BaxterB,

That is the tragedy, there is so much more than can and should be done and very little reason to believe that anything meaningful will be done. Have you seen the ads the NRA is running on cable channels like Fox? At least on the Second Amendment the NRA seems to now be prepared to do some evangelizing instead of simply preaching to the choir.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

One congressman whom I won't mention his name put his around me and said: "Lane, you boys did a fine job with your presentation and the science certainly seems to be on your side...but...for every penny y'all spend...the other side (PETA, HSUS etc.) spends $10K...you have no chance of getting the votes against."

We will never out spend them . . .

You are 100% correct! Because...there spending is emotion driven just as Duggaboye correctly pointed out and exponentially so.

The only way fight them is to take the politicians away from them who take their money. In DC a good story might get an ear...but it takes money to buy whiskey.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

One congressman whom I won't mention his name put his around me and said: "Lane, you boys did a fine job with your presentation and the science certainly seems to be on your side...but...for every penny y'all spend...the other side (PETA, HSUS etc.) spends $10K...you have no chance of getting the votes against."

We will never out spend them . . .

You are 100% correct! Because...there spending is emotion driven just as Duggaboye correctly pointed out and exponentially so.

The only way fight them is to take the politicians away from them who take their money. In DC a good story might get an ear...but it takes money to buy whiskey.

Another simpler way to do it is donate to your local politicians and have access.

I am going to end up giving money to my congressman and senator cause after the AES-TIN registration scam I would like to have some access.

Takes away from my hunting spending - but its worth a trophy fee or two on a eland.

I will end up being subjected to Repubican political mailing junk for a lifetime and be on a sold/shared mailing list.

But the best way is to tie up with real political power - NRA, property rights groups.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

One congressman whom I won't mention his name put his around me and said: "Lane, you boys did a fine job with your presentation and the science certainly seems to be on your side...but...for every penny y'all spend...the other side (PETA, HSUS etc.) spends $10K...you have no chance of getting the votes against."

We will never out spend them . . .

You are 100% correct! Because...there spending is emotion driven just as Duggaboye correctly pointed out and exponentially so.

The only way fight them is to take the politicians away from them who take their money. In DC a good story might get an ear...but it takes money to buy whiskey.

Another simpler way to do it is donate to your local politicians and have access.

I am going to end up giving money to my congressman and senator cause after the AES-TIN registration scam I would like to have some access.

Takes away from my hunting spending - but its worth a trophy fee or two on a eland.

I will end up being subjected to Repubican political mailing junk for a lifetime and be on a sold/shared mailing list.

But the best way is to tie up with real political power - NRA, property rights groups.

Mike

You may well buy access. We had access in my example. A majority of votes or the will to press an agenda (which translates to money) trumps access in DC every day of the week and twice on Sunday...trust me!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

One congressman whom I won't mention his name put his around me and said: "Lane, you boys did a fine job with your presentation and the science certainly seems to be on your side...but...for every penny y'all spend...the other side (PETA, HSUS etc.) spends $10K...you have no chance of getting the votes against."

We will never out spend them . . .

You are 100% correct! Because...there spending is emotion driven just as Duggaboye correctly pointed out and exponentially so.

The only way fight them is to take the politicians away from them who take their money. In DC a good story might get an ear...but it takes money to buy whiskey.

Another simpler way to do it is donate to your local politicians and have access.

I am going to end up giving money to my congressman and senator cause after the AES-TIN registration scam I would like to have some access.

Takes away from my hunting spending - but its worth a trophy fee or two on a eland.

I will end up being subjected to Repubican political mailing junk for a lifetime and be on a sold/shared mailing list.

But the best way is to tie up with real political power - NRA, property rights groups.

Mike

You may well buy access. We had access in my example. A majority of votes or the will to press an agenda trumps access in DC every day of the week and twice on Sunday...trust me!

Agree but a lot of our stuff is administrative law and rule making driven. AET-TIN was such.

No one is going to come and try and stop hunting is one swoop. It is and will be a lot of small brush wars. The opposition knows it - why they aim at weak points - elephants, lion will be next, trophy transport.

Why political access matters cause that puts pressure on agencies.

Mike

With the 4(d) rule written in the uplist of lion to threatened under the endangered species act...the USF&W gave iteslf the authority to stop lion trophy import anytime they choose. They have severely crippled ele hunting with the ivory ban.

The only thing that is going to stop them from going forward is a hunting friendly executive branch...regardless of what a few congressmen say.

The Clinton Foundation drove the implementation of the ivory ban. Hillary hits the whitehouse door...African hunting is history.

Very amused at all the ethical talk about shooting collared animals. Want to see every third animal in the field collared by some eco-nutter group? By all means then, make it illegal or "unethical" to shoot them! I will say it again, if ANY researcher worth a shit collars animals in or around a hunting area, he/she is absolutely NOT interested in hunters biasing the results of whatever study by REFUSING to shoot them or being prohibited from doing so.

We desperately need TV commercials and adds in newspapers etc... with our conservation message.
The message should feature interesting hunters who feel strongly about their activity.The message should start off strong and get peoples attention.An example would be "Do you know that there would be no wild animals living in the world today if it wasn't for hunters?"
We need to start launching a few missiles(so to speak) instead of sitting and awaiting the death of hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:
No one is going to come and try and stop hunting is one swoop. It is and will be a lot of small brush wars. The opposition knows it - why they aim at weak points - elephants, lion will be next, trophy transport.

Mike

I agree. The demise will be by consensus of what is "ethical" hunting. This would sure save the antis a lot of work and provide them a narrower target. Their interest, despite the BS that they put out, is to end hunting. Appeasement of the antis will not work. Our best hope is education of the people that are not against hunting and passing hunting rights amendments state by state. We best get this one done while we still have a chance to win.

Some of the discussion on the numerous rehashes of this topic is so provincial and obviously from a view point of not only what the poster things is right but what works where they hunt. It gets as silly as if I was advocating having one rule book to cover football, rugby, and soccer (apologizes to the non-US members).

quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:
Very amused at all the ethical talk about shooting collared animals. Want to see every third animal in the field collared by some eco-nutter group? By all means then, make it illegal or "unethical" to shoot them! I will say it again, if ANY researcher worth a shit collars animals in or around a hunting area, he/she is absolutely NOT interested in hunters biasing the results of whatever study by REFUSING to shoot them or being prohibited from doing so.

We shoot banded ducks and geese? THey are supposed to be shot so the researchers get the data they need. I realize banded animals are different, but it is not the issue here with this lion.

Also, thanks guys for keeping this discussion on the issue and not getting sidetracked into something else. This is one of the best discussions I have read in awhile.

Back in 1993 on a Pronghorn hunt in southwestern Wyoming, one of the hunters in our group shot a collard buck, and Wyoming G&F was glad to get the collar back because it provided them with information concerning the movements of the animal.

I have been hunting ducks for 50 years and finally, 2 years back killed my first banded duck and all of my hunting acquaintances congratulated me.

As others have alluded too, hunting will be lost at some point in the future, simply due to changing attitudes.

I really do not see how attacking each other over differences in Personal ethics is going to help prolong what life hunting has left.

Good debate and many opinions
Ethics are just like opinions, everybody has few and they are all based on individualistic make up
Good luck for us hunters out there
I do need advil now

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:

We shoot banded ducks and geese? THey are supposed to be shot so the researchers get the data they need. =

Correct! I also find it funny that Jines in particular has made such a big deal about the collar (and that the anti-hunters have as well) when I read in different outlets that the Oxford researchers themselves were not at all, from a scientific perspective, annoyed by their collared animal being shot. It's a damned data point! Given the choice of standing with Oxford scientists or the anti-hunters, I will choose the former every damned time. To do otherwise is to effectively say "Fuck logic, I am going to flow with public opinion"!

To repeat . . . for those a little slow on the uptake . . .

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:
So, is bowhunting unethical?

You included it on the list of reasons why the hunt was indefensible.

I was addressing the totality of the circumstances, i.e., a bow hunt, at night, on a national park boundary, involving a collared lion, by a hunter that pled guilty to a felon in connection with a prior game violation. If you believe that Palmer is a good ambassador of sport hunting and he and his hunt represent a good role model for young hunters, that is your prerogative.

For those even slower on the uptake, the "totality of the circumstances" is horse shit if the components are horse shit. Don't get pissy because you build a case on shaky pillars and people then come and knock 'em over.

Subject: ETHICS. MY ethics are MINE, YOUR ethics are YOURS. I think MINE are very good and could care less about YOURS. All wrapped up in a nutshell without 4 pages and 10 bazillion useless words going nowhere. Carry on.

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
R8 Blaser

Ummm yep.

Problem is, I do care about your ethics and you should care about mine . . . because your ethics or lack thereof or my ethics or lack thereof can impact our collective ability to hunt in the future. Palmer is a case in point. That is why the issue is worth discussing.

Not really. Baby seal hunting is still going on in Canada and the Japanese are still slaughtering dolphins and whales are still being hunted even after decades of animal rights groups fighting it.

Hunting ethics is not what's attacking our collective access to hunting now or in the future; money and weak politicians are...

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:

Hunting ethics is not what's attacking our collective access to hunting now or in the future; money and weak politicians are...

. . . that we allow to be fueled in part by our own unethical activities, e.g., Palmer.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Not really. Baby seal hunting is still going on in Canada and the Japanese are still slaughtering dolphins and whales are still being hunted even after decades of animal rights groups fighting it.

Hunting ethics is not what's attacking our collective access to hunting now or in the future; money and weak politicians are...

And notice that you don't see the specific and very pointed public outcry on FB or other media when it comes to sealing in Norway or whaling in various parts of the world. This is because the people doing it are not ashamed, they don't care if it's made public, and they don't respond to animal rights nutters' threats. They don't pussy foot around the "feel bads" of people who are usually not basing their behavior in logic. Why don't we take a page from their book? Want to shut the nut up? Stop giving a shit how they feel about what you do! That doesn't mean one should not behave ethically, but you should not let someone 10,000 miles away in an office in Boston decide what is right or wrong on the fields of Africa. Nor should you let someone decide who is simply adopting a belief system parallel to theirs in an effort to be the last one the crocodile eats.

No actually we allow this to happen because we elect weak politicians in this country only interested is taking away all out rights and we are not outing those politicians in Africa who are clearly on the take.

Well, the first step in not electing the weak is in not being weak ourselves. Is it any surprise that politicians respond to the lowest common denominator when those driven by logic effectively live in the closet? Frankly, if hunters were half as gutsy as homosexuals, we would be in great shape politically speaking. Maybe we need a "hunter pride parade"! LOL!

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:

No actually we allow this to happen because we elect weak politicians in this country only interested is taking away all out rights and we are not outing those politicians in Africa who are clearly on the take.

quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:

Frankly, if hunters were half as gutsy as homosexuals, we would be in great shape politically speaking.

I agree with both statements. Unfortunately, hunters as a group tend to be generally apathetic and largely inert.

Holy fuckballs, we agree on something! LOL!

Mike - save your time and breath caring about MY ethics, they are just fine. I'm not caring about yours, seems you have enough problems?

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
R8 Blaser

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Problem is, I do care about your ethics and you should care about mine . . . because your ethics or lack thereof or my ethics or lack thereof can impact our collective ability to hunt in the future. Palmer is a case in point. That is why the issue is worth discussing.

quote:

Frankly, if hunters were half as gutsy as homosexuals, we would be in great shape politically speaking. Maybe we need a "hunter pride parade"! LOL!

No so LOL! One of the things that has given me a different perspective on how things get done politically/socially is moving from a very gun/hunting friendly and quiet (activist-wise) place like Idaho to Seattle. The liberal conversation is constant - never-ending. Signs on power poles, church boards, protesters, strikes, etc etc. It's just a constant stream of 'stuff.' COnservative ideals are like lightning strikes and thunder. A flash, then a rolling off into nothingness that is eventually obscured by the liberal constant. Frankly, I admire the way the left works, but I do not admire the causes they work for. I often tell my conservative friends here that we need to be more like the left, and they recoil in horror. Even after I explain to them my line of thinking, many will say something like, "I'm just not that type of person etc." And then I explain to them THAT'S why we are losing ground on so many issues. We have a piety to us (at times) that we feel being crafty/inventive/persistent to the point of annoying is 'below' us. We sit on the sidelines and say, "That's not fair/right!" All the while those against us trudge on, making progress inch by inch, day by day, year by year.

I would suggest you all listen to the podcast that Obama did with the comedian Marc Maron. In it, he states very clearly how the left (read anti-hunters/anti-gunners) get what they want. They do not look short term, they look long term. He says to think of a ship on an ocean going in a direction. If you can turn the ship a single degree in a different direction, it might not seem like much now, or next year, but in 10 years it makes a big difference. Guys, this is a) proof slippery slope arguments are not logical fallacies and b) allows a nice peek into the mind of how the left works. In Washington, when pot was legalized, I heard many times it was the culmination of a generation's worth of work. How many causes do we hunters and gun folk work on, solidly, and consistently for generations? Very few. I'll give the NRA a modicum of credit for being in the game for that long. We need to think long term for the things we believe in, and never stop pushing in that direction. The most effective way I can think of is raise the visibility of hunters to a place that is undeniable and constant. We need to be in places that no one expects, telling a story few have yet heard, and we have a great story to tell. We have a place in the food culture. I saw an article about the "rise of the hipster hunters," which, by their nature will fade eventually. But hell, here are young, 'hip,' food-obsessed people taking up arms to kill game for the table. How the hell did they beat us to the main-stream press? It's as though they invented the concept. They did it because we lacked the imagination to tell our own interesting and relevant story, that's how. A story that hunters have known for millennia. We seem to want to keep hunting within 'our' community, but that will only ensure 'our' demise. Support for hunting (even if people choose not to hunt) has to go wider and more mainstream for it to last.

Jines,

Good NRA ad. I do not have cable so missed it. Would love to see that at halftime on the super bowl.

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

Would love to see that at halftime on the super bowl.

. . . turning that ship a single degree at a time. At least the ads are not just running on The Outdoor Channel and Sportsman Channel any more. One reason I like that particular NRA ad is that it is not a Midwestern middle-aged white guy delivering a message on the Second Amendment. I think we have to focus on the target audience when we consider not just what message we want to deliver but who is going to deliver the message . . . having women, minorities, young people, etc. deliver the message is much more impactful to me. Goes to your point about the need to go wider and more mainstream.

quote:

having women, minorities, young people, etc. deliver the message is much more impactful to me

INdeed. And people who vote (D) should be in this group. The gun/hunting message should transcend (R) and (D). Having it strictly along political lines is a shame. And having non-traditional (traditional being the middle-aged white guy) people deliver such a message will no doubt incite the charge of "tokenism," but if it's done sincerely and non-stop, it will eventually push through, as it should. This lady is a great person to tell her story.

Baxter, you are 100% correct. We have little focus and not much persistence outside the NRA. I would however give credit to JJ Jackson and Conservation Force as having both! When it comes to image though, the NRA is pretty good at pushing minorities to the forefront and they are getting better with women on the "self-defense front. We as hunters generally suck at the minority thing though and are also getting better at including women in recent years. Frankly, our big obstacle is one of social class. As far as the public is concerned, we are engaging in a "rich white guys' sport". We are not at all sympathetic. Frankly, it would not hurt for all of the big hunting magazines and the slick hunting TV shows to all get together and consciously decide to include some low-dollar, local, self-guided stuff featuring minorities and women who are obviously not driving up to camp in $60,000 trucks. Not rednecks either, but not rich guys...just average folks with mentioned professions that don't necessarily fit the image of "hunter". Open with, "Cindy here is a school teacher in Oregon and Steve is a realtor from Chicago" etc. I was also a member of a hunt group on FB a few years back and one guy there was, surprisingly enough, openly homosexual. To be honest, I could even get behind putting that guy on some TV show just for something different and for an episode that doesn't paint us as bunch of 19th century rednecks. You'll impress and twist the perceptions of a good bit more people than you will totally piss off.

quote:

I was also a member of a hunt group on FB a few years back and one guy there was, surprisingly enough, openly homosexual.

We have a very good friend here who is a lesbian and has been nagging me to take her out rabbit hunting (I just wish we had more rabbits!). She's Chinese/Malaysian. She breaks all the molds when it comes to stereotypes. I told her now that she is out of the sexual closet she needs to come out of the political closet and admit she's a conservative (which she is on almost every issue). Point being, we have a lot more allies than we think we do, we just need to work hard to get the message both TO them and probably more importantly FROM them.

quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:
Baxter, you are 100% correct. We have little focus and not much persistence outside the NRA. I would however give credit to JJ Jackson and Conservation Force as having both! When it comes to image though, the NRA is pretty good at pushing minorities to the forefront and they are getting better with women on the "self-defense front. We as hunters generally suck at the minority thing though and are also getting better at including women in recent years. Frankly, our big obstacle is one of social class. As far as the public is concerned, we are engaging in a "rich white guys' sport". We are not at all sympathetic. Frankly, it would not hurt for all of the big hunting magazines and the slick hunting TV shows to all get together and consciously decide to include some low-dollar, local, self-guided stuff featuring minorities and women who are obviously not driving up to camp in $60,000 trucks. Not rednecks either, but not rich guys...just average folks with mentioned professions that don't necessarily fit the image of "hunter". Open with, "Cindy here is a school teacher in Oregon and Steve is a realtor from Chicago" etc. I was also a member of a hunt group on FB a few years back and one guy there was, surprisingly enough, openly homosexual. To be honest, I could even get behind putting that guy on some TV show just for something different and for an episode that doesn't paint us as bunch of 19th century rednecks. You'll impress and twist the perceptions of a good bit more people than you will totally piss off.

There is one show about union craftsmen who go on hunts; I sometimes watch it just because it is different, and it is "average" guys going on a hunt of a lifetime. Much more interesting to me than seeing the same old guys shooting the same old stuff.

As for messages, I have long said I wish the NRA or someone would run an add with a young woman (of child bearing age) holding two pheasants in one hand and in the other a shotgun broken over her shoulder.

The caption would be "I am pro-choice. I choose to hunt."

Run it in Cosmo and other magazines non hunting mags.

Actually, I am going to see about making some bumper stickers with that slogan. What do you guys think? I will have my paralegal TM it next week.

Honestly, I would really like to see a bumper sticker reading, "Female Democrats will keep their laws off your guns when you keep your laws off their vaginas". Similarly, I have actually considered printing one that reads, "I will vote for the first party that is both pro-choice and pro-2nd."

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
To repeat . . . for those a little slow on the uptake . . .

I may be a little slow on the uptake, but the reality is some people talk too damn much so I tune them out.

Good debate. I can see where Mr Jines is coming from but hunting will not stop in Africa because of policy dictated from abroad. It may change and we will adapt.

Ethics is more a gut feeling.

quote:

Originally posted by CharlesL:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
To repeat . . . for those a little slow on the uptake . . .

I may be a little slow on the uptake, but the reality is some people talk too damn much so I tune them out.

And just because it is repeated over and over and over and over doesn't make it right.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:

quote:

Originally posted by CharlesL:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
To repeat . . . for those a little slow on the uptake . . .

I may be a little slow on the uptake, but the reality is some people talk too damn much so I tune them out.

And just because it is repeated over and over and over and over doesn't make it right.

I am quite happy where I stand on this issue. As Abraham Lincoln said, be sure to put your feet in the right place, then stand firm.

I finally read the piece by Mahoney. I feel sorry about my comments regarding his portrayal on TAA (no offense to the Safari Classics team). It is a well written piece. I think I will revisit his other articles.

I don't plan to reread this thread, but might. Some fellas I respect on this forum have made comments I'd like to review. I know a few of those I respect, but may have not met, are also friends, yet have opposing opinions. It still bothers me about the Dr. Palmer situation, but he has been cleared on Cecil.

There might be a reason why he's now a bow hunter (felony conviction, but possibly a misdemeanor reduction), but it would require reading AR drivel over the past few pages. Yes, I should have read that before this post. However, Aaron has been convicted of a game violation in his early days. He has owned up to it and said so (Aaron, I'm not trying to throw you under the bus at all). I believe Aaron is a stand up guy. I only know him here and Facebook. I haven't had the pleasure of meeting him at the shows. I hope too one day. In fact, he scribed a very intelligent post regarding the hell his girlfriend was getting. I'd share a link, but it's late.

In the end, I think Dr. Palmer got screwed. He was the "proper American hunter" with a title that shot a cat with a name that relatively no one knew about prior. I'm not one to really trust news out of Africa, BBC, etc.! I believe I was one of many to say the same as the story broke.

In closing, I do think the man from the shadows said it well.

"Finally, we need to think very clearly about what we are going to say concerning two critical issues. Why is hunting relevant in our modern world, and do hunters really care about about the wildlife we pursue? Either we will answer these questions, or someone else will - an echo, surely, of Cecil's roar." (sic)

- Shane Mahoney