I hunt because I love to hunt...I like to shoot and eat game animals..

I do know that the sale of licenses and hunter organizations is the only reason much of the game is still in existence, and I could write a book on the subject.

I get emails at rayatkinsonhunting@gmail.com from anti hunters, mostly young people, and as opposed to telling them to kiss ole spot, I explain what we do for the game, the money we donate to game depts. in Africa, the sale of license fees and where it goes, and I usually ask them how much the contribute to the preservation of wildlife, and get a blank response on that for sure...In almost every case I have received a reply thanking me for the enlightment of the subject. On several occasion even from the parents thinking me for my approach even though they are not hunters. On rare occasions I get something from a nut case and will offer one reply, and get a scalding response, that's the guy I tell to kiss old spot! and no more replys.

It works guys, or as one guy told me "you sure can catch more flys with honey than with shit". Maybe so..

quote:

Originally posted by Jan Dumon:

quote:

Originally posted by Cajun1956: (7) hunters deriving "pleasure" from killing wild animals. Although these concerns and/or issues are "front and center" among the rabid anti-hunters, I suspect that they are of concern to the typical non-hunter as well.

Ask them if they get any pleasure from eating the bucket of Chicken wings when watching the Super Bowl. It's got NOTHING to do with getting your recommended daily protein quota let me tell you that much. Those chickens died for PLEASURE. As did the cow when you order that big steak on a Saturday night , or the full rack of ribs at the barbeque joint. AH , but they didn't have to do the killing , did they ? HMMMM....

Jan, I have played that card (vegan vs. non vegan) on multiple occasions. It just doesn't seem to resonate with them. In their minds, it is all about the "pleasure". For example, I debated a British woman regarding ethical, legal, and sustainable elephant hunting. I mentioned to her that sooner or later the country of Botswana and Kruger NP were going to have to deal with exploding elephant populations. She advised that she preferred government sanctioned culling in lieu of ethical, legal, and sustainable hunting. I proceeded to educate her regarding culling practices. I advised her that culling includes the killing of entire breeding herds including bulls, cows, sub-adults, and nursing calves (in an effort to minimize stress). She said that as long as it was conducted by veterinarians who did not experience "pleasure", then it was OK by her. Go figure!

Again, the public's opinion can be swayed. All it takes is money and time.

In my lifetime I've seen major PR campaigns completely change the public's opinion 180 degrees. From getting rid of leaded gas and paint, quit cutting down the rain forest, save the whales, electric cars like Tesla are cool, blah blah blah. It's just that no major group has stepped up to go on the defensive in terms of hunting.

Look at the power the movie Blackfish had. You're telling me the pro hunting group can't do the same thing? BS. Of course they can.

"Jan, I have played that card (vegan vs. non vegan) on multiple occasions. It just doesn't seem resonate with them. In their minds, it is all about the "pleasure". For example, I debated a British woman regarding ethical, legal, and sustainable elephant hunting. I mentioned to her that sooner or later the country of Botswana and Kruger NP were going to have to deal with exploding elephant populations. She advised that she preferred government sanctioned culling in lieu of ethical, legal, and sustainable hunting. I proceeded to educate her regarding culling practices. I advised her that culling includes the killing of entire breeding herds including bulls, cows, sub-adults, and nursing calves (in an effort to minimize stress). She said that as long as it was conducted by veterinarians who did not experience "pleasure", then it was OK by her. Go figure!"



I realize that. And I get what Ray said above. I've done so much " educating " , spent so much time explaining the good hunting does as a spin off , but eventually one gets tired of all this and all the BS you have to deal with , especially as someone earning a living from hunting. The world is just not thinking straight any more. The Anti's say hunting is disgusting and abnormal behavior while Homosexuals are being lauded for whom they are , given the right to marry and adopt children and urged to express their sexuality. Realy ??? Normal ???? not disgusting ????
I must be a dinosaur , doomed to extinction then.

quote:

Originally posted by Gayne C. Young:
Again, the public's opinion can be swayed. All it takes is money and time.

In my lifetime I've seen major PR campaigns completely change the public's opinion 180 degrees. From getting rid of leaded gas and paint, quit cutting down the rain forest, save the whales, electric cars like Tesla are cool, blah blah blah. It's just that no major group has stepped up to go on the defensive in terms of hunting.

Look at the power the movie Blackfish had. You're telling me the pro hunting group can't do the same thing? BS. Of course they can.

I had a conversation with someone on the board at SCI late last week. I told him that in my view I would redirect virtually all expenditures into building a social media platform and presence, establishing an effective hunter and public education effort and developing an effective lobbying arm. I would put conservation-related expenditures, all awards-related expenditures, virtually any discretionary expenditure on hold and deal with the crisis that actually threatens the sport . . . image and education. Truth is that if we do not do the latter, spending money on the former is really pointless.

quote:

Originally posted by Gayne C. Young:
Again, the public's opinion can be swayed. All it takes is money and time.

In my lifetime I've seen major PR campaigns completely change the public's opinion 180 degrees. From getting rid of leaded gas and paint, quit cutting down the rain forest, save the whales, electric cars like Tesla are cool, blah blah blah. It's just that no major group has stepped up to go on the defensive in terms of hunting.

Look at the power the movie Blackfish had. You're telling me the pro hunting group can't do the same thing? BS. Of course they can.

Gayne, I agree! I have had many non-hunting friends approach me to discuss the ongoing Cecil debacle. They were confused and wanted to obtain a much better understanding regarding big game hunting in Southern Africa. Most of them were amazed to learn that the resulting meat wasn't wasted but instead processed for human consumption. They struggled to understand that the rural villagers relish elephant, hippo, giraffe, and various other big game animals. Based on my discussions with these folks, the words "trophy hunting" is really complicating our ongoing efforts to enlighten non-hunters.

One good Blackfish like movie can turn this into a major win.
Frame it from the perspective of two villagers in Africa. One that puts up with lions so they can be hunted, one that turns to poaching. Show the difference in how the money comes in and is spent. Have an articulate, self-deprecating, handsome hunter (ok, me) that says, "Yes. I'm happy this is where my money goes but truth is I like hunting. I like seeing all this. I like spending time afield, seeing where my money goes, etc. Humans hunt. We're wired to it. Just like we are wired to procreate."
Then show how, while money from photo safaris does help and has a purpose, it doesn't pay the bill.
When people are presented with quality and information they can be swayed into thinking. Consider the 60 Minutes interview with the hunters VS the lady that fought to ban hunting scimitar-horned oryx in Texas. People watched that and came away on the hunting side. Even those that said, "I would never hunt myself but I now see the need" help us in the battle.

Not sure one documentary turns the tide. The difference between the hunting situation and Blackfish is the basic inclination of the public. With Blackfish the public was fed a message that they were prepared mentally and emotionally to digest and believe. With hunting I think the public sentiment is exactly the opposite. The public is much more willing to accept that hunting is anachronistic and barbaric, particularly trophy hunting. That said, I definitely think that public opinion can be influenced and swayed . . . especially for those members of the public that are in the "mushy middle" and either have neutral to only slightly negative views of hunting. Hell, the truth is that we have our job cut out for us to educate fellow hunters. There are plenty of hunters that are of the view that why should they care what happens with lion or elephant hunting since it does not affect them . . . they need to understand that today it is lion, tomorrow it is deer.

The hunting issue is actually just a small part of the much larger issue of the global loss of biodiversity.

Many of the arguments against hunting are purely deontological, based on ethics or morals, whereas if you look at the much larger global issue of biodiversity loss from a consequentialist perspective, add in every other potential human behavior, and analyze it using Life-Cycle-Assessment methodology, you come up with one, single, unambiguous conclusion: that hunting is the most environmentally-sound and economically-sustainable human activity.

To clarify, everyone does something when they get up in the morning, and every human activity results in an incremental loss of global biodiversity (using LCA analysis) - except hunting, which, in providing what is essentially pristine habitat, allows for Maximum-Potential-Biodiversity©, which in turn provides the ecosystem services upon which all life depends.

In addition, due to the interconnectivities of the global economic and global supply matrices, virtually every dollar (rand, euro, etc.) spent, results in virtually the same loss of global biodiversity – regardless of how it was spent ...

... or, in other words (for the animal lovers), that means that many more animals are killed (not to mention trees chopped down) by, as just one example, World-Cup-Soccer, as are killed by hunters – and by several orders of magnitude!

I’ve presented these findings at a couple of world conferences … (but no one was listening).

Oh well.

<> <> <>

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

I have never met an SCI member who was directly competing against other members.

Really??

What is the purpose of all the silly CIRCLES then?

You tell me since you know so much about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Blair 338RUM:
SCI has been fairly useless during the Cecil/air freight crises.

MJines comments on focus groups might well be a very effective way of getting hunters on message......which they are in dire need of.

And Bakes comments about "trophy" hunting is spot on too. If you mention you are a trophy hunter to a non hunter you will get a very sceptical/hostile reaction these days.

I never discuss trophy hunting except with friends and I rarely let non hunters visit my holiday home where the majority of my trophies are......it's not worth putting up with their bullshit.

You can mention trophy hunting where I live, no problem at all. But then every second ute has a dog box and hounds hanging off it, spotlight in roof, or 4WD's with some other hunting paraphenalia attached.

Well Bakes lives in Qld and he has the same problem........you have to get out more Matt

quote:

Originally posted by Blair 338RUM:


Well Bakes lives in Qld and he has the same problem........you have to get out more Matt

Bakes lives in Brisbane backblocks mate!! I live in the country. I am going to take my boys for a shot at a local SSAA 500m range this arvo and I can guarantee you now ... we will be the only ones there!! Well just us and a bunch of cows. Maybe we'll shoot a few bunnies or hares behind the 200m berm.

Come on Matt, Brisbane's back blocks?

quote:

Originally posted by Bakes:
Come on Matt, Brisbane's back blocks?

Something like that!

quote:

Originally posted by Cajun1956:
FYI - During my many, lively debates (via various social media) with rabid anti-hunters including the infamous Peshotan "The Myth" Pavri, several common issues and/or concerns always seem to surface during our debates. They include, but not limited to, the following: (1) non consumptive vs. consumptive tourism; (2) "CANNED" hunting; (3) photos - especially photos with hunters posing with one of the Big 5; (4) ethics - failure of hunters to police their own; (5) "TROPHY" hunting; (6) hunting revenues - blood money and support corrupt governments; and (7) hunters deriving "pleasure" from killing wild animals. Although these concerns and/or issues are "front and center" among the rabid anti-hunters, I suspect that they are of concern to the typical non-hunter as well.

Ethics can be a difficult subject, but I do believe as hunters we need to better job policing ourselves. I have read posts that have defended hunting in Zim Parks. What is going to happen when somebody shoots a named elephant with a collar inside Hwange or Zambezi and the media runs with that story?

I heard about NRA Hunters' Leadership forum recently. Maybe this could be part of the solution.

This is a couple of lines from an article about the second convention in April.

"The NRA currently has 5 million members of whom 3.5 million of them are hunters, but as Sheets stated, the NRA is just not recognized for its contribution to hunting. Hunting leadership has traditionally been handled through NRA pro-gun activities, but that now has to change. PETA and other anti-hunting organizations are now trying to influence American culture by demonizing hunters.

The key mission of the NRA Hunters’ Leadership Forum is to communicate the importance of hunting to conservation and to publically defend the sport and heritage of hunting.

As Wayne LaPierre said “Elephants lead to deer” and we must take the fight to the culture of America."

http://hunteredcourse.com/nra-...rs-leadership-forum/

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:
I heard about NRA Hunters' Leadership forum recently. Maybe this could be part of the solution.

This is a couple of lines from an article about the second convention in April.

"The NRA currently has 5 million members of whom 3.5 million of them are hunters, but as Sheets stated, the NRA is just not recognized for its contribution to hunting. Hunting leadership has traditionally been handled through NRA pro-gun activities, but that now has to change. PETA and other anti-hunting organizations are now trying to influence American culture by demonizing hunters.

The key mission of the NRA Hunters’ Leadership Forum is to communicate the importance of hunting to conservation and to publically defend the sport and heritage of hunting.

As Wayne LaPierre said “Elephants lead to deer” and we must take the fight to the culture of America."

http://hunteredcourse.com/nra-...rs-leadership-forum/

That would be a wonderful idea for SCI and DSC.

.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Bakes:
Come on Matt, Brisbane's back blocks?

Something like that!

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:
I heard about NRA Hunters' Leadership forum recently. Maybe this could be part of the solution.

This is a couple of lines from an article about the second convention in April.

"The NRA currently has 5 million members of whom 3.5 million of them are hunters, but as Sheets stated, the NRA is just not recognized for its contribution to hunting. Hunting leadership has traditionally been handled through NRA pro-gun activities, but that now has to change. PETA and other anti-hunting organizations are now trying to influence American culture by demonizing hunters.

The key mission of the NRA Hunters’ Leadership Forum is to communicate the importance of hunting to conservation and to publically defend the sport and heritage of hunting.

As Wayne LaPierre said “Elephants lead to deer” and we must take the fight to the culture of America."

http://hunteredcourse.com/nra-...rs-leadership-forum/

That would be a wonderful idea for SCI and DSC.

.

I agree.

That's a huge lobby group hunters should utilise.

Whenever I get a little bored, I amuse myself by harrassing the rabid anti-hunters that hang-out on ole Pieter Scat, excuse me, I mean Pieter Kat's Lion Aid Facebook. This past weekend, I encountered the following thought provocative post: ""The hunting industry in Africa alone, by some reports, puts as much as $200 million into the economy - Karl Evans, President, Dallas Safari Club." I don't know from where this guy took this statistic, but there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that these sums of money went to support the economies of the African countries - the ones that have legalized wildlife-trophy hunting. The only evidence that there is for everyone to see is that the "African 5" - the African lion, African elephant, Cape buffalo, African leopard, and White/Black rhinoceros populations have been decreasing dangerously low, especially in the last 30 years, while these countries have stayed poorer and poorer. Some people - like this guy have - are struggling dealing with ... facts!"

My subsequent research (via the internet) indicates that this data was taken from a study that was released in late 2006. The study cited statistics, data, and/or information dating back to the "2000 thru 2006" time period. The study was published by Lindsey and states "Trophy hunting by 18,500 hunters generates US$ 200 million annually in remote rural areas of Africa in 23 countries. Private hunting operations conserve wildlife on 540,000 square miles, which is 22% more land than is found in the national parks of Africa. (Lindsey, 2007, Conservation Biology)"

This question goes out to the leadership of both SCI and DSC: Why doesn't SCI and DSC jointly fund (ouch!) a study to determine the current impact that big game hunting has on the various pro hunting countries located within Southern Africa?

Perhaps SCI and DSC could provide grant money through a major university such as Texas A&M or Texas Tech and the university, in turn, could identify a couple of undergraduates (i.e. - economy and wildlife management undergraduates) interested in conducting the study.

From my perspective, it's a little embarrassing to go "toe to toe" with anti-hunters while citing outdated statistics, data, and/or information. Although I am a novice when it comes to hunting in Southern Africa, I suspect that the number of hunters traveling to Southern Africa now exceeds the 18,500 noted in the study. In addition, my understanding is that the daily fees and trophy fees have increased as well (actually, doubling in some cases) since 2006.

SCI and DSC, what say you?

That's the internet in a nutshell; people with limited knowledge and minimal research skills antagonizing one-another for their own amusement.

What are you complaining about?

<> <> <>

quote:

Originally posted by Cajun1956:

quote:

Originally posted by Trophic-Hunter:
That's the internet in a nutshell; people with limited knowledge and minimal research skills antagonizing one-another for their own amusement.

What are you complaining about?

<> <> <>

Trophic Hunter Quote: "I’ve presented these findings at a couple of world conferences … (but no one was listening)."

"... how you suffered for your SANITY,
how you tried to set them free.
They would not listen,
they did not know how,
perhaps they'll listen now."

Hmm? Probably not!

Still ain't!

<> <> <>

I agree. Most people have a problem with trophy hunting. They don't have a problem with hunting for meat however. Hunting for meat is very defensible.

quote:

Originally posted by Bakes:
What gets most people worked up is the word "Trophy". Even some hunters who say they are meat hunters don't like trophy hunters (I had an argument with a "meat" hunter on facebook )

I don't know if you guys in the states get a show called River Cottage, but the guy on that (a Chef) hunts birds, deer, rabbits and fishes, etc. His message is free range, drug free meat that is gathered sustainably and people love the show. That show has spawned a lot of other chefs doing the same and pushing the same message. Even though I hate the word harvest (I don't harvest I kill an animal) perhaps we should push the sustainable use of wildlife providing meat for our families AND an economic benefit to communities local and overseas.

Lets move away from the use of the word conservation as most people don't understand why you kill an animal to conserve the population. When talking African hunting perhaps we focus on the creation of jobs, feeding local villages etc. Maybe a study should be done to compare how much of the money raised from organisations/charities actually goes to African communities and compare that to the money that hunting brings in. For instance a study done in Australia on the state of Victoria says that $439 million is spent on hunting in that small state alone.

It's my opinion that we as hunters have partly ourselves to blame for the anti-hunting movement. Through images on social media, video-taping of kill-shots and the media hunting has gone viral and unfortunately so has negative perceptions of it. If you tell or write a story you can to some extent determine who gets the message and determine the context in what it's told. With social media and TV you lose all control over audience and context. Hunting for me has always been about the hunt. Is shooting antelope and deer at 600 yards with a high powered rifle hunting? Are we bragging about long shots? If I'd tried to shoot a buck further than 300 yards by dad would give me a dressing-down. When we talk about hunting to others are we talking about "I want to kill a kudu" or "I want to hunt a kudu" because those two statements to a hunting neutral person mean two different things. The first will be interpreted as you having a compulsive urge to end the life of an animal. The second will be interpreted as you wanting to challenge yourself to stalking and testing your skills against that of an animal. We all know they ultimately end up in the same result but perception and impression is everything in life We have to re-learn to portray our sport better as our forefathers did. I'm just as much to blame and but read through AR and how many thousands of posts are there about equipment, rifles etc. How many are there about animal habits, animal behaviour, tracking and stalking techniques. I've been in the hunting business awhile and I've only met fantastic human beings in this industry (partly because I advertise hunts on AR) but the message needs to change. It needs to be less about the equipment, shooting and killing and more about the animal, the hunt and the adventure of it all.

Victor

quote:

Originally posted by Victor Watson:
It's my opinion that we as hunters have partly ourselves to blame for the anti-hunting movement. Through images on social media, video-taping of kill-shots and the media hunting has gone viral and unfortunately so has negative perceptions of it. If you tell or write a story you can to some extent determine who gets the message and determine the context in what it's told. With social media and TV you lose all control over audience and context. Hunting for me has always been about the hunt. Is shooting antelope and deer at 600 yards with a high powered rifle hunting? Are we bragging about long shots? If I'd tried to shoot a buck further than 300 yards by dad would give me a dressing-down. When we talk about hunting to others are we talking about "I want to kill a kudu" or "I want to hunt a kudu" because those two statements to a hunting neutral person mean two different things. The first will be interpreted as you having a compulsive urge to end the life of an animal. The second will be interpreted as you wanting to challenge yourself to stalking and testing your skills against that of an animal. We all know they ultimately end up in the same result but perception and impression is everything in life We have to re-learn to portray our sport better as our forefathers did. I'm just as much to blame and but read through AR and how many thousands of posts are there about equipment, rifles etc. How many are there about animal habits, animal behaviour, tracking and stalking techniques. I've been in the hunting business awhile and I've only met fantastic human beings in this industry (partly because I advertise hunts on AR) but the message needs to change. It needs to be less about the equipment, shooting and killing and more about the animal, the hunt and the adventure of it all.

Victor

Very well said and spot on.

"Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It wasn't reasoned into him, and it cannot be reasoned out. -- Sydney Smith (1771 - 1845)"

Ol' Syd's wisdom has stood the test of two centuries. I'd like to add that facts do not trump emotion. The critics of what we do (as well as an increasingly large number of the so-called "undecided") are not interested in whether we kill humanely or ethically, nor do they care about our past and present contributions to conservation.

They only know that we kill animals, and that makes us murderers in their eyes.

As for the animal-rights (read anti-hunting) movement, it has been around since Pythagorus in the sixth century BC. It really gained empetus when Walt Disney made a mouse appear to talk in 1928, and grew by leaps and bounds in the 1950s and 1960s when groups like Fund for Animals, Friends of Animals and their like were formed.

I'll be 80 in just ten months, and I'm glad I won't be around when ballot issues determine whether or not all hunting should be banned because we will already have lost this issue.

Bill Quimby

The battle is not for the hearts and minds of those on the fringe, it is a battle for the hearts and minds of the majority of folks that are neither staunchly supportive of hunting or stridently opposed to hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by Victor Watson:
It's my opinion that we as hunters have partly ourselves to blame for the anti-hunting movement. Through images on social media, video-taping of kill-shots and the media hunting has gone viral and unfortunately so has negative perceptions of it. If you tell or write a story you can to some extent determine who gets the message and determine the context in what it's told. With social media and TV you lose all control over audience and context. Hunting for me has always been about the hunt. Is shooting antelope and deer at 600 yards with a high powered rifle hunting? Are we bragging about long shots? If I'd tried to shoot a buck further than 300 yards by dad would give me a dressing-down. When we talk about hunting to others are we talking about "I want to kill a kudu" or "I want to hunt a kudu" because those two statements to a hunting neutral person mean two different things. The first will be interpreted as you having a compulsive urge to end the life of an animal. The second will be interpreted as you wanting to challenge yourself to stalking and testing your skills against that of an animal. We all know they ultimately end up in the same result but perception and impression is everything in life We have to re-learn to portray our sport better as our forefathers did. I'm just as much to blame and but read through AR and how many thousands of posts are there about equipment, rifles etc. How many are there about animal habits, animal behaviour, tracking and stalking techniques. I've been in the hunting business awhile and I've only met fantastic human beings in this industry (partly because I advertise hunts on AR) but the message needs to change. It needs to be less about the equipment, shooting and killing and more about the animal, the hunt and the adventure of it all.

Victor

+1

I do think that when we have hunt reports of more than just pictures with dead animals and pictures of flora fauna and other stuff it add a much more diverse picture of hunting. Majority of AR hunt reports have that.

We need to get out of whole measure tape approach to hunting.

Mike

MJines:

I'm afraid the group whose hearts and minds we seek to influence grows smaller by the day.

Many of our schoolteachers, media personalities and other celebrities have been working to change the public's perception about hunting and animals for the nearly fifty years I followed the growth of the animal rights movement as an outdoor writer/editor/publisher/author.

For proof of their success, take a look at PETA and HSUS. Both are now considered by some powerful pundits as "mainstream."

Bill Quimby

Perhaps. Fighting sure feels better than folding though.

Agreed.

This is a good off-shoot to this topic, from a Zim National Parks press release today:

National Parks Bulletin

WOMAN 68, GIRL 4 ATTACKED BY A WOUNDED BUFFALO.
On the 19th of October after midday, a woman, Olivia Ndlovu, 68, was trampled by a buffalo in ward seven, Tsholotsho. Olivia had gone to collect cattle when the buffalo pounced on her. She broke a leg and an arm and some ribs.
Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority Public Relations Manager Caroline Washaya-Moyo said Olivia was take n to Pumula Hospital by a police vehicle that was patrolling in the area. She was later transferred to Tsholotsho that evening and then Mpilo Hospital the same evening. An x-ray was taken and other tests conducted. Sadly she passed on Wednesday before receiving any treatment. CAMPFIRE officials only received the news on arrival at the hospital with money for medication.
Game rangers who were patrolling the area tracked and killed the buffalo on Wednesday after it had also attacked a 4 year old girl, Naide Ngwenya. She is in hospital in Tsholotsho with a fractured left leg. Council, Rural District Council are taking care of all medical expenses.
She added that further investigations have since revealed that the buffalo was wounded possibly by poachers hence the violent behaviour since it had spear wounds.
Burial arrangements for Olivia are yet to be finalised but council and Safari Operators in the area will take care of all expenses.

Take note of the part about CAMPFIRE officials taking money to the hospital for the woman’s treatment and the rural council paying - undoubtedly from CAMPFIRE funds - for the girl’s treatment. And also safari operators paying for the woman’s funeral arrangements. This is a good behind the scenes look at how the local African villagers benefit from sport hunting in an otherwise collapsed economy.