left field

I just happen to be reading The Fair Chase: The Epic Story of Hunting in America and am at the expansion west, the bison slaughter and the grand months-long hunts taken by wealthy Europeans where the goal was numbers. Numbers in the hundreds, if not thousands. The author argues that, in part, this wholesale slaughter of animals and the public perception of it lead to the formation of the animal welfare movement and the SPCA. Again, perception. I can't recommend the book. While it is meticulously researched, it as a little all over the place and I have a feeling ultimately leading to an anti-hunting stance.

Isn't there some evidence that the best control is a stable family population. They become self limiting and only grow to the size that the area and their traditional food source will support. And they keep other coyotes away. Disrupt that and the remaining will scatter, look for non-traditional food and establish new packs. There are even some pheasant hunters that favour having coyotes in the are as they kill the animals that prey on nests. https://pheasantsforever.org/BlogLanding/Blogs/Pheasants-Forever/Like-Pheasants-Thank-a-Coyote.aspx

So ultimately, the opposition didn't shut it down. They simply delayed it for a bit but the event went on. How is the media spinning it otherwise? Which media?

Last picture aside, this is one of the more interesting conversations here and what the huntingny forum does so much better than many others.

The burning house analogy seems like a bit of a stretch. There are two issues here. The first for me is personal. I guess if asked, I'm not a fan of this type of contest. (Or many contests for that matter.) I come at this as a new hunter but with 60 years of life, thought, success, failure, experience and perspective behind me, so my personal feelings are funneled through my filter and this type of event just isn't for me. That said, I have no objection to it as long as it is legal. But I'm not going to support it by word or deed. I would however defend the rights of those who wish to pursue it. Some may not see the difference there but I do and I'm comfortable with that. The second issue is one of public perception. Right or wrong. Listen to Belo's Rinella link and you will hear them use a particular word a few times when it comes to coyote contests ... "carnival". That is the hurdle to overcome when it comes to the public. If this was presented as a DEC-initiated predator hunt to control numbers (as I guess it was), I don't think you'd have as much pushback. This petition was written by an idiot. Honestly, how hard could it have been to counter? Educate the public? Stand tough? I live in NYC and and my friends come from every walk of life - straight, gay, other; liberal, conservative, politically agnostic; outdoorsy, and not; and when I decided I wanted to start hunting I prepared myself for the condemnation. You know who criticized me? No one. A few had questions but nobody gave me grief. While they are certainly people against all hunting whose minds will never change, I sometimes think that we are fighting a strawman. The hunters ed courses continue to sell out, the hunting clothing brands are making record sales, and the deer corn is flying out of Dick's door. In my limited experience, hunting (ever changing) seems fine.

Those are fairly general. What specifically and concretely has been done by the NY hunting community to address the Hancock issue? This is a polite conversation. No one has come out against this event. I questioned its perception to the general public. If this forum can't take that we're all screwed.

Defne "support" in this particular case.

I only have your words to go by. Generally, I don't agree with the soft language or action of "harvesting" and not wearing camo in public, etc. I don't see the obsession with social media posting of dead animals but I also don't take grip-and-grin fish pics. However, you have to acknowledge that there is a considerable difference of perception between a deer killed for the table and a dozen coyotes shot an displayed for a contest. I could sell the first to a vegan, while I have trouble selling the latter to myself. Especially when I began to look into it and realized that killing coyotes may not be doing what we think it's doing. To be clear, I'm not "not supporting" contest hunters. While I don't agree with them, I'm not trying to take away or obstruct their legal right to do so. I'm simply pointing out that these types of contests aren't helping any hunters overall cause.

My understanding is that coyotes moved into the NE about 100 years ago after we eradicated the wolves. If you're advocating bringing back wolves, cool.

By posting that you determined that I'm bending to the whims of PETA? You figure Posewitz is too? First off, PETA doesn't subscribe to whims. They are very focussed in their goals and messaging. Hunters less so so. There seems to be this weird disconnect between hunting game animals and predators. One is to be honoured, the other (on the extreme) exterminated. I see this often in fishing. Some fly anglers will gently slide a trout back into the water but toss a chub into the air to smack on the water. Sorry, but I don't understand that mindset or agree with it. Now, killing my livestock, it's probably going to die. I understand and have no issue. Need fur? Go for it. But making a contest out of killing as many coyotes as possible because they're "pests" and may harm or kill livestock and then posting pics of a dead stack is going to be a tough sell for many people. Some hunters included. There's a fellow who posts coyote videos here. Now he has a legal right to kill those animals and post the video for that matter, but it's always struck me as odd. They're not hunting videos; they're killing videos. Why anyone would want to watch a series of coyotes (or any animal for that matter) beng shot with no context is beyond me. I happened to be listening the The Hunting Collective podcast this morning and their interview with Tovar Cerulli, author of The Mindful Carnivore, and he and the host touch on some of these issues. Worth a listen.

I think there may be many hunters that agree with this. I do. As a new hunter I spend a lot of time reading trying to catch up and certainly have fallen hard for the ethics and science of hunting, the idea of fair chase, the private connection to the woods, even the flowery language of the philosophers - "kill to hunt, not hunt to kill". However, I've never understood why that goes out the door when it comes to coyotes or other predators. "Kill to hunt" becomes "kill them all" in certain groups. Based on some light reading, the science of how efficacious predator control is remains very much up in the air. And yes, there is controversy in the hunting community, mostly due to the perception. Mountain Journal contacted several widely respected experts on hunting, all of whom have spent their lives killing animals for food. One of them is Montanan Jim Posewitz, a member of the Montana Outdoor Hall of Fame and founder of Orion—The Hunter's Institute, who wrote a book titled Beyond Fair Chase that for years has been distributed to students young and old who enroll in state-sponsored hunter safety courses. He is also an authority not only on the hunting values of Theodore Roosevelt but in interpreting the North American Model. Here is what’s poignant: Posewitz and others identify several legally permitted hunting activities in America that, in their determination, grossly fail to pass the rule of fair chase and ethical standards laid out in the North American Model. Those contradictions are giving hunting a bad name, they say, resulting in it losing its appeal and credibility among the overwhelming majority of Americans who do not hunt. .... Few experts believe the trend line will ever be significantly reversed. Most agree that, if hunters refuse to take heed, hunting faces a reckoning. A major challenge is holding the line on existing hunter numbers. Hunting arguably enjoys a disproportionate amount of political clout in Congress but that clout is concentrated in a demographic that is mostly white, male, gray haired and fading. Maintaining its influence, people like Posewitz say, means that hunting must be perceived as a virtuous, defensible activity. “Those of us who value hunting don’t need PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and the Humane Society to give hunting a black eye,” Posewitz told Mountain Journal. “We’re doing that all by ourselves, against ourselves, with the proliferation of self-promoting videos on Youtube and selfies of people posing with dead animals on Facebook and other forms of social media. We’ve become our own worst enemy.” While I'm generally adverse to soft language - people in my world die, they don't pass - a pickup truck filled with dead coyotes on facebook doesn't help anyone. Off to the gym ... yell at me later.

I don't know much about coyote hunting but aren't these contests controversial even within the hunting community?

That change.org petition read like it was written by a illiterate 10 year old.

There is a difference between an accomplished athlete and a president when it comes to past behavior. Bryant's allegations weren't dealt with "behind the scenes". The accuser refused to testify and the DA dropped the charges. That's telling in some way. She then sued and settled out of court. Smart move on both their parts.. However, the "media" (whatever that means) did not drop incident and there was plenty of coverage during that period which is why we're discussing it. In fact, NBC mentioned it in their second segment on Bryant today.

I hope someone went into the personal background of each to determine whether they were "class acts" or not and worthy of respect in death. No one is saying their deaths are any less tragic than Bryant's. I heard Mauser's husband interviewed this morning and it was heartbreaking. But Bryant was a giant and when a giant falls to the ground, the earth shakes. It's not hard to understand.

Even the table talk in Bucky's camp where he "called them out" was pretty suspect. Oh well, welcome to "non-scripted" TV. I'm still happy that History invested in a hunting show. .

I saw the "charge" on the woman. As presented, that's a very manufactured piece of video. I wonder how many people quit like the guys in Bucky's camp. (I might have when I saw the state of the accommodations.) Just looked at a guide's site - 22K for a 12 day hunt plus tags.

There are a lot of bullshit teasers. Honestly, the editing, VFX, bumpers and the silly narration are terrible and make it difficult to follow the stories. And the first few hunters just aren't that compelling. I though the guy who "lost" his bear to the local hunter was practically mute. I think they're covering up for some less than compelling footage. Too bad, as it could have been a very slow burn. That said, I'll watch to the end.

I didn't see any spray. Would it really turn a charging Kodiak bear? The bowhunter I saw was flanked by two guys with rifles. The single woman with the muzzleloader doesn't seem to have anything at her side. Maybe the camera crew was armed.

I watched a couple of episodes. Hell of an ad for CVA and Kuiu. Interesting show but the narration, music and sound FX were a little over the top. Made it hard for me to invest. I didn't notice a single sidearm other than the one the native guide pulled out. Aren't they normally carried in Alaska? And how did that small woman drag a 1200 lb bear out of a creek and 10' up the bank?

Be grateful you don't have to clean the sewers of London.

The founder talked a lot about never making gear for deer hunters (or women for that matter) but I guess the segment was too big to ignore. "Perfect for sheep hunting in Tajikistan but if you're not going there I guess it will work for Delaware County."

Deer stand gear without calling it deer stand gear?

Generally, I would say that it's better for both parties to find a breed whose temperament matches your needs and expectations instead of trying to force one into an inappropriate fit.

Flatulence.