Washington State hunters need your help

[7mmfan]

I'm putting this here despite the fact that this isn't directly related to elk hunting. I feel that this is the beginning of an all out assault on hunting in Washington State and is of the upmost importance for everyone here, because this will inevitably make it's way to your state at some point.

Washington State's fish and wildlife commission voted this winter to stop our spring bear permit hunt. This is a longstanding hunt, and is fully supported by WDFW biologists. The deciding no-votes stated that they voted no because this is a social issue, not scientific, AND they didn't trust that hunters would not shoot sows with cubs. So despite the scientific data and facts provided by their own biologists supporting the hunt, they commission decided to end the hunt anyway, based on feelings.

However, Washington's hunters pushed back mightily, resulting in the resignation of one of the problem commissioners and the hunt is now back on the docket, but needs to be voted on again by the commission. WDFW has opened a public comment period for this hunt and boy are the anti-hunters out in force. We have lost opportunity in this state before because hunters did not voice their opinions and were blacked out by an overwhelming number of anti hunter comments. This is where we need your help. PLEASE comment in support of our spring black bear hunt. Here are the details.

- https://publicinput.com/SpringBearPetition102
- You can comment as frequently as you like. I have been commenting daily.
- This is open to anyone to comment. The anti-hunters are spreading this link around the world, literally. There are comments popping up from Europe, Germany, etc...
- Please, post constructive comments. There is a lot of name calling going on in there. That is not helpful.

If you are on social media and feel comfortable sharing this with your group, that would be an enormous help. Trust me, if we lose this hunt because of overwhelming anti-hunter sentiment and comments, this will embolden them, and they will be coming after whatever hunt is near and dear to you at some point.

Thanks for reading and helping.

Rory O'Connor - Washington State bear hunter

[Jhg]

This happed here in Colorado 1992 and life goes on. Not trying to be unsupportive, but the world definitely did not come to an end with spring bear being closed. Lots of people were pissed for sure, but the gates of hell didn't open up swallowing our hunting way of life. It was not the beginning of an all out assault on hunting.
Spring bear is a difficult activity to justify to non-hunters. That much is a fact and this fact is reflected in how much political support these hunts lose. Like it or not. Try to look at it from that perspective.

I know you do not want to hear this, but there are now more bears in Colorado-I see more myself.

[Jhg]

I guess my point being is spring bear has an image problem. While everyone gets motivated to fight the good fight when they threaten closing spring bear, we have done nothing to change our image as bear hunters, especially spring bear hunters.

Now we all understand driving down main street with an elk head strapped to the hood of our truck is bad press so we do not do that anymore. This helps our image.
I wonder how much of my leg is going to be chewed off by other hunters for saying this, but it is healthy for us to look at this objectively, and own the part of being in this position that is on us.

[7mmfan]

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. The anti-hunter mentality in 1992 was very different than it is now. Do me a favor and take 10 minutes to read a few of the comments. You will find that most of the anti-hunter comments are not solely focused on the spring hunt, but all hunting. There is an enormous amount of them, and they are vocal. They are organized and go after any opportunity they have to take away hunting. Look at the how every time there is an attempt to increase take of predators there is an immediate lawsuit filed. These groups have money and leadership and they will not stop going after what we love.

You seeing more bears is also not a great thing. Washington state already has one of the highest black bear populations in the lower 48. I see more bears than deer regularly. They wreak havoc on fawns and calves in the spring. A recent study done in the Blue Mountains of SE WA indicated that 75% of the elk calves collared in their study died in the first 150 days of life. The primary predators were bears and cougars.

I've sat by watched opportunities disappear because hunters did not speak up for themselves. Because of this, the commission and game departments assumed that it was not important to us, and eliminated it. If the only people willing to speak up are against something, that thing will go away.

[7mmfan]

Also, while I agree that spring bear hunting has an inherent image problem, a large portion of that is directly related to ignorance and longstanding incorrect beliefs associated with bear hunting. The main arguments against the hunt are as follows:

- Sows will be shot, cubs will die
- Bears are just trophys and trophy hunting is bad
- Bears have no food value
- Hunters are dishonest and trigger happy. Allowing to hunt in the spring means they will just shoot sows and then leave them to go look for another bear.

Obviously, none of this is true. In WA anyway, you are required by law to harvest all the meat from bears. And why wouldn't you anyway? They are delicious. So really it's not an image problem, it's an education problem. The general public needs to be educated on the realities of bear hunting, and specifically, spring bear hunting. The only people spewing information though are anti's and they are spewing incorrect information based on feelings, not science. How to you propose we change that?

[Swede]

I think anyone arguing that going after spring bears is about obtaining meat is whistling past the graveyard. It is a sport hunt. I have never shot at a bear. I do not put in for spring bear tags, but I buy a bear tag every year. I suppose I could have shot dozens of them over the years, but I have the tag just so I can stay out hunting with friends. The percent of the people in Washington is probably between 5% & 10%, and likely well under 5% want to bear hunt. The percentage of people that are looking at things from another perspective is huge. Most of the people I know base their hunting vote on how they feel. The basis for their feelings is what they see from you the hunter.
It does not take long for these nonhunters to realize you consider yourself and your opinions to be superior to theirs. Hunters and hunting clubs do a lot for game conservation. Buying a license and tag provides a lot of revenue to the fish and wildlife departments. Buying guns and ammo etc. add to the State's revenue for wildlife. Many of us live in pretty liberal States and we better figure out how to cope better than just running around like our hair is on fire claiming the "antis" are going to do it to us. The true antis are in a small minority. Watch out and make sure your neighbor understands and appreciates hunting. Make sure that gun toting redneck understands he is just crapping in his nest acting like he is entitled.

[Jhg]

I think anyone arguing that going after spring bears is about obtaining meat is whistling past the graveyard. It is a sport hunt....
...The true antis are in a small minority. Watch out and make sure your neighbor understands and appreciates hunting. Make sure that gun toting redneck understands he is just crapping in his nest acting like he is entitled.

These are tough words. Well said.

We all are ambassadors for hunting. Be a good one. Doing so negates most of what anti's are pushing. Be a calm, friendly, considerate hunter. It helps us all.

[Swede]

This is something I learned many years ago: It will cost you far less when the people you are dealing with trust you. It really helps when they know you are honest and are looking out for their interest.
I have heard it said many times, "I don't care what --- thinks; I have a right ... "
Some say the same thing just by their attitude. I worked for a man many moons ago that had an adage: "I don't aim to please them. I just plan to keep them fooled." Well, they don't stay fooled long. Your actions and your words better match.

[7mmfan]

I have to say, I'm disappointed. I may have come off a little alarmist, I can accept that. I was really hoping to find hunters willing to support hunters though. I am a realist when it comes to most things in life. I don't think the sky is falling, or that the end is in sight. However, neither of you two are in Washington watching your fish and game commission blatantly defy the facts and data provided by their biologists and cancel long-standing hunts based on the comments of people opposed to hunting. That is exactly what is happening here right now. The anti hunters are winning here.

Swede you make some good points, such as talking with your neighbor, making sure they understand the reason you hunt and what it means to you. Education and conversation will always be the best way to sway opinion. However, your example of how many people bear hunt and why it lacks importance is shocking. In your state of OR what percentage of the population elk hunts? 5% maybe? How many bow hunt? How would you feel if your ability to hunt elk was infringed upon because you are part of a vast minority? A large segment of the population views bowhunting as archaic and inhumane. Would you be upset if a ban on archery hunting was proposed and no one stood up to defend it?

You've stated several times that you buy a bear tag yet never kill bears, even in the fall. Have you eaten spring bear? Is your stance on the quality of the meat based on experience or assumptions? Mine are based on experience. Spring bear might not be as good as a fall berry fed bear, but it's certainly edible, and can be quite good especially later in spring.

Lastly, yes you are right, I am also basing my decisions and votes based on how I feel. But how I feel about hunting is backed by a 250000 years of humans on the landscape hunting for survival. Its backed by 100 years of successful wildlife management. It's supported by me providing only wild red meat for my family for a decade. I do think my opinions, feelings and stance on the subject is superior to people who tell me I shouldn't hunt because it's mean.

[Lefty]

This happed here in Colorado 1992 and life goes on. Not trying to be unsupportive, but the world definitely did not come to an end with spring bear being closed. Lots of people were pissed for sure, but the gates of hell didn't open up swallowing our hunting way of life. It was not the beginning of an all out assault on hunting.
Spring bear is a difficult activity to justify to non-hunters. That much is a fact and this fact is reflected in how much political support these hunts lose. Like it or not. Try to look at it from that perspective.

I know you do not want to hear this, but there are now more bears in Colorado-I see more myself.

Maybe not the gates of hell,, but the path that leads the way.
Foot hold tarp ban,, more beaver and coyotes
Reintroduction of wolves
The lynx closures
elimination of hound hunting
All little things

[Lefty]

7mm ,, I commented !!

[WapitiTalk1]

As most of you know, I’m not much of a bear hunter. That said, I’ve posted my comments on the link 7MM provided several times, supporting the continuance of the spring bear hunts in WA state. I’m not the brightest bulb in the drawer but I can tell when the anti’s are working their back handed attempts to bit by bit, attack and stop hunting as we know it. Don’t give an inch or they take a mile. My last comments on the link/site was something like “if you cancel spring bear hunting in the Evergreen state, you should be prepared to either increase the fall harvest quota or bring back hound hunting to keep the bear pops in check”. Stay the course fellow outdoorsmen/women and make sure your voices, comments. and unwavering support of this lifestyle called hunting can persevere so just perhaps, the next generation can experience it.

[Swede]

I have eaten good bear meat and have been given bad bear meat. I support bear hunting and do not want the opportunity to be lost. This includes the Spring bear hunt. The loss will ultimately happen at the ballot box when the public perceives it to be inappropriate. I heard that Oregon Bowhunters and some others were going to get the bear baiting and hound hunting for cougars and bears reinstated here in Oregon. They talked like they were very sure of themselves. It did not happen because the public, including some hunters do not approve.
I believe the true antis are a very small portion of our population, but they come up with some very damning commercials depicting hunters as greedy savages. The trouble we have is that we make their job far too easy. Talking here on the forum is like preaching to the choir. It does not change any minds. Does anyone think they pay any attention to out of State voices? They sure don't when it comes time to allocate tags or set the price for them.

[Old school]

I followed the link and commented as well. To stand by and let the “anti’s” chip away isnt something I’m interested in. I’m honestly surprised by some of the comments here.

Just roll over, it’s not the end of the world…. Sure life didn’t end in Colorado - nobody claimed it would - but how’s your trapping season? They chip away until there’s not much left. It’s not a long road from spring bear to all trapping to bowhunting.

[Lefty]

one inch at time ,

https://www.sportsmensalliance.org/news/biden-admin-negotiating-with-animal-activists-over-public-land-hunting/
Biden Admin Negotiating with Animal Activists Over Public Land Hunting
Posted on February 15, 2022

An animal-rights group and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have announced settlement discussions over a lawsuit that could revoke hunting opportunities on nearly 100 National Wildlife Refuges nationwide. In November, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed suit over the 2020 expansion of hunting and fishing opportunities on 2.2 million acres within the refuge system. The litigious group alleges that hunting on refuges threatens endangered species due to hunters trampling critical habitat, through lead poisoning as a result of spent ammunition and because grizzly bears are mistakenly shot by hunters believing them to be black bears or in self-defense.

The lawsuit seemed a long shot given the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act, landmark legislation drafted and pushed through Congress by the Sportsmen’s Alliance, which ensured that hunting, fishing and trapping would occur on any refuge where it is compatible. The historic law has opened millions of acres to hunting as every Presidential administration since has touted expansion of opportunities within the system.

However, the surprise joint filing by the Biden Administration and CBD asking for a delay in the court proceedings while the two sides conduct settlement talks sends an alarming message to hunting groups that are preparing to intervene in the lawsuit to ensure the rights of sportsmen are protected. Should the administration reach an agreement, CBD would likely not have to spend a single legal dollar, as these settlements often include payment of legal fees using taxpayer dollars. Worse, any settlement will likely include restrictions or revocation of hunting opportunities. The Sportsmen’s Alliance and other conservation groups were offered no warning of the pending talks, nor offered a seat at the table.

“A few short months ago, the Biden Administration was touting the largest expansion of hunting and fishing in history on these lands and now they’re negotiating with animal-rights activists over hunting opportunities, while excluding sportsmen from having a seat at the table,” said Evan Heusinkveld, president and CEO of the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, which has been preparing to defend hunting on refuges in the case. “It’s no surprise that animal-rights and anti-hunting groups want to stop hunting, but sportsmen shouldn’t tolerate being shut out as the Biden Administration negotiates away hunting opportunities on public lands.”

The best way to save these hunting opportunities from being lost is for American sportsmen to contact their U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators to oppose these backroom negotiations.

Sportsmen need to speak up immediately! Call your U.S. Senators and Representative and make sure they hear your voice. Use the Sportsmen’s Alliance Legislative Action Center to reach your Senators and Representatives.

[Jhg]

I have long been telling my hunting and gun rights friends that unless they/we can present some other face to the general public other than of a heels dug in, unyielding, scared and unreasonable group we are losing the PR battle and thus will lose the war. Believe me, if we cannot meet our foes over a table we will eventually have little to fight for anyway. The idea that compromise is not an American value (our very system is built on it) and that we will lose if we talk is exactly the attitude that hurts us.
I am not suggesting anyone here is as described above, but it does not mean that this image is not a huge issue for us. Step back and ask yourself: why in the world would the general public support or trust the interests of such a sour, ridgid judgmental group of folks?

We can win, but we will lose it in the end if we don't take an honest look at how we allow others to define our image, our message and are given so many examples every year that display poor sportsmanship (high fence hunting, kill shot compilation videos) crappy land stewardship (atv's ignoring closed access) and school shootings.
The forces that want to take it all away are most often handed the tools and the ammunition to erode what we love by those of us who still think its cool to compare the fair chase nature of hunts behind high fences to public land hunts, flaunt the right they feel they have to ignore public land management decisions, and the (and this one blows me away) the total stupidity of posting kill shot compilation videos.
You could not design a better PR campaign against our hunting goals than those videos. Just totally short sighted and selfish.

Thanks. You just effed our public image. Thanks. You just effed whatever cHance we had to earn the trust of all those millions who do not hunt who do not gun, but who send letters to public servants, elected and otherwise.
So yeah, go ahead, hang those bull balls from the back of your pickup truck so the next time a senior citizen lady, who has gone to the trailhead of her recently deceased husbands favorite place and let her read the sticker on the bumper that says you are a hunter.

You connect the dots.

[WapitiTalk1]

Moved this thread to the Virtual Campfire. Carry on......

[7mmfan]

JHG, you're not wrong that the people on the extreme end of of the hunting or political spectrum cause problems for all of us that love to hunt and enjoy the outdoors respectfully and responsibly. Education of those individuals is very important. However, have you ever actually sat down and tried to have a well thought out anx respectful conversation with an animal rights activist? I have, it's mind boggling. There is no give on their side of the aisle either. If there was a forum for us all to converse and discuss issues and subjects related to hunting, game management, land use plans, etc... where the facts were stuck to, you better believe I'd be the first to sign up. But that's not what's happening here. Right now there is a coordinated attack on our hunts in Washington. Animal rights groups are literally sending the comment link around the world. You better believe if they are successful in ending this hunt for good, they will pick a new target and go after that one. They have time and money on their side. I will not just standby and let it happen to save face and hope people view us better. I personally do not want to be viewed as a humble, easy to get along with, respectful hunter... that has nothing left to hunt because I didn't speak up for myself when I had the chance.

[Jhg]

I totally support your effort and willingness to fight for these things important to you. Thank you.

[Old school]

7mm - agree completely.

jug - There’s no logical conversation with an anti. And I don’t know how a spring bear hunt morphed into a bad “hunters” topic and how they taint our sport with kill shot compilations etc…. Is it only Spring bear hunters that do this? So we just back down on the spring bear hunt, be nice and polite about it and hope they aren’t emboldened by the victory. I don’t think that’s a long term winning strategy either. Just because some are willing to stand up and fight for a spring bear hunt doesn’t mean we condone poor behavior on behalf of other “hunters”. I’m failing to see the correlation here.

[WapitiTalk1]

So far, so good guys. There is a good reason I don't have, or allow, a place for political themed threads on our humble forum; they're nothing but trouble. We're flirting with it here a bit but again, so far so good. Keep this thread on track, avoid political views/opinions and certainly don't succumb to personal attacks or call-outs. If I get a whiff that this thread is turning the wrong way, I'll snuff it quicker than Swede whizzing on a bear that walks under his tree stand. Carry on.

[Tigger]

I heard that it is not really a negotiation, rather the Feds by law, have to listen to any settlement offer. They are committed to allowing hunting on the refuges.

[Old school]

RJ - what if we go after / call out Swede? You’ve got to give us something here to help us pass the winter

[saddlesore]

Anytime one season of a species is taken away from a hunter, we all loose, next it will be something you cherish. Anti hunters argue with emotions, facts won't sway them.
I have seen it here in Colorado.The anti hunters are funded mainly from out of state donations. When they could not get CPW to agree with them, they collect signatures using paid people to get a referendum on the ballot.

Leg hold traps, spring bear hunts, trapping in certain areas,recently a ban on hunting mountain lions, which thank fully saner heads prevailed in the legislature.
Someone might think it is no big deal, but it is.It is the same as govt. banning certain firearms and you are ok with it because you don't own or use that particular one.

Sorry ,but I dig my heels in every time something like this comes up. It is always we need to compromise,but we end up getting some thing taken away from us and the antis win. Maybe they don't get all they want,but they chip away and get a little each time..If we don't stand up for some thing your fellow hunter wants and it is legal and it has a chance of being take away, we are part of the problem.

[Swede]

All right you jackalops. You don't need to "compromise". Since all the hunters in Oregon amount to 8% of the population, then probably not more than 1% (my estimate) are really "antis". They make a lot of noise, but they won't win in the court of public opinion unless they can convince the 91% of the population that you are a real jerk and need to be put on a short leash. All I am saying is don't make their job so easy. They beat the hunters in the bear and cougar restrictions by showing videos of hunters which turned the voters against us.
We put millions of dollars into the State's coffers and many more millions in businesses every year. Do you really think the game commissioners and State legislators want to kill off hunting? The ones that will kill us off are the people at the ballot box. They don't care to get a wildlife education or a degree in finance. Over 90% don't hunt. I have found that the people around the neighborhood and the elderly at church come around and ask how I did after every hunt I go on. I get no push back. No condemnation. They don't want to hunt but are happy that I enjoy it. They are pleased to hear I got an elk. They even enjoy stories about peeing on the bear or other adventures I share. I am careful not to talk about blood and guts or even trailing a wounded animal. They don't want any more wildlife education than watching Bambi. Just make sure the antis don't give them an education about you.

[saddlesore]

Swede. " Do you really think the game commissioners and State legislators want to kill off hunting?" . Since I used the word comprise, I assume you mean me. Get on the Colorado CPW website and read the bios of every wildlife commissioner that our governor appointed.You will see there might be two that even have an inkling of the outdoors,to say nothing about hunting.One is even an open advocate of wolf introduction and had a hand in suing the F&W bureaucrats because they wanted to keep the Yellowstone wolf population to the agreed numbers when first approved. Even the First Husband of our governor is a activist in animal rights ( whatever that is). The majority that controls our legislative branch and the governor are all leftist and have their agenda and it is not about preserving hunting. Stop hunting and there is no reason to own firearms. Firearms are bad.

Make no mistake there is an active movement to stop hunting. With this last effort to ban mountain lion hunting, the majority of the financing was from the Humane Society of the US, from outside the state.

True antis are small in number, and the majority of the population has no opinion, good or bad, about hunting,but there are enough of the antis with money to push their agenda, and not enough hunters wanting to get involved

Like many western states the big cities have more votes than the remaining rural areas of the state.In Colorado it is the liberals in Denver, Boulder, and now Colorado Springs that control the voting block. We compromise our principals by not being active in these forays and letting those who would stop hunting chip away a little each time at it.

[Swede]

The idea that compromise is not an American value (our very system is built on it) and that we will lose if we talk is exactly the attitude that hurts us.

I agree with jhg on what he is saying, but the above statement is what I was referring to in my previous post. The ripple effect of hunting in Colorado amounted to 763 million dollars in 2020 and 8,400 jobs based on the latest statistics. Certainly, you have no commissioners or government leaders that are not aware of the economic impact this has. There may be some on the commission that recognize there are other values that compete with hunting. These are the people that will make the compromises for you. That does not make them antis. It makes them representatives of all the people and their different values and interests.
When Jhg was talking about compromise, I took it that he was referring to learning to work within the system, not expecting everything to be done just for the hunting interest and living with the outcome.
When I worked with the Forest Service, I delt with what I think you are referring to as "Antis". Some I could work with, and they were reasonable people. They worked for their interests within the system. I would include in this group the Sierra Club and Washington Wilderness Coalition. In the long run groups like these were very effective because they knew how to promote their cause. They knew who to deal with, when and where.
Then there were others like Earth First. I respect those that work hard within the system to get what they believe in. I am not going to demonize them.
I have no use for the likes of Earth First.
There is a whole industry filled with angry people today claiming, "they are out to destroy your way of life." I hear it on the radio, in church and on hunting forums. It ain't so folks. The vast majority of people have no problem with you hunting, fishing or whatever as long as you are not messing with their rights. Some even appreciate your values and lifestyle, even though they don't go themselves. It is time to quit the: it is us Vs them mentality. Don't go around acting like they are your enemy as you could end up making them one.

[Swede]

As hunters we would like to think we are together on hunting issues. We are not. Here in Oregon alone there is continuous complaining about bow hunters getting the best opportunity even though our success rate is lower than the rifle hunters and we hunt more days to get our query. We gripe about out of state hunters taking over. The east siders think they should get preferential treatment on tag allocation within their county. Stick bow hunters want preferential treatment and smoke pole hunters are not satisfied with their hunts as though they are unique and deserve preferential treatment. Handicapped hunters want more, old timers want to get preferential treatment and so do the kids. I feel certain I have missed a lot, but you get the idea. Everyone wants more for themselves and for you to have less.
The only thing it seems to me we agree on is that the government is doing us wrong, and if we give an inch, they will take a mile. Is it possible that there are others that have a valid point and should have a seat at the table of government?

[saddlesore]

Sorry Swede, but for me, it is me vs them and there are whole lot more of me's out there than you think. About 45% of the population in fact if you believe the polls. I have lived my whole life living for what I believe in and promoting it.The people running our country ,both federal and state, go against everything I believe in today. I believe they are actively trying to destroy our country and doing a darn good job of it. I will not backup one inch or give one inch. Those that do are only furthering those people's agenda whether it is a simple banning one type of hunting or unconstitutionally restricting our God given rights. Maybe I am too much of a redneck for this forum , but as 7mmfan alluded to, I am sorely disappointed in the some of these opinions. I guess I am done saying anything regarding this thread

[Swede]

One thing I see differently than some do on the forum. That is this matter of "compromise". We do not need to consider compromising. Why would we? We are not the decision makers. All we do is petition for what we want, and the fish and game commission or someone(s) even higher up makes the decision. They are the persons that will determine what if any compromises need to be made.
As a long-time government employee, I know what it is like to have my projects upheld, turned down, and to be compromised. I know jubilation, disappointment and even momentary anger. But at the end of the day, we pick up where we left off and keep moving forward. I did not hate my superiors or those who petitioned for something that I did not believe in. Some of these people I worked for. Some I worked with, and some were interested third parties. I can say this in retrospect: no idiot prevailed over me. They were sharp and did their homework. At the end of the day, we all went home as friends or at least we respected one another. It is too bad that the word compromise is seen as a nasty word, and we don't want to have a dialog with those who are not in our camp. As far as I'm concerned that is not compromising. It is just losing.

[Jhg]

Just as clarification my comments were yes we need to make the effort to have a dialogue with others who do not share our passion. Of course, there are those who will not meet you half way. But the gesture was made, the willingness to listen offered. That is a great thing for our hunter image. It is hard I know I have been there. There are those who are closed minded. But dignity will win every time in the image war.

The other point I was making is a hard pill to swallow. Our image is tarnished. I used examples of that when talking about the spring bear as a way to illustrate how linked we are to each other. When someone presents a video that is 30 minutes of kill shots it hurts us all. When someone insists high fence hunts are equivalents to fair chase it hurts our image. You will NEVER sell that to the non-hunting public. They are not idiots. Make that kill shot video and it is a direct line to people thinking that all hunters are interested in is the killing. And why not? You just made a film only about the killing. NOTHING about any other part of the hunting experience even though there are other things of much greater value and of shared interest to have shown.

The battle for trapping, and keeping spring bear hunts was lost a long time ago. Sorry, but thats my perspective on it. Just consider why, outside of the idea that its because a bunch of hunting states now have cities filled with anti

So go forth and be considerate, polite and impassioned.

As for myself, I will do my level best to be a positive hunter ambassador. I will talk about the soul side of hunting every chance I get when around those who do not hunt. I will be sure to add I see the beauty in the dawn and the frosted tips of a mountain meadow. I will say something about the spiritual connection I feel with the animals I hunt. I will talk about my respect those same animals. I will mention the great job wildlife managers are doing (rather than rant about my latest disagreement with the management plan). I will talk about the value of fair chase and how I am committed to that concept. I will say something about I will always be certain of my shot and that I always carry out the trash I find in the back country.
Saying these things makes a big big difference. It humanizes what hunters do and why, in a way everyone can relate to, hunter or not.

They will respect you and with respect comes trust.

In the end what else can you do? Being a patient and thoughtful advocate will get us farther than righteous indignation ever did.

[7mmfan]

Just as clarification my comments were yes we need to make the effort to have a dialogue with others who do not share our passion. Of course, there are those who will not meet you half way. But the gesture was made, the willingness to listen offered. That is a great thing for our hunter image. It is hard I know I have been there. There are those who are closed minded. But dignity will win every time in the image war.

The other point I was making is a hard pill to swallow. Our image is tarnished. I used examples of that when talking about the spring bear as a way to illustrate how linked we are to each other. When someone presents a video that is 30 minutes of kill shots it hurts us all. When someone insists high fence hunts are equivalents to fair chase it hurts our image. You will NEVER sell that to the non-hunting public. They are not idiots. Make that kill shot video and it is a direct line to people thinking that all hunters are interested in is the killing. And why not? You just made a film only about the killing. NOTHING about any other part of the hunting experience even though there are other things of much greater value and of shared interest to have shown.

The battle for trapping, and keeping spring bear hunts was lost a long time ago. Sorry, but thats my perspective on it. Just consider why, outside of the idea that its because a bunch of hunting states now have cities filled with anti

So go forth and be considerate, polite and impassioned.

As for myself, I will do my level best to be a positive hunter ambassador. I will talk about the soul side of hunting every chance I get when around those who do not hunt. I will be sure to add I see the beauty in the dawn and the frosted tips of a mountain meadow. I will say something about the spiritual connection I feel with the animals I hunt. I will talk about my respect those same animals. I will mention the great job wildlife managers are doing (rather than rant about my latest disagreement with the management plan). I will talk about the value of fair chase and how I am committed to that concept. I will say something about I will always be certain of my shot and that I always carry out the trash I find in the back country.
Saying these things makes a big big difference. It humanizes what hunters do and why, in a way everyone can relate to, hunter or not.

They will respect you and with respect comes trust.

In the end what else can you do? Being a patient and thoughtful advocate will get us farther than righteous indignation ever did.

JHG,I agree with everything you said here, except two parts. I agree that spring bear hunting, bear hunting in general really, is a major point of contention with a lot of people, and the image has been tarnished. However I'm not willing to write it off. I will do my best to educate people and have meaningful conversations on the subject with people that aren't in the know or are willing to have the discussion. As you said, education and meaningful dialogue is the best thing we can do.

I also do not agree that we shouldn't hold our fish and game commissioners accountable. They maybe appointed by the governor, but they work for us. They have a job in WA to use biological and scientific data to perpetuate fish and game species and maximize fishing and hunting opportunities. It's written right into the RCW. If I don't feel that they are doing the job they were hired to do, then they should know about it. If I wasn't doing the job I was hired to do at work, I wouldn't expect my boss to ignore it because it and pat me on the back for other things that I've done right.

The kill shot videos are hideous. Honestly I cannot seem to figure out why someone would post something like that on the internet. Guys that do that do far more harm than good, and I guarantee they are doing the same kind of harm outside the internet as on it. Hunters, and outdoorsmen in general, are such a large divided group of people that bicker amongst themselves over how they utilize the resource. We really need to come together as a whole if we want to see this past time continue into the future for our kids and grandkids.

[Swede]

Being a patient and thoughtful advocate will get us farther than righteous indignation ever did.

In principle I completely agree with both of you characters. You are both wanting to keep hunting alive and want hunters to be good representatives for the sport. Many of us grew up hunting and want to see to go on in perpetuity. How we get there can be a matter for discussion and debate. I agree we need to understand what we are up against. Personally, I don't object to righteous indignation.
The attitude that horrifies me might be expressed as "I don't care what other people think, and this is my in-your-face way of showing it." When soccer mom, taking the kids to school, sees that bloody head attached to the front of your oversized pickup, or propped up in the truck bed, you are not going to convince her that she is the idiot, and I agree with her. Remind her that you think she is stupid as she heads to the ballot box.

[Jhg]

Agreed, we should hold game managers accountable, let them hear our concerns, etc.

I was commenting more on how often on forums all of the comments regarding wildlife officials is quickly an attack on them personally. It leaves less informed people with the idea that hunting regulation best be taken and put on the ballot because if hunters do not respect those that manage the resource, those officials must be incompetent. Again, what we say matters. Connect the dots. Complaining publicly without well reasoned supporting statements makes hunters seem ignorant (lacking knowledge or awareness in general)

Anyway, as I said before, I am encouraged by your commitment and that this conversation has remained civil and informative.

[7mmfan]

Being a patient and thoughtful advocate will get us farther than righteous indignation ever did.

The attitude that horrifies me might be expressed as "I don't care what other people think, and this is my in-your-face way of showing it." When soccer mom, taking the kids to school, sees that bloody head attached to the front of your oversized pickup, or propped up in the truck bed, you are not going to convince her that she is the idiot, and I agree with her. Remind her that you think she is stupid as she heads to the ballot box.

You couldn't be more right.

Another thing that I have found is a very quick and effective way to sway people on the fence about hunting, is to share your food with them. I make A LOT of jerky and summer sausage every year. I always have a pack of jerky with me, and I bring summer sausage and smoked fish to all family gatherings and get togethers with friends. When people make the connection from game animal too food, especially yummy food, their minds are easily made up.

The biggest hit at gatherings, key to this discussion, has been bear summer sausage. I went to a large Christmas party some years ago for my wife's work. She worked at the University of Washington School of Dentistry. There wasn't a single person in that room that hunted. I knew from my wife that the Dean was a jerky fanatic, so I brought some elk jerky for him. I also brought a roll of bear summer sausage. By the end of the night, the summer sausage was gone, and the majority of the room had asked many questions about hunting, meat processing, and bears. For them they just didn't know that bears were even edible. They were all under the impression people only hunted bears for trophy's. I feel like that one opportunity to share my food with that group of people changed a lot of minds on the subject. We need more opportunities like that.

[Jhg]

If I pretend to be a non-hunter, can you cook me dinner or maybe give me some summer sausage?

[7mmfan]

You betcha. I'll even share my bourbon with you.