Or they want a trophy to brag about.
Or they want a trophy to brag about.
Hope is the denial of reality
Maybe not surprisingly the two aren't mutually exclusive.Originally Posted by Loki
When you go to a really crappy third world country, try to hunt down the most famous lion in the area, and then lure him out of his park for the kill (not to mention shooting the lion with a crossbow and not finishing him off for an hour), I'm going to go out on a limb and say the trophy was the bigger reason.
Hope is the denial of reality
Like the millionaires that own trailer parks cause they care about poor people, not because those residents are an extremely easy target to take advantage of
throwing around terms like often and much, but you don't have anything to support that sort of description.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'm speaking from my personal experience with hunters, not from any kind of survey or study. As a rule I try not to make absolute claims when speaking anecdotally, something you apparently have no qualms with doing. But of course it is far easier to demonize those you disagree with than to give them the benefit of the doubt.Like the millionaires that own trailer parks cause they care about poor people, not because those residents are an extremely easy target to take advantage of
throwing around terms like often and much, but you don't have anything to support that sort of description.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 08-06-2015 at 08:39 PM.
How many international game hunters do you know?
Hope is the denial of reality
dafuq? I made no claims, I pointed out the flawed way you were abusing the english language.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I have friends (a father and son) who went on a big game hunt to Africa, and personally know more who are planning on doing it, or would do it if time and/or finances were permitting. I more casually know a few more through various forums I participate in, but whether or not that counts as actually knowing someone I can not say. I would say I know most of them well enough to understand their stance on conservation.
How many millionaires do you know that own trailer parks? How well do you know them? How are you aware of the breadth of their reasoning behind why they make the investments they do? Or are you pulling that example completely out of your hind end because it plays well with your populist sensibilities?dafuq? I made no claims, I pointed out the flawed way you were abusing the english language.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 08-06-2015 at 09:25 PM.
Just wanted to clarify that he wounded the lion with the crossbow, then spent 40 hours tracking him before killing him with a rifle.
The fact that you think our two statements are presented in a similarly enough fashion to warrant a comparison like this only reinforces the point I was making.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'll take that as none. Maybe then you have a paper that shows millionaires who own trailer parks do so primarily to take advantage of people in bad situations. Right?
You seem unwilling to recognize that people can have multiple motivations behind the actions they take. A millionaire could own a trailer park in order to make money, but that does not preclude them from also doing so in an effort to help provide low income housing to those who may otherwise be unable to afford a home. Similarly, a hunter may want a trophy for his wall, but he may also enjoy nature and want to preserve the ability to hunt big game for his grandchildren.
I have a feeling you'd be far more inclined to see an array of motivations, (including benign or beneficial motivating factors) if you were sympathetic to the person in question.
And. . does any of your personal experience with hunters cross outside your own ethnocultural set? My objection is that you're projecting a more familiar context onto ones from substantially different environments.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Strangely enough the thought of someone wanting to "conserve" a species by killing members of it for fun in order to let his grandkids spend a fortune on killing future members of that species... well it kinda makes me wish every awesome animal would go extinct so that those fuckers would get nothing because wtf. Of course I don't really want that and would prefer it if this particular brand of hunter went extinct instead.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Somewhat, though admittedly limited by language, and definitely skewed more towards North America. Again, nowhere did I try to present it as a universal rule that anyone who kills an animal for food or sport must also be an avid conservationist. That being said I have had a pretty sizable exposure to this group and I can't think of a single one that has seriously advocated hunting animals to extinction.
What is your experience with the subject?
I simply don't follow this train of logic. Is this some kind of twisted Animal Farm philosophy, where some animals are more equal than others, or have you given up meat for good? Maybe you think it better, more humane perhaps, that an animal is brought up in captivity, likely in awful conditions, butchered, packaged, and delivered to your local deli for your consumption, but I hardly see the humanity in wishing death upon the people who choose instead to hunt for themselves.Strangely enough the thought of someone wanting to "conserve" a species by killing members of it for fun in order to let his grandkids spend a fortune on killing future members of that species... well it kinda makes me wish every awesome animal would go extinct so that those fuckers would get nothing because wtf. Of course I don't really want that and would prefer it if this particular brand of hunter went extinct instead.
Or should we only kill people who hunt the animals that popular Disney movies have been made about?
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 08-07-2015 at 05:50 AM.
It's not logic, it's an emotional reaction to BS. Not yours but those of the hypothetical hunter described in my post, an evil and insane creature that was admittedly based on some of the things you've said about hunters in this thread.
Of course some animals are more equal than others, at least by many different standards. Are you not more equal than a pig? Is a chimpanzee not more equal than a chicken? I haven't given up meat (although I have entered that phase in my ethical development where eating the products of large-scale chicken- and cattle-farming has begun to make me feel icky, so who knows what I'll eat 10 years from now) but I'll tell you this: I haven't eaten chimpanzee-meat in like a hundred years and human flesh why that must have been like a thousand years ago at least, I don't even remember.Is this some kind of twisted Animal Farm philosophy, where some animals are more equal than others, or have you given up meat for good?
See above.Maybe you think it better, more humane perhaps, that an animal is brought up in captivity, likely in awful conditions, butchered, packaged, and delivered to your local deli for your consumption
*shrug* I think you've let your emotions and your past experiences lead you astray in this particular exchange. I'm not opposed to hunting in general. I am however strongly critical of people trying to get credit for doing things that are suspect even to people who are otherwise okay with hunting.but I hardly see the humanity in wishing death upon the people who choose instead to hunt for themselves.
Or should we only kill people who hunt the animals that popular Disney movies have been made about?
Do you believe that deliberately killing a person for fun or for a trophy has the exact same ethical status as eg. killing inadvertently or killing out of necessity or killing as an indirect and unpredictable consequence of some other activity? Do you believe that kidnapping a person and locking them up for years for fun has the same ethical status as locking up a violent criminal in order to protect others and to serve justice? Do you believe that something that is extremely rare and at risk of being lost forever needs less protection than something that is abundant to the point of being a problem?
A person who obviously values very highly (to the tune of $50K+) the entirely unnecessary killing of an increasingly rare animal in order to get a thrill and take home a trophy... that person doesn't deserve any credit for pretending to care about conservation, esp. not if the motive for conservation is to be able to take more trophies in the future. It is a questionable motive that taints any apparently good outcome. It would be like me killing some of my patients in order to be able to save other patients so that I could kill them later. Or buying a sex slave in order to save other sex-slaves (by giving money to traffickers) so that I could buy another sex slave later.
Big game hunting in this part of Africa is a billion-dollar industry. If all those hunters truly value conservation and want some sort of ethical credit for it then they can just donate the money instead of living out their colonial fantasies to the fullest. How much of the money from hunting do you believe goes towards conservation? How much to the local communities? If you had to guess, how much more money do you believe big game hunting can generate for conservation efforts compared to basically any less-lethal form of eco-tourism?
The truth is that the "conservation" argument is just a fig leaf. It's a necessary one of course, for those who want to continue to be able hunt for fun, because who wants to feel bad? Feeling bad is also bad for profits.
With all that said, I never said these assclowns should be killed. I don't even think they should be persecuted/crucified by the public to the point of having to go into hiding. I just wish they'd go extinctthere are several good ideas for saving endangered species in this thread though if you'd like to prevent that from happening.
Last edited by Aimless; 08-07-2015 at 08:25 AM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I think it is probably very difficult for someone who is not well acquainted with hunting to understand it. I hardly see hunting as evil, though I'm interested in why you do. Is it wrong to like to hunt? Is it wrong to want to share that enjoyable experience with others?
You realize that it is not unheard of for people to eat chimpanzee meat today, even if you do not, correct? Just as it is common for people to eat dog and cat even if you might find it distasteful. There are people that don't eat pigs because they believe them to have an uncommon intelligence for an animal. Others avoid shellfish for religious reasons. I have no problem with these individual and personal preferences. I do have a problem with people taking their personal preferences and trying to force them on others.Of course some animals are more equal than others, at least by many different standards. Are you not more equal than a pig? Is a chimpanzee not more equal than a chicken? I haven't given up meat (although I have entered that phase in my ethical development where eating the products of large-scale chicken- and cattle-farming has begun to make me feel icky, so who knows what I'll eat 10 years from now) but I'll tell you this: I haven't eaten chimpanzee-meat in like a hundred years and human flesh why that must have been like a thousand years ago at least, I don't even remember.
I think it's interesting that you think conserving an animal to hunt it is evil, but conserving an animal to be raised in wretched conditions, many never seeing the light of day, only to be butchered for your convenience only makes you feel a little icky. I would much prefer the life led by the animal being hunted to the animal in a factory farm.See above.
*shrug* I think you've let your emotions and your past experiences lead you astray in this particular exchange. I'm not opposed to hunting in general. I am however strongly critical of people trying to get credit for doing things that are suspect even to people who are otherwise okay with hunting.
Do you believe that deliberately killing a person for fun or for a trophy has the exact same ethical status as eg. killing inadvertently or killing out of necessity or killing as an indirect and unpredictable consequence of some other activity? Do you believe that kidnapping a person and locking them up for years for fun has the same ethical status as locking up a violent criminal in order to protect others and to serve justice? Do you believe that something that is extremely rare and at risk of being lost forever needs less protection than something that is abundant to the point of being a problem?
A person who obviously values very highly (to the tune of $50K+) the entirely unnecessary killing of an increasingly rare animal in order to get a thrill and take home a trophy... that person doesn't deserve any credit for pretending to care about conservation, esp. not if the motive for conservation is to be able to take more trophies in the future. It is a questionable motive that taints any apparently good outcome. It would be like me killing some of my patients in order to be able to save other patients so that I could kill them later. Or buying a sex slave in order to save other sex-slaves (by giving money to traffickers) so that I could buy another sex slave later.
Big game hunting in this part of Africa is a billion-dollar industry. If all those hunters truly value conservation and want some sort of ethical credit for it then they can just donate the money instead of living out their colonial fantasies to the fullest. How much of the money from hunting do you believe goes towards conservation? How much to the local communities? If you had to guess, how much more money do you believe big game hunting can generate for conservation efforts compared to basically any less-lethal form of eco-tourism?
You understand that by placing a premium on the hunting of lions, there are not only ethical motivations to conserve lions, but financial ones as well, correct? If lion hunting is profitable, there are far more incentives to raise and preserve lions, something that people are doing.
And while any thoughtful person obviously understands that hunting is exactly like human trafficking, maybe a better example is someone who enjoys woodworking and carpentry who also plants trees. Trees they, or their children, can then use for woodworking or carpentry. I mean, sure, you lose the emotional impact of comparing hunters to murderers and pimps, but we wouldn't want to let emotion cloud this discussion, right?
I think I'm at a loss to explain why people who otherwise are very good at otherwise noting that behavior is rarely motivated by a single factor are unable to recognize that here. I can hunt because I enjoy hunting, and I can also choose the place I hunt and where I spend my dollars so it benefits conservation and the impoverished.
I have a feeling if someone said that they would prefer it if the Jews, sodomites, feminists, or doctors would go extinct, and then went on to wax poetic about what constitutes evil, you'd have a pretty easy time identifying the assclown in the room.With all that said, I never said these assclowns should be killed. I don't even think they should be persecuted/crucified by the public to the point of having to go into hiding. I just wish they'd go extinct
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 08-07-2015 at 07:21 PM.
No one said you were claiming an absolute rule but you were claiming a general one. That's what using "most" means, that others are exceptions and outliers but that your paradigm is controlling.
And incidentally, you don't have to be advocating global eradication to be calling for extinction. You just have to be calling for local eradication and being NIMBY, assuming that others can and should tolerate what you refuse to. You also don't have to intend extinction to be moving in that direction, all you have to do is not care.
I don't have any anecdotal experience for hunting outside the US, no. And frankly, I don't think I believe your claim that you do have some personal experience there either. I'll believe you've got hearsay.What is your experience with the subject?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Sure, and I stand by that.
This is a fair criticism, and it certainly is true that hunters don't always agree with the rules and restrictions they have to follow.And incidentally, you don't have to be advocating global eradication to be calling for extinction. You just have to be calling for local eradication and being NIMBY, assuming that others can and should tolerate what you refuse to. You also don't have to intend extinction to be moving in that direction, all you have to do is not care.
I haven't ever claimed to have personally hunted outside the United States. I do personally know those that have. What you choose to believe is up to you.I don't have any anecdotal experience for hunting outside the US, no. And frankly, I don't think I believe your claim that you do have some personal experience there either. I'll believe you've got hearsay.
The question that you deflected was, what is your experience with the hunting community in general, and how did you come to the conclusion that you did. What makes you an authority on the subject - are you basing it off of anything at all, or are you simply willing it to be true?
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 08-07-2015 at 06:55 PM.
There is no "hunting community in general." No global hunting culture or mores. And I'm basing it off everything I've learned about the limits of Western and Westernized attitudes and culture, international standards, pushback or sub-rosa defiance of international regulations on subjects like protection of endangered species, etc.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Let me be specific. From the hunters I've met, interacted with, and read about, which includes those who are interested in, or have hunted big game, both from within the borders of United States and internationally, a group I consider to be fairly representative of the wider hunting culture in North America, it is more common than not to find them more interested than your average person in conservation. I'm also fairly certain that this same group constitutes a not insignificant portion of hunting tourism abroad.
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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Right. And that's the group I have been speaking about. I have tried to clarify that on more than one occasion now.
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.
So don't make claims about what "most" people think, based on almost purely national knowledge, when we're explicitly talking about something internationalI'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?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
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.
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.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.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 08-08-2015 at 08:08 AM.
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."
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"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.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.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Right. I'm sure some of your best friends are hunters.
You mean I don't understand the limitations of anecdotal observations except where I freely admit it?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.
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.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?
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 08-09-2015 at 02:21 AM.
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.
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.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.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.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.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.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.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?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
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.
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.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.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 08-10-2015 at 05:08 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote