We needed that... and hopefully more to come.

His response in USA Today a week or so ago could have been a lot better.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
His response in USA Today a week or so ago could have been a lot better.

Could you please link to that? I didn't see it.

Jeff

John does more with less than any other group out there . . . at least he is in the arena fighting the fight.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
John does more with less than any other group out there . . . at least he is in the arena fighting the fight.

Truth there.

He has my greatest admiration.

Jeff

The CSPAN interview was better than the USA Today piece, but he had a lot more time to speak. The message he gives on the interview is IMO the right message but could have been better.

His response to the first caller could have been better. He should have asked her if she ate meat - her first point was that all animals are equal. Fine. Why not ask her if she eats meat? His discussion about money contributed did not specify that the money was above and beyond trophy hunting fees. He could have asked this woman how much she has contributed to African conservation. We are getting slammed by people who say "why not just donate the money if you are so concerned with wildlife?"

Second caller:
Why do you want to kill something so beautiful? "Every animal should have a right to live." Well, what about chickens and cows? Talking about hunting as a "higher order experience" is not persuasive to the non hunter. How do we explain why we hunt? It is in our blood. We can no more change than a gay person can decide to be heterosexual. I thought he would touch on that when he went on to discuss love, but he missed that opportunity.

Third caller:
Mentioned lobbying. Mentioned a guy who has killed 293 endangered species. I would have challenged that flat out.

His comment on killing lions that prey on cattle was great. He should remind people we need to focus on facts, not emotion. His comment about cattle replacing prey animals was great - especially lions then leaving the parks to prey on cattle.

His comment on the differences between the endangered species act in the US vs Africa was excellent - a point I never thought of. Listing an animal in Africa will not set aside critical habit but instead will cause the loss of lions because the revenue from hunting will decline, lowering the value of lions.

Fourth caller
"Hunting is antiquated." "Can we develop eco tours?"

Jackson should have pointed out eco tours are focused on parks, not on remote game reserves. He could have asked "How many listeners have gone on a photo safari in the Selous or other game reserve?"

Fifth caller:
"There won't be value unless animals are killed"
Again, bring up the issue of eating meat. Bring up the issue "what are you doing?" Bring up the issue there are many things everyone does that others find morally objectionable. Keep hammering that eating animals is killing animals.

His point about the buffer zones and wanting to create more animals in those zones vs cattle was spot on, but he could have asked "How many lions have been killed this year because they killed cattle? Why no outcry for that?"

He kept hammering the issue of "if it pays it stays" but he could have used examples that common people can understand - there is no shortage of cows and pigs because we pay to eat them.

We need a response to the issue "why not just contribute the money?" Well, what are you doing?

Question: why did Palmer not know that lion was Cecil. Here is how I would answer: would an ordinary tourist in the park know the lion was Cecil? Why would a hunter outside of the park know that?

I wouldn't have said the doctor is completely innocent, esp given his prior conviction.

I too appreciate his time. I think it would be helpful if someone in his shoes went through a mock interview. We know the questions. We know the objections. We are essentially "selling" the public on the virtues of hunting, and any good salesman knows that the objections will be and how to handle them. Jackson did good, but his explanation on why he hunts (it is unexplainable) is not going to address the objections. I know this sounds weird, but I am now answering the question "How do you explain how a gay guy loves men?" "How do you explain how a mother can abort a baby?" "How do you explain why you eat meat but somehow don't consider it killing?"

I am not picking apart his arguments but rather trying to help refine the message.

Thanks to Mr.Jackson.Why is he no longer with SCI or is he?

Having given speeches and lectures I can assure you there is not one time that I wish that I could have added or redirected my comments. However, it is easy to critique after the fact but not extemporaneously.

quote:

Having given speeches and lectures I can assure you there is not one time that I wish that I could have added or redirected my comments. However, it is easy to critique after the fact but not extemporaneously.

Amen.

John is a member of SCI and one of SCI's past presidents. He attends the Wildlife legal Seminar with many of us at the convention each year.

Pretty funny watching John try to maintain his composure while listening to the callers. But CSPAN is known for that ... (and it's not only liberal callers who sometimes sound like idiots).

In fact it's so common on CSPAN that John Oliver does a segment on it called "The Most Patient Man on Television".

Link here (embed has been disabled): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wrji0XLoFU

quote:

Originally posted by Trophic-Hunter:
Pretty funny watching John try to maintain his composure while listening to the callers. But CSPAN is known for that ... (and it's not only liberal callers who sometimes sound like idiots).

In fact it's so common on CSPAN that John Oliver does a segment on it called "The Most Patient Man on Television".

Link here (embed has been disabled): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wrji0XLoFU

Found one:

Part 2

quote:

Originally posted by bwana cecil:

quote:

Having given speeches and lectures I can assure you there is not one time that I wish that I could have added or redirected my comments. However, it is easy to critique after the fact but not extemporaneously.

Amen.

Gents:

I think it is important that we all work together to refine the message to the antis. Jackson had some good points, ones that I never thought of, but one point he never really addressed is the question "why do you have to kill that lion?"

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
John does more with less than any other group out there . . . at least he is in the arena fighting the fight.

Absolutely right!

Now, has anyone heard anything from that silly organization that claims they are FIRST FOR HUNTERS??

One question I wish all hunters would ask of every person who challenges hunting would be "Who are you to judge?" And ask it every single time. In this day and age where gay marriage, abortion and so many other things conservatives find objectionable have come to the mainstream, we are often challenged with "Who are you to judge?" Well, the time has come to use that question back at those people who question hunting.

Would it not be good if someone with a facebook account?? could post this Jackson interview on one of the Cecil pages?
This interview should be stored on our computers to use for such purposes.