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

[doofus47]

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?

[mikerault]

I agree we should do more!

[gaseousclay]

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.

[gaseousclay]

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.

[zahnzieh]

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.

[gaseousclay]

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.

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.

[doofus47]

- 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.

[gaseousclay]

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.

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

[Kreyzhorse]

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.

[a7mmnut]

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-

[B.N.Real]

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.

[aaalaska]

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

[PawPaw]

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.

[Double Naught Spy]

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."

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.

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.

[Gunplummer]

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.

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

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.

[doofus47]

Kreyzhorse

PHP Code:

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 Code:

The most effective way would seem to be ,keeping it local , presenting facts, and these must be correct. 


D47: Absolutely.

Gunplummer

PHP Code:

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 Code:

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.... ?

[kaylorinhi]

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!

[Death from Afar]

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.

[davlandrum]

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.

[ELarsen]

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.

[gaseousclay]

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

[doofus47]

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.

[gaseousclay]

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.

[langenc]

""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.