Contributors to this thread:
You have 3 mins - what would you say?
At the CPW Commissioners-meeting this week, HSUS will be presenting to ban Mtn Lion hunting in Colorado.
At these meetings, the public can attend and sign up to speak for 3 mins
If you attended and had your 3 minutes of fame, what would you say?
Predatory management is needed for a healthy population of game and non game species. The CPW is tasked with managing ALL those species and I expect you to carry out your task.
Stress leaving wildlife management decisions to the CPW and that they be based on science and not emotion. Lion hunting has proven to be an activity and tool that fits within Colorado's successful management system.
When California shut down lion hunting years ago, the lions started hunting humans in urban areas. More than a few trail runners fell prey to immature cats. So would HSUS call these people collateral damage? No fear in predators starts with no hunting. Nature is about balance. Colorado has a healthy lion population, why change that? Not smart biology to leave large predators unchecked.
Any predator will eventually be controlled by the prey, usually drastically. By hunting, because we are predators that are controlled by regulation, cougar populations can be regulated. This ultimately leads to a healthy prey/predator population. Without management, animals overpopulate available habitat with inevitable crashes and fatal human/livestock encounters. Hunters contribute to conservation and truthfully are the only management tool fish and wildlife agencies have. The alternative is to let overpopulation with starvation and disease take over. Both extremely cruel when one actually witnesses it in the wild. Every living being in this world lives at the expense of another living being. It is funny that no anti-hunting organization is fighting to save rats. Pretty and cuddly are worth more than ugly.
1. The management of wildlife should be left up to the cpw and it’s biologists.
2. Government loves money. You can not deny that a lack of predator control will lead to more predators, which will lead to more predation. More predation = less tags. Less rags = less guys coming from out of state, not only buying tags, but also gas, groceries, lodging, beer and food, etc. If you have some numbers to back it up, even better.
3. Look at spring bear. The bear population has gotten to the point that the government is paying sharp shooters to kill bears. How does that make sense when you could charge people to do it, plus use the meat for food rather than waste.
Lots of examples here in oregon why it’s a bad idea!!
Equally important is how you say it. Don't speak too quickly. Don't rush. Don't dress in camo and wear an NRA hat. Present a well-reasoned, rational argument as others have said above. You're doing a service to the hunting community if you speak. Thanks!
To sway people you have to first find common ground ie...mountain lions are incredible animals and part of a incredible ecosystem....but like it or not man has to have a hand in that ecosystem for the best if it... I can understand why there are forces that might see eliminating lion hunting as good the move as best I get it ..but then elaborate that truly hunters are the biggest proven lovers of wild animals.... on the balances of it....three minutes is not enough to get people to think of much other than what they already know... and think
Your target audience is the middle ground people you already have the hunters and never will get the cat huggers certainly not in 3 mins...you have to take the approach of being reasonable keepers of wildlife that hunt...
please listen to the biologists!!
Unfortunately, if the last time with the bears is any indication, the biologists will say nothing.
That is a problem I have worked for govt agencies and you know the bosses or the bosses bosses want something to go a certain way you keep yer trap shut it is the age old self preservation thing...you know your the lion guy and next yer counting zebra mussels
Based on the Commission meetings I have attended in the past, especially if there are a lot that have signed up to testify, and with limited time allotted for this issue, the CPW spoke person will/may announce that only a few from each side of the issue will be able to testify.
This public petition most likely is the first step in the 2 step process and if the Commission elects to accept the petition and move forward with it, there will be a 60 day period of public comment prior to a final. The commission could deny the petition from day one and not move forward with it. If that would happen, I would expect the issue will be places up for public vote through a public ballot initiative if enough public signatures can be obtained. I would also expect regardless of what action taken by the CPW Commission, the issue will be headed for a ballot initiative anyway.
Just my guess. Paul
If if get to the ballot like about anything anti hunting in Colorado its all over but the cryin..
California is now killing more problem cats than hunters were taking each year prior to the ban and that’s a fact. And they’re paying lots of money to kill those cats. It’s a huge money loser for CpW to pay to kill cats that hunters will pay them to hunt. Either way, cats die. It’s just a question of who pays for it.
Also point out that science needs to prevail, not emotion.
Also point out that these folks who are sponsoring this also want deer and elk hunting banned and this is just an incremental step towards that.
IDW like both points if somebody has three minutes it better be impactful....many of these people are blinded by their hate for hunting no matter what the consequences
HSUS WON'T stop in their goal to screw over hunting, farming, etc --- they'll go where they can appeal to the left-leaning states in our society (California was first)!
We in Arizona made history in 2018 when HSUS pulled up stakes from their anti-mountain lion/bobcat hunting campaign here in our state! It took a lot of people coming together (anchored behind the scenes by a well thought out plan and some serious $ from a few major state conservation groups).
Here's a link that might be useful: https://www.arizonaelksociety.org/issues/379-decline-to-sign ... (you may need to copy-and-paste this)
You need to realize that this threatens Colorado's ENTIRE hunting tradition to its core! Act, and attack, accordingly!!!
Perfect balance in nature is an illusion. Populations rise and fall in a complicated 'dance' as predator and prey affect each through cycles of abundance and scarcity. Good decisions must be based on long-term studies and adjusted as short-term numbers change. A good management system needs to be flexible. I would hope that management decisions are based on the need to maintain a healthy balance while acknowledging that it is always a work in progress. And that management authority is granted the flexibility they need.
Someone needs to include that mountain lion is excellent table fare and will be consumed the same as any other big game animal.
Just look at California to see why you shouldn’t let politics, special interest groups, and emotions come before sound scientific wildlife management. Thank you.
I think that it is a combination of what has been posted. 1. Science: “Allow game managers to manage” the ecosystem vs banning one element of hunting or the other.
2. Economics: “Either way, cats die. It’s just a question of who pays for it.” This has to be fully developed on who pays for conservation, insurance cost of animal collisions, and must be approached holistically vs a single animal or singular methodology.
3.Define the complete HSUS agenda: This is the long fight (Hunters Rights) “Also point out that these folks who are sponsoring this also want deer and elk hunting banned and this is just an incremental step towards that.”
Make sure your biologists and commissioners are 100% behind you. We went through this trying to get just 50 bobcat permits in NH and lost because F+G played politically correct and pandered to the Democratic libs in Southern NH.
Midwest beat me to it we really need to make sure we include the meat consumption so they cannot claim this is just a trophy hunt and that by state law all meat must be salvaged for human consumption.
Cnelk…..in your memo it says....."please be respectful of CPW and the commission....they are not our enemies and we need them on our side".
If you have to state to the hunting community that CPW is NOT your 'enemy' I think you have already lost the battle.
Look at the west coast states and what has happen to them and the over population of mountain lions, you would think the science & conservation what out weigh politics and drama of what the anti hunting groups want. Colorado will be over whelmed with cougars and problem within a year. See what the rural counties of Colorado would want, not just Denver.
If it’s possible , I would read the minutes of HSUS’s argument in Arizona. Get an idea for what their approach in Colorado will be...., Counter punch , whenever they said something inaccurate or false.... have an Appropriate response . Research their position and be prepared to counter their argument with science , facts , and use emotion if that’s what gets through to them.
And thanks in advance for taking up the fight.
Possibly discuss potential for Law suites to be filed for any human death do to Mt. Lion attack as it will be a problem just as it is in California.
is right on. As long as lion populations are healthy and there is a harvestable surplus, wildlife agencies should determine harvest quotas and allow hunting.
I would say, “ where are all the concerned hunters and why haven’t they shown up to speak”?
Who’s on first for hunters?
Who’s going to be the spokesperson?
What are any of the State or National hunting organizations doing? Who are their representatives and what will they say? CBA, SCI, BGF, MDF, MF, RMEF, B&C, P&Y, RMBS, etc?
If they aren’t mobilized, why not?
Is the CPW obligated by law to let those people make the presentation? They should have no input at all on game management decisions.
"I'm a hunter, it's the way I was born, not just something I choose. I have all the characteristics of a hunter/predator. I've evolved this way over millennia. There is strong evidence that our basic evolution was determined largely from hunting, even the development of language was due to hunting. All other animals also evolved either being hunted or being the hunter, or both. And all have always been hunted by man. We are part of the reason they are what they are. It is the basis of all life and existence.
Other groups, like LGBT, have gained protected status by claiming real or imagined arguments that they were born the way they were even when physical attributes contradict their claims. Any biologist can recognize me as a hunter from my physical attributes. I DEMAND equal protected status because of the way I was born. The only regulations concerning hunting that could effect my right to be what I am should be based on science, following the North American Wildlife Management Model, NOT emotional public perception and referendum. I DEMAND that ALL hate speech targeted at hunting and hunters be legally declared just that - HATE SPEECH, and prosecuted as such."
We could start there.
It won’t matter what you say. These people blatantly ignore facts and are so detached from the natural world that they have not one opinion based on anything other than misguided emotions.
That's what some laws are for- to protect the rights of minorities. We already have a successful blue print. Many of our arguments for protection parallels theirs, and if anything are stronger and more supportable. Their protection only benefits them, protecting us benefits us but also helps protect habitat and truly protects all wildlife. This is demonstrable from the unparalleled success of the North American Wildlife Model, instituted and supported mainly by hunters and hunting. Doesn't matter what the nut jobs think. We only need to convince the majority of voters.
I had/have something prepared as an independent concerned sportsman of Colorado.
I'm struggling with the "who are we really speaking to" at such an event "IF" given the chance to actually comment? There are no real "Intermediates" at such an event. Its either way to the right (Hunters) or way to the left (HSUS Supporters) so who are we really targeting? The DOW? The Wildlife Commission?
+1 to Adventurewriters first post. But Caz brings up a good point, who are we trying to sway if the ones that show up are just hunters and antis? The only answer I can assume is the Commission itself. Anybody on here know the sitting bodies and how they feel about the subject on a more personal basis?
The people to sway are the same ones HSUS are trying to sway.
Typically, it the the ones in the 'middle'
Don't know exactly what SCI is doing publicly or behind the scenes, but I have a hunch they are involved in the fight.
I would say:
I am a predator. Don't cut me out of the equation because that is what HSUS is trying to do. It is not about a deer or elk dying, or "restoring nature" it is 100% about stopping man from hunting. If that is not true, then let the HSUS spokesman tell us all for the record that he is in favor of allowing men to hunt and kill animals.
I would testify to the Commission. ie, --- BEWARE!, The Humane Society of the United States is the head of the snake and this "Ban Mt. Lion Hunting" presentation is just the tip of the iceberg, i.e, their agenda and it is a serious warning, like a shot across your bow, that if the CPW Commission and the CPW staff does not conform to their wishes, they will most-likely proceed with a Ballot Initiative and force the issue.
Their overall agenda is to ban all hunting and evidence of that is on their web page for all to see. Subtle as it is-- it is real! This same person who will make this presentation, Dr. Wielgus, now retired director of Large Carnivore Conservation Lab at Washington State U. is part of their agenda.
The HSUS web page states: "Mt Lion habitat is threatened by human development ( we can all agree on that) but then they pour on the emotion, IE, "the cats are also trapped IN ROADSIDE ZOOS, KILLED as potential threats to other animals or humans, and HUNTED AS TROPHIES. A particularly cruel and unsporting hunting technique is "hounding" in which packs of radio-collared dogs chase a mt. lion into a tree or into a rock ledge, allowing the hunter to shoot the cat a close range." They go on to say later, "Mt Lions depredation has even been shown to reduce vehicle collisions with deer."
And even more EMOTION TO APPEAL TO THEIR FUNDING BASE,-- THEY CONTINUE TO STATE, "DID you know? While they ( Mt. Lions) have muscular legs, sharp claws and the ability to jump the height of a two story building, MOUNTING LIONS PURR JUST LIKE YOUR CAT AT HOME."
And then they state, " JOIN THE FIGHT TO END TROPHY HUNTING. Stand with us in condemning the killing of wildlife trophies, both in the US and around the world. Pledge to do what you can to end this cruel and unsportsmanlike pastime."
Commissioners, your CPW staff and biologists have completed a Colorado Mt. Lion study/research ie, "Supporting Document for Staff Presentation on Colorado Lion History, Research and Management".
After reading this document, I would highly recommend that controlled hunting of Colorado's Mt Lions continue to be part of the management objectives, as well as the use of hounds. Allow Colorado Parks and Wildlife and their educated and competent biologists and researchers to lead the way, and do not be influenced by outside sources and pressures to sway your judgement and decision.
Keep Colorado wild as in the past and use hunters as the prime management tool for all big game management objectives. No one else but hunters and fisherman have the ability, the passion, the resources to help and to be the major funding source for the CPW. Be strong and stand your ground and continue to manage the Colorado Mt Lions as in the past, with science and not with emotion.
My best, Paul Navarre, Ft. Collins Colorado
OK I've been hunting for awhile now, but in the last year I've really started to get into the "conservation" aspect of it and want to become more informed and involved.
In California the taxpayers are paying people to kill lions. In CO, the same is occurring with black bears. Both states are losing out on revenue and I'm assuming the (healthy and nutritious) natural resource is rotting away instead of being consumed by people.
CPW has made it clear they want CO to remain a state which provides a high amount of opportunities (presumably because the state appreciates the revenue).
Why is our government even entertaining this?
Because in a state that proclaims that, "all of the wildlife belongs to all of the state's people" then everyone, hunter or not, can have an opinion and a voice to be heard concerning the management of all of the wildlife. That voice may be in an editorial, a position in front of the CPW Commission, or through a ballot initiative.
You want to fight like crazy to keep lion hunting, even if limited. We found out in NH that when bobcat hunting and trapping was banned, getting it back for just 50 permits is impossible until the city slickers start to lose pets.
Won’t do much good at the Commissioners meeting, but need get ready to fight these creeps with lots of media.
This was last year in Utah.
We also have the jogger incident and a lion breaking into a house in Boulder and eating their pet.
Quote: "MOUNTAIN LIONS PURR JUST LIKE YOUR CAT AT HOME"
Interesting. I wonder if that author is aware of this statistic from the ASPCA's website: "Each year, approximately 1.5 million shelter animals are euthanized (670,000 dogs and 860,000 cats
I'm curious as to how an org can justify their opposition to scientific lion management, while at the same time supporting mass euthanasia of housecats?
Just thought someone attending the re-scheduled meeting, might find that info useful.