Can hunters and non-hunters honour shared values?

[smallgamer]

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

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.

[Sharon]

"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.

[MikePal]

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.

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.

[JBen]

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.

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.

[MikePal]

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 ;

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.

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.

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.

[smallgamer]

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.

[MikePal]

Well put..thoughtful contribution to the debate...

[JBen]

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.

[MikePal]

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?

Well there goes any credibility you had to offer...lacking civility, personal attacks..I expected better from you JBen...

[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