Politics = hunting
General Topic
Contributors to this thread:
spike78 11-May-24
Mike E 11-May-24
DanaC 11-May-24
spike78 11-May-24
HDE 11-May-24
shade mt 12-May-24
drycreek 12-May-24
Pa Steve 12-May-24
Pete In Fairbanks 12-May-24
Keepitreal 12-May-24
fdp 12-May-24
Corax_latrans 12-May-24
spike78 12-May-24
HDE 12-May-24
Corax_latrans 12-May-24
spike78 12-May-24
btnbuck 12-May-24
TonyBear 12-May-24
DanaC 12-May-24
Nomad 13-May-24
BowSniper 13-May-24
Beendare 13-May-24
fdp 13-May-24
Recurve Man 13-May-24
fdp 13-May-24
bluedog 13-May-24
Will tell 13-May-24
HDE 13-May-24
bluedog 13-May-24
fdp 13-May-24
CaptMike 13-May-24
Nyati 13-May-24
70lbDraw 13-May-24
fdp 13-May-24
70lbDraw 13-May-24
Grey Ghost 14-May-24
fdp 14-May-24
Catscratch 14-May-24
Grey Ghost 14-May-24
fdp 14-May-24
Groundhunter 14-May-24
fdp 14-May-24
Grey Ghost 14-May-24
fdp 14-May-24
Nyati 14-May-24
Grey Ghost 14-May-24
Nyati 14-May-24
KY EyeBow 14-May-24
Mint 14-May-24
spike78 14-May-24
fdp 14-May-24
Saphead 14-May-24
Live2Hunt 14-May-24
From: spike78
11-May-24

spike78's Link
Here is a 13 minute video on why politics can directly affect hunting. Decide for yourself if this is all conspiracy or not but it could explain the wolf introduction along with other things. If this happens there will be no more hunting.

From: Mike E
11-May-24
Agenda 21, The Green New Deal, the Georgia Guidestones, all basically the same thing. Once they eliminate hunting, in their minds, they'll be no need for us to have guns. Our argument for many, many years has been the legacy of guns for hunting. I couldn't post a link at gun point, but another interesting watch is called. The Great Awakening (2023) Documentary You-Tube. Straight from the horses mouth. Watch as Klaus Schwab, the PM of Canada and a host of others lead us into the future. It's over an hour but provides the mindset of some who help influence world wide policy.

From: DanaC
11-May-24

DanaC's embedded Photo
DanaC's embedded Photo

From: spike78
11-May-24

spike78's Link
Here is an executive order by Biden regarding the Dept of Interior. Read through this and you will pick up clues especially on the survey to indigenous tribes. Basically all the government has to do is say we can no longer hunt their food anymore. Also notice all the climate change questions and the government states they can devise a plan to protect areas that are affected by climate change.

From: HDE
11-May-24
"Basically all the government has to do is say we can no longer hunt their food anymore."

It's not their food. They aren't their animals. Never were and never will be. I don't give a flying rip what the gov't thinks about it...

From: shade mt
12-May-24
I have said for a long time. emphasize hunting as a "sport" rather than for food, and it's a sure way to invite opposition eventually.

There may well be a time coming when the Gov't decides your not allowed to hunt the "kings deer" anymore. All depends on how well you can discern who is a threat to hunting and who isn't. And then vote accordingly.

12-May-24
" All depends on how well you can discern who is a threat to hunting and who isn't. And then vote accordingly."

thats a fairly easily quantifiable metric.

i think its pretty safe to say that not all democrats are anti hunting...but virtually all anti hunters are democrats.

From: drycreek
12-May-24
Ricky x 2

From: Pa Steve
12-May-24
Ricky × 3. Anyone who can't see it.... hasn't been paying attention.

12-May-24
Ricky hit the nail on the head...!

Pete

From: Keepitreal
12-May-24
Also just ask any anti hunter if they vote pro life or pro choice and you'll know which way the moral/political compass is pointing.

From: fdp
12-May-24
Blame it all on them Plymouth, Mass. folks. If they hadn't started passing game and fish laws in the 1600's this would never have become a problem.

12-May-24
“i think its pretty safe to say that not all democrats are anti hunting...but virtually all anti hunters are democrats.”

That’s about the most sane political statement I think I’ve ever heard out of Ricky…

From: spike78
12-May-24
I will throw out a prediction that by 2030 we will no longer be hunting on Federal land or should I say our lands. Everything banned from here on out will be due to climate change how convenient that narrative will be from now on. And stop saying Democrats it’s all a party of one.

12-May-24
"That’s about the most sane political statement I think I’ve ever heard out of Ricky…"

i suspect there might be a lot more if more attention was paid to what was being said instead of who was saying it.

:)

From: HDE
12-May-24
"Blame it all on them Plymouth, Mass. folks. If they hadn't started passing game and fish laws..."

Nope. Blame it on the monarchs in Europe. Where do you think the common folk learned it from...

12-May-24
"Also just ask any anti hunter if they vote pro life or pro choice and you'll know which way the moral/political compass is pointing."

in my opinion, the problems with anitis started with people elevating animals to a status equal to and in some cases higher than humans. people have lost all perspective when it comes to an animals place in the natural world.

12-May-24
So you’re saying that we’d be better off if they were still all the King’s deer???

That’s right up there with training to shoot your 9mm by shooting .44 Mags…

From: spike78
12-May-24
Corax is that a jab against me? After my 44 mag the 9 is a pussy cat.

From: btnbuck
12-May-24
"There may well be a time coming when the Gov't decides your not allowed to hunt the "kings deer" anymore."

Time to remove the King and his henchmen at this point.

From: TonyBear
12-May-24
btnbuck you are right on point. It's called the public trust domain for fish and wildlife. It's not theirs, we have only put them in charge of managing it. Unfortunately, with appointed individuals instead of merits sometime they screw it up. Also, a democracy of the most votes winning on referendums can put hunters and anglers out of business. 911: 9 % are antis, 11% hunt and fish the rest of population really doesn't care either way, unless a specific issue comes up or the antis try to sway opinion their way. They are getting pretty good at it.

From: DanaC
12-May-24
^^^ Never forget 'Question 1'.

From: Nomad
13-May-24
"There may well be a time coming when the Gov't decides your not allowed to hunt the "kings deer" anymore." Time to remove the King and his henchmen at this point."

It may already be too late for that option. I believe here in Minnesota it is. They have learned all too well how to game the system.

From: BowSniper
13-May-24
Politics is all about control.... and that includes controlling what animals you can hunt, where you can hunt, what weapon you can use to hunt... and even if you can hunt at all.

From: Beendare
13-May-24
Hunter apathy is a problem for our sport.

Hunters as a group would blow the antis out of the water....but many hunters do not get involved or contribute in any way to the pro hunting orgs.

On the other hand, the Anti's are highly organized and come together all across the country to focus on regional issues.

From: fdp
13-May-24
"many hunters do not get involved or contribute in any way"...a LOT of that is because as is regularly seen on this platform hunters are experts at ham stringing themselves and their cause due to mindless in fighting and nonsensical labeling. Even more so than the gun owner groups do.

From: Recurve Man
13-May-24
Most hunters work and only have a few weeks a year to go on hunts.

Where most of your Anti-hunting or protest groups are unemployed or basically chose not to work so they have the time to be proactive in their little get togethers and protests.

Honestly if the government steps in on shutting down hunting then they basically cannot govern when or who can kill the animal’s. There will actually be no point creep and will be some darn good hunts for a few years, at least until the critters are killed off.

Shane

13-May-24
"many hunters do not get involved or contribute in any way"

that may be true but at the end of the day...the most important thing hunters can do is vote in their own best interest. as long as hunters keep voting for democrats...they will do so against their own best best interests. it truly is that simple.

From: fdp
13-May-24
And the statement above would be a classic example of wedge driving that takes place on this platform.

To infer that simply voting for one party, or not voting for another party will ensure the continuation of the ability to hunt or not is completely misguided and devisive.

From: bluedog
13-May-24
The most important thing a hunter can do is vote in their own best interest. That is conservation and environmental protection. Period.

Wealth, economic gain over conservation, environment equals urban sprawl, Housing developments, even 5 acres and a pole barn is not natural environment.... Over grazing of western lands at fractional lease value (3 cows or 4 elk on a piece of grazing land is the choice).. welfare at cost of elk herd.

Unregulated pesticides, herbicides ..large industrialized farming in general. Water table depletion. Deregulation and relying on wealth builders doing the "right thing" is pure fantasy.

On and on.... at least a third of birds are just... gone.. (canary in the coal mine? )

That's the end future of hunting .

People often mention good old days of carrying guns in truck to school for hunting after... these days few places they could hunt anyway since the death of smaller family farms and leasing on the few left.

I won't vote for anyone against environmental regulation. And part of the WOKE stuff going on makes it hard to hold my nose for Dems either. Pretty much FK it...it's over.

From: Will tell
13-May-24
You can blame Democrats if it makes you feel better. Hunters have ruined hunting. I used to be able to hunt miles in an direction. Not now, land owners have their land posted for friends and family. I don’t blame them and would do the same thing if I owned property. For a lot of hunters who only get out a couple times a year it’s not worth buying a license.

From: HDE
13-May-24
By a show of hands, how many people still need a 6 figure a year job if you weren't spending money on outdoors (hunting and fishing) equipment, tags, and everything else that goes along with it?

My guess is not many. What would the economy look like if people didn't have a driving urge to spend on outdoor recreation because it was "taken" away...

From: bluedog
13-May-24
Good point Will tell.. I grew up when population was half what it is now and larger % lived in the cities so rural areas were thinly populated. Hindsight it was helluva time to be a country kid. Used to envy the townies and city kids... LOL unreal

13-May-24
“And the statement above would be a classic example of wedge driving that takes place on this platform.”

its not a wedge…its a simple fact.

From: fdp
13-May-24
You do you Ricky....you do you....

13-May-24
“You do you Ricky....you do you....”

i will. protecting our hunting heritage is but one of the many reasons I will not vote for a democrat.

From: CaptMike
13-May-24
So because landowners want to only allow their family/friends to hunt their land, hunters have ruined hunting??

From: Nyati
13-May-24
It may have changed hunting for the people that wanted to show up opening day, hunt for a couple days then disappear for the rest of the year only to be heard from the day before season the next year.

For those of us that bought property, work and make improvements to habitat on a year round basis, properly manage the game and land it has improved hunting

From: 70lbDraw
13-May-24
“its not a wedge…its a simple fact.”

Don’t worry Ricky, you aren’t the only one. Every time someone responds to his posts, he claims they are waaay off topic and wrong!

From: fdp
13-May-24
70lb.....are you describing your reaction to the statements that you don't agree with ?

I never said a thing about Ricky being way off base or wrong...in the context of his thinking. I think he truly believes it. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. His opinion is his, and my opinion is mine. He is right in his mind, he's wrong in mine. And I'm sure he feels the same way.

As difficult as it is for folks to understand a particular political party isn't the greatest threat to our hunting privileges. Only the easiest target.

From: 70lbDraw
13-May-24
Not so much a political party, but the supporters of such.

14-May-24
"As difficult as it is for folks to understand a particular political party isn't the greatest threat to our hunting privileges. Only the easiest target."

you call it the "easiest target" but in reality it is the actual target.

the reality is if our hunting rights (or privileges) are curtailed...it is going to happen via legislation...or fiat. if we keep electing legislators...or those who are in a position to appoint wildlife and natural resources commissions...who are funded disproportionately by groups that are against hunting...the results are a given.

like i said before...not every democrat is anti hunting but virtually every anti hunter is a democrat. if hunters keep electing democrats...they do so at their own peril. even if all hunters were in lockstep singing kumbaya with each other...it wont change the following facts...

fact...anti hunters vote overwhelmingly for democrats

fact...hunters vote overwhelmingly for republicans

fact...politicians stay in office by keeping the people who elected them...and contribute to them...happy.

do the math.

From: Grey Ghost
14-May-24
My hunting opportunities have greatly diminished due to the commercialization and privatization of hunting. I’ve lost access to thousands of acres of ground to outfitters and private leases. Sure, I could pay to play that game, too, but I suspect many hunters can’t. I don’t think legislation had much to do with that.

From: fdp
14-May-24
Our privilege to hunt is under far greater threat from habitat loss, commercialization of hunting and so on than anything else. The commercialization is the piece that the anti's always grab on to. Commercialization of the killing of animals as a sport. That's an easy position to get people who are on the fence to come out against. Once the majority of the available land to hunt has been populated with strip malls and homes there won't be any where left to hunt. They will have won. And THEY aren't one party.

I live in one of the most traditionally Republican states in the country. We have less public land available than any other state, and lose more privately owned land that we used to be able to hunt every day. All of it to development. I've never lost access to an acre of hunting land due to Democratic or Republican sponsored legislation that was aimed directly at my freedom.to.hunt.. And I doubt anyone else here has. But I've list plenty.from legislation on both sides that allowed large of chunks of land to be developed.

Same thing when we owned our place in Ohio.

Nope...parties are easy to blame but the sad fact is hunters are going to be extremely instrumental in the loss of the privilege to hunt.

From: Catscratch
14-May-24
In KS we have legislators openly threatening to cut Department of Wildlife funding if the the Department doesn't do exactly what they want them to do. Lawmakers absolutely can and do affect hunting opportunities. Not saying hunters aren't their own worst enemies though, as every piece of ground that I've lost to leasing was due to another hunter.

GG, I thought CO politics had cost you lots of hunting opportunities? Can you hunt big cats such as mountain lions?

From: Grey Ghost
14-May-24
Cat scratch, yes we can hunt mountain lions in Colorado. At least for now. Spring bear is the only hunting opportunity we’ve lost due to legislation in my lifetime.

From: fdp
14-May-24
No one said or even inferred that lawmakers cant and don't have an affect on hunting opportunities. But no one party has a monopoly on that ability and there is no one strategy that is being used to do it.

14-May-24
"I live in one of the most traditionally Republican states in the country. We have less public land available than any other state, and lose more privately owned land that we used to be able to hunt every day. All of it to development."

so what is your solution?

you claimed that by me stating that voting for democrats is antithetical to maintaining our hunting heritage is somehow actually hurting our hunting heritage. how is me not saying that going to prevent one acre of land from being sold for development or from being leased?

are you suggesting that someones private property rights should somehow be curtailed in order to protect someone elses free hunting privileges? are you suggesting that hunters should have the right to hunt on land they dont own...for free?

maybe i should clarify.

to the extent that hunting can be protected or diminished by legislation...political party definitely matters.

i agree with grey ghost in regard to the effect of commercialization and privatization but that is a totally different issue in that it speaks directly to private property rights and nothing to do with "wedges" between hunters.

now...if youd like to talk about the underlying reasons why people are fleeing urban areas for developments in more rural areas...we can do that.

From: Groundhunter
14-May-24
Many years ago, a rancher put up a billboard, along the hwy, in South Dakota.

It showed a beautiful pond, ducks flying in, and a nice deer.

It read, , if you vote Democratic, this pond will stay, but you can not hunt it, or use it.... If you vote Republican, it will get paved for another Wal Mart...

From: fdp
14-May-24
"if you vote Democratic, this pond will stay, but you can not hunt it, or use it.... If you vote Republican, it will get paved for another Wal Mart...".....yep......

From: Grey Ghost
14-May-24
Urban sprawl hasn’t affected the hunting in my area…yet. It’s only a matter of time, I reckon. Outfitting/leasing has, in a big way.

As I’ve said for years, landowners shouldn’t be able to capitalize on a public resource, like wildlife. I fully support their right to improve the habitat , and control who hunts their property. I do that on my land, after all.

I just don’t buy the argument that an exclusive private hunting lease is a financial agreement for access only. That access wouldn’t have any value without the wild game. The landowner/outfitter profits directly from the wildlife, not the access.

Landownership does’t imply ownership of the wildlife that happens to live there. I cringe every time I hear a landowner say “my deer” or “my….whatever species”. I consider the wildlife on my property a bonus to owning acreage, not a resource to profit from.

14-May-24
so again fdp...what is your solution?

are you suggesting we should infringe on personal property rights? do hunters bickering on bowsite have any effect whatsoever on whether that pond will remain or become a wal mart? if so...explain how.

From: fdp
14-May-24
Ricky.....I don't have a definitive solution....and don't know any one who does....including you. But what I do know is that pretending that the threat to the loss of the privilege to hunt is only coming from one side or is only being advanced using one strategy is misguided. I do what I am able to do on a local level to promote the shooting sports, and to introduce new participants to hunting when I have the opportunity. My theory being that the effort has to start at the local level and grow from there. The more people that we can get interested in participating, the more people we have who can help defend the privilege, and the more people that we will have who will be interested preserving land to hunt on. You know that I am not suggesting that personal property rights should be infringed up on....but that is an easy position for you to take, so I'm not shocked at all. But just as an example in the last few years we have had large tracts of land that have come up for sale. Land that would have been ideal for hunting, hiking, etc. But, neither the county nor the state made any real effort to buy any of that land and set it aside for public use. Instead it was purchased by developers who bulldozed it, subdivided it, and built houses on it. The Nameless Valley Ranch for instance no longer exists in the way that most folks my age who live around here can remember it. All the wildlife has been pushed out, and the creek has been pretty much ruined. The property owners have the right to do that...but had the county or the state bought it......they would have had rights as to how to use it as well. And that's just one small example of the type of thing that goes on every day in every state in this country that is leading to the demise of our privilege to hunt. And it isn't political party centric. There has to be some kind of value that appeals to a large percentage of the population that is associated with opportunities to hunt being available whether that is based on actual participation or just on the continuation of the tradition/heritage. Right now there is no such appeal and there hasn't been for a long time. And that is true of more than one political party,

From: Nyati
14-May-24
Grey Ghost, what about a farmer that plants corn on their land using a public resource like the sun, the atmosphere, and rain to grow corn. I would suggest that the sun, the atmosphere, and rain are all common public resources. But a farmer uses them to grow a private crop that he then sells and makes a profit on. Should the farmer be forced to give part of his crop away to people that don’t own land to grow a crop on ?

From: Grey Ghost
14-May-24
Nyati, that’s a pretty silly question, IMO, on many levels. Too many for me to respond to, right now, as I’m about ready to hop on my boat. Enjoy your day arguing politics. I’m going fishing.

From: Nyati
14-May-24
Good luck fishing!

From: KY EyeBow
14-May-24
If y'all think politics doesn't have a significant effect on damn near everything you come into contact with, your head is too far up your ass to pull it back out. The outdoors is just one piece of the pie. Politics will not be improved by typing away on your PC, but if you get to know your local politicians and educate them on the real issues impacting all of us, there is a chance to improve.

From: Mint
14-May-24
Urban sprawl is directly correlated to our immigration policies. They have to live somewhere.

From: spike78
14-May-24
You guys are missing the point of the post. There is an Agenda going on by our government and if you watch the video it is greater of an issue that you are all discussing. In other words you will see the true reason for this alleged climate change bs.

14-May-24
"Ricky.....I don't have a definitive solution....and don't know any one who does....including you."

youre right...i dont have "the" definitive solution but i have "a" solution...as it pertains to legislation regarding the preservation of our hunting heritage.

my original statement...

"the most important thing hunters can do is vote in their own best interest. as long as hunters keep voting for democrats...they will do so against their own best best interests. it truly is that simple."

...is sound in my opinion. all the rest is completely outside the realm of a hunters control unless you are referring to what one hunter decides to do with their own property. surely...hunters having a difference of opinion on a website is not going to convince a landowner to out to a developer...and it sure as heck isnt going keep the state from purchasing land in order to keep it available for hunting.

actually...leasing ones land for additional income might just be what prevents that land from becoming a wal mart.

From: fdp
14-May-24
"hunters having a difference of opinion on a website is not going to convince a landowner to out to a developer...and it sure as heck isn't going keep the state from purchasing land in order to keep it available for hunting."...and there was never any statement made that suggested anything of the sort.....but what is absolutely factual is that the threat is NOT unique to one party, or one strategy of eroding the opportunity. It's just easier for most folks to take offense with one party then it is for them to single out the individuals within that party that are promoting the agenda that creates the threat. But yes...YOU have to vote the way that feel is in your "own best interest" just like everyone else. Doesn't mean everybody agrees with that being solely against one party or the other though.

14-May-24
"...and there was never any statement made that suggested anything of the sort....."

actually there was...

"many hunters do not get involved or contribute in any way"...a LOT of that is because as is regularly seen on this platform hunters are experts at ham stringing themselves and their cause due to mindless in fighting and nonsensical labeling."

im not going to go back and forth with you on this any more. you have your opinion...i have mine. ill just close by saying hunters would be wise to not vote for a candidate or a party that will act contrary to their self interests. everyone can choose which is which.

From: Saphead
14-May-24
Pretty logical stuff from Ricky here. Not the total answer but something. Chipping away at it so to speak. . 5 Somethings make a powerful end result. Need 4 more. There is a lot of land leased by the state from private owners in some states for the benefit of the hunting public. A pretty good something. There are some others.

From: Live2Hunt
14-May-24
"hunters would be wise to not vote for a candidate or a party that will act contrary to their self interests. everyone can choose which is which." Yes, yes and Yes!!!! A hunter voting for a Demo is like a vegan owning a meat plant. I will not side with any party that the majority or all of the anti-hunting groups side with.

  • Sitka Gear