PDA

View Full Version : The Right to Hunt and Fish in Tennessee


FishNHunt
08-08-2010, 01:17 AM
Byron, Paula or Daniel, If I have put this in the wrong section and it needs to be moved please do.

Please this involves all of us. Whether you hunt or fish. It's hard to imagine that every time we pull on a pair of waders or feel the weight of our fly rod in our hand that all that could be taken away from us with a simple vote. If you think it can't I beg to differ. Do alittle research and you will find it's not as far off as one may think. Anti's are using every trick to end our "way of life". They have migrated to using the "endangered species act" to stop hunting in some states. They can very well use it on us as fishermen. We all don't have to agree but, we need to agree that we MUST keep our "privaliage" to hunt and fish in TN. We have the "privaliage" to hunt and fish here. It's not A RIGHT.

[/URL]

When Tennessee voters go to the polls to elect a governor on November 2, we will have the opportunity to add an amendment to the State constitution that confirms the individual right to hunt and fish, within prescribed laws and without violating personal property rights.

This process is the culmination of six years of effort by the Tennessee Wildlife Federation.

Please take five minutes to answer a 10-question survey. The following link will take you there.


http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2ymhvl2gbb4dke5/start (http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2ymhvl2gbb4dke5/start)[URL="http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2ymhvl2gbb4dke5/start"]

duckypaddler
08-08-2010, 10:39 AM
I have not heard that anyone (well besides fringe groups which cover all sides) that is trying to take my hunting or fishing privledges away. Can you please link or explain to me what you are talking about? Are they trying to stop people hunting on their own land? If public lands, are there certain areas that are currently under fire?

I linked to your survey but it just looked like an education tutorial

I can think of many 4x4 users in Tellico that now hate the Trout fisherman for closing their playground on public land. While when you hear their well stated argument you would get pretty fired up too. That is - until you look at the Enviromental accessment which showed the damage from sediment, and nasty chemicals from anti-freeze & brake fluid. Kind of made me change my mind:smile:. We need to be careful and consider all users of public land, and the durability of these public lands over our personal activity.

To me it seems that with high deer, amongst other animals populations, and a video game generation, THE MAN encourages, and doesn't try to take away hunting and fishing. If it hasn't been a right, but a priviledge until now, why does it need to be a right now?

Although I may be crazy (well to some anyway) as I also don't believe the goverment is trying to take my gun away either:biggrin:

Thanks,
James Locke

tennswede
08-08-2010, 12:28 PM
James,

Thanks for your well mannered and laid back comment. You sound like a man of reason. We need more of that.

Knik
08-08-2010, 07:08 PM
FishNhunt, thanks for the link, I'll make sure to pass it along.

FishNHunt
08-08-2010, 09:39 PM
James, I understand where your coming from in that not everyone can be pleased or happy when something like the Tellico Jeep riders are concerned. I also cannot answer all your questions other than to say that once the anti hunting and fishing groups get a foot hold they will not stop until ALL hunting and fishing is stopped whether it be on your personal farm or public land, national park or a tail water. Your God given RIGHT to hunt and fish were taken away from you 100s of years ago. Whether you know it or not. Once kings owned the lands and later governments "governed" the fish and wildlife you were granted the "priviledge" to fish and hunt. All you will be doing by voting come election day is saying that you agree or disagree that the people of TN should put into the state constitution our and our children's "priviledge" to fish and hunt for years to come.
ps. I will spend some time and try to find some links to the groups wanting to stop your "right" to hunt or fish to make it easier on everyone. After all the easier it is, the quicker you are to get more people involved.

Jim Casada
08-10-2010, 06:37 AM
James--There are definitely a number of activist groups, many of them well-funded, who are anti-hunting. Among them are People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Defenders of Wildlife, many local chapters (which have a great deal of autonomy) of the Sierra Club, the Humane Society of the U.S., and others. The HSUS has called for a ban of all ammunition, and if you follow affairs in California, you will find that there is an ammo "branding" move there among politicians which will in effect pretty well end hunting. Then there's what the re-introduction of wolves pushed by anti-hunting groups has done to elk, deer, and moose populations in Idaho and Montana and much more.
I don't think it would be accurate to say that the government wants to end hunting, but there are certainly a lot of politicians within state and federal governments who do. Also, don't overlook the UN movement to ban private ownership of guns world-wide (that would end hunting) or ignore what has happened in that context in places like Australia and the UK.
Fishing will be the next step, and there have already been movements in this direction by some of the more radical groups including PETA and HSUS. Incidentally, you can find out what a sham the HSUS is pretty easily with some Internet digging.
Anyone sportsman who is not concerned about these matters is myopic. They exist and they form a very real threat.
Jim Casada
www.jimcasadaoutdoors.com

silvercreek
08-10-2010, 08:35 AM
I love to shoot, but gave up hunting over 30 years ago. However, I have absolutely nothing against hunting and feel it should be preserved. For years I was a member of the Sierra Club. I increasingly became concerned about a strong antihunting undercurrent and ended my membership. Jim you are spot on in your post.

fishndoc
08-30-2010, 10:22 PM
Today I received this email from Georgia Outdoor News:

EPA Considering Ban on Traditional Ammunition: ACT NOW!!
All Gun Owners, Hunters and Shooters:

With the fall hunting season fast approaching, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Lisa Jackson, who was responsible for banning bear hunting in New Jersey, is now considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) - a leading anti-hunting organization - to ban all traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition. If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a total ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components, including hunting and target-shooting rounds. The EPA must decide to accept or reject this petition by November 1, 2010, the day before the midterm elections.

Today, the EPA has opened to public comment the CBD petition. The comment period ends on October 31, 2010.


It's starting...

BlueRaiderFan
08-30-2010, 11:59 PM
I heard about this from a coworker. What a load of crap. There so much lead laying around in nature that shot from guns won't even be a blip on the radar. That's the way they work; Slowly erode rights until they look like privelages.

Jim Casada
08-31-2010, 06:56 AM
fishndoc--The EPA quickly pulled back from this after a huge outcry led by the NSSF and NRA, at least on the ammo side. The use of lead weights in fishing is still in the mix. Despite the pull back, rest assured it is symptomatic of the many and varied efforts by antis. They aren't going away, and it behooves all of us who cherish our sporting heritage to be vigilant.
Jim Casada
www.jimcasadaoutdoors.com (http://www.jimcasadaoutdoors.com)

FishNHunt
09-05-2010, 01:04 AM
Lead ammunition is (not for long if nut jobs like her have ANY power) exempt from the ban. From a lethality stand point lead is more lethal. Studies have shown this to be true. Lead is actually also safer in terms of it not penetrating threw something ie. wood or walls than steel or copper. Lead being softer will "splatter" when it hit something solid. If a home owner encounters someone in their home the last thing they want to be doing is sending steel or copper bullets down the hallways where it WILL penetrate threw a wall and into a bed room full of children or family members. Unless you either eat the lead (or live in California) you must hand tons of it to be deadly to yourself. However when it comes to dabbling ducks eating the lead... yes it's a proven fact that they do ingest it. I would like to see a study where fish ingest it. Once it sinks to the bottom I don't forsee a fish coming along and eating it. The left wing nut jobs want to see our "sport" done away with. They are hacking at a method that makes it so hard on the "working" men and women that he or she can't afford to do it. Only the rich will be able to afford ammunition or sinkers and most rich men and women are to busy working to impact much. That will surfice them for a while.

fishndoc
09-05-2010, 08:34 PM
Clearly, most of the people behind this movement to ban lead are far more interested in attacking hunting and fishing (and even more importantly to them, guns in the hands of citizens). My personal opinion is this is true for many of the leaders of the environmental movement - using environmental rules and regulations to con the public into going along with their agenda.

That said, I also believe that outdoorsmen have an obligation, when we recognize that our activities are harming the environment and wild things we love, to be pro-active and actually take the lead in finding a solution.
I'm not a hunter, so I can't speak for the pros and cons of lead vs non-lead ammo, but I believe if an individual accepts the data that suggests lead from hunting & target practice might be a problem, then you should look for alternatives.

I strongly doubt that lead from split shot is a problem, since the amount used is far less that for shooting, but I think we fishermen should go ahead and use tin, tungsten, or whatever alternative works for us. Tin is not as heavy as lead, but it works for me.
I am pretty well convinced now that fishermen do carry invasive species in their felt waders. I haven't given up felt (since I also value my life), but I do have a pair I use for local fishing here in the southeast, and another pair I take for my summer trip to the Madison. When the technology improves, I will switch to rubber sole (although I will still clean with bleach when needed).

What I'm trying to say is, I think we all should try to resist our natural inclination to bow-up-and-fight when these activists try to restrict our activities, and instead try to "take the ball away" from them, and again become leaders in the efforts to preserve our remaining wild places.

I know I'm a newbie here, so I'm gonna shut up and take my lumps now...

BlueRaiderFan
09-06-2010, 06:41 AM
Any metal can potentially harm ourselves and the environment. I would like to see the data.

Jim Casada
09-06-2010, 07:32 AM
fishndoc--There is virtually no reliable data which indicates use of lead in hunting, other than waterfowling, has negative impacts. There was a much ballyhooed "finding" about lead in venison which was soon proved to be a sham. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that lead is far more effective, not to mention far cheaper, than the alternatives when it comes to clean, efficient shots. You or anyone who is interested can find plenty of data through the National Shoot Sports Foundation or the U. S. Sportsmen's Alliance.
Jim Casada
www.jimcasadaoutdoors.com (http://www.jimcasadaoutdoors.com)

gburris
09-06-2010, 05:36 PM
Interesting comments on the subject. Mr. Casada, thank you for the knowledge you
are constantly sharing with the rest of us. You seem to realize that there really is a threat
out there. Our government may not want to take away our rights, but many of those
individuals we send to carry on it's business are very willing to vote to do so if there is
enough money and/for power attached to it. The more "global" we allow our government to
take us, the more likely we will find ourselves without our guns first, and then our rods next.
Of course if we go the global route and give our rights over to organizations like the UN, we
won't need to worry about hunting and fishing. We will have too many other concerns to
occupy our time.
Some of us need to get our head out of the sand, and do the research that will show
that we should be concerned what our government not only could do to us, but is doing to
us little by little right now.

Jim Casada
09-07-2010, 08:39 AM
gburris--You are welcome. I write a good deal on hunting and try to keep abreast of developments connected with the sport. Anyone who is not troubled by threats to hunting in this country simply is not paying attention. It's mostly a death by a thousand cuts strategy being taken by the antis, although there's plenty of in-your-face stuff from the likes of the HSUS and Wayne Pacelle. The biggest problems, alas, are ignorance and indifference. Rest assured that any and all moves towards the globalization you mention are threats. Can any rational being actually think the United Nations is the best agency for determining how we, as U. S. citizens, live? It is a bloated, dysfunctional bureaucracy, and every sport fisherman should be aware of this("going global") and many other threats we face. They aren't as obvious as the ones to hunting, but rest assured they are there. In recent weeks, for example, there have been movements on the national level which pose real danger to some types of recreational angling.
One other comment--I notice I had National Shoot Sports Foundation in a previous post. It should be "Shooting."
Jim Casada
www.jimcasadaoutdoors.com (http://www.jimcasadaoutdoors.com)
P. S. The best approaches we, as sportsmen and sportswomen, can take is to be proactive, to follow political developments carefully and hold those who represent us to account on matters affecting sport, and to be good stewards of the good earth and wildlife (and not hesitate to let pantywaist poltroons and lollipop sentimentalists know as much).

Ky Tim
09-08-2010, 12:54 PM
The HSUS and PETA are scary organizations who want you to believe that the neighbors dog and your child are equals. As far as fishing goes, keep in mind that EPTA has started a campaign to rename fish Sea Kittens in order to make people feel "more humane" towards them.

BlueRaiderFan
09-08-2010, 07:00 PM
Mmmmm....Sea Kitten with lemon pepper and butter...I'm hungry already.

FRW
09-16-2010, 06:57 PM
Sadly it is not just organizations like PETA and HSUS that you have to worry about. Too often groups like TU get sucked into this stuff. The antis are very good at using single issue groups to push part of their agenda and then using another group to push back against the first group on their issue of choice. You can see that in TU slavish devotion to the the whole Global Warming thing. I dropped my membership over it. What is the famous WWII quote "First they came for the Jews and I did nothing because I wasn't a Jew......." This how they work, divide and conqueror the adults and indoctrinate the children so they can own the next generation.

Jim Casada
09-16-2010, 07:57 PM
Sadly it is not just organizations like PETA and HSUS that you have to worry about. Too often groups like TU get sucked into this stuff. The antis are very good at using single issue groups to push part of their agenda and then using another group to push back against the first group on their issue of choice. You can see that in TU slavish devotion to the the whole Global Warming thing. I dropped my membership over it. What is the famous WWII quote "First they came for the Jews and I did nothing because I wasn't a Jew......." This how they work, divide and conqueror the adults and indoctrinate the children so they can own the next generation.
FRW--Quite perceptive on your part, and you are right in my opinion. The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation group has gotten suckered, badly, on the same global warming issue (just noticed the White House wants to call it something else now). The end result, time and again, is sportsmen losing ground, and when the enemy is "us," as it sometimes is, it is doubly disturbing.
I follow these things quite closely because of what I do (outdoor communications), and each passing year fills me with more despair. I feel reasonably certain that public hunting as we have known it will be gone in twenty-five years, becoming the preserve of the rich, folks who own land, and not many others. Look at what is happening to land open to the hunting public, in Tennessee and elsewhere, and the trend is all too clear.

Those who fish but don't hunt and smugly feel, "well, it won't happen to us," are living in a fool's paradise. You are exactly right in saying the obvious radical environmental and anti groups are only part of the problem, and the whole global warming hoax has made far too big a percentage of the outdoor community (or at least its leadership) look like buffoons.

As a sort of example, just to provide an index to how pervasive this is, the nation's leading group of outdoor communicators, the Outdoor Writers Association of America (OWAA), was split asunder by a sort of sidebar to all of this (kowtowing to the Sierra Club by attacking a spokesman for the NRA who stated, rightly in my view, that the Sierra Club was anti-hunting). When the board reprimanded the NRA and its spokesman, who by the way had paid for the breakfast for 800 OWAA members who were the audience when he criticized the Sierra Club), roughly a third of the membership left, including three past presidents of OWAA. I was one of those three; interestingly enough, the other two with sufficient will power to do so were women (15 or so past presidents signed a letter of protest but didn't leave). It in effect destroyed OWAA.
The Sierra Club and dozens of other groups (yes, some of them we consider allies) are also nibbling away at freedoms or buying highly questionable views and spending lots of money on them. Sadly, I have to agree that TU, for all the good things it has done, is culpable.

I'm pessimistic in extreme about the future of sport, and if you think I'm alarmist, I suggest you do a bit of boning up on what has happened to hunters and gun owners in Britain, Australia, or closer to home, Canada.

Obviously this is a major sore spot with me, but more to the point, I think the freedom to hunt and fish, two of America's greatest heritages, are in real danger.
Jim Casada
www.jimcasadaoutdoors.com (http://www.jimcasadaoutdoors.com)