From: chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu (Chuck D'Ambra)
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Reply-To: chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu
Organization: National Center for Atmospheric Research
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:34:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.083700.26155@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, ftarnol@nma.mnet.uswest.com (Fred Arnold (303) 896-8084) writes:
>As many of you are aware, hunters in Colorado lost the spring bear
>hunt to an ARM petition drive that placed a Constitutional amendment
>banning the hunt on the November ballot.

Actually, it simply changed the state's statutes, not the constitution.

>The late filing of this petition did not give sportsmen's groups the
>opportunity to organize or finance an effective campaign to defeat
>this initiative.  Since the initiative was narrowly worded and only
>affected the spring bear hunt, a certain amount of apathy among
>hunters was probably also responsible for its passage.  

It's not apparent that the filing time had any impact.  Those who opposed it
were certainly aware by last spring at the latest that an effort was underway 
to get the initiative on the ballot and could have begun preparing then.
TV commercials and other advertising were purchased by both sides, though
frankly other ballot questions and the general election got a lot more
attention from the media and the voters.

The initiative passed with about 70% of the vote, so it's difficult to
imagine what sort of campaign might have changed the outcome.

BTW, in addition to ending the spring bear hunt, it outlaws the use of
dogs or bait for bear hunting at any time (there remains a fall season).

For those who are unfamiliar with this issue, the proponents argued for
elimination of the spring bear season because when a nursing bear is killed,
her cubs subsequently starve.  I would not be the best person to tell you
the opponents position, but it seemed to be largely along the lines of the
original post -- that any further restriction on hunting is a threat to all
hunting.  The Colorado Wildlife Commission had recommended that the spring
season be eliminated, yet the state Division of Wildlife most recently
responded by lengthening the season.  Hence those opposed to the practice
brought it to the voters.

>I have recently heard, second-hand, that the same group that sponsored
>the spring bear hunt initiative now plans to go after the archery bear
>hunt.  If we begin now, we have time to organize and plan a campaign
>to defeat this latest attack on our hunting heritage.  We cannot afford
>to lose seasons or hunters to campaigns that ban us from the field.

I have not heard this rumor and, in fact, am not aware that there IS an
archery bear season (not being a hunter, it's certainly possible I just
never heard about it).  It shouldn't come as any surprise if the sponsors
try to get some other hunting restrictions passed, so your concern is not
unfounded.

>While I am not personally a bow-hunter or a bear hunter for that matter,
>the loss of any season lowers participation in hunting.  According to the
>NRA, only 7-8% of Americans hunt today.  That makes us the most vulnerable
>of minorities.  ARM groups can continue to chip away at the hunting
>population until our hunting rights are gone.
>
>Let me get off my soapbox for a minute.  My real purpose in writing
>is to gather ideas for how we can defeat the coming initiatives.  How
>do we explain hunting to others in a convincing manner?  I've had
>some success one-on-one with non-hunters who are not closed-minded,
>but our numbers are so small that one-one-one solutions don't seem to
>be the answer.  If I could buy a 60 second commercial to run on radio
>or TV, what should its content be?

The pro-hunting side of the debates in this group frequently points to
what they perceive as benefits of hunting, e.g. to put food on the table
and to provide a substitute for predators that have been displaced by
human encroachment.  Perhaps if you can convince people that the positives
outweigh the negatives and that the hunting seasons/practices that would
be affected actually serve such purposes, you might fare better next time.

--------------------
Chuck D'Ambra
chuck@sage.cgd.ucar.edu


Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10916 alt.peeves:18915