"The beauty of the argument environmentalists make is that it comes in a pretty package, it requires no proof, and offers only that you feel better about yourself in the end. Oh, and that you then donate and vote.


How do we fight that? What do YOU propose? We're nowhere near as organized or well-funded as they are. By the time we get there, the fight will be over. Even then, it becomes a matter of message. Does the non-hunting public want to believe us ("blood on our hands", "killers", etc.) or them ("peace", "harmony", etc.)? Just as they'll never see nature for what it is, they'll never see hunters for what we are, either. They run TV shows about the happy animals, we run TV shows about killing them. Not that I'm opposed to them, but it's not about what any of us perceive of ourselves, it's what someone outside perceives of us. And, I'm not sold that it's up to me to change to become a more "marketable" image. I hunt, I enjoy nature, I kill, and I eat. Nonetheless, that is likely the very image the environmentalists rely upon to influence non-hunters. What to do? "


Actually, if you look at the whole picture including license sales, Pittman/Robertson's funds, federal duck stamps, etc. not to mention groups like RMEF & D/U among others, we as a group are way more funded than they could ever hope to be. I've seen the studies but I don't have the info to quote here. Hunters probably contribute $5 dollars or more to the environment to every $1 dollar that environmentalists do. Even environmentalists know that one of the best things they can do to support wildlife is to buy a federal duck stamp and support the NWR's. What we lack is organization. We also sit back and let those dollars be appropriated by non-hunters and we are to blame for that. What if hunters in Idaho refused to buy licenses? Things would change pretty quick. It is our fault for letting our dollars be hijacked without adding our voice to the lobbies that influence that legislation and sitting back and letting others determine our fate. As far as fighting that, we form hunting organizations (like the OHA here in Oregon) that operate on the state level with local chapters, we lobby legislators, we demand to have a say in who determines where our dollars go, we run adds, we encourage other hunters to make films that do justice to the sport and appeal to a more general audience and when the government stops serving us in a legitimate interest we pull our funding for that government. It is that simple. It is time that hunters stopped letting their dollars be used to fund anti-hunting bureaucrats and environmentalists. If you don't have such an organization in your state, then you should get one. If you need help with that then contact the one's in other states to find out how they did it and to see if they can help you to do it too. We also need to join and support organizations like RMEF that do make efforts to have hunters voices heard on a political level as well as to protect habitat and increase hunting opportunities.
As to the image that environmentalist use to influence non-hunters, again I would say that it is not our image but usually something entirely different from us like the market hunters of the 19th century or Buffalo Bill Cody-- and we all know that they were not hunters, but merely business men and hired guns. It was hunters, not environmentalists, who put a stop to those practises and it is our responsibility to let people know that. Also those hunters that do create a negative image for us should not be encouraged to do so.

"No, I think nature has to come to the very people isolated from it. It has to eat their ornamental shrubs, total their car when it collides with them, knock out the engines in the Airbus they're flying in, consume their pet, ... And, that's what's starting to happen. The truth is just going to have to be painful to more people. And here's where I think I'm actually far more cynical than you are, not that I wish misfortune on people. I fly on airliners, too."

This just doesn't work. I would love to have faith in common sense and believe that people are pragmatic when it comes to their own well being, but they are not. They are more like sheep and will continue to believe whatever they're told despite their own experience. That is why we also have to tell our story and do it well. This hasn't happened in my state, it hasn't happened in California, Idaho, Montana, in fact, I don't know of it happening anywhere. Pretty soon if nothing is done of substance throughout at least 5 western states we will have even less tags, fewer hunts and everybody who wants to spend time outside will just be backpacking or fishing. Then the only animal we might have the opportunity to hunt might just be a wolf, but of course the tag would have to cost as much as an elk tag to make up for the loss of license sales because of the reduced numbers of elk. To let that happen without speaking out against it would just be pure stupidity. To wait for that point for public opinion to change is essentially a non-solution because that is what is already happening.

Be generous with what you have experienced and taken and others will see the benefit of it, be honest about participating in nature and back up your grievances about management with scientific facts and solid biology and others will understand that perspective. Better yet, construe it in a way that people can feel better about themselves by supporting you as a hunter because of all that hunters have done to conserve and protect America's natural resources. Make sure that people know that it was hunters who created the national park system, national wildlife refuges, national forest system and generally all the protected interests of wildlife for their preservation. Do not let the anti-hunters continue to hijack our hard work and claim that they are the only stewards and protectors of the land and that man does not belong in nature.