# Should non hunters be allowed to have a say in hunting rules and law?



## thesource (May 19, 2005)

Hunters can and should police themselves.

Non-hunters do not have the proper perspective to understand the intracies involved with hunting regulation.


----------



## Tim4Trout (Jul 10, 2003)

Should non hunters be allowed to have a say in hunting rules and law? 



Legislative hearings are usually open to the public.

F&G boards often seek public ( from all ) input when considering regulation changes.

Non hunters already have a say as everyone votes for legislators who make laws.

Non hunters already have a say as everyone votes for the governor who may appoint F & W directors.

The problems however with non hunters having a say, in particular a direct say, are as follows.

1) You are dealing with many who likely have limited knowledge of hunting to base a decision on.

Consider the following from the radical anti hunting faction hsus ---
_
Question --- Isn't hunting a well-regulated activity?

Hsus answer -- No. While there are many rules which regulate hunting activities, enforcing the regulations is difficult, and many hunters do not abide by the rules
_
How many non hunters are going to do any research to verify whether or not the above hsus claim bears truth versus simply taking it at face value ?

2) Many non hunters can be susceptible to emotional influence, especially when perpetrated by anti hunting factions. 

Just as above, how many will endeavor to verify as to the accuracy of what they are being shown? 

During the 2004 Maine bear referendum those pushing for passage tried to pawn off poaching footage from Oregon as being a depiction of hound hunting of bears in Maine. Their footage contained numerous acts already illegal in Maine. 

In 1996 anti hunting factions sent out mailers with a drawn image of a longspring foothold trap with a cat's foot caught in it to people in Massachusetts claiming it was legal to use where it could catch one's pet ( in reality such use had actually been outlawed for over 20 years ) in an attempt to solicit action and support from those receiving the mailers.

For years the hsus has attempted to exploit the emotional vunerability of the public to get laws passed through the voter referendum process.

3) Remember the following --- It is a very small fraction of the non hunting public who are the ones most wanting a voice. Specifically anti hunters. The majority of non hunters have little or no problem with hunting.

Often you will them use hear the phrase " Only (X)% of the population hunts ... ", with a claim that why should a small percentage make the rules with the vast majority not being represented. Anti's often try to play this percentage game to make it seem as though one is either a hunter or is opposed to hunting with little or no in between.

It should also be noted that in addition to hunters fishermen are also paying for wildlife management through license fees and excise taxes. Anti hunters DO NOT pay for wldlife management.

-----

A few years back the people of Wisconsin were asked to vote on whether or not to have hunting fishing and trapping protected in their state's constitution. The vote passed by a 4-1 margin.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

*Hmmmm......*

Before I answer this question, are we talking about general comments dujring the public meeting and comment period, or are we talking about the citizen advisory boards that work with State Agencies crafting proposals affecting hunting and angling?


----------



## KOhunter (Mar 17, 2006)

I don't know that you could say all non hunters. I believe hunting quotas and regs should be done by people who know what they're doing. The biggest problem in Oregon is the population centers control the state legislator, who really know nothing about game management or hunting. That's were I see your point about hunters controlling regs. What I would like to see is control given to Fish & Wildlife. They have been trying for years to get hounds and bait reintroduced with no success, because the liberals in the big city keep seeing all the propaganda the anti's keep putting out. It won't change until a few more of their poodles get eaten. The biologists, scientist and other professionals need to play a bigger part. That's the thing with the anti's...no science...just emotion.


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

doctariAFC said:


> Before I answer this question, are we talking about general comments dujring the public meeting and comment period, or are we talking about the citizen advisory boards that work with State Agencies crafting proposals affecting hunting and angling?


Everything doc. from rules and regs to harvest quota...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I can't say. legally, the answer is that members of the public have as much a right to have a say in hunting as I do just as NON TAX payers or net tax consumers have as much a right to vote as I do even if they don't put anything in the pot.

I can see source saying that xbow archers don't have a right to lobby for inclusion in the bowhunting season too


----------



## aceoky (Mar 17, 2006)

One has to really consider the question here, for example, a Non hunting landowner, though he doesn't hunt he has 2,000 acres he allows hunting on.......he IS affected/effected by the hunting laws......even though HE doesn't hunt, hunting takes place on his land because and ONLY because HE allows it..........

It's a 'broad question" a bit hard to answer without ALL details .......imho


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

aceoky said:


> One has to really consider the question here, for example, a Non hunting landowner, though he doesn't hunt he has 2,000 acres he allows hunting on.......he IS affected/effected by the hunting laws......even though HE doesn't hunt, hunting takes place on his land because and ONLY because HE allows it..........
> 
> It's a 'broad question" a bit hard to answer without ALL details .......imho


 Thats pretty elitest if you ask me. Why would a guy that has 2000 acres have a say and a guy that has a 1/4 acre lot in a subdivision not have a say? Not really a hard question.


----------



## KOhunter (Mar 17, 2006)

Marvin said:


> Thats pretty elitest if you ask me. Why would a guy that has 2000 acres have a say and a guy that has a 1/4 acre lot in a subdivision not have a say? Not really a hard question.


Why so quick to jump down somebodies throat?:eek3: 
The question is "should non-hunters have a say?"...to me all he is saying is "yes"...he's not saying that because he has more land, his say has more weight. He's just saying "he's not a hunter, but still has a vested interest in wildlife management and conservation". Nothing about excluding someone, if anything he's including.  Some of you guys are so hung up in your own little worlds, you look for every opportunity to stir things up.


----------



## 460461whatever (Jan 22, 2005)

*May I change my answer?*

Let me put it this way, the general public should and do have the right to help decide game rules just as much as the hunting fraction. Unfortunately, many abuse this right by not fully educating themselves before "casting their vote". This has been a big sore spot with me for a couple decades now. Especially, when the liberals do their "Get out the vote" campaign every four years. Just as those who take part in the use of the Second Amendment need to be responsible with its use, so should those who use the right to Free Speech and to Vote. If you willingly or unwillingly harm someone with a firearm, you will be penalized somehow. The same should be true with using your mouth or pen.
If an individual doesn't know enough about the topic, that person should do the next best thing and withhold his/her vote/say. Supposedly, this is why kids aren't allowed to vote. They haven't yet developed that sense of responsibility. Do you know any adults that fit that catagory.:wink: I can think of a couple elected officials that may never put their greed under their responsibilities. This points to the idea that many people abuse their right to vote. C'mon.... Ted Kenedy???:darkbeer: :cocktail: :darkbeer: :cocktail:


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

KOhunter said:


> Why so quick to jump down somebodies throat?:eek3:
> The question is "should non-hunters have a say?"...to me all he is saying is "yes"...he's not saying that because he has more land, his say has more weight. He's just saying "he's not a hunter, but still has a vested interest in wildlife management and conservation". Nothing about excluding someone, if anything he's including.  Some of you guys are so hung up in your own little worlds, you look for every opportunity to stir things up.


Because I can. Hows that? You scream for equal treatment so here it is. Yes or no. Majority Rules KOhunter. I thought you had been reading ACE's bible. The twofaced answer from this clown( ace) are getting old.

***YOU ARE BLOCKED FROM THIS AREA***OX


----------



## aceoky (Mar 17, 2006)

Marvin said:


> Because I can. Hows that? You scream for equal treatment so here it is. Yes or no. Majority Rules KOhunter. I thought you had been reading ACE's bible. The twofaced answer from this clown( ace) are getting old.


Thank you KOhunter, I appreciate it very much, that was *exaclty*what I was saying!


First, I never said that his having 2,000 acres had anything to do with or not to do with the guy who has 1/4 acre, YOUR spin as always TRYING to speak "for me", when I"m quite capable of speaking for myself....

As for your opinion of my "being a clown", it's one you're entitled to and affects me in NO way


As for the "two faced" comment, I'll take offense on that, since it was YOU that posted, a fake "survey", and would not provide the links to "back it up or confirm it", just as source posted a partial post leaving out relevent information to us all, IF anyone IS 'two-faced", it's not me...

Also this is NOT a religion to me so I am offended at you mention of ACE's Bible........fwiw

Funny that you few have nothing else but personal insults to make your case, but at least it shows 

A.) the type of people you really are
B.) You don't care about any one else but yourselves
C.)you have NO facts or data so you make the "best" of what you have (insults, false accusations and inuendo)
D.) you spend way too much time being "concerned" with what others do, so you must have a very low opinion of yourselves


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

Links are posted in the appropraite thread. unlike a lot of you material. stay on topic. I don't really care if your offended or not. I did not sign and appease aceoky form before I joined here.


----------



## aceoky (Mar 17, 2006)

It's your thread, I almost didn't even respond, now I wish I hadn't.......have at it Marvin......


----------



## Marvin (Feb 17, 2005)

aceoky said:


> It's your thread, I almost didn't even respond, now I wish I hadn't.......have at it Marvin......


Is it my bowgunseason as well? I do not own AT...


----------



## cynic (Jan 25, 2006)

Yes no maybe..Marvin is that ur hero or are you taking subtle steps to come out of the closet? I see you idolize men...just curious, I'm not picking on you if your gay..

***YOU ARE BLOCKED FROM THIS AREA. NEXT?****OX


----------



## Free Range (Apr 18, 2005)

Here’s my take on who should and should not have a say. First this is still America, so all citizens should be allowed to vote on what will affect them. Having said that, as far as game laws are concerned, they should be allowed to vote for the Governor, and he will put capable people in place in the DNR. The DNR should use sound science to determine conservation efforts, and herd management. Then it should be up to the DNR “WITH” the individual user groups to decide the little things, like season lengths, weapon restrictions, and hunting methods. 
There is no reason, the non hunting public should get involved in these details, nor is there any reason one user group should be voting on or telling another user group how they should hunt. I sure as heck don’t want bait fishermen telling me what kind of flies I should use, nor do I want gun hunters telling me what poundage of bow I should shoot. And one thing for sure I don’t some land owner, telling me as a bow hunter what is and is not a bow. If that land owner happens to be a bow hunter then fine, but there are many land owners that are in fact anti hunters, do we want them telling us how to regulate our season?


----------



## ELKARCHER (Apr 21, 2003)

In Oregon, the fish and game depart are supported soley by the hunting and fishing license fees. Why should those that don't contribute have a say?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

ELKARCHER said:


> In Oregon, the fish and game depart are supported soley by the hunting and fishing license fees. Why should those that don't contribute have a say?


 a fair point but people who don't pay taxes or are net tax consumers have the exact same vote in elections where those elected determine tax laws as the vote bill gates or the chairman of GE has


----------



## bobk (Sep 4, 2005)

I voted for non hunters not being able to vote.
That said, I would never allow that to happen of I was in the legislature.
As bad as some people are about voting for or against something because the information they receive is form a prejudiced group, they still have a right to vote. That is why the U.S. with all of it's flaws is the greatest.
We just have to campain harder for what we want.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

In terms of the public comment periods and such, absolutely, non-hunters have the right, just like hunters, to comment on any changes that may pertain to laws and seasons and access and the like.

However, when it comes to the citizen advisory panels for Hunting and Fishing and Trapping, absolutely not. Since non-hunters are not out in the field, theyhave no observational experience or expertise to develop proposals and changes to any of the regulations governing conservation.

So, in that context, I would vote no, they have no place on citizen panels or to get involved in the crafting of proposals process. 

They do have teh right to comment, but do not have the knowledge or experience to propose change. That is up to the sportsmen and women.


----------



## gmherps (Jul 18, 2005)

When I read the title to this thread the first thing that came to mind is this question: "Should heterosexuals have a say in homosexual/same sex marriage"?

The problem with anti hunters is that they don't understand hunting. They don't understand the impact of HUNTING. And not to mention most antis are are compassionate, and don't even know really what for. Their feable little minds wander from point to point and never have the full story.


----------



## Free Range (Apr 18, 2005)

> When I read the title to this thread the first thing that came to mind is this question: "Should heterosexuals have a say in homosexual/same sex marriage"?



?????


----------



## JAG (May 23, 2006)

This why it is so very important for "us" to educate those that don't share our ideas on hunting. It is our responsibility to keep our freedoms from being taken away from us by educating the uneducated. 
I am not a college graduate, I don't make a lot of money, but I am passionate about what I believe in. I had the opportunity to share my views recently on "the right to bear arms" with a lawyer.. He opened the door when he slammed the NRA. He was very uninformed and came away from our conversation with some factual information. Not sure i converted him, but i made him see my side. Same thing with our legislators. Do you have any idea how many of them vote on issues they know absolutely nothing about? its enie meanie minie moe for them. Don't be afraid to tell anyone, no matter what their degree is, or how high they are up there, what your views are.. Most are just uninformed and waiting to be enlightened.


----------



## gmherps (Jul 18, 2005)

Free Range said:


> ?????



It's called a correlation or trying to put a idea into perspective. Some call it thinking outside the box.


----------



## Free Range (Apr 18, 2005)

So you think that regulating marriage to be one man one women, instead of the perversion of a gay marriage, is a correlation to letting those that know the most about hunting decide the rules? I think those that are married in the traditional way know what it means to be “married” and therefore have a solid standing in saying what marriage should and should not be.


----------



## ban_t (Dec 27, 2005)

Well I voted yes that all should help in voting for Hunting Regs. It for for one palin simple reason. We all have a right too vote, We all have our own views and they should be expressed in some form. 
We as hunters should help get our veiws out about hunting. I hunt Public land so it is to my best intrest to help get laws past or taken off the books too promote hunting in a postive way. i must share this land with hikers, campers, Horsemen & Women. So Yes is the really the only answer if we want too continue too use our Public lands too.


----------

