviewed" science is what matters. You refer to people who disagree with you as "the brainwashed public" and "idiots". Why is that? Quote "If one goes back to the 1940's & 50's, when hunting wasn't being attacked, you can see the emergence over time of animal rights groups, environmental groups and gun control groups that all work in concert to attack hunting and gun ownership. Their "scientific" evidence supporting their positions have been proven to be inaccurate, false and even outright lies on many occasions." There may be some groups that fall into this category. It is dangerous to lump environmental groups in there without some qualification. Does the Isaac Walton League meet your critera as an environmental group? It does mine. There are many environmental groups that support some hunting when it does no ecological harm, and may cause ecological improvements. This includes many organizations concerned about bird habitat. That last sentence of your quote is just as true about a lot of information put out by the NRA. Condors are obligate scavengers. Are they visiting old industrial sites and eating the paint?

4 seasons - You should write a book. You are the second person who has suggested I am not a hunter because I love and respect wildlife. FYI - I do not take photos of myself with dead deer. Not to be critical of anyone who does but I am not comfortable doing it. I did post a photo I took of my mentee with her 2 opening day deer. Just for you, I am posting a photo of my barn opening weekend last month. Sorry the buck's heads are not visible. It was tough getting a good angle and the light right. None were really impressive anyway. I'm sure you see bigger bucks every day. Be sure to count them all. Some are hidden. You called your deer livestock, not me. Killing livestock is not hunting. Maybe you and your neighbors should get some Great Pyrenees. A lot of sheep raisers are using them. It might solve all your problems.

4seasons - I think after 10 weeks of reading your posts, I have a pretty good idea of who you are. You are never wrong, which means you cannot learn. You are not the audience in this response to your posts. When scientists do research, they never draw conclusions from one situation, location, etc. They certainly do not draw conclusions based on emotion or personal anecdotes. I can talk all about all the coyotes here and how deer numbers are out of control. It only balances the 4seasons argument. It is not science. 4 seasons is a story teller. The organic roots of which are not far from the stories the original Grimm brothers told. He wants to convince others that they need to fear these creatures. However, the science does not support this fear. I do understand where it coming from. I have spent considerable time in places where domestic stock has ranged free since the beginning of the holocene. A legitimate fear of wolves predates even that. Those people have very large dogs that live with their stock - even now in areas now devoid of wolves. I have watched a Great Pyrenees refuse to let a vulture land even though the bird is an obligate scavenger. The dog can't tell the difference between a vulture and an eagle - which is certainly capable of killing a small ungulate. Fear of wolves runs deep. And, another off topic comment: Hunting livestock is not hunting. High fence hunting is just a euphemism. I don't object to it. I kill lambs each fall. They are livestock. 4season's livestock may be more difficult to kill but it is not hunting.

VJP - I have over 4 decades of political involvement on environmental issues. Our experience is similar but our priorities are different. The people who I work with in CA who are non-lead ammo advocates did not want a ban and still do not want a ban. I do not have time to read all the links - at the moment Christmas trees sales are slow due to Sunday morning and freezing rain - but my understanding was that the CA ban was put in place after a lawsuit. Please correct me if I am wrong. A couple of sentences is sufficient. Too many words won't get read. I have a very good friend. A single guy who lives and works in Yosemite park. All his vacation time seems to be spent hunting. He spends a couple of weeks in NY each November, usually joining us at camp in the Dacks, but always moving in with me for the southern zone opener. I asked him last month how the lead ammo ban affected him and his friends. He acted like it was no big deal - not even an issue. He is not political. He only started using non-lead ammo here when I bought him a box. The fact that there are hunters with no agenda switching to non-lead without complaint is interesting.

Some Bluebirds spend the winter in New York. They are found almost every year on the Fort Plain Christmas Bird Count. They can also be found at higher elevations south of the Thruway and lakes as long as there is enough fruit for them to eat. It is still special to see them in winter.

There are probably "foodies" reading these posts. If we want to court them, we need to be careful. Like at family gatherings, politics and religion are hazardous. We may find we have a lot in common re hunting, but politics and gun rights are going to be problematic. Discussion of these issues should be limited to the sections of forum devoted to those topics.