Lipstick and Rouge?

It may be a fatal mistake on our part to not care how non-hunters view hunting. We are in a fight with the antis for their support. The antis will go to any length to paint us in a bad light. The use of a video showing a polar bear female being drugged for a tracking study with a small cub by her side was posted by the antis as a hunter killed bear where the little cub was abandoned. They very effectively used the video of seal pups being clubbed to death to get the seal harvest eliminated. The use of the video of the American executive shooting a crop raiding elephant is another instance. We need to be careful in not giving them more ammunition.

The non-hunting public has been a driving force in passing many laws that end up hurting our sport. This is especially true where the initiative process is used to make laws. Initiatives have been used to ban Mtn. lion hunting and the use of dogs or bait for bear hunting in several states. It is to the point now that the majority of members of the California Game Commission are non-hunters. Several eastern States can not get a season opened on morning doves due to public opposition.

There have been many studies done by Game departments, the USFWS and Universities on how non-hunters perceive sport hunting. They generally see the same attitudes expressed;

1. They support hunting for food.
2. They support hunting for management purposes, mainly to reduce over populations.
3. They support killing of depredating animals.
4. They don't like trophy hunting if the meat isn't a prime reason of the hunt.
5. They don't like unnecessary pain being inflicted on animals or any form of animal cruelty.
6. They deplore disrespect of animals.

This past winter a picture was published in the Idaho news papers of hunter posing behind a wolf in a leg hold trap that was still alive. That picture set trappers back many years in their public relation efforts.

Yes, what and how we are perceived by the public is too important for us to ignore.

465H&H

Disrespect to the dead animal, an example of which is the practice of immediately cutting an elephant's tail off.

465H&H,

I agree that it is a worthwhile to take an interest in how non-hunters perceive hunting and hunters.

The last few years we have used pictures of our Safaris for Christmas and Happy Holiday Cards. For the most part 99% of these cards go to non-hunters (I could care less if they are anti-hunting or not) and it leads to thoughtful interest by most....

The comments and questions about our Cards always comes back the same and very similar to what you have posted about non-hunters interest...

Respect for the game we hunt, etc....

I had a lot of success explaining the value of hunting in the conservation of our fauna and flora to non-hunters and anti-hunters. I have found that much of their hatred towards hunting was misinformation and sometimes just a total lack of knowledge. Most of them do not understand that hunting made animals valuable and therefore encourages conservation of the animals. They mostly do not understand how Africa works, the rural populations are poor, they need meat and money, hunting provides both. Most of them also thinks that eco tourism is a better option to conserve animals, once you explained to them the damage eco tourism causes to the eco system compared to a small hunting party, they start to listen.

It takes a lot of effort and repetition. I personally think that most of the hatred towards hunting comes from misinformation or blatant lies about hunting. It is we as hunters that must put in a combined effort to change the minds on the non-hunters and the anti's. We won't win over all of them, but the more we swing, the more we have that will support our passion.