What has being nice really done for us?

[Q_Sertorius]

You only need to look at Europe to see where hunting in the USA will eventually end up....give it another 20 years,

The USA didn’t have every red-blooded male for two generations killed. And hunting was never a “common man’s thing” in most central and western European countries. The rich owned the land. The rich hunted the land. The poor were poachers. Hunting is where it is at in Europe because of that. The landed aristocracy that hunted in Europe died in disproportionate numbers in the two world wars and the survivors got taxed to death. But there are still hunters in those countries, they just belong to clubs.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Being discrete about killing is good for hunting. Sticking our collective heads in the sand and not being vocal about protecting our traditions while they are under attack is not good.

If you want to protect hunting, get your kids involved in hunting and encourage them to become biologists and environmental science majors.

 

[CorbLand]

You are talking about 2 different groups. The person that is driven off the ledge even though they don't actually know you are out there is an anti-hunter. That's not the non-hunter you may overlap with on the trail, or wherever. The average non-hunter doesn't care about hunting because they don't think about hunting. Its just something other people do. Maybe they have/had a friend, neighbor or family member hunts so they think its fine. That person hunted and they were a good person. The non-hunter is perfectly content buying there meat and not ever thinking about how the animal had to die. Meat just comes from the store. They don't want to see it but they don't really care if others do it because again, they just dont really think about killing animals, what hunting actually is. Now while they are out doing their thing they run into a hunter that is just done. This guy has a dead animal on open display and is tired of being nice. Well now this non-hunter has to face what hunting is and maybe they don't like it, at least not the way this person is presenting it anyway. Untimely that's their problem, I get it. However, eventually they see something encouraging them to vote against hunting. Now they have a vision of a poorly displayed dead animal from some hunter that is tired of being nice. How do they vote? Maybe they decide they are done being nice too. Congratulations, you just converted a non-hunter to an anti-hunter.

Like Corb said, we need to be loud in the right places and that is not on the trail or the roads with dead animals in tow.

To piggyback off this. Even if you do meet one of those anti hunters on the trail, remaining civil and respectful is the way to go. Others may see you and if you start to act like the antis, you both look like idiots. That is not beneficial to the perception of hunting.

We need to be loud but respectful and tactful about it. Getting loud means getting loud because we have a lot of voices.

 

[Boarmaster]

People that want to control what you do or want to make you conform to their way of thinking will steamroll you if they get the chance. If we haven’t learned that in that in the last 50 years we won’t ever get it. There is no appeasing them. Once you compromise they will ratchet it up to the next level. I wish it weren’t so but it just is.

 

[Will_m]

I don’t think the opposition to hunting is as overwhelming or dire as everyone thinks. They just demand sensational stuff so it garners a disproportionate amount of attention.

The louder and more belligerent someone is in an argument should not be conflated with “winning” the argument. It just means they are usually a dumbass. I’m a lawyer. Deal with it weekly.

Everyone knows not to sink to the same level of dumbassery because they will beat you with experience and everybody witnessing won’t be able to tell who the real idiot is.

 

[7mm-08]

Understanding that hunting, fishing and trapping are privileges and NOT rights helps frame this discussion (for me). We are afforded the ability to partake in these pursuits because the soccer moms of the world (at the state level) have not decided to band together and eliminate these pastimes legislatively. Pounding your chest and displaying dead and bloody animals in a disrespectful manner while confronting what one might perceive to be unfair tactics by the "antis" can change that tide.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Understanding that hunting, fishing and trapping are privileges and NOT rights helps frame this discussion (for me). We are afforded the ability to partake in these pursuits because the soccer moms of the world (at the state level) have not decided to band together and eliminate these pastimes legislatively. Pounding your chest and displaying dead and bloody animals in a disrespectful manner while confronting what one might perceive to be unfair tactics by the "antis" can change that tide.

The privileges versus rights statement is unnecessary and controversial. It’s certainly not universal. A few states have it enshrined in their constitutions. But the other two sentences are spot on.

 

[7mm-08]

The privileges versus rights statement is unnecessary and controversial. It’s certainly not universal. A few states have it enshrined in their constitutions. But the other two sentences are spot on.

Not trying to be disrespectful (or start a pissing match), but neither the U.S. Constitution nor any of its 27 Amendments address hunting rights. When most of us refer to "Rights," that is the framework to which we are referring - not state constitutions. Considering the Supremacy Clause in Article VI (of the U.S. Constitution), I'm still pretty comfortable with my first sentence as well. And, your assertion that pointing this out is controversial and unnecessary is simply your opinion. In no way did I did I disparage others who posted erroneous information in this thread regarding this subject.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Not trying to be disrespectful (or start a pissing match), but neither the U.S. Constitution nor any of its 27 Amendments address hunting rights. When most of us refer to "Rights," that is the framework to which we are referring - not state constitutions. Considering the Supremacy Clause in Article VI (of the U.S. Constitution), I'm still pretty comfortable with my first sentence as well. And, your assertion that pointing this out is controversial and unnecessary is simply your opinion. In no way did I did I disparage others who posted erroneous information in this thread regarding this subject.

There are 24 state constitutions that protect their citizens’ right to hunt. Since the federal Constitution, Bill of Rights, and federal legislation are silent on this matter, those state constitutions are not affected by the Supremacy Clause or federally preempted. I don’t know where you studied law, but that’s basic first year stuff. State constitutions (and laws) can, and do, frequently provide more protections for their citizens than the federal constitution. Additionally, just because something is a “right”, that doesn’t mean it cannot be subject to reasonable limits. For instance, even though 24 state constitutions protect hunting, the states can still regulate it for the common good. They simply cannot destroy that right (unless the people let them), through excessive regulations or restrictions.

At any rate, you seem to want to get into a debate about whether hunting is a “right” or a “privilege.” This isn’t a subject worth debating, since it is a distinction without a difference for the purposes of this thread. And your insistence on sticking it into one category - particularly saying it is only a privilege - is unsupported by any authority and therefore, controversial.

I could also make a pretty good originalist argument that it was regarded as a basic “right” in many American jurisdictions, even those that don’t explicitly protect it. Moreover, even if it is merely a “privilege,” it’s still afforded some substantial protections. Based on my study of American history and the law, I am confident that Justice Thomas could write a pro-hunting decision if it ever went in front of him. Too bad it won’t while we have a conservative majority on the Court.

Edit - my overall point remains that I agree completely with your other two sentences. Keeping hunting palatable to suburban females is an important part of preserving our rights (or privileges) as hunters.

 

[Coveyleader]

I don’t think the opposition to hunting is as overwhelming or dire as everyone thinks. They just demand sensational stuff so it garners a disproportionate amount of attention.

The louder and more belligerent someone is in an argument should not be conflated with “winning” the argument. It just means they are usually a dumbass. I’m a lawyer. Deal with it weekly.

Everyone knows not to sink to the same level of dumbassery because they will beat you with experience and everybody witnessing won’t be able to tell who the real idiot is.

Do you live in a western state? Those people you talk about have ended a lot for us, and on and on it continues. We can be passive all we want, doing so isnt t doing us favors.

 

[Will_m]

Do you live in a western state? Those people you talk about have ended a lot for us, and on and on it continues. We can be passive all we want, doing so isnt t doing us favors.

I do not and it does seem like it is more prevalent out there. But I don’t know that you can change people’s minds. Majority rule and all so I don’t know what the answer is. But I don’t think devolving to their level is it.

 

[Coveyleader]

To piggyback off this. Even if you do meet one of those anti hunters on the trail, remaining civil and respectful is the way to go. Others may see you and if you start to act like the antis, you both look like idiots. That is not beneficial to the perception of hunting.

We need to be loud but respectful and tactful about it. Getting loud means getting loud because we have a lot of voices.

The gay rights movement , look at it. Are they getting what they want because they have lots of collective voices? Or are they just putting it in our faces and we just have to deal with it? I’d say the latter! At this point, the way the western world is, we are on borrowed time no matter if we shove it in their faces, or if we hide in the closet.

 

[CorbLand]

The gay rights movement , look at it. Are they getting what they want because they have lots of collective voices? Or are they just putting it in our faces and we just have to deal with it? I’d say the latter! At this point, the way the western world is, we are on borrowed time no matter if we shove it in their faces, or if we hide in the closet.

It’s a free country. Do what you want, man.