Can hunters and non-hunters honour shared values?

That's what came to my mind while ready his conclusion:

- Give a finder and they'll take the whole hand so we better stick together. You want to give the spears, they will take the bows. If they see us divided they will take advantage of it, especially politicians. Choose your side!

- Like most things in the news, people talk about it for two weeks and then forget (they don't give a damn) so I'm not too worry about sensational first page stories like that.... I don't have time to check but I'd like to know if the airline changed their Africain trophy rules back to what it was two years ago. But politicians will change rules if they see that only a minority care.

- And finally, they need us, our money and vote so they can yapp as much as they want it won't change a thing.

I probably be wrong, time will tell.

Disagree Mike.:)

Among my former colleagues and many of my current friends, I can count a fair number of ardent animal lovers. They would be "in the middle". Which is to say, neither for nor against, certainly, have strong feeling about certain things/aspects, but "ok with sustenance hunting". I post pics of hunting and even "dead animals" though all are "tasteful".

Sometimes, conversations crop up.

I don't hide what we do and even talk about some of the controversial things. The topic of baiting has come up, more than once. I explain hunting isn't always what hollywood makes it out to be. I have used deer tags as an example. So many tags issued, so many filled. I have explained the realities of hunting, especially in the big woods, or bush of northern Ontario. Then typically ask them, "do you think if baiting was disallowed, incidents of bad accidents, or wounding, losing game might go up?

Most recently, thanks to the night club shooting in the US there were many conversations on FB (my wall and friends walls) about "semi autos" with quite a number (even some who are perfectly ok with hunting) and essentially not being needed for hunting. Ban them.

I wonder how many more wounded bears/Moose/Deer there would be if hunters couldn't squeeze off follow ups. I explain my philosophy "I hunt to kill" and make no bones about it. I also remind them how often when police are called in to put down Bears, Moose, deer and even this week a Coyote in TO that walked around wounded for days, following being shot by police.

Theres hollywood, and reality........

And on and on and on.

If some choose to zip their lips, or choose to refrain from being open about what we do, including the dark sides or less savoury sides.
That is how the "Antis" will eventually win. piece by piece by piece.

Oh, almost forgot. Many of my "in the middle" but closer to "anti" than Pro friends see things in different light as a result. In other words, I can unequivocally say because I don't "bite my tongue" and rather take a straightforward, honest approach to the discussion, accept criticisms where due, and explain where needed and sometimes talk about "both sides" (the unsavoury aspects). There are a dozen or so people who might be closer to "anti", than middle....Now more behind "hunting". More solidly in the middle and not as close to "anti".

This remains one of my most popular images, Everyone (including non hunters, and ardent animal lovers) loves it. Tells the story without the blood and guts.
http://jbenphotography.ca/img/s9/v89/p387126195.jpg

Somehow doubt that will be a cover one day. Though (imo) has everything and then some to qualify it. Why not?
Because "we" like big racks and what we like, matters. Because it matters to advertisers. Hence trophy bucks and trophy Bulls . Without them, sales go down.....
http://jbenphotography.ca/img/s/v-2/p2038165005-5.jpg

Funny because when asked "why do you hunt" we typically reply the same stuff. Love for the outdoors, the camaraderie, a chance to be with one with nature, to zen/mediate while in a tree stand for 5 hours when its minus 20, to bond with kids, etc, etc, etc.

Yet, what do they see? Not what we so commonly "tell them". They see the big racks, big hunters who are promoting themselves and bloodsport etc, etc, etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Disagree Mike.:)

---

What are you disagreeing with...long winded post but couldn't make out a point of contention...:)

A) That the author is suggesting a way forward that will make things worse ( or is being underhanded and to be treated with skepticism)
B) That we should hide what we do.
C) That listening to criticism will lead to more problems.
D) That doing the opposite of what the author talks about, is the way to go. That is the only sure fire way to lose the middle. If only one side" gets to air things, a lot of it BS, or propaganda or mis informed.........And if it comes to political decisions what do you think is more more damaging. Because we all know and agree, they do, what they think will get the most votes. Lose "the middle" and we will lose.

So do you think we will keep the middle by shying from criticism? or shying away from unpleasant aspects?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

What are you disagreeing with...long winded post but couldn't make out a point of contention...:)

---

Guys, stop fighting, just agree to 'not' disagree already... There's already enough 'not' disagreeing on this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

So do you think we will keep the middle by shying from criticism? or shying away from unpleasant aspects?

---

Ahhh...I'll stick by what I think is really going on....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

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.

---

There is no give and take...just a desire for us to conform to the wants of the non-hunters....very slippery slop when you start to accommodate someone who, at their core, hate what you do...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TrapJack

Guys, stop fighting, just agree to 'not' disagree already... There's already enough 'not' disagreeing on this forum.

---

Yea let's stifle a good debate....

Love the irony... especially coming from someone who picked a fight on another threat :)

[COLOR=#333333]"very slippery slop when you start to accommodate someone who, at their core, hate what you do..."

Anti's yes.
The middle? by definition those are people who are ambivalent (undecided), or who are ok with hunting for food. (The vast majority).

We all know, the recent decision at QP to reinstitute the spring hunt is political. Do you "really" think they would dare it if
A) Their position wasn't dire. They know better than any of us, just how POd the electorate is.
B) They didn't think tides had changed and more of the middle support hunting?

Its not an US vs them ( well there is that). But the battle is really for the middle, something I'm not sure you see as you feel its the two minorities ( US) and (Antis)...Not unlike what the author talks about. (amongst other things). If you want an example of the polarization he speaks of look South.
Us vs them, pick a side
Pro gun or anti gun
Or the election, Trump or Clinton. The US these days is very polarized and its going to blow.

Well with hunting theres a 3rd side. The one that matters.


Cheers.
/going for a beer. Someday we will have to do that.

Great article. I've been saying for years that the greatest threat to the future of hunting isn't the antis, who are a fringe minority; it's hunters themselves, who seem determined at times to discredit themselves in the eyes of the public at large.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smallgamer

An interesting article:

http://www.petersenshunting.com/cons...shared-values/

---

Great article smallgamer, especially the conclusion ! Sums up how I feel personally.