Thoughts on the anti-hunting movement

[RockinU]

A post in another thread by @wllm1313 lamenting hunting opportunities that he's lost, while expressing confidence in keeping others got me thinking about where we are in protecting our hunting heritage, and while my logical side is prone to agree with his premise that the slippery slope isn't as big a concern as many make it out to be, another side of me has real concern.

I look at all CA has given up. I see the continued attacks on bear hunting, predator hunting, hound hunting, trapping, and high fence hunting. I see the train wreck that litigation can cause on the ESA. I see the hundreds and hundreds of social media responses wishing for death to a hunter and everyone who has ever met him because of a post with a picture of a legally harvested game animal that exists in plenty. I see more of the same cheering on posts calling 3 hunters injured by a bear in The Gravelly "karma". I see how much money organizations like HSUS and PETA are raising, and how mainstream they seem to be becoming. Despite western "crowding" I see hunter numbers in this country diminishing.

I see our opposition being very organized, cohesive, and passionate. These people do not believe that what we do is in fact conservation. They do not think that we have the best interest of animals in mind. They are convinced that the animals do not need our management, and it doesn't matter how many facts, figures, or how much science you show them, you can not change their minds. They are zealots.

What does the Hunt Talk community think? Are we doing enough to hold the ground we have? Will future generations enjoy the opportunities that we have, or is it just a matter of time before a modern society shifts so far from what we believe in that the things we treasure so much will be whittled away?

 

[Straight Arrow]

I look at all CA has given up. I see the continued attacks on bear hunting, predator hunting, hound hunting, trapping, and high fence hunting. I see the train wreck that litigation can cause on the ESA. I see the hundreds and hundreds of social media responses wishing for death to a hunter and everyone who has ever met him because of a post with a picture of a legally harvested game animal that exists in plenty. I see more of the same cheering on posts calling 3 hunters injured by a bear in The Gravelly "karma". I see how much money organizations like HSUS and PETA are raising, and how mainstream they seem to be becoming. Despite western "crowding" I see hunter numbers in this country diminishing.

One modern day problem is that the fringe radical news is as much on your screen, in your readings, and apparent as the mainstream majority, more reasonable news and views. Montana may be an anomaly, but it's almost as difficult for a young person to get into a hunter education class here as into drivers education due to popularity of those classes. Point is, hunting is still very popular here. Certainly we should continue to promote our hunting heritage, but emphasis on doom & gloom is not constructive.

 

[VAspeedgoat]

I will be watching this thread closely. I am not nearly as educated on the matter as I need to be, but I know others on here that are. As I've heard several times, we hunt at the mercy of those that don't. My gut tells me we will eventually lose hunting all together. Maybe not in my lifetime but one day. We are few in numbers and money and we are very prone to turn on one another. I am a pessimist generally so take it with a grain of salt, but that's what I think will happen and nothing will change the inevitability of it.

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

I personally don't think we'll lose our rights to hunting (in most states at least) it's too ingrained in most areas to be removed. Here in South Dakota, it seems to get harder and harder to get a tag every year. You have to go to the units that no one wants to travel to because they are so far from anything else, only then can you get a tag year after year for deer. Just too many hunters for not enough animals even in a sparsely populated state like South Dakota.

Also, in South Dakota I don't think they would remove hunting because of the economics of it. Hunting fuels many of the small towns that would otherwise be dead, and the sale of hunting tags is a significant source of revenue for the state that it will not want to see go away.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hunting will continue to be a common past-time in America so long as hunters don't lose the support of the American people. We're great at alienating those people because we think we can do things the way they were done in the past without any repercussions.

A bigger threat to hunting is hunters.

Smoke a pack a day

The only good bear is a dead bear

I love to run down coyotes with my snowmachine

We need to kill off the predators to save the species we hunt & care for.


All of those will do more to end hunting than some vegan in Brooklyn who thinks Cecil was murdered.

Study from a couple of years ago that shows where the public support for hunting comes from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5704112/

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

One modern day problem is that the fringe radical news is as much on your screen, in your readings, and apparent as the mainstream majority, more reasonable news and views.

100% agree, a recent study found that 87% of respondents thought that it was acceptable to hunt for food. I'm the only hunter in a big family, and I have a wide friend group of non-hunters, including a number of vegans. Never has anyone suggested to me that hunting should be banned, although I have had some long conversations about the ethics of trophy and black bear hunting. Point being I think the behavior your describing is on the fringe, I think the moderate opinion is hunting is fine, I don't know much about it and I don't really care.

What I think clouds this issue are people lumping subjects together. Is hunting ethical do you support hunting/ is a company anti hunting is in no way related to how those people feel about "assault weapons".

Hunting bears, cats, wolves, coyotes, and furbears is a hunting related conversation. It's a more difficult conservation and I think hunting/trapping these animals is in danger of disappearing.

I think the way hunters talk to non hunters about hunting, is important. I think the biggest failure of boomers is a lack of positive engagement on topics they are about... both left and right and certainly not limited to the hunting community.

For instance I packed a deer this year down a very popular hiking trail. I ran into numerous non hunters walking up the trail, I actually stopped and talked to 4 groups of people, one group I actually took my pack off showed them the meat-shelf talked about field butchering. They weren't hunters, but they thought it was really cool. I think the only experience with hunters was tv portrays of slob road hunters, I'm sure seeing someone walking down a trail with a 100lb pack while they were gasping for breath going up the trial with nothing but a water bottle incrementally moved the needle for them.

Similarly I cooked a bunch of bear meat from my POW bear this year and took it around my office for people to try, it went over great people thought it tasted really good, and it changed the perception for at least that group of people that bears are a "trophy hunt".

Point being venison diplomacy is important, image is important.

 

[RockinU]

Hunting will continue to be a common past-time in America so long as hunters don't lose the support of the American people. We're great at alienating those people because we think we can do things the way they were done in the past without any repercussions.

A bigger threat to hunting is hunters.

Smoke a pack a day

The only good bear is a dead bear

I love to run down coyotes with my snowmachine

We need to kill off the predators to save the species we hunt & care for.


All of those will do more to end hunting than some vegan in Brooklyn who thinks Cecil was murdered.

Study from a couple of years ago that shows where the public support for hunting comes from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5704112/

I pretty much agree with all of that. My concern lies not so much with the Brooklyn vegan, as in the organized efforts by some groups to shine the light on some of the less than admirable stuff that is done by people they paint as ordinary hunters in an effort to diminish our support among the American people. Or sometimes they just mischaracterize what is an ordinary activity that shouldn't be seen in a negative light, so that it is. Are we doing enough to counter that? We work hard at maintaining access, we dive head first into conservation efforts, we contribute to legislative efforts, but are we doing a good job on the PR front.

I agree with wllm on venison and trailhead diplomacy, and I've had similar experiences meeting non hunters on the trail, but it's much easier to have a positive interaction with someone else on a trail wearing a backpack, or at work with a delicious dish than it is to combat the crafted misinformation that is put out there by the antis.

I get that things are going fine in Montana, they are pretty solid in Texas too. I also get that we see a lot of sensationalist coverage of fringe groups, they just seem to be getting a little bigger, and a little less fringe as we go along. It seems much easier for them to get mainstream coverage of Joe Bob doing something stupid, than it is to get a positive piece about hunter efforts and successes at attaining real conservation goals.

Maybe I'm wrong, and my perception is colored by my fears...I just wonder if we need to do more.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

the slippery slope

Did some digging it's complicated, hard to say hunting is 100% illegal anywhere on earth as there are always caveats in the laws, but countries with very broad bans:

India: except population control or predator management, with a permit
Costa Rica: except for subsistence hunting, and population management
Brazil: Predator hunting is illegal non-predator hunting is by permit only
Kenya: Bird hunting is legal

Noteworthy that these counties had very strong trophy hunting industries. Not sure if you could come up with statistics but I bet 99% of the NR hunting that occurred in Costa Rica was for big cats. India and Kenya's bans were fairly quick after independence, I can't imagine that they weren't in some way related to these countries wanting to kick the British out. I'm not super familiar with Brazilian history.

On the flip side 22 states in the US have made hunting a constitutional right.

 

[RockinU]

Did some digging it's complicated, hard to say hunting is 100% illegal anywhere on earth as there are always caveats in the laws, but countries with very broad bans:

India: except population control or predator management, with a permit
Costa Rica: except for subsistence hunting, and population management
Brazil: Predator hunting is illegal non-predator hunting is by permit only
Kenya: Bird hunting is legal

On the flip side 22 states in the US have made hunting a constitutional right.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not making a "slippery slope" type argument here, my overarching question is whether or not we are doing a good enough job in representing who we are, what we believe in, and what we do to the non-hunting public in contrast to the messaging that the antis are putting out.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not making a "slippery slope" type argument here, my overarching question is whether or not we are doing a good enough job in representing who we are, what we believe in, and what we do to the non-hunting public in contrast to the messaging that the antis are putting out.

Not saying you were, I was saying they were BS so I wanted to do my due diligence.

To your question, I think we are getting better at it... and as much as I'm annoyed by the flood of IG posts with turkey's + recipes in the spring and elk and steaks in the fall I think that is the right approach.


FL had this post a while back... I think this is a way better social media photo than a grip and grin.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I pretty much agree with all of that. My concern lies not so much with the Brooklyn vegan, as in the organized efforts by some groups to shine the light on some of the less than admirable stuff that is done by people they paint as ordinary hunters in an effort to diminish our support among the American people. Or sometimes they just mischaracterize what is an ordinary activity that shouldn't be seen in a negative light, so that it is. Are we doing enough to counter that? We work hard at maintaining access, we dive head first into conservation efforts, we contribute to legislative efforts, but are we doing a good job on the PR front.

I agree with wllm on venison and trailhead diplomacy, and I've had similar experiences meeting non hunters on the trail, but it's much easier to have a positive interaction with someone else on a trail wearing a backpack, or at work with a delicious dish than it is to combat the crafted misinformation that is put out there by the antis.

I get that things are going fine in Montana, they are pretty solid in Texas too. I also get that we see a lot of sensationalist coverage of fringe groups, they just seem to be getting a little bigger, and a little less fringe as we go along. It seems much easier for them to get mainstream coverage of Joe Bob doing something stupid, than it is to get a positive piece about hunter efforts and successes at attaining real conservation goals.

Maybe I'm wrong, and my perception is colored by my fears...I just wonder if we need to do more.

There are a number of organizations that do good work to promote ethical hunting. I see groups put out PR material all the time that's about families in the woods & on the waters, that talk about how we should be conserving all species, not just those we hunt & Fish for, and who will work with the environmental community to join common cause where it makes sense. Those groups get called sell-outs, green decoys, etc & get lambasted for not being pure enough. Meanwhile, we put in power those who would cut down the last tree, kill the last elk or drown the last duck if it meant a profit were to be made.

We allow ourselves, as hunters, to be defined by the NRA rather than by our conservation work. We keep digging the hole, and the anti-hunting groups are there to put the dirt on top of us.

So yes, we need to do more. but it's a fundamental shift back to the Leopoldian ethic rather than the Nugent bravado.

 

[geetar]

There are a number of organizations that do good work to promote ethical hunting. I see groups put out PR material all the time that's about families in the woods & on the waters, that talk about how we should be conserving all species, not just those we hunt & Fish for, and who will work with the environmental community to join common cause where it makes sense. Those groups get called sell-outs, green decoys, etc & get lambasted for not being pure enough. Meanwhile, we put in power those who would cut down the last tree, kill the last elk or drown the last duck if it meant a profit were to be made.

We allow ourselves, as hunters, to be defined by the NRA rather than by our conservation work. We keep digging the hole, and the anti-hunting groups are there to put the dirt on top of us.

So yes, we need to do more. but it's a fundamental shift back to the Leopoldian ethic rather than the Nugent bravado.

Agreed on the fundamental shift. As a kid I thought Nuge was cool because he said whatever he thought and I thought the NRA cared about guns more than anyone. In the last few years as I’ve matured a bit I let my NRA membership run out and chose to spend that money on other real conservation organizations and I’ve come to respect guys like Rinella and Randy a lot more more than Ted Nugent because instead of telling people to suck on their machine gun if they don’t agree with them they take the time to explain why we do what we do and offer to listen to an anti hunters perspective respectfully even if they may not agree with it. The in your face and you’re an idiot if you don’t agree with me attitude does Nuge and us all more harm than good.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

I’ve come to respect guys like Rinella and Randy a lot more more than Ted Nugent

Which actually is kinda sad, because at times Nugent has made some great statements about food, getting kids outdoors, conservation at times. I think his heart is generally in the right place he just tends to go off the rails... also he has a complete disregard for rules, even fish and game rules which makes him incredibly problematic.

 

[elkduds]

Which actually is kinda sad, because at times Nugent has made some great statements about food, getting kids outdoors, conservation at times. I think his heart is generally in the right place he just tends to go off the rails... also he has a complete disregard for rules, even fish and game rules which makes him incredibly problematic.

Cat Scratch Fever has complex symptomology. Ted is a tool.

 

[jerm8352]

My fear tends to be more in line of what happened with the grizzly hunt in Wyoming. A group of people went to a specific judge they knew would rule in their favor in a different state I might add and closed the hunt down. That scares me. The other thing is the whole power of social media. It sickens me that a few people can basically bully companies/people/organizations into bending to their whims no matter if the majority of people agree with them or not. Let’s face it, while there are plenty of people/groups/etc promoting hunting and conservation on social media, with the demographics of the normal hunter, we are not going to win a battle fought on social media.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Cat Scratch Fever has complex symptomology. Ted is a tool.

100% agreed! If a non-hunter who was undecided on whether hunting was ok or not saw Ted on his show or speaking, that would be the worst impression we as hunters could have.

 

[Pucky Freak]

States with constitutional amendments preserving hunting and fishing heritage in perpetuity: these can be overturned with another amendment vote

In Iowa the big anti story of the year (or decade) is Iowa City tree huggers feuding over over what to do with urban deer overpopulation in that city. They are divided over birth control, no intervention, and baiting/sharpshooting. Inability to form a coalition has resulted in a win for the remaining plurality of residents who support urban bowhunting to reduce the population, which will now be allowed. Case in point: hunting laws are overwhelmingly a state issue, and the culture of most states will continue a hunting heritage far beyond our lifetimes. About 99.9% of hunting activity in Iowa is not facing any kind of immediate risk of being taken away.

Some types of legal hunting will continue to erode more rapidly in urbanized, liberal states. California is really an exception to the rule, in that while liberals are much less common than conservatives nationwide, there are tons of them in CA and they turned the state into a neo-European liberal paradise, and conservatives sick of what their home state was becoming emigrated by the millions, leaving the dumpster fire to burn itself out (and hopefully not spread to the rest of the states).

I feel it is largely unnecessary for hunters to find a way to band together to consolidate our political capital and preserve out hunting heritage. Maybe locally, such as community or in-State organizations, but not nationwide. Instead, like others have mentioned, we get out ahead of the fight through making choices individually to give up hunting practices that have fallen out of favor in modern America. This wins support of the general public, which is 100% absolutely necessary in order for us to be able to hunt in the US. Only about 10% of Americans hunt, so anything we do to alienate public support is our own fault. It's up to us to choose to project an ethical and genuine public image.

This is not a slippery slope. It's simply the evolution of ethics in a country that has made a transition from being a rural nation to a dominant urban nation.

Here are some things to consider giving up, even though they are legal, for the purpose of maintaining hunting privileges for generations to come:
-trapping
-hounds
-catch and release
-shooting from aircraft
-thermal imaging
-drives
-continuing to hunt a tag after wounding and failing to recover an animal
-killing fawns/calves and other immature animals
-snag and release
-grip and grin
-safaris
-obtaining more meat than one's family can consume
-predator hunting
-bear hunting
-varmint hunting
-killing furbearers
-game farms
-canned hunting
-international hunting where the meat is not taken home

I continue to practice some things on this list, but every year I consider the cost of continuing them

 

[swmt]

100% agreed! If a non-hunter who was undecided on whether hunting was ok or not saw Ted on his show or speaking, that would be the worst impression we as hunters could have.

When i first met my college girlfriend and she found I was a hunter, she almost ended things right there because she associated hunting with Ted Nugent. Fortunately, a conversation over a plate of elk stir fry smoothed things out. In fact the elk stir fry got me invited to a bunch of potlucks with her friends and converted them from anit-hunters to enthusiastic game eaters. My Current wife was a vegetarian based on anit-cruelty grounds when I met her and now not only eats meat but accompanied her son and I on a goat hunt last weekend. As has been mentioned above, hunters are a small minority who hunts at the discretion of the large majority who is indifferent towards hunting . Policing our own behavior and politely making the case for ethical hunting (preferably over a meal of well prepared game) are our best bet for holding on to our continued ability to hunt. Blindly defending every aspect of hunting or shooting because that's the way we did it when we were kids or because of a ridiculous slippery slope argument is more likely to push the indifferent majority towards the anti-hunting minority.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

So yes, we need to do more. but it's a fundamental shift back to the Leopoldian ethic rather than the Nugent bravado.

Amen.

The majority of our friend network are non hunters. In fact, very few of them have any knowledge of hunting at all. However, they are genuinely curious. They want to know how the hell you get 250 pounds of elk meat out, not what the bull scored.

My sister in law used to be completely opposed to eating wild game. I don't know exactly why, but she was. After gaining a better understanding of our family's hunting practices, she now looks forward to eating wild game when they come over for dinner.

Encounters like @wllm1313 had are golden. Those folks may never support hound hunting, bear baiting, etc., but neither will they actively oppose hunting in general. Do what you can with what you have.

 

[geetar]

States with constitutional amendments preserving hunting and fishing heritage in perpetuity: these can be overturned with another amendment vote

In Iowa the big anti story of the year (or decade) is Iowa City tree huggers feuding over over what to do with urban deer overpopulation in that city. They are divided over birth control, no intervention, and baiting/sharpshooting. Inability to form a coalition has resulted in a win for the remaining plurality of residents who support urban bowhunting to reduce the population, which will now be allowed. Case in point: hunting laws are overwhelmingly a state issue, and the culture of most states will continue a hunting heritage far beyond our lifetimes. About 99.9% of hunting activity in Iowa is not facing any kind of immediate risk of being taken away.

Some types of legal hunting will continue to erode more rapidly in urbanized, liberal states. California is really an exception to the rule, in that while liberals are much less common than conservatives nationwide, there are tons of them in CA and they turned the state into a neo-European liberal paradise, and conservatives sick of what their home state was becoming emigrated by the millions, leaving the dumpster fire to burn itself out (and hopefully not spread to the rest of the states).

I feel it is largely unnecessary for hunters to find a way to band together to consolidate our political capital and preserve out hunting heritage. Maybe locally, such as community or in-State organizations, but not nationwide. Instead, like others have mentioned, we get out ahead of the fight through making choices individually to give up hunting practices that have fallen out of favor in modern America. This wins support of the general public, which is 100% absolutely necessary in order for us to be able to hunt in the US. Only about 10% of Americans hunt, so anything we do to alienate public support is our own fault. It's up to us to choose to project an ethical and genuine public image.

This is not a slippery slope. It's simply the evolution of ethics in a country that has made a transition from being a rural nation to a dominant urban nation.

Here are some things to consider giving up, even though they are legal, for the purpose of maintaining hunting privileges for generations to come:
-trapping
-hounds
-catch and release
-shooting from aircraft
-thermal imaging
-drives
-continuing to hunt a tag after wounding and failing to recover an animal
-killing fawns/calves and other immature animals
-snag and release
-grip and grin
-safaris
-obtaining more meat than one's family can consume
-predator hunting
-bear hunting
-varmint hunting
-killing furbearers
-game farms
-canned hunting
-international hunting where the meat is not taken home

I continue to practice some things on this list, but every year I consider the cost of continuing them

With no disrespect or argument intended it looks like if we stopped doing all those things you mentioned it would basically leave deer, elk, turkeys, and waterfowl and the woods would be so crowded a lot of people would quit. I’m with you on the don’t keep hunting if you wound an animal though. That’s just pure ethics anti hunters or no antihunters.