Do coyote and crow contests tarnish hunters' image?

[Five Seasons]

Maybe this new group would also remove the trophy aspect from hunting, which in turn would keep the cost of hunting to reasonable levels?  You wouldn't have everyone and their uncles leasing land for top dollar to hunters hungry for trophies.  I surely would welcome that, but I'm sure others wouldn't.  Who knows what would happen?  Urbanites can bring money into it too, so who knows for sure?

 

i can't imagine people hunting for food would care about horns. unless of course they want to grind them up for aphrodisiac use

[Culvercreek hunt club]

i can't imagine people hunting for food would care about horns. unless of course they want to grind them up for aphrodisiac use

Agreed, I can see them wanting the biggest bodied animal they could take though. No matter if it is a good rack, busted up half rack or a really big doe.

[Elmo]

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.

 

There has been a definite movement towards subsistence living, going organic and free range, and hunting is a big part of that.  Just turn on the TV and see how many shows are out there now that simply were not there before:

 

Books: Georgia Pellegrini, Steve Rinella, Hank Shaw.

TV Shows: Meat Eater, Life Below Zero, Alaska: Last Frontier, Live Free Or Die, Mountain Men.

 

All of these show hunting in a positive light.  But none of them are trophy hunters.

[Doc]

The more I read about these "Foodies", the more I think I have always been one. But what a silly sounding name ..... lol.

[mike rossi]

I wonder if non-hunters, or the public in general, would take offense at a rat killing contest.  If NYC had a contest to see who could kill the most rats in one week, would the non-hunters think that was offensive?

 

I think they would.  I don't think the folks affected by too many rats would have a problem with it though, nor do I think I would have any trouble debating anyone over the question of it being a good thing or not.  I don't care how crude the ads promoting it are either.

 

My mother used to sum this up best.  "Offense cannot be given, only taken".  If we are going to allow other people to dictate the terms of any activity they do not even participate in, or contribute funds for, because they are "offended", then we have nobody but ourselves to blame.  If only I could get everything that offends me banned!

 

Like I said in the beginning of this thread, there are plenty of things, far more important to the future existence and safety of Americans, to be spending their, and our, energy on.  Maybe we just need to point that out to them.

 

This entire, thread, I have been avoiding confronting you about your statements. However, I don't appreciate after being presented with the obvious, it is ignored and skipped over.

 

I posted several links, including a video, in this thread that clearly show the nationwide legislation, including in the state of NY about hunting contests is driven by both the public's lack of appreciation for such contests and the attitude of hunters. You offer no "proof" that so-called elitists and/or advocates of green ammo have driven hunting contest ban proposals. Yet you say and/or imply that over and over.

 

The reality is people like Curm, who talk to birding groups are winning over non hunters. People who act like the hunters in the video and/or push unscientific premises while claiming that science is on their side, are not going to win over wildlife enthusiasts or people who do not hunt. The majority of parents which are unfamiliar with hunting, will not be sold on their child becoming a hunter if they believe he / she will develop into an adult that behaves the way some hunters do, including the pick up truck ornaments...

 

And nobody trying to foster cooperation between conservationists and hunters bad mouths either one to the other. However,to deny that there are issues with many hunters would be about as wise as denial of the impacts of lead ammo.

 

According to you, a lead ban would trigger a cascade of legislative events leading up to the prohibition of hunting. You keep saying / implying that lead bans will fuel additional anti hunting legislation. Do you know how ridiculous that statement is? We keep telling you the reality is actually the exact opposite. The use of lead ammo alienates potential supporters of hunting and leverages the anti hunting movement. Discontinuation of the use of lead ammo would remedy that.

[Curmudgeon]

 It is very difficult for the general public to grasp ecological concepts such as population control.

 

As someone who speaks to hundreds of people each year about scavengers, I don't think you give the public enough credit. Actually, I think the general public very easily grasps the need to control certain populations, e.g. deer, sedentary geese, bears in NJ, etc.  They understand these human wildlife conflicts. What they fail to understand is why "population control" is used as a rationale by hunters who are obviously self serving. I think Doc said he never thinks about controlling deer populations when he goes hunting. I do because it is a personal priority. In my youth, I heard it at the gun club all the time but it never motivated me.

 

When you discuss coyotes and crows, the general public does not see conflict. They see persecution. And, with coyotes, all the science supports this public perception. Killing coyotes does nothing to reduce their numbers and may actually increase them. Much coyote killing is done out of ignorance and fear. (I'm not talking about those who are doing it for income, or a combination of income and sport.) Read the recent thread on someone killing his first yote. There are quotes like "another dog down" and "another fawn will live". These attitudes show me that much of the hunting public fails to grasp ecological concepts.

 

Since the science shows that coyotes have little impact on deer outside the forest preserve, killing coyotes to improve deer numbers is folly. It may make some feel better but it doesn't help the deer.

[Curmudgeon]

The more I read about these "Foodies", the more I think I have always been one. But what a silly sounding name ..... lol.

 

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.

 

 

[Doc]

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.

I'm not too sure whether their politics would be in any particular unified direction any more than our own. If I am understanding their general philosophy, they simply want to have more hands-on control as to the origin and preparation of what they eat. I'm not sure where any of that differs from my thinking. I have long been concerned about the chemistry of food that we are sold. And yes some of my hunting motives are about an attempt at getting some percentage of my food that is un-messed with. I hunt and eat what I get. I fish and eat what I get. I garden and eat what I get, and for quite a while I ran a limited livestock activity here to feed on the products of what I raised. None of that gave me any unique or related political views or biases nor did my food concerns change any views on gun control other than reinforcing my determination to safeguard gun and hunting rights. So I don't see any particular reason why we should be cowering in the corners of our own forum. Anyone who comes to forums does so to exchange ideas that likely are not identical to their own. I don't think they are any different. Frankly, I am not sure they are any different than any of us.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

As someone who speaks to hundreds of people each year about scavengers, I don't think you give the public enough credit. Actually, I think the general public very easily grasps the need to control certain populations, e.g. deer, sedentary geese, bears in NJ, etc.  They understand these human wildlife conflicts. What they fail to understand is why "population control" is used as a rationale by hunters who are obviously self serving. I think Doc said he never thinks about controlling deer populations when he goes hunting. I do because it is a personal priority. In my youth, I heard it at the gun club all the time but it never motivated me.

 

When you discuss coyotes and crows, the general public does not see conflict. They see persecution. And, with coyotes, all the science supports this public perception. Killing coyotes does nothing to reduce their numbers and may actually increase them. Much coyote killing is done out of ignorance and fear. (I'm not talking about those who are doing it for income, or a combination of income and sport.) Read the recent thread on someone killing his first yote. There are quotes like "another dog down" and "another fawn will live". These attitudes show me that much of the hunting public fails to grasp ecological concepts.

 

Since the science shows that coyotes have little impact on deer outside the forest preserve, killing coyotes to improve deer numbers is folly. It may make some feel better but it doesn't help the deer.

Sorry but this statement is far from true in all cases. I tell ya what. Buy yourself a 760 acre farm across from 106,000 acres of military base that has no hunting of coyotes. We have had the same property for over 10 years and went from having deer and no yote problems to having 3 packs a night yipping on 3 sides of the property and having no deer. 

When the 365 season and poison control came on it turned 360 and now we have deer again and a population of yotes that can be handled. As oer tracks in snow anyhow.

Yotes in numbers have a huge impact on deer, be it killing the fawns or just the chasing of deer. We wont even talk about what a yarding area looks like after the pack plays with them all winter.

[nyantler]

As someone who speaks to hundreds of people each year about scavengers, I don't think you give the public enough credit. Actually, I think the general public very easily grasps the need to control certain populations, e.g. deer, sedentary geese, bears in NJ, etc.  They understand these human wildlife conflicts. What they fail to understand is why "population control" is used as a rationale by hunters who are obviously self serving. I think Doc said he never thinks about controlling deer populations when he goes hunting. I do because it is a personal priority. In my youth, I heard it at the gun club all the time but it never motivated me.

 

When you discuss coyotes and crows, the general public does not see conflict. They see persecution. And, with coyotes, all the science supports this public perception. Killing coyotes does nothing to reduce their numbers and may actually increase them. Much coyote killing is done out of ignorance and fear. (I'm not talking about those who are doing it for income, or a combination of income and sport.) Read the recent thread on someone killing his first yote. There are quotes like "another dog down" and "another fawn will live". These attitudes show me that much of the hunting public fails to grasp ecological concepts.

 

Since the science shows that coyotes have little impact on deer outside the forest preserve, killing coyotes to improve deer numbers is folly. It may make some feel better but it doesn't help the deer.

 

I agree... and, killing coyotes to increase deer populations is kind of counterproductive to how we are trying to control an already large deer population... and barely keeping up I might add... coyote hunting serves the same purpose as deer hunting... to keep the population of coyotes in check and allow for another cagey game animal to enjoy hunting... and again, we are barely keeping up... although we do need to keep in check any predator populations, we are far from any epidemic of out of control coyote populations as far as the deer are concerned. If the coyote problem was as bad as most hunters worry about for as long as they've been crying about it... there wouldn't be a deer left in the woods to hunt... that just isn't the case.. no matter what hunters think.

[Doc]

One thing that should be remembered is that the coyote sits at the top of the local food chain in most parts of the state. Other than disease and the occasional vehicle, there is nothing to control these critters. It certainly doesn't hurt anything to have humans intervening and at least performing some level of control where otherwise there would be none.

 

 

[Mr VJP]

This entire, thread, I have been avoiding confronting you about your statements. However, I don't appreciate after being presented with the obvious, it is ignored and skipped over.

 

I posted several links, including a video, in this thread that clearly show the nationwide legislation, including in the state of NY about hunting contests is driven by both the public's lack of appreciation for such contests and the attitude of hunters. You offer no "proof" that so-called elitists and/or advocates of green ammo have driven hunting contest ban proposals. Yet you say and/or imply that over and over.

 

The reality is people like Curm, who talk to birding groups are winning over non hunters. People who act like the hunters in the video and/or push unscientific premises while claiming that science is on their side, are not going to win over wildlife enthusiasts or people who do not hunt. The majority of parents which are unfamiliar with hunting, will not be sold on their child becoming a hunter if they believe he / she will develop into an adult that behaves the way some hunters do, including the pick up truck ornaments...

 

And nobody trying to foster cooperation between conservationists and hunters bad mouths either one to the other. However,to deny that there are issues with many hunters would be about as wise as denial of the impacts of lead ammo.

 

According to you, a lead ban would trigger a cascade of legislative events leading up to the prohibition of hunting. You keep saying / implying that lead bans will fuel additional anti hunting legislation. Do you know how ridiculous that statement is? We keep telling you the reality is actually the exact opposite. The use of lead ammo alienates potential supporters of hunting and leverages the anti hunting movement. Discontinuation of the use of lead ammo would remedy that.

 

 

I disagree.  You want proof?  I got one word for you.  CALIFORNIA!

 

[Four Season Whitetail's]

I agree... and, killing coyotes to increase deer populations is kind of counterproductive to how we are trying to control an already large deer population... and barely keeping up I might add... coyote hunting serves the same purpose as deer hunting... to keep the population of coyotes in check and allow for another cagey game animal to enjoy hunting... and again, we are barely keeping up... although we do need to keep in check any predator populations, we are far from any epidemic of out of control coyote populations as far as the deer are concerned. If the coyote problem was as bad as most hunters worry about for as long as they've been crying about it... there wouldn't be a deer left in the woods to hunt... that just isn't the case.. no matter what hunters think.

I guess one would not know a coyote problem until one had a coyote problem. Coyotes will decimate a deer population on a piece of property, one way or the other.

[mike rossi]

I disagree.  You want proof?  I got one word for you.  CALIFORNIA!

 

What? The California lead ban is brand new, it hasn't triggered any legislation fallout, lol.. . Furthermore, this nonsense about California being overly restricted regarding hunting needs to be put to rest. California hunting is no more restrictive than any other state, as a matter of fact, you can hunt doves in California.... Cant hunt cougars in California, well you cant hunt moose in NY. You cant hunt doves in NY either. Cant hunt bears in California with hounds, well you cannot in NY either... The list goes on and on.

 

Michigan repealed its dove season only two years after it passed... Because the NRA, USSA, et al doesn't highlight that, you don't mention it. You don't seem to think outside the narrow box those organizations frame for you and you constantly encourage others to follow you. Do you know how many hunting-related en-con bills are pending RIGHT NOW in New York? If you know, then lets here it...

 

Now that California has banned lead ammo anti-hunters have one less tool to use to usher public support to their cause. Additionally California will eventually spend less conservation funds on mitigating lead poisoning and that increase in funding can be used for other purposes, including ones that enhance or increase hunting opportunity.

[Mr VJP]

That's your opinion.  My four decades of experience with hunting and the politics that affect it, has shown me that any wins by the opposition simply embolden them to attack even more.  If you give them and inch......

 

The same thing happens with gun control and I don't think anyone would argue that hasn't happened over the years in NY.  California has also proven that gun control and hunting are inseparable.  It is the poster state for total government control.

 

California started it's drive to ban lead ammo with the same tactics we are now seeing in NY.  A lot of talk was generated to get it in the forefront of the public's mind with the goal of galvanizing the opposition.  The result was a ban after the government knew it had the public's support.  Consequently, many long time hunters, with a major investment in a lifetime supply of ammo, became the victims of heavy handed do gooders.  Nothing was considered to minimize the impact a ban on lead ammo would have on the industry or the current owners of lead ammo.  The same tactics were used to ban so called "assault weapons" in that state.  In the end, many good, honest, productive Californians eventually found themselves demonized, blamed for everything evil that happens there.  Since that time, the state has brazenly attempted to go even further with all types of gun control measures, that even it admits will have no impact on criminals.

 

You guys are diligently pursuing an agenda that you believe in.  However, if it looks like your objective is slipping away and the public fails to adopt your cause voluntarily,  it will be only a matter of time before you start calling for a ban.  You guys are on a crusade.

 

Quoting Brandies here:  The greatest dangers to Liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning, but without understanding.

 

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."  Douglas Adams

 

[mike rossi]

Before I answer that, I want to post this list and then I will back track.

 

Studies and literature about public opinion about hunting

http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/NAMWC_Public_Opinion_Hunting.pdf

http://mountainlion.org/states/wa%20public%20attitude%20report%20on%20hunting.pdf

https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/PDF/0306%20Schulz.pdf

http://faculty.nelson.wisc.edu/treves/wolves/reports/hogberg_treves_shaw_naughton_2013surveyreport.pdf

http://www.chasa.co.za/public_attitude_toward_hunting.pdf

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08941929509380924?journalCode=usnr20#.VI13MivF9kQ

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.208/abstract

http://www.wvdnr.gov/hunting/pdffiles/ursu-20-02-09.pdf

http://journalstar.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/religions-differ-on-attitudes-toward-hunting/article_41dc63bf-e9e0-500e-b761-023188034338.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=vjS6ihUnjfQC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=attitudes+toward+hunting+and+hunters&source=bl&ots=lJ3ttiJw0h&sig=MoPNDKaVtbVo9RgJejFs4scpu2Y&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bXeNVMa0GtGayATS8ICQDA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBDge#v=onepage&q=attitudes%20toward%20hunting%20and%20hunters&f=false

http://www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_10/Miller_Miller_McCollum_Vol_10.pdf

http://www.dnr.state.il.us/nrab/children/future_hunting.pdf

CONTESTS 

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/coyote-hunting-contests-banned-california-state-prohibits-prizes-killing

http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/senator-avella-protests-upcoming-crow-hunting-contest

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/16/us/coyote-hunt-splits-animal-advocates-and-ranchers.html

http://www.fgc.ca.gov/meetings/2014/jun/Exhibits/6_12_LTR_OPP_CoyoteHunting_RatliffChris_042914.pdf

http://blog.syracuse.com/outdoors/2013/11/statewide_coyote_hunting_conte.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=7DLWlKXtJ_8C&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=attitudes+toward+hunting+contests&source=bl&ots=v2upHRrOsp&sig=isFjolHE1RagP4vGLoZa19NCMgo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YXqNVODFCcufyATbiICIDA&ved=0CB8Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=attitudes%20toward%20hunting%20contests&f=false

http://tovarcerulli.com/2011/08/the-sport-of-hunting-why-i-dont-call-it-that/

http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2011/01/boycott-cabelas-a-store-that-sponsors-coyote-cruelty.html

 

 

 

[mike rossi]

That's your opinion.  My four decades of experience with hunting and the politics that affect it, has shown me that any wins by the opposition simply embolden them to attack even more.  If you give them and inch......

 

The same thing happens with gun control and I don't think anyone would argue that hasn't happened over the years in NY.  California has also proven that gun control and hunting are inseparable.  It is the poster state for total government control.

 

California started it's drive to ban lead ammo with the same tactics we are now seeing in NY.  A lot of talk was generated to get it in the forefront of the public's mind with the goal of galvanizing the opposition.  The result was a ban after the government knew it had the public's support.  Consequently, many long time hunters, with a major investment in a lifetime supply of ammo, became the victims of heavy handed do gooders.  Nothing was considered to minimize the impact a ban on lead ammo would have on the industry or the current owners of lead ammo.  The same tactics were used to ban so called "assault weapons" in that state.  In the end, many good, honest, productive Californians eventually found themselves demonized, blamed for everything evil that happens there.  Since that time, the state has brazenly attempted to go even further with all types of gun control measures, that even it admits will have no impact on criminals.

 

You guys are diligently pursuing an agenda that you believe in.  However, if it looks like your objective is slipping away and the public fails to adopt your cause voluntarily,  it will be only a matter of time before you start calling for a ban.  You guys are on a crusade.

 

Quoting Brandies here:  The greatest dangers to Liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning, but without understanding.

 

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."  Douglas Adams

 

I thought you were going to point out to me that California ALSO banned coyote hunting contests, as some of the articles on the list I posted indicate..... Several states have this on the table as we speak...

 

We are suggesting that the hunting community's resistance to banning lead ammo hurts a pro-hunting agenda... Others, such as yourself, and most organizations representing hunters, say the opposite is true, claiming that fighting a lead ban helps a pro-hunting agenda. A look at the scientific findings and the social research will give a clear picture of the reality at hand...   

[Curmudgeon]

You guys are diligently pursuing an agenda that you believe in.  However, if it looks like your objective is slipping away and the public fails to adopt your cause voluntarily,  it will be only a matter of time before you start calling for a ban.  You guys are on a crusade.

 

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.

[Curmudgeon]

I guess one would not know a coyote problem until one had a coyote problem. Coyotes will decimate a deer population on a piece of property, one way or the other.

 

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.

Edited December 14, 2014 by Curmudgeon

[Mr VJP]

CA has had a ban on lead ammo in Condor areas since 2007.  The legislature was pushing for a ban statewide ever since.  A vote in the legislature in 2013 passed a statewide ban and Gov Brown signed it into law Oct 2013.

 

Shortly afterwards it was learned the US Fish & Wildlife service withheld info that showed even after the ban in 2007, Condor levels of lead in their blood did not show a significant decline, suggesting they were getting lead from sources other than ammunition, as pro-hunting groups had always asserted.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/2/lead-ammunition-ban-passed-after-feds-withheld-key/

 

BTW the Washington Times is a Leftist proponent.  

 

The California Fish and Game Wardens' Association, in joining the opposition to the lead-ammo ban, broke ranks with the state's Department of Fish and Wildlife, which officially supports the ban.  "California Game Wardens are on the front line enforcing the ban for most hunting in [California] condor range," the association wrote in a letter to the governor. "But there is insufficient data to justify such a drastic action across the entire state."

 

There is evidence lead poisoning is more likely due to an industrial lead compound, which is much different from the metallic lead used in ammunition. Many experts state there is no scientific evidence that traditional lead ammunition threatens wildlife populations. Metallic lead used in ammunition is relatively insoluble in the digestive tract of organisms and does not possess the same soluble properties as industrial lead compounds (e.g., leaded gasoline, leaded paint). Thus, lead ammunition is quickly passed naturally through the digestive tract instead.

 

It is likely that industrial lead compounds are responsible for many of the highly publicized lead poisonings attributed to lead ammunition.

 

The five-year-old lead ammunition ban in the California condor region has proven ineffective. Despite a 99 percent compliance rate by hunters, researchers now admit that "lead exposures continue" and condor blood-levels have not dropped. Supporters of lead ammunition bans continue to ignore alternative sources of lead in the environment as the primary cause of lead poisoning. Instead, the proponents have successfully enacted a statewide ban that will be phased in over the next several years, continuing to attack the use of traditional lead ammunition for hunting game.

 

BTW, public opinion is against hunters and for the ban.  Of course, their opinions are based on the reports they are fed by the government and activists.

 

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?

 

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.

 

I'm afraid that also promotes a great deal of skepticism with any study that claims to accurately gauge public opinion about hunting.  Not only can the data be wrong, it can be highly influenced by propaganda fed to the public in the first place.

 

Curm, Some hunters may be switching to non-lead ammo without complaint, and that gives the banners more propaganda to use to support their agenda, as long as they ignore the millions of hunters who are complaining.

 

As far as contests, the brainwashed public surely finds them offensive, but they are legal pursuits and serve a multitude of purposes including fund raising, varmint control and fellowship.  Perhaps it would be wise for hunters to keep the public's opinion in mind in the interest of self preservation (idiots and do gooders can be trouble), but by no stretch of the Constitution does the government have any authority to ban them.

 

 

 

[Mr VJP]

November 13, 2014, during the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission meeting, the Commission members voted against a proposal that would have banned the use of lead ammunition for sporting purposes.  This proposal was offered due to an emotional reaction, not one based on sound science and biological data.

 

Not everyone is on board with the lead ban agenda, nor the contest ban for that matter.

 

[Mr VJP]

Does Ca's lead ammo ban lead to more restrictions on hunting in the future?

 

CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL 711

By July 1, 2019, AB 711 requires the use of nonlead ammunition for the taking of all wildlife in California, including game mammals, game birds,nongame birds, and nongame mammals, with any firearm.

 

I think it does.

 

Also:

 

 

THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY

With the expected loss of more than 50,000 hunters in the state, California’s economy will take a severe hit. Loss will include:

• 1,868 jobs
• $68.7 million in salaries and wages
• $13.9 million in state and local tax revenue
• $5.8 million of federal tax revenues

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION FUNDS

Hunters are the primary source of conservation funding in the state. A dramatic decline in hunters ultimately means fewer dollars for wildlife conservation. The expected reduction in hunter participation and their spending will result in a direct loss of at least $2.7 million in revenue from reduced license sales and a $695,000 reduction in its allocation of excise tax revenues from the federal Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund. These funds serve all wildlife, not just game species.

 

Edited December 14, 2014 by Mr VJP

[Jennifer]

I just did a search to see if DEC has any mentoring program for new hunters. They seem to only address youths. From my experience - and Jennifer's - it seems there is a need to fill. There may be an opportunity here for clubs across the state. Of course the good-old-boy mentality could be a problem in some places.

Somewhat on topic (straight from the FWS' s mouth): http://www.fws.gov/midwest/InsideR3/December14Story3.htm

[Jennifer]

The more I read about these "Foodies", the more I think I have always been one. But what a silly sounding name ..... lol.

Doc, based on my understanding, I am also a "foodie"... it is a silly name. I am interested in ecology, sustainability, self-sufficiency (within reason in a modern society)... I have a strong desire to know the origins of the things I consume (this includes non food items too) for many reasons; for health, for ecological reasons, and for ethical ones. Sounds like you and I are on the same page.

A number of my peers, as mentioned pages back, are getting into hunting for these sound reasons. I think that for them, as is for me, over time the experience worms it's way into the soul. I may want the meat for the above reasons, but after hunting long enough it becomes an entire experience. To that end, I am equally happy with a buck or a doe- but a big buck does make my heart beat just a bit harder!

[Four Season Whitetail's]

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.

Well,Well...Let me see. Here you have a guy that has hunted his 35 years of his life,plays on 1000 acres of land and is actually a hunter that has lived this crap.  You on the other hand are on a website that is about hunting and from the looks of your posts, you are not even a hunter. More of a animals lover i would say. Look at all the threads you have started, including this one. Every one is about what and how people think about hunters and i have seen no posts in any harvest threads on this site or anything from you about even going hunting???????

 

So lets see if i can tell you a couple other stories..How about 3 yotes confronting a hunter and his young son while he was gutting a doe killed in early muzzle season.going as far as showing teeth, in the dark with a flashlight. That hunters name is Ken Noone and he is a Watertown Ny police officer that has hunted this farm before yotes and after yotes, You want to hear stories im sure he would love to fill you in. There are 3 officers that hunt this north farm so maybe you will believe them or do you not believe real life stuff and only accept what you read?

Maybe you could call the lady that lives next door that let the family Boxer out the back door on his chain only to shut the door, walk back to the kitchen and then hear the dog banging and scratching at the door to come back in already. She found that a bit strange only to walk over to the door to open and have the dog come flying in with 2 yotes standing at the burning barrel looking at a mid morning snack.

Maybe you could call the Fallow Deer and Sheep farmer that lives on the corner of our 320 acre piece that has had his animals shredded after they had dug under his fence on different occasions. Well hungry you say? Maybe but being it was early fall and you would thing the farm would be loaded with deer and small game at that time of year? Yeah right...Maybe if they had not already ate and chased them to hell and back.

Maybe you would like to hear the story of a product called..Golden Malrin.  Great product to deal with the unwanted's' 

 

You can read and believe all the science crap you want and i bet if you look real hard in your science book you will see where the white coats told us that when CWD came to a state their whitetail populations would be decimated....Yeah we have all seen that happen in the last 30 years huh?

 

Do you think your science book was wrote after doing research on land that border 106.000 acres of un-hunted property for predator numbers to explode.

 

As far as your last statement goes, you can call high fence anything you like...And from the looks of it you sure know nothing about them..But the thousands that hunt there every year will call it whatever they like while they are hunting there.