Question about Hunters/Fishers and the Environment

[titaniumsalute]

I live in Ohio and a good deal of people I know both hunt and fish. I would say that the majority of harcore hunters and fishers I know are Republicans and Trump supporters.

These people fish regularly in streams, creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, etc. They clean the fish and eat it in most cases. So why the fuck would they want Congress to repeal clean water acts? Same goes for Hunting. Why would they want to repeal clean air acts? It makes no damned sense to me.

Some of the outdoorsman I know are always preaching about how they love nature, feel so close to the Almighty, etc. It is so hypocritical.

Thanks.

[TrekLuver]

1. I don't think they do...they just don't know it's happening. Most of the State Game lands

that are in PA and there are a lot of them are funded in large part by the hunters.

[elleng]

2. They apparently, don't recognize, CONSEQUENCES!

[doc03]

3. That is to deep for them to think about, all they are concerned about is

keeping their gunz.

[HassleCat]

4. They don't want that, but they didn't think about it.

Like so many others, they figure, "My river will be clean. My drinking water will be free of mercury. My air will be breathable. Other people may have problems, but not me. I can vote for a madman and nothing bad will happen to me."

[PatsFan87]

5. We need to do a better job gaining the trust of hunters/fishers, talking to them more

frequently, and framing environmental issues in ways that have an impact on them. We have some opportunities. Up here in Maine, ticks have benefited from global warming (shorter winters, higher temps) and these ticks have wreaked havoc on the moose population. Moose are a huge part of our tourism and recreational economy and a lot of rural, typically Republican voters love going moose hunting. Speak to them about declining populations affecting whether or not they can hunt. Speak to them about declining populations hurting the state's economy. Speak to Maine fishermen about acidification of oceans, plastic killing fish, etc. and connect that to their jobs and their ability to support their families. I don't see Democrats here making these issues a large part of their campaign.

As a party, we also need to speak to rural voters in a different way than we do urban voters about guns. While guns may be a negative force in cities, they're seen positively up here by a lot of people. In sparsely populated northern areas of Maine, people cling to guns for protection because the nearest police station is pretty far away. People live in the woods and their aren't close neighbors who would hear/see/know if something happened. Meat in the freezer is also a relief for people living in poverty. While some may see it as antiquated, hunting for food is still a part of our fabric up here. Too often, we aren't going into communities and speaking to these voters and we let the NRA frame the message.

[meadowlander]

6. I don't think they do, or they don't realise that's what's on the cards.

Thought I saw an article yesterday about hunters leading the fight against one of the executive orders but can't find the link now.

This is a great wedge issue that we can use to bring Trump voters over to our side, at least where it comes to environmental protection. I've done work on freshwater policy in the climate of a right wing government and my experience is that the hunting and fishing lobby carries a huge amount of weight on clean water issues with elected officials who would otherwise blow off feedback from environmentalists.

[world wide wally]

7. My experience has been that they think it's "macho" to vote Republican

Especially for an ignorant ass like Trump. Crude is cool, I guess.

[ElkeH]

8. State's rights

At least that is the explanation usually given to me. They argue that even if the EPA and all federal environmental legislation were repealed tomorrow, that would not mean everyone would be free to pollute. They say every state has its own environmental agencies and laws and that is good enough. States should not have the right to dictate through the federal government the policies of another state.

What they do not realize is that many red states would be more than happy to gut their environmental protections entirely and also that pollution of one state affects the quality of life of another. If Minnesota decided it were alright to dump toxic waste into the Mississippi River, Louisiana would have to put up with that toxic waste as well. We need some national standards.

[milestogo]

9. Some people say they love animals but they kill them and eat them.

I'm not being facetious - for me its a major disconnect. For me loving animals and caring about the environment means eating a plant based diet. But not everyone adds it up that way.

I worked with a man who said he loved deer and had a tattoo of a buck... but every fall he went out looking for one to kill.

[2naSalit]

10. INteresting...

you make a choice to eat no animals, out here in Montana, guns provide food as do the wildlife. Many people complain about what you just did but I must remind you that it's a choice.

I don't eat much meat but when I do I prefer organic meat and I'm not a huge fan of hunting and don't do it myself. I have male housemates who hunt and fish and care about these animals. Not all hunters are oblivious to environmental concerns and the ones I know care about the animals, even the ones they kill for food. There is no store bought meat in this house, it's all from harvested game animals.

Understand that the number of deer, elk and what have you in my region that are killed for food is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of these fine animals that die by automobile each year, all year 'round. Hunting lasts for a few weeks.

That being said, there are twenty elk and a few hundred deer that pass by the house regularly and there are at least eight to twelve dead ones on the side of the road every week by people speeding by in their vehicles who can't even pay attention to the road even though they usually know there are deer all over the place out here. The just have to get the park or the hot springs of the ski trail and nothing can or should get in their way and it's just too bad if they hit something on the way while they are in their hurry.

Sure there are asshole hunters but out here if you are one of those and someone notices, they will turn you in and tell all the neighbors about it.

You have to see it from others' perspective. In this house, nothing is wasted from any animal harvested for food, if it were not so, I would not be able to live with these guys. And one benefit is that I don't have to spend money on meat when I decide to eat some and I know that what is in the freezer is entirely organic, was ethically harvested and these guys do the butchering and the cooking of what they harvest, and they are fine cooks... they let me do the veggies and sauces, we make a good feast when one is to be had. On top of all that, a great deal of meat harvested goes to the local food banks and is much appreciated. It is a healthier choice is you are a carnivore.

[milestogo]

11. I live in Wisconsin where a lot of people hunt deer...

and they see it as a responsibility - keeping the population under control. I understand that, but I wish there were another way.

I eat a plant based diet in part because of factory farming - which involves a lot of animal cruelty, pollution, and consumption of resources. I do make a distinction between that and eating what you hunt for food, which is done the world over.

[Achilleaze]

13. Some people say they love vegetables

but then they kill and eat them.

Species-ists. They are legion.

[milestogo]

21. I eat them alive.

Barbaric, I know.

[Vinca]

12. Apparently the latest plot to sell off American public lands was thwarted by hunters who figured,

rightly, they wouldn't be able to use the land if it was privately held. It seems if you own lots of guns you have clout. You should mention things like clean water to your fishing friends. Fish, in particular, don't like chemicals.

[2naSalit]

22. Fishing

especially fly fishing is a major nidustry out here and last summer 90% of the businesses (river rafting, fishing) were drastically and adversely affected by 180 miles of the Yellowstone River being closed to all activity when there was a major fish die-off, It shut down the season 6 weeks early. This devastated whole counties whose summer revenue was trashed by losing that much time on the river. Even the NPS centennial celebration in Gardiner was not well attended because of the loss of tourism due to the river closure a week prior. That means motels, restaurants and the like. Everybody lost money because of it.

In this part of the US, something like clean water is a major concern. My housemates also do fishing guide services during which they educate the clientele so, yeah, we get it, it's usually the tourists who miss the point all too often.

[RedWedge]

14. If you know people who both hunt and fish, do you ask them about it?

There's actually quite a bit of concern among outdoors enthusiasts about Republican efforts to sell off public land and environmental deregulation. It's these kinds of concerns that forward-thinking Democrats can use to build bridges and alliances, but that takes work and a lot of people would rather stereotype.

[jmg257]

15. They probably don't want to repel clean air/water acts. Talks of gun rights/gun control

Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2017, 10:12 AM - Edit history (1)

are much more 'front and center' than the EPA stuff.

Likely more afraid of the former than the latter.

[Adrahil]

16. Cognitive Dissonance....

They believe the environmental damage will affect someone else. And fuck other people.

[alarimer]

17. Yeah, sometimes they are.

But at other times, hunters and fishers are the few Republicans who would go against the giveaway of federal lands. Which is why I don't mind Ryan Zinke so much as Interior Secretary, in that he seems to be opposed to it as well.

It is unfortunate that Republicans now see science as a liberal thing and not a tool to inform policy. For them, regulations are always bad for business, when they clearly are not. For instance, maybe Clear Water Act and Clean Air Act regulations cost some polluting businesses some money. But, because we now have cleaner streams, we also have more fish, which leads to more fishing guide businesses, for example, which you'd think they would love.

There is a bit of cognitive dissonance at work here as well. They simply see regulations as costing businesses too much and fail to see the good that they do. Most are not old enough now to remember when rivers regularly caught fire, when you couldn't eat the fish that came out of a lot of water bodies, when you could hardly breathe in places like LA.

[former9thward]

18. No one is repealing the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act.

If you think they are why don't you provide an example where Congress has done that or has a hearing scheduled to do that.

Thanks.

[Laxman]

20. You Are Correct To A Point.....

however, much of the implementation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act has been delegated to the states. With the ascension of Scott Pruitt to the leadership of the EPA two things will happen. The states will be cut loose to their own interpretations of these laws without oversight and the EPA will be severely restricted in its mission through budget cuts, personnel reductions and policy changes. If you live in a progressive state like California, New York or New Jersey there will likely be few changes visible. However in states like Oklahoma, Texas, or Wyoming you will find a much different outcome. Corporations, especially big money extraction industries, have owned state legislatures since the robber baron times. The next four years will see these interests make substantial gains in weakening environmental oversight and regulation.

[Laxman]

19. This Is Not A New Question....

but it is an important one. I will give you some excerpts from a few different sources.....

Environmental protection has become a partisan Democratic issue. This does not bode well for the long-term future of our nation’s resources. There will inevitably be swings of power between Democrats and Republicans, and periods of Republican control cannot be interludes in purgatory for the environment. This situation is bad for environmental policy and ultimately bad for politics in general. Having policy areas where the parties can find common ground and agreement is essential for a vibrant and healthy democracy. Environmental issues have traditionally provided opportunities for non-partisan cooperation. With the end of bi-partisanship and the rejection by the Republicans of environmental protections, the Democratic Party has effectively become the home of environmentalists by default. This then raises the question, “Where do conservatives who care about the environment turn?”

Millions of sportsmen-hunters, fishermen, and outdoorsmen are currently aligned with the Republican Party. The sportsmen community is dominated by people who see themselves as rugged individualists who find the rhetoric of personal accountability and limited government appealing. Many believe that gun ownership issues are best addressed by the Republicans despite the fact that Democrats do not oppose the legitimate ownership of firearms by sportsmen. These are people for whom the protection of our nation’s natural resources is a priority. How long will it be before they begin to realize that the Republican representatives they have supported have not only abandoned the policies that were once a core part of conservative thinking, but that they have categorically rejected them? When that epiphany occurs it has the potential for reshaping the political landscape for environmentalists.

https://enviropolitics.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/a-port-in-the-storm/

It's now or never for public hunting and fishing.

For 2 million miles of stream habitat that support the wild trout and big-game herds in the West. For 20 million acres of small wetlands that produce most of the ducks U.S. hunters shoot every fall. For Appalachian mountaintops that protect trout streams; for coastal estuaries that produce salmon, redfish, snook, and tarpon along the coasts.

If individual sportsmen and sportswomen don't act now--if they don't contact their congressional delegations in the next few months and tell them to call off their attacks on the regulations and conservation programs that have sustained quality public hunting and fishing for a century--their grandchildren may never share the experiences they hold so dear.

That's the reality facing America's hunters and anglers in 2012.

"The average hunter and angler out there doesn't understand what's going on, that what we're seeing is the biggest attack on fish and wildlife habitat in 100 years," says Jim Martin, conservation director of Pure Fishing's Berkley Conservation Institute and former chief of fisheries at the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

He's not exaggerating.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/fishing/bass-fishing/2012/03/sportmans-storm-congress-come-down-anglers-and-hunters#page-2

There is little doubt that the next president of the United States will face challenges on natural resource use and conservation that many believe have not been seen since the 1930s, and that she or he will either have a significant place in history for finding solutions to the challenges, or be remembered for allowing them to become malignant.

Hunters, anglers and their supporting industries have been the benefactors for all Americans in their willingness to fund natural resource conservation. These two industries continue to provide nearly $100 billion to the U.S. economy, but they can no longer carry the burden alone.

National wildlife refuges, national parks, Bureau of Land Management lands and national forests face maintenance backlogs that would take at least $19 billion to erase. These public lands belong to the people of the United States and are critical to ensuring a network of habitats across the country to allow wildlife managers to respond to any changes that occur on the ground as a result of sea level rise, increased storm activity or long-term drought/wet conditions. Ensuring adequate funding for these agencies, along with other appropriations such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund, will provide the next president with opportunities to support public lands and public use of those lands.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/opinion-next-president-should-be-force-for-conservation

There's three articles worth reading. It's a complex political relationship, but if it can be understood, it can lead to some serious inroads into the electorate of the nation's rural areas. There's some fundamental common ground and some fundamental misunderstandings that have people who should be allied talking past one another. My two cents.

[2naSalit]

23. +1