Can hunters and non-hunters honour shared values?

Is the "battle" against the Antis, or is it, to "hold the middle and hopefully win some over". Answer that fist and I think you have the answer to your test Mike. Your approaching it it solely from the perspective winning the Anti over., or that the battle is with them.In some ways, what the author is expressing. Entrenched polarization. For example, you mention the NRA (and I quite agree) that very time they open their mouths the public immediately....could it be because they are entrenched and don't "listen", let alone talk candidly about some things.

So, no, "talking about shared values" doesn't equate to bow hunting being a poor way to kill animals humanely, because it's not the Antis "shared values" we should be addressing. It's the 80% of the middle who at least today, are ok with hunting. And things like the bear vid, don't resonate with them.

if we are afraid to examine our own activities. Well what are you afraid of. Or perhaps you shouldn't do it. isn't the logical question, "if you have nothing to hide".....................

It's not just preaching, it's saying the same things we've always said in a different way and a changing our language so it can't be used against us. For instance, i agree with the author on the use of the word sport for hunting, fishing or trapping, it trivializes my way of life to put it in a category with ping pong. I'm all about subsistence outdoors, hunting isn't a sport to me, it's my livelihood, i don't do it just for kicks and exercise. The subtext of a word like sport attaches certain meanings to the subconscious. Just like a good coach understands the psychology of using inclusive words like "WE need to pick up the pace" instead of "YOU need to pick up the pace" words have great meaning, even if you don't know it's happening consciously these things can start to make a difference.
We are decades behind in the PR game, simple changes should have happened decades ago, but stubbornness kept us from it.

Yep- that was a decent read.

As my wife and I continually remind each other: "It's about 'getting it right', not about 'being right'." –Good argumentation is an excellent tool if one's motivation isn't to "win" the argument, but to refine the points and edges (facts and definitions) as much as possible.

That's why I appreciate our ever-changing regulations– they're *meant* to be "science-based". ...One is always free to ask for the rational evidence behind a decision.

On vegans-- I've often considered the views many choice vegans/vegetarians to be more akin to hunters than the unpondering remainder of humans who may not give as much consideration to where their food comes from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Is the "battle" against the Antis, or is it, to "hold the middle and hopefully win some over". Answer that fist and I think you have the answer to your test Mike. Your approaching it it solely from the perspective winning the Anti over., or that the battle is with them.

---

no quite the opposite...as I've said before those 'anti's programmed from adolescents are irretrievable...you don't kill Bambi...he called them the 'extremes'. The "it's brown it's down' hunter will be at the other side of the extreme.

By the 4th reading of this article, the more I don't like the undertone, the subliminal message. It's careful crafted but I'm not buying it.

It's hard to have shared values with the middle ground, when the question is asked "why do you hunt" and the best defensible answer is that you can come up with is that "it's for the meat"...every other answer will always relate back to the 'sport' and as you have pointed out, that has all sorts of negative connotations.

As you also pointed out..hunting magazines all show the "Trophy Kills" on the cover, that's the image that they see at the bookstore...how can a hunter debate that is not a big part of hunting.

Try to put a positive face on the whole aspect of QDMA to a public that abhors trophy Hunting. Good luck with that.

Yes, we need to listen to the non-hunters to understand where they are coming from. Will it change the way we hunt, not likely , but maybe it'll make us more aware of what they don't like to see...like deer on the gambrel in the back yard, or blood dripping out of the back of your truck in the cul-de-sac of your townhouse in the suburbs..not a good idea.

Hunters would be far better off following one of the oldest adages in the book.."what happens in Hunt Camp..stays in hunt camp"...rather than inviting a non hunter into camp, for the 'Full Monty ' experience, in the hope to 'share values'. Or worse taking video and putting them on Yuutube..we have all seen what happens then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

I think people need to read a little more into what is being said here...and be a little bit more skeptical.



If we adopt a shared value approach, that means things like; bowhunting seen as a poor way to dispatch an animal quickly by the anti's or baiting bears as been unfair chase to the animal may have to go to the wayside to accommodate the 'values' of the antis.

How about displaying Trophy's, a practice that is taboo by antis as it show the 'real' side to why guys hunt. How do we honor and address those concerns of the anti hunting crowd....Is there a logical response that can be made or do we just take them down ?

---

MikePal,

If I had to argue about displaying trophy's (I have one set of antlers up in the house and they are from my very first buck I shot as a hunter so I am not the displaying trophy kind), I think I would have to argue guys who display a trophy from a hunt (we aren't speaking of guys who trophy hunt) are using more of the animal than the guys who just hunt for meat but there isn't a law against letting the hide (or antlers or whatever) spoil in Ontario so we don't necessarily need to do anything with those parts of the animal.

On a side note, I usually take the antlers for my dog as he likes to chew them but that is just me. I don't condemn anyone for not taking antlers.

Dyth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

On a side note, I usually take the antlers for my dog as he likes to chew them but that is just me. I don't condemn anyone for not taking antlers.

---

So do I..my dogs get the small racks..

I have seen the scorn first hand...my 'Man Cave' is called the 'Death Room'.."dead animal parts hanging on the walls" was one of my daughters quotes. Not an uncommon comment from the other side. :)

In the simplest terms; this article is asking hunters to be more responsive to criticism...in the hope we will change our ways to avoid conflict.

If you agree fine...it did it's job.

One of their biggest complaints about hunting is the use of bait...and when we finally see the light and agree that baiting does not give an animal fair chance, how many guys are going to be happy with the new 'shared values'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

So do I..my dogs get the small racks..

I have seen the scorn first hand...my 'Man Cave' is called the 'Death Room'.."dead animal parts hanging on the walls" was one of my daughters quotes. Not an uncommon comment from the other side. :)

In the simplest terms; this article is asking hunters to be more responsive to criticism...in the hope we will change our ways to avoid conflict.

If you agree fine...it did it's job.

One of their biggest complaints about hunting is the use of bait...and when we finally see the light and agree that baiting does not give an animal fair chance, how many guys are going to be happy with the new 'shared values'.

---

I think this is the problem. We, hunters, are supposed to be more civil and responsive to criticism but a lot of person attacks (Death Room for example) get thrown our way by people who at the very least don't understand the way we get our food or at worse hypocrites who try to take some moral high ground because they get their meat from Costco (nevermind the amount of animals who died to provide a place for their meat to be raised).

On your comment about use of bait when bear hunting, I usually make the point that it is simply waiting over a source of food. The only difference in my mind is humans put the food out where as if you were to hunt over a berry crop, mother nature did it. Also, would you have an issue with a deer hunter or waterfowler hunting a corn field?

Can Non-hunters understand and agree with hunters? - No
Can Hunters understand and agree with Non-hunters? Sometimes - depending on the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

where as if you were to hunt over a berry crop, mother nature did it. Also, would you have an issue with a deer hunter or waterfowler hunting a corn field?

---

Don't include 'me' in the bait issue I hunt over both...I'm just using it as an example of a divisive issue with both hunters and non-hunters.

As with the MNR, crops and natural feeding areas are not considered bait...at least for Turkey Hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Don't include 'me' in the bait issue I hunt over both...I'm just using it as an example of a divisive issue with both hunters and non-hunters.

As with the MNR, crops and natural feeding areas are not considered bait...at least for Turkey Hunting.

---

Sorry mate, it was a question which should be answered by someone who comes at us with the bear baiting issue. Wasn't directed at you.