dave petersens column

[erichardin]

I had to sign on to tradgang just to write about Petersens campfire philosopher column this month.  
Full disclosure, I hunt with a mathews as well as martin serengetti, I like both, though I've taken way more critters with the martin.
Dave's column on the issues between east and west was an important read.  Read Bowsite sometime, there is nearly a constant 'liberal' bashing thread of some sort, most of these threads are also anti-habitat! I've always grappled with how hunters could consistently vote for people who would diminish our chances to go hunting.  Then along comes Dave and articulates the east and west divide. ..thanks dave...any other thoughts on this article?

[Free Range]

Yes I thought it was a good article. But there are other divides in the hunting community. Some very local, in is book Ghost Grizzlies he admitted he voted against trapping here in Colorado, a bit ironic if you ask me. And as for Liberals V Conservatives, I don’t know if either have hunting’s best interest at heart. The way I see it we can either not hunt and have all the wild places intact, or hunt but have no place to hunt because it’s all paved or covered with oil rigs.

[T. Downing]

"And as for Liberals V Conservatives, I don’t know if either have hunting’s best interest at heart." You speak the truth. A very complicated topic. I am looking foward to reading Dave's article.

[et]

I didn't necessarily get a big tent message when reading Dave's article rather a push for understanding others regional, political and land use issues and how they effect hunting nation wide. From reading posts both here and on LW for the last couple of years I would say that there are significant differences in a mind set between Eastern and Western hunters not just in methodology of hunting but also on how to protect our hunting seasons. IMO Dave’s article just barely scratches the surface of our general differences. Of course I am speaking in generalities and there are always exceptions.

Back East it seems that the hunter is under personal attack from anti's with more of the non hunting public swinging against them simply due to demographics. Out west we fear the loss of access and destruction of public lands as the threat to our hunting heritage. Eastern response seems to be one of gathering numerical support,(political clout) to survive. “Anything goes as long as it is legal” says the cynical Westerner.
Out west for the hunting that we grew up with to survive we need large expanses of public lands. We don't need anymore folks tramping through the mountains, pretty much maxed out the supply side of our hunting opportunities. We focus on land use issues and relationships with the non-hunting public to protect our hunting opportunities by focusing on common goals beyond hunting. “Elitist, dictators of ethics, appeasers” says the cynical Easterner.
 There are times when our regional strategies are at odds with each other. It is at these times that we need to be aware of the larger picture not just our little square of the canvas.
Typing this I do realize that MY attitudes and beliefs revolving around hunting are undeniably shaped by my regional experience. 4th generation born Coloradoan who’s hunting dreams as a child, were about adventure in high mountains and to this day when I think of hunting, it is wild country that I see. For me there is no “hunting” without the country. For people in other parts of the Country there is no “hunting” without ______ and regardless of how long we debate it niether will be right.

et

[JStark]

Rather, et, that neither will be wrong...  very good points.

I haven't read Petersen's article, but I hold that man in high regard, and have used his perspective in many a heartfelt discussion with anti-hunters, vegetarians, and city folk.  I will definitely look at his article.