Thoughts on the anti-hunting movement
- Thread starter RockinU
- Start date
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
Well-known member
Key phrase.
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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.
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.
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..
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
Well-known member
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
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
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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.
Last edited:
Under attack? No. Under suspicion? Yep. mtmuley
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
Active member
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.
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.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
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.
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.
Similar threads
