I think it is clear to see that the tide is against hunters everywhere one seems to turn these days. To me what is most alarming is that the anti hunting groups are achieving their goal of turning the perceptions of the masses against hunters. It is now becoming personal. You walk in to a party and tell anyone you hunt these days they look at you like you are a child molester! This is being done by groups that have the resources to achieve their goals, being well organized, being driven by people who are more technology savvy, and all in all a more hip image than what we have on our side!

For goodness sake one of the highlights of going to SCI was to watch some old fuddy duddy band play tunes that my grandfather listened to, catch any youngster wanting to join that party!!! It's embarrassing.

It is easy for these organizations to raise millions of dollars and tons of support from the masses with soppy adverts and their BS messages and propaganda which of course then turns in to backing for anti hunting legislation.

The people behind these organizations while anti hunting don't advertise it as such, well at least you don't see statements or adverts saying we are anti hunters, even thought that could well be their main agenda behind the scenes apart from lining their pockets! Take a look at the UK Peta website as an example of what I mean.

On the other hand our organizations such as DSC, SCI, NRA etc etc. that are branded as hunting and shooting organizations immediately polarizes the opinion of the masses and limits the channel of funds and participation and we are immediately seen as the villans with our own agenda.

We all know that hunting benefits conservation and if given the resources there are umpteen experts on our side willing to carry on the fight. So maybe the time has come for a new organization that is formed and backed by people "in the know" to appeal to the masses and tell our side of the story without hunting being the "main image or glue" that brings people together. Its not hidden but neither is it the focus.

We talk about poaching real figures and stories, what is and is not being done to combat it, what needs to be done. How certain rules are detrimental to the conservation of wildlife (the recent lion ban) etc. How stupid actions such as burning tons of ivory in time square is not going to stop elephant poaching etc!

I feel that an organization like this branded with a non hunting image would have mass appeal and yet hunters would get behind it knowing it supports our story as well.

Let the discussions begin.

Arjun Reddy
Http://www.HuntersNetworks.com
30 Ivy Hill Road
Brewster, NY 10509
USA
Tel: 845 259 3628

You sir are 100% correct. we need to go at the anti's with everything we have. and keep pounding our message. we are the worst at getting the truth about the benefits of hunting out to the public we preach to the choir all the time

I don't know if we need "new"but believe we sure need some younger blood especially in terms of planning and media savvy.
A look at the big group's Webpage and Social Media will tell you how "young they are."
A good example of this is Facebook.
One hunting group mentioned above has 11K people following it...The IRS has 45K.
I know a hell'uva lot more people that like hunting than like paying taxes and yet the IRS has 45K people following it.
Really!
And to all you that hate Facebook and social media...too bad. I hate most of it too, but it's here to stay and more successful at marketing now than is TV or print.

I agree Arjun, we need new or at least to jump on with the NRA on this. They are mobilized and have the horsepower to drive this. Dump SCI and lets do something better without the participation trophies.

In my view the NRA is the only organization with the experience, clout and membership base to take on this fight. Creating a new organization takes time and money and just further fragments an already too fragmented hunting industry, e.g., DSC, HSC, SCI, RMEF, DU, QU, etc. We need an organization that can hit the ground running and mobilize a membership base in the millions. That is the NRA.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
In my view the NRA is the only organization with the experience, clout and membership base to take on this fight. Creating a new organization takes time and money and just further fragments an already too fragmented hunting industry, e.g., DSC, HSC, SCI, RMEF, DU, QU, etc. We need an organization that can hit the ground running and mobilize a membership base in the millions. That is the NRA.

Yup.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
In my view the NRA is the only organization with the experience, clout and membership base to take on this fight. Creating a new organization takes time and money and just further fragments an already too fragmented hunting industry, e.g., DSC, HSC, SCI, RMEF, DU, QU, etc. We need an organization that can hit the ground running and mobilize a membership base in the millions. That is the NRA.

Yup.

OK, so what's the latest? I know some of you are working on this, and have been for some time now.

I've thought for awhile that any of the above mentioned groups needs a conservation facts page. Not just your generic "hunting brings blah blah to blah blah" but real figures in real places. This much money went towards..., these poachers were caught..., this place funded by.... One spot where hunters can get hard, accurate facts, and lots of them, supporting our hunting is conservation role. So when you do encounter a room full of people you and I can speak with authority on hunter conservation. A continually updated page in contact with African hunting/ph/conservation orgs..
And start your hunting stories with "in Nov. 2014 we caught 4 poachers red handed.". There should be a spot for us as hunters to record such incidents as concrete evidence of hunting saving/preserving wildlife. That line about Nov. 2014 is true, I took one mature buff and 4 to 6 hardcore poachers with my ph and trackers. That's how I start telling the story. We all have those stories. They are very hard for "on the fence" or even anti's to dispute. A "what have you done to help wildlife?" situation that few if any, non-hunters, will be able to claim anything. Increased transparency from countries and outfitters as to where this hunting money goes would be huge as well, and put it out there in support of hunting.

NRA said that they were working on a communication plan . . . indicated that it was approximately sixty days away in mid-November. That said, it took time for us to get ourselves into this hole, it will take time to work our way out, if we even can. NRA, properly noted, that this is more akin to a long battle, not something that is going to get fixed overnight.

I'll join whatever the NRA comes up with in this department.
I also like what tomahawker said about hunters catching poachers & such.
I have not been in on catching them, but have shown up not too long afterwards & photographed them & their carnage.
Also had to put down a young wildebeest with a snare on it's leg.

The NRA is the biggest gun we have in our arsenal and I am totally for supporting the NRA. BUT look at the size of the membership v/s the number of gun owners there are in America. I read somewhere NRA has 5 million members v/s number of gun owners in USA about 52 million households. Here again the NRA is seen as a group of republican, rabid gun nuts and lets be frank many of the NRA members are not hunters, they like to own and shoot guns.

Example my little local gun club has about 250 members, all of them are NRA members which is mandatory to joining the club GREAT IDEA THAT SHOULD BE FORCED DOWN EVERY GUN OWNERS THROAT IF YOU ASK ME, BUT out of the lot less than 5 people hunt internationally and from what I know probably about 50 people hunt at all. These numbers are probably true across the NRA membership.

A rich old lady who loves animals who is happy to write a check to PETA because she doesn't know better will be equally happy to write a check to a "non hunter" sounding organization as long as our facts are more convincing than what the other side is presenting.

But going back to what I stated earlier the stigma or uniform that we wear that comes from being a DSC, SCI or NRA member doesn't appeal to the masses which is why we will never be able to get to them.

If I may use another example if Aaron Neilson sat down with a non hunter and told them I have killed a dozen lions and that's the best f&*^*ing that's happened for lion conservation, I don't think they are going to feel very warm and fuzzy towards him. On the other hand if he spoke about lions and what is needed for lion conservation which has been derived from his vast experience in the field and down played his lion hunting achievements a bit I am sure he will have more credibility than the "so called experts" who have never set foot in Africa!

I am not saying lets not support all the current organizations and see how best to strengthen them but our side needs a new face.

Arjun Reddy

This was Aaron Neilson's and my own idea when we formed the Lion Conservation Task Force, Inc. Let me tell you...we got as much flack as we got support from hunters.

quote:

Originally posted by reddy375:
The NRA is the biggest gun we have in our arsenal and I am totally for supporting the NRA. BUT look at the size of the membership v/s the number of gun owners there are in America. I read somewhere NRA has 5 million members v/s number of gun owners in USA about 52 million households. Here again the NRA is seen as a group of republican, rabid gun nuts and lets be frank many of the NRA members are not hunters, they like to own and shoot guns.

Example my little local gun club has about 250 members, all of them are NRA members which is mandatory to joining the club GREAT IDEA THAT SHOULD BE FORCED DOWN EVERY GUN OWNERS THROAT IF YOU ASK ME, BUT out of the lot less than 5 people hunt internationally and from what I know probably about 50 people hunt at all. These numbers are probably true across the NRA membership.

A rich old lady who loves animals who is happy to write a check to PETA because she doesn't know better will be equally happy to write a check to a "non hunter" sounding organization as long as our facts are more convincing than what the other side is presenting.

But going back to what I stated earlier the stigma or uniform that we wear that comes from being a DSC, SCI or NRA member doesn't appeal to the masses which is why we will never be able to get to them.

If I may use another example if Aaron Neilson sat down with a non hunter and told them I have killed a dozen lions and that's the best f&*^*ing that's happened for lion conservation, I don't think they are going to feel very warm and fuzzy towards him. On the other hand if he spoke about lions and what is needed for lion conservation which has been derived from his vast experience in the field and down played his lion hunting achievements a bit I am sure he will have more credibility than the "so called experts" who have never set foot in Africa!

I am not saying lets not support all the current organizations and see how best to strengthen them but our side needs a new face.

Arjun Reddy

Approximately 65% of NRA members are hunters.

NRA is also consumed with the outcome of the 2016 election and made it clear this was their primary focus for the foreseeable future.


We almost need a change of direction to survive.

Jeff

My view, others may differ, I think time is of the essence. I think we pick the biggest club in the bag and go with that club. Particularly if the club is one that has demonstrated over and over the ability to drive the ball long and straight. That club to me is the NRA. By the time another group is organized, funded, starts to gain members, begins to build a social media platform and presence, establishes itself as a lobbying force, etc., I fear the battle will be over . . . the battle may in fact already be over but I choose to think not.

Look at all the disparate hunting organizations, one for quail, one for pheasant, one for ducks, several for deer, several for sheep, blah, blah, blah. Part of the problem now is that we have too many damn organizations, all with their own agendas, no synergies, their own headquarter and overhead costs, etc. If this was a business, some entrepreneur would have started doing roll ups of all these entities ages ago to strip out costs and gain efficiencies.

Maybe we need to rebrand an existing group (or part of a group) but I think the last thing we need is a new group. Your mileage may vary.

The NRA's basic idea is as follows. They will remain a single issue organization as in 2nd Amendment rights. In attempting to determine how to be even stronger in 2nd Amendment rights, they realize that the majority of people who have bought hunting licenses are NOT NRA members. The NRA believes (rightfully so in my opinion) that getting the non-members who purchase hunting licenses to join the NRA will greatly assist them in terms of political power. They believe they can do this my getting involved in hunters rights.

THE NEW DIVISION OF THE NRA DEALING WITH THIS IS CALLED THE "HUNTERS LEADERSHIP FORUM." I urge you all to join. They are our only hope as I see it.

We need a major shift in attitude. Hunters tend to sit back and not attack on the issues impacting us. That has to change if we want our way of life to survive. For example, I was threatened in writing by an animal rights activist. I attempted to get hunters to bombard this guy with e mails. NOT ONE responded.

I have jumped into this thing with both feet. Anything you can do will help.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I have jumped into this thing with both feet. Anything you can do will help.

Larry is being modest, both feet hardly captures it.

A lot of our future with hunting as it pertains to USF&WS...hinges on the outcome of the next Presidential election.

So I think going with the NRA is the best thing we have going at this point. DSC would be the best "hunting org" to go with.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
The NRA's basic idea is as follows. They will remain a single issue organization as in 2nd Amendment rights. In attempting to determine how to be even stronger in 2nd Amendment rights, they realize that the majority of people who have bought hunting licenses are NOT NRA members. The NRA believes (rightfully so in my opinion) that getting the non-members who purchase hunting licenses to join the NRA will greatly assist them in terms of political power. They believe they can do this my getting involved in hunters rights.

THE NEW DIVISION OF THE NRA DEALING WITH THIS IS CALLED THE "HUNTERS LEADERSHIP FORUM." I urge you all to join. They are our only hope as I see it.

We need a major shift in attitude. Hunters tend to sit back and not attack on the issues impacting us. That has to change if we want our way of life to survive. For example, I was threatened in writing by an animal rights activist. I attempted to get hunters to bombard this guy with e mails. NOT ONE responded.

I have jumped into this thing with both feet. Anything you can do will help.

Only hope is the nra for its self interest decides to pick up the hunting mantle and fight the fight.

I am not sure how much politcal capital the nra puts in the fight for lion or elephant hunting.

Am i the only one whose email from dsc are flooded with weatherby award auctions, entertainment and dinners ?

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
The NRA's basic idea is as follows. They will remain a single issue organization as in 2nd Amendment rights. In attempting to determine how to be even stronger in 2nd Amendment rights, they realize that the majority of people who have bought hunting licenses are NOT NRA members. The NRA believes (rightfully so in my opinion) that getting the non-members who purchase hunting licenses to join the NRA will greatly assist them in terms of political power. They believe they can do this my getting involved in hunters rights.

THE NEW DIVISION OF THE NRA DEALING WITH THIS IS CALLED THE "HUNTERS LEADERSHIP FORUM." I urge you all to join. They are our only hope as I see it.

We need a major shift in attitude. Hunters tend to sit back and not attack on the issues impacting us. That has to change if we want our way of life to survive. For example, I was threatened in writing by an animal rights activist. I attempted to get hunters to bombard this guy with e mails. NOT ONE responded.

I have jumped into this thing with both feet. Anything you can do will help.

Only hope is the nra for its self interest decides to pick up the hunting mantle and fight the fight.

I am not sure how much politcal capital the nra puts in the fight for lion or elephant hunting.

Am i the only one whose email from dsc are flooded with weatherby award auctions, entertainment and dinners ?

Mike

They are for representing all hunters. Just like gun rights. The loss of one type of hunting starts a domino effect. Same with guns. The NRA gets it.

Jeff

quote:

They are for representing all hunters. Just like gun rights. The loss of one type of hunting starts a domino effect. Same with guns. The NRA gets it.

The question is however, do All Hunters get it?

quote:

The question is however, do All Hunters get it?

The easy answer to this is HECK NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have hunting friends who absolutely refuse to join ANY organization.

From what I have been observing over the past few years, and it really seems to me that getting the message across that any attacks against hunting anywhere in the world, will eventually impact hunters, world wide. I feel that is the real message that needs to be brought to light.

quote:

Originally posted by reddy375:

If I may use another example if Aaron Neilson sat down with a non hunter and told them I have killed a dozen lions and that's the best f&*^*ing that's happened for lion conservation, I don't think they are going to feel very warm and fuzzy towards him. On the other hand if he spoke about lions and what is needed for lion conservation which has been derived from his vast experience in the field and down played his lion hunting achievements a bit I am sure he will have more credibility than the "so called experts" who have never set foot in Africa!

Arjun Reddy

Arjun - You pal, are exactly correct!

Then who will give out the Diamond Prize to the pretentious old guy?

quote:

Originally posted by Gayne C. Young:
I don't know if we need "new"but believe we sure need some younger blood especially in terms of planning and media savvy.
A look at the big group's Webpage and Social Media will tell you how "young they are."
A good example of this is Facebook.
One hunting group mentioned above has 11K people following it...The IRS has 45K.
I know a hell'uva lot more people that like hunting than like paying taxes and yet the IRS has 45K people following it.
Really!
And to all you that hate Facebook and social media...too bad. I hate most of it too, but it's here to stay and more successful at marketing now than is TV or print.

DSC--11K Following on Facebook
SCI--44K Following on Facebook
NRA-4.5 Million Following on Facebook

I truly like DSC and some aspects of SCI, but there is strength in numbers.

Perhaps heresy to say this, but would it be prudent for DSC to essentially merge with the NRA? DSC has done a fabulous job of developing its convention using primarily volunteers. Much credit is due them. But as Mike's numbers show, they're just a drop in the bucket in comparison to the NRA's.

SCI could do this too, but I don't think the SCI leadership would be in the least interested.

i have join the NRA couple of times but have let my membership laps because of their consent banging me for money. i don't mind sending some money every now and again but it seems thats all they are about is getting more money.
has for a new club i would be in for that too but think that DSC does a great job but needs to bang its drum a little louder on what it does for wildlife has a whole. thats its not just about hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by leeb441:
i have join the NRA couple of times but have let my membership laps because of their consent banging me for money. i don't mind sending some money every now and again but it seems thats all they are about is getting more money.
has for a new club i would be in for that too but think that DSC does a great job but needs to bang its drum a little louder on what it does for wildlife has a whole. thats its not just about hunting.

I hear you . Doing what the NRA does costs a hell of a lot of money .

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by leeb441:
i have join the NRA couple of times but have let my membership laps because of their consent banging me for money. i don't mind sending some money every now and again but it seems thats all they are about is getting more money.
has for a new club i would be in for that too but think that DSC does a great job but needs toa bang its drum a little louder on what it does for wildlife has a whole. thats its not just about hunting.

I hear you . Doing what the NRA does costs a hell of a lot of money .

At the risk of being rude, freedom is no longer free. It is pay to play. We are in a war. Just like ISIS most of the US, we don't recognize it. We are losing.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by leeb441:
i have join the NRA couple of times but have let my membership laps because of their consent banging me for money. i don't mind sending some money every now and again but it seems thats all they are about is getting more money.
has for a new club i would be in for that too but think that DSC does a great job but needs toa bang its drum a little louder on what it does for wildlife has a whole. thats its not just about hunting.

I hear you . Doing what the NRA does costs a hell of a lot of money .

At the risk of being rude, freedom is no longer free. It is pay to play. We are in a war. Just like ISIS most of the US, we don't recognize it. We are losing.

Jeff

Amen. Become a Life or Endowment member and you do not have to worry about getting hounded every year. I feel a whole lot better about what is being done with my money paid to the NRA to protect my rights than what I pay to SCI, DSC, HSC, other. Beating your drum ain't going to get it done, beating the other side is what is needed.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by leeb441:
i have join the NRA couple of times but have let my membership laps because of their consent banging me for money. i don't mind sending some money every now and again but it seems thats all they are about is getting more money.
has for a new club i would be in for that too but think that DSC does a great job but needs toa bang its drum a little louder on what it does for wildlife has a whole. thats its not just about hunting.

I hear you . Doing what the NRA does costs a hell of a lot of money .

At the risk of being rude, freedom is no longer free. It is pay to play. We are in a war. Just like ISIS most of the US, we don't recognize it. We are losing.

Jeff

Amen. Become a Life or Endowment member and you do not have to worry about getting hounded every year. I feel a whole lot better about what is being done with my money paid to the NRA to protect my rights than what I pay to SCI, DSC, HSC, other. Beating your drum ain't going to get it done, beating the other side is what is needed.

Agreed....but they still seem to hound me plenty. I don't mind donating once a year but I think they are looking for a payroll deduction

Although 50,000-member SCI and 5,000-member DSC are miniscule when compared to the 5-million-member NRA, don't count either club as ineffective when it comes to influencing Congress.

There are SCI and DSC members who support their state's congressmen and senators with significant contributions. The politicians know them and already are listening to them. If as few as 300-400 played hardball in one voice and called in the favors owed to them, there's no legislation they couldn't get Congress to pass or kill.

What is needed is to somehow change the public's perception about hunting and hunters, and our role in wildlife conservation. It won't be easy. We began losing PR battles when Walt Disney gave animals cute faces and names and showed them talking.

Bill Quimby

Whenever I got hit by local school kids for some fund raising, I told them I already gave money to NRA
Figured it'll get to parents sooner or later

I don't mind to give as much as I can to NRA, it's the best thing out there if you are not Lib
I like SCI, so I hope they'll get the impending doom scenario soon
We have saying " Time is in short supply and water is rising "...
In the end, there has got to be some form of cooperation among SCI, DSC and HSC

I support the NRA because I hunt. The last three knives I donated to them brought $83,000.00 and they are fighting for both knife and gun rights.

I'm a Life Member of the NRA and the Texas State Rifle Association. I'm a member of SCI and DSC.

IMHO, the "new" organization is the NRA, DSC or some combination of the two.

This is a topic of sufficient importance that I feel compelled to emerge from exile to comment.

First, the collective notion reflected in this thread that the NRA serve as an advocate for American hunters in general and safari hunting in particular is impractical, and to shed any sugar-coating, plain stupid.

I am mindful that some of AR's best and brightest are subscribers to this proposal, and I mean no disrespect – but really guys, have any of you looked at this absent heartfelt sentimentality? Yeah, I know the NRA is the 'guardian of the Second Amendment' and all that stands between the barbarians and our 'cold, dead hands', but gentlemen that has nothing to do with effectively turning back the tide of anti-hunting sentiment in this country. For that you need an organization that can logically, politically, and diplomatically bridge disparate constituencies: an organization that appears objective and scientific in its approach to advocating for hunting. Tell me, how are you going to do that with the NRA?

In pursuit of such goal let's look at the facts regarding the NRA as a candidate to represent hunters. While enjoying tremendous popularity from its members, the NRA is also one of the most disliked organizations in America. Take a look at these numbers (Wall Street Journal/NBC polling-July 2015):



The data reflects that the NRA is viewed negatively by 33% of all Americans with 20% undecided - that's approaching 100 million people. Now, before you write them off as anti-hunters, consider the following (NSSF/Responsive Management-2012):



In 2012, almost 80% of Americans supported hunting and hunter's rights; that's a delta of almost 60 million Americans who have either a negative or no opinion on the NRA who nevertheless support a hunting agenda. How can that be?

It's somewhat immaterial to this issue, but in short there are millions of gun owners and hunters who do not support what they see as the NRA's extreme and intransigent position on reasonable firearms restrictions (e.g., sales to persons on terrorism watch lists, background checks at gun shows), and perhaps more importantly, the NRA’s public persona. The latter includes folks who cannot fathom the likes of Ted Nugent – a man with a profound economy of reason – on the board of an otherwise serious organization. And then there are the tens of thousands of law enforcement officers who left the NRA when they were smeared with Wayne LaPierre's description of them as "jack-booted government thugs" who wear "Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms". (I know because I was a 'jack-booted thug' serving as a federal agent who, along with President George H.W. Bush, resigned my life membership and vowed never to return so long as LaPierre was at the helm.) Basically, so long as it appears to many Americans that the NRA foments policies from its in-house think tank, Duck Dynasty, they will avoid affiliation - even if they are otherwise sympathetic to its basic principles, and in this case, hunting.

What's equally striking is that the popularity of the NRA, bolstered as it is by a fervently loyal and predominantly Republican base, is only exceeded in popularity by Planned Parenthood, which is supported by an equally fervent and loyal base that is instead predominantly Democrat.

The two offer an interesting glimpse into the politically polarized condition of the American electorate. One mistake that many on AR make is to presume that only Republicans like to hunt. Yet, an NSSF study found that "56% of Democrats indicated that gun rights and conservation are equally important". The lunacy displayed by the NRA - and some on this board - is to write-off Democrats as potential allies and instead behave in the same fashion as LaPierre, painting them all with the same brush. The idea of political advocacy is not to constrain your constituency but to build it to its maximum potential irrespective of party affiliation. Do any of you really think the NRA is going to build that bridge and lure hunters from the political left into a coalition that could exceed 70% of the nations voters? Of course not.

As I wrote, it's immaterial why hunters and gun owners won't join the NRA (although I'm sure that my examples above will constitute the lions-share of follow-on posts), it is simply and irrefutably the case that they won’t. If the NRA leads the charge for hunter’s rights, it will be preaching exclusively to its fired up base – and that base is already on its side.

Further, despite the great work of organizations like DSC and the mediocre work of SCI, the fact also remains that neither organization can serve as an apparently impartial, independent, and trusted spokesperson to our cause. Those who are undecided or soft in their anti-hunting sentiment are not going to be wooed by an organization that appears a sop to hunters, lacking in any scientific objectivity – and the latter is how we have to fight this battle.

Gentlemen, I’m on your side, but on this issue I take issue. We need to redefine the debate and inextricably tie hunting to conservation and science, and that can only be done on the scale necessary by allying ourselves to a new, non-partisan, non-political, non-profit research organization advocating for the imperative of preserving hunting as an essential conservation tool. If, on the other hand, we throw our support and money at the NRA or a safari club to lobby and protect our hunting heritage, I’m afraid we will have lost the war before the next big battle is fought.

Oh, and Happy New Year to all of you!

. . . unless and until someone offers a better solution, I am prepared to go with the NRA.

Life is about making choices. Is the NRA perfect, absolutely not. Do they have an enviable record of success is protecting Second Amendment rights, absolutely. The reality is that neither SCI nor DSC is equipped or prepared to lead this effort. Not only do they lack the wherewithal, I am not sure they even have the desire to lead the effort. The idea of building a new organization, recruiting members, developing a social network presence, raising money, establishing a lobbying network and the like . . . that all takes time. Time for more restrictions like those imposed on lion and elephant, like the airline cargo bans . . . To me, "if you got no choice, you got no problem". Right now, the only choice is the NRA. Whether they can and will make a difference, only time will tell.

quote:

...effectively turning back the tide of anti-hunting sentiment in this country. For that you need an organization that can logically, politically, and diplomatically bridge disparate constituencies: an organization that appears objective and scientific in its approach to advocating for hunting.

This IS the most correct statement that has been made in all of the discussions on this subject.

Since the big pissing match seems to be about hunting in Africa, it could be "African Hunting Association". AHA!

How would you fund it? Without money organization is worthless. You need millions of dollars a year to wage a PR war and have any clout in Washington and the various destination countries.

You would need millions of members to raise meaningful money. But hunters who hunt Africa number only in the thousands so you would need to get money from other sources as well. And individual members are not going to pay thousands of dollars each, $50 a year is about it. For this perhaps they could get a first look at discounted hunts or merchandise.

Let the governments of the destination countries EACH commit to match member dollars 1:1 ... after all they ultimately end up with a big chunk of the hunting dollars.

Set up an online directory of African hunting outfitters modeled after Facebook with the outfitters paying a commission on every member hunt booked through the association instead of coughing up free hunts and thousands of dollars to SCI. For those outfitters who can't deal with the technical aspects offer a service to create their online presence.

Forget about conventions, that business model is too expensive and it's outdated. The airlines and hotels are siphoning off a lot of dollars with no return to the industry at all. In fact they treat us like lepers.

If you could get everyone on board you might have something.

SCI and DSC would become irrelevant. NRA is a different beast, their focus is the second amendment and that's a separate fight.

I will head this up if there is enough support for it. I can do the online stuff and I know my way around the industry, more or less.

Mike:

I admire your fidelity to the NRA and understand your concern that no apparent alternative exists. However, the fundamental dilemma you face is that tens of millions of Americans who view hunting negatively will never be swayed by an organization that they mistrust. And the fact is that the NRA would only appeal to the converted while alienating the very voters our cause desperately needs: Democrats and independents who are undecided on the legitimacy of hunting.

The NRA's success in staving off gun control legislation is predicated by and large on fear, intimidation, and coercion at the political level. Apart from polite asides and in-house editorials, the NRA doesn't try to change public opinion on guns, but instead threatens legislators with unrelenting retribution should they fail to tow the party line. This works with guns and gun rights, but can you imagine using the same tactics to effect changes in policy regarding safari hunting when those policies were compelled by voter sentiment? It wouldn't work, and in fact would likely backfire – which is why the NRA will never give more than tepid support for hunters issues, and then only as a palliative to the 'old guard hunters' who were thrown off the Board during the 'Revolt in Cincinnati' in 1977.

To provide long-term protection of our hunting heritage we need to change minds not twist arms, which rules out the NRA as our agent for change.


Russ:

Your's is a praiseworthy gesture; however, the organization I envision would be staffed by professionals with solid scientific and conservationist credentials – not hunters who would be seen as biased and self-serving. Such organization could succeed without enormous staffing or gilded offices: instead it could operate on a $2m annual budget and serve, not as a lobbying group, but as a pro-hunting think tank. Its mission would be to challenge LionAid and similar organizations by undertaking peer reviewed studies that demonstrate the efficacy of hunting as an essential conservation tool. That product would provide impartial third-party ammunition to the NRA, SCI, DSC, and others for use in their lobbying efforts (and hopefully encourage their financial support).

It's one thing for hunters to advocate hunting, and altogether different for scientists and researchers to make the same case. The latter is what will turn the tide in changing public opinion in a post-Cecil world.