Hunters: How Do Others See You?

[POINTY STICKS]

This Is As True Today As It Was When It Was Written

From the DNR website....

Hunters: How Do Others See You?
by: Bob Caskey





Leaders in the field of wildlife management feel that the hunter's bad image is the most serious threat that faces the future of sport hunting.... the recommendation which surfaces most frequently is increased education for both the hunter and nonhunter.

In an effort to address this problem in Colorado, the theme for the state's 1981 Hunter Education Instructor Workshops was hunter ethics. More than 400 instructors from across the state attended the 10-hour workshops held throughout Colorado....One of the main topics addressed was: "What activities turn the nonhunter against hunting? A nonhunter was defined as a person who does not hunt but is not necessarily against hunting. It's estimated that approximately 70 percent of the people in the United States belong to this group.

Bragging by hunters to nonhunters... Did you every think that some of the people...might not be interested in the gory details?... Many hunters try to promote the sport of hunting as a macho sport... It is interesting to note that there are thousands of women involved in the sport of hunting.

Displaying obnoxious slogans, T-shirts, and bumper stickers... One t-shirt... which offended me as a hunter proclaimed: "Happiness is a larger gut pile." Given today's public sentiment, there is no room for such disrespect in the noble sport of hunting.

Unnecessary display of game on vehicles... Have you ever wondered how many people out driving around did not appreciate the display of dead game on the vehicles...that the place to display our trophies is not on top of our cars, but in our trophy room or den...

Disrespect for private property and the landowner... This problem is apparent whenever you drive through the countryside and notice the number of no trespassing signs or no hunting signs posted on private property.

Nonhunters don't like to see hunters drinking while hunting... drinking in public places or coming out of liquor stores while dressed in hunting garb. While the hunters may not become intoxicated or be drinking while they are hunting, the nonhunting public does not distinguish between hunting and recreation time.

The appearance of the hunter, his vehicle, his game and his campsite... While a hunter with a 4-day growth of beard who hasn't taken a bath in four days and wears the same set of clothes the whole time he is hunting might be comfortable himself, he is offensive to the nonhunter. This is especially true when hunters sit down with nonhunters at a restaurant.. A neat and orderly campsite does not appear to be offensive to the nonhunter, but litter certainly is.

While some hunters may feel that the game he plays with the local game warden is just a game... The nonhunter associates the game laws with the protection of wildlife and wonders why a hunter would violate a law which protects his own sport. The nonhunter, therefore, finds poaching, party hunting, and illegal taking of game extremely distasteful.

The display of firearms in motor vehicles or on the hips of hunters when they are not hunting... It was felt that the nonhunter did not necessarily find the hunter offensive, but the display of the firearm in a nonhunting situation was offensive.

The crux of the discussion was that the failure of the hunter to display common sense and to show courtesy towards nonhunters is the main cause of the nonhunting public becoming dissatisfied with the hunter.

The same roundtable discussion groups also talked about the image they felt should portray the ideal hunter in the 1991...

This group of instructors described the ideal hunter as a true sportsperson who sets an example for others. He (or she) is also a person who enjoys the out-of-doors without feeling that the filling of bag limits is the major reason for his being there. He had a genuine concern for wildlife and its habitat and the future of all wildlife whether game or nongame. He respects the rights of hunters, nonhunters, and anti-hunters and does not belittle other people for their beliefs.

He encourages ethical behaviour in all hunters regardless of their age or their experience in hunting. He does not tolerate wildlife violations; in fact, he assists the local wildlife manager with the enforcement of game laws. If he does not agree with a law, he will work to change the law. He is constantly conscious of the image he projects and what the public thinks of him as a hunter. He is truly concerned about that image. He respects the property of others and public property. He knows his equipment, his firearm, his vehicle and his own limitations. He strives to be as unoffensive to the nonhunting public as possible. He limits his firepower and ammunition to the game he is hunting so that hunting is truly the hunter pitted against the animal. He take smaller bag limits regardless of the state limit. He is empathetic and is able to look at his sport through the eyes of the non-hunter and anti-hunter so that he may more readily understand their positions. Above all, he is truly concerned about the survival of hunting as a sport and works as a citizen and sportsman to ensure the future of hunting...

[POINTY STICKS]

Taken from the DNR website...



Hunting: Kindness or cruelty?

Bowhunters and hunters in general are often accused by the antihunter of causing the prey unnecessary suffering. Suffering is generally considered to be of two types: physical pain from injury or disease and mental suffering from fright, anxiety or grief.

The fact that hunters kill the animals they hunt is not at issue because all animals born will die. The issue then is whether by hunting the hunter reduces the animal's value of life, in terms of stress, longevity and health and, whether by hunting the hunter inflicts more suffering than would have occurred if he did not hunt.

In today's human dominated world the cause of death among wild animals is a direct result of either a conscious or unconscious human decision. How much the animals suffers is determined directly by that decision and on one can escape their responsibility in that choice. Unlike the non-hunter, the hunter - and especially the bowhunter - has chosen to come into direct, close contact with, and appreciation for, his prey and to make his decision consciously on the spot with only his own ethics and conscience to guide him.

People who have received arrow wounds, mostly accidentally self-inflicted, claim little pain for a time after the wounding, thus a well hit bow-killed animal may die before appreciable pain is noted. In hits which do not open major blood vessels, the wound from a razor sharp arrow has been shown to heal quickly. They are like surgical cuts - clean and neat, with little tissue displacement. Surgical cuts like these are designed to heal quickly. With rifle hunting considerable shock is associated with bullet impact to defer pain so that death may precede pain. In less well-placed hits, pain does occur, either until death or healing is underway.

The hunter has the option to decide whether to take the shot or not, he takes the responsibility for the amount of suffering or pain he personally inflicts. He can take only those shots that will most likely cause a quick kill, with minimum pain.

The antihunter has no less responsibility for the pain of the animals, he has merely chosen to remain far away from it so that he does not have to see it or face up to his responsibility. Through his efforts to prevent controlled hunting he unwittingly dooms animals to a certain death by some other cause. Accidents and predators take some. Only occasional accidents cause quick relatively painless death. frequently severe bruising and bone breakage results from accidents; pain certainly accompanies this. Predators may or may not be efficient. Often hide and flesh may be torn or displaced, prey may be killed or escape with several wounds to die later or recover.

Accidents and predators kill only a few animals. They are seldom enough to limit populations. Without hunting then - in this human dominated world-populations outgrow available food supplies. The antihunter dooms animals to competition for ever decreasing nutrients; they doom them to the pain of prolonged hunger, cold pneumonia and eventual slow death. The antihunter does not have the choice to shoot or not to shoot, he or she does not have the opportunity to wait for a quick killing shot. They have made the choice for the slower natural death which they can avoid seeing, but cannot avoid being responsible for.

Many studies have demonstrated that in overpopulated situations the youngest, weakest animals are driven away from short food supplies by the larger, stronger animals including their own mothers. The young, are the first to die when starvation becomes the controlling factor. The price a wildlife population pays for being labelled "game" is the increased chance of being killed in the prime of life rather than slowly starving in the first year or two of life.

What of mental suffering, anxiety, fright and grief? Many writers and film makers would have us believe that animals think as humans do. There is, however, little but imagination to support this.

Some anti hunters proclaim great fear among wild animals brought on by hunting. Hard data is scarce but radio telemetry studies of deer suggest that hunted animals generally treat hunters about the way we treat the risk of auto accidents. They are cautious and get out of the way of obvious danger but quickly return to normal activity. In contrast to this quick recovery, overpopulation causes social stress which is much more severe. Indicators of anxiety and fear such as heart rate and circulation of adrenal hormones are far more epotently and persistently affected by social stress such as competition for food, than by physical stress such as being pursued by a hunter-predator.

By keeping the populations of game within the limits of their habitat, hunting reduces the social stresses of overcrowding and competition for food, reduces the weakening effects of starvation and resultant disease and therefore may be observed to produce healthier animals with a longer life expectancy than non hunting. Hunting is clearly an acceptable alternative to, rather than a cause of, unnecessary animal suffering.

[alpo]

sadly, there is no way to look better in the eyes of the anti hunters out there, no matter how we rationalize or justify our chosen pass time. ... some of you will say agree, then remind me it's the 80% of undecided/indifferent folks in the middle that we are trying to impress, or at least not offend.... but unless I am wrong , they will remain apathetic unless your talking about it directly with them, then they will choose the flavor of the moment..... next choice will depend on the next set of circumstances at that time.... maybe they will be "Pro" cause they just read some good book about adventure....maybe it will be Anti cause they just witnessed some one wearing camo littering......

[archeryman57]

Great posts PS. I am finally getting the opp to read them. Can we have them put in the local newspapers?