If you think being a “thoughtful” hunter will prevent this in the US, think again...

[Poser]

80 percent of the public supports hunting. 76 percent of non-hunters support hunting. Anti-Hunters are in the minority by a pretty dang big amount. I think people put way too much thought into anti-hunters having much of an impact on the hunting public. Hunting will die due to the hunting community absolutely sucking at promoting ethical hunting, and really sucking at outreach. Only 37 percent of people support "Trophy" hunting. Steve Rinella is without a doubt the best example of someone showing and explaining the experience and reverance of hunting. You don't see him jumping up and slapping everyone on the back after shooting a deer from 800 yards. Get all of the outdoor channels and major magazines to stop talking about antlers, and start talking about the experience and we will be fine. Ultimately the hunting community is at the mercy of the non-hunters who still support hunting, so therefore you have to cater to them with logic and be better at showing and explaining the nuances of hunting.

I agree. I think the whole “anti hunters are winning” statements are akin to conspiracy theories. It’s a way to blame one’s woes on something without having to level up with reality.

 

[ttucci16]

I agree. I think the whole “anti hunters are winning” statements are akin to conspiracy theories. It’s a way to blame one’s woes on something without having to level up with reality.

I agree. I always love it when people say "This is ammo for the anti-hunters" when there is any kind of disagreement between hunters. It's pathetic and akin to saying "You're arguement is invalid due to some extremist using it again the hunting community" The hunting community isn't a monolothic block of people who stand for the same thing across the board. There are a ton of nuances that we all need to be open about and need to be able to discuss without people slamming each other as contributing to the "anti hunting crowd". I don't have to agree with every single belief you believe in to agree that we all love hunting and think it should stay around for a long time.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I guess I have a hard time with this on going demonization of “trophy” hunting. Is there something wrong with a hunter selectively harvesting a mature, older age class animal? It seems like that should be applauded.

 

[peterk123]

I agree. I always love it when people say "This is ammo for the anti-hunters" when there is any kind of disagreement between hunters. It's pathetic and akin to saying "You're arguement is invalid due to some extremist using it again the hunting community" The hunting community isn't a monolothic block of people who stand for the same thing across the board. There are a ton of nuances that we all need to be open about and need to be able to discuss without people slamming each other as contributing to the "anti hunting crowd". I don't have to agree with every single belief you believe in to agree that we all love hunting and think it should stay around for a long time.

This right here is well stated. And as for "this is just more ammo for the antis"; everything is ammo for the antis. And since that is their attitude regarding anything hunting related, I say "screw them". If it is legal and you enjoy then go for it. I am not a trophy hunter and I do not have a faceplant account. And if I did, I would never post pics on there. But that is my choice. You want to do it, then I am perfectly fine with it. Reasonable people hear a song on the radio they do not like just change the channel. Unreasonable people want the song banned.

 

[540-Virginian]

I may work to start a non profit that is in the business of suing the press and article writers for defamation and blasphemy etc. basically the hunter equivalent of peta. In the meantime, I share kill pics more than I ever have before - don’t let the liberal controlled media full of low paid journalists who went to fancy not necessarily expensive private ivy schools with bogus English and liberal degrees Try to take us down.

I think my slogan will be ‘plants feel pain too’ and target all vegans for harassing them for killing innocent plants. We hunters are simply protecting the defenseless plant species. Somebody think of the plant children!

 

[ttucci16]

I guess I have a hard time with this on going demonization of “trophy” hunting. Is there something wrong with a hunter selectively harvesting a mature, older age class animal? It seems like that should be applauded.

I think what the general public considers "trophy hunting" is what me and you would call effective management of an age class of animal. I don't think this is across the board, but i think most hunters would generally agree. I think the general public considers trophy hunting along the lines of fulfilling the "Big 5" of Africa. I don't think the public understands that there is some common ground in trophy hunting and conservation of certain species. Hunters fully understand this issue and i think most hunters have WAAAAAY more respect for the quarry we are pursuing than anyone else, but the public has a hard time fully understanding that we love it so much that we want to end its life. Sorry for being long winded, but hopefully that came off correctly and not like a rambling dummy.

 

[Poser]

I guess I have a hard time with this on going demonization of “trophy” hunting. Is there something wrong with a hunter selectively harvesting a mature, older age class animal? It seems like that should be applauded.

Well, it’s largely because “trophy hunting” is a misunderstood term. It’s also not the most accurate or well conceived phrase unto itself. The layman understanding of “trophy hunting” is a person who takes only the antlers. It implies that one is only interested in the outcome vs. the experience and, traditionally, there is little to no emphasis on tablefare when it comes to the image of “trophy hunting”. The misunderstanding of the term itself is as much as fault of the traditional hunting industry as it is laymen making assumptions. But, you already know this.

 

[ODB]

I agree. I think the whole “anti hunters are winning” statements are akin to conspiracy theories. It’s a way to blame one’s woes on something without having to level up with reality.

One might say the same of the hand-wringing about public lands, no? Perceived reality versus objective reality? After all, if we believe the rhetoric, we are but one election away from losing wild lands to the greedy hands of the industrialists...

 

[ttucci16]

One might say the same of the hand-wringing about public lands, no? Perceived reality versus objective reality? After all, if we believe the rhetoric, we are but one election away from losing wild lands to the greedy hands of the industrialists...

I see what you're saying, but it was very recently that a bill (House Bill 621) was introduced to sell off 3.3 million acres of public land. I don't know of any federal bills to ban hunting. Therefore, your premise is a little inflated between the two. None the less, i do get where you are coming from. I think the issue of public lands is becoming a bigger deal due to the influx of people moving to the west and corporate/private interests wanting that land for its resources. I think the "rich" buying up land and restricting access to public land is a bigger threat than hunting being banned. If you're worried about "anti-hunters" banning hunting, then i feel like public land access directly correlates to restricting hunting access. If you don't have anywhere to hunt, then hunting dies, or is now only a sport of the rich. More and more people are coming "west" to hunt due to the cost of hunting land in the east. Private land and hunting leases are becoming out of reach for alot of working class people.

 

[ODB]

I see what you're saying, but it was very recently that a bill (House Bill 621) was introduced to sell off 3.3 million acres of public land. I don't know of any federal bills to ban hunting. Therefore, your premise is a little inflated between the two. None the less, i do get where you are coming from. I think the issue of public lands is becoming a bigger deal due to the influx of people moving to the west and corporate/private interests wanting that land for its resources. I think the "rich" buying up land and restricting access to public land is a bigger threat than hunting being banned. If you're worried about "anti-hunters" banning hunting, then i feel like public land access directly correlates to restricting hunting access. If you don't have anywhere to hunt, then hunting dies, or is now only a sport of the rich. More and more people are coming "west" to hunt due to the cost of hunting land in the east. Private land and hunting leases are becoming out of reach for alot of working class people.

Hunting won’t be banned at the federal level. It will be nibbled at by initiatives voted on by people who have zero (in reality) vested interest. This is why, even though 80% of people may be OK with hunting, bear hunting is still banned in places, and anti-trapping bills can get on the ballot in places like Montana.

At some level the government does has a right to sell property when it is in the best interest of the country. But that is a rabbit hole not even worth walking in to...

The public lands/hunting line is an important one to consider. It’s much easier these days to marshal support for public lands from a wide spectrum of pbut it’s much, much harder to get people en masse to fight just has hard to maintain/expand hunting rights - even more so guns themselves.

again, with supposedly the support of 80% of the country, you’ll think it would be much easier to find this support in the public sphere. We have to ask ourselves why we don’t.

 

[Poser]

One might say the same of the hand-wringing about public lands, no? Perceived reality versus objective reality? After all, if we believe the rhetoric, we are but one election away from losing wild lands to the greedy hands of the industrialists...

As mentioned above, I don’t find that to be a fair analogy since there is no legislature aimed at directly limiting hunting, however, public land access significantly impacts hunting and hunting access in an indirect manner. Also, public lands initiatives are a great way for hunters to connect with other public lands user groups and have conversations about “trophy hunting”, predators, and all things hunting related where not too many forums for mutual interests exist otherwise.

Also, I don’t understand this sentiment:

“Someone wrote a book exposing trophy hunters, so I’m going to blameshift to the public land advocates for not directly addressing extremists anti hunting views which only appeal to a subset of the population. Also, anyone who might be “thoughtful” about their hunting is also to blame since they aren’t doing anything to undermine a book publication that appeals to all of 4 people.”