Contributors to this thread:
Hunting Rights: Do U Feel Lucky?
If you were given the opportunity to make the decision on behalf of all hunters in the USA and Canada to "freeze" all our hunting regulations as they exist everywhere in the US / Canada at this moment in time for the next 50 years or to let things continue to evolve naturally which option would you select?
Would you keep what we have and not be exposed to any future gains, or erosion, in the regulation of the short or let things continue with the hope that over that half century our sport's gains will out-pace our losses?
No long dissertations needed, just note if you would Freeze Rights for 50 or Let Things Evolve.
I am Freezing and living with status quo as the net-net on how things are trending directionally would lead me to believe we will lose more than win in the next 50 years as society changes and wild places become less wild.
Gotta let them evolve. Lot of people pushing for better results.
Freeze it. We just lost grizzly hunting in BC...... More losses are sure to follow...
It does not matter what I think, the trend is set. Any potential gains are only very temporary. Buy private hunting land now, private is slowly becoming the last quality hunting frontier for many species. Given the choice I would hold the line, but that can and will never happen.
Freeze what we have now. WV is obviously much more optimistic than me! I certainly agree with him that a lot of good people are working for better outcomes but a lot of people are working for outcomes in the opposite direction as well. I'm certainly not in love where it seems to me the country is headed and I think that will be even more exaggerated in the post trump era.
Stay the same. I guess I have very little faith that today's society will make decisions based on science or logic vs emotions and greed.
I understand where you guys are coming from. But, I’m also certain that what we see and hear about is only what some people wants everyone to think.
We are lising the battle due to apathy. However, hunters are beginning to realize we must do the uncomfortable, right things to represent our way of life.
It is going to take education and motivation to win this. Both of which we are getting a lot better at as a group.
Freeze, it's only going downhill from here.
Hunting in some states will be gone in a few years. In my state, wardens exist only because of hunter's license fees. Ban hunting, no law enforcement. Poaching will be the norm. In Nfld, where I spend a lot of time, everyone in the remote village near us eats moose year round. Wardens are far flung, and people share and keep their mouths shut. As my grandfather said, rich people hunt for fun, poor people poach to survive.
Freeze, we have lost much in the last 50 years. Does anyone honestly think the next 50 years will improve?
In VA, opportunities have only increased. Dramatically, I'd say, since I was a boy. And I seriously doubted if I would ever live to see a G bear hunt in the lower 48... With the decreasing hunting demographic, I would roll the dice with letting things play out.
Freeze, for the very reason Brotsky gave. Every year, our population and culture shifts more urban, less rural . Enjoy it while you can...hunting as we know it will eventually go the way of the dinosaur.
First we must realize they are privileges....not rights.
Great point, so true, and the principle of the question remains unchanged.
I will always hunt regardless, but I say let them evolve.
The hunter in me says vote "Freeze" to protect the sport. The wildlife manager in me says vote "Evolve" to protect certain species already on downwards trends. The question is worded all or nothing....so the game manager wins. I vote "Evolve".
We are a dwindling minority in this Country.
FREEZE!!! The ability to Spring bear hunt in Ontario might end in 2020 after the 5 year pilot!! But I doubt it.
Although there are many flaws and there will be changes that will need to be addressed in the future, we still have it very good in the US and Canada.
Better than anywhere else in the world, hands down.
There have been several notable improvements recently that have been a huge success for hunters in the USA - wolf management has been turned over to the western states and grizzly bear hunting has been reopened. Unfortunately, grizzly hunting in BC has recently been banned.
I do not see things getting better for hunting with increased population over the next 50 years so my vote is To freeze things the way they are now.
Freeze them ... on so many levels ..... would like to see more opened up for Wolf management and Grizzly before that would happen however ... to many stupid people out there that have long lost touch with the natural world and conservation/wildlife management... its only going to get worse, we may be able to stave it off for a while I hope ...just look at the assault on our 2A and conservatives right now, the left has gone full blown bonkers ..... if we lose the midterms, it will get much worse and fast... if the Dems regain the House/Senate and the POTUS seat, kiss this country good by as we now know it, and with it hunting ....
Freeze. Non local users almost lost access to almost all of northern Alaska caribou hunts this year on federal lands. This wasn’t based on biology but a political group.
I base this on our current lack of political unity in getting anything done. If hunters can get organized it might be better. But we won’t get organized until it gets worse.
Hunting [and fishing] is a right as long as you choose to keep it so. When, where, and how much is the privilege...
Freeze it with the option to amend when game management practice creates a better situation because we all know politics will just mess it up even more.
FREEZE, I believe there will be many unwanted changes in the next 50 years. I don't believe many of the opportunities that I have had will be there for my son who is now 3 years old. I only see it getting worse in the long run!
FREEZE if the choice is black & white, one or the other.
Looks like 16 of 21 who took a position so far think today is more likely than not our high-water mark for the next 50 years.
"Looks like 16 of 21 who took a position so far think today is more likely than not our high-water mark for the next 50 years."
Actually, I do not disagree with the 16 at all. That wasn't the question though. If I read correctly, the freeze included all current regulations for the next 50 years. I expect that meant current quotas as part of the current regulations.
I've always been taught that hunters are stewards of the game resources. Prime example that comes to mind....as bad as things are now, I can't imagine what the Shiras moose population in Wyoming would be if they had frozen tag quotas in the mid-90's?
Maybe I'm taking the question too literally? If the only consideration was the sport itself, a freeze seems much less risky.
yes you are taking it too literally Pav! The point is do you believe are we going to have more / better or less / worse favorable hunting regulations in the future than we do today.
Freeze, not sure who phrased "change is good" but I tired of it.
If it were just for me, I would vote to freeze them. But for the younger and still coming generations, there must be some evolution unless we can also freeze the population and progress. I am not sure we would gain much by hunting deer in front of high-rise apartment buildings. Hunting as we, those with a little grey in our beards and hair, know it is doomed and there is not one dang thing we can do about it.
Freeze. There are gains occasionally but they don't offset the losses. In CO, we have lost Spring bear, bear baiting, running bears with hounds and trapping. More rifle seasons keep being added that run concurrent with archery season. We lost 20-25% of limited draw tags from the publicly available pool to set aside for landowners to sell or use.
The giant risk would be that at the end of the 50 years society may be at the point where they will be ready to drastically hurt hunting as soon as my freeze expires.
My brain is to gray... I want to say "freeze", thinking locally (MA). Technically, unposted land and legal here, unless there is a local (town) bylaw which has been enacted requiring written permission. The state books actually protect folks who leave land unposted legally in some ways MORE than those who post the land. Rules that date back hundreds of years, helping ensure folks could eat. I know folks from other regions have freaked out when I've noted that on here in the past, but that's the cultural norm here.
It's a huge gift as a hunter and fisherman.
That's slowly eroding, as more towns decide to implement written permission bylaws or no hunting (at all) bylaws.
So, I'm going to say freeze, because I dont want to lose that... even the scientist in me believes more mobile and adaptable management strategies would be best for the wildlife I love to watch, hunt and eat.
FREEZE, just look at what we have lost in the last 10 years! Shawn
Freeze, just look at how hard politicians are trying to transfer public lands to state or private ownership/management. Should that happen it could potentially cripple or all but end much of the hunting quality and opportunity we have in the west
I don’t know how anyone can read the tea leaves politically socially environmentally culturally or demographically and think that we are going to gain more then we will lose going forward
No need to worry, the natural need for balance resolves any issues. In the long run none of us will be here before the 50 year period is up. Takers will be takers no matter how much we struggle. Stop worrying and go hunt as long and as hard as you can while you can. God bless.
You gotta know when to hold 'em
We need to get Hunting Rights written into all of our State Constitutions to prevent hunting restrictions due to emotion. Regulation should be based solely on Science. There will never be a better time to get this kind of thing done and the Gun Rights crowd understands this much better than the hunting crowd. Sad!
Wyoming did just that a few years ago.
Bou, I agree that it is somewhat of a long shot but it is the only durable answer. We are only prolonging the inevitable with any other strategy and we currently waste time arguing about things like Crossbows rather than doing enough solid work on Hunting Rights. If you work smartly you can even sell breaking the Law. Gotta give the Libs some credit for their diligent but misguided work on how to beat our Immigration System.
clearly 90% of the folks not feelin' lucky so far.
IMHO, our hunting future, future hunter's, along with the species we hunt depend on sound and evolving game management and regulation's. Sensible game regulations have worked in hunter's (our) behalf for nearly 100 years.
The hunting I have experienced in my life is just fine to me. If hunting were frozen I shudder to think, if someone had frozen all hunting at an earlier date in history I wonder just how may species would be available in today's hunting world. Look at the species that were hunted to or near extinction.
Example: Ohio, as well as many other states may not have any or but a few, (if any) white tail deer to hunt. Kentucky, Pennsylvania would not have elk to hunt. Other states have similar examples. Personally I would never support a "Date in Time Freeze" just to risky.
I am more of the belief, "Be-careful of what you ask for"
Two words: "Voter Referendums"
So far in CO we've lost spring bear hunting, all baiting, hounds, the ability for the CPW to set bear season dates, and fur trapping due to voter referendums. The EVP of HSUS told me they will chip away at hunting via the referendum process in the blue states first.
Point well taken.
Perhaps when a "Voter Referendum's" are on a State Ballot, that is when the hunting and gun organizations, that are funded by hunter's need to really step forward with a strong lobby against these proposal's. I would include "elected state representative's" who ask for and receive our votes need to speak out for us, returning the support we have given to them. Additionally articulate pro hunting folks need to step forward publicly and oppose these attempts to ban hunting or place restriction's on sound game management.
We as hunters should be promoting our position's regarding hunting in a positive manner at all times.
Thanks again for a different perspective.
I'm with LBShooter, thought that very thing at first reading this post. I'll be hunting until the last day. Regardless. Hunting something...
how about going back in time??? The 80's and 90's were prime....
if wishes were horses we would all ride - freeze
buc i, when these items came on the ballot in CO we did have lots speaking out, ads, etc. But nothing we could do would mitigate the raw emotional appeal of the other side in their non-stop media campaign. Orphaned cubs crying, sad foxes crying with their little foot in a trap, hunting video clips of laughing fat guys shooting bears eating donuts out of a barrel. On election day we got slaughtered. Even some hunters were speaking out on the anti side in forums and in ads.
Given how awful the ads were, I'm still surprised we got 30% of the vote... Markarian from HSUS told me they have some amazingly disgusting clips from our own videos to use when they get around to putting bowhunting on a ballot somewhere.
It a lot easier to make the killing of something look bad than noble. We will never win a large scale pr battle. Never. We may put out a brush fire here or there but if they want to play arsonsist with the sport we will be up in flames
When those of us who act foolish or cruel and disrespectful of our quarry or ourselves as hunter's. We are giving the anti group fodder, painting all of us as unethical hunter's. Perhaps we are in deeper trouble than I thought
I can agree with your and Bou's, assessment's.
Sad for the future hunter's .
Ballot box game management should never have been supported by hunters in the first place. Of course they like it when it works in their favor, such as I 161 in Montana. But it will kill them in every other way, and is.
I 100% agree with Jaquomo.