quote:

Originally posted by Venture South:

quote:

Whats that about and really what is the difference?

Andrew, its the same liberal PC bullshit that invades every facet of our lives.

We kill animals, and who the hell has the right to tell us how to use them or whether or not its "OK" to mount their skulls on the wall.

The sooner people realise that they are killing their own sport by caving to "Liberal Hate Mentality" fueled by the Democrats and the Media, the sooner we can get rid of their menace

Divided we fall.

Like I said we should offer 'eat all you can safaris' with the side option of purchasing the horns or hair.

I have a meat Sable that I am trying to sell for $17,000 if you know anyone that is hungry?

No doubt the term meat hunter is used to differentiate from trophy hunter. Where I'm from its also used to differentiate down home, country people living closer to the land than their mossy oak, scentblocker, gadget clad urban brethren. There's some truth there, some bs as well. We all go to Wal Mart for Doritos

quote:

Originally posted by chuckmaxman:
Small pigs the size of watermelons!

Kind of I posted a photo.

Baby pure Sus Scrofa have watermelon stripes.

They say that the First Nations (American Indians) used to move to the moose, instead of moving the moose to camp. Soooo, if I ever shoot another elephant, can I move to Africa?

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Venture South:

quote:
Whats that about and really what is the difference?



Andrew, its the same liberal PC bullshit that invades every facet of our lives.

We kill animals, and who the hell has the right to tell us how to use them or whether or not its "OK" to mount their skulls on the wall.

The sooner people realise that they are killing their own sport by caving to "Liberal Hate Mentality" fueled by the Democrats and the Media, the sooner we can get rid of their menace

Divided we fall.



Like I said we should offer 'eat all you can safaris' with the side option of purchasing the horns or hair.

I have a meat Sable that I am trying to sell for $17,000 if you know anyone that is hungry?

Makes Wagyu cheap at the price

quote:

Originally posted by Venture South:

quote:

Whats that about and really what is the difference?

Andrew, its the same liberal PC bullshit that invades every facet of our lives.

We kill animals, and who the hell has the right to tell us how to use them or whether or not its "OK" to mount their skulls on the wall.

The sooner people realise that they are killing their own sport by caving to "Liberal Hate Mentality" fueled by the Democrats and the Media, the sooner we can get rid of their menace

Divided we fall.

Whether we believe there is a difference between trophy hunting and meat hunting, we are foolish not to acknowledge that the public believes there is a very real and tangible difference. At an NRA Hunters Leadership Forum meeting that I attended the results of a survey done by a professional survey research team of public attitudes towards hunting was presented. Almost 80% of those surveyed indicated that they either strongly approved or moderately approved of legal hunting. That figure has actually been pretty consistent over the last twenty years. When you look at motivations to hunt, 85% strongly or moderately approved of hunting for meat. In comparison, only 28% strongly or moderately approved of hunting for a trophy. Look at the lovavore movement and how it is thriving in some areas . . . including areas that would not be viewed as hunting strongholds.

You may view characterizing hunting with a lean toward emphasizing meat hunting and avoiding the characterization of it as trophy hunting as caving to liberals . . . others view it as being perceptive of the arena in which the fight is being fought and tailoring the tactics to best achieve success in that arena. The truth is that we do ourselves no favors referring to trophy hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Venture South:

quote:

Whats that about and really what is the difference?

Andrew, its the same liberal PC bullshit that invades every facet of our lives.

We kill animals, and who the hell has the right to tell us how to use them or whether or not its "OK" to mount their skulls on the wall.

The sooner people realise that they are killing their own sport by caving to "Liberal Hate Mentality" fueled by the Democrats and the Media, the sooner we can get rid of their menace

Divided we fall.

Whether we believe there is a difference between trophy hunting and meat hunting, we are foolish not to acknowledge that the public believes there is a very real and tangible difference. At an NRA Hunters Leadership Forum meeting that I attended the results of a survey done by a professional survey research team of public attitudes towards hunting was presented. Almost 80% of those surveyed indicated that they either strongly approved or moderately approved of legal hunting. That figure has actually been pretty consistent over the last twenty years. When you look at motivations to hunt, 85% strongly or moderately approved of hunting for meat. In comparison, only 28% strongly or moderately approved of hunting for a trophy. Look at the lovavore movement and how it is thriving in some areas . . . including areas that would not be viewed as hunting strongholds.

You may view characterizing hunting with a lean toward emphasizing meat hunting and avoiding the characterization of it as trophy hunting as caving to liberals . . . others view it as being perceptive of the arena in which the fight is being fought and tailoring the tactics to best achieve success in that arena. The truth is that we do ourselves no favors referring to trophy hunting.

Very true Mike, but we hunters don't have to use the moniker "trophy hunting" - the dots are connected whenever we pose with a lion, leopard, bear, etc.

The only way we stand to have any chance of influencing public opinion is to juxtapose our moral choices with the other party - whether it be meat eating, abortion, gay marriage, etc. In other words, I will let you make your moral choices; I only ask you allow me to make mine.

quote:

Whether we believe there is a difference between trophy hunting and meat hunting, we are foolish not to acknowledge that the public believes there is a very real and tangible difference. At an NRA Hunters Leadership Forum meeting that I attended the results of a survey done by a professional survey research team of public attitudes towards hunting was presented. Almost 80% of those surveyed indicated that they either strongly approved or moderately approved of legal hunting. That figure has actually been pretty consistent over the last twenty years. When you look at motivations to hunt, 85% strongly or moderately approved of hunting for meat. In comparison, only 28% strongly or moderately approved of hunting for a trophy. Look at the lovavore movement and how it is thriving in some areas . . . including areas that would not be viewed as hunting strongholds.

You may view characterizing hunting with a lean toward emphasizing meat hunting and avoiding the characterization of it as trophy hunting as caving to liberals . . . others view it as being perceptive of the arena in which the fight is being fought and tailoring the tactics to best achieve success in that arena. The truth is that we do ourselves no favors referring to trophy hunting.

Really good response.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Venture South:

quote:
Whats that about and really what is the difference?



Andrew, its the same liberal PC bullshit that invades every facet of our lives.

We kill animals, and who the hell has the right to tell us how to use them or whether or not its "OK" to mount their skulls on the wall.

The sooner people realise that they are killing their own sport by caving to "Liberal Hate Mentality" fueled by the Democrats and the Media, the sooner we can get rid of their menace

Divided we fall.



Whether we believe there is a difference between trophy hunting and meat hunting, we are foolish not to acknowledge that the public believes there is a very real and tangible difference. At an NRA Hunters Leadership Forum meeting that I attended the results of a survey done by a professional survey research team of public attitudes towards hunting was presented. Almost 80% of those surveyed indicated that they either strongly approved or moderately approved of legal hunting. That figure has actually been pretty consistent over the last twenty years. When you look at motivations to hunt, 85% strongly or moderately approved of hunting for meat. In comparison, only 28% strongly or moderately approved of hunting for a trophy. Look at the lovavore movement and how it is thriving in some areas . . . including areas that would not be viewed as hunting strongholds.

You may view characterizing hunting with a lean toward emphasizing meat hunting and avoiding the characterization of it as trophy hunting as caving to liberals . . . others view it as being perceptive of the arena in which the fight is being fought and tailoring the tactics to best achieve success in that arena. The truth is that we do ourselves no favors referring to trophy hunting.

Mike

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - Winston Churchill

I am a meat hunter. I just wish the meat tasted good.

I try and at least taste most of the animals I have killed, but I am not into eating carnivores (as a teenager, I cooked and nibbled on a fox I had shot while rabbit hunting..yuck!).

I actually hunt for the challenge, excitement, and respect for the animals and nature.

BH63

quote:

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. - Winston Churchill

You cannot appease an enemy that has already made up their mind, because it is closed to any information that differs from what it has chosen to believe.

That is why trying to reason with confirmed anti-hunters is a total waste of time.

Non hunters are a different proposition simply because they may not have any problem with people hunting, as long as they conduct themselves in a reasonable manner.

It seems that many times, Non-Hunters are viewed in the same light as actual anti-hunters.

Making an enemy via a false assumption just does not seem profitable in the long run.

That's really the point. We tend to want to oversimplify things by breaking down the world into one of two camps, hunters and anti-hunters. Reality is that both those groups are relatively small. Most folks fall into one of many shades of gray in between. Many want to define our response in a way to address the small and vocal group of anti-hunters . . . a group we will never sway or convince. Instead we ought to be tailoring our arguments to the vast majority of the folks that do not hold strident and inflexible views. The data is clear . . . while that group is prepared to approve of hunting, the motivation to hunt makes a difference. Seems to me we ought to take that information and use it and stay away from trophy hunting characterizations, as opposed to persisting and pushing them closer to or into the camp of the strident and inflexible. It has nothing to do with appeasement, it has to do with fighting but fighting in a smarter and more effective way.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
That's really the point. We tend to want to oversimplify things by breaking down the world into one of two camps, hunters and anti-hunters. Reality is that both those groups are relatively small. Most folks fall into one of many shades of gray in between. Many want to define our response in a way to address the small and vocal group of anti-hunters . . . a group we will never sway or convince. Instead we ought to be tailoring our arguments to the vast majority of the folks that do not hold strident and inflexible views. The data is clear . . . while that group is prepared to approve of hunting, the motivation to hunt makes a difference. Seems to me we ought to take that information and use it and stay away from trophy hunting characterizations, as opposed to persisting and pushing them closer to or into the camp of the strident and inflexible. It has nothing to do with appeasement, it has to do with fighting but fighting in a smarter and more effective way.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

Like I said we should offer 'eat all you can safaris' with the side option of purchasing the horns or hair.

I have a meat Sable that I am trying to sell for $17,000 if you know anyone that is hungry?

At last! Humor/humour!!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
That's really the point. We tend to want to oversimplify things by breaking down the world into one of two camps, hunters and anti-hunters. Reality is that both those groups are relatively small. Most folks fall into one of many shades of gray in between. Many want to define our response in a way to address the small and vocal group of anti-hunters . . . a group we will never sway or convince. Instead we ought to be tailoring our arguments to the vast majority of the folks that do not hold strident and inflexible views. The data is clear . . . while that group is prepared to approve of hunting, the motivation to hunt makes a difference. Seems to me we ought to take that information and use it and stay away from trophy hunting characterizations, as opposed to persisting and pushing them closer to or into the camp of the strident and inflexible. It has nothing to do with appeasement, it has to do with fighting but fighting in a smarter and more effective way.

While I am in 100% agreement with your post above...I want to point out the main problem...money and the ability to raise it.

The disparity between your two small groups; hunters and antihunters is money. The antihunting orgs like HSUS and Born Free are some of the richest organizations on earth and use the money to sway that huge middle ground you noted in their favor.

The amount of money those orgs raise is astonishing. In DC money is power.

The 'ONLY' hope hunters have is through equally (hopefully) successful pro-hunting orgs. I am hopeful with NRA entering the game.

Effective pro-hunting advertising/media and high-yield fundraising with effective use of the money is what it is going to take to sway the middle ground towards us. The anti's have shown us the model...but like John Wayne once said: "all it takes is money."

I would like to believe that you are right Lane, but do you honestly believe with the head start the opposition has and the FACT that they have MSM and Social media already in their hip pockets adding to that the migration away from rural life and the actual role of humans in the natural world, that big dollar campaigns would ever have a chance of seeing the light of day?

Yes, I am playing the devil's advocate as usual, but anyone that has taken time to notice, anytime discussions concerning hunting start up, the anti's immediately go straight to histrionics and emotion. The more Public the setting, the more over the edge they move the "conversation".

Reality sucks, but these folks and their brainwashed/damaged followers, got Ringling Brothers to fold their tents over Animal Rights and they are working overtime trying to do the same thing to zoos.

I am not a defeatist, I just believe more of a "GrassRoots" approach will accomplish the goal, if for no other reasons, finding an outlet that will sell the "AirTime" or Ad space, that will not be openly attacked by the opposition is going to be difficult at best.

It would be great if hunters could get the Truth out to the Public, so the Public could judge for themselves. From personal experience I know people can and will open their eyes and minds if a message is presented in the right manner.

How many on here are old enough to remember watching the CBS "Documentary" in 1975, "The Guns of Autumn"?

That was when things got started for the Anti movement, almost 42 years ago, that is the head start they have.

Once again we have a topic that has more potential to divide hunters than unite them. Some want to go with the "In-Their-Face-Nugent" approach, while others want to handle things less aggressively. What is the answer, where is the middle ground.

There are no easy answers, no quick fixes, and I am not sure that there is/are any solutions that all hunters can or will agree upon.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
That's really the point. We tend to want to oversimplify things by breaking down the world into one of two camps, hunters and anti-hunters. Reality is that both those groups are relatively small. Most folks fall into one of many shades of gray in between. Many want to define our response in a way to address the small and vocal group of anti-hunters . . . a group we will never sway or convince. Instead we ought to be tailoring our arguments to the vast majority of the folks that do not hold strident and inflexible views. The data is clear . . . while that group is prepared to approve of hunting, the motivation to hunt makes a difference. Seems to me we ought to take that information and use it and stay away from trophy hunting characterizations, as opposed to persisting and pushing them closer to or into the camp of the strident and inflexible. It has nothing to do with appeasement, it has to do with fighting but fighting in a smarter and more effective way.

While I am in 100% agreement with your post above...I want to point out the main problem...money and the ability to raise it.

The disparity between your two small groups; hunters and antihunters is money. The antihunting orgs like HSUS and Born Free are some of the richest organizations on earth and use the money to sway that huge middle ground you noted in their favor.

The amount of money those orgs raise is astonishing. In DC money is power.

The 'ONLY' hope hunters have is through equally (hopefully) successful pro-hunting orgs. I am hopeful with NRA entering the game.

Effective pro-hunting advertising/media and high-yield fundraising with effective use of the money is what it is going to take to sway the middle ground towards us. The anti's have shown us the model...but like John Wayne once said: "all it takes is money."

Just to expand on that a bit. The money problem is exacerbated by the grenade-like fragmentation of the hunting organizations. Hunter dollars are sliced and diced in so many ways that no single organization has the wherewithal to fight toe to toe with groups like PETA, HSUS, etc. We have SCI, DSC, HSC, RMEF, DU, Boone and Crockett, Pope and Young, Wild Sheep Foundation, the National Wild Turkey Federation, Quail Forever, Whitetails Unlimited, Mule Deer Foundation, Quality Deer Management Association, Shikar Safari Club . . . and the list goes on and on. Each of these groups have their own mission and infrastructure cost (which just sucks dollars out of the fight). Each is more concerned about its own survival, fundraising and mission than the collective hunting mission. If all the dollars funneled into these disparate groups were aggregated behind just a couple of groups, the latter might in fact be a force to be reckoned with politically. That will never happen. In my view that makes the NRA the only group out there to pull this off.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
That's really the point. We tend to want to oversimplify things by breaking down the world into one of two camps, hunters and anti-hunters. Reality is that both those groups are relatively small. Most folks fall into one of many shades of gray in between. Many want to define our response in a way to address the small and vocal group of anti-hunters . . . a group we will never sway or convince. Instead we ought to be tailoring our arguments to the vast majority of the folks that do not hold strident and inflexible views. The data is clear . . . while that group is prepared to approve of hunting, the motivation to hunt makes a difference. Seems to me we ought to take that information and use it and stay away from trophy hunting characterizations, as opposed to persisting and pushing them closer to or into the camp of the strident and inflexible. It has nothing to do with appeasement, it has to do with fighting but fighting in a smarter and more effective way.

While I am in 100% agreement with your post above...I want to point out the main problem...money and the ability to raise it.

The disparity between your two small groups; hunters and antihunters is money. The antihunting orgs like HSUS and Born Free are some of the richest organizations on earth and use the money to sway that huge middle ground you noted in their favor.

The amount of money those orgs raise is astonishing. In DC money is power.

The 'ONLY' hope hunters have is through equally (hopefully) successful pro-hunting orgs. I am hopeful with NRA entering the game.

Effective pro-hunting advertising/media and high-yield fundraising with effective use of the money is what it is going to take to sway the middle ground towards us. The anti's have shown us the model...but like John Wayne once said: "all it takes is money."

Just to expand on that a bit. The money problem is exacerbated by the grenade-like fragmentation of the hunting organizations. Hunter dollars are sliced and diced in so many ways that no single organization has the wherewithal to fight toe to toe with groups like PETA, HSUS, etc. We have SCI, DSC, HSC, RMEF, DU, Boone and Crockett, Pope and Young, Wild Sheep Foundation, the National Wild Turkey Federation, Quail Forever, Whitetails Unlimited, Mule Deer Foundation, Quality Deer Management Association, Shikar Safari Club . . . and the list goes on and on. Each of these groups have their own mission and infrastructure cost (which just sucks dollars out of the fight). Each is more concerned about its own survival, fundraising and mission than the collective hunting mission. If all the dollars funneled into these disparate groups were aggregated behind just a couple of groups, the latter might in fact be a force to be reckoned with politically. That will never happen. In my view that makes the NRA the only group out there to pull this off.

Agreed 100%.

But also why I have taken the stance that hunters...all hunters must stand together.

Yes...we must police our own...but we must do it in a more reconciliating way.

And yes...while I was running the LCTF with Aaron...we could have done that better.

NRA is the only viable path forward...IMHO.

I am a hunter. I love it and will make no excuses or apologies for it. However, we are all ambassadors for our sport/hobby/lifestyle whether we like it or not. Most people do not hunt and have no real opinion on hunting until faced with it. Then their opinion is based on the information they receive. So as ambassadors for hunting, we must always present ourselves in a positive, professional manner.

Most people that enter our home are not hunters. They are awed by all the trophies but their first question is always: "what did you do with the meat?" They all react positively when I explain how the meat goes to good use.

I have had a few "meat hunters" comment to me how they could never do what I do and leave the meat there, and they only hunt to put meat on the table and provide for the family. I politely shoot that myth down by pointing out the cost of hunting starting with their $40K+ truck and $10K+ ATV. We should not separate ourselves as meat hunters to try an justify what we do. That is a wonderful benefit but a very weak excuse in most cases.

Meat hunter/Trophy hunter/Conservationist or just plain Hunter is open to everyone's own interpretation. However, we are all hunters. Hunting will be interpreted positively or negatively based on the information we project. We must also remember our negative actions can cause collateral damage for all hunters, regardless of how they try and classify themselves.

Safe travels and Good Hunting to all..............Larry

When you look at what it takes today to be effective in shaping and molding public opinion and participating meaningfully in the political process, it takes (money that translates into):

- Effectively using social media for messaging through innovative content and approaches, use of multiple channels, constant updating, etc.
- The ability to mobilize members quickly and on message to address issues through social media and email
- A broad based membership not confined to any particular region, area or age demographic
- Strong leadership presence in Washington
- High profile, articulate executive director to act as spokesman
- An appreciation of the role data, focus groups, surveys, etc. play in shaping the messaging
- Approaching messaging in an offensive as opposed to a defensive manner
- An ability to build alliances, including with groups that might not be part of the usual crowd
- Arming membership with facts and information to ensure the message is carried forward broadly and consistently

Honestly, there is no group out there that is up to this task other than the NRA.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
That's really the point. We tend to want to oversimplify things by breaking down the world into one of two camps, hunters and anti-hunters. Reality is that both those groups are relatively small. Most folks fall into one of many shades of gray in between. Many want to define our response in a way to address the small and vocal group of anti-hunters . . . a group we will never sway or convince. Instead we ought to be tailoring our arguments to the vast majority of the folks that do not hold strident and inflexible views. The data is clear . . . while that group is prepared to approve of hunting, the motivation to hunt makes a difference. Seems to me we ought to take that information and use it and stay away from trophy hunting characterizations, as opposed to persisting and pushing them closer to or into the camp of the strident and inflexible. It has nothing to do with appeasement, it has to do with fighting but fighting in a smarter and more effective way.

While I am in 100% agreement with your post above...I want to point out the main problem...money and the ability to raise it.

The disparity between your two small groups; hunters and antihunters is money. The antihunting orgs like HSUS and Born Free are some of the richest organizations on earth and use the money to sway that huge middle ground you noted in their favor.

The amount of money those orgs raise is astonishing. In DC money is power.

The 'ONLY' hope hunters have is through equally (hopefully) successful pro-hunting orgs. I am hopeful with NRA entering the game.

Effective pro-hunting advertising/media and high-yield fundraising with effective use of the money is what it is going to take to sway the middle ground towards us. The anti's have shown us the model...but like John Wayne once said: "all it takes is money."

Just to expand on that a bit. The money problem is exacerbated by the grenade-like fragmentation of the hunting organizations. Hunter dollars are sliced and diced in so many ways that no single organization has the wherewithal to fight toe to toe with groups like PETA, HSUS, etc. We have SCI, DSC, HSC, RMEF, DU, Boone and Crockett, Pope and Young, Wild Sheep Foundation, the National Wild Turkey Federation, Quail Forever, Whitetails Unlimited, Mule Deer Foundation, Quality Deer Management Association, Shikar Safari Club . . . and the list goes on and on. Each of these groups have their own mission and infrastructure cost (which just sucks dollars out of the fight). Each is more concerned about its own survival, fundraising and mission than the collective hunting mission. If all the dollars funneled into these disparate groups were aggregated behind just a couple of groups, the latter might in fact be a force to be reckoned with politically. That will never happen. In my view that makes the NRA the only group out there to pull this off.

I've been talking about this latter point for years. So many people want to be in the fight that it dilutes the effectiveness of any single organization. God help them if they are late to the party, they will just struggle to pull membership from the existing orgs.

Although the NRA might have the infrastructure in place, it also has the stain of being a tone-deaf, white-dominated, cling to your gun, old, in-the-pocket-of-gun-companies, racist, foot-in-mouth, preaching-to-the-choir organization that is more interested in generating fear than doing anything positive for wildlife. whether true or not. Making a switch to hunting versus 2A will be seen by plenty as a desperate act of a dying and irrelevant organization throwing out a life preserver to prevent its own inevitable demise.

the problem is that for a long time we lacked the imagination and long-term thinking to build support for something we thought was a right and could never go away.

Regarding the possible NRA negatives, I put that into the category of "if you got no choice, you got no problem". There is no credible alternative . . . and any new organization merely exacerbates the existing problem as well as taking years to build up steam. The solution would be for the existing organizations to combine into a single general hunting organization . . . I give that less than a snowball's chance in hell of ever happening. The existing leaders of those organizations would never set aside their own little fiefdoms to advance a broader interest, and even if those groups were able to align through informal alliances, the effectiveness of such an alliance would be weak since with so many chiefs everything gets water-downed to the lowest common denominator. With possible warts and fleas, the NRA strikes me as the only option.

Yes, orgs will not want to coalesce into a bigger, stronger org partly because they feel that their laser-focus on a single issue would no longer exist.

The challenge for the NRA is to appeal to the "new" hunters. If you don't know who they are, get on instagram and look up the followers of First Lite, Kuiu, Sitka, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Meateater, Mountai Ops, Wilderness Athelete, and the like. You will begin to see where the current NRA appeal ends and the "new" hunter begins. There is a wide gulf between them even though they are both pro-hunting.

And if anyone answers, " I don't do instagram," you'll never see this gulf and the challenge ahead.

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
Yes, orgs will not want to coalesce into a bigger, stronger org partly because they feel that their laser-focus on a single issue would no longer exist.

The challenge for the NRA is to appeal to the "new" hunters. If you don't know who they are, get on instagram and look up the followers of First Lite, Kuiu, Sitka, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Meateater, Mountai Ops, Wilderness Athelete, and the like. You will begin to see where the current NRA appeal ends and the "new" hunter begins. There is a wide gulf between them even though they are both pro-hunting.

And if anyone answers, " I don't do instagram," you'll never see this gulf and the challenge ahead.

I strongly agree. If you live in an urban area, like I do, as most people in the US do, most of the people you know don't hunt and don't own firearms. As someone pointed out, we are ambassadors to the non-hunting and non-gun-owning public, whether we want to be or not. I am happy to feed non-hunters the meat we shoot-- and they always like it. I also am careful to point out that while we always would like to shoot a "big one," that is not at all the most important part of hunting to me and mine. Those things are time spent outdoors, time spent with family and friends doing something we love and putting meat in the freezer.

I understand the appeal of hitching our wagon to the NRA, but I guarantee you that it would do far more harm than good. If doing so is meant to change public opinion in our favor, and changing public opinion is how you get laws and policies that favor you, harnessing ourselves with an organization that has such a tremendously negative image in the eyes of the people on whom we would count for support would be far worse than what we have right now.

Agree. The NRA needs to reflect the people it wants to be members, not just stand with its arms folded waiting for the people to "wise up" and be like the NRA. Granted, the overall aim of the NRA might be commendable, but for Pete's sake, they seem to be so intransigent and monolithic in their thinking. While that seems a good thing, it does not reflect the reality of our changing society. In a nutshell, that behavior is doomed to obsolescence in my opinion. But I remain hopeful.

Easy to just say the NRA is not the solution . . . please share with us what is? Hand wringing is hardly going to advance the ball, enough hunters already doing that.

I just told you.

The NRA could be the solution if it tried to engage the already-established organizations and try to make inroads into the culture that is largely ignoring them. They could also be much more aggressive at pushing an education agenda that promotes knowledge and not just "buy a gun to protect yourself." Like it or not, the gun culture is not the same as the hunting culture.


But, a cargo ship takes a long time to turn. If sharp, thoughtful people within the NRA work their asses off with the smaller orgs and really try to connect wrh them, they will do a lot of good in tempering their bad name in those circles. This includes a heavy dose of conservation and rubbing elbows with lefties who may hunt but be against AR15s. And believe me, there are 1,000s of those. See the TRCP - not that that is their official stance, but just look at the membership/leadership.

It also takes NRA members who also support smaller groups to push their leadership to engage with the NRA as well. I see it like this: maybe the NRA isnt going to be the best front to protect hunters rights, and maybe all the smaller orgs aren't the best to fight the political 2A battles. So let each do what they do best.

Again, I invite you to look at the new hunters and ask yourself if the existing message from the NRA is working.



That's my idea. Yours?

To add: I realize the idea of fractured organizations can be problematic. But maybe it's just that we're are thinking in old models; maybe it is the way of the future? Think about the public lands issue; lots of small orgs had a big impact with chaffetz etc. Dunno. Maybe a distributed model that can tailor its message to a more local population is better than a monolith. Sounds kinda like federalism.

Just to try and keep this discussion from completely breaking down, what is the possibility of getting All of the various hunting related organization to pool their support and work together.

Honestly, what is the ultimate goal people want to achieve?

For myself it is seeing hunting remain a VIABLE activity into the 22nd. century, long after I am dead and gone, and I have no kids, but simply feel that the loss of hunting would be/will be a further loss of what being a human is.

Just my opinion, nothing more.

The hardest part in my opinion will be getting HUNTERS to set aside their personal differences/prejudices and work toward a Common Goal.

The second hardest will be getting the various organizations, to set aside their personal differences and goals and united behind a Common Goal.

The Third hardest will be getting HUNTERS to police their own actions and attitudes concerning hunting and what making the conscience decision to kill an animal and the responsibility that goes along with that choice actually means, both to the hunter themselves, but to those watching.

Its a mindset based on hysteria, and ignorance..

I wonder how many anti hunting melt downers have ever seen an old bull elk, after the rut going thu a hard winter in weakened condition, have have that hanging loose skin freeze to the ground so hard he can't get up then starvation sets in, he is getting weaker every day and begins to beat his head to the ground until he dies, or worse yet have some wolves pulling his guts out and eating them while he is still alive, or become so sick he will drown himself in a Beaver pond as a fever has set it, Even the meanest of antis should realize a bullet in the heart or brain is much cleaner than mother nature, and when this anti says "Oh my, that's natures way" lets lay them out on the ground in an Idaho winter and see how long it would take for them to beg for your to shot them.....Its all just emotion without fact, its ignorance of the Ivory tower by those whos lifestyle is a bowl of cherries and they are board and have no clue the road to hell is paved with good intentions...Life itself to these folks is just a cozy little fairytale...

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Just to try and keep this discussion from completely breaking down, what is the possibility of getting All of the various hunting related organization to pool their support and work together.

Honestly, what is the ultimate goal people want to achieve?

For myself it is seeing hunting remain a VIABLE activity into the 22nd. century, long after I am dead and gone, and I have no kids, but simply feel that the loss of hunting would be/will be a further loss of what being a human is.

Just my opinion, nothing more.

The hardest part in my opinion will be getting HUNTERS to set aside their personal differences/prejudices and work toward a Common Goal.

The second hardest will be getting the various organizations, to set aside their personal differences and goals and united behind a Common Goal.

The Third hardest will be getting HUNTERS to police their own actions and attitudes concerning hunting and what making the conscience decision to kill an animal and the responsibility that goes along with that choice actually means, both to the hunter themselves, but to those watching.

You need to pay attention to the public lands debate. People are united in a single cause, from all walks of life. They are doing everything in your post. And no single, headline organization is out front, but maybe that's a good thing?

And I don't think discussion is breaking down; it's just getting good. And I would much prefer to talk about this in person, but it is what it is.

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
I just told you.

The NRA could be the solution if it tried to engage the already-established organizations and try to make inroads into the culture that is largely ignoring them. They could also be much more aggressive at pushing an education agenda that promotes knowledge and not just "buy a gun to protect yourself." Like it or not, the gun culture is not the same as the hunting culture.


But, a cargo ship takes a long time to turn. If sharp, thoughtful people within the NRA work their asses off with the smaller orgs and really try to connect wrh them, they will do a lot of good in tempering their bad name in those circles. This includes a heavy dose of conservation and rubbing elbows with lefties who may hunt but be against AR15s. And believe me, there are 1,000s of those. See the TRCP - not that that is their official stance, but just look at the membership/leadership.

It also takes NRA members who also support smaller groups to push their leadership to engage with the NRA as well. I see it like this: maybe the NRA isnt going to be the best front to protect hunters rights, and maybe all the smaller orgs aren't the best to fight the political 2A battles. So let each do what they do best.

Again, I invite you to look at the new hunters and ask yourself if the existing message from the NRA is working.



That's my idea. Yours?

Sounds a lot like let's just keep on keeping on. My idea, get behind the one organization that has demonstrated the willingness and the ability to fight major public interest battles important to hunters and shooters with a scale and approach that has actually proven successful. That is the NRA.

As Einstein said, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." The fragmented, dispersed model is not only inefficient (diverting resources from tasks that could be proactively tied to messaging . . . to administrative efforts like each organization maintaining its own staff, infrastructure, etc.) but it has proven it is incapable of fighting the fight in today's arena . . . there simply is no scale. That said, I am a realist enough to acknowledge that I see little sign that anything is likely to be done materially different in the future. Hunters as a group seem to be largely content to either wring their hands or to just roll with the flow. Very few are prepared to really consider a tear down and rebuild of the ineffective approach we have been taking.

The term "meat hunter" has such a primitive ring to it. Why not "tofu hunter"? It sounds so much more civilized ...

https://uk.pinterest.com/pin/394065036127796667/

quote:

Sounds a lot like let's just keep on keeping on. My idea, get behind the one organization that has demonstrated the willingness and the ability to fight major public interest battles important to hunters and shooters with a scale and approach that has actually proven successful. That is the NRA.

Yes Sir!

They have a negative image only to those that are against the 2nd amendment and those that don't understand that without them we would be another Australia or England........

The tried to compromise in the past, it didn't work out to well for us in '52 or '68.

Together we stand or united we fall.


.

The NRA fights the fight in Washington better than any of the smaller organizations...the NRA is the way forward.

quote:

You need to pay attention to the public lands debate. People are united in a single cause, from all walks of life. They are doing everything in your post. And no single, headline organization is out front, but maybe that's a good thing?

Maybe you need to realize I am paying attention, and not EVERYONE concerned about Public Lands, are concerned about the same activities to be allowed on Public Land.

quote:

And I don't think discussion is breaking down; it's just getting good.

We shall see as to whether it is breaking down or not, for a discussion to be "Good", people have to LISTEN to each other and find common ground and make compromises.

As to Mr. Atkinson's comment:

quote:

I wonder how many anti hunting melt downers have ever seen an old bull elk, after the rut going thu a hard winter, in weakened condition, have his skin freeze to the ground, starvation set in, getting weaker every day and beat his head to the ground until he dies, or have some wolves pulling his guts out while he is still alive, or become so sick he will drown himself in a Beaver pond, Even the meanest of antis should realize a bullet in the heart or brain is much cleaner than mother nature, and when this anti says "Oh my, that's natures way" let lay them out on the ground in an Idaho winter and see how that goes...Its all just emotion without fact..Life itself to these folks is just a fairytale...

And THAT, is not going to change. It is their mindset, elk starving to death is "Natures Way Of Handling Things"!

To those people, they would rather see a human starve to death than an elk or deer shot to feed that human.

They do not live in the same world as normal humans, think about the picture that was posted of the PH that was killed by the Elephant, FaceBook allowed it to be posted and left on their site, but will not allow hunting pictures to be podsted and if they are they are removed.

We all view hunting and our role in it differently, and because of those personal differences and beliefs, I feel it will take a miracle to just get everyone to keep this discussion on a civil level.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
That's really the point. We tend to want to oversimplify things by breaking down the world into one of two camps, hunters and anti-hunters. Reality is that both those groups are relatively small. Most folks fall into one of many shades of gray in between. Many want to define our response in a way to address the small and vocal group of anti-hunters . . . a group we will never sway or convince. Instead we ought to be tailoring our arguments to the vast majority of the folks that do not hold strident and inflexible views. The data is clear . . . while that group is prepared to approve of hunting, the motivation to hunt makes a difference. Seems to me we ought to take that information and use it and stay away from trophy hunting characterizations, as opposed to persisting and pushing them closer to or into the camp of the strident and inflexible. It has nothing to do with appeasement, it has to do with fighting but fighting in a smarter and more effective way.

While I am in 100% agreement with your post above...I want to point out the main problem...money and the ability to raise it.

The disparity between your two small groups; hunters and antihunters is money. The antihunting orgs like HSUS and Born Free are some of the richest organizations on earth and use the money to sway that huge middle ground you noted in their favor.

The amount of money those orgs raise is astonishing. In DC money is power.

The 'ONLY' hope hunters have is through equally (hopefully) successful pro-hunting orgs. I am hopeful with NRA entering the game.

Effective pro-hunting advertising/media and high-yield fundraising with effective use of the money is what it is going to take to sway the middle ground towards us. The anti's have shown us the model...but like John Wayne once said: "all it takes is money."

Just to expand on that a bit. The money problem is exacerbated by the grenade-like fragmentation of the hunting organizations. Hunter dollars are sliced and diced in so many ways that no single organization has the wherewithal to fight toe to toe with groups like PETA, HSUS, etc. We have SCI, DSC, HSC, RMEF, DU, Boone and Crockett, Pope and Young, Wild Sheep Foundation, the National Wild Turkey Federation, Quail Forever, Whitetails Unlimited, Mule Deer Foundation, Quality Deer Management Association, Shikar Safari Club . . . and the list goes on and on. Each of these groups have their own mission and infrastructure cost (which just sucks dollars out of the fight). Each is more concerned about its own survival, fundraising and mission than the collective hunting mission. If all the dollars funneled into these disparate groups were aggregated behind just a couple of groups, the latter might in fact be a force to be reckoned with politically. That will never happen. In my view that makes the NRA the only group out there to pull this off.

That is exactly right. Every single conservation group wants a slice of your donor pie and there is only so much money to go round. The NRA is probably the closest thing we have as a catch all place to spend your money.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

You need to pay attention to the public lands debate. People are united in a single cause, from all walks of life. They are doing everything in your post. And no single, headline organization is out front, but maybe that's a good thing?

Maybe you need to realize I am paying attention, and not EVERYONE concerned about Public Lands, are concerned about the same activities to be allowed on Public Land.

quote:

And I don't think discussion is breaking down; it's just getting good.

We shall see as to whether it is breaking down or not, for a discussion to be "Good", people have to LISTEN to each other and find common ground and make compromises.

As to Mr. Atkinson's comment:

quote:

I wonder how many anti hunting melt downers have ever seen an old bull elk, after the rut going thu a hard winter, in weakened condition, have his skin freeze to the ground, starvation set in, getting weaker every day and beat his head to the ground until he dies, or have some wolves pulling his guts out while he is still alive, or become so sick he will drown himself in a Beaver pond, Even the meanest of antis should realize a bullet in the heart or brain is much cleaner than mother nature, and when this anti says "Oh my, that's natures way" let lay them out on the ground in an Idaho winter and see how that goes...Its all just emotion without fact..Life itself to these folks is just a fairytale...

And THAT, is not going to change. It is their mindset, elk starving to death is "Natures Way Of Handling Things"!

To those people, they would rather see a human starve to death than an elk or deer shot to feed that human.

They do not live in the same world as normal humans, think about the picture that was posted of the PH that was killed by the Elephant, FaceBook allowed it to be posted and left on their site, but will not allow hunting pictures to be podsted and if they are they are removed.

We all view hunting and our role in it differently, and because of those personal differences and beliefs, I feel it will take a miracle to just get everyone to keep this discussion on a civil level.

My only response to this is that from what I see of the late discussion between (mostly) Mike and myself, we have (to my mind) been civil, listened to each others' posts (by referring to them in our responses), and furthering the debate with additional/new information. If this is not "good" debate/conversation, God help us all.

And neither of you shouted, "Die heretic!", which is grossly atypical of discussion on AR.

Of course, the thread is still in play.

quote:

Originally posted by analog_peninsula:
And neither of you shouted, "Die heretic!", which is grossly atypical of discussion on AR.

Of course, the thread is still in play.

:-)