I read this post on another site and thought it was very well written. Congrats to Finn.
As hunters, we're always watching for assaults from PETA or the Humane Society. But the fact is, neither of those organizations really pose an imminent threat. PETA lacks the funding and the credibility to cause a significant threat. And while the Humane Society has both funding and credibility, they're smart enough to choose their battles.
The greatest threat to hunting in Utah today, incredible as it sounds, is a small group who actually pose as hunters. Within the hunting community, or fellowship or brotherhood or whatever you call it, there is a small but vocal and active contingent that wants to prevent you from hunting. Unlike PETA or the HSUS, they enjoy hunting themselves - a fact that in my mind makes them more contemptible than members of either of the renowned anti-hunting organizations.
But in what they believe is an attempt to improve their own hunting opportunity, they have no reluctance in working against the opportunity of other hunters. Their strategy is simple, and simple-minded, albeit without any ethics or sense of sportsmanship.
First, they work to divide us. They promote the notion that we are not all hunters, but distinct and separate groups of hunters: trophy hunters, meat hunters, rifle hunters, muzzie hunters, bowhunters, etc. And once they succeed in perverting the reality of seasons and permits into the fabrication of distinct groups of people, they work against those "groups" who are most vulnerable. Just as with HSUS, their primary target of choice is bowhunters.
They use pretty words like "fairness" and they offer fictions of conservation like "overcrowding" and "wound rates". This fraud, (and it's nothing more), plays well with decision-makers like the Wildlife Board. But it is no more than fraud since no scientific evidence supports their fiction any more than it supports the contention of the Humane Society that hunting is a gateway to violence against humans.
So they promote significant reduction of incentives for hunters to choose a bow. They have no concern for the fact that as a result, hunters who would normally apply for an archery permit apply for a rifle permit. In turn, the increase in competition for rifle permits results in hunters being denied a permit who could have otherwise been granted an opportunity to hunt. Yes, one result of this year's regional archery restriction is that some hunters who choose a rifle will be staying home.
And soon, the anti-hunters will push for further restrictions on archery hunting, driving even more hunters to join the rifle draw or hunt in neighboring states, (resulting in lost revenue to Utah). They would like to reduce the archery season to 9 days. They would like to eliminate the extended hunts. In fact, as openly stated by a representative in the southern region, they would like to outlaw bowhunting altogether.
And when these camo-clad anti-hunters have succeeded in their agenda to outlaw hunting with a bow, they will continue to actively move against hunters who are unwilling or unable to pay for trophy hunts, driving them to "go hunt in Colorado". As the director of the DWR and chair of the Wildlife Board has stated, "Those who pay... should be the ones to hunt."
PETA be damned, my friends. Watch out for the boys in camo.
As hunters, we're always watching for assaults from PETA or the Humane Society. But the fact is, neither of those organizations really pose an imminent threat. PETA lacks the funding and the credibility to cause a significant threat. And while the Humane Society has both funding and credibility, they're smart enough to choose their battles.
The greatest threat to hunting in Utah today, incredible as it sounds, is a small group who actually pose as hunters. Within the hunting community, or fellowship or brotherhood or whatever you call it, there is a small but vocal and active contingent that wants to prevent you from hunting. Unlike PETA or the HSUS, they enjoy hunting themselves - a fact that in my mind makes them more contemptible than members of either of the renowned anti-hunting organizations.
But in what they believe is an attempt to improve their own hunting opportunity, they have no reluctance in working against the opportunity of other hunters. Their strategy is simple, and simple-minded, albeit without any ethics or sense of sportsmanship.
First, they work to divide us. They promote the notion that we are not all hunters, but distinct and separate groups of hunters: trophy hunters, meat hunters, rifle hunters, muzzie hunters, bowhunters, etc. And once they succeed in perverting the reality of seasons and permits into the fabrication of distinct groups of people, they work against those "groups" who are most vulnerable. Just as with HSUS, their primary target of choice is bowhunters.
They use pretty words like "fairness" and they offer fictions of conservation like "overcrowding" and "wound rates". This fraud, (and it's nothing more), plays well with decision-makers like the Wildlife Board. But it is no more than fraud since no scientific evidence supports their fiction any more than it supports the contention of the Humane Society that hunting is a gateway to violence against humans.
So they promote significant reduction of incentives for hunters to choose a bow. They have no concern for the fact that as a result, hunters who would normally apply for an archery permit apply for a rifle permit. In turn, the increase in competition for rifle permits results in hunters being denied a permit who could have otherwise been granted an opportunity to hunt. Yes, one result of this year's regional archery restriction is that some hunters who choose a rifle will be staying home.
And soon, the anti-hunters will push for further restrictions on archery hunting, driving even more hunters to join the rifle draw or hunt in neighboring states, (resulting in lost revenue to Utah). They would like to reduce the archery season to 9 days. They would like to eliminate the extended hunts. In fact, as openly stated by a representative in the southern region, they would like to outlaw bowhunting altogether.
And when these camo-clad anti-hunters have succeeded in their agenda to outlaw hunting with a bow, they will continue to actively move against hunters who are unwilling or unable to pay for trophy hunts, driving them to "go hunt in Colorado". As the director of the DWR and chair of the Wildlife Board has stated, "Those who pay... should be the ones to hunt."
PETA be damned, my friends. Watch out for the boys in camo.
