Responding to Anti-Hunters

[mr_steve]

Over the last few year I have paid more attention to those who oppose hunting, especially on social media. My interest in photography has grown and several of the wildlife photographers I follow are outspoken anti-hunters as well. I have seen several discussions about wolves and mountain lions that can get heated as people feel powerful behind a computer.

My biggest pet peeve in these discussions is when someone speaks a very opinionated statement like "They enjoy murder! Stop the murderers..." or from the hunting side "Tree hugging hippies..." as I feel that just pushes the groups apart.

My biggest concern in these discussions is the amount of people from my generation (I'm 25 years old) that grew up in urban areas and are disconnected from wildlife or hunting and just love animals and feel hunters don't. Overall there seems to be a lot of misconception and lack of facts that push both sides apart.

I found this site listing all these arguments against hunting and it got my blood boiling.
http://www.idausa.org/campaigns/wild-free2/habitats-campaign/anti-hunting/

Excerpt from the article:

Hunting is not Sport
Hunting is often called a “sport,” to disguise a cruel, needless killing spree as a socially acceptable activity. However, the concept of sport involves competition between two consenting parties, adherence to rules and fairness ensured by an intervening referee, and achieving highest scores but not death as the goal of the sporting events. In hunting, the animal is forced to “participate” in a live-or-die situation that always leads to the death of the animal, whereas the hunter leaves, his/her life never remotely at stake.)

Hunting is not “Fair chase”
Despite hunters’ common claim of adhering to a “fair chase” code, there is no such thing. With an arsenal of rifles, shotguns, muzzleloaders, handguns, bows and arrows, hunters kill more than 200 million animals yearly – likely crippling, orphaning, and harassing millions more. The annual death toll in the U.S. includes 42 million mourning doves, 30 million squirrels, 28 million quail, 25 million rabbits, 20 million pheasants, 14 million ducks, 6 million deer, and thousands of geese, bears, moose, elk, antelope, swans, cougars, turkeys, wolves, foxes, coyotes, bobcats, boars, and other woodland creatures. Hunters also frequently use food and electronic callers to lure unsuspecting animals in front of their weapons. The truth is, the animal, no matter how well-adapted to escaping natural predators she or he may be, has virtually no way to escape death once he or she is in the cross hairs of a scope mounted on a rifle or a cross bow.

Hunting and Conservation
Wildlife management, population control and wildlife conservation are euphemisms for killing–hunting, trapping and fishing for fun. A percentage of the wild animal population is specifically mandated to be killed. Hunters want us to believe that killing animals equals population control equals conservation, when in fact hunting causes overpopulation of deer, the hunters’ preferred victim species, destroys animal families, and leads to ecological disruption as well as skewed population dynamics.

My question: What is the best way to respond to anti-hunters in order to show them our perspective without pushing the sides apart? It is easy for them to pursuade people via social media that aren't exposed to hunting, so how do we counter act their efforts?

 

[Big Fin]

The best way is to just ignore them. This is their religion. You are not going to convince them anymore than you will convince a jihadist that America has some good people. It would be wasting your time. Focus your efforts elsewhere.

The better use of energy is to make sure we portray hunting as an important part of society and culture. We are best served when our actions are pointed toward the notion that hunting, at the most basic level, is about food and connecting ourselves to the landscape in a world that is growing more and more disconnected. And when our actions yield results that show how hunters provide value in our efforts of conservation of all species, not just those we eat.

If they want to have this religious belief; a religion that is about forty years old, fine with me. Just don't expect me to adopt your new age religion and expect me to live my life according to your religious principles.

Whether you adhere to theory evolution or creationism, man has been hunting since time began. So long as we stay connected to food as a critical part of our existence and we hunters want to be more connected to how that food is procured, then any argument against that look rather radical by the non-hunting part of society who represents the important majority.

 

[Colberjs]

I can't give you an educated and eloquent response to this question like Randy and others can (and apparently in a more timely manner) but I can give you a couple of my thoughts. If it weren't for hunters those 200 million animals would have to go somewhere. Most likely all over the hood and windshield of the Toyota Prius's they're driving.

I believe it was Hank Shaw in his book Hunt Gather Cook that made a valid point about the animals hunters kill. They are free range animals living the way they want to live until they meet a hunter that attempts to make a well-placed shot so as not to cause the animal any more suffering than is absolutely necessary. They have it made compared to the millions of animals in feed lots standing knee-deep in their own feces waiting to die. The method a hunter uses to kill an animal is a lot kinder than the deaths they face in nature. Have you ever seen a pack of Wolves attack its prey? Those poor elk, deer, etc. suffer tremendously. What about an animal dying of starvation? Apparently drowning was a major issue for the buffalo years ago. Two deer locked together at the antlers due to a fight over dominance. They both lose.

 

[Ben Long]

I agree with BIg Fin. Don't waste time arguing with people who have already made up their mind. Instead, speak to the vast majority of non-hunters who have not set a hard opinion. Always be respectful of people and wildlife. Emphasize things people can relate to: good food, spending time in nature, spending time with family. And remember: PETA has no propaganda half as potent as one hunter acting like a jerk.

 

[smarandr]

One of the things that has stuck with me from hunter's ed all those years ago was something my teacher said concerning this topic. The gist of it is that hunters and the radical anti-hunting crowd each occupy a similarly small percentage of the population, so in effect our voices cancel each other out. Therefore, we need to keep the vast majority of public which consists of non-hunting/non-anti-hunting people on our side.

Now, how that's best done remains a hot debate amongst "us" as evidenced by the contentions nature of more than a few threads on this site.

 

[RobG]

Pretty much all wild animals die violently. Peta et al just has a problem with humans being involved.

 

[WyOpitz]

Just think how many more cows, pigs and chickens would die if people didn't hunt and eat wild game. There argument is illogical. I agree with Randy, just ignore them.

 

[smarandr]

Nice video about their religion: http://youtu.be/Vv9OSxTy1aU

 

[Big Fin]

Another thing that helps me put these differing views into some perspective is that I now realize I am different than non-hunters and anti-hunters in a way I did not understand until trying to communicate some of these thoughts on TV; I participate and they spectate. I'll try to explain what I mean.

Our society has become more urbanized. When a mostly rural population, there was a heavy connection to the land and to the food that ended up on our table. Growing up on farms, hunting/fishing for food, or even raising a few chickens in the back yard as many did, made us face the stark reality that for us to eat, something dies. It is ugly and difficult to accept. It's violent and bloody work to put food on a table. Yet, eventually you come to understand this basic premise of survival and you start to take responsibility for the food on your table.

Against that grain, we as a society have found ways to ease our discomforts, whether social discomfort, physical discomfort, emotional discomfort, or whatever we find to be something we would rather avoid. Usually we pay someone to do the task that we find discomforting, or pay them to remove the discomforts we feel.

As part of that, we have developed ways for people to obtain food without having to feel any of the discomfort that comes from watching a deer's eyes go from bright brown to that blueish-green fog that indicates life has left its body. Rather, you just go to the supermarket and buy something wrapped in cellophane. Unfortunately, some in our society have developed a moral superiority related to how one puts food on their table.

We have developed ways such that you don't have to chase chickens around the backyard, put them upside down in a funnel, grab their head and decapitate them, leaving a bloody mess. Rather, we have Tyson Farms grow millions of chickens, fill them with hormones, feed them animal byproducts, and you can go buy a package at the store. Only discomfort is to your wallet.

Even if you are vegan, you no longer are faced with the decision to plow up an acre, or hundreds of acres and permanently displace the rabbits, gophers, squirrels, or whatever might have lived there since the last ice age. You don't have to spread your own fertilizer and realize that this is coming from somewhere. You don't have to spray your own pesticides and realize how toxic those petro products are and what an impact they have on water supplies when applied in large doses. You don't pay for the thousands of gallons of diesel fuel to harvest and deliver to the processor. Rather, you go down to the market and buy your beans and rice, your tofu and carrots, convinced you are morally superior because you paid someone else to impose all these impacts on wildlife, water, air, and the landscape.

Humans still crave the connection with the natural world; part of our DNA as hunters since life on this planet started. As a result of this urbanization many get their dose of the natural world by spectating, not participating. They are no longer part of the process. They no longer can see the connection when they turn up the AC or fire up the furnace, that some poor pronghorn in Wyoming is going to have his home altered to meet the demand for natural gas created when thousands of people turn on the AC or the furnace.

Hunters are not spectators, rather participants. We are completely connected to the process. We take full responsibility for what is on our plate. We know that no matter the meal, meat, vegan, or other, whether bought from a market or harvested with our own hands, there is blood on the soil so that we can eat. Having the intimate connection makes us more aware of these relationships.

The difference between the "spectator view" of non-hunters and the "participant view" of hunters results in inherently different perspectives of the process and the supposed morality/immorality that this new religion is built on. Our norm of how food gets on our table is different from their norm. Our sense of responsibility that something died so we can eat is a powerful emotion that causes us to think about this consequence and drives us to make sure the land is productive enough to provide even more than we have taken; what we hunters call conservation.

Given my belief that these differences are in large part a function of spectator versus participant in the natural process, I now try to frame my discussion in that manner. You will see me trying to articulate that difference in the upcoming season. It has taken me a few years to distill the discussion to something sensible, but I hope I am getting there. In the process, make it easier to understand why we view it differently. And, hopefully empower hunters that they don't have to subscribe to the moral superiority paradigm under which others might want to judge the manner by which we choose to feed ourselves.

I recently did an interview with a group doing a PBS documentary about hunting. They asked about the violence involved in hunting. I explained to them the violence involved in procuring any food, meat or veg, and by any means, not just hunting. I did not make excuses when asked these difficult questions. I gave answers reflecting my feeling of responsibility for what is on my plate and the connection hunting gives me; how watching an animal die so I can eat is not an easy thing, even after 40 years of doing it; how even when I don't have to watch it die and I order it in a restaurant, I think about the life of another animal that is on my plate.

When asked to explain how I am able to look at a dying animal and be comfortable with it, I tried my best to explain the "spectator v. participant" perspective and the resulting differences in how we obtain our food; "pay others v. personal responsibility." Based on the body language of those filming and interviewing, I think the points were being made effectively.

Whether or not my interviews will be used and whether or not PBS will purchase the documentary from that production group, who knows. I do know that my thoughts are completely unapologetic for being a participant/hunter; fully accepting of the responsibility for the food on my table; and make me even more committed to improve the landscapes that are the basic foundation for this natural world I so deeply need to be a part of.

 

[mtmuley]

Thanks Randy. That sums it up better than any other way I've ever seen. I will never apologize for being a hunter either. mtmuley

 

[nidahunter]

Wow, once again Randy puts into words what alot of us feel and cannot. Very well said.

 

[mr_steve]

Thanks for taking the time to write that Randy. Very well written and articulated. Extremely helpful in putting things in perspective.

 

[ScottP]

If I had the ear of an anti-hunter or non-hunter who was actually willing to listen, I'd probably show them this video,

http://vimeo.com/105686970

It takes a long time to change the attitude of an anti-hunter. Over many years, we were able to change the opinion of ONE of my wife's friends (who is a biologist and grew up in a hunting family). While she is still a vegetarian and against commercial meat production, she does support hunting for food. I was asked to serve vension at her wedding... the only meat available.

How we portray ourselves as hunters to those outside of the culture is very important if we want our hunting heritage to remain intact. As many of you are well aware, the image the general non-hunting public perceives is questionable to most of us, but when you look at the mainstream media, its completely understandable. Here is some great food for thought on that subject, its worth the couple minutes to read:

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php/backcountry-blog/832-an-admirable-identity-helping-the-hunters-legacy-resonate-in-an-era-of-change

Big Fin is probably right in ignoring the extremist anti-hunter, but its the non-hunter public that we should be thinking about going forward... those that haven't formed a strong opinion either way and where any ground can be gained in spreading the message and image we as hunters want, not the warped one that is currently portrayed.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Randy sure has a way to put things in words than most of us can't and that was another great example!

 

[mr_steve]

Randy for President

 

[cowboy]

Out of site - out of mind - I think you just described the spectators perfectly. I have to attend an annual conference meeting that will involve some anti-hunters - gotta reread Randy's post a few more times and remember to just order water for dinner at the conference.
This topic just seems to be fired at me at these shindigs.

 

[Cornell2012]

I've noticed that there are a number of people around my age (mid 20's) that are concerned about treatment of animals while living. I knew a few vegetarians that agreed to eat venison that I brought and vouched for. They want to know that the animals are paid proper respect. They recognize that as part of the food chain, animals die, but that doesn't make them valueless.

Part of that respect is not just bragging about antlers or making a game out of wounded animals. First talking about how good the meal was before you start breaking out pictures is an easy way to get down the initial defenses.

The term "harvest" doesn't sit well with many of them because the connotation is that wildlife is there to be taken at will, or that you are ashamed to outright say you took a life. I've found that "hunted" or "killed" sit better with them, if just for the refreshing honesty. Unfortunately the anti-hunting crowd can latch on to using the term "killing" pretty easily. The key is all about respect. Respect to whomever you are debating with. Respect to bystanders. Respect to the animals.

Respect is especially important when debating online. Usually your opponent will be an anti-hunter, but your main audience will be those somewhere in between. They will be watching and making opinions about all hunters based on what they see. Present your argument in a polite fashion. Whenever the name calling starts, stop responding. Reasonable people will recognize that personal attacks are basically a concession of not having anything relevant to talk about. Put on your best show face when you are representing hunters to the public. This isn't a fight we will win in a few decisive victories. It is a slow contest of attrition, and the little things matter.

 

[RobG]

I've noticed that there are a number of people around my age (mid 20's) that are concerned about treatment of animals while living. I knew a few vegetarians that agreed to eat venison that I brought and vouched for. They want to know that the animals are paid proper respect. They recognize that as part of the food chain, animals die, but that doesn't make them valueless.

Part of that respect is not just bragging about antlers or making a game out of wounded animals. First talking about how good the meal was before you start breaking out pictures is an easy way to get down the initial defenses.

I know quite a few people like this. The only meat they will eat is wild meat, but they don't have a high opinion of "trophy" hunters.

 

[Colberjs]

They recognize that as part of the food chain, animals die, but that doesn't make them valueless.

I like this point. Animals are a part of the food chain. If they are so worried about them dying then why aren't they trying to turn bears, wolves, lions and other carnivores/omnivores into herbivores/vegans?

Obviously it is perfectly natural to crave meat. They can't reply that they are animals and we're humans because the whole purpose in their line of thinking is that animals are essentially equal to humans and not a lower life form to be utilized by man.

 

[devon deer]

That is a great post Randy.

Let me give you an insight into what happened when i returned to the UK.
I have a Facebook page promoting my fly fishing business.
There is no mention i hunt on it, however when i returned to the UK i changed my profile picture on my personal page to a picture of me and my downed Bull Elk, of which i was very proud.
However, within 48 i lost several 'likes' to my fly fishing page, i guess they must have seen my personal page, i even took crap from a 'friend' asking me how i could do such a thing.
But, it also appeared to have triggered another reaction, as my page received new likes exceeding the unlikes!

I will always defend my corner and other like minded folk, but there are some crazy minded individuals out there!

Cheers

Richard