Here is what those who oppose us are doing. Consolidating!
Consolidated Animal Rights Movement is Sportsmen's Nightmare
HSUS growth is threat to sportsmen
November 28, 2007 (National)
In a precisely-calculated effort, the Humane Society of the United States is assuming control of the animal rights movement's political agenda. In doing so, it becomes an even greater threat to conservation and hunters' rights.
Wayne Pacelle, the mastermind behind HSUS, recently told the Chronicle of Philanthropy that his organization may soon merge with at least three unnamed animal rights organizations. The HSUS calls itself a mainstream animal charity, but the growing organization has already joined forces with groups that push a none-too-conventional anti-hunting, anti-trapping agenda.
"The HSUS is playing up a mainstream reputation in hopes of becoming the primary mouthpiece for the animal rights movement," said USSA President Bud Pidgeon. "It is not difficult to convince a smaller group to unite with a multi-million dollar organization that will push its political agenda - be it to end hunting or eliminate animal research. Sportsmen will no-doubt see HSUS continue to grow in this way."
Power in Numbers
By absorbing the other groups, HSUS adds to its membership and bank accounts, which gives it even more political muscle. The group now has 10.5 million members or supporters, up from 7.4 million five years ago.
When Pacelle took control of HSUS in 2004, he realized the way to advance his political agenda was to develop an even larger following of animal activists. It was not by chance that HSUS assumed control of the Fund for Animals in 2005 and the Doris Day Animal League in 2006. It was all part of a plan to make HSUS the powerful and efficient mouthpiece for the animal rights movement.
Bank On It
With a staggering $112-million budget, a new legislative arm and a political action committee to boot, HSUS definitely has lawmakers' attention. The group spent $2.5 million this year to push state and federal animal rights legislation. Last year, for the first time, it got directly involved in candidate elections and spent $600,000 to back or oppose nominees based on their animal-related voting history.
To remain in control of the animal rights movement, HSUS plans to continue its financial development. In fact, it will soon begin a five year, $100-million fund-raising effort that will put its budget well over $200 million!
Looks Can Be Deceiving
Sportsmen know the HSUS is a political machine that campaigns to ban hunting.
The HSUS tries to sell itself as a group with mainstream goals, but if that were truly that case, would it merge with animal rights organizations that stigmatize and try to prohibit hunting and trapping?
For example, it led the effort to bulldoze dove hunting via the ballot box in Michigan, and it championed a recent bear hunting ban in New Jersey.
Those and dozens of other overt attacks on hunting are not the only threats HSUS poses to sportsmen. It has also plotted no-holds-barred campaigns that will have subtle, yet equally devastating, impacts on outdoor sports.
Sportsmen who breed and raise hunting dogs are being caught up in proposals that HSUS advocates as efforts to wipe out large-scale, abusive dog breeders. At the same time, the anti's are fanning a public frenzy against animal fighting and lobbying for legislation that could make sportsmen who hunt with dogs vulnerable to animal cruelty charges. For instance, if a dog breaks point and grabs a pheasant the hunter could be charged with an act of animal cruelty. The USSA Sporting Dog Defense Coalition is on call to make sure hunters' rights are protected.
The Future's In Your Hands
American sportsmen have a savvy foe that is influential in politics and the media. It is coordinating attacks against hunting and all animal use and will not be an easy opponent to defeat.
Let this message ignite your passion for hunting. Help the USSA defeat legal and legislative attacks by this anti-hunting giant and others within the movement.
Copied from the USSA website.
All the more reason for us to find groups who have a voice, and donate!! I guess Microsoft is dumping lots of $$ in the HSUS. Thanks Bill. We also need to stick together. Traditional, compound, crossbow,firearm. Stll hunting, drive, dogs. We need each other more than ever!!
Forgive my ignorance, but I would like to know what groups speak for us and are worthy of our support?
Thanks. I want to do my part.
Well the NRA for one, and there are alot others.
I can tell you the HSUS hates the NRA.
Heres two articles and there are more.
http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/pressrel/animals_win_arizona_proposition_204.html
http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/maryland_rejects_75000_offer_to_cancel_bear_hunt.html
I have never met a nonhunter that was not impressed with my self limited hunting methods. Also, most of these nonhunters were wilderness freaks like me. I think if hunters proved they were pro environment and more publicly concerned about the health and welfare of all things wild and free, we would have less to worry about from the general public. Showing a respectful attitude wouldn't hurt either. This is not a political thing I know many democrats that hunt and fish, and like anybody else they have the same concerns about wacky antihunters.
I almost asked what groups besides the NRA. WHat I can't stand about the NRA is they take your money and then use it to keep on producing and mailing and mailing and mailing more requests for money. I support Gunowners of America, because they seem to not waste money on mass mailings that get tossed.
I would like to support pro hunting organizations that care about the environment and keeping hunting alive, and spend the great majority of donated funds for the environment and keeping hunting alive.
I am not trying to turn this into a NRA bashing thread, just want to know from others positive experiences if there are other worthy groups I could check out.
I have taken the step of joining my state traditional bowhunting organization, and am considering joining the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
I am going to check out the USSA website as soon as I post this. :)
tomh,
Not saying you're bashing the NRA because I have gotten the mailings too. Like you said, they started to deluge me with mailing and invitations to join. I sent a reply and informed them I was already a member and just asked to be taken off their mailing list. Seemed to work because I rarely get solicitations from them for anything but pertinent issues. I may not agree totally with all the workings of the NRA but they are the strongest voice the hunter has and that is why the anti's hate them so much.
I just wonder what kind of letters the HSUS and PETA orgnizations send out to members and contributors crying that they need more money to fight the cruel hunters. I have talked to more than a few people that think a hunter will shoot any animal on sight, even their pets, because of the BS that HSUS & PETA have been spouting.
Whatever organization you join there will be mailings asking for more donations. The membership dues alone cannot cover all the costs to fight the untruths and frivilous lawsuits.
Dennis
Whether you like everything they do or not, membership in the NRA is mandatory if you value your hunting rights and your rights as a free citizen.
You can start by joining your local and state organizations. It's these grassroots efforts that fight the fight everyday for you. Pending local and state legislation that could affect your hunting priviledges get introduced year 'round. This your first line of defense.
Next comes the national groups, NRA, RMEF, FNAWS, DU, PF, QU, TU, SCI, P&Y, B&C, etc...
Remember, it's one thing to "donate" your 20 bucks to join, and that's great, but it also helps if you get involved too.
Yes,
HSUS is doing everything it can to go main stream and they have a message (veiled) but what is ours? Big tent with out a pole is a big pile of fabric. Are we going to be proactive or reactive? The very garbage that Areonut refers too, the big tent does a lousy job of refuting because it refuses to address the issues and remains as narrow minded as the enemy. I do as Al Dente and join my local groups and do get involved. This Chicken Little does believe that we are getting out maneuvered at most turns. Fortunately the majority of the public is brighter then either side will give them credit for.
et
I believe the first and second amendments are the power of the people. What I fear is it seems that the news media is being centrally controlled, I wonder what would happen if someone flipped the switch on hunting rights in the media now versus 30 years ago. "New World Order" and globalization issues are more mainstream media these days, the not knowing how a media battle would workout, makes me a bit nervous for our personal rights.
Well, this kind of makes a trad only season discussion a bit, well, frivilous don't you think?
If you want to be able to continue to hunt with any weapon and means, join and participate in your local, state and national groups.
NRA, DU, RMEF, TU, FNAWS, NWTF, USSA, and the state groups for your bowhunting and firearms hunting seasons.
Not to be political, but before voting, checking where your favorite candidate stands on the 2nd Amendment, next to the 1st--Freedom of Speech, it is pretty high up there.
Use your gun closet and bow rack for a gut check..the rest is window dressing...if we cannot go hunting, we will not be able to go anywhere...
Garo
HNTN4ELK, well said on all points. The nanny staters, would deny us all weapons and severely limit outdoor pursuits.
The 2nd amendment is the one that guarantees the others.
The faults of the NRA be what they may are still out weighed by the resolve they show in fighting for our rights. Also the NRA does fight for bowhunting also and has done so several times in the recent years.
"Big Tent without a Pole". Right on ET. We're so quick to point out our dislikes and the faults of groups and people that fight for us.
Meanwhile, the animal rights and anti-gun groups misrepresent themselves, play on the emotions of the uninformed, and outright lie to get their money and support.
We have nothing but the truth to fight with which puts us at quite a disadvantage. There is only one way to speak the truth, but unlimited ways to spin it.
QuoteOriginally posted by Molson:
Meanwhile, the animal rights and anti-gun groups misrepresent themselves, play on the emotions of the uninformed, and outright lie to get their money and support.
And pro-gun groups, well at least the nra, do exactly the same thing :)
One does not: the American Hunters and Shooters Association
I would have to agree with Alex B. to a degree. There does seem to be extremely partisan fear mongering in some circles. However, in the upper midwest some of the best work done on behalf of the hunter has been from democrats. As far any politician goes, I do not believe one can judge them for what they say. Take a closer look and judge them for what they do. It is quite often different. One question, what good are our bows if we have no place to hunt? I feel we are often pawns in a larger political game, sometimes the NRA seems to be part of that. I flat out do not trust the Counsel on Foreign Relations, the TRilateral Commission, or the Bilderberg Group. They are not an elected wing of the government, but they make their influence everywhere. They support the Bush family and the Clintons, we tend to judge our security left and right, depending on our preference. Somehow it seems there is a bigger picture that we never hear about on the news and I don't really believe our hunting rights are all that big of a deal to them. As long as some crazy doesn't shoot someone like the Regan, Brady shooting. That one got us the Brady bill.
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex.B:
QuoteOriginally posted by Molson:
Meanwhile, the animal rights and anti-gun groups misrepresent themselves, play on the emotions of the uninformed, and outright lie to get their money and support.
And pro-gun groups, well at least the nra, do exactly the same thing :)
One does not: the American Hunters and Shooters Association [/b]
See what I mean?!!! You might want to do a little research about AHSA and be extra careful of an organization who AGGRESSIVELY seeks to smear and discredit the largest, most proactive, most effective gun and hunting rights organization in our Country.
Gun Control and Animal Rights activists wear many hats.
A little info for ya about the American Hunters and Shooters Association, you decide?
http://www.gunlawnews.org/asha.html
QuoteGun Control and Animal Rights activists wear many hats.
Yes, and you have to hand it to them. They become more infiltrated and camouflaged every day.
They have worked very hard at it, and you have to give credit where credit due. Theres one way I use to discern, although I'm sure theres many others. When I write to them and there response is full of words like, "reasonable gun laws" or "hunting firearms" especialy in conjunction with the 2nd amendment. These phrases are dead givaways that they do not support the 2nd amendment. As many times as I have read it, I can't find hunting or "hunting firearmes" in the text. Once you have convinced gunowners that this is all about hunting firearms, then you leave it at the full discretion of whoevers in at the time to determine what they feel is appropriate. As we have seen in the past, a good number of the law makers have little or no knowledge of firearms or hunting, and only vote for or introduce laws that reflect what there told to by those who donate to them.
Yes the NRA put a warning out about them some time ago I believe.
One of our biggest problems is that we're not vocal enough in our own defense.
Lately, there have been several letters written to our local paper urging people to support the efforts to change the make-up of our Fish and Game Council. There's at least one letter every week. These letters are written by known anti-hunters from all over the state, and are packed full of lies (which the general public may or may not recognize as such).
Since it is one of the most rural areas of NJ, with a large population of hunters, I would have expected to see at least a few responses from sportsmen. So far, I'm the only one to have written a response in defense of the F&G Council and the sportsmen of NJ.
Here's a great report on the impact sportsmen have on the economy (over $76 billion per year), as well as our political clout.
http://www.sportsmenslink.org/programs/sportsmenimages/FullReport_small.pdf
Keep in mind someone (Editors) decides what letters go into the paper and what doesn't. We had an incident here again recently in which the newspaper editor, for political and personal reasons, refused to print letters from people reporting the truth. It happens regularly as most editiors use their paper to promote their political views and the views of their political allies.
I'd have a group (5 or 6) write in letters over a few days and see what gets printed. You may find that you'll actually have to pay for an ad to get the truth out, while those spewing nonsense continue to fill the "Letters to the Editor" section for free.
When a bunch of letters concerning the same topic start showing up, particularly when there's been nothing in the news to warrant them, it's not a coincidence.
Very true Molson. Several years ago we had an editor of a neighboring city newspaper that did just that. If it opposed his opinion on any subject it rarely made it into 'his' newspaper.
I wrote a letter to him and asked if he would be willing to meet over a cup of coffee and politely exchange our views on a subject. His reply to me about a week later stated that he 'did not see the need or have the time for such things'.
Dennis
A local police officer told me just last night, "If I want to get a fully automatic rifle or even a mounted 50 caliber machine gun to out and have fun with.... We should be able to do that." I believe if we all did that, we wouldn't be doing that for very long. It is possible to metaphorically shoot ourselves in the foot. There maybe should be limits of some kind set, so the outrages don't wreck it for the rest of us. I want to keep my single barrel Ithaca.
Let's steer this back to hunting and Traditional Bows now folks.
Well Laddy I don't know what your police know about the laws in your state, but I pretty sure a machine gun is more that likely not legal. In the states where it is, it is severly regulated.
This is not what were talking about at present.
When was the last time you read about a crime being commited with a maching gun?
If you would like to discuss this futher you can PM me or go over to www.marlinowners.com (http://www.marlinowners.com) or www.adksportsman.com (http://www.adksportsman.com) I am a admin at both.
The boss man says this is not the place for this subject. I love this board and don't want to risk getting the boot.
So anyhow I reading a book on Tradition Archery by Brain J Sorrells Trying to get this Martin Stick to shoot for me. What do you all think about this guy, or the Stick for that matter?
I wonder if a traditional only organization, that expounded on the good points of traditional archery, could exist with out leaning on other organizations. There must be some selling points that we would dare package on a public scale, that would portray us in a healthy earth and socially friendly way without alarming the uneducated and possibly win a few over. In the spirit of adventure and doing things the hard way, keeping a rational perspective to not offend or seem overly defensive or partisan, I think we could surprise ourselves on how receptive the majority of the public would be. If you keep your head in the sand long enough something is going to bite you in the butt.
I believe there are many traditional only clubs in my state. The Mich Long Bow Assocation is just one of a few. I think there a great group, and will be joining them soon. Anti hunting groups and those who they support in goverment will never accept us, and will not be appeased. They will work to stop us. Don't matter if we shoot longbow or firearm.
Remember if your right, and you compromise with someone who is wrong, now your both wrong, and only leave a sense of legitimacy to there misguided thinking. You only live to compromise another day. In the end you lose completely.
I could make my own club if I could gather all the people I talked into and taught this longbow thing too. what makes me upset is that they are all better shots than me in a social setting. Problem is, in our part of the state besides indoor spot shooters, bowhunters tend to be loaners and the main concern is to nail down places to hunt and keeping out the competition. About the only anti bowhunting opinions around here, come from shotgun hunters, and usually only the ones that hardly ever leave there pickups. So perhaps they remain a loose knit fraternity is because there are very few pressures that are threatening the sport.
Actually, Molson, this paper is neutral on the subject of hunting, perhaps even leaning a bit towards pro-hunting.
Last week's paper had a picture of a nice bow-killed buck taken locally, and this week's paper has a nicely-written article about hunting and our 6-day shotgun season on the front page.
My letters, as well as quite a few other pro-hunting letters have been published over the years.
This is a county newspaper. It is often targeted by the antis since our county normally accounts for about 18% of the statewide deer harvest.
It's funny to me that Vermonster is quoting the USSA website and no one here recommended joining that fine organization. The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA) is the "junkyard dog" of the sportsmen's rights world. SCI? NWTF? Both of them give money to the USSA for the fighting they do. In fact, many times the things that the NWTF and SCI take credit for were spearheaded and fought for by the USSA. You know the Families Afield program that is lowering minimum ages for hunters around the country and letting parents decide when their kids should hunt? THAT is the fine work of the USSA. There is a list as long as my leg of things the USSA has done from the background. Much, if not all, of the info you see about HSUS on any other sportsmen's groups websites comes from the USSA. They've been hounding the HSUS since the USSA began in 1976.
Another thing is the efficiency of the USSA. Check out a website called www.charitynavigator.org (http://www.charitynavigator.org) and you will see that the USSA does more with the money they receive than any other sportsmen's group. It would be a good idea to check out any charity you send money to on this website. The USSA is small and scrambles for every dime they get and they get things done with it. Dick Cabela, the President of Remington and many other sporting industry notables are on the USSA board.
Those of you wondering where to send your money...send it to the USSA if you want to get more bang for your buck. I've worked for and been around a number of sportsmen's organizations (including the USSA...left to change career paths) and I can tell you that your money will not be spent better than if given to the USSA. Those of you down on the NRA, I'm with you. I've seen the way they work from the inside. There is a lot I do not like about them. But I do believe they do us all a valuable service. I used to give them a lot of money. But I channel it to other organizations now. I just don't buy it when folks say that the NRA is the only thing keeping our guns in our hands. They sure have been a large part of it, but it's the work (and good work at that) of the NRA's public relations department to keep that idea circulating.
All this is just my opinion. Check out the USSA for yourself. Vermonster is always posting their press releases on here and I applaud him for it. www.ussportsmen.org (http://www.ussportsmen.org) They aren't flashy and they don't give you a magazine and a hat and pocket knife when you join. They just fight for our country's outdoor heritage. I can do without the hat for that.
I was wondering how long before someone would catch onto that Dale. A little measuring stick to see how much attention people are really paying to what is here. ;)
The USSA also has the best legislation watch pages on the web.
I wish more bowhunters would their environmental side. All this constant defending are rights with court actions, although absolutely needed considering how court nuts the antihunting movement is getting, I wonder, if we were all more involved in environmental issues the general public would see bowhunters as more than just deer killers. I run into bowhunters every year on canoe trips, so I know I am not the only one that likes virgin forests and clean water. I also know that many who even speak of environmental issues are quickly attacked because of media conditioning from Rush and Fox News. We live pretty close to the earth perhaps we should show that side to the public.
We do Laddy but that side doesn't make for good news footage.
I agree with what Laddy said about the environment side. I feel that we don't need to fear the antis, slob hunters are already doing a pretty good job of turnig other users of the outdoors, "hikers, cyclists, canoers, and so on" against hunting" We need to police our own, take the time to pickup the jerks spent shotgun shells, left targets, and other trash. Report the morons who "shoot up the woods". How many antis are there? How many hikers etc are there? Just my two cents.
Another thing about the USSA is you don't even have to look for the information. They'll send it right to your e-mail. I've been receiving updates for years from them. If it's happening out there, they know about it and are notifying you immediately. Sometimes it seems I get notifications every day. That is a great organization.
I've cleaned up trash from many an outdoor user who was utilizing the resource for a different pursuit. though it seems anytime trash is found along a stream or trail it is hunters/fisherman blamed. The Longtrail would be a sty if not for the yearly clean-ups and that is almost exclusively used by hikers.
Yes other user throw trash, but as a backpacker I know many hikers and packers who feel that it is dangerous to go out into the woods during hunting season. When they do go they get more disturbed when they find spent shotgun shells, and trashed targets shot up signs and trail markers. The "orange army" is gonna stop hunting long before the antis do.
After reading this thread over and over, I have come up with my conclussion; that we could make friends with gun hunters easier than with nonhunters, but we should do everything we can to make friends with as many nonhunters as possible on our own, without waiting for superman to sweep in and save the day. traditional hunters are a good bunch of people, we should not be afraid to speak for ourselves when ever possible.
Quote:
Dick Cabela, the President of Remington and many other sporting industry notables are on the USSA board.
Dale,
While your post and the post of others were very well presented, thoughtout, etc.....These folks, and many others like them have an adgenda. That adgenda is to make money! That adgenda is not stopped by promoting and selling so-called "hunting items" that seriously hurt hunting.
The youth thing.......While viewed by what looks as a majority of hunters, I am not so sure that is a good thing, and could ultimately come back and bite hunting.
Just a couple of reasons why I look at this this way. This was promoted and passed here in Utah.
During the promotion part of the process, this was touted as a way to sell more tags and licesenses, funny thing, Utah is capped on most of its big game opportunities. This year Utah had a record 5 or 6 hunting accidents, 2 or 3 were fatilities, and 2 involved youth under 16.
While it may never come out, there is an increased possiblity that the accidents involving adults were not caused by the adult paying attention to the youth, and not what they was supposed to.
Again, the adgenda behind all this is sales.....Sales for Remington from the new youth model guns, and sales for Cabela's in the form of accessories, and anything else they can market. Hunting for these folks is away to make money, first and a passtime second!
We have laws in most States about minimum age for sex, driving, and various other things. These laws are there because of the mentality of youth. Hunting has the same types of finality as sex, and other things (accidents while driving, death, pregency, etc.), and should be included in the same minimum age restrictions.
Sorry to disagree with most of you on here about this, but I for one, do not belive that "United we Stand, Divided we Fall" is the best approach to this problem. Nor do I think that we need to be a "group" either.
We do need to be able to tell the Truths about bowhunting, minimum impact for the amount of time in the field, if done properly a lot of anti's will never know there is a bowhunter around, good for management, due to the low impact, this list can go on a long ways, but I have probally lost a few due to length.
So.........
I am a canoeist, in canoe areas of the north slob hunters are also slob fishermen and campers with an easily identifiable lack of respect for the splendid places we canoeists play. I must admit that I have met many nonhunters that had no opinions about bowhunting. After i explain to them the difference between traditional bowhunting versus what they may or may not think hunters do in the field I have never gotten a negative response. They do tend to defend Walt Disney Corp. which I think has done more damage than any of the Illuminati companies. they maybe are getting by because of their republican stature, but they are a profit engine that will play any card for profit.
After driving 30 miles to get accross the river and hunt elk yesterday in the dark...then returning home; I found some 40 plus elk and deer-- in my pasture...and some deer.
There were nearly a hundred elk walking around in sight; and there was a car stopped taking pictures.
I cannot describe how it feels to hunt for elk all day- and come home to find them in my pasture; and mentioned that to the photographers.
They were anti-hunters and scoffed me.
I turned and stared at the elk and deer; and said- "yep- and everyone of them knows right where they were- when Bambi's mother died".
made me laugh anyway
Walt did us no favors..
:D :archer:
Tim,
I just saw your post. Sorry about the late reply. But your points are well-made. Having met and spoken with Mr. Cabela quite a few times, I know he is no dummy. He knows that the more people who hunt, the more money he will make. As for the Pres. of Remington, he came on board after I resigned and went back to teaching. But I am sure he knows the same thing as Mr. Cabela. However, I am 100% positive that folks like the Cabelas have the good of the sport in mind ahead of their own gain when it comes to their activism and especially their participation in organizations like the USSA. Just my opinion from someone who has seen how things go on from the inside.
As for the Families Afield initiatives, like the one that passed there in Utah, well I see your point there and share it to a certain degree. My wife and I just had a son in September, our first. And even though Ohio is a Families Afield state, I plan to make him wait until he is at least 10 to actually pull the trigger or loose an arrow at a live animal. Why? Because it is my personal belief that a young person can't fully comprehend the gravity of what he or she is doing until at least that age. Heck, when he comes hunting with me, I'll be watching him and if he doesn't seem ready, I may make him wait longer if I don't see the maturity in him that I think it takes. I see so many reports of 4 year olds and 7 year olds killing bears and four deer in a day, etc. And I am revolted because that, to me, is just a father or mother stroking their own ego. But my point, and I do have one, is that it is MY CHOICE AS MY SON'S PARENT, not the choice of a state legislature, the members of which have never set foot off a park path, much less actually hunted. That is what Families Afield did, it gave the parents the opportunity to make the choice of when their kids hunt or don't hunt. AS for safety, the Families Afield laws are very specific as to safety. Young hunters must be accompanied by an adult, within arm's reach, in many states. And there are other restrictions. It's sad that youth were involved in the accidents in your state, but the statistics (available on the USSA website) find that the safest hunter in the woods is the adult-supervised young hunter. Sadly, there are unscrupulous adults who break these rules and do not keep an eye on their youth. It happens in every state.
Yes, the USSA, SCI and others involved tout it as a way to save hunting by putting more hunters in the field. But I disagree with you there. We have to keep as many people coming into the sport as possible in the hopes that we help create lifelong hunters who will help protect it in the future. How many people do you know who hunted once upon a time and just quit going? This will happen to a lot of people. We have to keep the young people coming in and getting hooked so they will be lifelong hunters and protectors of the sport.
And you know, the folks at USSA, SCI, etc know that they would get the hunting industry behind them by playing up the fact that Families Afield gets more hunters into the woods and thus into the stores. It takes money to fight the Humane Society of the United States and their almost unlimited war chest of funds used to fight hunting, trapping, fishing, etc. And frankly companies like Cabela's, Remington, The Sportsmen's Guide, etc have it and are willing to share it for that reason.
And make no mistake, the Anti's like the Humane Society of the United Stated and PETA, etc don't care if they EVER see a bowhunter in the woods. They hate the idea of bowhunting, and all hunting. And they are sneaky about how they go about killing hunting, just look at what they did to ban dove hunting in Michigan. As soon as they won that fight, they moved on to try to ban bear hunting in Michigan. I am leary of the United We Stand and Divided We Fall theory, too. But being in the trenches fighting what the anti's do day in and day out like I did opened my eyes and when it comes to hunting and the outdoor sports, there is strength in numbers. Even though I made a career change, I still give the USSA my money and volunteer in their Trailblazer youth programs.
Good post, Tim...I enjoy these honest exchanges. We have to think for ourselves as hunters and hearing what others have to say is always valuable.
Dale,
Honest exchanges, such as this are refreshing, Thank you!
Maybe I am just playing devils advocate here, but again I have to be in somewhat of a disagreement with you on some of your points. When I, and many others were kids we had to wait till the magical age of 12 to hunt small game, and 16 to hunt large game. Getting to those bench marks was a paying of dues, so to speak. as a kid I spent all the time I could fishing, trapping, and hunting what I could with a BB and pellet gun, and a green Bear fiberglass bow, honing woodsmanship, tracking skills and various other things because it meant something to be able to show these skills when needed. All of this has helped to turn me towards being very passionate about hunting, the animals I persue, and I have a deep respect towards the whole process.
By just letting youth hunt because we need more hunters afield, we are loosing the respect and passion, that will need to be there, the day the big show down with the anti's happens. With opportunity being cut almost daily in some states, and the opportunity for more and more animals be drasticly reduced, to once in a lifetime, and in some cases maybe never, how is "more hunters" helping? In Utah where most everything is a draw, and these opportunities are being sought after by "more hunters", more hunters are pushing more and more in to the nonhunting catagorey. It is just becoming, not worth the hassle, one of many reasons I do not hunt in my home state of Utah.
As Traditional Bowhunters many of us have seen the profileration of gizmos and gadets that really have no place on bowhunting, but make up for lack of woodsmanship skills. If Cablea's and others had the good of hunting in the forefront of their minds they would not sell, nor promote these things, but then they would not make money, and after all that is why they are there.
I am sorry, but I have to say that the continual lowering of the age to hunt to keep more hunters in the field, will come back and hurt us in the future. This has been presented as "the glass is almost empty" and the presenters, for the most part have played on emotions, for the sake of the almighty dollar. As a side note on this, I would be curious to know how many "Memoramdeums of Understanding" were signed between State Agencies and others promoting this? For those that don't know what a MOU is, it is an agreement between a state agency and another organization stating, that if you (state agency) promote and get what we want passed in your state we will funnel monies in to your various programs. This is one of the tatics of the ATA to get the X-gun thing going.
In the long run we are turning over the future of something we love, and respect to 10 year olds, whose biggest problem is getting out of bed in the morning.................
The parents should know when a child is ready to hunt period. To legislate an age to start is putting yet more control into politicians hands. The later you wait to get a child started the more other things they become involved in and many for many years by the time they "come of age". I had killed 6 deer by the age of twelve and am hooked for life. Lazy children are a reflection of poor parenting and to punish children that are raised right just doesn't set well with me.
well said vermonster.
Tim,
I love devil's advocates...they make me think. I agree with you 100% about a kid paying his or her dues before he or she can hunt. My kid will each step of the way. My most valued hunting knowledge is what I figured out for myself in our back woods with a bb gun. By the way, if you've never read "The Old Man and the Boy" by Robert Ruark, then you are missing out. In that book is the proper way to raise a young hunter. But as Vermonster said in his latest post, it needs to be our choice as the parent...not the state government. And sadly there will be those who misuse this law, but hopefully more good will come from the law than bad.
And maybe I mispoke, but Families Afield isn't just about getting more hunters afield, it's about getting to young people before they are hooked on video games and computers and so many other things that could keep them from giving hunting a try. Part of Families Afield, in many states like here in Ohio, is an apprentice hunter license that lets young (or older) new hunters give hunting a try, if accompanied within arm's length by a licensed hunter over the age of 18, before taking hunter's ed. I know that is another HUGE debate there, but the USSA found that many people are intimidated by hunter ed and liked the idea of being able to see if they even liked hunting before taking the classes.
And young people are key to preserving hunting. The anti's know this and have programs that give anti-hunting propaganda to schools, disguised as comic books and other seemingly inocuous things.
And you know, I feel some days that there are too many hunters (mostly when I get to my favorite spots on public land and find a guy with a crossbow in a climbing stand already there) and I thank God I don't have to win the lottery in my state to hunt anything. But we will have an even greater problem when there aren't enough hunters to impress upon legislators that the voice of hunters is one they must listen to. Bottom line: legislators only care if it gets them votes and by having a large pool of voters we get listened to.
I got into traditional archery to get away from gadgets and gizmos myself, so I am with you there. There are simply too many people who forget about good woodsmanship and skill gained from experience in favor of the newest plastic doodad. But we can't be naive and expect Cabela's not to sell them because we think they are stupid. The wheelie guys buy way more stuff than we do, it's just good business to carry those things. And the Cabelas know it is good business to support the USSA, SCI and others. They give a great deal of that money to help preserve hunting. The fact is we NEED these rich folks to give the money because most of us simply can't. I bet if all of us here on Tradgang gave what we could right now, it wouldn't equal what the Cabelas gave last year...by a long shot. I take it upon myself to give a hard time to my wheelie friends and challenge them to learn to hunt with a real bow and I have converted quite a few. But it's not my place to say anyone shouldn't hunt a certain way as long as it is legal.
As for the MOU idea, I can only say that none were given by the USSA. The USSA gets help and support from state agencies. The USSA doesn't have the funds to dole out, all of their money is used to fight the fight. State agencies are HUGE in the USSA's Trailblazer program. Without them, the program would not get far. And one thing I have learned in that line of work is that legislators don't listen to the state wildlife agencies that much. They have little pull when it comes to getting laws passed. It is the communal voice of us, the hunter/voter, who the legislators listen to when it comes time to say yay or nay.
And I promise you, I would never turn over the way of life I love to ten year olds. When it comes time to hand it over, I will hand it over to the mature, ethical, skillful, intelligent adult hunters who were lucky enough to have someone pass on the skill and knowledge of experience and take him or her hunting when he or she was younger (whatever age that may have been). Besides, 10 year olds can't vote...but they grow into 18 year olds and we have to replenish our pool of voters with new lifelong hunter/voters as hunters pass on or just quit hunting, which sadly happens.
Dale,
Again being the devils advocat here, I had a talk with a friend of mine, who is a Regional Rep for MBA. One of the problems we are facing in Montana is alot of these folks from the East, and Mid-west are coming to Montana and leasing up huge tracts of land.......One of the bigger outfits doing this is Cabela's, to support their Outfitter Program. This is pushing residents and some nonresidents off of land they have hunted, some for many years. For this and a number of other reasons I feel that it is not to hard to see why hunter numbers are declining. There are a hell of a lot more of us common folk than there are the rich folk.
I am a do it myself type of hunter, this approach has probally cost me a bunch of animals, but the lessons learned, the sights seen, the memories, are all priceless, and never would have been gained or appericated had I hunted with a guide, or on a game rich ranch because I can afford to be the only one there.
Just another reason why I do not like, or like to be considered a part of the "Big Tent".
You seem to be very confused on what exactly the big tent is supposed to mean. Rich folks just getting there way isn't a part of the big tent. The big tent is hunters looking out for hunters regardless what animals they hunt or legal weapon they choose. Seems lots of folks like changing what is supposed to be about to meet personal agendas and these other definitions get pushed so much folks start believing them. The antis love to see the division and I am sure do there share to propagate it. Special interests are a whole different ball of wax.
Tim,
I'd be ticked off, too, if I were you. I pray every day that people keep overlooking Ohio's trophy whitetail potential. It will be a sad day if all the private land in Ohio gets locked up by rich hunters and their leases as in such states as Illinois, Iowa and out in your neck of the woods. And I am not defending these actions at all. I'd like to see more public land made every year. I would gladly pay double the current price for licenses and tags if it meant that the state would buy new land each year to make public for hunting instead of seeing it locked up by a rich few. But I think Vermonster has it right. What the "big tent" idea is is basically hunters standing with hunters no matter how or whar or with what weapon they hunt. I don't defend big business practices, but I do know that some of these big businesses do quite a bit of good for our sport each year and I am glad, because they are the only ones who have the money or resources to get these things done.
I am a do it yourselfer, too. I may never ever step foot on any of those high priced, game rich ranches and that's okay. I much prefer to feast or famine on my own terms. It is flat out unfair what the rich are doing when it comes to locking up land. I have no answer to that.
QuoteOriginally posted by tim roberts:
Dale,
Again being the devils advocat here, I had a talk with a friend of mine, who is a Regional Rep for MBA. One of the problems we are facing in Montana is alot of these folks from the East, and Mid-west are coming to Montana and leasing up huge tracts of land.......One of the bigger outfits doing this is Cabela's, to support their Outfitter Program. This is pushing residents and some nonresidents off of land they have hunted, some for many years. For this and a number of other reasons I feel that it is not to hard to see why hunter numbers are declining. There are a hell of a lot more of us common folk than there are the rich folk.
I am a do it myself type of hunter, this approach has probally cost me a bunch of animals, but the lessons learned, the sights seen, the memories, are all priceless, and never would have been gained or appericated had I hunted with a guide, or on a game rich ranch because I can afford to be the only one there.
Just another reason why I do not like, or like to be considered a part of the "Big Tent".
But the assumption is that gun hunters and compound bow hunters will support us.
Reality is different.
Keep in mind the first anti-bowhunters were rifle hunters; and your most often going to hear anti-bow statements from rifle hunters (like 'I have seen deer running all over with arrows sticking out of them'..despite that being an irrational and false accusation); or from compound bow hunters who continually ask for profeciency testing... at compound bow ranges* (20 to 80 yards).
You can also look at the McCallister(sp?) studies; where compound bowhunters tried to say: traditional bow hunters wounded more deer than they did: and therefore should not be allowed for the hunt there..(followed by a study that showed the reverse).
I really think being in the big tent is like being a dwarf; and hanging around the NBA hoping they will defend your playing basketball: if it ever comes to height requirements.
We have a right to hunt that transcends profeciency tests; and the real possibility of traditional bowhunting- being the banana thrown at the 800 pound gorilla- we know as the anti-hunters.
I really believe we need to stand on our own merits and values and ideologies; and still support other forms of hunting.
Seems we forget: WE bowhunters were first. First there was bowhunting and then there was gun hunting; not the other way around.....
I want to point out the highest award we traditional bowhunters can recieve is the ISHI award.
That shows our roots not in race; but in bowhunting.
Personally I like it that way!
The continual apologies and fear of the past being 'discovered' as unethical by todays standards is pretty blind thinking...as it seems to include only white people hunting in the United States... and forgets the history of the bow here for thousands of years: as a part of native American societies.
People have bowhunted for at least 7,500 years; and we traditional bowhunters-if nothing else should be known to honor that relationship with nature.
I assume you do honor our relationship with nature?????
I am not against rifle hunting; I am not against compound bowhunting.
I just insist we not rely upon them: for our safety.
*saw an elk hunting show tonight where it was stated an 'elk bow' should be sighted in from 20 to 80 yards...yes of course... a compound bow hunter. The start of the 2008 tv bowhunting season!
Considering the fact that the NRA has become a political weapon with a one party agenda, it may well be considered the enemy of the Democratic party. If the country as a whole rejects the rich man's agenda that the current administration has displayed and by the above comments, some of us are getting tired of being run over by the rich as well, that big tent could get a bit shaky when the wind comes at it from the wrong direction.
Vermonster,
Rich or just a Common Joe, they are all still hunters, some can afford to and some can't afford to! I thought under the "Big Tent Theory" all hunters were welcome?
Brian,
Thank you! I too belive that we should we should stand on our own merits, values and ideologies. We should support other methods of hunting that the resource can sustain. But when push comes to shove it should ourselves that we depend on to defend bowhunting!
I hope the day never comes when we need to stand completely on our own. It hasn't worked out to well for a lot of other minority hunting groups.
Well we have talked about some of the problems facing bowhunting, so what is a solution? There are some who feel that we need to stand on our own, while supporting other hunting methods, and there are those who feel we should just jump in with everyone, so to speak. Like Brian said eariler, the first antibowhunters were gun hunters, and I for one think they are as big a threat as the anti's, but that is my opinion.
I have an idea as to a solution but I would like to hear what some other ideas are from the folks who have been in on this...........
I posted this before, but I think it just might fit here also.
Vermonster
Buddy yer right on the money!!
As in Rome, do as the Romans
"If you are not working to protect hunting, then you are working to end it"...........Fred Bear
By John Simeone
On a brisk spring morning on a secluded lake, somewhere in the state of Vermont, a hunter waits patiently in a tree stand. This tradition goes back three generations in the nimrod's family, and you would believe it's not much different than deer hunting right here in Louisiana. No, not deer hunting. Would you believe he is legally gun fishing? The quarry is spawning northern pike in the shallows, and the hunter/fisherman shoots the fish with a selected firearm and then scoops up his dinner.
Oh my goodness does that rub a lot of you raw; does it sound unsportsman like or just plain ridiculous? But this form of hunting has been around for a long time in that state, and done properly it is safe, ethical and legal, not to mention being a cultural tradition. To tell you the truth, I'd kinda like to try it out myself, however many others in their ignorance would cry fowl.
Invite that same hunter to Louisiana on a deer hunt, and after everyone gets through laughing at him about his gun fishing, they inform the already embarrassed Yankee, the hounds will be turned lose at 9:00 am. The hunt master hands him a shotgun and a handful of buckshot, telling him to leave the rifle in the case, while he goes over the safety rules of this timely southern hunting tradition. Then our Yankee kicks and screams all the way to the deerstand complaining, "They don't do it that way in Vermont." Chances are he will change his tune when he finds out he is about to have more fun than a Yankee ever deserved, but until the first strike of the hounds he will stew in his own myopic view of deer hunting. If you think you have the market cornered on methods, protocol, or even sportsmanship your living in a glass bubble.
It certainly doesn't stop there. Always among hunters there is an individual, or a group that wants to pontificate how we should conduct ourselves afield, even when the contrary is perfectly legal, ethical and many times traditional. Game and Fish Commissions have long figured out what the majority of the people want as far as methods and means, basing their decisions on harvestable numbers of game, rules of fair chase and local cultural hunting traditions. Louisiana, the Sportsmen's Paradise is by far one of the most liberal and that's why I choose to live here.
Still you can get an emotional response over these topics and more. Bow hunters vs. Gun Hunters, hunting on the ground vs. elevated stands, Inline muzzle loaders vs. traditional muzzleloaders. Hunting Turkeys with rifles as opposed to shotguns, then there is the crossbow issue and whether or not we should bait deer or other big game animals. Of course you have the guy that backpacks a deer stand into remote areas as opposed to the heated box stand hunter over the alfalfa field. The classic battle between the "Haves" and the "Have Not's" certainly relates to hunting. One activity may be somewhat distasteful to one group of hunters while being perfectly acceptable to others. Unfortunately, the words legal, ethical, and traditional don't seem to be enough convincing for some.
There are those who are just bound to a small area and only know their way of hunting, which is not a problem. This only requires a little study and conversation with other locals if the hunter travels outside of his traditional boundary. It does however, require an open-minded attitude lending new credence to the old adage, "As in Rome do as the Romans ." If you travel out of state on a hunting trip, ask your friends what the local traditions are and be prepared to be surprised.
Then there are what the outdoor forums now call "Cannibals." This group of individuals crusade the destruction of certain core hunter groups usually for there own personal gain, whether it be hunting lands or misguided opinions. I'm generalizing here, but I could easily get specific, just look around you. It's the dog that won't hunt, but he won't stay on the porch either. He just runs around nipping at the other dog's heels, and it's not politically correct to shoot him. Remember it is the core hunters that buy the majority of the hunting licenses and pay the way for the rest of us, including non-hunting outdoorsman.
A learned anti-hunter can put a negative spin on any type of hunting regardless of its nature considering the present day sensitivity of society. Anti hunting groups are the final interlopers, waiting in the wings enjoying with glee any type of infighting hunters conjure up to do away with themselves. Time is on their side. These so called cannibal hunters are unknowingly joining ranks with anti-hunters, undermining the very soul of hunting tradition every time they make a criticizing comment on legal, ethical and traditional hunting methods and means.
The bottom line is, if you don't prefer to participate in a certain way of hunting, then by all means don't. The time is now to rally hunters through education and understanding, constantly remembering if you aspire to the ways of the cannibal, you may be next on the menu. Pass it on.
Gurnie
I have read; and re-read the Simeone thing; and I don't find any value in it-in this topic.
Certainly infighting is bad; but the fight is not by traditional bowhunters to change things;just wanting to ~maintain~ things. Its the other people in the tent that are making it a threat- to mention it.
If you ask your wife to go hunting; and she starts screaming about things that have to be done around the house... its HER that is being unruly.
Didn't Oliver simply ask for more? Wasn't the uproar from those in charge?
My kingdom for an analogy!!
Hey Krebs.... Since you know my wife so well, can I send her to Idaho? I'll pay shipping!! :D
Seriously... If you look like food, you will be eaten. Fact. There is alot to be said for standing on our own merit.
HEY MOLSON: NO. :p
(believe me the 'boomerang' in her would take effect quickly). I have no indoor plumbing and 10 german wirehair puppies in the outhouse
:eek:
Seriously....we will look like an over ripe banana to the others in the tent - when the time comes. I really think standing on our own merits is best too. :campfire:
Well It seem to kinda fit in to me. :D To explain myself would have me quoting others an kinda stirring the stuff. If I was wrong, sorry I ain't the sharpest head in the quiver.
:knothead: