HUNTERS CONSERVE WILDLIFE - Intelligence Squared Debate

[Irrelevant]

This should be good.

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/upcoming-debates/item/1496-hunters-conserve-wildlife

What are peoples thoughts on the debaters? I do like that in the opinion poll we're winning 70% to 30%

 

[jryoung]

I sure Licata will hold his own, but I would have loved, loved, LOVED to see Mahoney there.

Put that on my list as a debate I'd love to witness. Mahoney/Pacelle right up there with Newberg/Fielder or Ivory.

 

[dannyb278]

Well that was rough. Wish they could have got Mahoney up there. That guy from HSUS is much better at telling people what they want to hear rather than facts.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

Well they said the HSUS and british guy won the debate, but it was purely based on those voters at the venue in New York City so I can't say I'm surprised. If you look at the online voting about 70% of folks supported hunting as a conservation tool.

The HSUS guy is slick with always using the phrase "trophy hunting", must have said it a thousand times in the debate.

I think Anthony did real well, but as others have said Shane Mahoney would have been great to see. Steve Rinella would've been good too

 

[beagle001]

Rinella/Mahoney would be a dreamteam

 

[Irrelevant]

Yeah, that did not go the way I expected. I would have guessed it to be a slam dunk.

 

[Power54]

Well that was rough. Wish they could have got Mahoney up there. That guy from HSUS is much better at telling people what they want to hear rather than facts.

Definitely.

 

[Big Fin]

I advocated that hunters not even participate in this. What did hunting have to gain? Almost nothing. What did hunting have to lose? A lot.

When you are in battle and have a much smaller army and far fewer resources, you pick your battles and your battlefields with great care. I think this was a mistake and given the results of the pre-debate polling and the post-debate polling, hunters got their proverbial teeth handed to them. The polled audience that was indifferent on hunting prior to viewing ended up having a largely negative change against hunting. Not a good outcome and reflective of the ambush they walked into.

 

[dannyb278]

I advocated that hunters not even participate in this. What did hunting have to gain? Almost nothing. What did hunting have to lose? A lot.

When you are in battle and have a much smaller army and far fewer resources, you pick your battles and your battlefields with great care. I think this was a mistake and given the results of the pre-debate polling and the post-debate polling, hunters got their proverbial teeth handed to them. The polled audience that was indifferent on hunting prior to viewing ended up having a largely negative change against hunting. Not a good outcome and reflective of the ambush they walked into.

I agree. That seems like a setup from the beginning if there ever was one. The focus on Africa was a real problem for me. You can't really discuss African hunting and North American hunting in the same breath they are two totally foreign concepts from one another.

Had Africa not been the focus one could easily point to pittman-robertson, and the federal duck stamp and say discussion closed.