In the hunting industry, there are hundreds if not thousands of issues.
So many issues in fact that it is hard to focus on all of them as a concerned sportsman and sportswoman. And what causes an even bigger problem is that as sportsmen and sportswomen, most of us do not want to spend all our time focusing on policy issues for the entirety of the year. Instead, we want to face whatever challenges threaten the things we love, deal with them, and then once they’re handled, go back to our hunting and fishing. We have proved that when we work together, we can accomplish great things and overcome many of the policies and issues that attack our industry. However, the trouble comes during that down time right after a victory.
It can be very daunting at times to keep up on issues in the industry and see the never-ending new anti-hunting policies and laws. Once one of them is over, there seems to be two more that take its place. It is hard to believe how so many new issues can be coming up and how so many people can be in favor of all of these. However, it is not just people but also the help of big organizations that are constantly pumping out these new laws to be voted on. These laws are seldom proposed by a grass roots type movement, but instead by a well-oiled machine working in this case to bring down the hunting industry.
I would like to interject at this point and say that I am not writing this to be a downer, however I’m sure that I sound like one right about now. My purpose for writing this is to remind hunters of the importance of being involved in these issues, even when it can seem overwhelming at times. And also to provide insight on one of the strategies that these organizations use to get so many laws and policies put up for a vote. Not that I am a professional in this field but these come from some personal experiences and views I have gathered on the subject.
I think one of the best ways to look at this is to divide people into three groups. You have hunters and people who fight for hunting rights, there are the voting citizens who will vote for or against the different laws that get proposed, and finally there are people who are against hunting and working to put laws and policy in place that negatively affect hunting. I don’t want to put everyone into three different groups because I know that in the real world, there are a lot of different ways people act and think. However, for the ease of understanding the situation I believe this is a good way to look at it.
How do these three groups interact with each other when it comes to the legal battle of banning hunting and/or different methods of hunting? It all starts with the issue or law being proposed. Often these large corporations will use the tactic of “throwing mud at the wall and seeing what sticks”. They can do this because of their access to large amounts of money, which they can put into these massive campaigns for the laws and policies they are proposing.
These organizations will propose so many issues that eventually one of them is bound to grab the attention of voters and congress and start to gain momentum. Now certainly they are not doing anything illegal by doing this. The problem comes in with the people who vote. The reason why some of these proposed laws start to get support from the public is because of the different methods of take. Overwhelmingly the public supports people’s ability to go hunt legally. However when you start to get into specific methods of take you see the percent of support start to dwindle.
For example if you asked a population of people if they are in support of Americans having the right to hunt deer, overwhelmingly they would say yes regardless of them being hunters or not. However if you ask those same people if they think it’s okay to hunt deer with dogs or use bait to hunt deer many of the people who said yes before would now say no. It seems as though the American population is overall okay with the idea of hunting however when you ask them about specific methods of take, which they may not fully understand, they begin to dwindle in support.
The interesting thing is that many hunters would also not be in full support of all methods of take. There are many hunters, for example, who refuse to hunt over bait. We all have our own reasons for why we do or do not do things when it comes to method of take. However before we vote to legally ban certain methods of take, we should probably try to better understand the implications that come with it. It is still very possible to allow people to do things that you may not want to do yourself.
A good example of the implications that can come from the banning of specific methods of take is what happened in Oregon in the year 1994. Under the title Measure 18, Oregon voters passed this law which banned hunting black bears using dogs or bait. It is important to note that in 1996, Measure 34 was voted down which would have given full authority to manage fish and wildlife to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. This is important because instead of biological issues being voted on by voters who have personal bias against certain issues, decisions would instead have been made by the commission which consisted of wildlife biologists acting on scientific reasoning rather than personal emotions. This does not mean the public would have no say, just that these issues would be solved using science over personal opinions and emotions.
It is important that when it comes to wildlife issues especially, we place more value in the judgment of wildlife biologists and professionals who can evaluate and act based on science. The public should always have a voice and be able to express any issues they have with no consequences. However, when it comes to the way we manage our wildlife we need to be sure that our actions are based-on science and not emotional biases.
As long as these large organizations continue to have seemingly infinite amounts of money, we will need to continue to fight. It can certainly be hard to continue to stay focused on these issues, especially when they don’t seem to directly affect you. Remember that you are not just fighting for yourself but also for the future generations. As Doug Duren from MeatEater likes to say “it’s not ours, it’s just our turn” when speaking in reference to the wildlife and lands that we have the right to use. So to all my hunters and fellow men and women who support hunting – keep up the fight because we are all in this together. Remember, get out there, be safe, and have fun!