Joined
·
1,826 Posts
I wish these people would just leave everyone alone. They probably spend more time ordering a frapacnino at their local starbucks then they spend outdoors.
Hunters no longer necessary.
21 - 34 of 34 Posts
Joined
·
491 Posts
I prefer black Dunkin donuts coffee. But hey man.... Frappacinios taste good.
What really gets me, is the "self regulating ecosystem" mantra where all native species need to continue to exist in pre-settlement era population ratios.
Are we humans that are supposed to eat meat not part of that ecosystem?
Do they realize that functional ecosystem they're attempting to achieve is destroyed and not salvageable in most places of the west due to suburban sprawl, agriculture, and all those GD housing developments they likely live in?
What really gets me, is the "self regulating ecosystem" mantra where all native species need to continue to exist in pre-settlement era population ratios.
Are we humans that are supposed to eat meat not part of that ecosystem?
Do they realize that functional ecosystem they're attempting to achieve is destroyed and not salvageable in most places of the west due to suburban sprawl, agriculture, and all those GD housing developments they likely live in?
Joined
·
1,826 Posts
Maxwell house is my mainstay.
Only way that probably works is if you remove billions of people from the planet, all the side roads, highways, cities, and towns that divide up the land.
I'm not being sarcastic, but in their view, NO. We are not part of the ecosystem. I honestly think they believe that human habitation is separate. If you read comments by anti-hunters or liberals in general, you'll see a common trend in their thinking. There are Human areas, and their are wildlife areas. They two are mutually exclusive. Example, "That is the bear's home". or "Your in it's home", as they subsequently cheer for the attacking lion or bear in whatever animal attack article, or mourn the death of said animal.
What they fail to realize or understand, is that there is no line between the two areas. You can't just run to the city, and pretend the wild areas will manage themselves, because everything we do influences those places, including doing nothing. They fail to realize that their living spaces are probably on prime wintering land, and ungulates die every year because of it, albeit somewhat indirectly. Or how our spaces hem wildlife into areas that have limited carrying capacity, or to say nothing about the untold number of wildlife lost as roadkill every day.
They have this fantasy of two separate worlds where ours has no effect on the other so long as we stay in our own space. I could go on, but I think you get the idea by now.
No they don't.
Which is one reason why I commented about starbucks. The things that you or I might know, is because we've spent enough time in the woods to realize these things. Most of the people making these decisions, don't do what we would do, aren't engaged with wildlife at the same level. I call them observers or tourists. Hunters, or folks that hunt, or hunting, I think of as participating in or with nature. You might not know concepts by name, but youll see them in action. Like carrying capacity. Anyway, they simply do not have the same level of understanding, and they never will because their ideologically opposed, based on their false premise I outlined above. (edit: toss in veganism in here too. )
Now on to my second cup of coffee....
Joined
·
8,543 Posts
I’m on the legal staff? When do I start getting paid for this?!?!? Yes, constitutional rights exist to protect the minority.
This “what do we do when they came after hunting” topic is always a tough topic for my brain. I’m generally one that favors dialogue and building bridges, but for the true anti-hunting crowd, there is no bridge between them and my philosophies. Their mission is to end hunting, and there is no compromise to be reached. Quite frankly, I don’t see a compromise from my side either. I would never sign up to end just some hunting, and they would never sign up for that either, because to them all hunting is evil.
There just really isn’t a bridge between the way I think and the way they think. That makes it really hard to have dialogue.
This “what do we do when they came after hunting” topic is always a tough topic for my brain. I’m generally one that favors dialogue and building bridges, but for the true anti-hunting crowd, there is no bridge between them and my philosophies. Their mission is to end hunting, and there is no compromise to be reached. Quite frankly, I don’t see a compromise from my side either. I would never sign up to end just some hunting, and they would never sign up for that either, because to them all hunting is evil.
There just really isn’t a bridge between the way I think and the way they think. That makes it really hard to have dialogue.
Joined
·
4,242 Posts
Compromise is tough with activist on the fringes of any movement. Tough or impossible.
Luckily most people play in the realm of being moderate. The key seems to be making that known and developing policy accordingly.
Unfortunately we see places, like this story highlights, that expose the center not being held. Pinpointing when that happens is difficult as it's rarely one side that can be blamed.
And at moments like that the extreme narrative like LoneHunter posits becomes more appealing to those currently on the losing side. The notion that the "other side" is less intelligent and knowledgeable is an easy narrative to tell ourselves. Getting into the grey of different values and why those exist is the difficult work.
As I said earlier, there are unfortunately strategies that will lose for hunters. Othering anti-hunting activist like Lone has done is one of them and not just because it's based on mistruths. But we are seeing more and more of it across just about every aspect of American life. Buyer beware.
Luckily most people play in the realm of being moderate. The key seems to be making that known and developing policy accordingly.
Unfortunately we see places, like this story highlights, that expose the center not being held. Pinpointing when that happens is difficult as it's rarely one side that can be blamed.
And at moments like that the extreme narrative like LoneHunter posits becomes more appealing to those currently on the losing side. The notion that the "other side" is less intelligent and knowledgeable is an easy narrative to tell ourselves. Getting into the grey of different values and why those exist is the difficult work.
As I said earlier, there are unfortunately strategies that will lose for hunters. Othering anti-hunting activist like Lone has done is one of them and not just because it's based on mistruths. But we are seeing more and more of it across just about every aspect of American life. Buyer beware.
Joined
·
4,242 Posts
A position that hunting/fishing is valued and a viable tool for wildlife management, in most places. I would say a moderate position is some form of functioning ecosystem that also values non-consumptive wildlife. That's a broad range of diverse options and opinions.
I use moderate here to encompass what is likely the most commonly held range of values.
I don't think "deep ecology" on the left fits that term nor does an anti-predator (ie only good one is dead) mindset in the hunting community. Folks in those camps obviously have their reasons but it's hard to square that with the term "moderate" as there is no room for compromise.
I think most Americans would be happy settling in the aforementioned range.
I tend to believe it you don't have views that allow some range of compromise then it's hard to consider that moderate. For example, I'm a moderate in overall politics but I'm not moderate in regards to defending classical (l)iberalism. I think the scenario unraveling in WA is heading outside the bounds of "moderate" if those in power are hoping to eliminate hunting all together as a management tool.
I use moderate here to encompass what is likely the most commonly held range of values.
I don't think "deep ecology" on the left fits that term nor does an anti-predator (ie only good one is dead) mindset in the hunting community. Folks in those camps obviously have their reasons but it's hard to square that with the term "moderate" as there is no room for compromise.
I think most Americans would be happy settling in the aforementioned range.
I tend to believe it you don't have views that allow some range of compromise then it's hard to consider that moderate. For example, I'm a moderate in overall politics but I'm not moderate in regards to defending classical (l)iberalism. I think the scenario unraveling in WA is heading outside the bounds of "moderate" if those in power are hoping to eliminate hunting all together as a management tool.
You get paid when the rest of us with over 2000 UWN posts start getting compensated as "outdoor influencers" .
This is true. I see this in my professional and past life more than most of you and can attest to its accuracy.
That said, I do believe there may be an answer to the "moderate" question. It is true that hunting enthusiasts and the hard core animal rights crowd have very little common ground. However, these groups encompass a pretty small minority of the overall population. A much larger majority frankly don't care about animal rights or hunting that much. Like it or not, these are the people that will ultimately decide hunting's fate. If hunters are good stewards of the resource and land, behave ourselves, and conduct our hunting to show the activity as a wholesome source of recreation, exercise, and procurement of nutritious food, we probably will be OK. If we constantly jack up the environment, commit adzhat acts, and come across as the people the animal rights crowd try to caricature us to be, then we may be in trouble, even with safeguards in place.
Joined
·
1,826 Posts
Wall O' Text:
I wonder what percentage of the population is moderate, from past, to present. Personally, I believe "moderate positions" are in decline, though I wonder how fast or slow of a decline that is. What is apparent (at least to me) is that as time goes on, what is considered moderate is shrinking. The goal posts have been shifting for years. Ideas that were considered left leaning 20 or 30 years ago, are now considered conservative.
Generally speaking people base their opinions on what they personally see, or hear on what they consider trusted sources. Trouble is, EVERY source now bends news to an ideological slant of one sort or another. I'm comfortable in saying that unbiased news categorically does NOT exist. Certain bits of news are completely omitted by one source, and played loudly by another. Or carefully worded to give a specific portrayal. We do think in language, control language and you can influence and control thought.
The point I think I'm trying to get to is that i don't know if hunting's PR battle is a winnable one in todays news media. It will probably come down to personal interactions that we all have while out in the mountains, though I admit I'm pessimistic in today's environment. I do not believe you can convice most people of anything in todays environment. They have to see things, for themselves, and change their minds for themselves. You can't do it for them. You can provide a good example, but there's still over arcing social / cultural issues at play.
One example that comes to mind is someone posting the other day in the upland section about people getting on his case for carrying a shotgun, accusing him of pointing it at them. I don't remember the thread offhand, I just remember saying some people (lefty's) are scared of guns. I wasn't there, maybe he was careless. Or maybe the people he encountered were overtensioned douche bags, it doesn't really matter. The encounter is an example how current politics, social division, and news media plays into hunting's PR battle. I can think of few subjects more culturally and politically divisive that directly effects hunting as much as firearms. (Have you seen what Oregon is doing on that subject? Ballot measure 114)
At the end of the day, hunting may end up like the second amendment in general. Okay in some areas, forboden in others. I think the reality of the times,, as over dramatic as it sounds, is the country is literally falling (or tearing) apart, and it's showing in every facet of life, to include hunting. I know my personal views exemplify that schism, however I think that ship already left port. I've just been paying attention to it more then most, and I'd rather face reality then BS myself. It's not something I'm happy about, and I wish we could rewind the clock back 15-20 years to stop the coming apart, but it is what it is. Sometimes you just have to draw a line and say "This far and no further".
I wonder what percentage of the population is moderate, from past, to present. Personally, I believe "moderate positions" are in decline, though I wonder how fast or slow of a decline that is. What is apparent (at least to me) is that as time goes on, what is considered moderate is shrinking. The goal posts have been shifting for years. Ideas that were considered left leaning 20 or 30 years ago, are now considered conservative.
Generally speaking people base their opinions on what they personally see, or hear on what they consider trusted sources. Trouble is, EVERY source now bends news to an ideological slant of one sort or another. I'm comfortable in saying that unbiased news categorically does NOT exist. Certain bits of news are completely omitted by one source, and played loudly by another. Or carefully worded to give a specific portrayal. We do think in language, control language and you can influence and control thought.
The point I think I'm trying to get to is that i don't know if hunting's PR battle is a winnable one in todays news media. It will probably come down to personal interactions that we all have while out in the mountains, though I admit I'm pessimistic in today's environment. I do not believe you can convice most people of anything in todays environment. They have to see things, for themselves, and change their minds for themselves. You can't do it for them. You can provide a good example, but there's still over arcing social / cultural issues at play.
One example that comes to mind is someone posting the other day in the upland section about people getting on his case for carrying a shotgun, accusing him of pointing it at them. I don't remember the thread offhand, I just remember saying some people (lefty's) are scared of guns. I wasn't there, maybe he was careless. Or maybe the people he encountered were overtensioned douche bags, it doesn't really matter. The encounter is an example how current politics, social division, and news media plays into hunting's PR battle. I can think of few subjects more culturally and politically divisive that directly effects hunting as much as firearms. (Have you seen what Oregon is doing on that subject? Ballot measure 114)
At the end of the day, hunting may end up like the second amendment in general. Okay in some areas, forboden in others. I think the reality of the times,, as over dramatic as it sounds, is the country is literally falling (or tearing) apart, and it's showing in every facet of life, to include hunting. I know my personal views exemplify that schism, however I think that ship already left port. I've just been paying attention to it more then most, and I'd rather face reality then BS myself. It's not something I'm happy about, and I wish we could rewind the clock back 15-20 years to stop the coming apart, but it is what it is. Sometimes you just have to draw a line and say "This far and no further".
Joined
·
3,677 Posts
Only fat, well fed cats aren't mousers. We have a society full of fat, well fed cats. Despite being a fat, well fed cat I am still a mouser! I guess when you grow up mousing it gets in your blood.
Joined
·
4,242 Posts
Well, if hunting is going the way of the second amendment than we don't have much to be worried about at all. 2A has more robust legal precedent now than it did 3 to 4 decades ago. And that holds true across even liberal states who are seeing their restrictive gun laws regularly being ruled unconstitutional, even age old ones. And the current SCOTUS is one of the most friendly to such philosophy we've ever had and they could be on the bench for decades.
It's almost like such doom and gloom conclusions aren't supported by facts. Talk about bias and propaganda. 🤔🙄
It's almost like such doom and gloom conclusions aren't supported by facts. Talk about bias and propaganda. 🤔🙄
Joined
·
2 Posts
21 - 34 of 34 Posts
