Anyway, the idea was to generate some thought, and not to necessarily provide any pat answers… because the fact is, there aren’t any simple, singular solutions.

As Coues points out, hunters DO need to scream out and get involved to preserve our sport against actions that unfairly or unreasonably restrict us. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that only hunters have a narrow point of view… it’s a two-way street for sure!

And Cork, when it comes to the mountain lion there’s an awful lot to be said. I haven’t researched it in depth, but from what I have learned so far, it’s a real fiasco and a perfect example of what happens when sportsmen allow themselves to be divided by emotional rhetoric and misinformation (sounds a lot like the lead ban, huh?).

Wildlife management by the ballot box will be the end of sport hunting. We have to work to get a grip on it. But we also have to keep our arguments focused on the big picture. There is almost always more than one side to an argument. Just because our opponents are often irrational doesn’t mean we can be too.

Thanks again for the great comments in my absence. I’m home now, and as soon as I get some unpacking done, I’ve got some tales to tell!

As for the example of the gov’t trappers/hunters vs the public hunter, I would think there could be a win/win compromise on these situations.

Yes, the average hunter is not going to shoot a dozen piglets. They will either hold out for a big boar or look for a meat pig. Why can’t we use the fees generated from these hunters to pay for the gov’t to clean up the rest of them? Public hunters on selected days, gov’t hunters come in on the the other days and do their work. Not only is it more cost effective, the meat from the most choice game gets used instead dozed into a mass grave or left to rot. Gov’t rarely, if ever, salvages meat during their erradication efforts.

Wolves – It’s one thing to try and restore and repair mistakes made in the past regarding animals such as the wolf and Condor. That’s great and all, but….we know that that is not the ONLY reason some groups want to see these animals flourish. In many cases, these animals are being used for political purposed to attack hunting, weaken your right to own and use a firearm, and restrict your access to public lands.

Here in Arizona, the Game and Fish Dept wanted to get rid of a lion that was killing way too many Desert Bighorns in the Kofa National Wildlife Preserve. They planned on killing this lion, but a law suit was filed that stopped the killing for several months. In the meantime, the lion kept killing sheep. The Kofa was formed as a preserve for the sheep, not for lions. Yet, a power hungry group of people tried to force their ways on everyone and the end result was a lot of dead sheep and eventually a dead lion. The same group wanted all of the man made water tanks and drinkers removed from the preserve. Their objective ? No water…no sheep or mule deer….no hunters (the ultimate goal).

Just look at the fight these groups are putting up in Montana and Idaho to keep the flourishing wolf on the ESL. It’s not about the wolf anymore, it’s about the control and power it gives one group of people over another.

When these people succeed in removing hunters from the equation, they won’t stop there. Next will be the
“birdwatching, hiking, getting the kids out of the house and into open land” crowd that will targeted. They will claim that all human encroachment on wildlands is detrimental to animals such as the wolf, grizzley, and condor. KEEP OUT.

So, yes, I agree we need to be much better about realizing we are not the only players on public lands, but we can’t just sit on the sidelines and watch either. We need to RESPECTIVELY voice our opinions and try to work out agreements that allow the most people to use our public lands for a variety of different activities, while still protecting them from abuse.

I suppose that really isn’t necessarily what we’re talking about here, though, is it?

From my experiences in Michigan, where the deer population is way too high, I think it all comes down to individual perspective a lot of the time. We have hunters, who may spend two days in the woods all year, end up not seeing any deer, and decide that the deer numbers are way “low” when even my own trailcam surveys could tell them differently.

With that in mind they make their decision that the local DNR is off their rocker and shouldn’t be allowing the number of doe tags per year that they do allow. They think, simply because they aren’t seeing deer, that the population has dwindled when more time in the woods, or paying attention to the surrounding crop damage, would tell them otherwise.

All of us hunters need to be a little more open-minded when it comes to sound wildlife management. To use my example, we need to realize that we might not see as many deer as we normally do (we were seeing them because they were way overpopulated and at unhealthy herd levels), but that not seeing as many deer is going along way to improve the herd and improve our chances of seeing mature deer. Plus, it’s better for everyone involved – the deer, the hunters, the farmers, etc.

I know I’m only using one example, in one area of the country, and I’m not trying to be narrow-minded about my view point, but I think examples such as this can be found across the country, including the wolf example you mentioned. Hunters tend to be all about me, me, me, and that isn’t getting anything done.

Excellent post, Phillip. Very intriguing! I feel a post coming on myself.

Would love to read more of your comments on the problem we have in CA with mountain lions. Yes, I say, “problem” because unlike other states with a healthy population, Fish and Game has been unable, because of politics not available population control practices, to do anything.

My experience with sound and unsound conservation practices that occur either because of pandering to the antis like the Mountain Lion Foundation or hunters who want to get a deer even if the area/zone can’t provide it without damaging the breeding pool.

As a result we have some of the worst deer populations in the West, eventhough the terrain is available, such in areas of Sonoma County hammered by coyotes and cougars over the last 15 years. And we have a desert bighorn sheep herd in SoCal in danger of extinction, solely because of cougars.

I find it funny that groups like the Nature Conservancy would have us take the land back to what it was before the “Europeans” arrived. But, it actually seems they’d like to bring it back before the Native Americans.

From my research I started as a columnist for the San Mateo Times in 1994, I’ve learned that not an animal was not stewarded by the first arrivers in America. Just locally in Central CA there were the Chumash who burned hills for the improvement of feed for deer. They also hunted and used everything from grizzlies, cougars, seals, otters, salmon and steelhead. Balance was through Man’s interaction, not through abstinence.

Or, how many know how delighted the indigenous were when the first Spanish arrived with their cattle, because the trees that covered so much potential grazing land were cut and burned to offer that grazing land, which also led to an explosion in deer herds?

And now as budgets cuts become worse, DFG isn’t even thinking of conducting the research necessary to convince a judge to open up hunting of mountain lion in CA…it’s going to be interesting seeing how the economy and political/non-biological research advised measures continue over the next 3 years.

As for elk, well, my favorite elk hears to hunt up near McCall and the Frank Church Wilderness were pounded by wolves. If Fish and Wildlife had planted wolves more indigenous, instead of the Canadian timber wolves, it wouldn’t have been so disastrous…thankfully they’ve at least started opening up a season, but hunting an elk is a whole lot easier than hunting a wolf, which brings us back to the problem: not enough hunters, either for being an active participant in conservation or as voters.

…Frankly I also get tired of hearing kids ask: “Does DFG still shoot cougars, wolfs and coyotes from helicopters?” No, I say, except for the remoteness of Canada and Alaska, where economies and livelihoods of residents is effected by the number of moose and caribou, they haven’t used that practice since the late 1960s. Yet, it’s these old films from the 1970s, films I watched in school as a child, that are still used to depict the predator populations of now.

Cheers,
Cork