I have never agreed with this totally. Open debate happens in all facets of modern society. Letting the public see we debate, that we are concerned enough to continue moving in a direction that sustains our passion while simultaneously taking into consideration legitimate ethical and other concerns will hopefully improve our standing.
Am I missing something?
The majority of the public supports hunting. Maybe we should quit calling it sport hunting?
The actual debate gets lost in the process, threads get locked, people get chased away or simply tune out and often there isn't much positive left. Debate is as good or bad as we make it.
Honest and respectful debate is always a healthy, and often productive exercise. Regrettably, some lack the necessary maturity to accept that a challenge to a point of view is not an attack on that persons intelligence, morals or standing; it is merely a contrary point of view and presented respectfully should merit full consideration and discussion.
More and more it seems that society as a whole has gotten increasingly thin-skinned and/or insecure. I agree with the comment about the internet not being the ideal format for a productive discussion on the whole but have seen individuals (on this site) who have been able to keep the focus on the topic and not on the personal.
Thanks for bringing up an important topic!
True but that is not how it plays out. Where you see healthy debate or internal vigor, others will see cleaving lines. Case in point, when VA was debating Sunday hunting, deer dog hunters did not support the measure. This really ticked off all the folks who do not use dogs and, as dog hunting continues to defend itself, it will do so without the full support of the non-dog hunting demographic. In fact, many hunters openly advocate for dog hunting to be made illegal. In VA, that is neither wise nor necessary.
In all things, humankind is inexorably yoked to the proper use of discernment and, because that is so often rare, we should tread carefully in debate. This seems to form an illogical construct of sorts - exercise discernment to negate the lack of discernment - but really it is a call to action. If you are not bright enough or disciplined enough to debate within the context of the greater good, recognize that and be quite or, perhaps, merely echo the global objective (i.e. the stewardship of hunting) to reinforce stated context to the debaters and audience writ large. This is especially true in the age of blogging, etc.
We are *never* going to be seen as ethical in *some* eyes but it's important to remember that most voters are neither for or against us. The 10% who hunt are never going to win over the 10% who are anti-hunting; it's important to maintain a good image with the 80% who may well decide our fate at the voting booth.
Thanks. Great to hear from you!
DanaC, excellent point!
If you debate honestly, eliminate the personal attacks, keep an open mind, and allow yourself to hear the opposing view or be wrong you will likely learn something useful. At a minimum, you will at least have a better understanding of the other person’s point of view. And that’s a good thing IMO.
Frank, here’s a supplemental question that may help this discussion. When some posters go to personal attacks, why don’t moderators or others posters call it out? Why is it acceptable here and in our society? Why don’t most step in to say it’s unacceptable?
;-)
Matt
I quote. "Abundant and healthy wildlife populations are a cultural and ecological treasure in the US. Over time, however, the decisions about how agencies manage wildlife have become highly contested: How should managers handle human-wildlife conflicts, endangered species, and predator control.
A new 50 state study, OSU (Ohio) and CSU, Colorado) describes individuals values toward wildlife across states.
Researchers found large declines over time in several states for the group of people defined at TRADITIONALISTS, or those who believe animals should be used for purposes that benefit humans, like hunting and medical research.
Mutualists, on the other hand believe that animals deserve the same rights as humans. They view animals as companions and part of their social networks and project human traits into animals.
Not surprising is that the decline of traditionalists in some states is happening at a really rapid phase. And,"people aren't likely to interact with wildlife in their day to day lives, Instead they learn about these animals in indirect ways by seeing them on TV or social media, where animals may be depicted as more human like. This helps shape a new way of thinking about wildlife and wildlife related issues."
WE here are facing the "debate" over wolf reintroduction. No doubt an uphill challenge as the face of society changes and is changing fast.
my best, Paul
I have long suspected the 10 percent each of hunters/anti-hunters and the other mostly neutral 80 percent taught in HE classes in the past was no longer accurate.
Case in point, high fence hunting. Over 85% of the non hunting public approves of hunting for food and wildlife management. Only about 25% approve of hunting behind a high fence. Do we sweep it under the rug and pretend it's not an issue or do we do something about it. The high fence guys will scream "stop being divisive"!
Then you get into baiting, hounds, etc. There are compelling, biological and management reasons to allow using bait and hounds. Some species can't be managed without using those forms of hunting. With other species, it creates an unfair advantage and there is no reason to hunt that way.
There is no real compelling reason to support high fence hunting in the U.S. In other countries, yes. I the United States, no.
We have to police ourselves and we can't do that without debating right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable.
I suspect thats why some really hot button issues easily devolve into online richard measuring contests or insult contests, while general topics (say: help me pic a spot from this photo, or story's about a hunt, etc) rarely have issues.
It does seem, that any time today a hunter notes they are not in favor of something, instantly there is a crash of "stick up for anything hunting or you are the problem" mentality posts. Frankly, that mentality seems to hurt more than the dissenting opinion. Which could be my bias given I'm often the dissent ha ha ha!
It's ok to have differences of opinion on how to do things. Openly listen, be curious, and move on. Suggesting everyone has to be of the same mind or they are the problem, will gradually erode the silo of hunters... it will get smaller and smaller and eventually, be gone.
So, yes, H4W... I think a healthy debate is good for hunters... It's if the hunters can't keep it healthy and resort to really aggresive/poor communication that the debate likely is no longer good for all and should just end. Especially in a social platform like this, given for many reasons we simply can not communicate with the nuance of a face to face discussion in this context.
This "nuance" of "debate" is lost on some. Too many people trying to demand how others live as there is right now. Right down to what you can say and what you can do... and how you should do it.
If it's behavior or "ethics" those things can be about peer or social pressure and not more laws, taking rights away from free people.
Good points. Sometimes in discussions a person passionately arguing their view point receives baseless accusations that they are trying to force their views on others via legislation, even though they have clearly spoken against taking such actions. And sometimes this is done intentionally because the person defending a position/view being critiqued has exhausted all sensible defenses. Again, the challenging nuances of blog debating?
Nothing prevents any of us from going to the grocery store.
Most of the freezer-fillers I know are in trades where they get laid off right around the start of hunting season, and they drive deer all day for the entire gun season. I honestly could not keep up with these guys!
Circumstances partly dictate our outlook on hunting. I think it helps if you've hunted in different places and seen how it's done elsewhere. I've been in places where sticking a gun out the truck door and blasting away are 'acceptable', at least in some , ahh, 'social circles.' Not my cup of chowder but it works for them.
That isn't debatable as far as I am concerned. Honestly, many of the things we debate isn't debatable if we were standing where the other guy was that has an opposing point. However, many issues still are. So, I think it is good to hear what others who differ are thinking concerning our hunting heritage and future. But, there position has to have a basis besides what is convenient, self serving, or influenced by personal bias, in order to be considered as a relative position. that is where many fall short. It's the "me" part of their position that often makes it irrelevant.
Hunting is as literally natural and as personally interactive and involved in nature on a personal level as there is. As primal as food. As hard wired as procreation. That's all that is necessary.
It is a fool who suggests we can turn biology and ecology on its ear and hope to thrive.
Mine also!
I guess I am incorrect, again. The Conservation Chair's column in the winter 2019 P&Y Ethic cites a recent survey where public support for hunting is at an all time high of 80 percent, and disapproval falling to just 13 percent.
Approval rates were highest for conservation, the food, locally sourced meat, protecting humans and lowest for sport and trophy hunting. May be some good news on the wolf front.
Great publication btw, glad I joined!
To begin with each of us are unique in many aspects; why we hunt, what we do with the game we take can vary, sometimes significantly. What matters is not the basis of the difference but the commonality in that our actions are both legal and ethical. Those are the only relevant aspects and given their use preclude any need to justify to the non-hunter.
Before entering into a debate, I try to ask myself, what is the goal here? Can I 'win' and what does 'winning' in this case even look like?
There have been many debates I did not enter simply because, even though the facts were on my side, the facts didn't matter and there was simply no way to win or effect a positive outcome.
Suppose one of the debates about crossbows results in getting them kicked out of archery season & into gun season. Is that a win? Suppose that a few years after hunters can't use crossbows during archery season, the numbers of hunters in the woods drops to record low numbers. Is that a win? It would certainly make for more hunting opportunities for those of us left.
If the arguments against high fence hunting lead to it being outlawed, is that a win? How many really oppose the hunting of a problem animal, like feral hogs, behind a high fence? And I'm referring to wild hogs, trapped once and released onto a ranch for the purpose of being hunted. So, high fences are outlawed and the feral hog problem gets even worse. Is that a win?
As it pertains to hunting, if it is legal and you want to, knock yourself out! There are many aspects of hunting that I choose not to participate in, but that doesn't mean I'm against them. Heck, if I have no experience with them, how would I even know if I'm for or against?
It seems to me there is a difference between saying 'we don't have much in common as far as hunting goes - but we are still fellow hunters' and 'you hunt with a crossbow behind a high fence? Blasphemy, Exile!".
With so many concerned about being 'right' with no thought to the outcome, yes debate absolutely can hurt hunting.
I guess I'm just saying be careful what you wish for - you just may get it.
Until self-inflicted panic in the streets makes it near impossible to by a pound of hamburger in that grocery store...
I don’t know why a virus with a mortality rate so low among otherwise healthy adults, has led Americans to such panic.
Habitat for Wildlife's Link
Disagree that debating fragments us and causes harm. Attached is the report referred to above. Dated 2019, this survey reflects attitudes taken well after the advent of on-line heated debates. If debating caused image problems for hunters, logically that should be reflected in a lower percentage approval, not the highest recorded to date.
Personally I am convinced that some use the fragmentation argument to silence debate on tactics they know the non-hunting public would score much lower on approval. Their continued use of those tactics is causing more harm to hunter image IMHO. That is just my view on certain tactics beaten to a dead horse here numerous times. I do NOT want laws to be changed, rather through debate and discourse hopefully views will change over time to those more aligned to societal norms believed to be positive. Others hold a different view and I accept that. Thanks.
was in the process of responding when you posted, did not intentionally leave your name out in my response.
Still have to disagree, the debates don't cause a rift that leads to less political support. Without ever debating I would only support what I believe in regardless of what others said. The debates may allow us to gain information that will move our current position, but our political support should, in my case will, follow my beliefs. In other words, I would not support certain approaches to hunting via the voting process that I disagree with regardless of debates, especially if I think those activities may hurt public support for the approaches to hunting I do believe in. Wouldn't most think this way? I ask sincerely. Thanks.
Two examples here in CO:
During the bear debate, a number of hunters were publicly and loudly in favor of eliminating spring hunting, baiting, and hounds. This included some "famous" hunters like David Petersen. They became poster children for the anti side.
Now we have hunters speaking out loudly and publicly in favor of forced wolf reintroduction. As before, they are being held up as shining examples.
This is where we are damaged.
So if a hunter is against baiting deer and advocates for it to be illegal, that means they are coming after bowhunting next? It’s just a scare tactic IMO and I don’t let arguments like that sway my opinion. All rights and privileges have limits.
Lou,
Same point, hunter approval is at it's highest. It went up in spite of antis using our own to try and devour us. Yes, certain issues like wolves will bring much emotion to the table, but the general public probably puts anti's rhetoric in the same box with Nugent's hype.
Speaking of wolves, the debates here allowed me to understand the issue much more than my limited experience would allow. Some issues like baiting have been beat to death and nothing to be gained from more of the same, but other issues like the wolves and goats being "removed" from certain sheep ranges makes some of us aware of things we would not otherwise be. Thanks.
Obviously haven't been around when rifle hunters are throwing bowhunters under the bus as being "unethical" in many cases trying to claim their seasons for their own. On another level we have bowhunters, some here on this site, that are essentially doing the same, trad hunters trying to eliminate compound hunters. Baiting bears a great example above. Hunting with hounds, etc.
The answer is yes. Advocating methods of take be outlawed w/regards to feelings and "ethics" by a few for the many, based on their personal feelings and "fair chase" rather than science and established practices will eventually lead to everyone's methods being made illegal. And as stated..... nobody left to come to the rescue of the ethically pure when it comes to their turn in cage.
Throwing folks to the alligators to keep them busy and at bay.....
Basically, nobody is saying YOU have to hunt in any certain way or method other than the one YOU choose. That's an awesome personal freedom. But to not support other hunters doing the same, worse yet advocating to eliminate those methods based on "feelings"...... yeah, IMO that's not good for hunting.
APauls, bracket what you want in bold in-between what I did above, only put the less than and greater than sign in that order around the first b and the slash b.
Having a difference of opinion is not the same as throwing people under the bus. Discourse is how standards advance.
