An interesting article:
http://www.petersenshunting.com/cons...shared-values/
Printable View
An interesting article:
http://www.petersenshunting.com/cons...shared-values/
Is it ever and very timely,too. The author's logic and insight is bang on IMO.
great article
Hard to take advice from a born again vegan...LOL..
While I agree in part; we have for many years a plethora of hunting shows on TV that portrait hunters in the best possible light. They have been on the air for years showing the general public what our sport is all about. Even on Sat mornings for the kids to watch.
Has that help curtail the views of anti hunters..have they helped to educate fence sitters ?
It's not like we're a silent minority. Places like CT's new Hunting sections in a family store environment exposes people to the equipment we use and shows that hunting is an acceptable sport. Almost every community around here has Gun Shows and Wild Game nights at the community centers. I don't think there is much hidden from view, we get lots of exposure and no one is in doubt what it is all about.
Yet there is always a strong anti-hunter sentiment. Disney/Pixar are ensuring kids are imprinted early on that animals have human personalities etc and to expect that later in live they will easily accept that killing them is normal just doesn't work. My own daughter is one of them, her love of animals will never accept that I can kill them. But we live around that conflict.
I honestly don't see that taking the Jehovha Witness approach and preaching our cause would be productive. Especially since as a fraternity we can't seem to get a grip on what it moral or ethical acceptable amongst ourselves.
Well done. My thoughts exactly!!
Mike, one of the points and perhaps the main theme the writer covers is.
We don't listen. In part because there is this "pick a side mentality". In the bear thread, people who think it's inhumane are accused of "not being with us". Maybe the time has come ( in large part thanks to social media) and we start "listening" to those shares values. As well as working to promote the positive aspects. And I personally thinks that's true, because as I said "we haven't learned" yet, the power of FB.
"I've just done something no-one else has. Look at me, I was on the ground, no back back up, do you see any shotguns".......
aka "look at me". That's not promoting hunting, that's promoting himself.
Then to, the writer touches on the pre-occupation of antlers, big racks, etc, etc. look at the cover of any 6 or 12 magazines this fall. Let me know how many small bucks/Bulls you see. Or simply great atmospheric images you see. Why do all magazines still use images of Trophy Bulls/bucks.?
Because its what "we", want.
Great article.
Good reading.
Well OK run a test case up the flag pole...
So far I haven't seen any Hunter Organization come out to support or condemn the 'Spear Bear' hunt and the actions by Josh Bowmar...there is a reason for that..it's a no win situation.
So let's test the article...
How does the hunting community mount a 'moral' debate on this particular bear hunt, to put up a united front to the public that doesn't even want us to hunt bears in the first place? Why should we even try..Quote:
Hunters need not, and will not, articulate a single, unified code of ethics. We will not speak with one voice. But we do need to confront ethical issues. What do you think makes non-hunters more likely to question the value of hunting: moral debates among hunters or our resounding silence on moral matters?
One of the most common complaints (comments section) made by the anti's is the aspect of baiting the poor bear....how can we as hunters offer a moral or ethical debate on that topic, when we can't even agree ourselves....
Sometime the 'resounding silence' is the best approach..look at what happens to the NRA ever time it tries to handle the 'moral' issue of gun ownership with the public after a tragedy in the US...
[COLOR=#333333]"Sometime the 'resounding silence' is the best approach..look at what happens to the NRA ever time it tries to handle the 'moral' issue of gun ownership with the public after a tragedy in the US..."
I agree playing possum is much better than posting the hunt on the internet for all to see and the majority of whom do not understand hunting in the first place.
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.Quote:
The other option is to honor and address shared values. Faced with questions and criticisms, we can listen for the beliefs being voiced.
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 ?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
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.
MikePal,Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
So do I..my dogs get the small racks..Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
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
What are you disagreeing with...long winded post but couldn't make out a point of contention...:)Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
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?
Guys, stop fighting, just agree to 'not' disagree already... There's already enough 'not' disagreeing on this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Ahhh...I'll stick by what I think is really going on....Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
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 MikePal
Yea let's stifle a good debate....Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapJack
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.
Great article smallgamer, especially the conclusion ! Sums up how I feel personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by smallgamer
Thanks. It is something that a friend posted on Facebook. Since it well represents how I feel too, I was compelled to share it here.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
"In the long run, the risk lies not in discussing values but in failing to do so. The future of hunting does not depend primarily on defeating a handful of committed opponents who loathe all hunting. It depends on demonstrating to everyone else that most hunting is guided by values they share." quote from the article.
and what values do we share with non hunters?
I can think of not wanting an animal to suffer and caring for the environment , and that's about it. I doubt that's enough to bridge the gap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
So if you personally agree with what he's saying, what aspects of Hunting do you think warrant criticism and that we should change to make our sport more palatable ? That is what he is suggesting after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow dog
Shared values
~A deep appreciation or love for nature and the outdoors. My daughter a rabid dog lover/animal lover, she is a non hunter. Many of my friends/aquaintences that are photographers are non hunters. A few friends that are big into yoga and meditation (marvel at my ability to sit in tree stands for hours in the dead of winter), in fact one of OODs writers/photographers is a "non" hunter. So many more fall into this group. While it's a common interest ( photography, dog lovers, anglers who don't hunt, campers etc, etc). I think its a safe bet underlying those things are shared values. To be sure there will be a minority who can be classified as "Dead set Anti). They are the minority by far.
~Respect for the law
~Respect for the environment
~Respect for wildlife
~Challenging one self (Be it in pursuit of game or versus the elements) aka "self improvement".
~Family values ( camaraderie with friends or bonding with children we so often speak of)
This is from my house warming a few weeks ago.We had around 80 people ( no family, just friends) . Of those 80 I can think of 5 who hunt. Maybe just me but Im thinking theres a lot of shared values to have that many friends over.............
For the record it's a non hunter manning the grill/smoker we did the sausages and venison burgers on. A huge hit they were.
http://jbenphotography.ca/img/s7/v153/p1965440713.jpg
Im sure there are more, just thought I throw a few out there off the top of my head
"Criticism"
~Bad Apples who break laws ( While relatively few, there are still a lot). We talk good game, but do "we" walk the talk? Things seem to change when we are out there and no-one is watching and it's up to us, to police ourselves.
~Incidents like this Bear hunter. While he didn't break any laws, Likewise seem to occur a little too often. Over and above the bloodthirsty red neck perception it leaves. Theres this little matter of self promotion for 5 minutes of fame. Happy it is UA dropped him. As Mike said, it's highly more likely UA is reacting to the back lash from the vast majority of the public ( those 80%) and not the very small 3,700.
~As the author writes. Inability to listen to the public and/or accept criticism when it comes our way. Many in this thread/the bear thread/others I can think of, dig their heels in ( like the NRA) and won't hear it, accept it.
~The author touched on the pre-occupation for big racks and bone. I personally have nothing against "trophy Hunting". But for a group (us) that has worked so hard trying to dispel the perception of red neck bloodsport, etc. We talk a fair bit about some of those "shared values". Just think about answer to "why do you hunt".....Well for a "group" who talks a lot about why we hunt....Big racks rarely get mentioned......More talking and less walking the walk???
Every magazine I can think of will have those covers the next two/three months.
funny that
As Welsh accurately said, we sure do a lot to discredit ourselves.
A few more I can think of, but just a few off the top of my head.
Your dancing around the small stuff JBen......things that are of little concern....values that hunters/nonhunters already share, ...what the article is talking about is ;
The non-hunters don't want us to kill animals..period...they don't want us to kill coyotes in sanctioned culls, they don't want us to hang body parts on the walls, they don't want us to use bait to lure animals..not fair chase.., they don't want use to use dogs to chase deer or use dogs retrieve other dead animals.....their hard core 'values' are stuck in the 'there is no perceivable need to kill an animal..and this author says we hunters should listen to that criticism and learn to share this view.Quote:
In one scene, critics denounce hunters for taking the lives of fellow mammals merely for entertainment, prize money, or a head on a wall. They launch petitions against sport hunting, trophy hunting, and killing contests.
Do you want to see and end to all baiting
Do you want to see and end to hunting with dogs
Do you want to see and end to Trophy Hunting
Do you want to see the end of the bear hunt...again.
Those are the type of things that non-hunters complain about, that is what they criticize hunters for....and we should listen and do what ?
by the by..go back the original link for the article and hit the 'view comments' ...some interesting additional thoughts.
When I say that the article reflects how I feel, that speaks for itself. I cannot articulate it better than the author did, nor any better than some of the others who have already posted here, but I will add my two cents. A while back, one of our national gun organizations started a "no compromise" campaign which I felt was childish and self-defeating. The 80% who neither wish to ban the private ownership of firearms nor support the unrestricted ownership of them could possibly be supportive of such an attitude. So the same goes for hunting I believe. The 80% who neither wish to ban all forms of hunting but are apt to have a visceral reaction to certain aspects of it must be respected.
As to what aspects of hunting warrant criticism and we should change to make hunting more palatable, I think is something that only each of us can answer for ourselves. Personally I feel that we need to be cognizant of our fellow citizens feelings and reaction to the sight of animals taken by a hunter and be discreet in our transport and preparation of them. The attitude that equates working hard to be a successful hunter and doing so within the parameters of our hunting regulations, to the right to be insensitive to the feelings of our fellow citizens is an aspect that warrants change. As certainly does the use of social media to demonstrate our prowess and exultation during moments of success-fueled joy, as discussed in depth in the speared bear thread.
If ever any one of us has encountered negativity based on the legal and ethical pursuit of game, the focal point of that negativity should still be pondered. That is not to say that it must be given credence in a manner that makes a hunter necessarily stop what he or she does or how he/she does it, but in a manner that makes one consider how to express common values that might be held with the person demonstrating said negativity. And one might do well to self-evaluate and honestly answer is there not a way to express or conduct ones feelings and actions in a way that is less prone to incite negativity toward hunting.
This post doesn't really do a great job of expressing how I feel, but that's why I posted a well-written article instead.
Well put..thoughtful contribution to the debate...
What ever Mike. You obviously "don't get it",or rather the message the author is trying to convey. Very much fall into one of those old school, dig your heels in NRA types................that he talking about.
The non-hunters don't want us to kill animals..period.. Still hung up on that I see, can't see there are vast gulfs between "non hunters" and "Antis"
You are so far off the mark it's not funny. Amongst the people at the house warming are rabid dog lovers, who volunteer with rescue organizations. One of whom, used to absolutely loathe/detest hunters because too many ( in her mind/perception) abused their dogs, or abandoned them. She has a better appreciation for reality these days, Im sure you can piece together why.............and for the record
She loved the version burger, didn't mind the 3D bambi I have in my back yard and more.....
And just as obviously you are unwilling to listen or accept "criticism" when it comes our way.
PS Mike.
Your way, the old way. Hows it been working out the past 20 years.
Definition of insanity?
To each his own.
Well there goes any credibility you had to offer...lacking civility, personal attacks..I expected better from you JBen...Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Its not a personal attack Mike, it's an observation. Quite obviously your heels are dug in, totally against what the author is trying to convey, and unwilling to listen or accept the criticisms ( because in essence, the article is itself a criticism of how we have long handled/dealt with it).
Hows it's been working?
Oh and for the record I didn't hear one complaint, about my Bear rug, not one comment, not even from Lisa ( The woman who used to absolutely loathe hunters that use dogs, that thought near every abandoned dog that came into their shelters in Nov was........). Did hear a lot of compliments and/or questions about it. "Did you shoot that", "Where", How
Funny that to.
/edit
bloody auto spellers
:)
.............
I've never considered the prospective of a (civil) conversation, argument, or debate to represent relinquishment of my values, culture, or rights.
(Unless, I suppose, -technically speaking- said "civil" discussion was taking place against my will. ...but that's kinda far off.)
I've had such conversations as Mr. Cerulli is suggesting, (I suppose many of us have.) Such conversations seem to work best when both/all parties are settled into a genuinely receptive state... which isn't all that easy- it takes practice for most of us. It's tough to have a qualitative argument when either party is "too riled up" - it leaves too much open for cognitive biases, reasoning errors (and even frustration and anger), -to rule the day.
I've found authentically listening to /speaking with someone who is being rationally critical of an aspect of hunting (or, really *any* topic I may have strong contrary views on) helps both me refine my own perspectives (and my crusty debating skills), and puts them in a more accepting mind space. And yeah, sometimes they make good points! It's important to concede to those. Being perceived as a brick wall in an argument isn't conducive to fruitful discourse. -I literally say things like "good point" and "I agree" as often as I can, often they really can make good points!
"Like what?", one may ask. Well,
'goofy glory photos' were often a big one. When I went through the PAL/Hunting course, the instructor made it clear that we should be very wary on how we present aspects of hunting to society overall- and we should make efforts to avoid instances that risk "turning-off" the public to hunting. While there is nothing wrong with documenting (taking a snap) of the day's yield, we should be sensitive about how the image may be viewed by others. That's where, I'd venture, the recent Alberta Go-pro/bear/spear presentation utterly crapped the bed.
We ought to be open to such reasonable flexibility in our presentation. It's a mistake to continually expect to just sit mum, fortify ourselves, and hope the dumbass negative instances fade completely from public consciousness- because they don't. They create another set of tiles in a large mosaic depicting hunters as thoughtless, insensitive, bloodlusty louts.
Side-note on "fortifying one's perspective from change":
Not so very long ago, (February 4, 2014), Ken Ham and Bill Nye debated each other on the topic of "Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?"
One of the most telling parts of the debate was the question that was asked of both men: “What, if anything, would convince you to change your mind?”
Ham’s answer: “Nothing.”
Nye’s answer: “Evidence.”
This difference shows us the contrast between fruitful, rational debate and useless fortified posturing.
Nicely Said Jayardia...."agree" :)
I was tempted to point out to Mike, that the "old way" (us vs them) is adversarial, not unlike some reactions to the article itself. An unwillingness to "listen", to entertain the idea that A) theres more than one way to skin a cat and or B) do some things differently.
Here's another thing, copied from another post.
[COLOR=#333333]Her message is simple: Gun-owners are your neighbours, law-abiding hunters and sport-shooters. They’re not, as she puts it, pot-bellied guys drinking beer and blasting shotguns from four-wheelers, so legislating them does nothing to combat crime.
[COLOR=#333333]The engaging Wilson — who manages a law firm, shoots competitively and hunts her own meat — borrows the language of social justice activists when talking about the need to “reduce stigma” and battle “stereotypes.”
[COLOR=#333333]“It’s about time that we came out of the closet,” Wilson said, pointing to what she estimates are 2.5 million legal gun owners in Canada.
http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...R-news-release
In ways, not so very different from what the author is trying to get across. So she to, seems to understand new ways are needed. That are more...........neighbourly, less combative. more engaging, ..and that really, the vast majority (the so called middle) are our friends, neighbours, borrows or steals a page from social activist...
And oddly enough the reception seems a little a more "receptive".
Here a somewhat related article and a reminder of the power a few members of an Animal groups can have.
I happen to like watching a greased pig contest...but maybe I should change my values and consider the feelings of the pig :)
prompted by this FB post:Quote:
Winchester Press...
Last minute intervention by the provincial tourism ministry has forced the Mountain Township Agricultural Society to drop the greasy pig contest from the Saturday schedule at the South Mountain Fair This stems from ongoing protest by the Toronto Pig Save organization, which launched an online campaign last week targetting the popular fair attraction. Fair board members, in a hastily called meeting today, voted in favour of cancelling the contest, since the society's Celebrate Ontario grant status was allegedly in jeopardy. This year alone the agricultural society received $47,000 to help offset the cost of operating the four day fair. Board president Paul Allan told the Winchester Press he is "very disappointed" about the decision. "All it is doing is hurting the kids and parents that looked forward to the event," he said. See next week's Press for more coverage of this story.
Quote:
This is South Mountain (Ontario) fair which will be taking place August 18-21st, this month, and the 'greasy pig contest' is part of the "entertainment" where a bunch of kids who don't know any better (the adults are to blame) are encouraged to chase and terrorize frightened pigs around in a pen to catch them.
To protest against this barbarity please email the event [email protected] and ask that that the contest be cancelled. Or contact Paul Allan at 613-858-1813 and tell him how unacceptable this is. It's 2016!
Teach children compassion! Don't buy into this exploitive, barbaric and abusive "entertainment". It's animal abuse
I guess that's arguable(?) Not by me though...My experience with pigs is pretty limited...I'm definitely no porcine psychologist, though I may look the part.
I'd find it easy to sympathize with both sides there... at base it seems like a typical urban/rural contrast of perspective.
I'd watch it. I'd laugh. I'd also sincerely wonder how the pigs felt about it ...probably while munching a bacon sandwich.
That's not what he's saying. Read it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
I did, it's crafted well, but that is what he's implying..Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
ie: we figuratively sit with an anti hunting group that hates that we use dogs for deer hunting... so we openly debate the use of dogs in a hunt camp....we both have the same interests (values) in the dogs well being....they think that is cruel to the dog...we show them happy dogs with a few nicks and cuts from 4 days of running the bush, well treated with polysporin... they say they're not convinced...we insist the dogs are not being hurt , they insist they are ...heels get dug in......so how did shared value work so far ?
They want the practice to stop, we don't....since any use of dogs is off of books with them, there is little common ground to even negotiate....who's at fault..dug in heels work both ways ?
Personally I don’t have a problem with his self promotion, anyone sitting a job interview does it.
It maybe, he’s hoping to find some sponsorship for this his type of activity. What the hunting community needs to do is cut the guy some slack, I don’t see this type of hunting garnering that many fans, but who knows. Fred Bear was something of a pioneer when it came to archery hunting big game, look how that industry explodes. Fred biggest challenge was the polar bear, he had to make three attempts to claim an archery kill, on the first two the bears charged him, and someone had to stop them with .375. On the third attempt the bear went in the opposite direction and eventually succumb to the arrow wound. I recall having seen this event broadcast on nation television, but again that was before North America became overly civilized and something of a nanny state. I don’t hunt with a bow, and I am not likely take up spear hunting big game. Having in my youth hunted small game with a light flat bow, I found it required considerable time and practice to stay at the top of my game. These days I’m just not up for the effort. So I stick to rifles and shotguns. But hey, the spear might offer a new hunting challenge for some, why not?
Again I don’t fault this guy for the challenge he took on. What I don’t like was the fact he put the whole of it on social media, where those who don’t hunt may have trouble accepting it. But hey, hasn’t social media open the door for a number star.
You don’t stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting.
- Gun Nut
I think you posted this to the wrong thread Gun Nut....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Nut
Clearly, you did not read the article carefully enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Cerulli is not suggesting that we will somehow win over convinced anti-hunters by talking about values. The argument is that we can communicate more effectively with the wider public -- people who are not convinced one way or the other -- by talking about values. And we do not win over that wider public by closing ranks whenever someone does something essentially indefensible -- as some people insist we must. All this does is suggest that we're all cut from the same indefensible cloth. It costs us support.
This is a cultural conflict. Cultural conflicts are not about statistics or policies. They're about values, because cultures are made of values. So it makes sense to talk about culture clashes in terms of values. We may not win over convinced antis, but we undermine the culture war dynamic that forces us into cartoonish, highly polarized camps.
In all honesty, it was a waste of my time reading that article - it has no meaningful outcome or any reasoning. I really don't care about antis, have no reason to explain them why i hunt. There are so many things in this world that i don't approve of, yet i do my best to accommodate and adjust - it comes with living in a society of all. My hunting will just have to be something others will have to accept - this is a Canadian tradition and will stay as such.
I still can’t figure out why you feel the need to start a post with out some kind of condescending remark…rude to say the least, totally uncalled for…Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Here’s the back story… Tovar Cerulli began to experiment with vegetarianism in high school, by the age of twenty, he was a full fledged, anti-hunting vegan. Living off fruit and veggies from the land like a hippy. Ten years later, the lack of protein in his diet was killing him, so he had to come to grips with having to hunt to stay alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Long story short..he had an epiphany; he found he actually had a lot of the same ‘shared values’ with hunters in their respect for the animals and how they were killed etc. Realizing that he had been a Dick all those years as a vegan and not caring to listen to the hunter side of the story, he now wants to preach that we should listen to what each other has to say and be less adversarial.
My argument, as I have repeated over and over….there is no common ground or shared values with a the anti-hunting/animal rights people, they're the ones that are a threat, the ones that are forever lobbing against our Hunting Traditions, the ones that get the ear of the politicians.
The 'middle' non-hunters are not a threat and not an issue..they don't usually sign petitions to stop the spring bear hunt etc..if you feel the need to convert them with talk of shared values, have at it, I personally don't need to substantiate why I hunt to anyone.
The anti/Hunter relationship is adversarial by nature and both parties have dug their heels in. There is no sitting around a camp fire signing ‘Kombi ya my Lord’ with people who think that it’s animal cruelty to use dogs to hunt.
(but to be honest., I don't totally disagree with them either)
The middle non-hunters vote. That's what got the spring bear hunt cancelled under Harris: the fear of losing those votes. Don't believe for a second that they aren't the most important people in the debate.
I raise my beer to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
And what got it reinstated for the sake of all the gods. And consider to their tenuouss hold, just how POD people are, reinstating the spring hunt as a fairly large risk given things...How thats missed, well theres only a few reasons.
Real world examples for you where the middle.......matters.
Just as its mattering right now in Alberta, and the politicians are reacting......
and for what ever their names are. The middle matters to UA obviously who until recently sponsored them.
Just as the real life examples I provided you of 80 guest at a BBQ, many, nay the vast majority of whom (75 vs 5) are the non hunting middle, with various takes on hunting, with about 5 or 6 of them (equal numbers to the hunters present) being extreme animal lovers, animal rights proponents.
Nope no shared values ( as Welsh correctly said "values" are a cultural thing) and nope none of them have changed their views, softened some since becoming friends with me (he who makes no bones about what I do, nor do I hide it). Funny thing, of the 5 hunters present it was months and months before I found out 2 of them hunted, in fact when they came down to my vault to check out one of my firearms, I was pretty surprised to discover one of them not only hunted, really enjoyed shooting.
Funny that.
****
that's not all together true..Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
you may want to bone up on the MNR decision.: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-Ext...tusId=MTA3Mjc=Quote:
A quick search of the Environmental Registry reveals that, in 1999, 64% of respondents opposed the cancellation of the spring bear hunt. (only 35% supported it) If the public consultation process operated as a popular opinion poll, the spring bear hunt never would have been cancelled. It needs to be understood that public opinion is only one small factor in sustainable resource management decisions.
lol.
]As a result of public consultation on the proposal, the Ministry received a total of 35347 comments:
[So the basis of such overwhelming proof that its wasn't political, that it wasn't Harris (who is from the North) more afraid of the red vote stronghold of Toronto.
is a whopping 22,622 who wrote in to say they are against.
Im thinking there are way more than 22,600 Liberals and friends of Scad in Mississauga alone.
Got ya. Your right, if Im premier of Ontario 22,000 (likely the vast majority of whom are from the North) is going to have me shaking in my boots and fearing the election results.
After this obvious attempt, we know where you stand on the baiting issue.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
No it means the vast majority of soft 'middle' who are against hunting didn't bother to vote..they never do...that 35% who did, represent the 'anti's...always a small minority.
Yup right above the corn and apples...:)Quote:
Originally Posted by swampsinger
beating a deadhorse yet again...I'm gone...
Mike, perhaps just think about this. A "food for thought kind of thing".
If the "battle" isn't for the middle.If they don't matter, that its not them the politicians bow to.
Why do the Antis use images of cute baby harp seals in their propaganda to have the seal hunt shut down? Why have the Antis seized so expertly and learned how to use Social Media (unlike us, well some of us. who are way behind).
Do you think they are not only way better at it than "us", or run those baby harp seal images because they are trying to woo us? You know people who aren't going to be phased by dead bloody things?
Jeez sometimes......
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Good post. You answered my previous question, More in common than I realized. : "In the long run, the risk lies not in discussing values but in failing to do so. The future of hunting does not depend primarily on defeating a handful of committed opponents who loathe all hunting. It depends on demonstrating to everyone else that most hunting is guided by values they share." quote from the article.
and what values do we share with non hunters?
I can think of not wanting an animal to suffer and caring for the environment , and that's about it. I doubt that's enough to bridge the gap.) quote Sh
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,
Thanks Sharon. :)
when I typed that is was an effort to try and turn the thread in a bit of different direction. In keeping with the theme of the article, and with "real world" practical experience. I'm sure all of us, have dozens of friends who fall into that "middle group" that is neither very Pro like us, or very Anti like the Antis and we share all kinds in common with respect to values. There isn't a single one of us who can talk to millions in the middle, be frank be honest, talk about the good the bad and the ugly (accept the criticisms). etc, etc. We can talk with friends/acquaintences, share our love on Facebook (but its amindfield, so be tasteful at all times).
Last year when Ceci and whats her name with the dead Giraffe splayed out hit a good number of my friends had a lot to say.
I asked why it's ok to display pics of kids holding dead fish, but god forbid a bear?
When I shot this assignment for the mag, it was for a family who didn't do a lot of fishing, where the biggest fish ever caught might be sunfish. While I don't personally know them, and don't know their stance on hunting. Im betting we share all kinds of values. One of which is getting kids into the outdoors.....and off PS4s
http://jbenphotography.ca/img/s6/v136/p1335694564.jpg
Yes, it is true. The Harris govt wasn't worried about public opinion as a whole; they were worried about opinion in swing ridings in the 905, ridings that the Animal Alliance of Canada warned they intended to target with an advertising campaign if the hunt was not cancelled. Losing those ridings would have cost the PCs their majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
The MNRF ER is a factually record and the official document that generated the changes to the laws that governed the Spring bear hunt…..and since it doesn’t contain single mention of Mike Harris and the voters in 905…it stands as the reference point for the facts in regards to the discussion at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Not debating the politics behind the decision…just the facts as recorded .
Then you might want to read Bob Reguly's investigative journalism on the subject.
.................