Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best way to educate non hunters and converse with an anti hunter

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Yukon Cornelius View Post
    Lol. Yeah. Me either.
    I'll engage both anti and non hunters in conversations. The key is remaining respectful. We won't change an anti-hunters opinion on hunting. One thing we can do is foster a respect for our stance.
    Mim not a trophy hunter. In a meat hunter. However if I had the money to spend in a trophy I might just do it. Why? Memories. I'd love to have a bear rug, but it'll be a black bear. So I can eat it. Justifiable trophy. Lol.

    So repect. Yeah. That's the key. I'm going to read up on this PR act.
    Thanks for the eatingAlaska link. Possible classroom material.

    Comment


    • #17
      Some good points already but I would add be the positive example.

      If you can present your (our) side in a thoughtful, articulate manner then converse away! Don't confront and don't try to "win". State your case and leave an open invitation to further discussion, especially if you're in the midst of talking hunting to a non-hunter and you get attacked or interrupted by an anti.

      Pique their curiosity if you're able, answer their questions where you can, avoid boasting and leave them with the impression that hunters are reasonable and approachable on the subject of hunting, and possibly an invitation to tag along. If you do get a tag-along absolutely invite them over for a meal of the game they were there to see harvested. (make sure it's a dish you do well)

      *Edit

      As to "Sport" or "Trophy" hunters?
      Don't be afraid to defend those groups. Sport and trophy hunters are the soul of conservation and are THE reason we have the robust wildlife populations that we do in North America. Even the guys who hunt exclusively for the wall are to be credited because as trophy hunters they are highly selective and tend to pass on lots of animals before taking one that meets their requirements. Trophy hunters are usually the ones most willing to go home empty handed.

      Meat hunters often adopt an air of moral superiority because they're hunting for food, but meat hunters, generally, have a far greater impact on a given population BECAUSE they are hunting for the pot. A meat hunter enters the woods determined to kill the first legal animal he/she can find whereas the trophy hunter is holding out for something especially big or old or both.

      The meat hunter hunts until that meat is collected and I'm sorry of this stings but...the number one rationalization for violating fish and game laws is "I'm feeding my family".

      Also, when certain animal populations decline for whatever reasons, it's usually the sport and trophy crowds who are most willing to concede to restrictions aimed at restoring those herds. Not so for the meat hunters. They tend to scream first, loudest, and last and allways point the finger at everyone but themselves.
      If cave men had been trophy hunters the Wooly Mammoth would be alive today

      Comment


      • #18
        Not sure my way did but ignorant voters may have. I do see your point with non hunters. If they are a non hunter and want my opinion I'll be more than welcome to fill there ear full of what ever they want to hear. As for the anti hunter they have there mind made up and don't even care to be In The same room with such ignorance. And they probably don't give a **** what I have to say anyways so why waste breath.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by twodux View Post
          Unfortunately your point of view brought on leg hold trapping and instant kill trapping bans in Washington State and bans on using dogs for hunting predators. Because, instead of engaging non hunters in meaningful dialogue and taking the time to educate them about the benefits of these methods, hunters let the anti hunters be the ones to define what was right and what was wrong with these methods and the results were that non hunting voters voted against hunters. If we don't engage non hunters (which are not anti hunting, just non hunting) we will continue to lose.

          And as Mark (Bushrat) pointed out, we must police ourselves. This "No one can tell me what to do" attitude is a losing attitude.
          I would find it more meaningful to encourage hunters to get out and vote. Ignorance is dying battle and a waste of time.

          Comment


          • #20
            Dakota Boy, about 7% of Americans hunt. (source, ducks unlimited) It doesn't matter if every hunter votes, we are still badly outnumbered and our only hope is non hunters accepting our activity as reasonable. Fortunately, 67% of non hunters still approve of hunting. Our job is to keep it that way, not aggravate the situation.

            We have to police our ranks and remain remain the factual, reasonable ones in the conversation.
            An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
            - Jef Mallett

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by twodux View Post
              Dakota Boy, about 7% of Americans hunt. (source, ducks unlimited) It doesn't matter if every hunter votes, we are still badly outnumbered and our only hope is non hunters accepting our activity as reasonable. Fortunately, 67% of non hunters still approve of hunting. Our job is to keep it that way, not aggravate the situation.

              We have to police our ranks and remain remain the factual, reasonable ones in the conversation.
              What Twodux is tactfully and politely trying to impress, is that persistently presenting to non/anti-hunters as a callous a-hole with a chip on his shoulder, is counter productive to the cause.
              ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
              I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
              The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Erik in AK View Post
                Some good points already but I would add be the positive example.

                If you can present your (our) side in a thoughtful, articulate manner then converse away! Don't confront and don't try to "win". State your case and leave an open invitation to further discussion, especially if you're in the midst of talking hunting to a non-hunter and you get attacked or interrupted by an anti.

                Pique their curiosity if you're able, answer their questions where you can, avoid boasting and leave them with the impression that hunters are reasonable and approachable on the subject of hunting, and possibly an invitation to tag along. If you do get a tag-along absolutely invite them over for a meal of the game they were there to see harvested. (make sure it's a dish you do well)

                *Edit

                As to "Sport" or "Trophy" hunters?
                Don't be afraid to defend those groups. Sport and trophy hunters are the soul of conservation and are THE reason we have the robust wildlife populations that we do in North America. Even the guys who hunt exclusively for the wall are to be credited because as trophy hunters they are highly selective and tend to pass on lots of animals before taking one that meets their requirements. Trophy hunters are usually the ones most willing to go home empty handed.

                Meat hunters often adopt an air of moral superiority because they're hunting for food, but meat hunters, generally, have a far greater impact on a given population BECAUSE they are hunting for the pot. A meat hunter enters the woods determined to kill the first legal animal he/she can find whereas the trophy hunter is holding out for something especially big or old or both.

                The meat hunter hunts until that meat is collected and I'm sorry of this stings but...the number one rationalization for violating fish and game laws is "I'm feeding my family".

                Also, when certain animal populations decline for whatever reasons, it's usually the sport and trophy crowds who are most willing to concede to restrictions aimed at restoring those herds. Not so for the meat hunters. They tend to scream first, loudest, and last and allways point the finger at everyone but themselves.
                That's some very we'll presented information there, I'll admit you've modified my perspective on "trophy" hunters.

                I like to display specimens in my house, I don't think of them as trophies. I think of them like a collection, just like someone who collects butterfly's.


                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by bushrat View Post






                  Keep in mind that the only arguments the antis have stem from the bad apples within the hunting community (of which there are many!) and so many of the tv programs on the air these days. Too, some of the things hunters push for and support in Alaska, like trapping bears, really turn a lot of non-hunters off and sway their views on hunting and hunters. Really in so many respects we are our own worst enemy.


                  Bushrat, I agree that sometimes other hunters are our own worst enemy. Definitely so true. Nothing makes me more sick than when I see bullet holes in signs and other signs of ignorance from slob hunters. I tend to disagree with your statements about snaring for black bears although admittedly I have no experience in doing it so I can't say for sure. I do believe in predator control and from what others have told me snaring is an effective tool in places where predator control is deemed necessary. Just my two cents but I respect your opinion.

                  Originally posted by Erik in AK View Post




                  As to "Sport" or "Trophy" hunters?
                  Don't be afraid to defend those groups. Sport and trophy hunters are the soul of conservation and are THE reason we have the robust wildlife populations that we do in North America. Even the guys who hunt exclusively for the wall are to be credited because as trophy hunters they are highly selective and tend to pass on lots of animals before taking one that meets their requirements. Trophy hunters are usually the ones most willing to go home empty handed.

                  Meat hunters often adopt an air of moral superiority because they're hunting for food, but meat hunters, generally, have a far greater impact on a given population BECAUSE they are hunting for the pot. A meat hunter enters the woods determined to kill the first legal animal he/she can find whereas the trophy hunter is holding out for something especially big or old or both.

                  The meat hunter hunts until that meat is collected and I'm sorry of this stings but...the number one rationalization for violating fish and game laws is "I'm feeding my family".

                  Also, when certain animal populations decline for whatever reasons, it's usually the sport and trophy crowds who are most willing to concede to restrictions aimed at restoring those herds. Not so for the meat hunters. They tend to scream first, loudest, and last and allways point the finger at everyone but themselves.
                  Erik in AK you make some great points. One such example is the fact that by shooting the old prime bulls (50" or 3/4 brow tines for example) instead of young immature bulls you are generally not going to affect the reproductive potential of a herd. Because moose are polygynous a healthy bull moose will breed all of the cows. So even if you kill one dominant bull moose out of the herd, there is always going to be another younger bull that we would call sub legal (40 inch moose for example) that will breed all of the cows. Even though I typically call myself a meat hunter, if I was only a meat hunter and I shot cows or sub legal bulls instead of mature bulls, that would have a much higher impact on the population of the herd.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Erik in AK View Post
                    Some good points already but I would add be the positive example.

                    If you can present your (our) side in a thoughtful, articulate manner then converse away! Don't confront and don't try to "win". State your case and leave an open invitation to further discussion, especially if you're in the midst of talking hunting to a non-hunter and you get attacked or interrupted by an anti.

                    Pique their curiosity if you're able, answer their questions where you can, avoid boasting and leave them with the impression that hunters are reasonable and approachable on the subject of hunting, and possibly an invitation to tag along. If you do get a tag-along absolutely invite them over for a meal of the game they were there to see harvested. (make sure it's a dish you do well)

                    *Edit

                    As to "Sport" or "Trophy" hunters?
                    Don't be afraid to defend those groups. Sport and trophy hunters are the soul of conservation and are THE reason we have the robust wildlife populations that we do in North America. Even the guys who hunt exclusively for the wall are to be credited because as trophy hunters they are highly selective and tend to pass on lots of animals before taking one that meets their requirements. Trophy hunters are usually the ones most willing to go home empty handed.

                    Meat hunters often adopt an air of moral superiority because they're hunting for food, but meat hunters, generally, have a far greater impact on a given population BECAUSE they are hunting for the pot. A meat hunter enters the woods determined to kill the first legal animal he/she can find whereas the trophy hunter is holding out for something especially big or old or both.

                    The meat hunter hunts until that meat is collected and I'm sorry of this stings but...the number one rationalization for violating fish and game laws is "I'm feeding my family".

                    Also, when certain animal populations decline for whatever reasons, it's usually the sport and trophy crowds who are most willing to concede to restrictions aimed at restoring those herds. Not so for the meat hunters. They tend to scream first, loudest, and last and allways point the finger at everyone but themselves.
                    I'll admit, I was anti-trophy hunting three years ago. I'm still not pro/trophy, but I do understand it. You bring up valid points that chip away at my anti ness more and more.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Erik in AK View Post
                      Some good points already but I would add be the positive example.

                      If you can present your (our) side in a thoughtful, articulate manner then converse away! Don't confront and don't try to "win". State your case and leave an open invitation to further discussion, especially if you're in the midst of talking hunting to a non-hunter and you get attacked or interrupted by an anti.

                      Pique their curiosity if you're able, answer their questions where you can, avoid boasting and leave them with the impression that hunters are reasonable and approachable on the subject of hunting, and possibly an invitation to tag along. If you do get a tag-along absolutely invite them over for a meal of the game they were there to see harvested. (make sure it's a dish you do well)

                      *Edit

                      As to "Sport" or "Trophy" hunters?
                      Don't be afraid to defend those groups. Sport and trophy hunters are the soul of conservation and are THE reason we have the robust wildlife populations that we do in North America. Even the guys who hunt exclusively for the wall are to be credited because as trophy hunters they are highly selective and tend to pass on lots of animals before taking one that meets their requirements. Trophy hunters are usually the ones most willing to go home empty handed.

                      Meat hunters often adopt an air of moral superiority because they're hunting for food, but meat hunters, generally, have a far greater impact on a given population BECAUSE they are hunting for the pot. A meat hunter enters the woods determined to kill the first legal animal he/she can find whereas the trophy hunter is holding out for something especially big or old or both.

                      The meat hunter hunts until that meat is collected and I'm sorry of this stings but...the number one rationalization for violating fish and game laws is "I'm feeding my family".

                      Also, when certain animal populations decline for whatever reasons, it's usually the sport and trophy crowds who are most willing to concede to restrictions aimed at restoring those herds. Not so for the meat hunters. They tend to scream first, loudest, and last and allways point the finger at everyone but themselves.

                      Rep attempted, but I need to spread some around first.

                      Comment

                      Footer Adsense

                      Collapse
                      Working...
                      X