Arizona- Sunday, May 12 is deadline to submit public comment on proposal to restrict predator hunting contests

So, I have been giving this whole subject a lot of thought.

I don't like contests. For my own reasons. And at the end of the day it really doesn't even matter what those reasons are. Even though I don't like them, I would not actually VOTE to end them. If I had the option to abstain from voting, I might. But if forced to vote one way or the other, I wouldn't like it, but I'd have to vote to keep them.

That this makes me an "anti hunter in hunters clothing" to some of you, is what it is too. Y'all have your own opinions, so be it.

This is a purely political issue. The decision making that will actually effect the outcome has nothing to do with science or morals or ethics. It's politics, plain pure and simple. Whether it should be, or not, doesn't matter. All the facts and logic in the world to show that it shouldn't be a political issue don't change a thing. It is a political issue. And that's that. Reality.

So, those of you who would have me actively support contest hunting, to avoid being damned as an anti-hunter. Tell me how, exactly?

One of my good friends is a non-hunter and a liberal democrat. Like every other person on the planet, he considers himself open minded and fair. Very active voter too, he volunteers for campaigns, goes door to door, does fundraising, all that stuff. He was raised on a farm and eats meat. He gets it that even though he doesn't want to hunt, that other people do, and that some animals have to die for him to live. He wouldn't vote to end the hunting of game for the table. He even "gets" predator control, though he doesn't like it at all, he grudgingly admits that in some cases it's an economic requirement for producers. How he might vote on predator control, would come down to the specifics, he could go either way, depending.

He'd vote to end contests in a second though.

So what do I say to him, to defend and support contests? That it's legal? The context of the question is that he has to decide if it should remain legal. Simply saying "it is and it should stay that way" isn't going to move his or anyone else's meter one tiny bit.

That there is no science to support banning them? For one thing, there is no science showing any benefit for them either. But this is political, science is only useful when it can be used in propping up a political position. I personally don't think science is useful, for either side, in this context. Though I can easily see how either side could take the science that does exist and use the exact same data to support their own, opposite positions. Would make for a lot of flames and heat between those committed to either side but at the end of the day it wouldn't sway those in the middle that matter.

For my personal coyote hunting, I have explained that I do it simply because I love to do it. No other reason. That's not a good enough reason for him. But when I also explain that I'm utilizing a renewable resource and that there are mountains of scientific data to prove that recreational hunters have zero impact on the resource, he agrees that I should have the right to do what I love.

But those explanations for my personal hunting are going to cut no ice in defending contest hunts.

I'm using a real person as an example here. Someone I know very well, who definitely would vote, if given the chance. The fact that he is a liberal democrat, maybe I shouldn't even have included that info though. Because I know plenty of conservative republicans who would be even quicker to vote for banning contests.

So, what do you say, to a non-hunter, to sway them in favor of contests? This is, again, a political issue. Antis are committed to their position. It's the non-hunters that the politicians are tuned in to. It's them you need to convince. What would you have me say to them, exactly? And no, that isn't meant to be a rhetorical question. It's an honest question.


Originally Posted By: crapshootWhat is the difference between a group of men getting together, calling in and killing a hundred or so coyotes over a weekend,where the coyote has an actual chance at survival and using his cunning to live and an airplane chasing them down and gunning them by the hundreds in the name of "predation control"?


Well, so... Coming from an agonostic position, I see some real differences. Granting, off the top, there are no absolutes and that there is a continuum with many shades of gray and exceptions to everything...

Control work is killing specific coyotes in a specific place at a specific time to achieve specific economic and political goals and objectives.

I guess there are probably a few contests that might be able to make the same claims. But the vast majority can't. Not with a straight face anyway.

- DAA
 
Originally Posted By: DAA
I don't like contests. For my own reasons. And at the end of the day it really doesn't even matter what those reasons are.


Well, what are the reasons that you don't like contests? Do you feel it's unethical, or do you think it's unnecessarily harmful to the population, or do you not like the education that the coyotes are given that hurts other hunters chances?
Maybe I'm way off base here but I think that if the contests weren't publicly announced and advertised that the majority of "anti-contesters" might not have an issue with the contests, due to the general public not knowing that it was even happening. I think that the biggest issue is the perception that the general public views it as unethical. Therefore, they will view all hunting as unethical.
 
Originally Posted By: reloader326Originally Posted By: DAA
I don't like contests. For my own reasons. And at the end of the day it really doesn't even matter what those reasons are.


Well, what are the reasons that you don't like contests? Do you feel it's unethical, or do you think it's unnecessarily harmful to the population, or do you not like the education that the coyotes are given that hurts other hunters chances?


None of the above.

Ethics aren't part of the discussion for me.

I know contests have zero effect on the population.

I don't like anyone educating coyotes before I get a crack at them. I don't discriminate between contest hunters and non contest hunters in that selfish greed.

You didn't ask about cheating, but I don't care about that either. I'm never entering the contest, I don't care who gets cheated in them.

I don't like contests because much of my personal, first hand real experience observing contest hunters in action has been very negative.

Shabby, illegal, dangerous, classless behavior, let's just put it that way.

Sure, some non-contest hunters act the same way. Sure, most contest hunters don't act like that.

It has just been my personal experience and observation that the contest hunters act like that way more often than the non-contest hunters, over all. What I take as fairly common with contest hunters, I consider quite rare otherwise.

I think this is because of, or related to, another reason I don't like contests. And again, this is from direct personal experience and observation. I know for a fact, that there guys that do the contest hunts, that would not be coyote hunting at all if there weren't a contest involved. The same guys that only go fishing one day a year and it's the day there is a fishing derby with a chance for a "big prize". The contest becomes an excuse to go out and do a lot of socializing with the chance - albeit almost a completely imaginary chance for these guys - but they perceive a chance at "winning" and turning a profit.

Again, I'm talking about a real person I know. Not some theory. A guy that had never coyote hunted in his life. Local contest run out of the local bar gets going - an every weekend contest - and all the sudden he's out there every weekend hoping to score big dog or little dog. He even thought he could place in the money if he just wasn't so "unlucky". But the whole thing, was just an excuse to drive around all night with a spotlight (illegally), swilling beer and then doing meth to stay awake and be ready to drive insane speeds to make check in at the last minute after a couple days without sleep drinking and doing drugs. With the thought, in his mind, that he might actually make some money at the same time.

That guy is NOT rare in the local contest scene, in my experience. And they wouldn't be out there coyote hunting at all, if it weren't for the lure of the contest.

A few ruining it for the many? Okay. But ruined is ruined.

So, I don't like contests.

You mentioned the big buck contests, too. They were outlawed in my state decades ago. A few ruined it for the many. I was against the ban, at the time. But, I have to admit, doing away with the big buck contests also did away with the same kind of guys out there for the same kind of reasons and the stuff that you used to see and hear about all the time with guys leaving dead bucks to rot to try for a bigger one, "got to shoot a truck buck!" has mostly ended. And I think you would have a hard time finding a Utah mule deer hunter that would want to see the big buck contests come back.

So, that is a pretty complete answer to your question, I hope. And I hope nobody thinks I'm claiming moral superiority. I'm just answering the question as honestly and completely as I can.

What about my question though? What would you have me say to the non-hunter to get them to vote in favor of retaining contests? I honestly don't know what to tell them. I really don't.

- DAA
 
Thank you for answering my question. I don't think that the actions of a few bad apples should spoil the fun for the rest of the bunch, BUT...I haven't seen what you have seen. As I said earlier, all gun owners are not criminals...but good luck convincing a non-gun owner who has been shot (or their loved one shot)by a criminal, of that fact, I guess.

I have NO idea what to to tell that person, maybe something to the effect of "some people think football, baseball and soccer games are barbaric and should be banned, are you willing to let the court of public opinion dictate whether or not those contests should be banned as well?"

If this is such a controversial issue, and it sounds like is, the more we know about the issues, the better our chances to rectify them.

p.s. That's terrible about the big buck contests, I've never heard that they were banned anywhere. I've been in a few, won one. I remember a guy that brought a nice buck in to be measured for a work buck poll. I knew him, but didn't know he hunted. I asked him what he shot it with and he started stuttering and stammering. It was pretty apparent to me that he didn't kill it, and luckily he didn't win. SMH.
 
In Utah, the state constitution forbids wildlife management via ballot box initiative. So, in practice, it would never come to a vote, here.

If, it ever became an issue, it would be decided by bureaucrats on a purely political basis. It sounds like that is this current situation in Arizona, too - this is a purely political issue.

Strangely, an actual ballot box vote would be less purely political. Many people still vote on principle, even when they have to hold their nose to do it. Like I would, if forced to vote on contests, I would vote to keep them, on principle, even though I don't like them.

Where the mechanics of the actual decision making that determine the outcome are being calculated by politicos and bureaucrats, principles matter little. It's one thing to persuade someone to vote a certain way, on principle. It's entirely another thing to get them to become actively engaged in effecting a political outcome outside the ballot box, just on principle. Using myself as the example - I'd vote to keep contests, but I've no stomach for actively working to sustain them.

In that light, I'm not sure the issue is even controversial. It certainly is here, among the predator hunting fraternity. But outside our narrow bounds, the rest of the world, I think most of them wouldn't see much controversy. They'd just nod their heads in favor of banning, and just go along with whatever decision the "professionals" in gov't handed down. Without much caring one way or the other.

- DAA
 

[/quote]
.... I think that the biggest issue is the perception that the general public views it as unethical. Therefore, they will view all hunting as unethical. [/quote]

My experience has been the general public, non-hunters (not anti-hunters) are perfectly able to distinguish the difference between un-ethical and ethical hunting. The majority of the properties I have permission to hunt are owned by non-hunting farmers/landowners. I hear their disgust for local contests. Once they are assured I am not one of "them", I am allowed, usually welcomed, to hunt. So, the "perception" already exists and wouldn't if there wasn't a reason.
 
Originally Posted By: DAA.... if forced to vote one way or the other, I wouldn't like it, but I'd have to vote to keep them.



Thanks for the well-written and thoughtful post(s). Many tend to resort to character defamation instead of debating in the arena of ideas. I would agree with the voting if this was regarding a right instead of a privilege. I wouldn't burn the flag, but defend someone's right to do so because of first amendment. Being part of a community that has been allowed the privilege to hunt, not inherited a constitutional right to do so, I am all for eliminating aspects that abuse and could threaten that privilege, not voting for it simply because it's labeled as "hunting". Like it or not, wildlife belongs to every citizen of a State. There are way more non-hunters than hunters with predator hunters accounting for a tiny part of that group. We have been fortunate that the majority of non-hunters (again, not anti-hunters) support, or at least tolerate hunting, thus allowing us the continued privilege to hunt. Their support however is dependent on how they perceive hunting and hunters. We are the ones that can screw it up. They will support/tolerate hunting as a conservation-oriented activity, or killing animals for food, or as a way to manage a population, or probably as a way to "bond" with nature. A bunch of guys tearing around the county with little to no respect for the property they are on and killing as many coyotes as fast as they can solely for a chance to win a prize doesn't fit into any of those categories. If a landowner gives you permission to fish his pond, and finds you left the shoreline littered with trash and fish guts, you just lost your privilege to fish there again and possibly ruined it for any others asking permission in the future.
 
I pretty much feel exactly the same as DAA about all this. however I think I am a bit more than he is with it. I would vote to ban the contests if I could be assured it would not further erode hunting rights in other areas. That would be my concern and if those concerns were not addressed I wouldn't vote to end contests. but on the face of it and taken by itself I think we should do away with them.

I think the animals deserve a certain level of respect, I think we as men aught to conduct ourselves with a certain level of sportsmanship. I don't want to sit here and say I have always conducted my own behavior to the highest level. but I think its a moving target that should be on our minds and reminding ourselves was that really a good way to go about it. I hunt coyotes, not just to kill a coyote. To me its all about the experience. Its looking at maps and terrain and trying to guess where I think coyotes are. Its correctly guess conditions such as wind and approach. Its deciding when to shoot, when not to, and executing the shot. lastly and perhaps most important its an escape from the city and the daily grind of life. Its gazing across a huge valley and seeing the foothills of a distant range and wondering what is over there. its gulping in fresh clean crisp air with pungent sage aroma. its imagining a stage coach making its way across the area, or wondering what the lives of the old timers were like that risked so much in search of their dreams. that is how I define coyote hunting.

coyote contests, should be called coyote killing contests. there isn't any of those elements involvedI describe above. its drive as fast as you can, run to the next stand, blow through the area. lets be perfectly straight here and make a distinction between killing and hunting. because I think there is a distinction. its also a morbid attempt to one up another guy. I don't feel the need to one up anyone. its why you will never see me driving a lifted truck unless its soley to aid in function and capability. I really don't need to prove anything I suppose. That is kinda my approach to life.
 
A single guy going out, calling coyotes and killing as many as come in and he can connect with is no different than a group of men getting together and doing the same exact thing and then meeting back up at the end of the day to see who did better. The only difference is one has prizes and the other doesn't.

Sloppy hunters doing illegal things is on the individual and not the contest it self. Lumping their actions together and blaming it on the contest they were participating I is the same as the Dems/liberals wanting to ban AR15's because someone used one in a mass shooting.
 
Originally Posted By: crapshootA single guy going out, calling coyotes and killing as many as come in and he can connect with is no different than a group of men getting together and doing the same exact thing and then meeting back up at the end of the day to see who did better. The only difference is one has prizes and the other doesn't.

Sloppy hunters doing illegal things is on the individual and not the contest it self. Lumping their actions together and blaming it on the contest they were participating I is the same as the Dems/liberals wanting to ban AR15's because someone used one in a mass shooting.

+1
 
Have i mentioned i don't care for contests and could care less if they went away? Preferably due to poor attendance.
But i hate people losing their freedoms even more.
 
Originally Posted By: crapshootA single guy going out, calling coyotes and killing as many as come in and he can connect with is no different than a group of men getting together and doing the same exact thing and then meeting back up at the end of the day to see who did better. The only difference is one has prizes and the other doesn't.



Is that really all the difference is? Not a rhetorical question.

That there are guys who won't hunt unless it's a contest, and others who won't hunt if it is a contest, makes it obvious that there is a difference.

Maybe the prize really is the only difference. I really don't know. Maybe, the motivation is a difference. The prize is the motivation, I guess. I don't know.

They are two different things though, I think that is clear. So trying to equate them, goes nowhere. Simply put, I totally reject equating a contest hunt with personal hunting. Apples and oranges. I just flat out discard the comparison as not relevant. Two different things, not to be conflated.


Originally Posted By: crapshoot
Sloppy hunters doing illegal things is on the individual and not the contest it self. Lumping their actions together and blaming it on the contest they were participating I is the same as the Dems/liberals wanting to ban AR15's because someone used one in a mass shooting.

I don't agree. I know, for an absolute fact, that there are sloppy individuals out there that would not be out there if there wasn't a contest going on. The contest is not blameless. To flip your AR analogy around, I sold an AR15 and a case of ammo to guy that was talking about wanting to kill a bunch of people, but I have no responsibility for all the people he killed. Well, the heck I don't.

You take entry fees from a meth head no gooder and keep taking his entry fees week after week - having pretty good reason to recognize what is going on - and I can't let you off the hook for his actions while he is participating in your contest. Contest math can't work without dead money - entrants with no real chance of winning. The chit-heels are dead money and everyone with a brain sees it and welcomes them with open arms. Like a fish sitting down at the poker table.

And yeah, I know, there are all kinds of contests. I'm not talking about the big, well known and presumably well run ones.

But those big name contests are a tiny, tiny fraction of the contest scene. There are so few of them, they can safely be ignored. The vast majority of contests are small time, locals only, run out of a bar or a gas station or a hardware/sporting goods store to drum up business. Those are the contests I am most familiar with. To say that those contests don't attract and some even welcome sloppy actors is ignoring reality.

I do hold the contests themselves partially responsible. I don't see them doing anything to police themselves. I just see them welcoming that dead money. I believe, a lot of that sloppy acting, would just go away, if the contests went away.

- DAA
 
I think a lot like DAA, and add in those who trespass with dogs. The same thing that will destroy hunting is what destroys everything: greed and lack of consideration for others and their rights.
 
I can see y'alls points but i also feel the same as Snomanmo. Handing over one thing in hopes they leave the rest alone is a fallacy.
 
Originally Posted By: crapshootI can see y'alls points but i also feel the same as Snomanmo. Handing over one thing in hopes they leave the rest alone is a fallacy.

So what will "they" (non-hunters) think? (Anti-hunters are just that so I'm not talking about them):

"See, all "hunters" are the same. We've seen what these contests consist of, but the hunters are sticking together no matter what. They'll never admit something is bad or wrong, even killing animals just for prizes is being defended as legitimate hunting. That's it, I'm not going to support them any more.

Or, maybe some will think "Wow, I'm impressed. Hunters actually do know the difference between right and wrong and are refusing to accept those killing contests as legitimate hunting. That's good. I'll keep supporting them as long as they're willing to do the right thing.
 
Again, i don't think blaming the contests for the actions of a few is correct.
We (you and i and a few others) will just have to agree to disagree.

I will continue to fight for everyone's rights and you will only support those that draw your interest.
 
Originally Posted By: BradsbirdsOriginally Posted By: crapshootI can see y'alls points but i also feel the same as Snomanmo. Handing over one thing in hopes they leave the rest alone is a fallacy.

So what will "they" (non-hunters) think? (Anti-hunters are just that so I'm not talking about them):

"See, all "hunters" are the same. We've seen what these contests consist of, but the hunters are sticking together no matter what. They'll never admit something is bad or wrong, even killing animals just for prizes is being defended as legitimate hunting. That's it, I'm not going to support them any more.

Or, maybe some will think "Wow, I'm impressed. Hunters actually do know the difference between right and wrong and are refusing to accept those killing contests as legitimate hunting. That's good. I'll keep supporting them as long as they're willing to do the right thing.


Don't you think the same arguments in this thread could be made to ban night hunting in your state. Sloppy hunters up all night doing drugs to stay awake and killing every animal that comes to the call even illegal ones or pets. Come on you know it happens.

What's illegal is already against the law. Why punish the majority of legal hunters by banning something they enjoy?

Also, are you saying if there were no prizes involved you would be OK with contests ? Doubt it.
I am going to call it like I see it and you don't like contests because you think a ban would increase the number of coyotes you kill. And if we are all honest that's the biggest reason against contests, but nobody here has the brass to say it is.
 
Originally Posted By: DAAOriginally Posted By: crapshootA single guy going out, calling coyotes and killing as many as come in and he can connect with is no different than a group of men getting together and doing the same exact thing and then meeting back up at the end of the day to see who did better. The only difference is one has prizes and the other doesn't.



Is that really all the difference is? Not a rhetorical question.

That there are guys who won't hunt unless it's a contest, and others who won't hunt if it is a contest, makes it obvious that there is a difference.

Maybe the prize really is the only difference. I really don't know. Maybe, the motivation is a difference. The prize is the motivation, I guess. I don't know.

They are two different things though, I think that is clear. So trying to equate them, goes nowhere. Simply put, I totally reject equating a contest hunt with personal hunting. Apples and oranges. I just flat out discard the comparison as not relevant. Two different things, not to be conflated.


Originally Posted By: crapshoot
Sloppy hunters doing illegal things is on the individual and not the contest it self. Lumping their actions together and blaming it on the contest they were participating I is the same as the Dems/liberals wanting to ban AR15's because someone used one in a mass shooting.

I don't agree. I know, for an absolute fact, that there are sloppy individuals out there that would not be out there if there wasn't a contest going on. The contest is not blameless. To flip your AR analogy around, I sold an AR15 and a case of ammo to guy that was talking about wanting to kill a bunch of people, but I have no responsibility for all the people he killed. Well, the heck I don't.

You take entry fees from a meth head no gooder and keep taking his entry fees week after week - having pretty good reason to recognize what is going on - and I can't let you off the hook for his actions while he is participating in your contest. Contest math can't work without dead money - entrants with no real chance of winning. The chit-heels are dead money and everyone with a brain sees it and welcomes them with open arms. Like a fish sitting down at the poker table.

And yeah, I know, there are all kinds of contests. I'm not talking about the big, well known and presumably well run ones.

But those big name contests are a tiny, tiny fraction of the contest scene. There are so few of them, they can safely be ignored. The vast majority of contests are small time, locals only, run out of a bar or a gas station or a hardware/sporting goods store to drum up business. Those are the contests I am most familiar with. To say that those contests don't attract and some even welcome sloppy actors is ignoring reality.

I do hold the contests themselves partially responsible. I don't see them doing anything to police themselves. I just see them welcoming that dead money. I believe, a lot of that sloppy acting, would just go away, if the contests went away.

- DAA

I have a lot of respect for you Dave, but are you saying a coyote contest is solely responsible for someone doing meth? So, he only does meth when he is hunting a contest? The addiction to meth is a very strong addiction and does not take very long acquire. There are no casual meth users.
And even if all this is true, the contest runners are surely not the only people taking advantage of him. He is still making a choice. I guess I just don't believe in banning large soft drinks because a few people can't control themselves.
 
Originally Posted By: iowayotehunter76
I have a lot of respect for you Dave, but are you saying a coyote contest is solely responsible for someone doing meth? So, he only does meth when he is hunting a contest? The addiction to meth is a very strong addiction and does not take very long acquire. There are no casual meth users.
And even if all this is true, the contest runners are surely not the only people taking advantage of him. He is still making a choice. I guess I just don't believe in banning large soft drinks because a few people can't control themselves.

really? that is what you got out of what he said?
lol.gif
 
Back
Top