Why doesn't society recognize the good we do?

[Bugle M In]

Lately, it's seems very appetent to many on this forum that things have changed.
There's always been "in fighting", even long before I joined etc.
But, back when I joined in, there were lots of posts with peoples "successes" or just
posting up their trips etc.
Now days it's all about disagreeing about what course to take in wildlife management, or
not wanting to post anything due to backlash (inside and outside of this community).
Trolls etc.
Also that the climate of "hunting acceptance" seems to be changing, mostly due to social media and enabling the Anti's to be more "organized" and their ability to post up the negatives at the
"blink of an eye" speed.
Anyways, I came across this video thru Facebook (yup, I actually signed up) done by the RMEF.
Thought it had some quality points that maybe we should all consider, if we want to keep the
"lifestyle of hunting strong".
It's something I have been thinking about for quite some time now, and I know others are catching on to, like some of the crappy hunting shows that are out there, yet make us look absolutely ridiculous (IMO), and a big reason why I don't subscribe to those channels anymore,
as I would rather see them "go out of business" then actually be a portrayal/representation of
Me!, and who I am when out there hunting etc.
Then, stuff like that G-Bear hunt that went wrong, but got tons of media attention....
Beyond me why that ever got out there??.....I know it can happen....but never should have been for "public consumption", in my opinion....and just makes us all a "bigger target. (IMO)
Below is the link....something to consider for all of us moving forward in the future, atleast for me, I think it has some real good points.....maybe others will disagree???
Why the term "Sport" was used to describe hunting, rather then "Lifestyle Choice", or
why "Trophy" seems to be such a important term inside the hunting community is beyond me.
Maybe back then it was unforeseen what implications could come from it down the road.....
which is today!
And the term "trophy" is what is being used against us.
Even when it comes to us "determining" what type of hunt we want to have in BC.
Meaning, closing/shortening seasons all in the name of "achieving quality trophy hunts" etc.
(yes, for some it is in their opinion, to bring back wildlife #'s....but not all....some want trophy
sizes game).
See what you think...give it some thought, if you haven't already.
https://www.facebook.com/RMEF1/videos/10155993495166834/

[Chrispryn]

Video is spot on. Makes a great point. Even within the hunting community i have received strange looks and odd remarks when explaining that some of my noat memorable hunts were not hunts at all.

My first grizzly encounter. Watching coyotes with the spotter play together and throw sticks to themselves. Observing bighorn sheep graze in a blizzard.

All such powerful experiences.

I do struggle to explain to all people (hunters, antis and neutrals) how i can love these animals, but turn around and kill one the next day.

Tough battle but im rooting for the team.

Chris

[Ajsawden]

I do struggle to explain to all people (hunters, antis and neutrals) how i can love these animals, but turn around and kill one the next day.


This.

Wild animals are, to me, the most wonderful things in the world. I love seeing deer and moose year round, whether I can shoot them or not. I love seeing bears, elk, sheep, goats, caribou etc, at any time, even if I'm not hunting for them, not holding a tag, and never held a tag for them. I'd hunt any of them in a heart beat if given the opportunity, it just hasn't come up yet. I'll be in a hurry to drive somewhere and spot a nice buck on the side of the road, i'll often watch until it leaves. Then show to up 10 minutes late. Not everyone understands, even with PICS!!

The one thing I can't wrap my head around is how the public thinks we're evil and want to kill everything. I'd argue that there are no groups as dedicated to the long lasting survival of our game species than the hunters.

Cheers!

[twoSevenO]

Video is spot on. Makes a great point. Even within the hunting community i have received strange looks and odd remarks when explaining that some of my noat memorable hunts were not hunts at all.

My first grizzly encounter. Watching coyotes with the spotter play together and throw sticks to themselves. Observing bighorn sheep graze in a blizzard.

All such powerful experiences.

I do struggle to explain to all people (hunters, antis and neutrals) how i can love these animals, but turn around and kill one the next day.

Tough battle but im rooting for the team.

Chris

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.

[Chrispryn]

I feel that way exactly. These animals are incredible.

I like to think of hunting as it really is to me.
Hunting to me is so much more than killing an animal. The actual killing is probably the smallest part of the whole process. This is for me, hunting from a backpack almost always overnight. Maybe not the case for everyone. So every hunt, with or without meat is an accomplishment, a success and an unforgettable experience but never a failure.

I tend to shy away from the arguements with antis as they really are uneducated on the matter and no one ever wins that "discussion". Next time it comes up i will try again.

I dont know. It really is a tough gig. Maybe they can draw a line down the continent. Hunters on one side, antis on the other. Lets see who has better and healthier wildlife populations in 50 years

Chris

[OceanMon]

As a new hunter, I'm turned off by seeing shotgun shells and other garbage just strewn in parts of the forest. I'm also turned off by dudes who tell stories of shooting multiple times at deer 400-500 yards away, just hoping something hits. I'm also turned off at the hostility from some people towards other hunters who may have a different opinion on things.

I have been quite open to almost everybody I meet about my new passion for hunting and I have yet to meet an "Anti.". I live in Vancouver too. And have friends from hippies to Asians to architects to trades people.

Seeing it as us versus them probably is not the right perspective.

[bigbuzz]

I agree with Oceanmon, the issue is not an us versus them matter. Whether you are a consumptive or non consumptive user of wildlife it is the fact that you are in the woods. Loss of habitat is the biggest problem facing wild life, resource extraction, urban sprawl, agricultural practices are all factors that are beyond our control. We can stop bickering about why we are in the woods and take a look at the bigger picture.IMO

[two-feet]

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.

[chilko]

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.

[Buckmeister]

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 one thing I can't wrap my head around is how the public thinks we're evil and want to kill everything. I'd argue that there are no groups as dedicated to the long lasting survival of our game species than the hunters.

Cheers!

If someone is against hunting, but is not a vegan/vegetarian, they are indirectly responsible for the killing of far more animals than any one hunter. Chickens, cows, pigs, turkeys, sheep, etc, where all raised for one reason and one reason only, to supply the DEMAND of those who want to buy and then eat their dead carcass or parts of their bodies from a grocery store or restaurant. Not to mention that some other person saw that they could make a profit (or at the very least a living) from the supply of these animals for societies demand. (Last time I checked, farmers are still held in a fairly good light, and to a lesser degree all the middle men who get the food from the farm to the store)
Hellloooo anti hunting society? Major disconnect from reality here. Just because the raising and slaughter of these animals is kept out of general sight, and the meat placed in neat little packages at the store or you went and bought a "McHappy Meal", doesn't mean you are not the cause of the death of countless animals. The last "golden arches" sign I paid attention to a few days ago stated "billions and billions served". Hmmmmmm? How many billions of animals have died to make that statement true?
Give me a break anti hunting society. We all have the blood of animals on our hands, anti's figuratively, and successful hunters literally. At least we hunters have the courage to perform the unsavory deed ourselves.

[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.

[MichelD]

I agree with most of what you say. All my friends and neighbours know I hunt, and I don't know any who might be called "antis." Well, okay, one, a woman in the old-time/country/rockabilly music community I hang with.

My Mrs. and me are bringing a snow goose to a seasonal gathering tonight for example. Non-hunters, but the couple we are visiting each had a hunter dad. The other guest is a Harvard educated prof who has studied bird biology intensively. She likes to eat waterfowl and does not question my hunting habit at all.

My thesis is however, that the broad public doesn't even pay attention to hunters or hunting.

Yes, there are some passionate anti hunters in the world, there are some looney hunting advocates out there too like Ted Nugent, but I really do not think we are being attacked on all sides by torch and pitchfork brandishing anti-hunting millions. I think for the most part the broad public couldn't give a fig one way or the other.

And just for discussion, I would suggest that the corporate controlled media in this country is not even remotely "left-wing."

By the way, I don't know why anti-hunting rhetoric might be equated with left politics. The most ardent communist I ever met, a well-known fisherman and union leader from Ladner was also a passionate waterfowl and moose hunter.






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]

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.

I agree, but if one must bring partisan politics into it, one must realize partisan contains "two parts". "It takes two to tango" and "for every action, one can expect an equal and opposite reaction"

Time for hunters to be bigger than that, and operate with ideas outside the partisan bickering of the plebes. Professional communicators with a well crafted, unassailable message.

[325]

I agree, but if one must bring partisan politics into it, one must realize partisan contains "two parts". "It takes two to tango" and "for every action, one can expect an equal and opposite reaction"

Time for hunters to be bigger than that, and operate with ideas outside the partisan bickering of the plebes. Professional communicators with a well crafted, unassailable message.

I'm not understanding your "two parts" comment. I'm simply commenting on the current environment of identity politics being played at the federal level, and that I think it's dangerous.