Prep for a talk with anti-hunter

[MNDeerHunter]

Hey guys,

I am getting together with my wife and her uncle tomorrow for lunch. Backstory: A couple days ago at a family event my wife and him got to talking about hunting and how he was against it because there are "a lot of hunters out there with only a desire to kill". My wife informed him that if it wasn't for hunters a lot of the animals wouldn't have near the protection that they would because of the money that it generates for conservation (a proud moment for me, here I never thought she listened to my rants lol).

Anyway, I know it will probably come up in conversation tomorrow so I want to be prepared to have some "ammo" ready. Here are a few talking points I thought I would hit:

-Pittman-Robertson Act: Self imposed excise tax on hunting related items that funds conservation and wildlife projects.

-Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and the Federal Duck Stamp: Money raised by its members (the majority of whom are hunters) has conserved, enhanced, and protected millions of acres of wetlands and grasslands throughout the united states.

-The general sales of hunter licenses and how this revenue translates to habitat improvement, land acquisition, and salaries for conservation offices to protect against poaching and other illegal activities, etc.

Also, I know the whole conservation (wise-use) vs. preservation (no-use of resources) will probably come up. Obviously for me hunting is a way to reconnect with nature and a source of great organic food - but how do you convey this to someone who buys organic free range food?

What else would you guys say?

 

[mplane72]

Well if he eats meat it's really a pretty simple conversation. Your just cutting out the middle man. You are both instrumental in the death of another creature. That can lead to a whole conversation about how that's effected the way you value life, natural resources, wild places or whatever you want. The things you already mentioned are valid but hard for someone who's opposition to hunting sounds to be coming from emotion to swallow. Killing is part of hunting that's just how it is.
Also, if he likes free range that is not really wise use or preservation of anything. It can be argued that corporate farming done correctly has much less impact on the natural world then all the space needed for farm animals to be out on free range. Does he like traveling, heat and AC in his house, lights at night? Remind him all those things require the use of natural resources.
Have fun.

 

[jryoung]

If he wants to use "a lot of hunters out there with only a desire to kill", ask him what his sample set is? It sounds good in theory, but lacks in verifiability.

You can reference that Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson has provided $2B in just the last two years. Encourage him to review the information under the Wildlife and Sport fish Restoration Program.

Inform him that the nearly all state wildlife agencies are incredibly dependent on hunting/fishing license dollars and tag fees. Those dollars fund the state biologists and law enforcement charged with protecting the resources.

With respect to food, tell him that hunting is your way of ensuring the food on your table is honest. You don't need to rely on certifications, or other qualifications. You know how it got there, you know that animal was not confined to a pen. If you're a meat eater you should have no issue with hunting as a source of food which is the vast majority of hunters out there. To cherry pick a select few that only want the kill and paint the entire community with a broad brush is dishonest and a poor way of justifying the need to put the blood on someone else's hands for their "free range, organic" meat.

 

[Irrelevant]

Besides the obvious hypocrisy of anti-hunter meat eaters, I like Joe Rogan's points about leather and pet owners. Just because you don't do the killing doesn't mean you're not still responsible for it, sometimes a lot of it.

 

[MNElkNut]

A couple of points that you could make would be that you have a different relationship with the food on you plate when you have killed it. For example, if my kids don't finish all of their chicken, it goes in the garbage just like the extra noodles with no second thought. If, however, they don't finish their elk steak, I jump up and eat it myself or make sure to save it. Why? Because I have a connection to that food. I saw that animal die so that I could have it. I will not waste it.

This next point is a harsh statement, so keep it out of a friendly conversation, but the point is similar to that raised above. If you don't hunt, it can be said that you prefer to hire your killing done.

You can look at science and say we have eyes facing forward and canine teeth. We don't need eyes facing forward to chase down soybeans.

Virtually every hunted species out there has an organization to help conserve it....except moose, I have never heard of a moose org! the sum of what those orgs do is staggering.

And finally, to his point, yes, there are a few bad apples in the hunting community. You, me, we... probably detest their actions more than he does. With 1 in 6 Minnesotans being hunters, that represents a lot of people (over 500,000). Some are going to be bad apples.

I am really curious to see how it goes!

 

[NKQualtieri]

If he wants to use "a lot of hunters out there with only a desire to kill", ask him what his sample set is? It sounds good in theory, but lacks in verifiability.

You can reference that Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson has provided $2B in just the last two years. Encourage him to review the information under the Wildlife and Sport fish Restoration Program.

Inform him that the nearly all state wildlife agencies are incredibly dependent on hunting/fishing license dollars and tag fees. Those dollars fund the state biologists and law enforcement charged with protecting the resources.

With respect to food, tell him that hunting is your way of ensuring the food on your table is honest. You don't need to rely on certifications, or other qualifications. You know how it got there, you know that animal was not confined to a pen. If you're a meat eater you should have no issue with hunting as a source of food which is the vast majority of hunters out there. To cherry pick a select few that only want the kill and paint the entire community with a broad brush is dishonest and a poor way of justifying the need to put the blood on someone else's hands for their "free range, organic" meat.

This is awesome, JR.

My general go-to is to listen intently, let people talk as much as they want about the issue, then letting them know that you understand why those particular issues are of concern. If they think hunters are in it for the kill, addressing them by acknowledging that yes, there are people in hunting who have not done the rest of the community any favors by their actions. I think a big part in having a constructive conversation if by diffusing emotion, if someone is angry or heated, give them due credence, get back to neutral, and then kill the vibe with both kindness and facts.

The worst thing you can do is get equally heated. I think the main objective is to come off as reasonable, agreeable (a lot of points people make about hunters do have some level of credibility, thanks Ted Nugent), and introspective. I hope it goes really well on both sides. Good luck.

 

[Tom]

Just killing is illegal, we can't waste food legally. People do it for food and adventure is my experience.

 

[Matt/VT]

I always like the meat eating side of the discussion. And if he is a vegetarian, you can discuss the carbon footprint of that (fossil-fuel vegetarian) versus harvesting local game- much greater cost to the environment with the vegetable. I also like to include the 'food for your soul' angle, the adventure and experience of being immersed in the environment as a participant in the cycle of life, rather than an observer.

 

[mixedbag]

I use all the examples listed,but also explain about the waste of roadkills.If animals aren't being harvested, roadkills go way up and are a total waste and potentially deadly for the human driving.Some antis aren't worth wasting a conversation on though.Proof in numbers and documentation mean nothing to them.They focus solely on the fact that an animal died.If they only knew how many small animals/rodents died harvesting their veggies.My nephew ,whom use to hunt,now dates a vegan and has changed that boy big time.I wont waste a conversation with that girl or him.I do give her credit that shes not a hypocrite though as she will not eat anything made from animals;including eggs and butter.She has enough respect that she doesn't bother me about what me and my kids enjoy doing.Most are not like that and everything has to follow their way of thinking or your wrong;like liberals

 

[dannyb278]

In the rare occasions that I'm able to keep my cool I like to use the Socratic method. I continue to ask them questions based off their answers until they talked themselves into a corner and essentially have to admit their argument was flawed.

Ideology can hardly ever be argued logically though

 

[jryoung]

Remember that when trying to explain the relevance of hunting to a non-hunter it is important to talk about subjects that connect. Specifically, food, conservation money raised/spent and invested, and that hunting is regulated by (hopefully) good science. These three things connect with people, using references towards "our heritage" and "management" are terms that don't connect as well so try and avoid them if you can.

 

[HSi-ESi]

Lots of good points/info - so I'll only emphasize this. You aren't trying to win an argument, or convert someone "to the life" or even get validation / acceptance for your choices. Simply explaining the reasons why you do this is sufficient. Go in with this mind-set and conversations will either end quickly - or go on for hours if the party is willing to discuss.

I always enjoy these opportunities. I have many EXTREMELY liberal friends from college - and we had many a long night talking through hunting and conservation. I think discussions like these are vital to our own understanding what moves us personally.

 

[LaHunter]

Big difference between a non hunter and anti hunter. In my experience, you can have an intelligent conversation with a non hunter about what hunting means to you and why you hunt. We don't need to apologize for intending to kill the animal that we are hunting. That is part of it, along with many other aspects of hunting and the hunting experience. What hunting means to YOU is why YOU hunt. It may be a little different for ME and why I hunt, but intending to take an animal's life is a part of hunting.
When it comes to card carrying anti hunters, in my experience it is really a waste of time to try to convince them of anything from a hunter's point of view. Most of their opinions regarding hunting and hunters are based false information and irrational views. Usually they don't want to be bothered and confused with facts.
Just my $0.02