I have receieved several letters of support when using this tact and a newspaper is more likely to print something that is not an attack.
Oh, I definitely think you would make more headway with a sound, rational argument based on facts as opposed to one geared strictly towards swaying emotions.
I always start off with this is in rebuttal to " Topic X" and ...
I think we are forced into that situation because the anti-hunting crowd is so much more vocal. Even the fact that you have to offer a rebuttal as opposed to being able to just state the facts without constantly addressing what anti-hunters have stated is part of what I was referring to as reactive. They almost force us into addressing the issues that they want to address and not necessarily the ones that should be used to educate.
I applaud you though for getting involved.