Skip to main content

View Diary: Hunters Versus Tree-Huggers: Why Don't They Like Each Other? (57 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually hunters are about 100% behind most (7+ / 0-)

    environmental issues, like climate change, or protecting public lands, and we do the lions share of caring and protecting endangered species.

    The flip side of the coin isn't often true. Are environmentalists 100% behind most hunting issues? No, some of the most prominent environmental groups work to end hunting, and year after year make the dirty dozen anti hunting list.

    1. Humane Society of the US (animal rights actually)

    2, Center for Biologic Diversity

    3 PETA (more animal rights)

    4 Defenders of (certain kinds of) Wildlife

    5 Sierra Club

    the other 7

    Just today CA signed into law a measure to not allow their specialists in managing wildlife, their own Fish and Wildlife Department to not be able to make their own decisions on how best to manage mountain lions.

    In short, anti hunting, anti science based management, those are the types of activities that earn the ire of hunters.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:15:42 AM PDT

    •  Animal Welfare not Environmentalism (5+ / 0-)

      The Humane Society, PETA, and most of the others on the 'dirty dozen' list are not environmental groups at all. They are animal welfare groups. Their mission is to (supposedly) reduce suffering of individual animals. This is different than caring about environmental health and biodiversity/ecosystem preservation. Environmental goals often conflict with animal welfare goals, especially when it comes to control of feral domestic animals or exotic invasive species.

    •  Hyperbole (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smokeymonkey, grover

      First, nearly all environmentalists are OK with regulated hunting.  In fact, I wish you would come out and shoot more of the deer that are overgrazing Illinois and Wisconsin.

      We differ on a few things.  I personally think it would be good for hunters to stop using lead bullets in areas in which lead toxicity is the leading cause of death for California Condors.  And yes, that is true - actual biologists with the AZ fish and game have determined that lead poisoning is the lead cause of death of this species.

      We differ on the wisdom of shooting more than half of all the wolves in Idaho. What happened last year was not rational management.

      I don't see anything 'fun' about shooting a skunk or coyote, or other animal that you're not going to eat.  Some species may need to be "managed", but I reserve teh right to feel contempt for people who get off on killing what they don't eat.

      But you want to shoot elk, migratory waterfowl, deer, etc? You want to enjoy the wilderness along with those of us who don't hunt?  Sure.  We have common cause.  I would avoid this red herring that environmentalists are out to get hunters.  When it comes to endangered species conservation, well, we may differ.  On most other things, we're allies.

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:08:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I read up to the point where you started telling (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Utahrd

        me what to do. Like in your third sentence.

        Do you support hunters or not? Just because you don't understand modern wildlife management that's not my fault. You are contemptuous of hunters. There is the issue in a nutshell.

        “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

        by ban nock on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:14:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry you feel that way (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          grover, Mark Mywurtz

          But I disagree.  I am not contemptuous of hunters.  I think the contempt, actually, is coming from the other direction.  We've played this game before:  You claim to be the expert on what you call "modern wildlife management" but when people produce actual studies that rebut what you say, like the AZ state study that conclusively demonstrates the link between condor morality and lead munitions, there's crickets.

          I want evidence-based wildlife and land management that protects and preserves biodiversity. That's consistent with regulated hunting.  

          “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

          by ivorybill on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:41:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And furthermore (5+ / 0-)

          there is a long tradition of subsistence hunting.. a long and honorable tradition of respecting the animal that you then eat.  I am not at all contemptuous of that - in fact, I respect it. This is a deeply, fundamentally human activity.  A lot of what and who we are as a species is related to our being hunters during our evolutionary history.  I actually take offense at you stating that I am contemptuous of hunters who are conscious of what they are doing, who are hunting with some degree of respect for the animal.

          Now, that's a different matter than "hunters" who look at animals as targets and enjoy the challenge of target shooting - without much concern or knowledge or respect for the thing they shoot - well, that is a modern disease.  That's a kind of alienation from nature that I find a bit pathological.  

          “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

          by ivorybill on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:11:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you say, (0+ / 0-)
            I reserve teh right to feel contempt for people who get off on killing what they don't eat.
            There are very good conservation reasons to hunt or trap any animal that is legal to do so, otherwise it wouldn't be legal. State Fish and Wildlife Agencies implementing policies developed with their extensive background in science based management are the people I look to for guidance in what is the best policy.

            Single studies can and often do represent the opinions of the person conducting the study. I leave it to professionals to look at all the studies in their totality and come up with good laws and policies.

            Some report from Arizona, or someone's opinions about which species, just don't measure up against very successful and eight decades long methods of science based management by Wildlife Biologists. Yet you reserve the right to feel contempt, your words.

            “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

            by ban nock on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:02:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  It's true ban nock. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ivorybill
          A comprehensive study led by environmental toxicologists at the University of California, Santa Cruz, shows that California condors are continually exposed to harmful levels of lead, the principal source of that lead is ammunition, and lead poisoning from ammunition is preventing the recovery of the condor population.
          http://news.ucsc.edu/...

          This species was virtually exinct with less than two dozen birds in existence.

          We brought them back from the edge. But that massive effort is for naught as long as we allow them to be be poisoned by lead now that they're back in the wild.

          "We will never have a self-sustaining wild condor population if we don't solve this problem," she said. "Currently, California condors are tagged and monitored, trapped twice a year for blood tests, and when necessary treated for lead poisoning in veterinary hospitals, and they still die from lead poisoning on a regular basis."

          © grover


          So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

          by grover on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:06:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm fully aware of the study from santa cruz (0+ / 0-)

            are you aware of the lawsuit arising from efforts to make their data available to the public?

            One study from one University, who won't show their data doesn't convince me. The CA Dept of F+W was doing their own review, a bill was introduced in a hurry to take advantage of anti gun sentiment via Newtown before CA could even give their recommendations. The National Audubon Society and the Peregrine Fund failed to support the latest CA lead ban bill last I heard.

            I'd suggest a look at the link the diarist provided. There are two sides to the story. In CA when you can't get scientists to support you, or not scientists charged with caring for species, you go to the ballot box and referendum.

            Jerry Brown also signed into law legislative rules about how the CA FandW is to manage mountain lions yesterday or today.

            If you look at who funds the advertising for this legislation it's the top five or so folks on my list of dirty dozen. Animal rights, and reactionary anti hunting orgs.

            “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

            by ban nock on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:24:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Lead shot is a worse problem in wetlands (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        surfbird007, ivorybill

        everywhere there is a lot of hunting.

        Time to get rid of lead shot.

        •  I think lead has run its course (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LakeSuperior

          I voluntarily gave up lead shot and use steel even for upland birds where it is not required.  Haven't had any problems.  

          As I replace fishing tackle I'm also converting all of my sinkers to nontoxic metals as well.  Unfortunately, that really hasn't caught on much, so it's very difficult to find non-toxic weights at smaller shops around here.  Believe it or not, Wal-Mart (blah) is about the only place in my area you can find a variety of nonlead alternatives.  

          I have personally bagged and tagged loons and eagles that were autopsied as lead poisoning victims, so I know it's happening out there.  

          Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

          by Mark Mywurtz on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:49:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  ivorybill: a skunk or coyote is a threat (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ivorybill, ban nock

        in human areas. Both destroy livestock (eggs, chicks or other poultry, and pets) and both carry rabies. Inappropriate behavior by either is a danger sign.

        LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

        by BlackSheep1 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:12:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure. I'm not against shooting problem coyotes (0+ / 0-)

          Controlling populations is fine, necessary, etc. I reserve the right to feel discomfort at people who take pleasure in shooting animals just for the sake of shooting them - because it's fun or because its a challenge to shoot at a moving target. To each his own, but I have the right to think that's disordered. I'm not going to try to make it illegal.

          “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

          by ivorybill on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:50:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the coyotes will run (0+ / 0-)

            if you interrupt their depredations. To my mind that's not enough to ensure future livestock won't be at high risk.

            Otherwise I don't think we're in disagreement.

            LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:48:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I wish you were right about (0+ / 0-)

      the climate change thing.  I actually think hunters have a long way to go on this one.  Lots of conservative-types hunting.  

      Personally, I'd imagine that if you polled hunters and asked them whether anthropogenic climate change is a problem, you'd get lower numbers than you would with the general population and certainly much lower than among non-hunting environmentalists.  

      Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

      by Mark Mywurtz on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:41:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site