I do not object to your claim wrt the bulk of hunters in North America. I question the assertion that those who engage in hunting tourism abroad fit the same mold but we're not even primarily talking about them. We're talking about your generalizing attitudes and values from the North American subset to the rest (or "most" of the rest) of the other hunters in the world.
Right. And that's the group I have been speaking about. I have tried to clarify that on more than one occasion now.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I'm sure this has been building to some masterful rhetorical flourish, but I'm not really seeing where you are going with this. All hunters everywhere are not the same. We will take that as a given. What now?
I didn't see Lewk's reply to my question on page 2. But I did catch a little bit about 'hunters as conservationists'.
That might be true for Americans who hunt, kill, and eat game meat....since we've already destroyed the natural habitats and ecosystems for most wild animals. Now we complain about deer eating landscape, or bears showing up in backyards, when they're just looking for food. Most US hunters recognize the need for special permits based on seasons, weapons, and species.
It's disingenuous tocompareequate that with what happened in Zimbabwe with Cecil.
Then you did so very, very badly. I did not get that sense at all. The closest you came was saying that you weren't asserting it was universal, an absolute. You definitely did give the appearance of still talking about hunters elsewhere when you talked about language barriers and said things were skewed toward North America. That isn't in the slightest an indication that you were limiting your statements to the North America subset even then, just that they may be somewhat over-represented among your sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
So don't make claims about what "most" people think, based on almost purely national knowledge, when we're explicitly talking about something internationalQuote:
I'm sure this has been building to some masterful rhetorical flourish, but I'm not really seeing where you are going with this. All hunters everywhere are not the same. We will take that as a given. What now?
Maybe you missed the post where I said what I was referring to was limited anecdotally to the people I know personally, or through their online postings, or other writings. Given these people are mostly American, with the odd Canadian, the occasional Brit, or Australian/Kiwi/South African I feel they make up what could fairly be called an international group. Does it cover the complete hunting spectrum, or is it globally representative. No. Did I ever claim it was? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Typically when somebody uses quotes they do so to reflect the words another has spoken. I'd be very interested to see where I have made claims about what "most" people think. In fact, as near as I can tell in the only two times I have used most in this thread was first to show the level of passion many hunters feel towards conservation, and then later to indicate what I perceived as my understanding gleaned about people I know more casually through gun and hunting forums. In fact, OG was quite offended by how I couched my language because I did not feel comfortable saying most or all hunters fell into a particular bucket.Quote:
So don't make claims about what "most" people think, based on almost purely national knowledge, when we're explicitly talking about something international
Now, if me not using "most" in the way you describe still somehow offends your sensibilities, (somehow more than when Flixy claimed that "most" of the world has a soft spot in their hearts for African big game) I apologize - but I strongly suspect this is diversionary. I know you can read. I believe you to be an intelligent person. I don't think I have been overly obtuse with my wording - which is to say the words I have actually written and not the ones you have tried to put in my mouth. I also do not think you have a clue about this topic. Full stop. I think the descent into pedantry, while not uncharacteristic, is simply a deflection because you are painfully out of your depth. If you have something to add that is not immediately obvious to everyone, or some criticism of what I've written that can not be understood or explained by a proper reading it in its full context, let's hear it.
Sonofafuckingbitch. Every time, every single goddamn time I've read your post 49, including last night before I typed the above, I've seen "most hunters are the most passionate conservationists," not "often."Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
My eyes may have repeatedly tricked me and made my objection to what you said wrong, but for the above, you can go fuck yourself on a rifle barrel. I may not hunt myself, but I do know plenty of people who do and yeah, they mostly share the same views you talked about. But I have made it clear from the beginning that I haven't been talking about the North American subset and that my objection was your perceived projection of its culture and mores to the rest of the world. I'm most at fault for this because the fundamental misinterpretation was mine, but the above is still just so much bullshit by a myopic twerp who doesn't understand the limitations of "anecdotal"Quote:
I also do not think you have a clue about this topic. Full stop. I think the descent into pedantry, while not uncharacteristic, is simply a deflection because you are painfully out of your depth. If you have something to add that is not immediately obvious to everyone, or some criticism of what I've written that can not be understood or explained by a proper reading it in its full context, let's hear it.
That's actually not what you said. You supported your claim about a broader group (albeit not as broad as it appeared to me) by reference to your anecdotal observations. Now it happens that was true but you still certainly hadn't limited yourself just to them. Even "often" would be overstating the case, if you were solely referring to those you know or have read, even limited to the North American or Western Anglophone subset.Quote:
Maybe you missed the post where I said what I was referring to was limited anecdotally to the people I know personally, or through their online postings, or other writings.
Right. I'm sure some of your best friends are hunters.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You mean I don't understand the limitations of anecdotal observations except where I freely admit it?Quote:
But I have made it clear from the beginning that I haven't been talking about the North American subset and that my objection was your perceived projection of its culture and mores to the rest of the world. I'm most at fault for this because the fundamental misinterpretation was mine, but the above is still just so much bullshit by a myopic twerp who doesn't understand the limitations of "anecdotal"
Look, I'm sorry I wasn't making the argument that you wanted me to, and that your strawman did not hold straw. And yet somehow, despite your inability to distinguish what was clearly written, this is still somehow my fault. You aren't scoring points telling someone to fuck themselves with a rifle barrel for a mistake you made, you are acting like a petulant child in the middle of a temper tantrum. Grow up - admit your mistake, take your lumps, and move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yours truly
I take it back, it is seeming more and more likely that you aren't capable of thoughtful, contextual reading. At least when you are clearly in the wrong. How can you say "often" is overstating the case, when you have no idea what I have read, what my interactions have been, or the extent or limitations of either? Honestly I don't even know what you are trying to say here. I haven't once claimed to speak for hunters everywhere, and I have chosen my words very carefully to not reach further than I felt comfortable.Quote:
That's actually not what you said. You supported your claim about a broader group (albeit not as broad as it appeared to me) by reference to your anecdotal observations. Now it happens that was true but you still certainly hadn't limited yourself just to them. Even "often" would be overstating the case, if you were solely referring to those you know or have read, even limited to the North American or Western Anglophone subset.
For the record, I have yet to see you present any evidence that shows that caring about conservation is somehow limited to hunters in the West. What have you read, Fuzzy? What are your interactions with international hunters? Do you have any knowledge on this topic whatsoever you'd like to share?
Nope, my two best friends are both effectively blind, anyone selling them a gun or other kind of hunting weapon should be sent to jail themselves. But I grew up and live in a cow-turn turning into a bedroom community for the local cities in a rural and conservative section of California. Lots of people around here like to go hunt in the national forests on both sides of the San Joaquin valley. They're co-workers, co-religionists of my church, fellow volunteers with local charities, etc. I even know the wildlife biologist (and hunter) the state fish and game department has assigned to this district because his son (now also a wildlife biologist, working for the department up in the northern highlands) is a decent friend I had growing up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Since you still apparently think the individuals you know, talk to, or whose posts and interviews you read are a proper statistical sample for the 13 million or so hunters in the US, it looks like it. You cannot possibly have gathered enough anecdotal information to genuinely allow you to make even the rather more limited generalization you did.Quote:
You mean I don't understand the limitations of anecdotal observations except where I freely admit it?
Nope, it's my fault. But that doesn't mean everything you've said is on solid ground, and it doesn't mean the things you said about me are any better.Quote:
Look, I'm sorry I wasn't making the argument that you wanted me to, and that your strawman did not hold straw. And yet somehow, despite your inability to distinguish what was clearly written, this is still somehow my fault.
I'm not telling you to fuck yourself for a mistake I made. I'm telling you to fuck yourself for what you said about me when you lost your temper about the mistake I made.Quote:
You aren't scoring points telling someone to fuck themselves with a rifle barrel for a mistake you made,
I did admit my mistake, but I'm still not going to sit and eat whatever shit you decide to spew about me in retaliation.Quote:
admit your mistake, take your lumps, and move on.
Very basic quantitative comparison. Let's say that the threshold for something happening "often" is in 5% of cases. That seems a bit low but we're going to be talking about some large numbers here. Limiting ourselves just to hunters in the US and ignoring even the rest of Canada, a quick look at the Fish and Wildlife Service tells us there are 13.7 million hunters in the US. 5% of that is a bit shy of 700,000 people. Since you've emphasized that you're talking about your anecdotal knowledge and personal experience, that means you'd have to be claiming to have talked to, hunted with, read posts by, or otherwise learned directly about about thousands of individuals. Who knows how many different accounts since the same person wouldn't count more than once no matter how many different examples of the ethos they gave you.Quote:
I take it back, it is seeming more and more likely that you aren't capable of thoughtful, contextual reading. At least when you are clearly in the wrong. How can you say "often" is overstating the case, when you have no idea what I have read, what my interactions have been, or the limitations of either?
You want links? Not going to even try and sift out unbiased sources from the massive internet presence of so many hunting advocates and anti-hunting activists so no chance of that. Corruption is endemic in Africa and a good deal of Asia and undercuts global conservation efforts because both the politicians and the operators are primarily interested in cashing in and the locals need money to eat. There is next to no useful conservation movement in a good deal of Asia at all, and efforts in Africa are hamstrung from within. That unfortunately covers a lot of regulative behavior, not just conservation and hunting.Quote:
For the record, I have yet to see you present any evidence that shows that caring about conservation is somehow limited to hunters in the West. What have you read, Fuzzy? What are your interactions with international hunters? Do you have any knowledge on this topic whatsoever you'd like to share?
Look, if you think that an accusation of deflection for putting words in my mouth and dancing around a question that was asked of you multiple times is forcing you to eat shit, even while I said I believed you to be an intelligent individual, you've got some mighty thin skin. That you think the appropriate rejoinder to that is telling someone to fuck themselves with a rifle barrel goes beyond the pale. Act how you like - just don't play the victim when you are being a child.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Good, let's talk numbers. I regularly read Field and Stream, and Outdoor Life. Magazines with circulations of around 1.2 million and 750,000 respectively. Both regularly feature articles about conservation - Outdoor Life is fairly well known for its conservation pledge, and Field and Stream nominates a conservation hero of the year. I think it's fair to say that neither of these magazines shy away from talking about and promoting conservation. If we look only at those two magazines, (I'm sure there are people like myself with overlapping subscriptions) and use them as a proxy for people who are interested in both hunting and conservation, we are pretty quickly approaching numbers that I feel comfortable saying could be statistically representative of the wider hunting culture.Quote:
Since you still apparently think the individuals you know, talk to, or whose posts and interviews you read are a proper statistical sample for the 13 million or so hunters in the US, it looks like it. You cannot possibly have gathered enough anecdotal information to genuinely allow you to make even the rather more limited generalization you did.
Very basic quantitative comparison. Let's say that the threshold for something happening "often" is in 5% of cases. That seems a bit low but we're going to be talking about some large numbers here. Limiting ourselves just to hunters in the US and ignoring even the rest of Canada, a quick look at the Fish and Wildlife Service tells us there are 13.7 million hunters in the US. 5% of that is a bit shy of 700,000 people. Since you've emphasized that you're talking about your anecdotal knowledge and personal experience, that means you'd have to be claiming to have talked to, hunted with, read posts by, or otherwise learned directly about about thousands of individuals. Who knows how many different accounts since the same person wouldn't count more than once no matter how many different examples of the ethos they gave you.
You want links? Not going to even try and sift out unbiased sources from the massive internet presence of so many hunting advocates and anti-hunting activists so no chance of that. Corruption is endemic in Africa and a good deal of Asia and undercuts global conservation efforts because both the politicians and the operators are primarily interested in cashing in and the locals need money to eat. There is next to no useful conservation movement in a good deal of Asia at all, and efforts in Africa are hamstrung from within. That unfortunately covers a lot of regulative behavior, not just conservation and hunting.
Now, if we also factor in my own interactions with hunters, both those I know personally, and those I know across the nation and the world through the hunting/gun forums I participate in, and the fact that I can't recall anyone taking a stance that seemed diametrically opposed to conservation, then maybe we can start painting a more vivid image. Sure, some may have disagreed with conservation policies, or specific rules that govern hunting, (for instance the number of shotgun shells that can be loaded in a gun during a hunt/pushes to outlaw lead ammunition) but that I haven't come across a single hunter who didn't care on some level about conservation is telling. None of which matters, because what I actually said is some of the most ardent conservationists I have met have also been hunters.
The claim I was deflecting was the least of that. You said everything I typed was an empty wall of verbiage to disguise that I simply had no knowledge whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
We will NOT take those as a proxy for what the subscribers think. The Economist has a strongly laissez-faire bent to it, does that mean we should conclude that most of its readers share its editorial opinions? No, people read it because it's the most solid mix of international and economic news-reporting around, regardless of its editorial slant. What you're attempting there isn't even at the level of anecodtal information, it's just a logic jump.Quote:
Good, let's talk numbers. I regularly read Field and Stream, and Outdoor Life. Magazines with circulations of around 1.2 million and 750,000 respectively. Both regularly feature articles about conservation - Outdoor Life is fairly well known for its conservation pledge, and Field and Stream nominates a conservation hero of the year. I think it's fair to say that neither of these magazines shy away from talking about and promoting conservation. If we look only at those two magazines, (I'm sure there are people like myself with overlapping subscriptions) and use them as a proxy for people who are interested in both hunting and conservation, we are pretty quickly approaching numbers that I feel comfortable saying could be statistically representative of the wider hunting culture.
No, what you said, what I took objection to, is the claim that hunters are frequently the most passionate conservationists. Which I read to be "are the majority of the most passionate conservationists" which was a mistaken word-transposition. Plenty of survey and study data to claim that, in NA, hunters are indeed usually passionate conservationists and so it wouldn't have been an inaccurate claim to say that hunters in general (and not just NA) are often interested in conservation but you explicitly disclaimed that sort of data later on, and still appeared to be talking about the broader group of hunters in general. Yes you'd referenced the NA hunters but your post there gave the impression that you're using the familiar NA sample to generalize to the others, particularly under the mistaken impression that your post #49 said "most hunters."Quote:
None of which matters, because what I actually said is some of the most ardent conservationists I have met have also been hunters.
I don't believe you know as much as you think you do, or you would like us to believe you do. What you are claiming is about as sound as saying because I know a mechanic I am knowledgeable about cars. That being said, I don't know you. Maybe you do have in-depth conversations with your friends, members of your congregation, and acquaintances about hunting, (a topic I had not previously gotten the impression you had much of an interest in). Hunting just is not a subject that I regularly hear brought up in casual conversation with non-hunters, for a variety of reasons. I'm happy to be proven wrong though.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
And I'm sure you couldn't come to any conclusion about subscribers to Reason, because it's possible they buy in for the investigative journalism, National Geographic for its nudity, or Playboy because they just have such darn good articles, dontcha know. It's a wonder the fine folks at Madison Avenue can run any marketing campaigns at all, with these magazines knowing as little as they do about their market and consumers. Pull the other one. I assure you, PETA members are not the bulk of the subscribers to Field and Stream, eager to learn about the latest conservation efforts, or the best way to prepare their exotic big game. And while it's conceivable that some hunters skip articles on conservation, their target audience is more narrow than you seem to realize. A conclusion I'm sure you would have come to if you ever had chanced to read it. If hunters wanted something tailored only to hunting without the focus on conservation, there are offerings out there. The comparison between Field and Stream and The Economist is faulty.Quote:
We will NOT take those as a proxy for what the subscribers think. The Economist has a strongly laissez-faire bent to it, does that mean we should conclude that most of its readers share its editorial opinions? No, people read it because it's the most solid mix of international and economic news-reporting around, regardless of its editorial slant. What you're attempting there isn't even at the level of anecodtal information, it's just a logic jump.
And maybe that's because the same feelings exist outside North America. Again, my interactions extend to an international bunch, and it might surprise you to learn that they also care passionately about conservation. It's why I'm still looking for evidence from you at why you believe conservation stops at our shores. You have shown that not all countries have a defined or enforced conservation policy, but that speaks nothing to the thoughts and feelings of the individual hunters. In short, you are doing the exact thing you are accusing me of - taking a non-representative proxy and presenting it as meaningful. The difference being you believe a person's country of origin is a better indicator about their approach to and thoughts about hunting than the articles and magazines they read.Quote:
No, what you said, what I took objection to, is the claim that hunters are frequently the most passionate conservationists. Which I read to be "are the majority of the most passionate conservationists" which was a mistaken word-transposition. Plenty of survey and study data to claim that, in NA, hunters are indeed usually passionate conservationists and so it wouldn't have been an inaccurate claim to say that hunters in general (and not just NA) are often interested in conservation but you explicitly disclaimed that sort of data later on, and still appeared to be talking about the broader group of hunters in general. Yes you'd referenced the NA hunters but your post there gave the impression that you're using the familiar NA sample to generalize to the others, particularly under the mistaken impression that your post #49 said "most hunters."