quote:

Originally posted by KPete:
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 changes 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'.

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . so where are we at the moment with lion? Strikes me as a bit Pollyannaish to suggest that a $2 million pro-hunting think tank is going to turn this fight around.

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:
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!

quote:

Originally posted by Russ Gould:
Trump is the only one with the macendes (cojones) to do that.

quote:

Ledvm,

I wanted to take a moment to thank you for the incredibly nice post you wrote about me. My brother Don and I are both big hunters and 2A guys. We have both been reading this forum for years albeit I have always kept some anonymity. Anyway I came across your post and just wanted to shoot you a PM to say thank you for the nice words. We are going to win this thing and it will be a great for all of us in the shooting/hunting community.

I truly hope our paths cross at some point! Thanks again!

Eric Trump

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by KPete:
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!

I guess you didn't see the following Gallup poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/186...ajority-support.aspx

You might not have the same opinions if you sat in the HLF meetings as I did.

quote:

Originally posted by chuck375:
If we want to save the wildlife in Africa and our hunting traditions, it seems that we need to punish the consumer countries (China, etc.) who are consuming most of the poached ivory, tiger parts, etc. with effective economic sanctions (maybe a 5% tariff on all goods imported from those countries that goes to wildlife preservation?). Politically unpopular and also unpopular with the the many businesses that export to these countries but is there any reasonable alternative? Haven't they heard about Viagra?

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by chuck375:
If we want to save the wildlife in Africa and our hunting traditions, it seems that we need to punish the consumer countries (China, etc.) who are consuming most of the poached ivory, tiger parts, etc. with effective economic sanctions (maybe a 5% tariff on all goods imported from those countries that goes to wildlife preservation?). Politically unpopular and also unpopular with the the many businesses that export to these countries but is there any reasonable alternative? Haven't they heard about Viagra?

How about this for a scenario:

You hunt a Lion and then legally sell the trophy to the Chinese to offset the cost of the safari?

quote:

Originally posted by AilsaWheels:

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:

quote:

Originally posted by chuck375:
If we want to save the wildlife in Africa and our hunting traditions, it seems that we need to punish the consumer countries (China, etc.) who are consuming most of the poached ivory, tiger parts, etc. with effective economic sanctions (maybe a 5% tariff on all goods imported from those countries that goes to wildlife preservation?). Politically unpopular and also unpopular with the the many businesses that export to these countries but is there any reasonable alternative? Haven't they heard about Viagra?

How about this for a scenario:

You hunt a Lion and then legally sell the trophy to the Chinese to offset the cost of the safari?

Cost of a lion hunt $50,000+

Value of lion bones, claws and teeth in SA market < $2,000

quote:

Originally posted by Safaris Botswana Bound:
Where ever you go you hear this similar discussion , hunting is under real threat due to our lack of publicity ability - good publicity.

If we don't recreate ourselves I predict hunting in Africa will be a thing of the past in 10 years time.

Everything everybody is stating above is relevant and urgent.

Hunting under the name of "trophy hunting" is not acceptable to billions of people - yes people billions , so to fail to take this into our planning would be a bad idea.

Gun ownership is under just as much attack as Trophy hunting - all due to lack of informative information.

There are so many organizations and clubs - our effort and money is diluted.

Shane Mulhoney in a DSC magazine spoke about a need for a COALITION for CONSERVATION as far back as 2012 = I suggest this is the way forward

What we need is a Conference of Parties - a Coalition formed between all hunting and gun associations who can appoint a member to the BOARD - the goal to finance a global education program which can spread the good stories and good word in a language acceptable by the masses.

As a sideline we need to do something fast and this in mind includes the following
* Do away with the word TROPHY hunting - call it hunting full stop . Hunting has a positive conatation = trophy has a negative conatation.
* Do away with trophy awards - change it to awards for best conservator and educator awards these are the real hero's of hunting.
* Do away with practices that harm hunting such as canned lion hunting ( organizations must ban advertising in publicly available magazines ).

The Board of the Coalition should have experts on retainers paid to react immedaitly to any negative or contraversial media - rebuttal with facts and good stories. We have all seen how if you respond to blogs and facebook pages with the facts and information - the story dies and disappears.

The Coalition for Conservation
Conserving Wildlife and the Outdoors

Just a thought .

quote:

Originally posted by Safaris Botswana Bound:

Hunting under the name of "trophy hunting" is not acceptable to billions of people - yes people billions , so to fail to take this into our planning would be a bad idea.

quote:

Originally posted by Hoytshooter:
After reading this I don't think a new organization is needed. Support is what is needed. Is sci perfect? No, but at 50k they are still a voice heard in Washington. They are for hunting. If you don't like some of the things that they do join the fight and fix them. Getting the younger generations to join anything is hard they donnot see it as a bennifit to them immediately. How do you get them more involved. You need to appeal to their level. Our chapter has started to focus on hunts that the younger crowds appeal to at our fund raiser. We also support some youth functions and events. Could you imagine the voice of sci or DSC if they were 2,3,4,5 million strong. Organizations have to understand that the younger generations won't spend 65 bucks a year to join much of anything with all the technology we have save the paper send magizines by email. Hopefully we can figure out how we can converge and fight as a team instead of the rogue warrior. I could care less about awards for who shot what. But some guys do and I will travel to Vegas to watch my friend receive his award next month at sci because he earned it and at 82 years old this is a highlight in his life. Its about support. Start somewhere thanks hoytshooter.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
You are so right. Those awards are problematic.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Matt:

Do either of those organizations publish a huge magazine with all the awards they are selling ? Do either of those spend multiple evenings handing out the awards?