The recent thread, Someone does not like what we do, points out the need for us to have FACTUAL info to educate the anti-hunters (THE LOGICAL THINKING ONES) on WHAT WE DO.

We can all point out how African hunting: helps the local economy, feeds local people, significantly contributes to conservation but for the most part these points are made without FACTUAL INFO. BUT LOGICAL PEOPLE CAN'T ARGUE WITH FACTS (I did say logical as some folk won't hear anything we say).

It would be great ammo for us if someone/organization could provide us with factual data on WHAT WE DO.

For example (excluding airfare)using a typical (if there is such a thing) dangerous game hunt where do the safari funds go: Outfitter, PH, safari employees, license fees, etc.? Further, how much is actually spent for conservation (which seems to be the logical antis argument). Another good piece of info (if available) is what has the impact on banning hunting been in certain countries - economy, conservation (Kenya (if that's right) for example).

Multiplying this typical hunt times the number of annual hunts would give us some good info.

Maybe this info is available, if so where?

This is not meant to meddle in the economics of the outfiers/owners/PH's) but rather a need for factual info.

Money talks and BS walks!

Saeed, if we get good data maybe you could make this a permanent part of AR for those who stumble up on this site and need to be educated on WHAT WE DO.

Actually this is a very good idea. A list of talking points pros and some cons to give a balanced view of all hunting does for indeginous people and wildlife would be great to have. Have it where it could be accessed by members at any time.

Good Idea.

Jeff

Something that SCI ought to do as a free service to their members, don't you think? The NRA has a fact sheet or card that you can get to help you with firearms and Second Amendment facts, why not SCI or DSC? Hey, Sports Afield and Safari Press could even have them printed up really nice for all of us!

In the US, we look to the DFG for the information. Perhaps someone in SA or neighboring countries could do the same for us.

John

A lot of the misconceptions the general public has about hunting can be changed.

As many of those who hold such views are unaware of the reality of hunting, and how it is part of our lives. And if it is explained to them in a reasonable manner, they do understand.

The really bad apples, those who are like Dr. Denis Leith, choose to be ignorant, and no amount of reasoning will ever change their narrow minds.

People like Dr. Denise Leith are nothing but ultimate hypocrites! Something that is very easily seen by reading her responses.

The advantage of this site is the forum, where a lot of valuable information is passed around by some really knowledgable people. The disadvantage is that the threads get hijacted or people go off on tangents and the useful stuff gets lost in the mix.

There's all sorts of information out there that backs up the benefits of hunting, but no place to consolidate it all.

I would like to see a separate forum here where serious debate and data exchange could take place without all the distractions.

One of the best ways to influence the antis (assuming that's at all possible), is to refer them to scientific studies or academic papers.
Here are a couple of links to the sort of things I mean.

The Conservation Game

Trophy Hunting and Conservation

The Economics

Privatizing Wildlife:

TRAFFIC weighs in

Certainly we do need to do something and as Steve says, good science is irrefutable. However, I reckon we have to bear in mind that the antis very often don't think with their heads and so the scientific arguments we present, need to be displayed in a way that they'll take an interest in rather than dismiss. Simply to say, 'here's the proof' won't be enough.

You also need to bear in mind that human nature decrees that people don't read a lot of information that is presented.

If you take a webpage for example. Our webhost support info for our site tell us that scientific research has proved that people only view and absorb about 20% of what they view..... they skim over the other 80%...... and most of the 20% they absorb, is above the fold, which means that part of the top of the page that fits into the screen when they first load the page...... preconcieved opinion also has a bearing on this. For example an anti who is reading a pro hunting article will be more inclined to skim more and absorb less.

Therefore, whatever you put on a site, needs to have most of the important info that you want the viewer to properly absorb in that top part of the page and you need to present it in such a way that will maximise the possibilities of an anti absorbing as much as possible.

The best we've managed to do, doesn't even contain scientific research or figures and from studying our own figures, we find that even lacking those things,this content is too long for most to absorb anywhere near all of it.

http://www.shakariconnection.c...m-sport-hunting.html

We don't just need the appliance of science we also need the appliance of the science of marketing as well.

Identifing the problem is a lot easier than identifing the solution.

Steve you are absolutely right but I think it is more a case of information overload, we get hit with so much information these days that it is not possible to absorb it all even if we really want to. We are busy producing a video for Conservation Force to be used at the next CITES convention supporting the down listing of the elephant populations in Tanzania and Zambia from CITES appendix I to appendix II. I am passionate about the subject but the hardest thing is to write a script that contains all of the relevant information without losing the viewers interest, because it does get boring. We want to know everything but we want to know it now, without any effort.

I will post a link to the draft script when it is completed and welcome any input from AR members.

Zig

Thats a great read Steve, but as you pointed out most people will only skim over the bulk of it.

What about a "cheat sheet" or " battle card" with some facts AND figures and for instance the KZN Rhino story as an example?

Regards
H

Zig,

Yeah, I agree that information overload is a large part of the problem but you also need the information to present your case, because without it, you're simply expressing an opinion rather than proving an argument or a case.

I'll look forward to reading the script!

Hendrik,

A crib sheet could work but the problem is you need to present a fair amount of facts and figures and then the crib sheet becomes an article.

Generally,

As I see it, we're fighting the battle on one front where we should be fighting it on at least two.

We're arguing against the antis and trying to produce arguments but the anti crowd are adult and have already formed their opinions. I think that if we want hunting to continue to the next generation, we also need to try to educate the children as to the facts of hunting and conservation...... and that would be a battle royal, because we first have to overcome political correctness to be able to even begin to do it and we also have to overcome the Walt Disney mentality of big eyed Bambi and the evil hunter etc.

WE know those images are utter bollocks but a very large part of the non hunting public actually believe it and think meat grows wild on supermarket shelves!

Steve, there is no doubt you need the facts, my point is you have to make them easily digestible.

Zig

Zig,

You're dead right there.

And Boltshooter's point I beleive was to have a well written bullet point piece posted permanently on AR for a reference available at any time.

Jeff

I really get tired of the same old line I see in printed hunted magazines: "we have canine teeth, etc."

Yawn.

As Steve pointed out, facts sometimes have no bearing on someone's attitude.

I have two things I usually state to an anithunter, depending on the circumstance. I had a woman the other day tell me (in my house at a party we hosted) that we shouldn't be hunting elephants. I gave her the economic argument, but she said elephants were different. I asked her how she felt about abortion. As usual, she looked at me like I was crazy. I told her that many people don't think she should have a right to choose, that they should be able to dicatate what is moral and what is not. Hunting is no different.

We have a friend who is a vegan and very antihunting. I always give her a hug and say vegans are hunters best friends. Why? Vegans prove humans do not have to eat meat to live. We eat meat because we enjoy it. We don't really think about the fact that an animal died. So how is hunting any different than eating meat? How is consuming a burger morally superior to hanging a head on the wall? It isn't. We don't have to do either. But my guess is that most people will give up their T bones when you pry it out of their cold, dead hands - even if they don't hunt. And I sometimes ask them if I give up hunting, will you give up eating meat? You know what they say then...

quote:

Originally posted by Zig Mackintosh:
the hardest thing is to write a script that contains all of the relevant information without losing the viewers interest, because it does get boring. We want to know everything but we want to know it now, without any effort. Zig

Hire someone from Disney or the Animal Channel. They're experts at it - and they make it work even when the relevant information they're presenting is all wrong.

That's a joke but the point is that a couple of images and a few words are often a lot more effectve than a 40 page report. PETA (and the WWF) have made a fortune out of doing that very thing. Juxtapose the image of a baby seal or baby elephant with the image of a Rhino with its horn chopped out and the money starts rolling in.

You've got a different audience, of course, but I've seen the same tactics applied in lecture halls.

Just a thought.

SteveGI, that's exactly what we intend to do with the DVD for Conservation Force. The idea is to produce a +/-20 minute video outlining the reasons why elephant populations in Tanzania and Zambia should be down listed from CITES Appendix I to CITES Appendix II. A copy of the DVD will then be sent to the country delegates before the conference to put the hunter's position across. A 20 minute DVD is much more effective than piles and piles of scientific papers.

At the 2004 CITES convention Kenya proposed the the African lion be moved from CITES Appendix I to CITES Appendix II. We (Osprey Filming) produced "Fate of the African lion" for Conservation Force. The video was sent out to the delegates beforehand and Conservation Force had it playing in their booth during the convention.

The Kenyan proposal was defeated and the next year lion hunting opened again in Botswana (not for very long but that is another matter!)

We don't claim that the video is the reason why the Kenyan proposal was defeated but John Jackson has little doubt that it helped in the cause.

Zig Mackintosh.

Zig,

You might like to consider having someone like Ron Thomson write the dialogue.

He does after all know elephant management backwards, forwards and sideways, has written extensively on the subject, his writing style is very easy to read and his arguments very easy to follow.

Steve,

Thanks for that. I agree there are very few people who know more about wildlife conservation than Ron. Ron actually has a blog on our Safari Newsreel website http://www.safarinewsreel.com/blog/?cat=1

I spent a day with Ron last week interviewing him about his experiences in the Rhodesian National Parks. It makes for some fascinating viewing (around 3 hours of it) and we will be featuring the interview in an upcoming Safari Newsreel DVD which goes out with the African Hunting Gazette. We will also have short clips from time to time on the Safari Newsreel website.

Ron is busy with his memoirs, the first of six books should be out shortly, and has very little spare time. John Jackson has an excellent network of experts in different fields and we have made use of this in the drafting of the script, including people like Ralf Baldus. Any input, however, will be welcome and once the draft is done, as I said earlier, I will post a link on AR for comments.

Zig

If people can be shown how emotion clouds their understanding it may be easier for them to accept rational thought.

The Perils of Anthropomorphism-
http://www.psychology.uiowa.ed...ents/WynneAnthro.pdf

The Trouble With Bambi-
http://www.history.vt.edu/Barr.../readings/bambi.html

A Culture of Anthropomorphism-
http://sports.espn.go.com/outd...mal_anthropomorphism


from - The Trouble With Bambi

quote:

Nature, symbolized by Disney's infant Bambi, an infant with endearing human qualities, becomes something fragile and vulnerable. It becomes something that we must nurture and protect. This can be a useful metaphor, given our enormous technological abilities to destroy our environment. However, grave problems lie ahead if we confuse a fetching metaphor with the living reality of deer, other wildlife, or our environment. After all, the challenge we face is to protect real wildlife in a real environment, not the Disney version.

IMO it's an uphill battle, but it's definitely worth it.

Recently I had a hard time convincing a fellow that in many parts of Africa elephants were far from endangered and were even making themselves a nuisance. It even came as a surprise to him that elephants can be very mean and very dangerous animals!

Amazing...

I agree with about all said thus far. Bad data being published was the root of my Smithsonian Lion Article thread.

Good scientific studies showing hunting as an effective conservation tool is the way to go in my opinion. Unbiased publications in peer-reviewed journals are hard to argue with. Once some of these are published lay journals such as Smithsonian will place in-beds with the researchers and we will begin to get some positive light there as we are getting negativity now.

There is only one problem. Those studies cost money. But as my grandpa used to always tell me: "you gotta spend money to make money." Some safari companies (TGTS comes to mind there are others too) are beginning to see this and are doing there own research. The problem with that is that it never gets published and that is what we need.

I know I keep plugging it and all are getting tired of hearing it but contributing time and MONEY to worthwhile projects like Texas A&M's DNA collection project is the way to win in the end. The hardest thing we fight with this project however is funding.

So to sum it up "The Golden Rule" (see my sig line) applies again. Antis pour out there pocket books to promote there cause. We as hunters are going to have to finnacially support ours to get our message heard.

Folks, we already have lost the battle. When was the last time you saw a news broadcast or a wildlife "documentary" on television that credited hunting or hunters for anything worthwhile?

We now are viewed by the majority of humanity as the enemy of wildlife, and providing facts will not change the perception that because we kill animals for sport we should be stopped.

As I said on another thread, there is much truth in the tired bromide that says it is impossible to reason prejudice out of a person because it was not reasoned into him.

Bill Quimby

quote:

Folks, we already have lost the battle. When was the last time you saw a news broadcast or a wildlife "documentary" on television that credited hunting or hunters for anything worthwhile?

With all due respect...giving up is not the answer. And it sure ain't in my creed!

With the older very radicalized types nothing will change any minds, anymore than discussing politics with them is going to make them something other than what they are, to wit, lib dems. Afterall, that describes the typical person of that persuasion.

Where you CAN make a difference is with the younger ones who haven't yet decided what they want to be, but are under extreme social peer pressure to adopt the vegetarian life style and the politics and cultural values that go with it. You can especially make a difference with their parents, neighbors, friends and relatives.

What I'm proposing is a different approach than anything "talking points" related. I'm proposing a "people to people" direct approach. How?

You get them involved. You "make partners" out of them. You do that by letting them try it. You invite them for wild fish and game dinners. You give some of your better wild game to them. You provide a recipe. You invite one into your kitchen and demonstrate how to cook wild game. You invite one to accompany you on a hike at the farm. You invite one to accompany you on a round of trap or skeet at the gun club. You invite one to accompany you to a gun show.

You could even offer to provide an entire processed deer (providing they go pick it up and pay for it). I've done that. And finally you take somebody hunting.

In my opinion that's the way. I know, a lot of bother and practical only in some cases. But, the point is I try to make it a person to person matter. It may not make hunters out of anyone, but it really gets it across. Hunting = freedom + adventure + something good to eat.

Based on this threads participants there is universal agreement that educating the antis is needed. The bottom line is it will cost money to make this happen.

As an example of what proper funding can do I cite "Ducks Unlimited"; that organization is extremely successful in its multi-faceted missions; preserving, purchasing or improving wetlands, keeping clean water, conservation of flora, fauna and wildlife associated with wetlands et.al.. AND BY THE WAY ONE OF THE BEST WEB SITES FOR WATERFOWL HUNTING & INFO. (As you travel thru the U.S. (I don't know about other countries) one can see signs at wetlands 'Hunter Monies made this possible'.)

Many of you have tremendous knowledge & more importantly access to organization & individuals who can help eg. Scientific research studies / organizations / individuals, marketing experts.

WOULD YOU EXPERTS COLLABORATE AND MAKE THIS HAPPEN?

THE REST OF US MUST MAKE THE MONEY HAPPEN & KEEP TEACHING!

quote:

As an example of what proper funding can do I cite "Ducks Unlimited"; that organization is extremely successful in its multi-faceted missions; preserving, purchasing or improving wetlands, keeping clean water, conservation of flora, fauna and wildlife associated with wetlands et.al.. AND BY THE WAY ONE OF THE BEST WEB SITES FOR WATERFOWL HUNTING & INFO. (As you travel thru the U.S. (I don't know about other countries) one can see signs at wetlands 'Hunter Monies made this possible'.)

Dittos on Ducks Unlimited! Few finer pro-hunting/conservation organizations exist!

This study done in 2007 makes for interestion reading.
It was done mostly on local South African hunting research, using the Biltong or meat hunter as a model.
It has some inaccuracies in it, one being that they state that CHASA (Confederation of hunters of SA) accounts for 5% of registered members of associations, whereas it represents 26 hunting associations in SA making up probably closer to 50% representation.
It is an interesting and relevant document, perhaps a bit long,
http://www.kznhunters.co.za/si...HUNTERS%20REPORT.pdf