Two very good articles in the November/December issue of Sports Afield regarding Cecil and the future of hunting.

The Echo of Cecil's Roar by Shane Mahoney

"Regardless of how we might wish to dismiss the Cecil coverage or rail against the condemnation of hunting it unleashed, the fact remains it was a phenomenon. The hunting world will be making a grave error indeed if it fails to study and understand its significance. Predictably, of course, we will do nothing of the kind. What we certainly will do is denigrate those who have spoken out against the killing of this lion and call them 'crazies' or 'antis' . . . We are preoccupied with what we perceive as issues of logic, when in reality they are issues of emotion . . . If we want to influence and win this argument we had best start by putting ourselves, however briefly, in the shoes of our critics . . . Cecil's greatest impact on hunting will derive from the inroads the coverage of his death makes on the 'sacred seventy' -- that large majority (70 percent) of people who appear, in North America, at least, to support forms of legal, fair chase hunting . . . The hunting world has been opened to a wide audience and more intense scrutiny will follow. And for hunters who feel their particular form of hunting is doing just fine and think it is only lion hunting or trophy hunting that is in the cross hairs, well, my suggestion is to think again. A rising tide will gradually encircle the wider beach and so it is for the rising world of empathy for animals and the issue of hunting . . . We must accept that we cannot fight a modern war with medieval weaponry."

A Tale of Two Farmers by Dr. Kevin Robertson

"[W]e hunters have become our own worst enemy. For too long now we have let unethical practices go unchallenged. This has tarnished our image. We've let canned hunting become an accepted norm. Confusing long-range sniping with ethical walk-and-stalk hunting has led to us being regarded as killers rather than sportsmen. Out biggest failure, however, has been in not developing ways to counter the anti-hunting onslaught we are now facing. If we lose this round Africa's wildlife is doomed. Now is the time for ethical hunters worldwide to stand up for what we know is right."

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

A Tale of Two Farmers by Dr. Kevin Robertson
Confusing long-range sniping with ethical walk-and-stalk hunting has led to us being regarded as killers rather than sportsmen. "

wow where did that come from, talk about missing the point.

There are some of us, myself included, that are troubled by the hunts where someone is taking a poke at an animal at 500, 600, 700 yards and beyond. There are simply too many variables at play to make that practice the recipe for a quick and efficient kill in all instances. Of course, I am not suggesting that close shots cannot be botched. Just seems like the responsible hunter would either pass or get as close as possible to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that the shot is effective to put the animal down.

Kevin posts here occasionally though, he can speak for himself if he so desires. There is also a thread on the issue of long-range shooting on the American Big Game Hunting thread if interested.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
There are some of us, myself included, that are troubled by the hunts where someone is taking a poke at an animal at 500, 600, 700 yards and beyond.

See, first of all this is a species specific problem which is already injecting a pretty subjective element to the moral hierarchy that is trying to be formed here. If I shoot a Springbok in open country at 300 is that too far and really just "sniping"? No? OK, what if I shoot a Kudu at 250? Questionable? What if I shoot a Buffalo at 150? Unacceptable? Elephant at even 100? Sinful, right? Frankly, all this is just egotistical bullshit of the first order...."Do it the way I THINK it should be done or you are morally inferior to me". Worse yet, it makes us no better than the anti-hunting crowd in general. Even more ridiculous is the reality that, even if hunters DID conform to the "no springbok at more than 150 yards, no Kudu at more than 100 and no buffalo at more than 50" ideal that some here might happily impose, it would make ABSOLUTELY no difference at all and the anti-hunters would then simply shift their rhetoric. The goalposts would be moved back and they would say, "Oh, he was so close when you shot him, where is the challenge in that?" or "Oh, you were shooting fish in a barrel!" or (sarcastically) "Oh, it must have been a REALLY tough hunt since you were able to be so close to this innocent and totally oblivious creature before blasting him"! It's truly time to stop jumping through their hoops and DEFINITELY time to stop creating hoops for ourselves to jump through! We will not win this battle if we play by THEIR rules and if we start badgering each other for not conforming to what "someone" or what "the community" claims is "proper". Sorry, I'm not gonna play that game. Don't like the way I hunt? Well, you can suck it.

JMHO

What Mike states is 100% , if you are a hunter it is more than likely that your circle of friends will have similar values and interests and you will most likely not have to defend your views to any consequence on the future of hunting and conservation. For my sins I sit on committees and forums that debate these issues and often will influence laws/acts /ordinances/ policy .
I can assure the overwhelming majority are questioning hunting now more than ever before and the anti's are putting forward very emmotive arguments that tug at voters hearts.
If you are a long distance hunter and wish this to be your right in the future you had better be lobbying far and wide as the majority of average people do not like this idea - it is your responsibility to educate them before they close that down.
If you hunt big game - that you cannot eat - you had better start educating the masses on the conservation value - as the majority of people see it as killing for pleasure nothing less , educate or they will close us down .
If you hunt birds you had better increase your support of ducks unlimited and similar or they will close you out as people love birds
If you hunt hand raised lions , you had better be sure there is enormous lion conservation benefits or they and we will support your closure.

Bottom line each and every hunter is being called on to educate ,inform and enlighten the wider population and become active because the war just esculated against hunters

What nonsense.Are we invented things here like what type of hunting is ethical or not.Talk about fueling the antis.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
There are some of us, myself included, that are troubled by the hunts where someone is taking a poke at an animal at 500, 600, 700 yards and beyond. There are simply too many variables at play to make that practice the recipe for a quick and efficient kill in all instances. Of course, I am not suggesting that close shots cannot be botched. Just seems like the responsible hunter would either pass or get as close as possible to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that the shot is effective to put the animal down.

Kevin posts here occasionally though, he can speak for himself if he so desires. There is also a thread on the issue of long-range shooting on the American Hunt Reports thread if interested.

I am a little late to the AR game.

MJines:

Are you a Lawyer?

I think hunters have actually had it pretty good for quite a while (especially pre-social media before everyone felt compelled to share all these moments with a world they didn't realize might not like what they were doing). The problem is that during the good years hunters were like youth in that they didn't realize what they had might one day go away/be taken away etc. And also like youth, they did not work to maintain their healthy status in the good years for the later years when things changed. What hunters face now is the same task as the 55-year old guy who drank and ate to excess in the good years; has 50 extra pounds around the gut and but now that reality has hit he starts a workout routine (half-heartedly because he can see his own demise) to try to maintain some pretense of trying to do the "right" thing. In both cases it's going to be a tough road to hoe.

Oh crap, here we go again. You aren't "hunting" unless you have your hands firmly wrapped around your prey as you choke the life out of it.

Personally I'm a rock and spear guy.

The silliness never ends...

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Oh crap, here we go again. You aren't "hunting" unless you have your hands firmly wrapped around your prey as you choke the life out of it.

Personally I'm a rock and spear guy.

The silliness never ends...

Yep, looks like I am going to have a lot of scopes and binos for sale ha...........

So Mahoney says we are doing it wrong, but his only advise is to put ourselves in the "shoes of our critics".

I respect Shane and what he has done for Hunting and Conservation, but this doesn't really give us any path to the resolution. How will that help??

Somehow, there needs to be a clear course of Action that all hunters need to take, present and educate people on. The problem is that our own community is so diverse that we cannot come together on the issue at hand.

It would be nice just to say that our large member groups like SCI and DSC, DU, Delta....will do this heavy lifting, and to some extent they are doing this, but when media is seeking individuals on A/R Forum for comments in their articles and quoting comments from individuals then our mass groups are at a loss.

At some point, for the betterment of our sport, you have to satisfy yourself that you are FOR ALL legal hunting activities.

IF we as hunters want to denounce the "Emotions" of the anti crowd then we ourselves must stand for an emotionless cause.

When you add your perceived ethics tid bit to the argument, you are now against what i think our cause should be. ESPECIALLY if it detracts from a perfectly legal hunt.

Many have said it here before..."Watch what you say". But the stubborn are still spouting.....

One thing that would help is to refer media to our mass hunting groups like SCI and DSC, etc to do the talking for us. They have at least thought through a response that will not damage our reputation.

quote:

Originally posted by Bryce Dillabough:

At some point, for the betterment of our sport, you have to satisfy yourself that you are FOR ALL legal hunting activities.

Absolutely incorrect in my mind. "Pig sticking" is legal, do you think it supports the betterment of our sport? No, at some point, whether it is in business, politics . . . or even hunting, people have to be able to distinguish between what they have the right to do and what is the right thing to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Not totally on the subject, but. SA isn't a bad magazine after I cut out the 12 pages of Real Estate ads and Shane Mahoney's pages. Makes it easier to store has well.

"Experts, and want to be Experts" are killing us in the hunting scene. It's their do it my way or no way that is really doing a lot of harm to an already bad situation. Anti's have a look at these mag sources for ammunition as well as us hunters. Lots of folks here on AR seem to fall into that,"DIMWONW" category. You know who you are so enough of that.

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
R8 Blaser

"do it my way or no way"
This is a problem for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Bryce Dillabough:

At some point, for the betterment of our sport, you have to satisfy yourself that you are FOR ALL legal hunting activities.

Absolutely incorrect in my mind. "Pig sticking" is legal, do you think it supports the betterment of our sport? No, at some point, whether it is in business, politics . . . or even hunting, people have to be able to distinguish between what they have the right to do and what is the right thing to do.

Then what is the answer Mike? Or anyone for that matter?

You can fight the battle of ethics on a different stage. The A/R Forum has not been an inner circle of debate for a long time. I think that its great for each to have their opinion. i just don't think we can use A/R for that any longer.

We have to find something to unite on, something we can all back as hunters, and portray that front to the antis on public forums and in day to day life.

SO WHAT IS IT?

Is it really that hard? How about we unite behind efforts to educate hunters and non-hunters alike on the conservation benefits of hunting, the challenges facing wildlife, the role hunting plays in conservation, the plight of poaching, the impact hunting has on local communities, the affect of loss of habitat on wildlife, the causes of loss of habitat, the success stories in game management, etc.? I have said before, we have a good story to tell we just spend all our timing telling it to each other.

Well, when one begins to define what hunting is by the distance they shoot, it becomes sort of difficult to form a united front. That's like saying, you have a really ugly child, but aren't children great?

But I do agree that the positive message regarding trophy hunting is not told enough.

Beyond a certain point publications are useless for educating people, because they will only read what interests them. Remember taking the horse to water?

The problem with social media is that it lets someone pat themself on the back for the wonderful thing they did by hitting "like". Same with entering your email into an online petition. That's all the effort necessary to say "I helped save the world today". The side-effect of it is that getting so many likes emboldens the true nutters, which is why you get the overt threats being made to hunters and hunter organizations. There is safety in numbers and cowards are emboldened by it.

The change has to be made one-on-one. I have absolutely no qualms talking about hunting here and in Africa with anyone I meet, especially women. Not to mention that people are much more polite and willing to listen in person than they are online.

I show them pictures from my hunts in Africa and I talk to them about the conservation/economic/social side benefits of it. And I don't try to make it sound like I'm some kind of altruist, paying big money for killing animals in order to save them. It's a good side effect of me travelling and enjoying the world in my own way.

I take gourmet dishes made from game meats to wine tastings and other parties. Most of the 70% have never tried wild game, or haven't eaten it since they were a kid and their grandfather killed a deer. It's a way to get their attention, show them that it's about more than the killing and also lets them visibly experience my passion for hunting. It helps if the food is really tasty, too.

I've had several women who I dated over the years who thought they were anti-hunting but became more understanding of it after meeting me. And I've had many more women who I didn't date who have a better understanding as well.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Is it really that hard? How about we unite behind efforts to educate hunters and non-hunters alike on the conservation benefits of hunting, the challenges facing wildlife, the role hunting plays in conservation, the plight of poaching, the impact hunting has on local communities, the affect of loss of habitat on wildlife, the causes of loss of habitat, the success stories in game management, etc.? I have said before, we have a good story to tell we just spend all our timing telling it to each other.

So what is the best way for individuals to spread the good word? How do we get everyone on the same page? How do we jam it down "their" throats harder then they can do the same?

We have 3 major battlegrounds:
1) Mainstream media (TV, Newpapers, Mags)
2) Internet
3) Politicians

As far as the internet goes, i think the likes of SCI, DSC etc can surely devote more time to this fight. The statements they release seem good, but they need to find a way to really put it in their face on a massive, relentless scale. We need them to fight this fight for us, but also be diligent when called upon individually.

I really have no idea how to get to the mainstream media, like the antis seem to, but a good court case seems to get a lot of TV time.

Maybe Shane Mahoney was eluding to the fact that if we put ourselves in their shoes, we can play the same dirty games they do? I honestly think that our side is taking too much of the good guy approach. Fight fire with fire.

My frustration is that we surely aren't doing enough and a big part of that is we don't really know how or what to do. You see, "they" can sound stupid and make crazy accusations and still have a huge following, but we slip up just once and BAM, they are on us like wild fire...

"They" have nothing to lose and we have everything to lose. Hunters are becoming scared to say anything. So Yes, it is hard.......

My view . . . we press as hard as we can to get the NRA to step up on hunting issues and take their proven advocacy and PR model on Second Amendment issues and bring that to bear on hunting issues. To basically occupy the field abandoned, or at a minimum seriously neglected, by the other hunting organizations. I do not think SCI or DSC have the wherewithal to play the lead role in such an effort.

I think the NRA has the membership, money, know-how, political clout, and the will to do this.

DSC has the will but not the membership, money, or political clout.

SCI doesn't have any of the necessary criteria. Last thing I read from SCI was that idiotic 'under the radar' bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by PSmith:
I think the NRA has the membership, money, know-how, political clout, and the will to do this.

Paul, they certainly have the first four, I do not know about the will component. Hopefully we will know more in the next couple of weeks.

If I was a betting man, I would not put money on the NRA filling the hunting "void."

My source is Chris himself.

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:
If I was a betting man, I would not put money on the NRA filling the hunting "void."

My source is Chris himself.

Agreed. NRA has made it pretty clear that their primary advocacy and lobbying function is the protection of Second Amendment rights. They have some good hunting outreach and related activities, but it's not job one. If hunting benefits from their lobbying and other work, great, but I doubt they're gonna jump into this shitstorm with both feet.

It would be suicidal for the NRA to stick a toe into the trophy hunting debate...

"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it."

George Bernard Shaw

Mike - Feel free to hitch your wagon to any horse you want, but the NRA is not running in this race.

quote:

What nonsense.Are we invented things here like what type of hunting is ethical or not.Talk about fueling the antis.

One person got it right!

There is probably not one person on this site, that can not find something "Unethical" about the manner another person chooses to hunt.

Does not matter if it is perfectly legal in the eyes of the Law.

Also, it does not seem to register that many of the so viewed unethical styles, are not really being grasped by the Older, Out Of Shape Hunters, but by those following us that more interested in the use of technology and Personal Success without all the effort.

quote:

Originally posted by jeff32:

. . . but the NRA is not running in this race.

I really am not going to elaborate, but suffice it say that at least a couple of other folks on AR will get a chuckle out of the foregoing comment given an email we received literally less than an hour ago.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
It would be suicidal for the NRA to stick a toe into the trophy hunting debate...

It is not a "trophy" hunting debate. It is a WAR on all huntin g.

The NRA is more than "sticking their toe in"...

More to come...

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by PSmith:
I think the NRA has the membership, money, know-how, political clout, and the will to do this.

DSC has the will but not the membership, money, or political clout.

SCI doesn't have any of the necessary criteria. Last thing I read from SCI was that idiotic 'under the radar' bullshit.

Is there any way that DSC/SCI can partner with NRA?

Have the smaller organizations learn from the NRA as to how to get the ball rolling, I'm sure at one point the NRA wasn't what it is today and i'm not sure if we have the time to build up another organization to their "level"


I think just reading through the previous comments proves why we as individuals, social media can NOT even attempt to do this job. We are all too stubborn and easily distracted by the means of hunting/harvesting vs looking at it as a positive way to provide food (for yourself or for the people of the country you are hunting), a positive way to put money back into the economy, and a positive way to manage wildlife

The hunters, trappers and fishers who insist on condemning currently legal methods of hunting, trapping and fishing will no doubt be pleased when the methods they oppose are made illegal. They should also not be surprised when their "ethical" method of hunting is declared illegal.
The lines have been drawn - you either support hunting, fishing and trapping or you don't. I hope we can save what we cherish from ourselves.

quote:

Originally posted by 1BigDeer:
The hunters, trappers and fishers who insist on condemning currently legal methods of hunting, trapping and fishing will no doubt be pleased when the methods they oppose are made illegal. They should also not be surprised when their "ethical" method of hunting is declared illegal.
The lines have been drawn - you either support hunting, fishing and trapping or you don't. I hope we can save what we cherish from ourselves.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by 1BigDeer:
The hunters, trappers and fishers who insist on condemning currently legal methods of hunting, trapping and fishing will no doubt be pleased when the methods they oppose are made illegal. They should also not be surprised when their "ethical" method of hunting is declared illegal.
The lines have been drawn - you either support hunting, fishing and trapping or you don't. I hope we can save what we cherish from ourselves.

Deer season opens in Texas in a couple of weeks. I think on opening morning I will see if I cannot harvest some "tender" venison and take out a couple of fawns. Maybe I can even find a doe with twin fawns and whack both of the twins. After all, it is legal and ethical considerations are irrelevant. It is good to know though that if I am attacked by non hunters for putting a little pre-adolescent venison in the freezer the good folks on AR will rush to my defense and cover my back.

Sort of unremarkable that we find ourselves where we do today when you hear folks say what is legal should define right and wrong and hunters should not challenge other hunters for poor ethical judgments.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
It would be suicidal for the NRA to stick a toe into the trophy hunting debate...

It is not a "trophy" hunting debate. It is a WAR on all huntin g.

The NRA is more than "sticking their toe in"...

More to come...

Jeff

True dat.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by 1BigDeer:
The hunters, trappers and fishers who insist on condemning currently legal methods of hunting, trapping and fishing will no doubt be pleased when the methods they oppose are made illegal. They should also not be surprised when their "ethical" method of hunting is declared illegal.
The lines have been drawn - you either support hunting, fishing and trapping or you don't. I hope we can save what we cherish from ourselves.

Deer season opens in Texas in a couple of weeks. I think on opening morning I will see if I cannot harvest some "tender" venison and take out a couple of fawns. Maybe I can even find a doe with twin fawns and whack both of the twins. After all, it is legal and ethical considerations are irrelevant. It is good to know though that if I am attacked by non hunters for putting a little pre-adolescent venison in the freezer the good folks on AR will rush to my defense and cover my back.

Sort of unremarkable that we find ourselves where we do today when you hear folks say what is legal should define right and wrong and hunters should not challenge other hunters for poor ethical judgments.

I am surprised the "I support all hunting that is legal without any moral or ethical standards" crowd did not come to the rescue of bushwack safaris when he legally by contractual terms with held a dying man's security deposit. I thought his actions were un ethical and he rightly was humiliated on AR.

What about someone who likes to gut shoot animals just for jollies. He does everything by the book perfectly legally but he likes to start of by gut shooting animals and then shoot it over and over again - maybe to test how different bullets expand. Would we all defend these legal actions ?

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
It would be suicidal for the NRA to stick a toe into the trophy hunting debate...

It is not a "trophy" hunting debate. It is a WAR on all huntin g.

The NRA is more than "sticking their toe in"...

More to come...

Jeff

True dat.

If the NRA will do it right, as I expect, I see them adding a few mil more members.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
It would be suicidal for the NRA to stick a toe into the trophy hunting debate...

It is not a "trophy" hunting debate. It is a WAR on all huntin g.

The NRA is more than "sticking their toe in"...

More to come...

Jeff

True dat.

If the NRA will do it right, as I expect, I see them adding a few mil more members.

You win the prize. That is exactly their ideA.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
It would be suicidal for the NRA to stick a toe into the trophy hunting debate...

It is not a "trophy" hunting debate. It is a WAR on all huntin g.

The NRA is more than "sticking their toe in"...

More to come...

Jeff

True dat.

If the NRA will do it right, as I expect, I see them adding a few mil more members.

You win the prize. That is exactly their ideA.

This will be great for hunters. Knowing it's the NRA they will play big. Focus on US hunting rights will be their core. I would love to see a 10 mil. member NRA.

Also would love to see gun right hunting rights tied into property rights.

Let's get constitutional right to hunt and fish at the state level.

Mike

quote:

The NRA is more than "sticking their toe in"...

And the big idea is...?