Can hunters and non-hunters honour shared values?

[MikePal]

.............

[Jayardia]

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.

[JBen]

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".

[MikePal]

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

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.

prompted by this FB post:

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

[Jayardia]

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.

[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.

That's not what he's saying. Read it again.

[MikePal]

That's not what he's saying. Read it again.

I did, it's crafted well, but that is what he's implying..

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 ?

[Gun Nut]

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

[MikePal]

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.

I think you posted this to the wrong thread Gun Nut....

[welsh]

... 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 ?

Clearly, you did not read the article carefully enough.

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.