Gun Owners of America informs me of a new hunting ban ballot measure in Colorado: the mountain lion

[JohnDBarrow]

If governments were smart, they would pay strict attention to the conservation experts: wildlife biologists. That California banned hounds for black bear hunts back in 2013 was stupid.

By the same token, the mountain lion (or cougar) in Texas is not protected at all and there is a green light there to hunt them year-round. Texas doesn't bother to manage its cougar numbers well. 

 

Here is a message to me via Gun Owners of America email from Mark Jones, an American wildlife biologist, as follows:

 

"Colorado's Proposed Ban on Mountain Lion Hunting is a Warning to All American Hunters   Dear John,   Anti-hunting groups have forced Colorado Proposition 127 on the November 5 ballot as an "Initiated State Statute" designed to prohibit hunting of mountain lions and bobcats. If passed, this initiative would destroy a long tradition of science-based wildlife management and mountain lion hunting in the state of Colorado. Sadly, the Colorado anti-hunting initiative is about more than mountain lions or even a specific state. This attempted ban is a warning to all American hunters that ant-hunting and anti-gun forces nationwide want to destroy our firearms culture and hunting traditions. The Colorado measure ignores the fact that populations of lions and bobcats are healthy and thriving, and hunting is carefully managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Furthermore, the sweeping language used in this Colorado initiative could be expanded in the future to ban the hunting of other game animals like deer, elk, and sheep. California implemented a similar mountain lion hunting ban decades ago, and the state now spends millions in taxpayer funds each year to pay government-funded employees to control lion populations as hunters are no longer able to participate in the wildlife management process. California's experience tells us that if Colorado mountain lion hunting is banned, it is likely that government-funded lethal removal will be necessary to protect humans, livestock, and pets in many circumstances. Anti-hunting groups won't stop with this Colorado initiative. While Colorado lion and bobcat hunters may be the target today, anti-hunting groups have tried to ban, and plan future attempts to ban, the hunting of many animals in other jurisdictions across the Country.

Hunters throughout America must understand that these types of efforts are never about science-based wildlife management. Leftist anti-hunters and anti-gun groups just want to remove hunters from the process of wildlife management and destroy the American hunting traditions. A ban on hunting your favorite species could be coming to your state next. As many as 10 million American hunters are not registered to vote, and many other hunters don't go to the polls or don't vote for candidates who reflect their values. Hunters everywhere need to get out and vote on November 5 for candidates who will protect the American Hunting Traditions.  At Gun Owners of America, our Second Amendment Hunters Program works every day to protect the American Hunting Traditions. Please visit our website (https://www.gunowners.org/hunting/) and be on the lookout for ways you can get more involved in helping us protect hunting traditions in the coming months.

Kind Regards,   Mark Jones Certified Wildlife Biologist® National Director, Hunter Outreach Buffalo, Wyoming"

 

 

[iNow]

Social engineering efforts from allies and enemies alike are clearly in full swing

[JohnDBarrow]

All joking aside, who agrees here that the findings of trained wildlife biologists, not legislation based solely upon public emotions, are best to properly manage wildlife? I agree that regulated sport hunting is an important tool in the overall wildlife management picture. I also agree that if fur-bearing predators must be thinned in numbers, hounds are an important tool for hunters to efficiently do this. 

Edited October 24 by JohnDBarrow

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

If governments were smart, they would pay strict attention to the conservation experts: wildlife biologists. That California banned hounds for black bear hunts back in 2013 was stupid.

By the same token, the mountain lion (or cougar) in Texas is not protected at all and there is a green light there to hunt them year-round. Texas doesn't bother to manage its cougar numbers well. 

 

Here is a message to me via Gun Owners of America email from Mark Jones, an American wildlife biologist, as follows:

 

"Colorado's Proposed Ban on Mountain Lion Hunting is a Warning to All American Hunters   Dear John,   Anti-hunting groups have forced Colorado Proposition 127 on the November 5 ballot as an "Initiated State Statute" designed to prohibit hunting of mountain lions and bobcats. If passed, this initiative would destroy a long tradition of science-based wildlife management and mountain lion hunting in the state of Colorado. Sadly, the Colorado anti-hunting initiative is about more than mountain lions or even a specific state. This attempted ban is a warning to all American hunters that ant-hunting and anti-gun forces nationwide want to destroy our firearms culture and hunting traditions. The Colorado measure ignores the fact that populations of lions and bobcats are healthy and thriving, and hunting is carefully managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Furthermore, the sweeping language used in this Colorado initiative could be expanded in the future to ban the hunting of other game animals like deer, elk, and sheep. California implemented a similar mountain lion hunting ban decades ago, and the state now spends millions in taxpayer funds each year to pay government-funded employees to control lion populations as hunters are no longer able to participate in the wildlife management process. California's experience tells us that if Colorado mountain lion hunting is banned, it is likely that government-funded lethal removal will be necessary to protect humans, livestock, and pets in many circumstances. Anti-hunting groups won't stop with this Colorado initiative. While Colorado lion and bobcat hunters may be the target today, anti-hunting groups have tried to ban, and plan future attempts to ban, the hunting of many animals in other jurisdictions across the Country.

Hunters throughout America must understand that these types of efforts are never about science-based wildlife management. Leftist anti-hunters and anti-gun groups just want to remove hunters from the process of wildlife management and destroy the American hunting traditions. A ban on hunting your favorite species could be coming to your state next. As many as 10 million American hunters are not registered to vote, and many other hunters don't go to the polls or don't vote for candidates who reflect their values. Hunters everywhere need to get out and vote on November 5 for candidates who will protect the American Hunting Traditions.  At Gun Owners of America, our Second Amendment Hunters Program works every day to protect the American Hunting Traditions. Please visit our website (https://www.gunowners.org/hunting/) and be on the lookout for ways you can get more involved in helping us protect hunting traditions in the coming months.

Kind Regards,   Mark Jones Certified Wildlife Biologist® National Director, Hunter Outreach Buffalo, Wyoming"

 

 

I'd want to check very thoroughly any statement from an organisation calling itself "Gun Owners of America", because it is obviously a lobby group.

My experience of US lobby groups (from when I worked in the oil business in Houston) is that they often present a crassly one-sided picture of the situation. 

[TheVat]

A somewhat more balanced analysis of the issues of wildlife management and interaction with human populations.

https://theconversation.com/colorado-voters-weigh-a-ban-on-hunting-mountain-lions-as-attitudes-toward-wild-predators-shift-238265#:~:text=Colorado's Proposition 127 would ban,is currently legal in Colorado.

There is also, imo, a cause for concern when the pelt of the animal has a high monetary value.  History has shown repeatedly that species populations can be decimated by (sometimes illegal) over- harvesting, when there's a profit incentive.  Apex predator populations are quite vulnerable, in this regard.  Non-lethal methods of management often better protect the species and actually reduce dangerous human-animal encounters.  

[JohnDBarrow]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

A somewhat more balanced analysis of the issues of wildlife management and interaction with human populations.

https://theconversation.com/colorado-voters-weigh-a-ban-on-hunting-mountain-lions-as-attitudes-toward-wild-predators-shift-238265#:~:text=Colorado's Proposition 127 would ban,is currently legal in Colorado.

There is also, imo, a cause for concern when the pelt of the animal has a high monetary value.  History has shown repeatedly that species populations can be decimated by (sometimes illegal) over- harvesting, when there's a profit incentive.  Apex predator populations are quite vulnerable, in this regard.  Non-lethal methods of management often better protect the species and actually reduce dangerous human-animal encounters.  

Harvesting animals unlawfully is POACHING. Harvesting animals IAW game regulations is NOT poaching. If scientists determine that so many animals must be harvested for the good of the species or the environment, then so be it. I am a deer and dove hunter myself. I strictly follow the game laws. If the animal in question was lawfully taken, I don't care what legitimate business the pelt is involved in. I would mount a standing full-body bull giraffe in my private hunting lodge if I were to have the wherewithal to lawfully take one in an African safari perhaps if it were a rogue bull putting local villagers in danger. Naturally, I would want the airplane and the safari vehicles for my safari adventure to be powered by renewables to be in good conscience. 

Also, if an animal or two must be killed for conservation efforts, I believe in giving law-abiding sport hunters first crack at it.  Hunters generate revenues through game tags, ammunition sales and licensing fees that go toward wildlife management.  Having only government officials to cull herds creates an unnecessary taxpayer burden. 

Edited October 25 by JohnDBarrow

[zapatos]

9 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I also agree that if fur-bearing predators must be thinned in numbers, hounds are an important tool for hunters to efficiently do this. 

Why are hounds an important tool?  Why must it be done efficiently? If that is your goal, then why not just poison them or drop grenades on them from helicopters? Surely there are more efficient means of killing animals than walking through the woods with dogs and rifles.

[StringJunky]

48 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Why are hounds an important tool?  Why must it be done efficiently? If that is your goal, then why not just poison them or drop grenades on them from helicopters? Surely there are more efficient means of killing animals than walking through the woods with dogs and rifles.

Apache helicopter. Smash the target to smithereens and let nature do the rest.

[JohnDBarrow]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Why are hounds an important tool?  Why must it be done efficiently? If that is your goal, then why not just poison them or drop grenades on them from helicopters? Surely there are more efficient means of killing animals than walking through the woods with dogs and rifles.

Hunters generate revenues for game wardens, state biologists and conservation officers and such to operate in the United States of America through game licensing and tag fees. 

Explosives would create a fire hazard in forests. Well-placed bullets from proper centerfire rifles are much more humane than poisons. Hunting bear and other fur-bearing animals with hounds is a romantic adventure. Hunters have to pay states for the privilege to enjoy such romantic pursuits. The cry of speaking Walker treeing hounds in the woods below a treed bear or cougar is a joy to hear echoing through the trees. All of that helicopter stuff would just be a tax-payer burden. All of that burnt helicopter fossil fuel would not be Mother Earth friendly unless the flying machines were to otherwise run on biofuels from corn or green hydrogen, perhaps. The explosives would also destroy valuable trees, for you tree-huggers! 

The nose of a trained Walker treeing hound (moreover, a pack of them) is quite keen and efficient. This natural sniffer can home in on a bear or a big cat like a heat-seeking missile. Otherwise, these animals would be as evasive as Bigfoot to try to track. 

Edited October 25 by JohnDBarrow

[John Cuthber]

"Hunting bear and other fur-bearing animals with hounds is a romantic adventure."

Stalking is when you go for a romantic walk with someone and only one of you knows about it.

 

[JohnDBarrow]

The video above is the best way I have found so far to show how hunting can be applied as a feasible tool to manage wildlife wisely in my own humble opinion. 

Edited October 25 by JohnDBarrow

[JohnDBarrow]

This following video is a testament to brain-dead idiots in Pinko anti-American state capitol buildings who don't know a Walker treeing hound from a Walker Colt.

 

 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

This following video is a testament to brain-dead idiots in Pinko anti-American state capitol buildings who don't know a Walker treeing hound from a Walker Colt.

!

Moderator Note

That’s enough of that. 

Please review our rules, especially 2.1 on civility and 2.7 on how you can’t just post videos to make your point

 

Don’t bring this topic up again