I think you nailed it, j-bird. Often times what "non-hunters" see are the shows or commercials that portray hunters as ONLY loving the kill. Admittedly, that is a very large portion of what hunting is about, but I think that most of us can say that we've had some pretty great sits that didn't end in a kill.
I went to a college that would be labeled as stereotypically "flamingly liberal". I had many talks about hunting with my ecology teacher. At the beginning she just kind of saw me as the type of hunter that is being portrayed in the media, but after a while she really kind of understood that I was different, and I hope that she sees other hunters differently now. She is a queen of the forest type crazy, but she's incredibly smart and well reasoned. Her opinions are based on facts, and her interpretation of those facts. Any argument I've heard her make, whether I agreed with it or not, followed a clear and coherent train of thought. It would have been very easy for me to not really care about what she said, and just go on my way. I'm sure glad that I didn't. She had us read Sand County Almanac and I realized that we had a lot more in common than one would originally suspect. I continued to talk to her throughout my college career. Often times "tough" topics such as antler point restrictions and baiting came up, and I talked openly and honestly with her about MY opinion, but I also emphasized that these are issues that are also debated among hunters. It's not hunters vs. the general public, on many issues. The upper level ecology class that I took with her was entirely discussion based (with a few essays and presentations). I think the best thing I got from that class, and my education in general, is that even if I don't agree with someone, I need to listen and try and understand why they think what they think. Sometimes people have different goals, which is OK. Some people think that "nature" should be undisturbed, while others think that it should be managed..... neither is inherently right or wrong, but rather one is "right" for a certain outcome.
Words like "nature", and "hunting", have a very different and often times deeply meaningful, and possibly borderline spiritual, definitions to everyone. As a hunter, I get really steamed when I am painted in the same light as most hunters on TV. I would say that I can't identify with any of the big hunting shows or hunters (with the exception of Michigan out of Doors, and Steve Rinella, who I think is as in love with the hunt as he is the harvest. He is unashamed to say he loves to kill, but he also approaches it with a form of solemnity that I admire... he regularly shoots small or female animals for personal or population reasons...). So, as j-bird pointed out, this is what the general public sees, yet it is not what I would say (IMO) is what hunting is.
I think it's important for our sport to realize that we're on a 2 way street. We have to protect our rights to hunt, but we also have to be cognizant of the manner in which we are portrayed in the media (hunting shows), and ask ourselves 1. Do we want to be known like that? 2. If not, How can we change that picture to something that is inclusive and "safe" for people to explore, and allows them to form their OWN opinion of what hunting is?
I went to a college that would be labeled as stereotypically "flamingly liberal". I had many talks about hunting with my ecology teacher. At the beginning she just kind of saw me as the type of hunter that is being portrayed in the media, but after a while she really kind of understood that I was different, and I hope that she sees other hunters differently now. She is a queen of the forest type crazy, but she's incredibly smart and well reasoned. Her opinions are based on facts, and her interpretation of those facts. Any argument I've heard her make, whether I agreed with it or not, followed a clear and coherent train of thought. It would have been very easy for me to not really care about what she said, and just go on my way. I'm sure glad that I didn't. She had us read Sand County Almanac and I realized that we had a lot more in common than one would originally suspect. I continued to talk to her throughout my college career. Often times "tough" topics such as antler point restrictions and baiting came up, and I talked openly and honestly with her about MY opinion, but I also emphasized that these are issues that are also debated among hunters. It's not hunters vs. the general public, on many issues. The upper level ecology class that I took with her was entirely discussion based (with a few essays and presentations). I think the best thing I got from that class, and my education in general, is that even if I don't agree with someone, I need to listen and try and understand why they think what they think. Sometimes people have different goals, which is OK. Some people think that "nature" should be undisturbed, while others think that it should be managed..... neither is inherently right or wrong, but rather one is "right" for a certain outcome.
Words like "nature", and "hunting", have a very different and often times deeply meaningful, and possibly borderline spiritual, definitions to everyone. As a hunter, I get really steamed when I am painted in the same light as most hunters on TV. I would say that I can't identify with any of the big hunting shows or hunters (with the exception of Michigan out of Doors, and Steve Rinella, who I think is as in love with the hunt as he is the harvest. He is unashamed to say he loves to kill, but he also approaches it with a form of solemnity that I admire... he regularly shoots small or female animals for personal or population reasons...). So, as j-bird pointed out, this is what the general public sees, yet it is not what I would say (IMO) is what hunting is.
I think it's important for our sport to realize that we're on a 2 way street. We have to protect our rights to hunt, but we also have to be cognizant of the manner in which we are portrayed in the media (hunting shows), and ask ourselves 1. Do we want to be known like that? 2. If not, How can we change that picture to something that is inclusive and "safe" for people to explore, and allows them to form their OWN opinion of what hunting is?
