Getting the word out- "hunting does good" -new ideas requested

D

doofus47

New member
This is not a thread for rants. I am searching for ideas.

So I'm driving through Denver the other day and a commercial comes on the radio that says "So and so (green company) works with its profits to buy land to preserve land for wild life." And I'm thinking "we all know that hunter fees and taxes on hunting ammo, etc have contributed more toward conservation than pretty much any group out there; why don't we ever put out radio adds like this?"
Example "The NRA would like to thank the hunters of Wyoming/Colorado/ wherever for contributing over $5M towards the conservation of Wildlife and habitat in the Rocky Mountains region over the past X years."

Sure, we see this mentioned in shooting-related mags, etc, but why are we confining our message to our sub-culture? Why is it we are soo bad at getting out the word to the general populace? Or am I just living under a rock?
 
I think it's difficult for an organization like the NRA to get the public to see the work they're doing towards conservation, especially when this country is so divided on gun rights. For me it boils down to individuals needing to be more proactive and getting to know hunting culture, which is what I did before I became interested in hunting. A little research will tell anyone that it's in the best interest for hunters to conserve and balance game populations. A lot of non-gun users simply don't see the benefit of hunting season, namely, that it prevents overpopulation of deer and other big game (thus preventing starvation) or that it further prevents populations infected with Chronic Wasting Disease from spreading. And most importantly, if we didn't conserve game populations there wouldn't be anything left to hunt - this is kind of a no-brainer but a lot of non-hunters don't see this and only see hunting one dimensionally.
 
another thing to consider is that you'll often find non-hunters that fall into a variety of groups, at least from what i've seen:

- those that are indifferent and couldn't care less about hunting culture in general.

- those that perceive hunting as nothing more than senseless killing. I think this is the most difficult bunch of them all, because these are the ones that might have a problem with you shooting Bambi but don't have a problem eating hamburger meat. I try not to listen to these individuals because being willfully ignorant of the hunting sub-culture is not worth arguing about.

- those that see the benefit of hunting practices even if they don't hunt themselves.
 
The Liberal media has its heart set on presenting hunters as buffoons,drunks,sadists,lunatics - and they lump hunters in with "gun" culture in general. Our society has dropped the ball in young-adult education about guns/hunting and I think the NRA is to blame for some of this. When was the last time you saw a Boy Scout merit badge earned for safe gun handling/marksmanship? In many urban areas you have to travel many miles to even get to shooting range. The NRA should stop worrying about its lobbyists/influence in D.C and concern itself with grass-roots support among the coming generations. Then you may see hunting/shooting sports getting more respect.
 
The Liberal media has its heart set on presenting hunters as buffoons,drunks,sadists,lunatics - and they lump hunters in with "gun" culture in general.
Click to expand...

that's a fairly broad generalisation - that would be like me saying the conservative media portrays all liberal/democrats/progressives as anti-gun which we all know isn't true.
 
- those that are indifferent and couldn't care less about hunting culture in general.
D47: I see this scenario as something like company X. I am thinking that they put in this ad out there to give awareness of their brand. This demographic is the one we are trying to win. I have no idea how large it is, but it is the "target market."

- those that perceive hunting as nothing more than senseless killing. I think this is the most difficult bunch of them all, because these are the ones that might have a problem with you shooting Bambi but don't have a problem eating hamburger meat. I try not to listen to these individuals because being willfully ignorant of the hunting sub-culture is not worth arguing about.
D47: you can't win this group over directly, but it might get their kids in the car to ask them questions. They are allowed to ignore facts, but we can at least present the facts.

- those that see the benefit of hunting practices even if they don't hunt themselves.
D47: they're out there too. I liken them to people (like myself) who watch oxy-cleen commercials. Yeah, it might be great, but I probably won't order it myself unless I end up with a real bad stain.

Liberal or conservative media is sort of a non-issue when you're buying time on a commercial radio station. Probably the best non-political way to run this sort of campaign for a politically-charged organization LIKE the NRA (or whoever...) would be to grant money to the target state's department of wildlife for this sort of campaign. Then the local DOWs could buy air time. I can't imagine any radio station that wouldn't take money from a local parks and rec's gov't agency.

I dunno; it just seems that we do a great job of sharing this secret amongst ourselves, but we don't do anything to let people know that pound-for-pound, we do more than most other organizations. It would be nice if we did something to break out of our box.
 
I dunno; it just seems that we do a great job of sharing this secret amongst ourselves, but we don't do anything to let people know that pound-for-pound, we do more than most other organizations. It would be nice if we did something to break out of our box.
Click to expand...

agreed. it just occured to me lastnight that several of the local news channels did stories on Chronic Wasting Disease potentially infecting the deer population in Minnesota. my first thought was, who do you think the DNR is going to recruit to cull the herds? that's right, hunters. I wish people didn't view this is a senseless mass killing (if it came to that) but rather as a necessary task
 
Hunting involves killing a creature. Advertising "green" kills nothing. As hunters, we face an up hill battle simply by the act of what we do. Society is sterile and most of mankind has moved beyond killing their own food so they don't understand hunting and don't understand that hunters are really the face of conservation.

An example to your point; Kentucky was virtually void of deer in the 1950s. Today we are virtually over populated in almost every county in the state. The deer herd, and it's managment has been paid for by hunters. The greenies and other anti hunting Sierra types have done very little, or nothing, to preserve or manage the herd. But, by claiming to want to protect the herd they sell peace. Hunting by its very nature sells blood.
 
Two words: grass roots. That means it starts with US. I did the very same thing this year by writing a short, polite letter of thanks to a nearby town newspaper for setting a trend in our state for a new Urban Archery Season. On a local level, we all can make some kind of difference. -7-
 
Teddy Roosevelt was a hunter and he was crucial to the conservation of wildlife and national parks.

Every year it is the money and involvement of hunters-not lovey dovey type people-who makwe sure that those deer and other wildlife have a voice in the world of mankind.

That is because it is the hunters would see the wildlife everyear enough to understand their numbers to know their value beyond that of a lkill and how actaully are the standard bearers of wildlife conservation.

This is so true a reality that certain groups have taken to hijacking the credit for what hunters and other gun owning lovers of wildlife do for ourt nation ewvery year.

Yea.there is a battle to be fought.

Every day.

And it's about who really does the footwork and spends the money to make sure next year the wildlife have somewhere to live.
 
The most effective way would seem to be ,keeping it local , presenting facts, and these must be correct.About how much hunters bring to the table, I.E. the P R money, local purchases, preserving land , fighting to keep some land wild. Stay away from thing that divide the community , and make sure no one can challenge the facts.People see the money coming in the door, the game lands or wildlife areas, and under stand what these things are worth. We just need to remind them we pay for these things ,not because someone made us, but as a matter of choice, because these things are that important to us
, because we really do care.
Alex
 
I've been thinking a lot about this in the last year or so. My ex-wife, who I still associate with (we've got four kids and four grandkids), has become quite the hippy, dippy new-age woman. Anyway, she talks a lot about organically grown, free-range, humanely slaughtered meat from sustainable farms, and that describes my deer lease perfectly.

The venison you shoot, the squirrels you hunt, the waterfowl you chase after, all those are free-range, organically grown, humanely slaughtered. Our hunting is the very pinnacle of the green movement.

There's a new show on the Travel Channel, The Wild Within, that explains that very clearly.

The only downside I see, is that when the city-slickers decide to start buying rifles and shotguns to harvest their own organically grown, free range meat, land lease prices are going to increase.
 
Example "The NRA would like to thank the hunters of Wyoming/Colorado/ wherever for contributing over $5M towards the conservation of Wildlife and habitat in the Rocky Mountains region over the past X years."
Click to expand...

I don't recall the NRA being a natural habitat sort of organization and as many have noted, the NRA isn't about the preservation of hunting. So I don't really see the NRA spending millions of $$ on advertising to broadcast the benefits of hunting on the habitat when they are needing the same money for lobbying Congress and sending out multiple copies of "Tales of the Gun" to its members.

Ducks Unlimited used to run fairly regular TV spots here talking about lands reclaimed and lands preserved through its efforts. They broast of their own work and I don't see them boasting for somebody else's.

The venison you shoot, the squirrels you hunt, the waterfowl you chase after, all those are free-range, organically grown, humanely slaughtered. Our hunting is the very pinnacle of the green movement.
Click to expand...

Given the use of feeders in several parts of the country, the animals are not necessarily organically grown. As for being humanely slaughtered, there are a lot of YouTube videos documenting animals that were not humanely slaughtered and they aren't videos by anti-hunting groups, but by hunters documenting their experiences.
 
I have taken notice to this kind of thing for years. If you just add a little input yourself when out among mixed groups it can go a long way. In stead of going into a conversation pushing hunting, a local story about a car/deer accident or something of the sort might be a better start point. Sadly, the description of hunters posted here is usually correct. If you hunt public land, look around you in a store or a gas station the first day some season opens. Look at that maniac Ted Nugent. Unfortunately, we have to work on the damage that some of our own have caused before we can start "Blowing our own horn". When I am at social gatherings I try and pay attention to what non-hunters have to say. If they are hard core nuts I won't get into it with them. The terrible thing is I am slowly seeing fence sitters leaning towards anti-hunting views. The explanation I hear from the fence sitters is they saw a disgusting T.V. show and did not realize hunting had become like that. I have no argument for that. My whole point is don't worry about the anti-hunters, you will never change their mind. The people you should pay attention to are non-hunters that are not against hunting. We have to clean up our act before drawing attention to ourselves.
 
An example to your point; Kentucky was virtually void of deer in the 1950s. Today we are virtually over populated in almost every county in the state. The deer herd, and it's managment has been paid for by hunters.
Click to expand...

Sadly, the original problem with the loss of deer in Kentucky was due to overhunting which started legislation in 1894 to restrict hunting. There were several other changes in the law that followed. There was no deer hunting between 1912 and 1946 and when is restarted in 1946, it was for red deer hunting.

So first hunters overhunted nearly to extirpation. Now there are too many, as you noted, virtually overpopulated in almost every county.

If given that hunters caused the population loss and not their efforts have resulted in overpopulation because of the proceeds of hunters, there would be PR concern that hunters maybe aren't good stewards of the land. At least that is the angle that could be argued. Farmers now have to deal with the risk of significant crop losses to deer in Kentucky.

It isn't just hunters, however, but people in general that tend to be very poor overall stewards of the land. The proactive efforts of many of the greenies are every bit as problematic.
 
Kreyzhorse
PHP: 
Hunting involves killing a creature. Advertising "green" kills nothing. As hunters, we face an up hill battle simply by the act of what we do. Society is sterile and most of mankind has moved beyond killing their own food so they don't understand hunting and don't understand that hunters are really the face of conservation.
D47: I see this as similar to the overfishing of the oceans by commercial fisherman now. People bypass the thought that fish are "killed." The argument is towards limiting the time/take of fishing vessels b/c the sheer numbers and lack of controls have put the fish in danger. I"m not sure that we can necessarily call ourselves "green" (or want to), but the fact that hunting was the first "self-regulating" method of taking wild resources *does* sound like it was the first "big picture" movement to be aware of the limits of human consumption. Whaling? no. Fishing? Not in the oceans anyway.

aaalaska
PHP: 
The most effective way would seem to be ,keeping it local , presenting facts, and these must be correct.
D47: Absolutely.

Gunplummer
PHP: 
The people you should pay attention to are non-hunters that are not against hunting. We have to clean up our act before drawing attention to ourselves.
D47:I think that the open-minded neutrals are our target market--kind of like how companies have radio campaigns to get out their company name; but the message should be for everyone so that more people would hear positive things. You know how there are road signs that say "so and so group (e.g bakery workers) is cleaning up litter for this 2 miles of highway"? I drive by those and think "I never cared about the local bakery before, but I might drop in if I'm on their side of town." Wouldn't it be cool if we could post signs at public trailheads that said "this next 2 miles of trail brought to you by your local hunters."
I feel your pain about hunters who seem to revel in being "extreme" to prove their hunting prowess. I first went hunting on a lark with a co-worker whose regular hunting partner had to stay home for family duty. It was fun; it was like a week of camping with a rifle on my shoulder and a beer at the campfire at the end of every day. Oh, yeah, and I shot an elk. If my co-worker would have been telling me over the water cooler that I needed to strangle an 8pt buck with my bare hands to be a real man, I probably would have taken up ball room dancing (ok, maybe not ball room dancing) rather than spend a week with him in the woods.

Double Naught Spy
PHP: 
I don't recall the NRA being a natural habitat sort of organization and as many have noted, the NRA isn't about the preservation of hunting. So I don't really see the NRA spending millions of $$ on advertising to broadcast the benefits of hunting on the habitat when they are needing the same money for lobbying Congress and sending out multiple copies of "Tales of the Gun" to its members.
D47: You're probably right. I was using them as an easily identified example. I don't know anything about duck hunting, but I do know that Ducks Unlimited has done a LOT of wetland recovery. The NRA seemed to be an example of an overarching group encompassing bird/big game/competitions shooting sports.

Does anyone know an Eagle Scout that is looking for a project.... ?
 
Form a non-profit in your local area and petition the local radio stations for the free plugs they provide for such events and groups!
 
Its most certainly different here in New Zealand. Due to some severe problems with introduced animals, there is hardly any anti hunt rhetoric at all. As a case in point there is no deer season- you can hunt deer all year round and it is encouraged. Pest shooting- like rabbits and Australian possums ( all introduced) NEVER is considered a bad thing by main stream media. IN a weird way, we are lucky.
 
What we do on an individual level is critical

I had an opportunity to explain the basics of the Pittman Robertson Act to a student who was soliciting money for something on campus. He started his pitch with something like "Would you like to contribute toward preserving nature". "I do. I hunt and I contribute every time I buy archery equipment, hunting equipment or ammo through the Pittman Robertson Act. You are familiar with that Act, aren't you?" Blank stare. "Well, the basics are..."

Probably didn't drastically change his mind, but I hope it gave him something to think about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top