Speckmisser
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 12,900
- Reaction score
- 27
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I wouldn't spend every waking moment worrying about the antis, but anyone who thinks we can just ignore them...or more importantly, anyone who thinks we can just ignore their ability to twist our activities against us... well those folks need a hard, cold dose of reality.
Sure, I'd like to ignore the antis. I think it would be awesome if it really didn't matter what they thought. And you're right, Franklin, on one key point... we're not going to change THEIR minds. But THEY have an uncanny ability to change the minds of the non-hunting public. THEY have proven their skill at taking something hunters would never think twice about, and using it to turn the non-hunters against us.
With a few videos and photographs taken out of context... a sound byte here and there without the whole picture... they were able to put a stop to mountain lion hunting in CA. They've been able to put a stop to running hounds in some states, and to halt other lawful, ethical practices in other states. The reason they've been able to do that is because too many hunters believe in that very mantra... "It doesn't matter what they think."
Non-hunters really have no dog in this fight. They don't care one way or the other. For the most part, that's always worked well for hunters. But it's also done us a disservice, because it made us complacent. We never had to worry about the non-hunters, and the antis have always been a small minority of the general public.
But while hunters kicked back and enjoyed our solitary pursuits, the antis built huge, PR organizations. They studied advertising, marketing, and began to mount campaigns of misinformation. And the best for them was the fact that of all the hunters, there are always a handful who do some stupid, unethical, and illegal things... poster children for the anti-hunting movement.
For the longest time, we (hunters) thought it was enough just to sit back and shout, "but those people aren't 'hunters'! That's not what we're about!"
And Joe Nonhunter, who really didn't care anyway, shrugged his shoulders and turned back to his sitcoms. But in his mind, the image created by those anti-hunters lived on. The words of the hunters didn't linger long, because they were just words. The antis, by god, had pictures and even video. They had the Power of Advertising.
Over a period of time, Joe Nonhunter is inundated with messages from the antis that begin to shape his impression of hunters and hunting. Some are obvious, like the PETA campaigns. Others are more subtle... even to the goofy exploits of Elmer Fudd. But those that influence him the most are the egregious cases. Seven hunters surround a valley filled with elk, and in a fusillade lasting 20 minutes, kill or maim 30 animals. A front page photo shows a 'possum with a crossbow bolt through its head (probably not even done by a hunter, but it doesn't matter to Joe). A deer hunter fires at a white flash, and kills a young mother in her own backyard. Even the simple, bullet-spattered road signs reinforce a stereotype.
And what messages does Joe get from the hunting side of the board? We scream about how those "examples" are really non-examples. This isn't really what it's like. But what do we show him? Hunters for the Hungry? No, we show him television programming of young men slaughtering animals over feeders and behind fences, then dancing around like blood-drunk knaves. Maybe there's an occasional "thank you, Lord", but that's usually followed by more dancing. It's not a very flattering image.
And here's the thing. Joe Nonhunter doesn't watch many of these programs. He doesn't need to. So he doesn't stay long enough to absorb the bigger picture... or to understand the motivation and dedication that made most of these television hunters put other careers on the line to bring the sport they love into the homes of other hunters. He doesn't know how much emotion is behind the dancing and the high fives. It doesn't occur to him, because it's never occurred to him to actually hunt and kill an animal.
The debate of anti vs hunter has always been a debate of emotion vs. logic. And we hunters, because we have always felt so well armed with our logical arguments have generally failed to "stoop" to the level of the antis, playing on the heartstrings of Joe Nonhunter rather than appealing to his intellect. Major newsbreak... the average Joe doesn't want his intellect appealed to. He can ignore logical arguments, because they would make him stop to think... and he has no interest in stopping to think about hunting. Why should he? He doesn't want to hunt. And to him, it makes no difference if hunting were abolished tomorrow!
On the other hand, the emotionally charged propaganda of the anti-hunting contingent requires no conscious thought. The antis save Joe the effort by thinking for him. "Oh my gosh, they kill those beautiful, noble animals! Hunters are barbaric! Hunting is bad!"
"Well," he says, without concentrating too hard. "Animals are pretty. Killing them is kinda brutal."
And then they have him. When election time comes around, Joe Nonhunter remembers the pretty animals. He remembers the poor little lion in the fork of the oak tree, and the orphaned bear cub by the side of the road. And he votes his emotions. Next thing you know, mountain lion hunting is banned. Spring bear hunts are cancelled. Running game with hounds is outlawed.
Now, at this point it may seem I've digressed. But here's where I'm going.
Any hunter who cares about the future of this sport had better be damned attentive to every action that is visible to the public... and to the potential negative impact of that action.
The hunting programs don't edit out the bloody kills and death throes to salve the sensibilities of the hunters. They know we've seen it, and we accept it as part of the kill. They sanitize the images to dull the emotional impact on non-hunters. They know that such scenes can deepen the disgust people feel toward the blood sports. This disgust, in turn, makes Joe Nonhunter much more susceptible to the propaganda of the antis.
The video that started all this isn't, in itself, all that bad. It's pretty graphic, but from a realistic point of view, it's pretty well done. I'm not, personally, all that opposed to its being shown here on JHO... even though I know it's probably all over the web already, and it is just one more of those things the antis will point at as an example of the bloodthirstiness and "depravity" of hunters. I know it's not nearly as hardcore as some of the stuff you see on the varmint hunter sites. It is enough, though, to raise the question again about where DO we draw the line?
And maybe more importantly, it is enough to rekindle this conversation... and to remind hunters that, if you honestly care about the future of our sport, then it behooves you to come out of your complacent confidence. If you don't pay close attention to the public image that we give, then you can bet that someone else will, and the spin they'll give it certainly isn't going to do hunters any favors.
Franklin, I'm gonna respectfully disagree with you there.
I wouldn't spend every waking moment worrying about the antis, but anyone who thinks we can just ignore them...or more importantly, anyone who thinks we can just ignore their ability to twist our activities against us... well those folks need a hard, cold dose of reality.
Sure, I'd like to ignore the antis. I think it would be awesome if it really didn't matter what they thought. And you're right, Franklin, on one key point... we're not going to change THEIR minds. But THEY have an uncanny ability to change the minds of the non-hunting public. THEY have proven their skill at taking something hunters would never think twice about, and using it to turn the non-hunters against us.
With a few videos and photographs taken out of context... a sound byte here and there without the whole picture... they were able to put a stop to mountain lion hunting in CA. They've been able to put a stop to running hounds in some states, and to halt other lawful, ethical practices in other states. The reason they've been able to do that is because too many hunters believe in that very mantra... "It doesn't matter what they think."
Non-hunters really have no dog in this fight. They don't care one way or the other. For the most part, that's always worked well for hunters. But it's also done us a disservice, because it made us complacent. We never had to worry about the non-hunters, and the antis have always been a small minority of the general public.
But while hunters kicked back and enjoyed our solitary pursuits, the antis built huge, PR organizations. They studied advertising, marketing, and began to mount campaigns of misinformation. And the best for them was the fact that of all the hunters, there are always a handful who do some stupid, unethical, and illegal things... poster children for the anti-hunting movement.
For the longest time, we (hunters) thought it was enough just to sit back and shout, "but those people aren't 'hunters'! That's not what we're about!"
And Joe Nonhunter, who really didn't care anyway, shrugged his shoulders and turned back to his sitcoms. But in his mind, the image created by those anti-hunters lived on. The words of the hunters didn't linger long, because they were just words. The antis, by god, had pictures and even video. They had the Power of Advertising.
Over a period of time, Joe Nonhunter is inundated with messages from the antis that begin to shape his impression of hunters and hunting. Some are obvious, like the PETA campaigns. Others are more subtle... even to the goofy exploits of Elmer Fudd. But those that influence him the most are the egregious cases. Seven hunters surround a valley filled with elk, and in a fusillade lasting 20 minutes, kill or maim 30 animals. A front page photo shows a 'possum with a crossbow bolt through its head (probably not even done by a hunter, but it doesn't matter to Joe). A deer hunter fires at a white flash, and kills a young mother in her own backyard. Even the simple, bullet-spattered road signs reinforce a stereotype.
And what messages does Joe get from the hunting side of the board? We scream about how those "examples" are really non-examples. This isn't really what it's like. But what do we show him? Hunters for the Hungry? No, we show him television programming of young men slaughtering animals over feeders and behind fences, then dancing around like blood-drunk knaves. Maybe there's an occasional "thank you, Lord", but that's usually followed by more dancing. It's not a very flattering image.
And here's the thing. Joe Nonhunter doesn't watch many of these programs. He doesn't need to. So he doesn't stay long enough to absorb the bigger picture... or to understand the motivation and dedication that made most of these television hunters put other careers on the line to bring the sport they love into the homes of other hunters. He doesn't know how much emotion is behind the dancing and the high fives. It doesn't occur to him, because it's never occurred to him to actually hunt and kill an animal.
The debate of anti vs hunter has always been a debate of emotion vs. logic. And we hunters, because we have always felt so well armed with our logical arguments have generally failed to "stoop" to the level of the antis, playing on the heartstrings of Joe Nonhunter rather than appealing to his intellect. Major newsbreak... the average Joe doesn't want his intellect appealed to. He can ignore logical arguments, because they would make him stop to think... and he has no interest in stopping to think about hunting. Why should he? He doesn't want to hunt. And to him, it makes no difference if hunting were abolished tomorrow!
On the other hand, the emotionally charged propaganda of the anti-hunting contingent requires no conscious thought. The antis save Joe the effort by thinking for him. "Oh my gosh, they kill those beautiful, noble animals! Hunters are barbaric! Hunting is bad!"
"Well," he says, without concentrating too hard. "Animals are pretty. Killing them is kinda brutal."
And then they have him. When election time comes around, Joe Nonhunter remembers the pretty animals. He remembers the poor little lion in the fork of the oak tree, and the orphaned bear cub by the side of the road. And he votes his emotions. Next thing you know, mountain lion hunting is banned. Spring bear hunts are cancelled. Running game with hounds is outlawed.
Now, at this point it may seem I've digressed. But here's where I'm going.
Any hunter who cares about the future of this sport had better be damned attentive to every action that is visible to the public... and to the potential negative impact of that action.
The hunting programs don't edit out the bloody kills and death throes to salve the sensibilities of the hunters. They know we've seen it, and we accept it as part of the kill. They sanitize the images to dull the emotional impact on non-hunters. They know that such scenes can deepen the disgust people feel toward the blood sports. This disgust, in turn, makes Joe Nonhunter much more susceptible to the propaganda of the antis.
The video that started all this isn't, in itself, all that bad. It's pretty graphic, but from a realistic point of view, it's pretty well done. I'm not, personally, all that opposed to its being shown here on JHO... even though I know it's probably all over the web already, and it is just one more of those things the antis will point at as an example of the bloodthirstiness and "depravity" of hunters. I know it's not nearly as hardcore as some of the stuff you see on the varmint hunter sites. It is enough, though, to raise the question again about where DO we draw the line?
And maybe more importantly, it is enough to rekindle this conversation... and to remind hunters that, if you honestly care about the future of our sport, then it behooves you to come out of your complacent confidence. If you don't pay close attention to the public image that we give, then you can bet that someone else will, and the spin they'll give it certainly isn't going to do hunters any favors.
