Hunting trophies: Delta, United and American ban transport

[JBen]

ok, so were up to 1 and another that most likely is as much a political ploy that could go either way depending on public sentiment in the south.

Point being, the trend would suggest that the decision makers whether companies or politicians do react to ground swell public opinion.
See Bears, See wolves here.
Seals, Grizzlys are in the sights as are Polars. And I wouldn't be surprised if more come up.

Wasn't there some companies that reacted similiarily (un-related topic/issue) just recently in the states to something else (see also the kerfuffle over Duck Dynasty and dropping them).

Social media is the new "battle ground" imo. Public shaming to get what one wants works.

[Bigbear]

You do know Air Canada doesn't give a squat whether you fly with them or not....they never have...LOL..

Hunters amount to only about 3% of the population...in insignificant number for a carrier like them.

Why a hunter would ever darken their doorway in the first place has me amazed...they want $50 to 'allow' you to check your firearm.

Stick with Westjet...a Hunter friendly airline.

And rabid anti-hunters amount to way less than 3%. The point is, they won this round, didn't they?

With the right amount of pressure, WestJet would fold as quickly as Air Canada.

[Bigbear]

No, we aren't.

Airlines could ban firearms from baggage with or without banning animal trophies. These things are unrelated. The idea that banning animal trophies somehow makes it easier to ban firearms, or makes such a ban more likely, is pure hogwash, a slippery slope argument.

A ban on animal trophies from the African big 5 does not represent a cowardly airline caving to the pressure of a tiny pressure group; it represents the board of that airline sharing the widespread public opinion that these particular animals ought not to be hunted. People who are otherwise in favour of hunting hold that view, as do some hunters. It does not follow that the airline is somehow more likely to ban firearms from checked baggage, or intends to do so, or would cave to pressure from a small, outlying pressure group to do so.

This only affects people who go hunting in Africa -- and it hardly affects them, as they have other options. There's no reason for us all to run in circles squealing that the sky is falling.

Rifles and big game trophies are unrelated? Good luck explaining that one to PETA and the rest of the howling crowd.

And, as for hogwash, that's where I've filed your quote about the board of the airline simply sharing public opinion that these animals should not be hunted. It was nothing but a craven reaction calculated to gain favour - in other words, an advertising exercise with the expectation that it would be good for business.

[MikePal]

And rabid anti-hunters amount to way less than 3%. The point is, they won this round, didn't they?

In Ontario, those that oppose hunting in any way, shape, or form actually amount to only about 8% of the population, but is almost 3x the numbers of hunters in the province.

Not sure if public opinion on Trophy Hunting/Hunters falls into the category of anti-Hunting. Like was posted earlier, this is a specific aspect of hunting that has caused this public (social) uprising.

Anytime a company decides to refuse business it does so because it won't hurt the bottom line. Like Air Canada's decision, it has negligible impact and they get some PR out of it.

Reminds me of when Chapters/Indigo stop selling hunting magazines....

on topic: I read this morning that the vast majority of taxidermied 'Trophys' from South Africa go out as cargo on ships anyway...this ban really has little impact on the commerce.

[welsh]

And rabid anti-hunters amount to way less than 3%. The point is, they won this round, didn't they?

Your error is to think this is about small numbers of hunters and small numbers of anti-hunters, and that this is about hunting in general. It isn't. This happened because a large majority of the public opposes African big game trophy hunting.

At the same time, the majority of the public does not oppose hunting in general, so there is no significant public pressure to expand this ban. A few postings on a website does not constitute significant public pressure.

Rifles and big game trophies are unrelated? Good luck explaining that one to PETA and the rest of the howling crowd.

It's frankly embarrassing that you don't understand what the slippery slope fallacy is.

[JBen]

"not sure" Welsh.

Wars are won by winning the small seemingly innocuous battles. We have, or most of us should have realized a long time ago that the battles for hunting (vs the animal rights segments) and gun battles (vs the anti gun crowds) are for the middle ground. But how many "hunting rifles" are or have been restricted, banned in recent years.

Quite agree, that "today" they are separate battles in many ways, most ways will remain so for some time. Each time the Anti H/Gs sway public opinion and those who are afraid of it or react to it, such as AC or the EU, or politicians here in Cda or Ont, it erodes some of the middle ground just a wee bit.

A large majority of the public doesn't care about what we/they are doing in their own back yards. The stuff about Cecil is "insane". Pull the heart strings and………….

Either way, quite agree today they are separate battles, issues.
Blurred lines and of late some of the middle ground is eroding.

[MikePal]

Either way, quite agree today they are separate battles, issues.
Blurred lines and of late some of the middle ground is eroding.

Like I found doing research for the Hunter Recruitment thread JBen...recruitment is failing, hunting is declining as the population ages and demographics are changing. Unfortunately, it's not just eroding because of the efforts by the anti's it also eroding by the complacency of hunters.

I don't worry much about whether hunting is going to survive.

It's simply not something I see as important enough to care about, frankly hunting is going to survive in my lifetime, and what happens after that is out of my control.

[welsh]

Yes, that's right. I am killing hunting through my complacency. I am to blame.

Unfortunately, that doesn't actually demonstrate what you need to demonstrate here to rescue your slippery slope argument from its inherent silliness. You need to establish one of two things to make it valid:
- that banning the transportation of African trophies is a prerequisite to banning the transportation of guns by air, or,
- that banning the transportation of guns by air becomes easier after transporting African trophies is banned.

Since both are false, the argument is bogus. We are not one short step from banning guns from checked baggage.

[JBen]

This is not a black or white thing, right or wrong thing.

"People" do irrational things, especially when emotions get involved. Ever hear the expression.

Fear and greed?

Add politics, PR, grounds swells.

Again, want to stress with respect to airlines I agree, but it would take something special to see that. These little battles being lost, where the ARs and AGs are gaining more and more support.

Children today, tomorrow's
Conservationist
hunters
Voters
CEOs.

Are growing up in cities and are so disconnected from nature, outdoors, hunting.

Don't think the sky is falling either. Do think if we don't start paying attention to social media and how things can be turned against us, or how we can shoot ourselves in the foot.

We will see more things targeted, chipped away at.

[welsh]

The point is, each time something is targeted it is a separate case.

A ban on one thing does not make a ban on any other thing more likely or easier to enact.