Do coyote and crow contests tarnish hunters' image?

[Curmudgeon]

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.

 

[Four Season Whitetail's]

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.

 

DSC00539.JPG

 

 

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.

No book needed. Just truths and facts to back up the statements.. I have a Great Pyrenees puppy now at 13 weeks but he,even at full grown,could not effect the problem of 3-4 years ago. All out warfare with heavy does's of lead and a little Golden was the only cure for that problem.  Problem Solved! 

[Five Seasons]

The public has been easing up on hunting for food but are still and will probably always be against trophy hunting.  It is very difficult for the general public to grasp ecological concepts such as population control.

 

To play devils advocates, we lose our credibility when we claim population control and let small bucks and doe walk. But if the average joe understood the time and effort to dress, drag and process any deer than maybe they'd understand. Not all of us have 4 wheelers and flat land.

[Curmudgeon]

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?

 

 

[Five Seasons]

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.

 

Probably the single largest reason I hunt is because I love nature. You're not in the minority. I pick up litter as I hike, I enjoy watching the critters and yes this does mean that I feel a little bit for every animal I take. What makes it easy is that I know I consume the animal. It's probably why I never got into trapping and yote hunting although I'd like to give both a try.

 

I would even go as far as saying most of us hunt mostly because we love the woods. Why the hell else would we spend hours and hours sitting in a tree for 2 minutes of actions.

[Mr VJP]

Mr. VJP -

 

Did you answer my question about whether the CA ban was directly enacted because of a lawsuit?

 

I pointed out the info on how the legislation passed and the Gov signed it.  I'm not aware of a lawsuit and can find no info about one.  Since the opponents of a ban feel if the F&W report wasn't withheld, the ban may not have passed, I have to think it was not driven by 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.

 

Anyone who disagrees with the info is going to say the poll was biased and flawed.  We don't know what the cost of non-lead ammo will be in the future.  Most ammo experts expect the cost of ANY ammo to be much higher very soon, due to all manner of govt over regulation.  It won't be known how many hunters quit until after July 2019 when all of the law's restrictions take full effect.  Regarding waterfowl hunter numbers, steel shot laws did cause many duck hunters to leave the field.  Myself and many of my friends are proof of that.  However, many new duck hunters took up the slots that were left vacant.  The real question to ask is:  How many duck hunters would there be today if lead shot was never banned and is that number far above what we see today?  Many duck hunting experts are saying the answer to that question is yes.

 

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.

 

I said this:  "Based on the above info, it is hard to agree with a ban when the science used to justify it MAY be junk.  How is it hunters used lead ammo in this land for over 200 years and it has now become a huge problem that it never seemed to be before?

 

Extrapolating that to the subject of public opinion, junk science CAN be used to sway public opinion towards the goals the government has in mind.  Can we trust any of the "scientific" evidence put out and paid for by the same people who have an agenda it supports?"

 

I believe a lot of peers have reviewed a lot of this data and determined it was junk being used to sway public opinion.

 

You refer to people who disagree with you as "the brainwashed public" and "idiots". Why is that?

 

Not those that disagree with me.  Those that disagree with contests.  Their opinions are not formed by first hand experience or personal research.  It is formed by propaganda and trends in society, just like gluten free food and hipster beards are.  I did say idiots can be trouble.  Are you trying to say none of the anti's are completely clueless about contests and aren't just spewing what they have been told to say?

 

 

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.

 

Perhaps I should clarify I meant RADICAL Environmental groups that ARE trying to attack hunting into oblivion.

 

 

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?

 

Sorry, but I'm not sure what sentence in my post you're referring to.  Whatever the Condors may be eating is causing them to die of lead poisoning.  It is up to the proponents of a ban to prove where that lead is coming from.  I think the opponents have done a good job establishing reasonable doubt it's origin is from bullets.

 

 

[Curmudgeon]

 

 

That last sentence of your quote is just as true about a lot of information put out by the NRA.

 

Sorry, but I'm not sure what sentence in my post you're referring to.  Whatever the Condors may be eating is causing them to die of lead poisoning.  It is up to the proponents of a ban to prove where that lead is coming from.  I think the opponents have done a good job establishing reasonable doubt it's origin is from bullets.

 

 

 

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."

[Mr VJP]

I would have to disagree with that.  Are you an NRA member?  Where do you get your info about the NRA from?

[Curmudgeon]

I would have to disagree with that.  Are you an NRA member?  Where do you get your info about the NRA from?

 

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?

[Jennifer]

I will probably only post on this thread this once more; I have stated where I stand and rehashing it over and over doesn't do anyone any good, and probably just gets annoying. Plus, as many of the threads here go, it is devolving a bit into personal fights which I am not interested in. I will share a quick story.

 

 

 

You are the second person who has suggested I am not a hunter because I love and respect wildlife.

 

Recently, I have been doing some travel with the FWS/Duck Stamp Office as mandated in my contract as the duck stamp artist. Some of this has been representing the Federal Duck Stamp program at festivals and in the public eye. I never expected to win this contest, so I had been mentally preparing myself for all sorts of questions that the public might ask me. One that made me nervous-- justifiably so, given the existence of this thread and may others-- was about hunting. I am not overly vocal, and am certainly not "in your face" about hunting, but I knew I would be asked about it, given the nature of the program.

 

I was recently at a large festival in Easton. It drew many thousands of waterfowl hunters, but it also drew in a lot of waterfowl and art enthusiasts, birders, and non-hunting family members accompanying the hunters. Though it probably seems strange for non- and even anti-hunters (I am not talking about PETA level antis, just people that do not like hunting but also aren't activists) to attend but again it was a festival for hunters as well as artists, birders, nature lovers, etc.

 

I was set up with the Duck Stamp office, and a lot of people came to talk to me over the period of four days. I am naturally not a chatty person so it was a bit exhausting. I talked to several thousand people. Many asked about hunting. Most of them were other hunters, and most would talk to me about the ducks, and exclaim, "But you don't hunt, right?" I assume this is because my gender-- which doesn't bother me. Most were happy to learn that I did, in fact.

 

One situation stands out in my mind, in relation to our conversation here. A group of older ladies came by to see the duck stamp art, and got into a conversation with me about it. They were birders. We began talking about the stamp program itself, and how it benefits everyone, and they suddenly got very stubborn. They told me that they would not buy them because they felt that it supported hunting, and they couldn't understand shooting a living animal. And, "You don't hunt, of course, do you?" Well, yes, I did hunt. Surprisingly, one of them asked how I could possibly hunt, since it seemed like I loved animals so much. It was hard to answer because there is no real, 100% tangible answer, but I was honest, and earnest. I told them I hunted because I love animals so much. That it was a matter of love and respect. I told them that it was important to me to take responsibility for my meal; be it shooting a deer for venison or supporting a local farmer that does right by their cattle. But it was more than that, it was an entire experience, and that it was something I felt in my heart I could never fully explain. I expected that to be the end of it, but they surprised me by thanking me for explaining, and they each then purchased a duck stamp. One emailed me after the festival and expressed that she'd like to get her entire bird club to buy duck stamps (that is awesome).

 

Will this one anecdote, this one interaction change things for us as hunters? Probably not. There will always be people that will be dead set against hunting, no matter what, period. They won't listen to rationality. They won't listen to science. You can't win them.
But the majority of people? The majority of people have the ability to be rational, if approached the right way.

 

This isn't a crusade. I don't think we should go campaigning door to door, talking about shooting animals with respect. I am not that naive. It's just something to think about if you talk about hunting or expose yourself to the public eye.

Kind regards to you all.

Edited December 15, 2014 by Jennifer

[Mr VJP]

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.

 

Not only not a member, but an anti.  That tells me everything of importance I need to know about you.  The NRA may be the biggest supporter of law enforcement in the entire world.  Many in my family were & are cops and firefighters and my cousin was in tower 1 and survived with the loss of her tongue to cancer.  I fail to see how that should disgust me with the NRA.

 

Are you part of the club sponsoring the coyote contest?

 

I am not.

 

 

IMHO, this thread no longer serves any purpose on the subjects discussed.  I bow out.

[Five Seasons]

I will probably only post on this thread this once more; I have stated where I stand and rehashing it over and over doesn't do anyone any good, and probably just gets annoying. Plus, as many of the threads here go, it is devolving a bit into personal fights which I am not interested in. I will share a quick story.

Recently, I have been doing some travel with the FWS/Duck Stamp Office as mandated in my contract as the duck stamp artist. Some of this has been representing the Federal Duck Stamp program at festivals and in the public eye. I never expected to win this contest, so I had been mentally preparing myself for all sorts of questions that the public might ask me. One that made me nervous-- justifiably so, given the existence of this thread and may others-- was about hunting. I am not overly vocal, and am certainly not "in your face" about hunting, but I knew I would be asked about it, given the nature of the program.

I was recently at a large festival in Easton. It drew many thousands of waterfowl hunters, but it also drew in a lot of waterfowl and art enthusiasts, birders, and non-hunting family members accompanying the hunters. Though it probably seems strange for non- and even anti-hunters (I am not talking about PETA level antis, just people that do not like hunting but also aren't activists) to attend but again it was a festival for hunters as well as artists, birders, nature lovers, etc.

I was set up with the Duck Stamp office, and a lot of people came to talk to me over the period of four days. I am naturally not a chatty person so it was a bit exhausting. I talked to several thousand people. Many asked about hunting. Most of them were other hunters, and most would talk to me about the ducks, and exclaim, "But you don't hunt, right?" I assume this is because my gender-- which doesn't bother me. Most were happy to learn that I did, in fact.

One situation stands out in my mind, in relation to our conversation here. A group of older ladies came by to see the duck stamp art, and got into a conversation with me about it. They were birders. We began talking about the stamp program itself, and how it benefits everyone, and they suddenly got very stubborn. They told me that they would not buy them because they felt that it supported hunting, and they couldn't understand shooting a living animal. And, "You don't hunt, of course, do you?" Well, yes, I did hunt. Surprisingly, one of them asked how I could possibly hunt, since it seemed like I loved animals so much. It was hard to answer because there is no real, 100% tangible answer, but I was honest, and earnest. I told them I hunted because I love animals so much. That it was a matter of love and respect. I told them that it was important to me to take responsibility for my meal; be it shooting a deer for venison or supporting a local farmer that does right by their cattle. But it was more than that, it was an entire experience, and that it was something I felt in my heart I could never fully explain. I expected that to be the end of it, but they surprised me by thanking me for explaining, and they each then purchased a duck stamp. One emailed me after the festival and expressed that she'd like to get her entire bird club to buy duck stamps (that is awesome).

Will this one anecdote, this one interaction change things for us as hunters? Probably not. There will always be people that will be dead set against hunting, no matter what, period. They won't listen to rationality. They won't listen to science. You can't win them.

But the majority of people? The majority of people have the ability to be rational, if approached the right way.

This isn't a crusade. I don't think we should go campaigning door to door, talking about shooting animals with respect. I am not that naive. It's just something to think about if you talk about hunting or expose yourself to the public eye.

Kind regards to you all.

Perfectly said. Glad you're out there spreading the same message that I would.

[Curmudgeon]

Perfectly said. Glad you're out there spreading the same message that I would.

 

Agreed.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Not only not a member, but an anti.  That tells me everything of importance I need to know about you. 

 

IMHO, this thread no longer serves any purpose on the subjects discussed.  I bow out.

 

The only thing I am anti about is zealotry.

[mike rossi]

It isn't exactly a secret that the majority of hunters oppose green ammo. As a matter of fact I have posted links in this thread which include data collected on the attitude of hunters toward green ammo. That isn't even a complete list of the social studies done about this... The reason for these social studies is to confirm what is already known (that's how biologists operate, they don't assume, people just say they do). That confirmation might be used to justify outreach or gauge the "readiness" of the hunting community.

 

Unlike the hunting community,conservationists and wildlife biologists support use of green ammo. When presented with the data, the public majority which  is neither is pro conservation, pro hunting, or anti hunting; will side with them, not the hunting community. . So will most politicians, in most regions.

 

When anyone, anti hunters or hunters, in an effort to bolster their political agenda; denies or refutes well-documented findings, it undermines the  outreach of wildlife agencies and NGOs. This undermining is a huge drain to federal and state conservation funds.

 

Regarding lead ammo, organizations representing hunters take this beyond absurd. They don't merely refute science, they promulgate that no scientific evidence exists which supports a lead ammo ban. That is a pure lie and it destroys the credibility of hunters and suggests that they are extremely stupid.

 

Several states have already required non toxic ammo on public land for well over a decade.. If California did not previously have this restriction on public land, than they are actually a late comer.

 

Anyone reading this use twitter? This forum has a twitter button on the bottom. Perhaps we should start using it and re-tweeting. Otherwise we are investing all this time to entertain people who will not be swayed in their opinions and will continue to misinform others...

[Mr VJP]

Mike, why don't we just cut to the chase?  All of this is leading to one conclusion.  Studies will eventually be presented that conclude all hunting should be stopped and all ammo banned.  Why waste time with the minor details?  Let's just accept it now and do it.

 

Probably because the government doesn't want to be seen as the culprit that does it.  Instead, it will infringe and regulate it to the point nobody will have any interest in doing it anymore and that will be the end of it.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Regarding lead ammo, organizations representing hunters take this beyond absurd. They don't merely refute science, they promulgate that no scientific evidence exists which supports a lead ammo ban. That is a pure lie and it destroys the credibility of hunters and suggests that they are extremely stupid.

 

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.

 

 

[Five Seasons]

Mike, why don't we just cut to the chase?  All of this is leading to one conclusion.  Studies will eventually be presented that conclude all hunting should be stopped and all ammo banned.  Why waste time with the minor details?  Let's just accept it now and do it.

 

Probably because the government doesn't want to be seen as the culprit that does it.  Instead, it will infringe and regulate it to the point nobody will have any interest in doing it anymore and that will be the end of it.

 

you fly so off the handle sometimes it's amazing.

[Mr VJP]

Belo, for those who have little foresight and can't extrapolate where all of this is going, it probably seems far fetched.  But if you want to see a parallel example that clearly makes my point, study the history of gun control since 1968.  You take one feather at a time and the bird doesn't notice until the day it finds in cannot fly.

 

I may not be around when it finally happens, and that may be because it won't happen until guys like me are gone, but you'll remember being warned this day when it does.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

So last night in Watertown they started the crow hazing to try and get them out of the city at night. This year they get to use atr guns and kill them. This is a first and will be interesting to see if any crow lovers meet the shooters downtown.

[Five Seasons]

Belo, for those who have little foresight and can't extrapolate where all of this is going, it probably seems far fetched.  But if you want to see a parallel example that clearly makes my point, study the history of gun control since 1968.  You take one feather at a time and the bird doesn't notice until the day it finds in cannot fly.

 

I may not be around when it finally happens, and that may be because it won't happen until guys like me are gone, but you'll remember being warned this day when it does.

 

we have a thread about gun control already. I've already asked for examples of laws that have impacted hunters negatively and the only one to the table was Mike R. and the mute swan and Doc with some "proposals" in California. Otherwise I do not understand this "foresight" when it comes to having our hunting rights taken away. Like I've said before, NY has done nothing but increase seasons, include more weapons and decrease setback rules, add youth seasons, decrease license price etc. Where is this apocalypse coming from?

Edited December 17, 2014 by Belo

[Curmudgeon]

Belo - VJP bowed out 3 post ago. Don't expect a response.

[Doc]

I've already asked for examples of laws that have impacted hunters negatively and the only one to the table was Mike R. and the mute swan and Doc with some "proposals" in California. Otherwise I do not understand this "foresight" when it comes to having our hunting rights taken away. Like I've said before, NY has done nothing but increase seasons, include more weapons and decrease setback rules, add youth seasons, decrease license price etc. Where is this apocalypse coming from?

You asked for examples. Examples were supplied. If you want a book written on the subject, do your own research.

[Five Seasons]

You asked for examples. Examples were supplied. If you want a book written on the subject, do your own research.

 

giving me bad examples doesn't mean you did anything to support your case

[Doc]

giving me bad examples doesn't mean you did anything to support your case

I'm not making or supporting any case. I simply provided a few examples, as asked, where specific hunting opportunities have been eliminated or are in the process of being eliminated. The examples are there if you want to take a couple of minutes to research them. Sorry, but I refuse to do all your research for you.