Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Shawn

lion season

Recommended Posts

Fellas,

 

I think the point clb is trying to make is "what's your motivation behind killing a lion"? And the bottom line is, we've all got our own reasons why. And obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree on why. Neither is right or wrong when it's as easy as driving to Walmart and throwing down a little more than a roll of quarters for a legal lion tag. SimpleHunter mentioned earlier that road hunting is such a tradition in some families that it's accepted. I understand your "comparison" but the main difference I see in the lion scenerio is that one is illegal and the other isn't. And all of you road hunters out there who want to justify it, sorry, you can't. When I see you drive by at 5mph with your bow or rifle in hand, I don't care that your family is with you, you're still lazy AND illegal!. Even if I could convince you otherwise, what's the famous quote? "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

 

To accuse someone of being an "anti-hunter" because his methods/reasons of take are different than yours is borderline "stupid" as well. Many of us are opportunists. Which is why we buy a lion tag at the beginning of the year to begin with, right? But you can be an opportunist and selective at the same time. I also don't find a problem with antler restrictions in some cases. Does that make me an anti-hunter? Maybe not but surely a "yahoo", huh?

 

If you would have asked me 5 yrs ago if I would have shot a lion over dogs I'd say "nope". At the time I wanted to "work" for a lion. Ha! Boy was I ignorant. My mind had been changed for reasons I posted earlier. Many of you know that I had the opportunity to take a lion over dogs with Azlongears this year. Few hunters have chased dogs but many have sat on a hill with binos and glassed up critters, including a lion or two. That's the point that I'd like to make. To some, regardless of legality, the hunt means more than the kill. Cliche'? Probably. But it's the truth. In addition to the lion, for the rest of my life I get to stare at a giant coues deer buck on my wall. But even after the memory of his measurements fade, I'd be willing to bet the story won't.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, as much as I would prefer that those who foot the bill for the majority of game management expenses - i.e. hunters/fishers, had their voice count for more in the public arena, the fact is that the non-hunting majority who are neither pro/anti hunting still comprise the greatest vote on ballots. So when it comes to public decisions, they have two voices to listen to: hunters/fishers and the anti-hunting/fishing crowd. Increasingly, the issues of "how" we hunt are being more influenced by the answer to "why" we hunt. The trend in game management is to encourage the harvest of older male specimens of the species (yes there are anterless tags, but that is not the trend overall). However, when it comes to predators, this doesn't seem to apply (and of course I'm already aware of all the rhetoric about predator "management"). When this apparent contradiction is brought forth to the public eye for legislation, do you really think they are going to find in favor of a crowd that is becoming increasingly un-relatable, especially a crowd that says the only good predator is a dead one? You can't support predator hunting by just saying that you hate lions or wolves. Our flippant disregard of species that were native and in ecological balance before we showed up will prove far more disastrous to hunting than minor concessions of a few months (or 25% of the season from 99% of the people). Not every concession is bad, or a sign of weakness, or appeasing of terrorists. In fact, honest - well reasoned concessions might prove to be the salvation of our beloved sport. We have to win the approval of the non-hunting majority of the public (again, neither pro nor anti), since they control the vote. Do I wish that my dollars spent on licenses and tags carried more weight? Of course, but unfortunately they do not. We must reform our image in the public eye, because they will determine the future outcomes of public decisions. Merely getting irate and resorting to accusations of stupidity will not help in the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Game and Fish is very happy with the 10,352 hunters that laid down just $14.50 (almost a roll of quarters and a half) in 2009. That was $150,104.00 that came into the coffers with only 246 lions being taken. Of that 246 only 167 were taken with dogs. It seems to me that if only people going to hunt lions with dogs bought tags then the our Game and fish would lose out on a huge chunk of cash that supports many other programs and species. Being able to have that tag with me and "accidentally" take a lion was the only way I was going to take a lion. I'm not in the position to hire a guide to run the dogs for me. I bet most of the 10k plus hunters that buy lion tags are in the same boat. (I see that lion hunts go for 3 to 5 thousand dollars, does that sound about right?) I always buy my lion tag in January, I view it as a lottery ticket that might win and did win about 5 years ago. (lion not the $)

 

I don't condone road hunting but I can't see that as a valid way to even try to lion hunt, the lions that I have seen crossing the road were gone in less then half a flash. So bringing that up in this debate seemed silly to me.

 

In the words of the great American, Rodney King, "why can't we just all get along" :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess i'm wierd because i would rather fight an enemy than kiss his butt. a lot of people use the outdoors. its a real long list. hunters, anglers, ranchers, farmers, hikers, bikers, trail riders, campers, bird watchers, off roaders, prospectors, etc, etc. and then there are many different divisions of each type on the list. but for the most part, they all get along fairly well. at the very least, they tolerate each other and in a lot of ways get along very well and support each other. most folks fall in to more than one category. and anti hunters hate em all. they might let hikers and bird watchers exist if they had to, but they would do away with every other person that likes to enjoy the outdoors, literally, if they could. they don't use science, they don't use reason, they only use hate. they hate anyone who doesn't have their view. i don't think it's a good thing to appease them in anyway. and it is really aggravating to hear the azgfd talk about increasing opportunity when they do things like take away 25% of a season to kiss up to somebody that would like to shoot us all behind the ear. and the question about shooting a young lion. if it's legal, it's fine with me. legal=ethical. i will support anyone using the outdoors legally. Lark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×