Protecting ,Promoting,Traditional Bowhunting

[Scott J. Williams]

This has been on my mind for sometime, in fact for years. While all hunting is under attack, the greatest threat coming from our shrinking numbers, and back biting amoung ourselves, it would appear that no one organization could represent all of our needs. I know that there are a number of groups who are, alleged, to look out for our interest, but have you really thought about what your interest are?  

It is basic to logic, to break things down to it's most common element, in order to have a greater understanding, to obtain order. We should each do the same regarding those things most important to the survival of the sport of bowhunting, but more specificly the "art" of traditional bowhunting.

I have kicked around all kinds of crazy ideas, from a grass roots revolt, to a "The Congress of Sportsmen &  Sportswomen". Now before you guys start snickering, hear me out.  

It is clear to see that while we have things in common with other sportsmen(and women)we are really a different breed, and have different needs in pursuit of our method of hunting. We still need to preserve the right to hunt.

It seems unfair, not to mention provides a distorted view of us, to place us in the same bag as "modern bowhunter".  The compound of today is as far cry different from it's older counterpart as modern muzzel loaders are from it's patch and ball begining.

It could be argued that placing us in the same fields with modern bowhunters is akin to forcing us to hunt with modern firearms hunters.  I use this example to make a point,  "WE ARE NOT THE SAME".

If the above statement is true, then we have different needs.  This is the "catch 22" as it is one of the reasons that many antis believe they are nearly at the finish line, with all the differences they believe that we cannot unite.  This brings me back to the "Sportsman's Congress" idea, and guys I am going to run with this idea, the charter would call for elected, or appointed representatives from each segment of outdoor activity. You would have fishermen, you would have hikers/campers, you would have gun hunters, you would have bird watchers, you would have modern bowhunters, you would have traditonal bowhunters, you would have primitive bowhunters, you would have wildlife officials, from every state in the union.  Members would elect these congressmen and women, they should not be hacks of the sporting industry as they are part of the problem, but would work with state, and federal wildlife agencies. The purpose you ask, would be to provide a united front(as much as possible)to stand as a hedge against bad legislation, having our back, so to speak. To provide for better understanding between the different sporting groups.  It would also prevent the Antis from playing us one against the other.  This would be, and should be a non-profit group, fees in the form of dues, and donations would be accepted.  The group would, as soon as possible, attempt to purchase land to foster habitat and outdoor opportunites.

Of course it would not be without problems, but if we focus on the things we have in common, and understand that nature has enough to offer each of us we will be in a position to turn the tide, increase our numbers, and maintain a way of life worth fighting for.

Just a thought, what do you think?

[John Scifres]

Would you plan to tap existing organizations in each of the segments to serve as representatives?  There are great orgs in each and I truly believe you would be unsuccessful if you did not take advantage of them.  Uniting them is a good idea.  But, keep in mind that forming another layer of bureaucracy is always a danger.  Making it political (most orgs are to some degree) as a design invites egos and bickering.

Lots of hikers/campers and bird watchers and even many fishermen are not necessarily pro-hunting.

An organized, charismatic leader is the most important aspect of any organization.  Who will lead this Congress?

[paleFace]

funding will be an issue.  there are so many different organizations out there already and in order to be a part of them you need to join which cost money. i don't know about you but i am tapped out as it is. a few years ago i sat down one day and looked at all of the different organizations that i was a member of. why i ask myself did i join this group. was it for the reading material they sent out monthly or bi monthly or was it something else. did i join this organization because they had my best interest in mind.

i don't remember the exact number but it was some where around 12 different organizations that had joined, sent in dues every year and basically that was it. other than the stack of magazines, half of which i never got time to read.  i felt like i was nothing more than a number in their computer and a few dollars in their account.

that's when i said enough is enough and i took a real hard look at all the groups and decided to narrow them down to the ones that were really about who i am as a hunter.

that said i think where there could be a need is an organization that carried all others under their umbrella so to speak. this organization would not have individual membership but rather the members would be comprised of groups like Boone & Crockett, Pope & Young, PBS, Comptons, DU and on and on.

like John said adding another layer to bureaucracy is not helping a thing and getting individuals to part with more of their hard earned money to become a member of another so called protect your rights organization is going to be a tough nut to crack.

you might want to take a look at the NABC (North American Bowhunting Coalition) to see how they are formed.  this group sounds very similar to what you are thinking only it's strictly geared towards bowhunting.

i wish you well and i think the concept has some merit it's just going to take a lot of planning and thought and of course plenty of green backs.