Why doesn't society recognize the good we do?

[bigbuzz]

Perhaps the vegans that feel the consumption of animals is so evil should be asked if they are prepared to give up their vehicles as road kill has taken more wildlife than the hunters. Or, could the lights of the skyscrapers be turned off or covered so flocks of migrating birds are saved. We all had "teddy bears" as children and some people never got over it. When I reflect upon my nearly 50 years of hunting, the first place I duck hunted is now ringed by high end cottages, the first deer hunt, now game preserve, the first bull moose I took, the hill is gone and is now an open pit mine. The overburden from the mine they filled in a beautiful trout lake. I have no problem with the vegans, just don't tell me what I have to eat.

[two-feet]

The issue with ALL of our diets is much deeper. Eat tofu? The beans come from huge mono crop plantstions that have displaced the native wildlife. Palm oil plantations are denuding our planet of tropical rain forests. An animal taken from a well managed, sustainable hunt is perhaps the closest thing to a moral meal, as the existence of wildlife demands wild places. And good hunters will defend the existence of these wild places. Small scale, local farming, as well as hunting, are both worth defending as truly sustainable.

[Buckmeister]

I like to think I've done a decent job explaining the support and the killing to all uninformed outside of this forum.

But I have no way to explain trapping. I've posted a thread on that years ago and it got zero replies.

I simply can't think of a good way to explain trapping animals (that often probably suffer for a while before dieing) to people who bring it up.

I've never had the topic of trapping come up in conversation, and would have to agree that there must be a certain amount of suffering that goes on. I don't mind one bit that people go out and trap predators (wolf, coyote). As for fur bearers, at least these animals were not raised in captivity and had every chance and choice available to them to not get caught. Again, like I mentioned above about food, there is still "demand" for fur. So someone is making some money off of the practice which is either their living or is supported in some way. However, I doubt that modern trapping has near the impact that it had in days of old on animal populations.

[blackhawk19]

So true, you don't sound like a new hunter. I agree with everything you say . A person can't say anymore what they have observed regardless if their hiking or hunting . Name calling and being accused of just being a road hunters etc . Hunting is a great privilege . We should be allowed to share of our experiences without being ridiculed

[Surrey Boy]

The earth's population reached one billion for the first time in about 1804, two billion in 1927,3 billion in 1960 and sits at 7.6 billion currently.
In 1804 and 1927 a child's earliest ' education' would be hearing fairy tales that largely depicted in some fashion the reality of the time, which was that man was in conflict with nature in order to scrape out an exsistence.
Today, a child learns from the earliest age that mankind is the enemy of the planet. This is baseline mentality that is programmed into the mind of virtually everyone. Obviously killing animals is emotional. Sad to say, but you can win the odd person over through logical discussion but emotion and baseline programming are very difficult to counter.

Western society is terribly self-hating, and this is one manifestation. Humans who don't believe in humanity.

[Pemby_mess]

Is it or is it not morally acceptable to end the life of another creature? Most of the people that say no are uneducated to the way nature works, and to the damage done even by living a vegetarian/vegan diet.

Life feeds on life. Many people are uncomfortable with this fact, and those vegans etc who want to cause no harm have their hearts in the right place, but the methodology falls apart upon inspection.

It is counter intuitive to most that a strong, well funded and managed hunting population can have a net benifit to wildlife. People tend to focus on the individual animal, and not look at the species population as a whole. It can take a while to explain why an antlerless deer season can positively effect herd health, but the conversation is worth having.

When you bring large, charismatic predators to the conversation, things get weird. It seems to me that the anti hunting part of society cries over every dead wolf, but could give a shit about mountain caribou going extinct.

The earth's population reached one billion for the first time in about 1804, two billion in 1927,3 billion in 1960 and sits at 7.6 billion currently.
In 1804 and 1927 a child's earliest ' education' would be hearing fairy tales that largely depicted in some fashion the reality of the time, which was that man was in conflict with nature in order to scrape out an exsistence.
Today, a child learns from the earliest age that mankind is the enemy of the planet. This is baseline mentality that is programmed into the mind of virtually everyone. Obviously killing animals is emotional. Sad to say, but you can win the odd person over through logical discussion but emotion and baseline programming are very difficult to counter.

The issue with ALL of our diets is much deeper. Eat tofu? The beans come from huge mono crop plantstions that have displaced the native wildlife. Palm oil plantations are denuding our planet of tropical rain forests. An animal taken from a well managed, sustainable hunt is perhaps the closest thing to a moral meal, as the existence of wildlife demands wild places. And good hunters will defend the existence of these wild places. Small scale, local farming, as well as hunting, are both worth defending as truly sustainable.

I chose the above points, just because they are my favorite in the thread so far, and most relevant to my thoughts on the matter.

After 6 years of participation and reading of HBC, discussion W/ vegans/antis and living in both rural and urban locales; these are my observations.

Humans are really, really tribal.

prejudices and stereotypes are by far the most common way the majority of people make judgements about one an other, almost like it is a built in component of the human operating system. This ensures that conclusions about the way others interact with world are rarely accurate. This is not unique to "antis", or "vegans", and most certainly applies to hunters. The problems start when someone starts trying to define themselves as a "hunter", at the exclusion of everything else they are. It's especially problematic when the identity of "hunter" starts to preclude other perspectives; such as "hunter" being opposite with "environmentalist" and so on. These are by no means opposite identities, but in the consolidation of one's politics, often become so. Especially if one is more prone to tribal thinking.

The image hunters cultivate is important to how they as a group are perceived. Especially when it comes to those of us who define a significant portion of themselves based on being hunters. If you're a proud hunter, but also proud of waste and destruction in other areas, proudly racist, etc; those are going to contribute to the image you cultivate. It's going to be very hard for equally tribal people on an other spectrum to tease away hunting from all the other loud identities one projects, and see the actual reasons for why someone engages in that particular behaviour.

Hunters as a group are obviously very diverse, like all large groups tend to be. The differences within the group actually tend to be greater than between the groups themselves. All the tribes get thrown off when you display traits and behaviors from each rather than trying to define oneself from any given one. Unfortunately, in attempting to do the latter, it can make one appear to be less trustworthy from my experience. That is the nature of tribalism; those firmly within the tribe are trusted, and those with even a wiff of "outsider" status are cast off.

[325]

There's a lot of interest in hunting by non-hunters. My wife's friends will often comment to her "I wish my husband hunted". They're jealous of the fantastic meat we eat. True vitriolic anti-hunters are fairly rare, but very vociferous.

I do think, however, the trend away from hunting in North American society has been driven by two main factors; the urbanization of people, and the popular media's left-wing anti-hunting agenda.

I was raised on a farm. We raised livestock. We slaughtered livestock to eat. Therefore, at an early age I understood how death is required to eat meat. I also learned respect. I remember one morning when I was six or seven, I was poking at the eye of a still-born calf. My father saw me do it, and scolded me, and told me it was disrespectful to the calf, even though it was dead. I learned a important lesson there too. Urban-raised kids are simply disconnected from their food. Even many vegetarians probably have no concept of the displacement of wildlife required to grow their food.

The second reason, the media is the most vexing. In simple terms, we have been "Disneyfied" . The media promotes an idea of animals having all of the traits, emotions and even language of humans. In movies, especially kids cartoons, hunters are either portrayed as evil or as fools. It's a big problem, and we need to have the courage to address it.

[Pemby_mess]

Good points 325

I have made a similar one before;

The relationship people have with animals trends differently depending on how people are raised. An urbanite who has seen animals all there lives as pets or anthropomorphised characters in pop culture is going to have a very different emotional experience than one who's been raised to see animals as food or beasts of burden, such as farm kids and hunters.

Those distinctions aren't necessarily fixed until ideologues come into the picture. And neither group necessarily respects animals, any more or less. They just have a different emotional perspective on the matter.

obviously, the latter's emotionsl experience is more accurate, especially since they can see that the various categories of use placed upon animals, both in nature and by humans, aren't necessarily exclusive to one an other. I'd caution against dividing perspectives into broad political categories because surely those are groups at least as diverse as hunters are themselves. Trying to bring political division into one's perspectives on the natural world is never going to produce an accurate assumption, and certainly does the hunting community a disservice when those assumptions crumble with only the slightest scrutiny.

[325]

Good points 325

I have made a similar one before;

The relationship people have with animals trends differently depending on how people are raised. An urbanite who has seen animals all there lives as pets or anthropomorphised characters in pop culture is going to have a very different emotional experience than one who's been raised to see animals as food or beasts of burden, such as farm kids and hunters.

Those distinctions aren't necessarily fixed until ideologues come into the picture. And neither group necessarily respects animals, any more or less. They just have a different emotional perspective on the matter.

obviously, the latter's emotionsl experience is more accurate, especially since they can see that the various categories of use placed upon animals, both in nature and by humans, aren't necessarily exclusive to one an other. I'd caution against dividing perspectives into broad political categories because surely those are groups at least as diverse as hunters are themselves. Trying to bring political division into one's perspectives on the natural world is never going to produce an accurate assumption, and certainly does the hunting community a disservice when those assumptions crumble with only the slightest scrutiny.

You're correct, the "identity politics" game, where people are organized into groups based on superficial similarities is extremely dangerous. Justin Trudeau has turned identity politics into a phenomenon not seen since the early and middle of the last century. It turned out badly for millions.

[Pemby_mess]

In movies, especially kids cartoons, hunters are either portrayed as evil or as fools. It's a big problem, and we need to have the courage to address it.

i'd to propose that movies and cartoons aren't the only place they're portrayed as fools. You're suggesting that pop media is the egg whereas anti-hunter sentiment is the chicken.

if only it were that simple. As a narrative, it's certainly useful in attributing blame to an outside force, however maybe one doesn't need to go that far. Surely you can find nearby examples of hunters portraying themselves as fools. On a forum such as this it's less of a concern, but when foolish attitudes are disseminated out into TV and newscasts/publishing, it's a quagmire of one's own making.

the world is changing, and hunters as a whole need to adapt their message into a more amenable format for public consumption, if they're to be accepted along with those changes.