Montana, antis attempt to buy seat at wildlife management

[Ghost]

We need to all leave a comment on this, non consumptive wolf stamp, wildlife management has always been and needs to always be paid for by hunters, we give them a seat at the table and we're toast!! http://fwp.mt.gov/news/publicNotices/armRules/pn_0177.html

[Swede]

I am an avid hunter that has been around longer than most, I think the antis should have a seat at the table when wildlife management decisions are being made by the States. The game belongs to the State's people. That is all of the people. As hunters we purchase a license and tag to get the right to hunt, within the limits prescribed by the State. That does not make us greater owners of the wildlife than the "antis". Does anyone think that trying to exclude people that disagree with you will make them go away? Disenfranchising groups of concerned people will only cause them to see they have no reason to trust whoever refuses to hear them out. My 2 cents

[wawhitey]

I am an avid hunter that has been around longer than most, I think the antis should have a seat at the table when wildlife management decisions are being made by the States. The game belongs to the State's people. That is all of the people. As hunters we purchase a license and tag to get the right to hunt, within the limits prescribed by the State. That does not make us greater owners of the wildlife than the "antis". Does anyone think that trying to exclude people that disagree with you will make then go away? Disenfranchising groups of concerned people will only cause them to see they have no reason to trust whoever refuses to hear them out. My 2 cents

They have no interest in hearing us out they want to take away our hunting rights period. And they're using gross misinformation to lure votes from city people who know zero about hunting or wildlife. Forget the antis!

[Swede]

They have no interest in hearing us out they want to take away our hunting rights period. And they're using gross misinformation to lure votes from city people who know zero about hunting or wildlife. Forget the antis!

First some non hunters whom I believe you call "antis" have advanced degrees in wildlife management. They don't share your values and interests. They are non-consumers, but they love wildlife, fish and birds. They have spent their working life in the field of wildlife management. Second, why do you think you have truth on your side? Those I have worked with are honest and open about their views just as much as hunters are. Who gave you all the undisputed rights, and gave them none? Why is it "F" those who don't share your values? Those you call antis are certainly no more closed minded and uncompromising than you. Yes many city folks could care less about your "hunting rights", and they are somewhat ignorant on many wildlife issues. Just remember they vote based on what they know or think they know and how they feel about you. If hunters are going to win, they need to do their own educating and demonstrate they care for all of the different peoples interests and the wildlife. I do not think your "F the antis" attitude is going to win them over, nor will attempting to exclude them from the discussion table.
There are no more unsavory, unscrupulous people from the antis side than from ours. The truth is they have heard you out, and they have enough hunters on film to do a lot of damage. Do you want to take or meet them at the ballot box? I should not have to tell you how that will end in Washington and maybe in Montana.

[wawhitey]

They have no interest in hearing us out they want to take away our hunting rights period. And they're using gross misinformation to lure votes from city people who know zero about hunting or wildlife. Forget the antis!

First some non hunters whom I believe you call "antis" have advanced degrees in wildlife management. They don't share your values and interests. They are non-consumers, but they love wildlife, fish and birds. They have spent their working life in the field of wildlife management. Second, why do you think you have truth on your side? Those I have worked with are honest and open about their views just as much as hunters are. Who gave you all the undisputed rights, and gave them none? Why is it "F" those who don't share your values? Those you call antis are certainly no more closed minded and uncompromising than you. Yes many city folks could care less about your "hunting rights", and they are somewhat ignorant on many wildlife issues. Just remember they vote based on what they know or think they know and how they feel about you. If hunters are going to win, they need to do their own educating and demonstrate they care for all of the different peoples interests and the wildlife. I do not think your "F the antis" attitude is going to win them over, nor will attempting to exclude them from the discussion table.
There are no more unsavory, unscrupulous people from the antis side than from ours. The truth is they have heard you out, and they have enough hunters on film to do a lot of damage. Do you want to take or meet them at the ballot box? I should not have to tell you how that will end in Washington and maybe in Montana.

It's not f those who don't share my values, it's f those who want to take away my lifestyle. I don't agree with how a lot of other people live but that doesn't mean I want to take away their right to live how they do. And if you don't think anti hunters lie to push their agenda you're crazy

[Elkduds]

When Ghost 1st posted this, I clicked the link and read the proposal. You should do likewise. After reading it, I left a comment in support of the proposal to allow individuals to voluntarily participate in sharing the cost of wolf management. The reality of wildlife politics in the USA is that there are more nonhunting voters than hunters voting. Hunters have largely funded conservation in this country and still do, but that is not exclusive-- in Colorado wildlife management funds (for habitat) come from the lottery, from state and federal park visitors, from anyone who supports wildlife by checking a box on their income tax return. When "hunters" flagrantly misuse public lands, poach, violate game laws, misbehave in public during hunting outings, and disparage those who have the same right to their opinion as do hunters themselves, that is damaging to the public image of hunters. If we as hunters want respect for our sport from those who don't participate or understand; we need to earn it. Even online.

[twinkieman]

Maybe if the Antis start funding some of these things, they will become better informed about the ACTUAL damage the wolf has and is doing. If they have better firsthand knowledge, maybe then some of them will see hunters as true conservationists, and maybe even sway a few votes to our side of the ledger. Would you rather see your tag and license fees increased to pay for this? While I don't like the idea of Anti's having a seat at the table, it is better than the alternative. They are already winning, and are going to keep on winning if we don't find a way to change their opinions.
In California when they want to change something, they get it put on the general ballot, and you can guess what the outcome is. No lion hunting since 1999, no hunting bears etc. with dogs, began in 2013, now going after hunting with dogs for birds is on their agenda. Ban on ALL lead ammunition by 2019.
Do I agree with them, nope, they have been very misinformed, they need to be re-educated. Will a wolf stamp accomplish this, I don't know. I do know that something has to change, to get them to change their votes.

[Ghost]

Let me ask the people that think this is a good idea this, when you pay for something, what do you expect? You expect to have a say in what your buying. These people dont want you hunting period, there is no reasoning with them, they want to put an end to what we love to do, no exception. Now do you still want them buying a wolf stamp?

[Swede]

I understand why hunters are opposed to the spread of the wolves and angry at their proponents. I would be pleased if we could remove them totally from the lower 48 States and restrict them to the areas they came from. I have posted those sentiments before. I was very disappointed when the wolves were reintroduced into the Yellowstone. I knew then we were in for big trouble at the time. The biologists must certainly have known that too. That is no comforting thought. They did it anyway.

While working for the U.S. Forest Service as the head of District timber sale planning, I needed to dialog and deal with antis. They were anti timber sales, but it would be a good bet they were anti hunting, and would be proponents of wolf protection. Some of these people were totally unreasonable and they were not willing to compromise on anything. They would put our children as equals to any wild animal. They in fact said so.

That said, hunters are doing themselves no favor by trying to exclude these people. Whether they buy in or not is irrelevant. Trying to exclude these people will not work as an effective strategy. It will not only alienate them further, but will give them another tool to sway public opinion in their direction. The wolf problem is only going to get worse, until the time comes when the States are forced to develop effective means to control their population and spread. In the meantime, my advise is to be engaged, be calm and courteous, and stay professional.

[Ghost]

that said, hunters are doing themselves no favor by trying to exclude these people. Whether they buy in or not is irrelevant. Trying to exclude these people will not work as an effective strategy. It will not only alienate them further, but will give them another tool to sway public opinion in their direction.

I totally disagree, excluding them will make them more militant, more desperate, it will make them show their true colors, bring the demon into the light of day. This is a war, a war for our way of life, these people cant be reasoned with, they WANT YOU AND I to stop all hunting!! period thats it!

[Swede]

I am amazed. So you think, the State or Federal government excluding people, and not listening to them is going to make the antis look bad and sway public opinion in your favor. Turn that around and ask yourself how it would work if they excluded you and other hunters. How would that look on the evening news?

I totally disagree, excluding them will make them more militant, more desperate, it will make them show their true colors, bring the demon into the light of day. This is a war, a war for our way of life, these people cant be reasoned with, they WANT YOU AND I to stop all hunting!! period thats it!

Who sounds unreasonable? You or the antis who are wanting to continue to protect the wolf? I can assure you the antis will not be shouting and sounding like their hair is on fire. They have been counseled and are prepared to make their case both in court, and in the court of public opinion.

[Ghost]

Who sounds unreasonable? You or the antis who are wanting to continue to protect the wolf? I can assure you the antis will not be shouting and sounding like their hair is on fire. They have been counseled and are prepared to make their case both in court, and in the court of public opinion.

Really? have you been on facebook and a horde of other places where the antis are calling for the outright murder of Kendall Jones? not to mention a slew of other celebrity hunters, these people are nuts and prove so day in and day out. You push them a little and they become completely unhinged. We have to bring that into the light and actually get the non hunting public to see it.

[Swede]

I am vaguely familiar with Kendall Jones. Personally I have not read any death threats to her. That said it is illegal and if you know of any threats as such, these people need to be turned in to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. No one should be expected to sit down an rationally talk with any individual calling for your assignation.
Not all anti hunters, or people wanting to protect wolves, are wanting Kendall or you dead, any more than all Italians are associated with the mafia, or all Hispanics are working with the drug cartel. When we start talking like that, we are paranoid and losing our grip on reality.
When I worked for the Forest Service responsible for a District timber management or Forest level timber sale administration, I had to deal with many people that were opposed to timber harvest on the National Forest. We even had tree sitters on a District, and there was a demonstration on the Ranger Station lawn when I worked at Gold Beach. Very few of the people, that opposed our timber program, were Earth Firsters or violent. There were a few loose nuts, but I learned who was influential and who to pay close attention to. Don't worry about the loud mouths or the crazy. Pay attention to the lady that represents a large organization. She has studied the material available on the subject, and when she says she is opposed to what you are doing, you better be prepared for legal action. The hot air bags like to sound off, she means business.
Ghost I will leave you the last word. Just remember we are talking strategy, not objectives here.

[Ghost]

I think our main strategy is to see Equal Access to Justice Act amended to do away with funding these lawsuits. That would be the end of all this nonsense.