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

media coverage --

just an observation on the media bashing as liberal and therefore anti-hunting.

I'm a regular listener to NPR and fail to hear the liberal bias that conservatives seem to be better at hearing.

I've heard positive stories on hunting in general and women in hunting. I guess the "women" part is the Liberal bias showing.

Another gun bb had a post on a positive hunting article in Oprah's magazine. Of course, it was by a woman hunter, so it still must be labelled "liberal", I guess.

One thing we hunters need to check. The media is NOT liberal. There are liberals in the media and there are conservatives in the media. The greatest propaganda success in modern times is the fiction that The Media is run by a bunch of liberals. What a hoot.

A fact that we need to be aware of: numbers of hunters, nation-wide, is declining.

Want to do a good deed for our hunting culture: take a youngster hunting squirrels or rabbits; get involved in hunter safety classes through Boy Scouts or some such organization that teaches kids about the outdoors.

Women are a vast untapped resource. Take your wife, gf, daughter, niece, SIL to an indoor range and let her shoot your .22, your 38 spl at 7 or 10 yds. I've been amazed at the enthusiasm from my female friends that enjoyed a trip to a gun range.

I've been amazed at the stupidity of some male friends that thought it was funny to give the new gf a 12 ga shotgun and tell her to hold the butt away from her shoulder as that would "take up" the recoil better or the duffus at the indoor range that rented a 44mag and handed it to his gf w/ no instruction whatsoever. These women will not be back to try again and the people they tell their story to will be less likely to try themselves, no matter what they are told about the reality of 22's and 38 spl's.

Some of us are the enemy when it comes to the impression non-shooters or non-hunters have of us.
 
Some of us are the enemy when it comes to the impression non-shooters or non-hunters have of us.

agreed. for me it's often the tragic gun stories I hear about that seem to give non-gun owners the negative impression, whether it be some kid who intentionally shoots his classmate or some doofus who mishandled a firearm and caused his gun to discharge. I don't always feel that all gun owners have the rest of us other gun owners in mind, and i'm afraid they'll be the ones to negatively effect gun ownership in this country. and it certainly doesn't help when there are those that feel it necessary to flaunt that it's their God given right to own a 100 capacity mag machine gun with a rocket launcher attachment ;)
 
or some doofus
D47: Whoa there! that's getting painfully close to home... :)

I've been amazed at the stupidity...
D47: Let's just hope that you were witnessing their last date... I've played pranks on my wife, but none involved gunpowder nor the potential for a broken nose.

I think that we're all agreed that:
1. Personal, one-on-one representation is key.
2. It would be beneficial to have some sort of way to educate the broader public to the ecological benefits of hunting. This topic seems to be a positive result of hunting from the that is completely removed from any issue with "guns" since archers are also hunters. This probably could be done via a marketing program. Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation would be a good example of this conservancy in action.

For the first, maybe I could talk to the DOW to stress the personal representation part when doing hunter-safety class. I know that the local DOW website asks hunters to respect the sensibilities of others by not hanging quartered carcasses from their vehicles while driving (or something similar), but maybe they can talk about the other 364 days a year as well.

For the second, let me look into the non-profit aspect that someone mentioned. I don't want to re-invent the wheel. I might also check with the local DOW to see if this would be up their alley. I would have to review their budget reports for the last year or two.

This has been a great conversation for me. Thanks guys.
 
starting a local gun club that promotes hunter safety and conservation might also prove beneficial. I don't want to get into a political debate over this but since I lean more towards the left side of the political spectrum i'm finding that there aren't really any gun clubs that cater to us Democrats. I know a couple of gun clubs here in town have banned Democrats from shooting at their range, which I think is unacceptable. not only is this doing a disservice to fellow gun enthusiasts but cliques like this alienate others. I think there's a widely held misconception that if you're a Dem then you're anti-gun and I guess i'd like to feel like there's more comradery amongst the broader gun community.
 
""starting a local gun club that promotes hunter safety and conservation might also prove beneficial.""

I would like to think that all gun clubs do that!!

As I read thru the posts and the suggestions-mine was to be-join a local club and get involved. I still think that is the best approach.
My clubs always do hunter EDUCATION. Used to be safety but there is so much more.

When you are shooting at a public range and another shooter arrives and walks downrange while you are shooting--there is a lot to do.

PITA et all, will never do any publicity about game. They just want to stop all hunting. Those that mentioned that HUNTERS are responsible for the game today are correct. We need to let the gen popluation know it. The F & G Depts need to do that also.

Although my recent couple seasons didnt bear it out-there are many more deer etc. here now than when the pilgrims landed-no help from PITA, Humane Society etc.
 
1 elephant hunted in the Kruger park in SA will pay for the antibiotics of the whole of the Kruger park's needs for one year!!!! ie: sustainable usage! you cant complimant our(RSA) government with a lott. but even they advocate that ethical hunting is absolutely necessary to sustain wildlife.
 
Although my recent couple seasons didnt bear it out-there are many more deer etc. here now than when the pilgrims landed-no help from PITA, Humane Society etc.

I think you mean PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)
 
I'm going to play devils advocate to help explain how the main stream sees this. Conservationists are advocates for the protection of all species in an ecosystem (including the animals). Hunters are predetors who eliminate natural resources (the animals) that conservationists protect. Many people see a hunter-conservationist as a hypocricy. It's black and white to the mainstream. Helping people understand the way it works is no easy task when they already see it like this. I really don't have the answer. This is a difficult subject. But I can see why non hunters don't grasp it.
 
Last edited:
Many people see a hunter-conservationist as a hypocricy. It's black and white to the mainstream.
D47: What's that saying? That your biggest strength is your biggest weakness? If we can chisel away at this bit of misinformation in the mind of the general public, then that would be the best way to create a conversation. So, the argument isn't about arguing. We just need to flat out state the positives of hunters giving back to the community. Ideally, we need the DOW of each state to state on the public airwaves that X state's hunters have given $x to conserve the wildlife in their state.
Maybe we can make it an annual Christmas time announcement in all 50 states.
It's a generational transition we need to aim for, not a one year ad campaign.
 
Back
Top