Skip to main content

View Diary: Hunters and Environmentalists: Why Don't They Like Each Other? (2) (35 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I was too (6+ / 0-)

    but on further reading it may be because of the activism and the split between the "preservers" and the "consumers". The growth of environmentalist brought people who wanted to protect every species at all costs, not considering the overpopulation of some species.

    There was a time when I didn't understand hunting at all. Bambi did it to us, IMO. I blame Disney.

    Hunters and anglers are the only reason we have wild and natural places left in our state, they are the only organizations with enough money and clout to bring about protection of the environment.

    For all the screaming that that some environmentalist do, they do not pay for the the nature they enjoy. Hunters and anglers buy licescense and join clubs and have fund raisers all intended preserve species or reintroduce species that have disappeared.

    The one thing that I don't like about hunter's groups is their absolute insanity about wolves. At least in my state they have spread misinformation on the number of elk that wolves have killed and taken 600k from the state legislature to "study keeping the state safe from wolves".

    Pure bullshit. First we have few if any wolves and if they want them gone the state could make money by selling tags instead of giving money to some crony. (small local rant)

    "Humidity built the snowman. Sunshine brought him down" John Prine

    by high uintas on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 07:49:41 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not entirely sure about this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      unfangus
      For all the screaming that that some environmentalist do, they do not pay for the the nature they enjoy.
      I see what you mean, in that environmentalists don't buy licenses before taking a hike.

      But we do pay entry fees and camping fees in state and national parks.

      We also join groups that fight for the environment, whether it be National Audubon Society, Sierra Club, or, more local to you, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

      In addition to these types of groups, we join local land-trusts and other organizations that are dedicated to purchasing open spaces and keeping them wild. Locally to me we have, for example, the Committee for Green Foothills and the Peninsula Open Space Trust.

      All of these groups do marvelous things to buy, protect, and preserve wildlands, and we do pay for that.

      Habit of eating have been found increased in people, they just need a sitting place where they can finish their hunger. -- spammer pauldavis 8/21/13

      by Senor Unoball on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 08:22:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think you are talking about Don Peay (0+ / 0-)

      Utah lawyer and fairly R wing. http://biggameforever.org/...

      A lot of the L side of the hunting crowd is pissed at his use of special permit hunt tags via Utah Division of Wildlife to generate funds to the tune of millions which he keeps most of the money and a large portion goes to Utah Fish and Wildlife. Fish and Wildlife likes it as revenue was decreasing due to slump in mule deer populations. It's unfair. So are the private landowner tags in my state.

      His problem with wolves, and I agree with him here, is that wolves eat 20 elk per year per wolf, which is still ok but wolves have never been successfully managed. If the Northern Rocky Mountains are able to get a handle on them and the lawsuits end I'd feel better. As long as success rates in MT  and ID are so low, and tag sales so depressed I can't see expanding the experiment elsewhere.

      To put it in money terms, in my state half of tag sales are out of state at more than $500 per. A modest wolf population of maybe 100 would cost us the same as 10,000 tags at one successful hunter per 5 tags, the current success rate. 10,000 tags at half out of state would lose us two and a half million in revenue. Not too much, maybe the educational program for kids. At ten times that number it would wipe out the Fish and Wildlife Department. We must have well over 50 biologists, maybe over 100 officers with background in science. Income to hotels, outfitters, etc, would just be devastating.

      Currently there is no state Fish and Game Department that wants wolves in their state. Not CA, or NY, or Ma, or anywhere else.  Don is doing publicly what legislators and Game Directors are trying to do quietly through negotiations with FWS.

      I don't like Don's politics, and I've no idea if he actually worked for the $s your legislature gave him, but I understand anyone's reluctance to go the way Idaho went.

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

      by ban nock on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 08:41:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site