|
Post by akona20 on Jul 13, 2006 1:02:18 GMT -6
There is a little agressiveness apearing in the debate and trappincoyotes37 has an interesting way of handling other people's perceptions of the matters at hand.
No one so far has regognised the absolutely sterling work done in Europe and other areas who have ensured by masterful tactics that BMP's are not yet required as an export necessity. These people have for years fought the most desperate and rabid antis in the world. The masterful handling of the domestic pet fur problem is testament to theri work. Their untiring work and on the surface the apparent loss of fox hunting rights in great Britain shows that a loss to the antis can sometimes be all but overturned by a judicious knowledge of common law and how it can effect even the most disasterous looking legislation.
When the antis turned really nasty in the 80's in Europe I wonder where 37 was? Was he one of the corporate dogs who stood in the firing line to be spat on, pissed on, showered with filth, punched and kicked. during those times the only warm feeling we ever got was the warmth of the blood as it trickled down our faces from the cut to the skull where the cobblestone thrown by an anti had hit you. And when the 'industry spokeperson' fronted the media and was seen blinking uncontrollably it was probably because someone was shining a laser into their face to make things even more uncomfortable.
And when we sat down at the negotiating table without a friend to try and explain why some mysterious plant or animal previously unheard of should not stop a project or why the antis were lying about the contents of something to be sunk at sea I wonder where 37 was?
Was he perhaps at the function where a leading fashion house owner chatted to the wife a senior politician about how wild fur was trapped and explained that the resource was a renweable one and unlike the rats caught in the presidental palace when the animals were killed parts of them were put to good use such as making warm clothes. That single conversation changed a whole outlook by a nation.
So when we are told by 37 how negotiations should be run on these matters perhaps the few of us on this board who have been in the front line don't particularly like the tone. That is not to say we will not listen to good steady counsel of course but we will reject the accusatory tone.
You might also understand why some of react rather heatedly when some unknown calls us by slight an anti ourselves. One of my lasting memories of a term in Germany on the corporate line was the huge banner with "HSUS: Your American Friends Support the Ban" and being told that money was flowing from HSUS America to support the rioters. I received a black eye, three stitches in the head and a ruined shirt and suit that day for my part in the stand against the antis. Oh yes and of course David Wills was one of the leading HSUS folks then. As my European friends shake their heads at the NTA over his appointment and wonder how my credentials and those of a few others can be questioned and Wills receives a free ride from the accusers.
37, engage in the debate but don't instruct us how to debate or front the isuues, counsel yes, don't instuct or blame.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 13, 2006 5:42:35 GMT -6
Akona I think you misunderstood my post, it was not directed at you but at the FTA and how they can step up if they so choose.
You are correct I was not in Europe in the 80's,90's or now. ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jul 13, 2006 5:57:25 GMT -6
I understood your post precisely perhaps you misunderstand mine.
|
|
|
Post by SgtWal on Jul 13, 2006 20:06:32 GMT -6
If memory serves the movement started in Britain, and led to the RSPCA in the 1800's. That ANY form of hunting and animal husbandry still exists in Britain or Europe is a miracle in its self. Anyone who fails to study and understand the true goals of these groups is in for a real awakening. Trapping should be looked at as a business. It's a major part of a decent sized fur industry. As long as we accept the status of "Hobby", or sport, the restrictions placed on us are looked at as minor inconvienances by those in power. Like the steel shot for birds or zinc sinkers for fishing. As a business, restrictions can be challenged as income loss producing obstacles. But I fear we have few that will support that point of view. After all money isn't important.
wayne
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Jul 16, 2006 11:14:45 GMT -6
Akona,
How can you shape an inevitable process when you voted to not be a part of that process?
Is that the effecitive "tactics" that you speak of?
You can't affect the outcome of a process that you voted to not be a part.
If you hadn't noticed, the NTA kept their dogs in the fight while the FTA sat on the sidelines and bitched about what they voted to not be a part of.
~SH~
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Jul 16, 2006 11:52:37 GMT -6
They also got bitch slapped into submission.
There was a lot of discussion on NTA's part about GATT and had they attempted that course of action they'd have failed.
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Jul 16, 2006 13:12:54 GMT -6
Scott Huber;"If you hadn't noticed, the NTA kept their dogs in the fight while the FTA sat on the sidelines and bitched about what they voted to not be a part of."
That is incorrect.
The FTA has attended every meeting that it has been allowed to participate in. The FTA also has had people on each Ad-Hoc Committee.
There is also proof of the FTAs continued communications efforts in communicating with the IFWA and the FRTWG.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 16, 2006 14:18:00 GMT -6
Trapping should be looked at as a business. It's a major part of a decent sized fur industry. As long as we accept the status of "Hobby", or sport
Commercialization of wildlife will win No friends from the general public. The "majority" of fur trapping comes from "hobby" or "sport" trapping not longliners anymore due to higher cost of doing business and the lack of "true" dollars in fur anymore compaired to operating cost and living exspense.
In fishing you have sport fisherman and commerical fishermen 2 totally different avenues and numbers look at sport fisherman numbers compaired to commercial, who would be the easiest target for animal rights? Trapping would be the same, I don't think all fur trapping should be labled as a business as you talk of low numbers Sgt wal the fur industry compaired to many other US eneterprises dosen't even compair in dollars in the year 2000 and beyond.
Robert running both sides of the fence and condemming the BMP process has won little support from those that know what and how the people and process of the BMP's are all about. Again reading what is on the FTA website and how they feel about the BMP's as a whole and then listening to your counter points finds one looking at an org that is afraid to take a stand, your either going to stay the course and make a differance or badmouth and run away, but to do both at the same time makes one look like John Kerry in a presidential run end result loosing support from many that where to be in your back pocket.
IE: "We supported the BMP's before we chose not to support them". "We attned all meetings we could or can, but choose not to particpate in a process we deem as not benefical to trapping" ETC,ETC.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jul 16, 2006 15:13:05 GMT -6
"How can you shape an inevitable process etc."
Of course we can query whether or not the process is or should be inevitable but let's proceed past that point. In refusing to comply with process as a participant but attending each meeting you can is a time honoured method of a group showing their displeasure but keeping a watching brief to be up with all events should and if they are required to act. Very smart negotiating stance.
How long do you think it would take a group of dedicated professionals in reality to draw up a set of BMP's if the chips were really down?
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Jul 16, 2006 15:22:55 GMT -6
Commercial fishing has been targeted by sport fisherman for years, in fact they've employed the same tactics that HSUS and Co. have in the form of ballot measures and legislation.
I disagree on the view that commercializing wildlife would be viewed negatively by the public at large. They're more accepting of that they are of the "sport" aspect.
An example is Europe, where most hunting is commercial. The roe deer, red deer, moose, grouse and other species harvested are sold as meat to the public.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jul 16, 2006 15:33:30 GMT -6
Ah FWS how I miss the Glorious Twelfth of August.
Precisely correct on the commercial aspect of hunting in Europe. The point is sorely missed by trapping advocates in America, trapping is a necessity and it has a useful and needed by product.
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Jul 16, 2006 15:49:28 GMT -6
TC37, It is significant to this discussion what your real identity is? Especially if you are possibly benefiting financially from the BMP process.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 16, 2006 16:22:20 GMT -6
Robert, sorry dude I benefit no way from the BMP's as they are. I get paid if I take part or not! I see the benefits of them and know they will take place with or without my input, I prefer to see the hows and why's and offer my input.
FWS and Akona look at the surveys and see where "commercialized wildlife falls with the general public in the US, this ain't Europe and people see that as a negative not a positive in polling. Wild lands and wild life are deemed as a benefit to all public and people show through polling as being offensive when commercialization takes place, right or wrong they see it as a cheapening of the resource. Why do you think the crabbing industry has taken such a hard line on the bearing straights area and the regulation that takes place?
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Jul 16, 2006 16:45:45 GMT -6
I have, and when it's explained and put in context the public is supportive. The surveys done on commercial whaling were interesting in that regard, when it was understood in context the responses were about 80% in favor.
That's a resource management/allocation issue, there ain't no sporties taking king crab or opilios in the Bering Sea. It also has to do with safety, the derby style fisheries were killers.
The argument for conserving furbearers and furbearer habitat is and has been based on commercial value, it was so in Aldo Leopolds time as well. He used that exact argument for justifying marsh preservation and restoration.
The reality is that those arguments fit in very well with habitat conservation as touted by mainstream conservationists worldwide. There is more value to habitat in a natural state producing natural products than in razing/developing it in most cases. The problem being that people are too short sighted.
But put into practice it works. And the bigger reality is that we DO commercialize our wildlife and fisheries in the U.S., what is the functional difference in a landowner selling a deer lease to hunters versus selling the deer.
And I'm just barely touching the surface of this. These arguments and the realizations of tangible results in habitat conservation are death to the animal rights types.
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Jul 16, 2006 16:57:44 GMT -6
Something I've never forgotten was a private conversation I had with Japan's IWC Commisioner years ago. I was fortunate to have been a unique entity at the international conservation meetings I attended so I was treated differently than the hired help. Thus I had access to a lot of folks and could talk frankly with them.
We were discussing US attitudes towards resource use and he made a point I've never forgotten, he said "For all of the outcry over whales and other species Americans make, they trash so many amazing resources. Like the Cheseapeake Bay, so amazingly productive that under good management it could feed millions yet they treat it as a sewer."
He's right. And there are many lessons that can be learned from the Japanese and others on this.
Southern African nations are implementing community based wildlife management programs because they work. It benefits the people and the wildlife by putting a commercial value on the wildlife. Guess what, they're following the U.S. model by identifying who's gonna pay for these species and their habitats to persist. We're just not admitting that at the most basic level we are commercializing wildlife.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 16, 2006 19:46:05 GMT -6
what is the functional difference in a landowner selling a deer lease to hunters versus selling the deer.
None, the underlying factor is the state still controls the numbers without, what would we have for buck numbers?
We're just not admitting that at the most basic level we are commercializing wildlife.
I agree to a point, we oversee the amount of each species taken in a given area or state without we would have far less of high dollar species that don't rebound as fast or because of weather or disease would find less than ideal numbers. Leaving less hunter and fisherman satisfaction overall.
There are points you made that make sense, just as hunters and trappers have made sense for years, problem is the general public can be persuaded easily to see that commercialization can be seen as a bad thing, "greed" to many if you will and the end result is more limitation and more regulation you and I both know it. Will see how the public sees the "new" hunting tournaments that are to take place and how that helps or hurts hunting as awhole. Look at what the radicals acomplished in WY recently with the prairie dog hunt! Scary to think that could happen but it did, I'm afraid as portraying all trapping as "just business" would do nothing to help trapping at all. IMHO
|
|
|
Post by blakcoyote on Jul 17, 2006 11:54:39 GMT -6
All hunting,fishing and trapping is commercialized,through each states DNR.The license sales are revenue for the state gov. and all the extra money that is spent at businesses by sportsmen.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 17, 2006 13:34:10 GMT -6
All hunting,fishing and trapping is commercialized,through each states DNR.The license sales are revenue for the state gov.
Each state has the responsibility to care for and manage the wild resources, we could give out free license and pay salaries for "all" game and fish with much higher taxes or have the sportsman pay the biggest portion to protect and over see the resources they use. I like states that have separate Dept's and not 1 large entity such as a DNR. Many states that have done so have lost on the game and fish end for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Jul 18, 2006 6:26:32 GMT -6
you got paid to do bmp work.
If I understand you correctly, this is a fact.
That you got paid either way, doesn't matter.
What matters is YOU have a vested interest in getting the bmps accepted by the public.
As does EVERY state man and fed man participating in the processes.
And thats the problem. When you, and all the other state men have a vested interest, they tend to (like you do) to promote their product.
You promoting bmps in an unbiased manner, would be like Henry Ford promoting Model Ts.....
Its clear as a bell to anyone reading this.
and thats cool.
But don't deny that YOUR data is part of the process.
YOU were paid to bmp trap. YOU have a vested interest,
Thus, all is explained.
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Jul 18, 2006 10:12:48 GMT -6
T'man, You want to talk about "RED HERRINGS" ? Trying to discredit 37 or myself due to our participation in the BMP process on the state payroll to discredit our position and give more credence to the bmp blaming position is the classic "red herring". I can assure you, THAT DOG WON'T HUNT! Let's get one thing perfectly clear, SD "VOLUNTARILY", I REPEAT "VOLUNTARILY" participated in the bmp process BASED ON ENCOURAGEMENT BY CHRIS M AND MYSELF to test coyote traps for one reason and one reason only, TO SHAPE AN INEVITABLE PROCESS THAT WOULD HAVE WENT ON WITH OR WITHOUT OUR INPUT THAT COULD AFFECT US, PERIOD. That is a damn fact! There is no bias other than to make sure that the traps we use were fairly represented. Odon Corr also participated in the study because we knew that we would hear just this type of "RED HERRING" bullsh*t in response to our position. He is no longer an ADC trapper. We had nothing to do with the raccoon study. Any attempt to discredit my or 37's input on coyote bmp discussions based on the fact that we were on the state payroll WHICH SAVED THE IAFWA MONEY, does nothing but show desperation. That goes for the same lame argument I HAVE HEARD that we were trying to shape the process for the betterment of the ADC program as opposed to private trapping. That's just as stupid. The traps are the same. If anyone wants to turn your discrediting dogs loose and attempt to discredit my input based on the fact that we participated on the state payroll, BRING IT! That dog will be shot before it even starts hunting. Simple question Robert, why would you sit on the bmp ad hoc committees of a process that you voted not to support??? Does that make sense to you? Admit it Robert, it was a dumb move for FTA to vote to oppose the process than bitch about not having more input. How do you expect to have more input in a process that you voted to not be a part of?? That's so FTA. To take a position of "opposing the process" means you also oppose the Wisconsin snare data that you used to help legislate snaring in Missouri and it means you oppose the good modified coyote trap data. The correct approach was to agree to participate in the process and have the right to criticize protocols which you did not agree to WITH THE OPTION OF PRESENTING A BETTER PROTOCOL. The John Kerry comparison nailed it 37. "First I voted for it then I voted against it". Damn straight! That's exactly what FTA did and Dave Hastings perpetuates it with every anti bmp article he writes. Anyone can be a blamer! That requires no talent. I'll stand alone. Doesn't bother me a bit. I have the facts to back my position, not a bunch of baseless conspiracy theories. ~SH~
|
|