Mike,

Your message says a lot and is well written. In fact, I agree with most of it, because I AM A HUNTER. So as the saying goes, you're basically preaching to the choir.

Like you, I also have my own ethics. I also have a good idea of those practices that I PERSONALLY find to be less sporting and sometimes unnecessary.

When I get more time I'll be starting a thread in the Amercian Big Game section that will reveal some of them but also have some humor included to lighten the mood a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

Now, let's hear all the rationalizations and justifications.

. . . I will leave that playground for you. Go for it.

But, to answer your question about someone hunting a dozen wild lions . . . assuming the lions were hunted appropriately and that quota existed for the lions, I applaud that person. Such a person has contributed more to conservation through the fees they have paid to hunt those lions than the vast majority of other African hunters or conservationists. I would have no problem defending the actions of that hunter to any non-hunter and frankly I would much prefer to defend that scenario versus a single canned lion. Hope you enjoyed the tap dance.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:

But when certain types of hunting are seen as nothing but blood lust and there is NO reasonable way to defend them, it is our right to raise an objection, because at that point your actions are affecting me.

Precisely.

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

quote:

Originally posted by rxgremlin:
I'll humor you. Why do those of us who have hunted Africa talk a lot about hunting bans here?

1. This is the Africa Hunting Forum!
2. The USFWS ruling in the news lately are bans
on importations from Africa.
3. Most of the controversies involving hunting getting public attention concern animals from Africa (rhino, lion and elephant)
4. Most of the social media attacks on hunters are because they hunted an African animal.

Do you see the common theme here? The reality is that the general public could care less about shooting deer over feeders in Texas. They do care about Cecil, ivory and rhino poaching. And invariably as hunters we get described as rich, white, fat American killers in the media. Now do you understand why I care about our image?

I can guarantee that if someone makes a post on Facebook about killing 15 African lions, (s)he will be drawn and quartered, even though every kill was legally done. And if baiting and/or spotlighting is mentioned, the uproar will be even greater.

Said that on FB many times....what's your point? Should I shy away from what I do / who I am, so not to offend the world of FB? Ya...not gonna happen!!!

All baiting and spotlighting for lion or leopard in Africa should be banned. And of course, this includes any pre-baiting that's done before a client's plane touches down. As someone mentioned when denigrating hunting whitetails over feeders, "get your ass out and hunt."

Who said that Tony?

Mike,

Another thing I should have mentioned:

I doubt you'll ever see me offer much support for SCI. I was a member many, many years ago, personally knew McElroy and his wife Kathie in the early 1980s and even wrote articles and sold photos to Safari magazine when Sally Antrobus was the editor back then. The big turn-off for me was the selling of various awards.

Ironically, the most obnoxious hunter I've ever had to deal was a guy that was at the same lodge in 2003 with my hunting partner and me in RSA. We were sitting in the bar the first night when he walked in and sat with us. All we heard was how many SCI record-book critters he wanted to kill with his handgun while he was there so he could get the various awards. That scenario repeated itself a couple more times -- until we made a concerted effort to avoid him altogether.

Now, a funny tale concerning SCI. Way back in the 1990s, Jim Zumbo and I decided to go to the auction at the annual convention. Instead of sitting down, we stayed at the back of the room against the wall. We both wore cowboy hats.

So the guy gets up there and explains that the next hunt up for bid is for some kind of exotic looking, curly horned sheep in the mountains of some far-off, weirdly spelled country. It would be the first hunt of its kind and would obviously be a world record.

The bidding opened and kept climbing rather quickly until it was in the $75K range or so. At that point, I raised my hat to brush my hair back. Bad move. It was the equivalent of raising my hand.

The auctioneer immediately said, "We have $xxK from the gentleman in the cowboy hat in the back." He was looking at us.

I asked Jim if that was his bid. He said no. Fortunately, before I had to protest, someone outbid me. Thankfully, I didn't have to explain how I spent thousands of dollars we didn't have to my wife. The hunt eventually sold for more than $200K.

quote:

My ethics are my ethics, do what you want until your actions starts imposing on my rights and that is when I have an obligation to speak.

But the point you miss is that BOTH Jines and Dogcat openly admit that they DO want to impose "Their Ethics" on other hunters, that is the only reason I have remained so adamant with my responses.

quote:

I will consider myself an invited guest of the landowner, seeking his permission, and so conducting myself that I may be welcome in the future.

I will obey the rules of safe gun handling and will courteously but firmly insist that others who hunt with me do the same.

I will obey all game laws and regulations, and will insist that my companions do likewise.

I will do my best to acquire those marksmanship and hunting skills, which insure clean, sportsmanlike kills.

I will support conservation efforts, which can assure good hunting for the future generations of Americans. I will pass along to younger hunters the attitudes and skills essential to a true outdoor sportsman.

Notice at No Point in the above is ANYTHING mentioned about ETHICS.

Until or unless ALL hunters realize and admit that We DO NOT share a "Universal Set Of Personal Ethics" and some hunters appear to be interested in forcing their ethics on everyone else and openly admitting that they support the closure of Legal Forms of hunting, because they believe they are not ethical, the infighting Will Not Stop.

Wow...I took the AirStream and the kids, went down and camped on Padre Island and fished the Laguna Madre a few days and the thread doubled in size.

I just finished reading all of the posts.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Rick, in addition to responding to the comment on CITES above, I neglected to ask, why hasn't SCI adopted, and would SCI ever consider adopting, Principles of Fair Chase along the lines of those promulgated by The Boone and Crockett Club?

THE FAIR CHASE HUNTER:

• Knows and obeys the law, and insists others do as well
• Understands that it is not only about just what is legal, but also what is honorable and ethical
• Defines "unfair advantage" as when the game does not have reasonable chance of escape
• Cares about and respects all wildlife and the ecosystems that support them, which includes making full use of game animals taken
• Measures success not in the quantity of game taken, but by the quality of the chase
• Embraces the "no guarantees" nature of hunting
• Uses technology in a way that does not diminish the importance of developing skills as a hunter or reduces hunting to just shooting
• Knows his or her limitations, and stretches the stalk not the shot
• Takes pride in the decisions he or she makes in the field and takes full responsibility for his or her actions

[Boone and Crockett Club Principles of Fair Chase]

Rick,
In addition to Mike Jine's questions above...I would also like to ask why SCI decided NOT to endorse The Lion Conservation Task Force, Inc. - Definition of a Huntable Male Lion?

I would argue that had SCI adopted that definition as 'a guideline' to the acceptable male lion to take...that Panthera and Craig Packer would have lobbied against the uplist to threatened under the ESA and the initial USF&WS lion import suspension would likely have never occurred.

Had the initial lion import suspension not occurred...the whole chain of events leading to the ivory import suspension would likely not have occurred either.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Rick, in addition to responding to the comment on CITES above, I neglected to ask, why hasn't SCI adopted, and would SCI ever consider adopting, Principles of Fair Chase along the lines of those promulgated by The Boone and Crockett Club?

THE FAIR CHASE HUNTER:

• Knows and obeys the law, and insists others do as well
• Understands that it is not only about just what is legal, but also what is honorable and ethical
• Defines "unfair advantage" as when the game does not have reasonable chance of escape
• Cares about and respects all wildlife and the ecosystems that support them, which includes making full use of game animals taken
• Measures success not in the quantity of game taken, but by the quality of the chase
• Embraces the "no guarantees" nature of hunting
• Uses technology in a way that does not diminish the importance of developing skills as a hunter or reduces hunting to just shooting
• Knows his or her limitations, and stretches the stalk not the shot
• Takes pride in the decisions he or she makes in the field and takes full responsibility for his or her actions

[Boone and Crockett Club Principles of Fair Chase]

Rick,
In addition to Mike Jine's questions above...I would also like to ask why SCI decided NOT to endorse The Lion Conservation Task Force, Inc. - Definition of a Huntable Male Lion?

I would argue that had SCI adopted that definition as 'a guideline' to the acceptable male lion to take...that Panthera and Craig Packer would have lobbied against the uplist to threatened under the ESA and the initial USF&WS lion import suspension would likely have never occurred.

Had the initial lion import suspension not occurred...the whole chain of events leading to the ivory import suspension would likely not have occurred either.

Lane,

I never understood why you guys never persevered and gave up so easily? You should have hammered down on that door till it gave in.

Now you speak of ifs and what could have been.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Rick, in addition to responding to the comment on CITES above, I neglected to ask, why hasn't SCI adopted, and would SCI ever consider adopting, Principles of Fair Chase along the lines of those promulgated by The Boone and Crockett Club?

THE FAIR CHASE HUNTER:

• Knows and obeys the law, and insists others do as well
• Understands that it is not only about just what is legal, but also what is honorable and ethical
• Defines "unfair advantage" as when the game does not have reasonable chance of escape
• Cares about and respects all wildlife and the ecosystems that support them, which includes making full use of game animals taken
• Measures success not in the quantity of game taken, but by the quality of the chase
• Embraces the "no guarantees" nature of hunting
• Uses technology in a way that does not diminish the importance of developing skills as a hunter or reduces hunting to just shooting
• Knows his or her limitations, and stretches the stalk not the shot
• Takes pride in the decisions he or she makes in the field and takes full responsibility for his or her actions

[Boone and Crockett Club Principles of Fair Chase]

Rick,
In addition to Mike Jine's questions above...I would also like to ask why SCI decided NOT to endorse The Lion Conservation Task Force, Inc. - Definition of a Huntable Male Lion?

I would argue that had SCI adopted that definition as 'a guideline' to the acceptable male lion to take...that Panthera and Craig Packer would have lobbied against the uplist to threatened under the ESA and the initial USF&WS lion import suspension would likely have never occurred.

Had the initial lion import suspension not occurred...the whole chain of events leading to the ivory import suspension would likely not have occurred either.

Lane,

I never understood why you guys never persevered and gave up so easily? You should have hammered down on that door till it gave in.

Now you speak of ifs and what could have been.

Andrew,
You can verify this with Aaron and some other non-AR people I can give you as reference.

We tried damn hard. SCI and SCI-Foundation both gave us the run around...actually lied to us at times. They would tell us they had it under advisement and that the board or the officers were going to meet about it. Then they would avoid talking to us for a while. This went on until the lion was up-listed to threatened and the import suspension started.

With the rejection by SCI Colleen Begg withdrew support and Luke Hunter of Panthera told us he was unsure how long he could keep the support of his organization.

They looked at it as a slap in the face to reasonableness.

The failure of SCI to adopt the huntable lion definition had far reaching consequences.

The PR disaster of the “Cecil the Lion” incident would have been avoided if the hunting community had a credible response. There was no defense to Cecil presented by SCI or any hunting organization...simply because they had none.

As a consequence hunters and hunting as a whole were crucified by the ensuing social media onslaught.

What good does it do to hammer at any door when those that closed it are only interested in what they believe is Right???????

While waiting to see if Rick will respond to our questions and maybe a DSC person to chime in on adopting a B&C type code of fairchase...

...maybe we could get the thread back going on how to improve our image and standing in the community and teach the public about the conservation benefits of hunting.

Ideas to move forward with? MikeJ? MikeB? Jim? Larry? RX? Aaron? Anyone/all???

Lane,

Thanks for trying to get this thread back on track.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. The movie Trophy really got me thinking about how the world sees us as hunters. The truth is that I couldn't argue much with what I saw on the screen. Hunting is not a black and white issue. The film reflects this fact and we have to accept that not everything in the hunting world is positive.

I have always felt that we as hunters can and have been great advocates for wildlife. That has been proven objectively time and time again. We can also be our own worst enemies. The movie reminded me of that when I saw the "croc shooter" play right into the stereotypes that so many people have of us. I felt indignation at the thought of being lumped into the same group as him and I hated being judged by the lowest common denominator.

After the SCI convention I was invited to share some of my thoughts about the organization. I wrote a letter to Paul Babaz outlining my concerns. It was difficult to write this letter not because I had little to say but because I had to pick and choose from a host of problems I felt needed to be addressed. I won't repeat myself by going into details but any AR forum member can send me a PM with their e-mail and I will be happy to send a copy to them.

The question remains, what do we do about it? I think that we need to have answers both as individuals and as a community. And I feel that our message needs to be both clear and consistent with what we practice. We have gotten bogged down in this discussion talking about ethics and hunting methods. Let's remember ladies and gentlemen, the battle isn't here on an Internet forum, the battle is out there in the real world. This debate about hunting isn't an abstraction; there are real life consequences for both human beings and animals.

My personal belief is that as an individuals we need to remember that in this modern age we are constantly being scrutinized. So assume that every post on this forum (or any other), every photo you send and any comment you make on social media will be seen by someone that could use it against us. If you choose to post something make sure that it reflects positively on all of us as hunters. If you can't defend it; that post, photo or comment shouldn't be made. Yes, we all have rights under the First Amendment but we are trying to win the hearts and minds of people.

Acting as individuals we should be actively promoting our cause of hunting. This can mean personally taking someone out hunting or shooting or donating your time/money to people and organizations that you believe in and that support us. We can all act as ambassadors to this sport by explaining to people how our efforts preserve wilderness and wildlife. This can help us tremendously in both attracting new members and promoting the sport we love.

Finally as individuals it is well within our power to let people and organizations what you think. If you see something that is positive, let them know! We all like to be appreciated and supported. Conversely if you don't like something you see on a hunting show let the network or the producers know why you don't like it. We should all be able accept some constructive criticism.

As for what we can do collectively, lets reach out to the organizations that represent us.

I asked Saeed for his permission to invite people from SCI to come and post here. And I'm glad that people like Paul and Rick have shown up. That's a good start and I encourage others from DSC, HSC, RMEF etc. to let us know you are here. Tell us that you have heard our concerns and how you plan to spread our message. Tell us specifically what projects you are working on and what goals you hope to achieve.

Remember, we have a great story to tell. We have facts on our side and we have people committed to wildlife who ready to help.

Let us make a start by having an honest discussion about our image problem and let's be prepared to rethink how we do things.

Who would like to speak first?

Couple of thoughts Lane.

One, as mentioned above, I think it would be worthwhile for organizations like SCI and DSC to adopt "Codes of Conduct" that describe the principles that hunters should aspire to in participating in the sport, something akin to the Boone and Crockett principles. Ideally, the organizations would collectively adopt a unified set of principles.

Two, once a month or perhaps once every two months, SCI or DSC should send or email members "fast facts" that describe a specific way in which hunters and hunting contribute to conservation. I am talking about something that would be short and sweet, four to six bullet points max. Bullet points would be loaded with factual information and short on narrative. Give it to members in wallet cards or printable wallet cards. Something members can keep with them and use when talking to others or to even give to others. It needs to be presented in a manner that is easy to digest and use . . . use graphs or charts where possible. Make the cards about hunting all over, one about North America, one about Africa, something about deer hunting, etc. For example, take the discussion of loss of habitat above, give members a wallet card that says:

* The greatest threat to African wildlife today is the loss of habitat due to population growth.
* From 1950 to today the population of Africa has doubled to more than 1 billion people.
* Between now and 2050, the population of Africa is expected to more than double again to almost 2.5 billion people.
* Wildlife habitat is being lost in Africa to population expansion at a rate of ___ acres a [year].
* Hunting directly contributes to the preservation of more than ___ million acres of wildlife habitat in Africa annually.
* Without the revenue from hunting, wildlife habitat and the wildlife living in that habitat in Africa will be lost forever.

Politicians use talking points in campaign to focus on topical issues and keep everyone on message. Hunters should do the same. Hunters are great and passionate advocates, they just need the information to share with others. Give it to them regularly and not buried in newsletter or on some website but in form that they can read, understand and use.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

My ethics are my ethics, do what you want until your actions starts imposing on my rights and that is when I have an obligation to speak.

But the point you miss is that BOTH Jines and Dogcat openly admit that they DO want to impose "Their Ethics" on other hunters, that is the only reason I have remained so adamant with my responses.

quote:

I will consider myself an invited guest of the landowner, seeking his permission, and so conducting myself that I may be welcome in the future.

I will obey the rules of safe gun handling and will courteously but firmly insist that others who hunt with me do the same.

I will obey all game laws and regulations, and will insist that my companions do likewise.

I will do my best to acquire those marksmanship and hunting skills, which insure clean, sportsmanlike kills.

I will support conservation efforts, which can assure good hunting for the future generations of Americans. I will pass along to younger hunters the attitudes and skills essential to a true outdoor sportsman.

Notice at No Point in the above is ANYTHING mentioned about ETHICS.

Until or unless ALL hunters realize and admit that We DO NOT share a "Universal Set Of Personal Ethics" and some hunters appear to be interested in forcing their ethics on everyone else and openly admitting that they support the closure of Legal Forms of hunting, because they believe they are not ethical, the infighting Will Not Stop.

Nor should it. Things/beliefs/practices change as the ethics of the situation are called to account. Why do you think wholesale slaughter of bison or passenger pigeons was stopped? The passenger numbered over 5 billion, bison over 600 million. They were viewed as “ inexhaustible” and hunted to extinction and near extinction. Ethics drove early conservationists to fight that practice. It was legal right up to the last pigeon.

We can discuss “legal” forever, but ethics and moral code or compass drive what is or is not legal.

Should baiting of whitetail deer be banned? In my opinion, yes. It is not hunting. It violates the concept of fair chase. Waterfowl baiting was banned a long time ago. Deer baiting should follow.

Yes, Crazy, I know this flies all over you - but you should at least look at this subjectively and quit flying the “ I will do it because it is legal flag”.

Rx & MikeJ,
All of those are great ideas.

The question I really have though is how do get those ideas to fruition? Paul and Rick have made posts...but they have not answered questions.

We (hunters) are already behind the 8-ball. We need new plans working yesterday. I believe that we must work through the orgs. We don’t have time to organize a new one.

How do we push the agenda with them? Should we organize a “think tank” amongst ourselves, put together some plans/suggestions, and then organize a meeting with the orgs EOs?

Action plans are what we need...IMHO.

Lane,

Yes you are right we need an action plan. My last post was just laying out some thoughts to get the conversation back on track.

We need to work with the established organizations at least to start.

Maybe a "working group" is a good idea and I will volunteer to help with that.

As far as Mike Jines idea goes about getting periodic updates about what is going on in the hunting world, I support that too.

. . . I am reminded of the old adage . . . you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

I (together with three other AR members) have corresponded by letter with Paul previously. We outlined a number of very specific changes we felt were necessary for SCI to actually be effective as an organization for hunters. We have Karl Evans, Scott Tobermann, Dave Fulson and other DSC leaders that are members of AR. If either SCI or DSC were interested in ideas from members on how to be more effective with messaging . . . perhaps they would ask members for such ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . I am reminded of the old adage . . . you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

I (together with three other AR members) have corresponded by letter with Paul previously. We outlined a number of very specific changes we felt were necessary for SCI to actually be effective as an organization for hunters. We have Karl Evans, Scott Tobermann, Dave Fulson and other DSC leaders that are members of AR. If either SCI or DSC were interested in ideas from members on how to be more effective with messaging . . . perhaps they would ask members for such ideas.

You remind me of the LCTF days Mike...your words of wisdom above ring loud with me and they “were” so true.

quote:

Originally posted by rxgremlin:
Lane,

Yes you are right we need an action plan. My last post was just laying out some thoughts to get the conversation back on track.

We need to work with the established organizations at least to start.

Maybe a "working group" is a good idea and I will volunteer to help with that.

As far as Mike Jines idea goes about getting periodic updates about what is going on in the hunting world, I support that too.

I will volunteer for a “working group” as well...I think it is the only way to push the agenda.

quote:

The greatest threat to African wildlife today is the loss of habitat due to population growth.
* From 1950 to today the population of Africa has doubled to more than 1 billion people.
* Between now and 2050, the population of Africa is expected to more than double again to almost 2.5 billion people.
* Wildlife habitat is being lost in Africa to population expansion at a rate of ___ acres a [year].
* Hunting directly contributes to the preservation of more than ___ million acres of wildlife habitat in Africa annually.
* Without the revenue from hunting, wildlife habitat and the wildlife living in that habitat in Africa will be lost forever.

It would be a good idea if every hunter understand, memorize, copy and save this on their computer.It should be used whenever and by whoever they are confronted about African hunting and its role in conservation.

This too.

THE FAIR CHASE HUNTER:

• Knows and obeys the law, and insists others do as well
• Understands that it is not only about just what is legal, but also what is honorable and ethical
• Defines "unfair advantage" as when the game does not have reasonable chance of escape
• Cares about and respects all wildlife and the ecosystems that support them, which includes making full use of game animals taken
• Measures success not in the quantity of game taken, but by the quality of the chase
• Embraces the "no guarantees" nature of hunting
• Uses technology in a way that does not diminish the importance of developing skills as a hunter or reduces hunting to just shooting
• Knows his or her limitations, and stretches the stalk not the shot
• Takes pride in the decisions he or she makes in the field and takes full responsibility for his or her actions

[Boone and Crockett Club Principles of Fair Chase]

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Couple of thoughts Lane.

One, as mentioned above, I think it would be worthwhile for organizations like SCI and DSC to adopt "Codes of Conduct" that describe the principles that hunters should aspire to in participating in the sport, something akin to the Boone and Crockett principles. Ideally, the organizations would collectively adopt a unified set of principles.

Two, once a month or perhaps once every two months, SCI or DSC should send or email members "fast facts" that describe a specific way in which hunters and hunting contribute to conservation. I am talking about something that would be short and sweet, four to six bullet points max. Bullet points would be loaded with factual information and short on narrative. Give it to members in wallet cards or printable wallet cards. Something members can keep with them and use when talking to others or to even give to others. It needs to be presented in a manner that is easy to digest and use . . . use graphs or charts where possible. Make the cards about hunting all over, one about North America, one about Africa, something about deer hunting, etc. For example, take the discussion of loss of habitat above, give members a wallet card that says:

* The greatest threat to African wildlife today is the loss of habitat due to population growth.
* From 1950 to today the population of Africa has doubled to more than 1 billion people.
* Between now and 2050, the population of Africa is expected to more than double again to almost 2.5 billion people.
* Wildlife habitat is being lost in Africa to population expansion at a rate of ___ acres a [year].
* Hunting directly contributes to the preservation of more than ___ million acres of wildlife habitat in Africa annually.
* Without the revenue from hunting, wildlife habitat and the wildlife living in that habitat in Africa will be lost forever.

Politicians use talking points in campaign to focus on topical issues and keep everyone on message. Hunters should do the same. Hunters are great and passionate advocates, they just need the information to share with others. Give it to them regularly and not buried in newsletter or on some website but in form that they can read, understand and use.

Mike,
What would your opinion be of an app that provides that kind of information? The app info can be easily updated and it is at the fingertips of all hunters with a smartphone.

I think an app would be fine but I think hard copy would be good too. The fact is that many fellow hunters are not as tech savvy as others. I also think some of us pay more attention to something written versus electronic. That's part of the problem now, a lot of information is available on line but who has time to dig around exploring for it on websites that are not particularly well designed in the first place.

quote:

Ethics drove early conservationists to fight that practice.

No they didn't, by the time "Ethics" entered the picture it was already too late for the Passenger Pigeon, and the folks that helped save buffalo were those that helped get them into the situation they were in.

People like Charles Goodnight and Michael Pablo worked at saving the buffalo and it was over Ethical Considerations!

Every hear or read of William T. Hornaday? He was Americas leading zoologist in the late 1800's/early 1900's and nothing kept him from going into what is now Yellowstone NP, and collecting a half dozen of the remaining buffalo for museum specimens.

The preservation of all American Species had less to do with ethics than with the far sightedness of sportsman realizing that some forms of "Hunting/Shooting were too effective" and if some forms were not stopped many species would go extinct, but they were reasonable with their actions.

Why is it "Ethical" to decoy waterfowl, is that not giving the hunter an unfair advantage?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I think an app would be fine but I think hard copy would be good too. The fact is that many fellow hunters are not as tech savvy as others. I also think some of us pay more attention to something written versus electronic. That's part of the problem now, a lot of information is available on line but who has time to dig around exploring for it on websites that are not particularly well designed in the first place.

An app, if designed correctly, could make getting current data easier than reading an e-mail.

I would love to see the NRA through its hunting arm, DSC, Rockey Moutain Elk, DSC and whoever else fund a college barnstorming tour with Dr. Packer, Ivan Carter, some good state biologist, maybe a few game Department guys from Africa/Alaska, the makers of Trophy, and book lectures at schools like University of Houston, University of Kentucky, Indiana University, Aurburn, and Texas Tech.

This would require addressing some of the ethical issues especially with canned, pen raised hunting. And lack of transparency from African nation states when it comes to game numbers/concentration.

Before, Dr. Lane told us about Taniznia professional hunters and government throw a fit about having to be transparent with lion. I questioned if we could trust Zimbabwe to count their elephants.

The U.S. is the market and if the market US demands such transparency then the seller must move or continue to loose the market.

Another option, if I was organized hunting(NRA, DSC, SCI, or whoever) I would hire the folks who did Trophy to follow a good and reputable outfitter like Buzz Charlton and show what it takes to make an area vialble for game. How hunting elephant and lion should be done. How hunting those animals pays for habbitat (not stock yard or ponds) for lesser species.

Then sell it to History Channel, Fox, CNN, iTunes, anyone. But for heaven sakes do not put it on the Outdoor Channel or Sportsman.

A convention was held in London in 1900 that set a standard of hunting ethics very similar to Boone and Crocket ethics for Africa and the colonial world. Lord Delamer shepherd through game reserves funded through hunting as a means of setting aside buffer habbitat. It was a multinational convention that listed game into schedules and prescrib d hunting and methods for that schedule.

Crazyhorse hunters did have a universally set of ethics. Game laws across tis country were based on Boone and Crocket ethic standard coming out of costal expansion.

Yes, money and hunting business has driven an erosion of those laws. Your state when it comes to hunting is very much like California or New York when it comes to other legislation. Texas sets the tone other states either follow or push back against.

I am not sure about the people who have been leading us up to now.Seems like we are failing to me.It could be best if they were to step aside and let others lead.I am not crazy about people who are trying to become renowned conservationists and represent us hunters but have questionable characters to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I am not sure about the people who have been leading us up to now.Seems like we are failing to me.It could be best if they were to step aside and let others lead.I am not crazy about people who are trying to become renowned conservationists and represent us hunters but have questionable characters to begin with.

Very true of the organization which is supposed to be in the forefront for us as hunters.

They have not just failed, but failed MISERABLY so far.

Their main concern was glorifying the ME ME ME crowd, that they have lost any common sense.

But, Seeing that they have new men at the top, who at least seem to be trying their best to correct this direction, I wish them the best.

WE will just have to wait and see - hopefully not too long that the promising talk is forgotten.

quote:

Another option, if I was organized hunting(NRA, DSC, SCI, or whoever) I would hire the folks who did Trophy to follow a good and reputable outfitter like Buzz Charlton and show what it takes to make an area vialble for game. How hunting elephant and lion should be done. How hunting those animals pays for habbitat (not stock yard or ponds) for lesser species.

Interesting. We do have the 'Conservation Imperitive' and 'Conservation force' to work with. The former are producing short films. Rather don't reinvent the wheel but work with those who are noted and respected.

John at Conservation Force...while hugely important...pursues things through the legal channels and I am grateful for the work he does.

However...I am interested in the public relations/political/scientific community side of things.

1) Getting scientists back supporting hunting as conservation
2) Getting the general public to view hunters as conservationists
3) Through the above 2...get legislators listening to us and advocating for hunting as conservation

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I would love to see the NRA through its hunting arm, DSC, Rockey Moutain Elk, DSC and whoever else fund a college barnstorming tour with Dr. Packer, Ivan Carter, some good state biologist, maybe a few game Department guys from Africa/Alaska, the makers of Trophy, and book lectures at schools like University of Houston, University of Kentucky, Indiana University, Aurburn, and Texas Tech.

This would require addressing some of the ethical issues especially with canned, pen raised hunting. And lack of transparency from African nation states when it comes to game numbers/concentration.

Before, Dr. Lane told us about Taniznia professional hunters and government throw a fit about having to be transparent with lion. I questioned if we could trust Zimbabwe to count their elephants.

The U.S. is the market and if the market US demands such transparency then the seller must move or continue to loose the market.

Another option, if I was organized hunting(NRA, DSC, SCI, or whoever) I would hire the folks who did Trophy to follow a good and reputable outfitter like Buzz Charlton and show what it takes to make an area vialble for game. How hunting elephant and lion should be done. How hunting those animals pays for habbitat (not stock yard or ponds) for lesser species.

Then sell it to History Channel, Fox, CNN, iTunes, anyone. But for heaven sakes do not put it on the Outdoor Channel or Sportsman.

A convention was held in London in 1900 that set a standard of hunting ethics very similar to Boone and Crocket ethics for Africa and the colonial world. Lord Delamer shepherd through game reserves funded through hunting as a means of setting aside buffer habbitat. It was a multinational convention that listed game into schedules and prescrib d hunting and methods for that schedule.

Crazyhorse hunters did have a universally set of ethics. Game laws across tis country were based on Boone and Crocket ethic standard coming out of costal expansion.

Yes, money and hunting business has driven an erosion of those laws. Your state when it comes to hunting is very much like California or New York when it comes to other legislation. Texas sets the tone other states either follow or push back against.

I am not sure how much I can say at the moment. There is a series being filmed that will show the conservation side of hunting. It is in the works right now.

A step in the right direction for sure...but...it will be the public relations campaign mounted after the airing of said films and the non-adversarial engagement with the scientific community that wins the battle in the end.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Couple of thoughts Lane.

One, as mentioned above, I think it would be worthwhile for organizations like SCI and DSC to adopt "Codes of Conduct" that describe the principles that hunters should aspire to in participating in the sport, something akin to the Boone and Crockett principles. Ideally, the organizations would collectively adopt a unified set of principles.

Two, once a month or perhaps once every two months, SCI or DSC should send or email members "fast facts" that describe a specific way in which hunters and hunting contribute to conservation. I am talking about something that would be short and sweet, four to six bullet points max. Bullet points would be loaded with factual information and short on narrative. Give it to members in wallet cards or printable wallet cards. Something members can keep with them and use when talking to others or to even give to others. It needs to be presented in a manner that is easy to digest and use . . . use graphs or charts where possible. Make the cards about hunting all over, one about North America, one about Africa, something about deer hunting, etc. For example, take the discussion of loss of habitat above, give members a wallet card that says:

* The greatest threat to African wildlife today is the loss of habitat due to population growth.
* From 1950 to today the population of Africa has doubled to more than 1 billion people.
* Between now and 2050, the population of Africa is expected to more than double again to almost 2.5 billion people.
* Wildlife habitat is being lost in Africa to population expansion at a rate of ___ acres a [year].
* Hunting directly contributes to the preservation of more than ___ million acres of wildlife habitat in Africa annually.
* Without the revenue from hunting, wildlife habitat and the wildlife living in that habitat in Africa will be lost forever.

Politicians use talking points in campaign to focus on topical issues and keep everyone on message. Hunters should do the same. Hunters are great and passionate advocates, they just need the information to share with others. Give it to them regularly and not buried in newsletter or on some website but in form that they can read, understand and use.

If I can lend a hand on this, I am in.
We, as a group of hunters AND conservationists, have too much at stake. There are various groups that do what you all are suggestiong - Boone and Crockett is a very solid, behind the scenes outfit with a solid resume of scientific work to back what we are trying to do.

Peter Flack posed these same ideas over the last few years on his blog but was back-stabbed by the South African caged lion/high fenced/unethical group that only see dead animals as a profit item while contributing very little to bigger problems.

NRA gets "it" and does a great job of getting their agenda in front of those that need to see the facts.

I suggest DSC and SCI are doing good things, but they really do not want to get into the fight and take "hits". NRA is fearless on that front. B&C will not get political but has the best science and ethical positions I have seen.

The reality is that fighting a public relations campaign in the social media age is not something new. There are people that know how to do it and do it effectively. I would imagine that it involves a number of steps such as survey and focus group work on the front end to understand what messages resonate and what messages do not, then there would be the packaging of the messages, etc. Since DSC, SCI, RMEF, DU, WTF, etc. all share a similar interest in hunting broadly, even though they are unlikely to put their own self interests aside to truly work together, could not they at least come together to participate in funding such an effort with the results to be shared with each group participating in the funding? What gets in the way . . . I suspect that each one has a firm that purports to know how to do public relations work that has their ear and tells them they can do it . . . parochial interests get in the way. So we are left with repeating the same thing and hoping for a different result. Einstein had a word for that . . .

My point on the fast facts was simply, you have an army of available messengers in the field already, your members. Arm them with information that is simple, usable and punchy. Many want to help. They have friends, they talk to coworkers, they go to parties, etc. and have lots of opportunities to share information. Give them the tools to do so to ensure that the message is on point, accurate and consistent. Burying information in newsletters or on websites, sending folks full page narrative documents will not get it done. The members of these organizations want to help, the organizations need to help the members do so.

For those unwilling to open their eyes and minds things are not going to change and the lines of division are only going to continue to grow.

The only people that care anything about "Hunters Ethics" are only a portion of overall hunter numbers.

Non-Hunters do not care, all anyone that is opposed to hunting is focused on is that a species is being killed, purely for the gratification of the hunter.

The animal or bird being killed, is not being killed to protect the hunter or his family! It is not being killed to keep the hunter or his family from starving! It is being killed because the hunter just wants to kill it, and that is the base concept most of the folks that oppose hunting look at.

The Anti's aren't even part of the equation, they do not care about the animals, they simply want to control other peoples lives.

I believe all hunters support any/all conservation efforts whether they are directed at species that are hunted or just wildlife in general, because conservation work even for just one species helps other species in the affected area.

Instead, as can be seen from the various discussions on here, some hunters honestly believe to save the type of hunting they enjoy, Legally sanctioned/authorized/approved hunting methods that numbers wise, more hunters participate in, should be outlawed to hopefully sway Public Opinion and keep their preferred form of hunting viable.

It is really sad that one group of hunters does not embrace the concept of keeping hunting of ANY kind viable, requires NUMBERS of LICENSED hunters in the field.

Hunting in Africa, especially for Lion/Elephant and a few other species, days are numbered and I believe everyone sees that. There are too many issues on too many fronts, especially when it concerns the two species listed above. If nothing else the growing instability of the governments of the various nations will end up making simply being an American tourist an unhealthy situation in some of those countries.

Sad that things have reached this point, what is sadder is that one group of hunters are openly willing to admit that they support the closiure of Legal hunting methods in hopes of saving their preferred form of hunting, supposedly due to their Higher Standard of Ethics.

We complain about how much our world has changed for the worse, yet some of us are ready to throw other hunters under the bus in the bel.ief they can hold onto what they enjoy.

All I can say is that when or if push comes to shove, I believe the group will find out that the majority of hunters, especially Americans are more concerned with people doing things LEGALLY, than personal ethics.

I know some will holler about that, but Game Wardens Universally are not schooled in or required to police the "Ethics" of hunters, that is the Personal Responsibility of hunters, and like anything else in life, not everyone shares the exact same concept of "Ethical Behavior" and it is ludicrous to expect everyone to believe the exact same way.

I really hate to think that things are going to break down to the point that hunters are actively opposing each other, over a situation that hunters have no control over.

A person would think hunters have enough enemies wanting to take hunting away from them that they would really not want to alienate each other, human nature always amazes.

My SCI newsletter goes straight to the garbage.I do not bother to open the envelope.There is nothing there to help us.It would be a good idea if there was a strong, hunting conservation message stuck on the front page of the SCI website.Just think of all the people who have little idea of hunters role in conservation that make have searched for SCI on google.

Wouldn't it be smart to have this and other messages on SCI's front web page?

The greatest threat to African wildlife today is the loss of habitat due to population growth.
* From 1950 to today the population of Africa has doubled to more than 1 billion people.
* Between now and 2050, the population of Africa is expected to more than double again to almost 2.5 billion people.
* Wildlife habitat is being lost in Africa to population expansion at a rate of ___ acres a [year].
* Hunting directly contributes to the preservation of more than ___ million acres of wildlife habitat in Africa annually.
* Without the revenue from hunting, wildlife habitat and the wildlife living in that habitat in Africa will be lost forever.

I wanted to share some general thoughts before I have to go to work.

First, in some form or fashion we do need to have a vehicle which can convey to hunters the latest news in the hunting world. Whether this is better done by email or app, I don't know but it is needed. There is no doubt about that.

We also do need bullet points about hunting and conservation that can be shared with others.

Secondly, in terms of social media and films we do need a plan. There are firms who specialize in this and they would know how to effectively mount a campaign. I think it goes without saying that this needs to be a proactive effort. Loveridge's book is coming out soon and we need to be ready for that. If the book contains factual errors or omissions then these need to be pointed out.

I agree with Lane that there needs to be greater involvement of scientists. They hold the key to influencing policy. Maybe we can start by reaching out to some and seeing if they are willing to speak out.

I would like to see SCI or DSC invite someone like Craig Packer (or even convene a panel) to give a presentation at a convention.

I emailed the makers of the movie "Trophy" but received no reply. However, I have been contact with Chris Moore and Philip Glass from the movie and they participated in promotional talks when the movie was released. So that kind of PR can and has been done.

Thirdly, while the focus lately been on Africa (and rightfully so) we need to get the duck and whitetail hunters in this country involved. We need to get them to see this as their fight too.
We are all interested in wildlife even if we only hunt in our home state.

In Colorado there has been a PR campaign called "Hug a Hunter" and "Hug an Angler". The basic message is that simply by buying licenses hunters/anglers they contribute to the protection of public lands that everyone can enjoy.

These thoughts aren't heavy on specifics and I apologize but I'm short of time at the moment but plan to hash this out a little later.

I don't think it is necessary to reinvent the wheel, let's start by using the resources we have available. Thankfully on this forum we have people with experience in specific areas. Let's tap into that.

Other messages can say that we are wildlife's guardians and show the wildlife areas we guard on a map.There are many messages that we can get across.These are tools needed to change the publics perception of us.No need to use the names of Scientists and other big names to try to get a simple and effective message across.