quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

Remember this was not to discuss the merits of hunting. it was discuss a strategy to preserve hunting.

But…isn't the way to preserve something to demonstrate its merits? I would posit that if you can show the merits of hunting to a wider audience you can better help to preserve it.

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
Matt, I made the comment you referred to, not Larry-he just quoted my comment In order to respond.

Here's why I think it's important: fishing is next. If the anti- groups make successful headway against hunting, fishing will be the next target. Hunters are at a disadvantage because the animals they hunt have been turned into cultural icons: Bambi, duumbo, the lion king etc. the way the public views this charismatic megafauna is different than (at least now) the way they view fish. Other than Nemo, there aren't too many famous fish, and even Nemo is not a fished species. People anthropomorphize animals such as Cecil which makes it easier for anti-hunting groups to use that as leverage. Look at the data mike mentioned, there is a 40% difference between support for food hunting and trophy hunting. Anti hunters know this, exploit this, and make headway. Once trophy hunting is taken care of, they simply go to the next type of hunting. Once hunting is done, they go to fishing, the circus, pets, leather etc etc. whether it's realistic they can penetrate that deeply into our culture is debatable, what is not debatable is the fact they will try.

So, if fishing groups run when the word hunting comes up, they need to valet park their high horse and understand that they are, somewhere along the line, next. And it's worth joining in with an army that is already heavily engaged in the war to ensure their success than to sit back and hope they win, and if they don't, have to start from zero, or even negative, which is where hunters find themselves now.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
Matt, I made the comment you referred to, not Larry-he just quoted my comment In order to respond.

Here's why I think it's important: fishing is next. If the anti- groups make successful headway against hunting, fishing will be the next target. Hunters are at a disadvantage because the animals they hunt have been turned into cultural icons: Bambi, duumbo, the lion king etc. the way the public views this charismatic megafauna is different than (at least now) the way they view fish. Other than Nemo, there aren't too many famous fish, and even Nemo is not a fished species. People anthropomorphize animals such as Cecil which makes it easier for anti-hunting groups to use that as leverage. Look at the data mike mentioned, there is a 40% difference between support for food hunting and trophy hunting. Anti hunters know this, exploit this, and make headway. Once trophy hunting is taken care of, they simply go to the next type of hunting. Once hunting is done, they go to fishing, the circus, pets, leather etc etc. whether it's realistic they can penetrate that deeply into our culture is debatable, what is not debatable is the fact they will try.

So, if fishing groups run when the word hunting comes up, they need to valet park their high horse and understand that they are, somewhere along the line, next. And it's worth joining in with an army that is already heavily engaged in the war to ensure their success than to sit back and hope they win, and if they don't, have to start from zero, or even negative, which is where hunters find themselves now.

Look it is all very valid and makes sense - but I really think you could spend YEARS trying to get the fishing groups onside and simply put ourselves further behind the 8-ball. Fishing has huge participation, much more than hunting... but for those who don't partake in both you are really pushing shit uphill to get them politically motivated alongside hunters. That has just been my experience here in Australia - but I doubt it is that much different elsewhere in the developed world. My background is in both industries, as well as the political front - so I have seen inside both sides.

quote:

There was no discussion of how hunters might unite with fishermen. The reality is that you have to walk before you can run and we have plenty to do to even get most hunters on something approaching the same page before we ever think about trying to include fishermen too.

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:
You would be surprised at how many hunters are not even members of the NRA.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:
You would be surprised at how many hunters are not even members of the NRA.

These numbers are not exact but close. There are an estimated 12-13 million hunters in the US. The NRA has approximately 5 million members and only roughly half of those members are hunters. So something like 20% of the hunters are members of the NRA. You can be disappointed in that but it also represents an opportunity.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
There was no discussion of how hunters might unite with fishermen. The reality is that you have to walk before you can run and we have plenty to do to even get most hunters on something approaching the same page before we ever think about trying to include fishermen too.

quote:

Originally posted by sdirks:
At serious risk of being flamed, I will venture my opinion that I am not real crazy about the idea of the hunting community engaging in a high-profile alliance with the NRA. Before you explode with apoplexy, hear me out.

I completely agree that the antis have gained some ground against us at least in the PR department. No need to go into the explanations of how that happened; most of us are too well aware of it. I also agree that enlisting the help of the NRA is tempting. Without a doubt they are well-organized, well-funded and can scare the Bejeezus out of many legislators. But consider this: the people whose help we need are the non-hunting public that is not anti-hunting which, I would argue, is the majority of the people in the US. We will never convince the antis that hunting is conservation. Neither do we need to convince each other that hunting needs to exist as a conservation tool, family tradition, means of obtaining healthy meat, etc. But we do need to convince the non-hunting/not anti-hunting public of these things.

The problem with the NRA is that for very many people, by some measures perhaps most people in the US, the NRA is seen as an extremist group that is in the pocket of the firearms industry. The vast majority of Americans believe we need to expand mandatory background checks; the NRA is opposed. Most Americans think tighter regulations of "assault-style weapons" is a good idea. The NRA is very vocally opposed.

My point is that as tempting as it may be to enlist the help of the NRA in our struggle to maintain our ability to hunt, I am very afraid that doing so will have more negative consequences than positive. If you don't have a lot to do in your daily life with the sorts of people we need help from-- the non-hunting folks who don't oppose hunting as long as they see it done "responsibly," whatever that might mean-- you may see help from the NRA as a Godsend. But if you spend most of your day rubbing shoulders with folks who don't hunt, fish or shoot you probably see where I'm coming from. Most people I know, including a lot of people who hunt, have a pretty negative view of the NRA. It is that reputation I fear being connected with.

Now, flame away.

quote:

Originally posted by sdirks:
At serious risk of being flamed, I will venture my opinion that I am not real crazy about the idea of the hunting community engaging in a high-profile alliance with the NRA. Before you explode with apoplexy, hear me out.

I completely agree that the antis have gained some ground against us at least in the PR department. No need to go into the explanations of how that happened; most of us are too well aware of it. I also agree that enlisting the help of the NRA is tempting. Without a doubt they are well-organized, well-funded and can scare the Bejeezus out of many legislators. But consider this: the people whose help we need are the non-hunting public that is not anti-hunting which, I would argue, is the majority of the people in the US. We will never convince the antis that hunting is conservation. Neither do we need to convince each other that hunting needs to exist as a conservation tool, family tradition, means of obtaining healthy meat, etc. But we do need to convince the non-hunting/not anti-hunting public of these things.

The problem with the NRA is that for very many people, by some measures perhaps most people in the US, the NRA is seen as an extremist group that is in the pocket of the firearms industry. The vast majority of Americans believe we need to expand mandatory background checks; the NRA is opposed. Most Americans think tighter regulations of "assault-style weapons" is a good idea. The NRA is very vocally opposed.

My point is that as tempting as it may be to enlist the help of the NRA in our struggle to maintain our ability to hunt, I am very afraid that doing so will have more negative consequences than positive. If you don't have a lot to do in your daily life with the sorts of people we need help from-- the non-hunting folks who don't oppose hunting as long as they see it done "responsibly," whatever that might mean-- you may see help from the NRA as a Godsend. But if you spend most of your day rubbing shoulders with folks who don't hunt, fish or shoot you probably see where I'm coming from. Most people I know, including a lot of people who hunt, have a pretty negative view of the NRA. It is that reputation I fear being connected with.

Now, flame away.

quote:

Originally posted by sdirks:
At serious risk of being flamed, I will venture my opinion that I am not real crazy about the idea of the hunting community engaging in a high-profile alliance with the NRA. Before you explode with apoplexy, hear me out.

I completely agree that the antis have gained some ground against us at least in the PR department. No need to go into the explanations of how that happened; most of us are too well aware of it. I also agree that enlisting the help of the NRA is tempting. Without a doubt they are well-organized, well-funded and can scare the Bejeezus out of many legislators. But consider this: the people whose help we need are the non-hunting public that is not anti-hunting which, I would argue, is the majority of the people in the US. We will never convince the antis that hunting is conservation. Neither do we need to convince each other that hunting needs to exist as a conservation tool, family tradition, means of obtaining healthy meat, etc. But we do need to convince the non-hunting/not anti-hunting public of these things.

The problem with the NRA is that for very many people, by some measures perhaps most people in the US, the NRA is seen as an extremist group that is in the pocket of the firearms industry. The vast majority of Americans believe we need to expand mandatory background checks; the NRA is opposed. Most Americans think tighter regulations of "assault-style weapons" is a good idea. The NRA is very vocally opposed.

My point is that as tempting as it may be to enlist the help of the NRA in our struggle to maintain our ability to hunt, I am very afraid that doing so will have more negative consequences than positive. If you don't have a lot to do in your daily life with the sorts of people we need help from-- the non-hunting folks who don't oppose hunting as long as they see it done "responsibly," whatever that might mean-- you may see help from the NRA as a Godsend. But if you spend most of your day rubbing shoulders with folks who don't hunt, fish or shoot you probably see where I'm coming from. Most people I know, including a lot of people who hunt, have a pretty negative view of the NRA. It is that reputation I fear being connected with.

Now, flame away.

quote:

Originally posted by sdirks:
No, I don't think either DSC or SCI is capable of or necessarily even interested in helping our cause. I would offer, however, that there are conservation organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited and RMEF, which explicitly endorse hunting as conservation and who do have large memberships. There are also organizations such as the National Wildlife Federation and the World Wildlife Fund which, while not terribly public about it, do endorse hunting as a viable conservation tool. My point is that groups such as these have a better reputation with the non-hunting people we need help from with none of the negatives that-- deserved or not!-- come with the NRA. I think those are the folks we need to publicly ally with.

quote:

Originally posted by sdirks:
Actually, WWF was one of the groups that publicly supported the black rhino hunt auctioned off at DSC last year. And NWF is supportive of hunting. The president of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, for example, is a former Wisconsin DNR secretary who is very vocal about supporting hunting as conservation.

I think that "branding" hunting as a conservation tool is what we need to do to win the hearts and minds of those who don't hunt themselves, but don't oppose hunting either.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
It is all about money. The NRA wants more members and larger PAC funds channel more money into the hands of politicians. NRA has a limited amount of influence in Washington, while SCI and DSC have none.

Unfortunately, the guys making it hard on hunters are not politicians, they are rank and file paper pushers who have infiltrated virtually every department of our government to push their political agenda. It has happened with virtually every branch of our government. This is not something that money is going to quickly fix.

In regards to our hunting rights in Africa, we are not even a no show. We have no influence and no representation in Africa. Right now, WWF is our biggest ally in maintaining hunting rights in Africa. An odd bedfellow for sure...

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
It is all about money. The NRA wants more members and larger PAC funds channel more money into the hands of politicians. NRA has a limited amount of influence in Washington, while SCI and DSC have none.

Unfortunately, the guys making it hard on hunters are not politicians, they are rank and file paper pushers who have infiltrated virtually every department of our government to push their political agenda. It has happened with virtually every branch of our government. This is not something that money is going to quickly fix.

In regards to our hunting rights in Africa, we are not even a no show. We have no influence and no representation in Africa. Right now, WWF is our biggest ally in maintaining hunting rights in Africa. An odd bedfellow for sure...

I think a lot of groups would like to have the NRA's "limited" influence.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
It is all about money. The NRA wants more members and larger PAC funds channel more money into the hands of politicians. NRA has a limited amount of influence in Washington, while SCI and DSC have none.

Unfortunately, the guys making it hard on hunters are not politicians, they are rank and file paper pushers who have infiltrated virtually every department of our government to push their political agenda. It has happened with virtually every branch of our government. This is not something that money is going to quickly fix.

In regards to our hunting rights in Africa, we are not even a no show. We have no influence and no representation in Africa. Right now, WWF is our biggest ally in maintaining hunting rights in Africa. An odd bedfellow for sure...

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by sdirks:
The problem with the NRA is that for very many people, by some measures perhaps most people in the US, the NRA is seen as an extremist group that is in the pocket of the firearms industry. The vast majority of Americans believe we need to expand mandatory background checks; the NRA is opposed. Most Americans think tighter regulations of "assault-style weapons" is a good idea. The NRA is very vocally opposed.

One issue with that analysis is that it presumes that most people have a negative impression of the NRA. That is incorrect. Among the data presented at the meeting was polling/survey data showing that the NRA is viewed favorably by ~65% of all Americans. Sometimes we all fall into the trap of believing what we hear on television and in the media. In this case, the media tries to portray the NRA as a demon, when in fact the American people see through the media's efforts and actually have a contrary view. I think the current commercials the NRA is running will only help those numbers too.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
It is all about money. The NRA wants more members and larger PAC funds channel more money into the hands of politicians. NRA has a limited amount of influence in Washington, while SCI and DSC have none.

Unfortunately, the guys making it hard on hunters are not politicians, they are rank and file paper pushers who have infiltrated virtually every department of our government to push their political agenda. It has happened with virtually every branch of our government. This is not something that money is going to quickly fix.

In regards to our hunting rights in Africa, we are not even a no show. We have no influence and no representation in Africa. Right now, WWF is our biggest ally in maintaining hunting rights in Africa. An odd bedfellow for sure...

I think a lot of groups would like to have the NRA's "limited" influence.

+1, not many groups can boast 5 million members that vote and can be quickly mobilized to pressure Congress. I wonder if Congressmen and their staff's would call the NRA's influence "limited"? I guess that is why they spend time working on their NRA legislative ratings, jump at the chance to speak at the NRA convention and other NRA events, etc. It is no accident that the media has stepped up its attacks on the NRA in the last few weeks.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Sorry, but the reality is the NRA Political Victory Fund doles out about $22 million a year on trying to get folks elected. And that's money spent at the local, state and federal level. In the scheme of things in Washington, that's not even a drop in the bucket of political influence. You could add another decimal place and it still wouldn't amount to much.

But if it makes you feel better, please believe otherwise.

As a comparison, the Clinton Foundation founded in 2001 has taken in over $1.4 Billion. And that's with a B. Sorry but the NRA doesn't play in the same league as the real influence peddlers.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Sorry, but the reality is the NRA Political Victory Fund doles out about $22 million a year on trying to get folks elected. And that's money spent at the local, state and federal level. In the scheme of things in Washington, that's not even a drop in the bucket of political influence. You could add another decimal place and it still wouldn't amount to much.

But if it makes you feel better, please believe otherwise.

As a comparison, the Clinton Foundation founded in 2001 has taken in over $1.4 Billion. And that's with a B. Sorry but the NRA doesn't play in the same league as the real influence peddlers.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Sorry, but the reality is the NRA Political Victory Fund doles out about $22 million a year on trying to get folks elected. And that's money spent at the local, state and federal level. In the scheme of things in Washington, that's not even a drop in the bucket of political influence. You could add another decimal place and it still wouldn't amount to much.

But if it makes you feel better, please believe otherwise.

As a comparison, the Clinton Foundation founded in 2001 has taken in over $1.4 Billion. And that's with a B. Sorry but the NRA doesn't play in the same league as the real influence peddlers.

Do you understand the difference between a foundation and the NRA? Hell man, I hope you are right. I will stop everything I am doing and file the paperwork to cause the IRS to investigate the Clinton Foundation. By law, the foundation cannot be involved in political issues. You comparison is an apples to oranges comparison.

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Sorry, but the reality is the NRA Political Victory Fund doles out about $22 million a year on trying to get folks elected. And that's money spent at the local, state and federal level. In the scheme of things in Washington, that's not even a drop in the bucket of political influence. You could add another decimal place and it still wouldn't amount to much.

But if it makes you feel better, please believe otherwise.

As a comparison, the Clinton Foundation founded in 2001 has taken in over $1.4 Billion. And that's with a B. Sorry but the NRA doesn't play in the same league as the real influence peddlers.

Do you understand the difference between a foundation and the NRA? Hell man, I hope you are right. I will stop everything I am doing and file the paperwork to cause the IRS to investigate the Clinton Foundation. By law, the foundation cannot be involved in political issues. You comparison is an apples to oranges comparison.

That isn't exactly true. The Clinton Foundation can lobby in limited ways according to the law (threshold would probably be pretty high given its size). All the other stuff they are doing globally on animals fits into broad philanthropic mission.

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Sorry, but the reality is the NRA Political Victory Fund doles out about $22 million a year on trying to get folks elected. And that's money spent at the local, state and federal level. In the scheme of things in Washington, that's not even a drop in the bucket of political influence. You could add another decimal place and it still wouldn't amount to much.

But if it makes you feel better, please believe otherwise.

As a comparison, the Clinton Foundation founded in 2001 has taken in over $1.4 Billion. And that's with a B. Sorry but the NRA doesn't play in the same league as the real influence peddlers.

Do you understand the difference between a foundation and the NRA? Hell man, I hope you are right. I will stop everything I am doing and file the paperwork to cause the IRS to investigate the Clinton Foundation. By law, the foundation cannot be involved in political issues. You comparison is an apples to oranges comparison.

That isn't exactly true. The Clinton Foundation can lobby in limited ways according to the law (threshold would probably be pretty high given its size). All the other stuff they are doing globally on animals fits into broad philanthropic mission.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
The Clinton Foundation hasn't exactly accounted for all their funds. In fact, most of it has gone to "operational expenses and salaries". That's an awful lot of expenses and salaries.

Point is, $22 million simply is not a lot of influence peddling when it comes to Washington politics. We (I am a life member) would like to believe otherwise, but at the end of the day, the NRA is only influencing like-minded politicians with their hands outstretched.

Ask yourself this question - How many politicians have reversed course on their anti-gun stance? Can you name one?

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Sorry, but the reality is the NRA Political Victory Fund doles out about $22 million a year on trying to get folks elected. And that's money spent at the local, state and federal level. In the scheme of things in Washington, that's not even a drop in the bucket of political influence. You could add another decimal place and it still wouldn't amount to much.

But if it makes you feel better, please believe otherwise.

As a comparison, the Clinton Foundation founded in 2001 has taken in over $1.4 Billion. And that's with a B. Sorry but the NRA doesn't play in the same league as the real influence peddlers.

Do you understand the difference between a foundation and the NRA? Hell man, I hope you are right. I will stop everything I am doing and file the paperwork to cause the IRS to investigate the Clinton Foundation. By law, the foundation cannot be involved in political issues. You comparison is an apples to oranges comparison.

That isn't exactly true. The Clinton Foundation can lobby in limited ways according to the law (threshold would probably be pretty high given its size). All the other stuff they are doing globally on animals fits into broad philanthropic mission.

http://bolderadvocacy.org/wp-c...ules-of-the-Game.pdf


Check out chapter 3.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I am not familiar with these issues, but I wonder if the distinction is between grassroots lobbying and lobbying. With lobbying being contributions to elected officials and candidates and grassroots lobbying being efforts to generate voter support. I think the discussion above was about contributions to elected officials and candidates. Just a guess.