Thoughts on the anti-hunting movement

[RockinU]

well I wish there was common ground . I really do. I have yet to see it though.

I've found some with individuals in my life, because I looked for and cultivated it. If it can be done on a personal level, it can and has been done more broadly.

Have we already forgotten Public Lands Bill that was recently passed? A lot of middle ground found in things like that. Proverbs about thousand mile journeys beginning beneath one's feet have wisdom.

 

[Straight Arrow]

for those who want it.

Key phrase.

 

[RockinU]

well I wish there was common ground . I really do. I have yet to see it though.

Another for instance, while you have said a lot today with which I do not agree at all, you have also said some things that I find to be rather insightful. We don't see the world the same, but we are also not diametrically opposed. We are different but with common ground between us.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Have to be real careful here. Who gets to decide?

It's an individual choice as to what. I'm talking about voluntary opt out. Years ago my neighbor did a deer drive and over 100 rounds were fired resulting in 2 deer taken. Not illegal but I choose not to fling crazy amounts of lead at running deer or animals far out of range whereas many Iowans hunt this way. Spoke with a DNR officer last year whose week Consisted of a person shot and killed by a deer slug, as well as a horse and a house hit by the same. Do you think the owners of said house and horse are now supporters of hunting if they were neutral or on the fence? This is just one example.

 

[RockinU]

It's an individual choice as to what. I'm talking about voluntary opt out. Years ago my neighbor did a deer drive and over 100 rounds were fired resulting in 2 deer taken. Not illegal but I choose not to fling crazy amounts of lead at running deer or animals far out of range whereas many Iowans hunt this way. Spoke with a DNR officer last year whose week Consisted of a person shot and killed by a deer slug, as well as a horse and a house hit by the same. Do you think the owners of said house and horse are now supporters of hunting if they were neutral or on the fence? This is just one example.

I completely agree that people should define for themselves what they find acceptable and ethical within the legal constraints we currently have, I just feel we need to be very careful in giving others any say over things they don't understand. For instance, I have no experience with deer drives, we don't do that where I'm from, so I don't feel qualified to have an opinion on them, nor do I think I should have any input on either the ethics, or their legality. There's a lot of regional differences in hunting, and I think that needs some respect.

 

[VAspeedgoat]

I completely agree that people should define for themselves what they find acceptable and ethical within the legal constraints we currently have, I just feel we need to be very careful in giving others any say over things they don't understand. For instance, I have no experience with deer drives, we don't do that where I'm from, so I don't feel qualified to have an opinion on them, nor do I think I should have any input on either the ethics, or their legality. There's a lot of regional differences in hunting, and I think that needs some respect.

The issue becomes when other don't choose to follow the same path as you do. All too often, people on this forum included, decry things just like a deer drive. Baiting, food plots and dogs all have similar responses. Because it is not something they want to do or understand, those individuals at best remain neutral. Often they criticise the ethics as well. My point with that, is we as sportsman rarely come to the defense of others l, where as a group like PETA will gladly take any little victory they can. No amount of good will, education or being a model sportsman will change that. Bring up crossbows on this forum and you will see how quickly we will turn on one another.

 

[kmott]

I don't mind (nor do I think most) a digression involving the broader social issues involved in the topic...it's not like it's moved into the best offroad tire, or bear pistol.

I think it is good that you hold all accountable for their positions that are in opposition to your beliefs, but along those same lines, I think it's good to also recognize when people you typically disagree with do something that is in line with your ideals, which is why I try to take a broader look at politics. When people who I disagree with on guns do something positive for public lands as an example, I think I need to recognize that. Making headway in life is often about recognizing nuance.

I have commonalities with everyone. I love my family, and want to see them grow and prosper, I want to be left alone to the pursuits that make me happy, etc ad infinitum, and I feel most people who disagree with me politically probably want the same things in their own way. We are all just imperfect people struggling to find our way, and I think that as soon as a person is able to recognize that not all opposing positions stem from malice, but maybe just from different life experience, then finding common ground on which to build consensus will be easier...not for all, but for those who want it.

I agree one should give credit where and when it is due BUT the public lands issue is irrelevant once the guns are taken, therefore while I can give them the credit , it is also unwise to align myself because of one issue.

even satan does good to spread evil.

 

[kmott]

The issue becomes when other don't choose to follow the same path as you do. All too often, people on this forum included, decry things just like a deer drive. Baiting, food plots and dogs all have similar responses. Because it is not something they want to do or understand, those individuals at best remain neutral. Often they criticise the ethics as well. My point with that, is we as sportsman rarely come to the defense of others l, where as a group like PETA will gladly take any little victory they can. No amount of good will, education or being a model sportsman will change that. Bring up crossbows on this forum and you will see how quickly we will turn on one another.

perhaps the one and only thing I respect about liberals is they certainly are loyal to their cause . I don't believe for even a second, they care a wit about such things as wolves or any animal per say or even the environment for that matter , those things are just a means to an end . but they are certainly loyal to the ends . the ends, being able to tell others what they can and can not do and how they can or can not do it..

 

[mtmuley]

It's an individual choice as to what. I'm talking about voluntary opt out. Years ago my neighbor did a deer drive and over 100 rounds were fired resulting in 2 deer taken. Not illegal but I choose not to fling crazy amounts of lead at running deer or animals far out of range whereas many Iowans hunt this way. Spoke with a DNR officer last year whose week Consisted of a person shot and killed by a deer slug, as well as a horse and a house hit by the same. Do you think the owners of said house and horse are now supporters of hunting if they were neutral or on the fence? This is just one example.

So your expierence in Iowa is indicative of what is happening across the board? Some of the things you post are concerning to me. mtmuley

 

[Pucky Freak]

So your expierence in Iowa is indicative of what is happening across the board? Some of the things you post are concerning to me. mtmuley

As to your question: no. There are legal hunting practices everywhere which work against a responsible ethical public image of hunters. I listed one example in one place

 

[mtmuley]

As to your question: no. There are legal hunting practices everywhere which work against a responsible ethical public image of hunters. I listed one example in one place

Those legal hunting practices are against YOU'RE percieved ethics. You have no right to establish what a "responsible public image of hunters" is or is not. mtmuley

 

[RockinU]

As to your question: no. There are legal hunting practices everywhere which work against a responsible ethical public image of hunters. I listed one example in one place

Ethical is a personal thing, as far a public image, that's in the eye of the beholder. If there are viable, reasonable, and management based justifications for the practices, instead of just throwing them away to satisfy an image driven by those who wish to remove the practice, shouldn't we instead look to educate the masses as to why it's a useful practice?

I'm not sure that capitulation and appeasement are paths to common ground.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Those legal hunting practices are against YOU'RE percieved ethics. You have no right to establish what a "responsible public image of hunters" is or is not. mtmuley

Did I ever make a claim of what responsible ethical public images is or is not? I have said over and over in this thread that I believe every hunter has a responsibility to consider the impact of his or her own actions have on public perception. You are more than welcome to disagree with that. Yet you and several others somehow read that I am judging the hunting practices of others and that I think some types of hunting practices should end for everyone. It's a non sequitur. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that this is because some of us are so used to being under attack that we fail to perceive a open conversation about the consequences of our choices.

 

[Gila]

it's not about those who already hate us making concessions. it's about gaining support from those who don't already hate us.

It is not about people who don't like hunting.

it's not about those who already hate us making concessions. it's about gaining support from those who don't already hate us.

The enviro groups are the ones who play the lawsuits games and attend the F&G commission meetings. They are also the ones who make contributions to the legislators. You are talking about making up the minds of the urban dwellers who do not have hunting on their radar and never will. Lets say you performed a miracle and did reach the city folk. They say ok and go ahead and use your management tool. Elk is on the menus of every restaurant in LA and NYC. What is going to change?

Joe lives in Gotham City. He is a dock worker and is a member of the local union. Joe has hunted all of his life as did his father. Joe's sons are all hunters. Joe's local union made a huge contribution to Charlie Gomez who is expected to be elected. The NRDC also made a huge contribution to Charlie. After the election, the NRDC asks Charlie to sponsor a bill that would remove hunting as a public use on all state lands. Charlie does so and the bill is signed into law removing all hunting from state lands. Bottom line is public sentiment has little effect on hunting opportunity. The best thing hunters can do for their sport is to be a member of organizations like RMEF and SCI who can wield Thor's Hammer to fight NRDC's lobby monster! The small niche, state and local hunting groups have their own unique purpose. However, the enviro groups are a web of national and even international resources.

 

[mtmuley]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that this is because some of us are so used to being under attack that we fail to perceive a open conversation about the consequences of our choices.

Under attack? No. Under suspicion? Yep. mtmuley

 

[RockinU]

Did I ever make a claim of what responsible ethical public images is or is not? I have said over and over in this thread that I believe every hunter has a responsibility to consider the impact of his or her own actions have on public perception. You are more than welcome to disagree with that. Yet you and several others somehow read that I am judging the hunting practices of others and that I think some types of hunting practices should end for everyone. It's a non sequitur. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that this is because some of us are so used to being under attack that we fail to perceive a open conversation about the consequences of our choices.

I'm completely open to conversation, I'm simply offering counter arguments to assertions I happen to disagree with.

You keep asserting that we need to consider curtailing established practices over perception, and I counter, and will continue to counter that instead, doing a better job of understanding, and communicating why these practices are useful, and in some cases needed is a better solution. Allowing bad and misinformed perceptions to persist is more of a disservice to hunting than anything you've proposed thus far.

 

[one ate E grain]

I think shooting houses, horses, and people is against the law everywhere. Here it's against the law to shoot in an unsafe manner.

The thought of driving deer with dogs always seemed vicious and mean to me, until one time on that web site Fair Chase I heard an audio recording of people in stands in the south using dogs to drive deer past the stands, you could hear the dogs, the booming of shotguns, and the strategy of the large group of guys on their radios.

I'd never go to Africa, and it's all the rage right now to denigrate rich Texans shooting lions or whatever. Not for me, all that carbon to fly and can't bring meat home, etc., but I sure do support African trophy hunting, it is a major force in conservation there, and just the act of hunting in a place with so much variety of megafauna is something that should be preserved. If one can't support African hunting, then the whole justification for any hunting falls apart. The motivations of the hunter are what people mention, in reality motivation is unimportant. The result of managed hunting is the point.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I believe every hunter has a responsibility to consider the impact of his or her own actions have on public perception.

I think this is key, for someone like @kmott I don’t think it’s a huge deal to justify your hunting methods because you probably aren’t communicating a ton with non hunters (from the sounds of it, I could be off base), whereas my social group is mostly non-hunters so I feel like I need to make sure I have really thought about the ethics and justifications of my hunting because I will be sharing those experiences with non-hunters. I’m not trying to duplicate meateater on my Instagram, but when we go to dinner with friends and they ask me what I did in AK, I want to be able to have a frank discussion that paints me and hunting in a good light.

 

[RockinU]

It is not about people who don't like hunting.

The enviro groups are the ones who play the lawsuits games and attend the F&G commission meetings. They are also the ones who make contributions to the legislators. You are talking about making up the minds of the urban dwellers who do not have hunting on their radar and never will. Lets say you performed a miracle and did reach the city folk. They say ok and go ahead and use your management tool. Elk is on the menus of every restaurant in LA and NYC. What is going to change?

Joe lives in Gotham City. He is a dock worker and is a member of the local union. Joe has hunted all of his life as did his father. Joe's sons are all hunters. Joe's local union made a huge contribution to Charlie Gomez who is expected to be elected. The NRDC also made a huge contribution to Charlie. After the election, the NRDC asks Charlie to sponsor a bill that would remove hunting as a public use on all state lands. Charlie does so and the bill is signed into law removing all hunting from state lands. Bottom line is public sentiment has little effect on hunting opportunity. The best thing hunters can do for their sport is to be a member of organizations like RMEF and SCI who can wield Thor's Hammer to fight NRDC's lobby monster! The small niche, state and local hunting groups have their own unique purpose. However the enviro groups are a web of national and even international resources.

You forgot Sportsmen's Alliance. They are fighting the good fight all over the country against anti-hunters.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on public sentiment. It has had massive effects on hunting in recent years. Trophy import bans after Cecil. The wolf and bear delisting debacles have been impacted. Bear and cat hunts. If you think that only PAC's and lobbies have potential for impact, you haven't been paying attention for a while.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It is not about people who don't like hunting.

The enviro groups are the ones who play the lawsuits games and attend the F&G commission meetings. They are also the ones who make contributions to the legislators. You are talking about making up the minds of the urban dwellers who do not have hunting on their radar and never will. Lets say you performed a miracle and did reach the city folk. They say ok and go ahead and use your management tool. Elk is on the menus of every restaurant in LA and NYC. What is going to change?

Joe lives in Gotham City. He is a dock worker and is a member of the local union. Joe has hunted all of his life as did his father. Joe's sons are all hunters. Joe's local union made a huge contribution to Charlie Gomez who is expected to be elected. The NRDC also made a huge contribution to Charlie. After the election, the NRDC asks Charlie to sponsor a bill that would remove hunting as a public use on all state lands. Charlie does so and the bill is signed into law removing all hunting from state lands. Bottom line is public sentiment has little effect on hunting opportunity. The best thing hunters can do for their sport is to be a member of organizations like RMEF and SCI who can wield Thor's Hammer to fight NRDC's lobby monster! The small niche, state and local hunting groups have their own unique purpose. However, the enviro groups are a web of national and even international resources.

Agree with the example, although probably would add Charlie’s opponent is very anti union, thinks that they his employer should be allowed to use contractors instead of employees so they don’t have to pay payroll taxes, healthcare, or overtime and so while Joe knows that Charlie will be bad for his hunting passion, he will keep him in a job.

Just trying to add the idea people are left with crap decisions, I’m not so high minded as to think people don’t have good reasons for voting for anti hunting/conservation etc politicians.

Yeah BHA, RMEF, etc orgs that can rally the troops and get politicians to vote the right way are important.