Contributors to this thread:
Start Our Own Fire-First
So as not to hijack a going thread.
How about a preemptive strike? Why don't hunters strike first? Instead of waiting for a bill to be introduced that would hurt or even ban hunting, why not lobby our elected officials to pass a bill, making it illegal to introduce just such a bill. It is hard to get a law changed. Far easier to get one passed, first. We did it here and in many states with the "Right to Hunt" legislation. Why not carry it one step further? Just give that some thought.
Yes! Right to hunt has been passed before!
I would like to tie it to the F&G department and revenue we drive. If you tie it to science and money it's even harder to over-turn.
If we can say that allowing hunting of each species adds x% into the pool and by removing species it impacts revenue by x%. Then if people want to shut down a season they need to understand that a tax will be levied on good or state taxes to cover the loss.
Also, tying back to wildlife biologists goals brings in data to back it.
That way the argument moves from emotional to fact based.
Well in British Columbia we just had an all out closer of the grizzly hunting EXCEPT for our overly babied natives. This decision was based solely on emotion at the political level , so do not ever assume that things will be based on scientific facts when it comes to decisions by government on game management issues.
I really like the idea. How many states already have a right to hunt law?
I am assuming this needs to be done on a state level and not federal.
A bunch already do. You can guess the states that have it and the ones that dont. What we need is a US law. A law making it illegal for referendum states to attack individual spiecie hunting would be huge.
Right to Hunt/Trap/Fish was recently put into our states constitution (Indiana) by an overwhelming majority.. 80% voted for it ... ...
Would never pass on a Federal level. Much easier to do when you have access to a congressman, as in your senator or representative. Call or email them and keep up until they talk to you. BUT...be prepared. Know what you are going to say. The monetary and biological aspects are of little value. What counts is your vote and the vote of everyone you can sway. This, of course, will be much easier in some states. But it is possible to get a groundswell going and keep bringing it up every year and every chance you get. Much better to be proactive than reactive. Clubs can band together both on the state, regional and national level. Start a money drive, buy advertising. Make some noise. Shake the bushes.
We can't even get our genius legistlators to pass a bill in PA to permit Sunday hunting.
Of course not, they are scared of making churches mad. Get a pastor of a major church on your side. (Good luck with that.)
"Of course not, they are scared of making churches mad. Get a pastor of a major church on your side. (Good luck with that.)"
No. That's not it at all.
Your guys ever heard of the Sportsman's Alliance? If you haven't looked into them you should, at sportsmansalliance.org . This organization has done A tremendous work nationally to protect your hunting rights and to sponsor bill for hunters. DANNY
John is spot on, a Right to Hunt amendment and require real biologists and wildlife managers to manage based on sound science and use of the resource. State by state would be the way to do it. Could focus resources where needed then. Only problem I see is with some states like Tom said, urber liberal like HI or set in their ways maybe like PA. But there is a bunch in between for sure that can, and have. Tackle the tough ones towards the end. As the anti's do.... chip by chip
Minnesota has a right to hunt amendment, and fines for hunter harassment.
If you want to keep hunting, you really only need to use two things. Media and money.
The war against the anti's will only be won using the same weapons they use. And you need money to buy talented people to convey your message effectively. And while you will want to hammer home the reality that hunters/fishers are the ones paying to keep wildlife there for non-consumptive users also, more important is to foster a distrust and distaste for the anti's antics and selfish lies. You need a campaign to counter every slick heart tugging add the anti's put out. You need a campaign to offensively smear them. If you're mud wrestling because you have to, then you're going to get some dirt on yourself and you better get good at throwing some to.
You need money and a machine to to do this. You need an already existing machine and you need to fuel it!! In my opinion the NRA is too high profile in other arenas but have an excellent model to copy. Pick an already established and successful, but large organisation. Everybody will have to choke back a bit of distaste for the common good!
The only narrative heard is the one that will be believed!!!
You will never win a war of words by holding your tongue and social media is the new courthouse. Better have a very, very good lawyer.
I believe Ambush is onto it. The "I am the NRA" commercials on tv appealed to the common, ordinary citizens that wanted to own guns for self defense. They were clear, concise, and had some nationally recognised people doing the spots. Of course, it didn't hurt the cause that this world is getting meaner by the day. Regardless, the perception of the NRA has changed for the better, and there might be a clue in there somewhere.