Anti hunting attack philosophy
12-24-2004, 11:07 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Beautiful Western Montana
Posts: 2,308
Anti hunting attack philosophy
As I traverse around the board I am seeing a pattern emerging from the Anti hunting coalitions. Animals rights nuts pretty much know that they aren't going to get anywhere going through elected officials to perpetuate their agenda, so they are resorting to other means. I'm going to play the devils advocate here, and lets see if this is reasonable.
Anti hunting groups are getting clever, they have figured out that there is more then one way to skin a cat, though I don't think they would use that terminolgy.
1. Attack youth hunting to get fewer hunters involved in the sport. Just read how an animal rights group in Indiana is using a hunting accident to increase the age of hunters. This would put fewer hunters in the field, and reduce the number who ultimately would take up the sport.
2. Limit land access. The fewer places hunters have to hunt, the fewer hunters there will be. Conservation easements that include no-hunting clauses, no federal lands hunting, refuge systems, zoning classifications, purchasing large tracks of land to set aside, etc. Media campaigns discouraging free hunting showing hunters as reckless slobs etc. Propose and support vehicle restrictions and road closures to limit back country access.
3. Limit tag access. Buy up tags, put in for drawings and not hunt. Attempt to drive the cost of tags up.
4. Increase cost of hunting. Support taxes on hunting equipment, guns, ammo. Propose and support land access fees, parking fees, land use fees, area permits fees etc.
5. Use courts and Iniative voting to limit hunting. Outlaw various forms of hunting. Restrict weapons etc. Chip away at various forms of hunting. Glamorize certain animals, mountain lions for example to eliminate hunting. Mountain lions in California, doves in Wisconsin etc. Contiually attempt to bans guns.
6. Predator re-introduction. Allow predators to control populations eliminating the need to hunt, and/or reducing populations to a point that tags are extremely limited.
7. Oraganizational infiltration. Infiltrate decision making agencies such as USFW, BLM, USFS, local and state game mangement commissions. Reduce hunting quotas and seasons. Increase predation and limit over all access. Protect certain species, and areas.
This is but a few and I'm sure there are many more. I really don't think the anti's are just out carrying signs anymore. They are pooling funds and getting the dirty little fingers all over. There are many ways to reduce or attempt to reduce or eliminate hunting. I think we should all be vigillent.
Anti hunting groups are getting clever, they have figured out that there is more then one way to skin a cat, though I don't think they would use that terminolgy.
1. Attack youth hunting to get fewer hunters involved in the sport. Just read how an animal rights group in Indiana is using a hunting accident to increase the age of hunters. This would put fewer hunters in the field, and reduce the number who ultimately would take up the sport.
2. Limit land access. The fewer places hunters have to hunt, the fewer hunters there will be. Conservation easements that include no-hunting clauses, no federal lands hunting, refuge systems, zoning classifications, purchasing large tracks of land to set aside, etc. Media campaigns discouraging free hunting showing hunters as reckless slobs etc. Propose and support vehicle restrictions and road closures to limit back country access.
3. Limit tag access. Buy up tags, put in for drawings and not hunt. Attempt to drive the cost of tags up.
4. Increase cost of hunting. Support taxes on hunting equipment, guns, ammo. Propose and support land access fees, parking fees, land use fees, area permits fees etc.
5. Use courts and Iniative voting to limit hunting. Outlaw various forms of hunting. Restrict weapons etc. Chip away at various forms of hunting. Glamorize certain animals, mountain lions for example to eliminate hunting. Mountain lions in California, doves in Wisconsin etc. Contiually attempt to bans guns.
6. Predator re-introduction. Allow predators to control populations eliminating the need to hunt, and/or reducing populations to a point that tags are extremely limited.
7. Oraganizational infiltration. Infiltrate decision making agencies such as USFW, BLM, USFS, local and state game mangement commissions. Reduce hunting quotas and seasons. Increase predation and limit over all access. Protect certain species, and areas.
This is but a few and I'm sure there are many more. I really don't think the anti's are just out carrying signs anymore. They are pooling funds and getting the dirty little fingers all over. There are many ways to reduce or attempt to reduce or eliminate hunting. I think we should all be vigillent.
12-26-2004, 07:59 PM
#2
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location:
Posts: 398
RE: Anti hunting attack philosophy
you couldnt be more right, i saw a commercial on tv awhile back where this guy goes to take his son fishing, so they end up in the middle of this big city in thier fishing gear and everything, and there they are fishing out of a manhole, i hope it never comes down to us out there in the big city walking around shooting spitwads through a straw at squirrels or something,
man i hate these vegen heathen antihunting stupids
man i hate these vegen heathen antihunting stupids
12-27-2004, 07:15 AM
#3
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,357
RE: Anti hunting attack philosophy
The threats to hunting and gun ownership are real. Hunters and gun owners should be organized and live like they want their heritage to be preserved and passed forward. That being said, it isn't necessary to get one's shorts in a twist and get too excited.
When disadvantageous legislation is proposed, write your legislators, phone your legislators, talk to your non-hunting work associates. How many hunters or gun owners write letters to their representatives? Typically one letters is considered to represent the opinion of about 100 others who vote but won't take the trouble to write letters. Letters count. And typically every letter receives a personal response, admittedly from an aid and usually several months after the letter was sent, but a personal response.
Behave yourself as if your actions will represent all hunters to the public, because they do. A joke about "if it flies it dies!" or "if it's brown its down!" on this web site or among other hunters in a public place . . . just isn't very smart and doesn't represent us well. I could continue to catalog adverse behavior, but we all know what represents us poorly. Think. I don't email my kill pictures -- picture of me holding game's head up with a rifle in my hand or, worse, picture of gutted game animal hanging on the gambrel -- out to a general audience but only to hunters or others that I know will not be offended.
Do take youngsters hunting. Take a youngster to a hunters education course and sit through it with them so they may be less intimidated.
Talk about why you hunt to non-hunters. PARTICULARLY tell non-hunters how much you enjoy cooking and eating the meat harvested from your game. Many non-hunters think the main reason we hunt is to collect a head to put on our den walls and that the meat, presumably, is wasted. If it is truthful, try to make the point that the trophy head is incidental to your hunting.
I think if we do our part we can survive the attacks of the antis. As far as making the sport more expensive as an attack strategy, the hunting community itself seems to doing this very effectively entirely on its own. Do hunters disparage and denigrate other hunters who don't have the latest camoflage, the most powerful 4x4, the biggest quad 4 wheeler, the biggest boomer rifle, the most expensive european glass. If we as hunters don't do this, certainly the hunting magazines do their best to convince us that we can't successfully hunt unless we spend our children's college tuition treasure chest on hunting gear.
There are some inherent contradictions of the argument of the antis. For example, how long will they be able to sing the praises of the beauty of mountain lions in California before the numbers of joggers attacked and killed by mountain lions and pets attacked and eaten by mountain lions tips the scales in favor of cutting down their numbers? Won't the case be similar with wolves over time?
Anyway, don't dispair. If hunting dies it won't be the fault of the antis but our own fault.
When disadvantageous legislation is proposed, write your legislators, phone your legislators, talk to your non-hunting work associates. How many hunters or gun owners write letters to their representatives? Typically one letters is considered to represent the opinion of about 100 others who vote but won't take the trouble to write letters. Letters count. And typically every letter receives a personal response, admittedly from an aid and usually several months after the letter was sent, but a personal response.
Behave yourself as if your actions will represent all hunters to the public, because they do. A joke about "if it flies it dies!" or "if it's brown its down!" on this web site or among other hunters in a public place . . . just isn't very smart and doesn't represent us well. I could continue to catalog adverse behavior, but we all know what represents us poorly. Think. I don't email my kill pictures -- picture of me holding game's head up with a rifle in my hand or, worse, picture of gutted game animal hanging on the gambrel -- out to a general audience but only to hunters or others that I know will not be offended.
Do take youngsters hunting. Take a youngster to a hunters education course and sit through it with them so they may be less intimidated.
Talk about why you hunt to non-hunters. PARTICULARLY tell non-hunters how much you enjoy cooking and eating the meat harvested from your game. Many non-hunters think the main reason we hunt is to collect a head to put on our den walls and that the meat, presumably, is wasted. If it is truthful, try to make the point that the trophy head is incidental to your hunting.
I think if we do our part we can survive the attacks of the antis. As far as making the sport more expensive as an attack strategy, the hunting community itself seems to doing this very effectively entirely on its own. Do hunters disparage and denigrate other hunters who don't have the latest camoflage, the most powerful 4x4, the biggest quad 4 wheeler, the biggest boomer rifle, the most expensive european glass. If we as hunters don't do this, certainly the hunting magazines do their best to convince us that we can't successfully hunt unless we spend our children's college tuition treasure chest on hunting gear.
There are some inherent contradictions of the argument of the antis. For example, how long will they be able to sing the praises of the beauty of mountain lions in California before the numbers of joggers attacked and killed by mountain lions and pets attacked and eaten by mountain lions tips the scales in favor of cutting down their numbers? Won't the case be similar with wolves over time?
Anyway, don't dispair. If hunting dies it won't be the fault of the antis but our own fault.
12-27-2004, 09:58 AM
#4
Typical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 579
RE: Anti hunting attack philosophy
I am a firm believer in the notion that we are not going to change the minds of the anti-hunters just as they will not change the minds of the hunters. The people that can be persuaded are the non-hunters! Most non-hunters are not anti-hunting and realize that hunting is a tool to manage game populations. BUT!! If they see too much blood and gore they can be persuaded to go anti very easily. That is a tool the anti's use to increase numbers, i.e.; show pictures of wounded or dead game. Why then are we, hunters, putting shows on tv of hunting scenes with actual footage of the "hit" from a bullet or arrow, sometimes very poor shots, and in the end seeing the hunters celebrating the death of the animal and holding the trophy head for all to see. We are "shooting ourselves in the foot" !!!
12-27-2004, 11:01 AM
#5
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Anchorage,Alaska
Posts: 512
RE: Anti hunting attack philosophy
ORIGINAL: Hunter_59
Why then are we, hunters, putting shows on tv of hunting scenes with actual footage of the "hit" from a bullet or arrow, sometimes very poor shots, and in the end seeing the hunters celebrating the death of the animal and holding the trophy head for all to see. We are "shooting ourselves in the foot" !!!
Why then are we, hunters, putting shows on tv of hunting scenes with actual footage of the "hit" from a bullet or arrow, sometimes very poor shots, and in the end seeing the hunters celebrating the death of the animal and holding the trophy head for all to see. We are "shooting ourselves in the foot" !!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Horizontal Hunter
Northeast
0
02-09-2009 01:25 PM
