Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

    The granola crunchers can do almost anything.  In Washington, they are
    about to put 28,000 people out of work and the tool they used is an
    owl that's gonna die off anyway.  
    
    Why do Washingtonians hate Californians?
    
    /brett

    If this is true then the next ill/logical step for the misguided
    Eco people in California is to aske for a special Deer thinning
    process as the lack of hunting of Deer will cause the Deer to
    over populate and eat the Eco's precious house shrubs. These
    people create more problems than they solve.
    
    Anyone want to chip in and buy an Island of some sort, so that
    we can own firearms, shoot and hunt in peace ?
    
    Red

    re: Island.
    
    Where do I send the check?

    Rep. 670.1:  Bret, your statement about an owl that may go extinct; and
    your attitude about it; Perpetuates the very NEGETIVE feelings about
    hunters(RESPONSIBLE HUNTERS ).  What I mean responible, are those peole who care
    give a damn about the sport of hunting, small things like the
    environment, the welfare of all creatures in general.  YEA, I HUNT; 
    I'm also a Senior Hunter Education Instructor....The way I feel about
    your comment, is that if more people LIKE YOU, expressed such
    WONDERFULY NEGETIVE ideas about our natural envirnoment; THEN WE(
    RESPONSIBLE HUNTERS) wouldn't have to worry about the ANTIS..BECAUSE
    YOUR DOING ENOUGH ALL BY YOURSELF!!!

      What alot of people don't realize is that certain creatures are going
    to become extinct on there own accord.  This is natures way.  Man is 
    not the only factor.  Species are always evolving.  Part of this
    evolution involves the extinction of old species and the establishment
    of new.  If the owl in question is one of those species which is
    slowly becoming extinct due to the evolutionary process, then who are
    we to intervene?
    
    Jeff

    Re:.4
    
    i don't know enough about the owl in question in regards to numbers
    and probability of making a comeback to comment, but it sounds like
    Brett wasn't talking about the loss of hunting habitat or whining about
    his favorite hunting grounds being taken away from him.  28,000 jobs
    is however nothing to take lightly.
    
    I know Brett and through this file I think we can all say he is not the 
    type of person you described in your verbal barrage.
    
    Fra

    Extinction thru the evolutionary process...NO WAY..Not since the ice
    age...Current extinction of animals in this day and age is purely the
    fault of man..But that isn't the point...With all of the pure
    Unadulterated garbage put out by the ANTI's; We as hunters,
    sport"people", and generaly lovers of the outdoors, must show and
    maintain a high standard of integrity.  We have so many diverse groups 
    attacking our way of life, that we have to show that WE aren't PIGS..
    slob hunters etc.  That is the point.
    
    
    Jeff 

      So are you saying that the evolutionary process is not an ongoing 
    entity?  
      Who is acting like pigs?  No one has called for the demise of any 
    species. Brett asked that we use a little common sense before we put
    28k people out of work.  You seem to be building strawmen here,
    infering that he has less then honorable intentions.  
      
    Jeff
    

    Evolution will continue...invetable....WE as hunters are considered
    pigs, by those groups who oppose hunting, guns, trapping...etc.  We as
    hunters don't need to add fuel to their fires.  When I read " In
    Washington, they are 28,000 people out of work and the tool they are
    using is an owl that's gonna die anyway"..As a hunter,
    environmentalist and a lover of the outdoors, what I read into the
    statement, was that jobs are more important than an entire specie of
    animal...What did you read?  Hey, sorry about the jobs; but these
    people will ba able to adapt, adjust or just plain move to a new locale
    where there is work.  To eliminate an entire specie, I.E. EXTINCT; How
    can one compare?  How does one justify the loss of an entire specie for
    jobs?
    
    Now, take an ANTI'S narrow minded point of view, and how they already
    feel about hunting and gun ownership..There is nothing like giving them
    more ammo. to attack OUR rights at the highiest levels..I.E.
    California.  
    
    I submit, without knowing the author of the statment, and infering less
    than HONORABLE intentions was not very nice..What I percieved the
    statement stated really burned my glutious maximus.  WE, don't need to
    give ourselves anymore bad press. There are enough people out there
    more than willing to do that for US.
    
    
    Jeff
    

    re:.9
    
    Excuse my ignorance here, but telling 28K people to move and
    adapt is alot to ask of anyone...  Your compassion is overwelming.
    Suppose you just got a job, packed your belongings, moved into a new 
    house and was told you would lose your job and home because of an owl... 
    I don't think the words "I can adapt" would be the choicest you would
    use.
    
    "they can find jobs"   I didn't realize looking for a new job was that
    simple, especially when 28K are all doing it at the same time.
    Obviously I must be living in a dream world.
    
    This statement "In Washington 28K jobs etc..." has nothing to do with 
    being a hunter or hunting.  I'm sorry, i don't agree with your views,
    and lambasting a fellow noter, and eluding that he is not a responsible
    hunter because of his statement about the livihood of 28K people is an 
    insult.
    
    If this species is that close to extinction, then they should be moved
    to a more suitable environment where their numbers can stabilize.
    
    Fra

    I was going to flame..but it would have been fruitless; completely..The
    way I view LIVING CREATURES, from a pure biological stand point is 
    OBIVOUSLY different than that of yours.  The point AGIAN was MISSED.
    But I can't seem to drive home that issue, it seems that it does not
    want to be addressed.  So, if you go into the Firearms notes file, you
    might understand what I'm trying to impress, not only from a biological
    view, but as an issue that is growing.  The article deals with people
    who could care less if your for the owl or against the owl.  It's the
    note dealing with Mrs. Brady and her pack of lies.  Let people like
    Mrs. Brady, as well as other animal protection/EXTREMIST groups read
    a statement from a hunter along the lines of or about the owl..You'll
    never hear the end of it...
    
    And for compassion,  I didn't heart nor read any inputs regarding any 
    types of efforts to re-locate these birds..What I read was kill the
    damn things and let progress continue....Hey lets keep building till
    there are no animals nor open spaces, and then let the real animals
    loose.
    
    Jeff
    

    Wow!  Looks like I missed a lot!
    
    First of all, I love nature; animals and the environment, as much as
    most of you do.  But having watched this owl farse from a local
    standpoint, it is ridiculous.  
    
    First off, the existance of the owl requiring old growth timber for
    survival is not proven.  It's a proven fact as much as "gun control
    stops crime" is a proven fact.  Very few wildlife managers are willing
    to commit that the preservation of old growth timber will stop the
    decline of the species in question.  Period.  Placing the owl on the
    endangered species list is a political move to stop clear cutting.
    Stating that the owl needs "old growth timber" for survival is step
    two.
    
    But okay, Jeff, let's just say that old growth timber *is* required
    to sustain the environment required for the survival of this owl.
    We could stop cutting all trees tomorrow.  The alternative (that
    has not been proposed by greenpeace and the forrest geurillas) is
    to rotate the forrests through thinning rather than clear cutting.
    
    Some people have a real aversion to clear cutting because it looks 
    un-nice.  However, as in the fire at Yellowstone, it is observed that
    it proliferates life due the fact that sunlight can get down to "food
    plants" that *most* animals require.  If you haven't been in a Pacific
    Coast forrest,I can tell you that it is not like walking in an "open"
    forrest like Maine or PA etc.  If you don't cut the timber, nature will
    take it down as we saw two summers ago in Yellowstone.
    
    These forrests in the NW are very well managed.  When you pass a clear
    cut, you will see public documentation describing when this area was
    cleard, how many trees were replanted and in what year it will be
    cleared again.  Most of the signs have dates that are way past your (and
    my) life expectancy.  Now, if we really can save the owl by changing
    from clear cutting to "thinning" then this can be done through
    legislation.  However, I suspect that the paper companies, who have
    become more responsible in the past 20-30 years in contrast to 100
    years ago, can probably be convinced to alter procedure to accomodate
    a good idea.
    
    As for jobs in the Penninsula area of Washington, South into Oregon, 
    you're talking about 28,000 people who live in tiny little towns,
    similar most of northern Maine.  Most of them have been out there for
    6 generations.  This is not a job.  It's a life.  They aren't going to
    easily move and find jobs.  Yup, it's easy to sit here in the big City
    of Seattle, or Boston, or Denver, or LA and say, "Those poor little
    owls, they have to be saved" but how are you going to feed these
    people (assuming again that stopping their livelihoods is going to
    make any difference)?
    
    Let us not be taken in by scare tactics in these situations.  People
    always want something to complain about.  "We'll find a cause if it
    kills us!"  And these people will always appeal to our emotions.  Let
    us be logical and look at the facts before reacting hastily.  It's the
    same situation for anti-hunting, anti-guns, anti-fishing and
    anti-logging.  Okay, stop me from hunting.  I'll survive...but I'll be
    disappointed for myself and for my children.  Stop a man from logging
    and you've just thrown him into poverty with little chance of recovery.
    Just be sure about the facts before going off half cocked in the name
    of nature.  
    
    Should we stop people from harvesting corn?????  After all, corn
    produces oxygen.   
    
    Lastly, before we become hypocrites, let's be real honest here.  The
    building that I'm sitting in right now did more to kill owls, deer, 
    hawks, ducks, mice, squirrels, elk you-name-it than any paper company
    is going to do.  Once they aren't allowed to harvest timber, you can
    bet it will be built on.  As long as the paper companies control that
    land, it's gonna be green.....clearings will be controlled and fires
    will be contained as best as possible.
    
    And right now there are 4 a$$4073s sitting in trees in Northbend, 20
    miles from here (where Dave Brown lives) stopping the trees from being
    harvested.  In Dave Brown's town, the families of those loggers (20?
    30?) will go without a paycheck this week.  Talk is cheap.
    
    /brett
    

    p.s. Fra and Jeff,
    
    Thanks for the vote of confidence!
    
    I won't let you down.  God, I love it out there!!!
    
    /brett
    
    pps Heck, I don't even shoot hawks and they eat all the rabbits and
    pheasant!  :-) :-) :-)

         I entered a response to this note in the fishing file, and
    this discussion has prompted me to do likewise here.  First
    of all, I am a fisherman and I did some hunting when I was younger.
    Over and above enjoying and respecting the traditional values of
    both sports, I feel that both sports play important roles in
    managing various fisheries and wildlife species, in the absence
    of certain natural predators.  I also consider myself an 
    environmentalist and I have some fairly passionate ideas about
    the rights of species to exist on this earth, especially as 
    they relate to progress and the economy.  If I felt that my fishing 
    or hunting put any species at risk of extinction, then I would 
    immediately stop, and would lobby others to do the same.  Likewise I
    do not give my business to Corporations who do not follow sound 
    environmental practices.  I'll run out of gas on the interstate in a 
    blizzard before I spend another nickel with Exxon.
    
         The issue with the owls in the Northwest, the snail darter
    in Tennessee and the lousewort in Northern Maine is loss of habitat.
    Loss of habitat is loss of habitat, whether its cutting old growth in
    Oregon, filling a swamp in Louisiana, building a subdivision 
    in Maynard or cutting a road through the White Mountains of New
    Hampshire.  I'm sure everyone in here has felt a sense of loss when
    houselots spring up in what was once a favorite deerstand, or when
    a special stream has become acidified so that it no longer supports
    natural reproduction of trout.  We should be no less passionate
    about our support of endangered nongame species.
    
         I believe we have to stop trashing this earth of ours in the
    name of progress and in the name of economic gain.  If the paper
    companies inability to cut a few square miles of Oregon timber
    means we all have to pay a few extra cents per board foot for
    2x4's then so be it.  If jobs hang in the balance, my own included,
    then that too is a price we should be willing to pay.  
                            

I am goint to get clobbered over this one but here it is:

I believe in conservation and certainly would not like to see any species
become extinct. However, I was a geologist before I became involved with
computers and know a little about the history of the Earth. Species come
and go. Usually something changes and the change favors one species over 
another. The species that finds the environment unfavorable and cannot adapt
becomes extinct. This is the way it was and this is the way it will always be.

We are a species and also follow nature. It is only our vanity that makes us
believe that we can somehow control nature. We are nature. If we eliminate a
species it is nothing more than nature at work no different than if one species
becomes better equipt to obtain the food and therefore, dooms another
species (that competes for the same food or habitat) to extinction. We cannot 
cause extinction of species that are able to adapt. Try eliminating mosquitos,
cockroches, etc. We will eventually also become extinct as a species and
will probably have not dominated the Earth anywhere near the length of time that
others (dinosaurs dominated the Earth for some 100 million years; mammals and
humans in particular have a log way to go; insects will probably dominate the
Earth next but who knows).

I am not in favor of extinctions but some of the species are doomed 
because of the way we are changing the environment. We can slow it down but we
cannot save them. Nature does not tolerate a vacuum. If one species is eliminated
that niche is filled with something else. I can't understand people who think
they know what is best for nature and try to manipulate things even though
there is wery little understaning of all of the variables. I think people 
should confine themselves to thinking what is best for people and try to 
extend our stay on Earth a bit longer. If we believe that an extinction of a 
species will fill the niche with a species that is harmfull to us lets do
everything possible. But please try to control your vanities and stop trying
to keep all species from becoming extinct. Extinction is a natural process
that cannot be stopped (at least not with our current technology) and we will
be a part of it real soon (soon in terms of geologic time).

    re: .16
    
    Well put.  It's just like people that build houses on sand spits
    thinkingthat because it was there when they were born, it's permanent.
    The earth is ever changing.
    
    re: .15
    
    Wow!  That's great!  Do you live in a lean to to help deer proliferate?
    
    How lucky we as a society are to have people like you.  Thanks for
    toughing it out for us.
    
    /brett
    

    re:.15
    
    In regards to your Exxon comment... thats pushing it a bit far.  When
    you've spent a night in a cold car in a blizzard then tell me that you 
    wouldn't buy their products, till then lets be a little less dramatic.
    
    Fra

	Wow! This has gotten to be a pretty interesting discussion.
	I hope we are not dividing ourselves into two camps here,
	after all I think we all share some common beliefs.

	I personally believe, that the fact that man has the powers 
	to destroy the environment, also saddles him with the 
	responsibilties for not doing so. After all, there will
	be a tomorrow, even if in geological terms we are only
	a blip in the history of the Earth. We have been given
	the Earth as an inheritance, and it our job to ensure, that
	our children, and theirs in turn, also are able to enjoy
	the multitude which nature has created. People are becoming
	more and more aware of the innumerable mistakes which 
	have been committed in the past, irretrivably damaging
	this or that part of our environment. Your children will
	grow up much more aware of this than you were, simply because
	the development has put us that much further down a road 
	at the end of which lies destruction for our environment 
	and, ultimately, for us.

	So far so good. I also believe that it is our right to
	use our inheritance, insofar that we insure that what we
	take out, we also put back in. People living in close
	contact with nature have always been acutely aware of
	this principle - often in the form of religious beliefs.

	There will always be clashes between good causes, like "do we
	secure jobs before the environment?". I believe it is easy to
	answer questions like this, when it happens not to be your job
	which is at stake. Probably what we are looking for are 
	solutions which allow us to put that back into nature which
	we take out. Some places must be left alone. Some locations can
	be exploited but only under observation of sound management
	principles. 

	As hunters I think we are all aware of the essential
	role of hunting within the overall scheme of scientific wildlife
	management. Nobody has put so much into saving and developing
	habitat as hunters (and fishers - I should add). Being 
	hunters saddles us with the responsibility of protecting
	the environment. This is the price we must pay for taking some
	of the harvest. A small price, I should think...
	
	Down form the soap-box  :-)

							- Mike

    Well, it's me again...The one who originally slammed the fisrt entry,
    Jeff..(uncalled for..I apologize).  There are some real good points too 
    both sides of this discussion.
    
    1) Jobs...
    2) extinction
    3) protection of environment
    
    But, one point that still has failed to be addressed, which concerns us
    ALL..on both sides of the issue is that WE as hunters, fisherpeople and
    in general users of the outdoors,  are looked at by ANTI's and all
    other misinformed groups, as a threat to the environment.  We as
    outdoor poeple, can discuss our various differences in ideologies in 
    restricted formats(like this conference) and have a ball.  But, what
    about the people who read this conference, who don't agree with our 
    lifestyles/hobbies or infatuation(hunting);  They read that a HUNTER,
    could care less about an owl(Jeff, regardless if you do or don't. this
    is not meant to insult). This adds more garbage to their train of
    thought.  Where as, in truth it is irrevellent. Its only one persons
    opinion;  These ANTI's will use this as a tool, and generally make 
    blanket statements about the entire populace..  We as HUNTERs have to 
    be careful how we use terms.  We aren't the ONLY GROUP of people that
    are causing the environment harm, WE actually do more for OUR
    environment than any organization that I can think of..But to the
    ANTI's, this doesn't count...They don't care, they see US as BLOOD
    THIRSTY killers..Who don't give a damn.  Therefor, WE must be overly
    careful how we voice our thoughts...The original entry was about Mnt.
    Lions, and the deer, and how if we keep killing deer there will be no 
    more Mnt. Lion;  We as HUNTERS are NOT encroaching into the habitate of
    the Mnt. Lion; it is the GREEDY DEVELOPERS, and those with $$$ in their
    eyes, yet to the ANTI's, it is ALL THE FAULT OF THE HUNTERS;  Now, does
    anybody see my point, or my rationalization?
    
    Ok who did I insult this time?
    
    
    Jeff
    
    

    Jeff,
    
    I see your point and I think that it is important to portray a
    good image....not just with hunting, but with everything we do.
    Dare I say "Do the right thing"?  I think this applies to most aspects
    of life.
    
    However, not meant to insult you or anyone else, my position is that
    it's more than save the environment.  It's save this, stop that don't
    do this.........   There is always this urge to overturn anything that 
    we hold sacred.  Hunting was the way of survival just 100 years ago.
    War was such a big part of our history until the 70s.  Guns and the
    right to own them was the very cornerstone of our society.  
    
    Last night, I was very disturbed to see a small riot break out just 10
    miles from my home when U.S. veterans insisted on burning the American 
    Flag to prove their 1st ammendment rights.  I just couldn't believe
    this.  And to make it worse, who came to the rescue of the flag? 
    Skinheads.  Can you believe it?  What the Hell is going on here?
    It's supposed to be the other way around, isn't it?
    
    It just seems that any values your parents passed down to you are
    doomed.  Hunting and fishing are two of my favorites.  I'm very
    disappointed over this.
    
    Obviously we know we love animals and the environment.  When you go
    hunting for a month, do you really care if you get a deer or do you
    just like being out there?
    
    Do you go camping just to enjoy nature in the off season?
    
    Do you sometimes sit for an hour watching a bird or a squirrel or
    a fox when you are supposed to be tracking deer?
    
    Do you look at trees and marvel at how one or two seem to be growing
    sideways instead of up......or how two trees grew together?
    
    My wager is that most of you can answer yes to all of these questions.
    Otherwise you'd go to a game farm in Texas, blast your deer and take it
    to the butcher.  Therefore, you are a good example for the rest of us
    and I doubt there is much more you can do.
    
    I hate to be a pessimist, but I seriously doubt that my unborn
    children's children will be doing much hunting.  And if they do, it's
    probably going to cost a fortune.
    
    /brett 

      The point about improving our perceived image is a good one.  Last
    night I spent several hours at the state meeting for Ducks Unlimited.
    In MA alone last year, we raised over $500k.  Thats alot of $$$$.  I 
    was told that for we can protect an acre of wetlands in Canada for
    $50.00.  That means that the sportsmen and women of MA saved over ten
    thousand acres last year.  By the way that land will benifit alot
    more then just ducks.  It provides a secure area for all types of
    wildlife, game and non game.  It also helps to preserve aquifers.
    
    What did the anti's do last year, besides make the cover of U.S. NEWS?
    
    
    Jeff

    Brett, your right....I go just to go..And lately if I would have been
    paying attention, I might have got my deer instead of a real cute
    picture of a gray jay...
    
    
    Jeff

    re. 12 Brett has alot of great points and I especially like the
    parts about no one wanting to get up say that the tree huggers are
    right. re .20 is quite another storie. Have you ever tried to reason
    with an anti? I am all for educating these people. Sportspeople
    have been trying to educate people like Cleveland Amory for years
    and years but to no avail. There has to be a better way to get our
    point across. Another problem we have is the media manipulation,
    such as teh stories in U.S. News and World Report. The Editor that
    wrote the article for our side from Field and Stream wrote an editorial
    in Field and Stream saying U.S.News and World Report rewrote his
    article to their liking. It was just like Channel 9 covering the
    2 anti-gun bills in Concord N.H. It was so one sided and anti it
    was unbelievable. It's a tough battle.
    							Bret

    How to ?  'Don't bother' is too easy. Remember, when talking to
    an anti, focus on the bystanders listening, *not* on the closed
    mind facing you. Most people will listen to reason. Stay calm,
    use facts, let the anti come off as hysterical and ignorant.
    You won't convert the anti. By learning all the standard anti
    arguments, every anti you talk to will become a straight man
    feeding you untruths which you can debunk for those listening.
    
    In short, *use* the antis to reach the open-minded, undecided
    majority.

    Dana (who, in this limited context, loves antis >8-) )

    ===> *** HEY PEOPLE!!!! *** <===
    
    Remember the basenote?  It was about the very SPECIFIC problem faced by
    CA hunters.  I, for one, would very much appreciate it if some CA folks
    kept us up-to-date  on the real situation there.  Can we move all the
    other discussion about
    Oregon/Owls/Clear-Cutting/Habitat/Love-Of-Outdoors somewhere else?
    Just a suggestion.  We're so busy arguing that the original discussion
    has been obliterated.
    
    Having just read the Outdoor Life article on this issue, its probably
    one of the BIGGEST ATTACKS ON ALL HUNTING EVERYWHERE.  Please,
    California hunters, please keep us posted!
     
    <<< t >>>