Next Cecil?

[Nyati]

I don´t have any problems with spear hunting, and the hunter can celebrate as he feels like.

However, putting that video on youtube was not a very smart idea, and is certainly not helping us hunters in general.

 

[BRICKBURN]

He pissed off a liberal anti-hunting politician....

This Minister was not anti hunting and is not actually anti hunting.

However, cowering in the corner, ashamed of displaying my pride, or apologetic for my way of life is not an option for me. ........

Cowering, ashamed or apologizing. Interesting characterizations.

How's about let's be respectful, even though they may not be, and become mindful of the fact that the majority in North America are very far removed from the reality of meat production and thus moving forward conduct ourselves accordingly.

I have zero control over what anyone wants to post on their Youtube channel but I sure seem to continue to reap the consequences of those posts.

We live in a very big world and there are a lot of different cultures and refusing to address that will only demonstrate our ignorance and be our down fall.

I have a six year old niece who just told me "girl's can't hunt". I asked why, after explaining her Aunt (a girl) actually hunted. Her reply was something to do with all the blood.
If she will come hunting with me it will be done in a manner that ensures that she is not put off by it.
One mistake and she could be lost to the hunting fraternity. It will be done on HER terms, not mine.

Here's hoping for more leadership.

 

[edward]

GUESS ILL ADD MY ONE CENT.IM PROUD TO BE A HUNTER,AND HAPPY WHEN I ACHIEVE MY GOAL ON A HUNT.I PRIDE MYSELF ON THE ONE SHOT KILL.HAVENT ALWAYS SUCCEEDED,FELT BAD WHEN I DIDNT AND PROMISED ID DO BETTER NEXT TIME.I DISPLAY MY TROPHIES IN MY HOME AND FEEL LIKE I HAVE GIVEN THEM SOME KIND OF IMMORTALITY AS THEY WILL BE AROUND MUCH LONGER THAN I WILL BE.ANY BODY CAN HAVE AN OPTION ON THE PROPER WAY TO EXPRESS ONES SELF ON BEING SUCCESSFUL,BUT THAT IS TO EACH HIS OWN,HOWEVER, IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF THE ANTIS WHO OUTNUMBER US ALL BUY THE NUMBERS AND MONEY WISE, I WILL REFUSE TO CUT MY NOSE OFF TO SPITE MY FACE BY GIVING THEM THE AMMO TO PERSUADE NON HUNTERS TO JOIN THEIR RANKS IN HELPING TO DO AWAY WITH HUNTING WORLD WIDE.IT COULD HAPPEN AND I WOULD TAKE NO SATISFACTION IN KNOWING THAT I HAD AT LEAST TOLD THEM ANTIS TO GO AND SCREW THEM SELVES,OH BOY I REALLY TOLD THEM WHERE TO GO. AS STATED,THE ANTIS ARE NEVER GOING TO SEE HUNTING AS IT REALLY IS,A NECESSARY NEED FOR PROPER WILDLIFE EXISTENCE.THE POPE COULD OF BEEN AT THE BEARS SIDE GIVING HIM LAST RIGHTS AND WE WOULD STILL BE THE BAD GUYS.OH WELL,ILL GET OFF THE SOAP BOX.FOR NOW.

 

[firehuntfish]

This Minister was not anti hunting and is not actually anti hunting.

Brickburn, Was any Canadian fish & game law broken? Again, If he's not a liberal anti-hunter, he is addressing it from his uniformed perspective..... So, what's the problem they had with this hunt? The manner in which the bear was killed, the display of celebration, or the fact that is was posted on social media?

My characterizations of some hunters as cowering, ashamed, and apologetic is spot on in my opinion. I'm not trying to strike a nerve or offend, just calling it as I see it happening before my eyes. Sadly, we have hunters on here who freely admit that they cannot post pictures of their trophies anywhere in public view or hang mounts in their places of business for fear of repercussions from the non-hunting crowd. I completely understand that some feel that this is the position that they are forced to take, and I sympathize with them to some extent. But, it is conceding to the pressure nonetheless. I'm simply stating that I will never do that. I guess I'm lucky that I have that luxury. How each of you handle the pressure is your business. The contrived outrage over this bear hunt is just another excuse to provoke an emotional reaction void of the facts.

You call for the display of respect from hunters and leadership from the hunting community.... On this much we agree.... But, if you are suggesting that any and all public displays of pride or emotion in regard to hunting are disrespectful and/or detrimental, I cannot concur.

 

[enysse]

You are right, I side stepped some of my answer but I will state this statement. I really hate all the cameras mounted on spears, it's just to graphic for people to understand. People are so removed from reality that they can't fathom what our forefathers had to do to put food on the table.
While I'll admit to celebrating a animal I killed, I would never post it for the public. It's alright to proud of your accomplishments, especially if you hunted hard for something. But if you want to see people that are hunting celebrities act proper on film watch Greg Miller or Jim Shockey.

Just the picture of the hunter raising his spear over the animal like man over nature is going to set the anti's off like a cannon.

 

[LivingTheDream]

I think we are over thinking this a little. We care because we hunt and this gives us a black eye. Anti's care because this is what they care about. The remaining 80% will probably never click on the link and unless news site push it where it is easy to scroll and easy to see, people move on quickly. Does this guy come across as a douche, yes, if someone on the fence has one conversation with one of us, they are back on the fence or even understanding as to why we hunt. In my humble opinion we are giving the anti's too much credit to influence and the average person too much of the benefit that they care. The bigger issue is that we don't let an issue like celebrating cause friction amongst us.

 

[Pheroze]

One jackass on a local radio show in Toronto this morning commented that he had hunted moose and caribou for food but decried "sport hunting". What an ass. But, it does show how these unpopular images cause people to respond emotionally. They are emotionally provocative scenes for all of us.

As far as being a coward (badly quoted sorry) but the upshot I accept. When my non-hunting friends ask me about Africa I start off in round about descriptions of "being on a safari" and how great the people are. However, when I finally disclose I hunted there I have found that speaking one on one allows me to explain the hunt and the response is genuinely enthusiastic. The pictures come out and the reception has been very positive. They are then treated to a thesis on conservation

I think the delivery is way more important than anything else. We can't expect to shock people into understanding.

 

[BSO Dave]

This Minister was not anti hunting and is not actually anti hunting.

I'm curious to know this as well. If the minister is not anti=hunting, why the over-the-top knee jerk reaction to ban the practice? Something or someone had to influence this reaction. A politician caving to anti-hunting pressure is worse than the anti-hunter himself.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I'm curious to know this as well. If the minister is not anti=hunting, why the over-the-top knee jerk reaction to ban the practice? Something or someone had to influence this reaction. A politician caving to anti-hunting pressure is worse than the anti-hunter himself.

Maybe it crossed his threshold into the hunting equivalent of porn?

 

[lcq]

One jackass on a local radio show in Toronto this morning commented that he had hunted moose and caribou for food but decried "sport hunting". What an ass. But, it does show how these unpopular images cause people to respond emotionally. They are emotionally provocative scenes for all of us.

As far as being a coward (badly quoted sorry) but the upshot I accept. When my non-hunting friends ask me about Africa I start off in round about descriptions of "being on a safari" and how great the people are. However, when I finally disclose I hunted there I have found that speaking one on one allows me to explain the hunt and the response is genuinely enthusiastic. The pictures come out and the reception has been very positive. They are then treated to a thesis on conservation

I think the delivery is way more important than anything else. We can't expect to shock people into understanding.

The radio host like most Liberals is a liar. The guy has never hunted and he is trying to lend credibility to his rant. The closest he has been to hunting is the meat dept at the local grocery store

 

[BSO Dave]

Maybe it crossed his threshold into the hunting equivalent of porn?

Maybe so, or maybe just another pandering politician applying oil to the wheel that squeaks the loudest... If your theory is the case, the future of hunting is bleak if we are going to be continually subjected to the emotional reactions of those outside the realm of hunting passing judgement and laws on us. I get the point that many here have made that our actions as hunters have a direct impact to the reactions of non hunters, and I agree. Still, what I see in taking place in the world has me leaning more toward the mindset that even the most dignified respectful video or photo displaying the hunting and killing of an animal is not ever going to be received favorably even by those "on the fence" about hunting. Our entire narrative needs to change, and not necessarily in the direction of being even more passive.

 

[BSO Dave]

I am still a contributor to the SCI, and many other sportsman's conservation organizations, but they all collectively dropped the ball big time with the handling of Cecil. If we had been proactive, and out front on these issues, I think it would have made a difference. But, we will never know.

I too was very disappointed in the lack of initial response by the supposed leadership in the hunting community during this. The "strategy" of the SCI to wait silently until the firestorm passed was a failed one. I attribute that plan directly to the inexplicable fear the hunting community has about being proactive and outspoken when under attack by the liberal media and the anti-crazies. The only timely action the SCI took was to suspend the hunter's membership before all the facts were in. The ready.... fire... aim.... mentality is something that we have come to expect from the crazy left, not the leadership we rely upon.

Once the responses finally came out from a small handful of representatives and celebrities, the message was and continues to be anemic. We had a golden opportunity to not only defend our position as hunters, but to actually be proactive in leading the conversation. No response or a delayed response in this situation was and acknowledgement of guilt.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Maybe so, or maybe just another pandering politician applying oil to the wheel that squeaks the loudest... If your theory is the case, the future of hunting is bleak if we are going to be continually subjected to the emotional reactions of those outside the realm of hunting passing judgement and laws on us. I get the point that many here have made that our actions as hunters have a direct impact to the reactions of non hunters, and I agree. Still, what I see in taking place in the world has me leaning more toward the mindset that even the most dignified respectful video or photo displaying the hunting and killing of an animal is not ever going to be received favorably even by those "on the fence" about hunting. Our entire narrative needs to change, and not necessarily in the direction of being even more passive.

Yes, I like this! I totally agree on not being passive and also changing the narrative. The narrative of this bear hunting video is one of blood lust. A total celebration of killing an animal for which the challenge is not understood by those who aren't hunters. And as such it gives the impression we as hunters are the equivalent of murderers.

So the question in my mind is how do we change that narrative and what do we change it to? I personally do not watch much of the hunting shows on tv. But I do watch the shows that Jim Shockey, Craig Boddington and Ivan Carter put out. Carter's WAR that debuted last year really didn't focus much on hunting, primarily on stopping poaching. Regardless it shows the reality of the situation in Africa where if it pays it stays and if doesn't it will be destroyed. Jim and Craig both in my opinion show that they are good and decent humans. Their respect for the places and people of those places they visit and hunt in is obvious. I also feel they do a good job of showing the challenge of the hunt.

It does not matter that we have the science and facts on our side if that message is not being communicated. Even if that message is being delivered, it only hurts hunting if that message is compromised by videos such as this.

 

[Jeffro]

Too many contributors on this forum seem to live in an either-or world. Just because the responsible Minister in Alberta has decided to charge this 'hunter', he doesn't qualify as some kind of liberal anti-hunting nut. Most places have primitive weapon seasons, but "spear" is not one of the legal weapons, any more than pistol or mortar are in the modern weapons list. In addition, the ethical side of this seems to be ignored by too many, and basic principles of logic seem to be thrown out the window. It doesn't matter at all what our ancestors did...they also banged women over the head and dragged them into their caves. In a modern society, the concern for the welfare of the animal must be paramount, which includes the motives of the hunter. I would also like to stress that alienating the antis is not our concern, as they will not change their minds. There are many others, though, who are and can continue to be supporters of hunting, and who are more powerful than the rabid antis. I speak here of the various animal ethic groups that are mandated by US and Canadian governments to oversee the ethical treatment of animals, be that in research facilities or in the field. I serve on two such committees and assure readers that we have great support here, but this "bear hunter" is just the kind of guy who can undermine this. Like it or not, the world is watching.

 

[BSO Dave]

So the question in my mind is how do we change that narrative and what do we change it to?

That's the million$ dollar question, and I wish a had a brilliant concise answer to offer. Beyond making our case assertively and often through the voices of strong, intelligent leadership, I don't know for sure. What I can be certain of is what has not been working and that is the strategy of laying low and trying to fly under the radar of the antis and out of sight and mind of the on-the fencers.

I think too much credit is being given to what some on here are viewing as negative portrayals (as in these videos) of hunting and what it represents. I agree that we cannot afford to be obnoxious and "in your face" in our attempts to demonstrate the hunting culture to the non hunting world. However, I feel that it is equally important not to be hypocritical, or ashamed about what we do in the field. The fact is that we pursue and ultimately hope to kill animals. Let's not kid ourselves about that. We do it for many positive reasons and lots of undeniable benefits are generated from our participation. Frankly though, it's a hard sell to those whose idea of an African animal comes from a Disney movie and has long eyelashes, a great personality, and has a lion for a best friend. Still, these are hard conversations that we need to have, and we need to be the initiators of the conversations at every opportunity. You are right that the facts are on our side. We just need to change the vehicle by which they are to be transported.

 

[PeteG]

I agree that we cannot afford to be obnoxious and "in your face"

This is my main reason for posting on this thread.
We as hunters should not be ashamed of what we do. I think some may have read into my comments otherwise.
It is who we are and that is final. No point denying the facts.
I for one have many non hunter, several anti hunters and many hunters as friends.

The non hunters know who I am and what I do, they do not complain. However every single one of them questioned me to no end on the "Cecil" fiasco. Most remained civil and some were indifferent, some are now anti hunting.

The anti hunting crowd, some of whom are family members, know what I do and we continuously have "discussions" about hunting. They will not change their mind regardless. But they too are most active and vocal towards me when there has been a media blowout over some actions of a hunter somewhere.

My point being the non hunters were generally unfazed until the media brought something to their attention.

And this is where we can gain the upper hand by not being, as BSO Dave put it, obnoxious and in your face.

There is definitely a massive divide here on this thread and essentially the same points keep getting rehashed and thrown around, it is absolutely impossible for all of us to share the same sentiments on every topic raised and it is evident here that there are a couple of trains of thought.
We should remember though that individually our actions and how we portray ourselves to the public are reflections on the entire hunting community.

The best we can hope for is that we all keep the hunting community's best interests in mind.
If you feel arguing and fighting is the way to go, feel free, if you feel the ostrich, head in the sand, approach is best, go for it. If you feel the public exhibitions and media is best, go for it but remember you represent all hunters where doing whatever it is you do.

 

[firehuntfish]

Too many contributors on this forum seem to live in an either-or world. Just because the responsible Minister in Alberta has decided to charge this 'hunter', he doesn't qualify as some kind of liberal anti-hunting nut

Not too many contributors... So far, it seems to be just me. And, I'm not making it out to be an either/or situation. I'm just trying to have a realistic conversation about the real world and hunting's place in it. As far as the Alberta Minister goes, don't you feel that the "responsible" reaction would be to say that we are gathering all of the facts and that we are looking into this situation with all due diligence before any decisions are made final? Responsibility is what is lacking in our leadership in today's world.

Most places have primitive weapon seasons, but "spear" is not one of the legal weapons,

Still waiting on clarification to this? If in fact, a spear is an illegal hunting weapon in that part of Canada, than yes, absolutely the hunter should be charged accordingly. BUT, if it is a legal weapon and method for this area, this man has every right to hunt legally just as you and I would expect to have. As for the ethics of hunting with a spear, I respectfully, yet completely disagree with your view. A spear is just as ethical and lethal as any other primitive weapon assuming the user is confident, experienced, and practiced with said weapon.... But that responsibility falls upon all ethical hunters regardless of the weapon does it not?

If the use of a spear as a hunting weapon is not ethical in your view, then do not use one. If all the hunters in your province/state or whatever, have a like minded view that a spear should be removed as a primitive weapon make your collective case to the appropriate governing body and maybe you can have the law changed. Until then, we as hunters have no right to judge what LEGAL hunting methods other hunters use even though we may not agree personally.

It doesn't matter at all what our ancestors did

It does to me... The fact that the human animal hunted for survival is the very foundation for the argument in support of our hunting heritage and rights. One of the biggest arguments the antis make is that we as humans no longer NEED to hunt for meat or survival. NEED has nothing to do with my God given right to choose how I put food on my table. Nobody has the right to tell me that my choice to hunt should be taken from me because there is no NEED for it in the modern world. That is an insane rationalization. If that is indeed an either/or position, than I am guilty as charged.

 

[lcq]

Too many contributors on this forum seem to live in an either-or world. Just because the responsible Minister in Alberta has decided to charge this 'hunter', he doesn't qualify as some kind of liberal anti-hunting nut. Most places have primitive weapon seasons, but "spear" is not one of the legal weapons, any more than pistol or mortar are in the modern weapons list. In addition, the ethical side of this seems to be ignored by too many, and basic principles of logic seem to be thrown out the window. It doesn't matter at all what our ancestors did...they also banged women over the head and dragged them into their caves. In a modern society, the concern for the welfare of the animal must be paramount, which includes the motives of the hunter. I would also like to stress that alienating the antis is not our concern, as they will not change their minds. There are many others, though, who are and can continue to be supporters of hunting, and who are more powerful than the rabid antis. I speak here of the various animal ethic groups that are mandated by US and Canadian governments to oversee the ethical treatment of animals, be that in research facilities or in the field. I serve on two such committees and assure readers that we have great support here, but this "bear hunter" is just the kind of guy who can undermine this. Like it or not, the world is watching.

No Alberta hasn't decided to charge him because there is no law forbidding hunting with a spear in Alberta. This is exactly what Mugabe did over Cecil. Alberta will change the law to prohibit spears

 

[Jeffro]

If you refer to the hunting guide for Alberta, the weapons that are specified for big game hunting are spelled out quite clearly. Spear is not among them. The bright light who used the spear is assuming that the weapon is legal simply because spear isn't listed in the prohibited weapons section. The government is going to spell this out for others who aren't conscientious enough to follow the rules as they are intended, but who look for loopholes, instead. The Big Game Guide is online for anyone to read who wants to. Spears are not specifically proscribed in my province either, but that doesn't mean that some self-aggrandizing showboat is entitled to use them.
What matters to you is not an argument, and you do not have a God given right to anything (maybe this is one of the significant Canada-USA differences in perspective). We are very privileged to live in countries in which there is sufficient wealth and game to allow us to partake in sport hunting at home, or abroad if we so choose. Sport hunting is a privilege and not a right. Privileges can be taken away if we abuse them, and I do not look forward to my next animal ethics meeting at which time this will be discussed and I will have nothing to offer in defense of the actions of Spearman. Maybe I'll just tell enter into the debate that it is our God-given right to do whatever the hell we want in pursuit of our blood-lust and any of the commie leftist pinkos on the committee who don't see that can just shove it. Persuasive.

 

[Pheroze]

If you refer to the hunting guide for Alberta, the weapons that are specified for big game hunting are spelled out quite clearly. Spear is not among them. The bright light who used the spear is assuming that the weapon is legal simply because spear isn't listed in the prohibited weapons section. The government is going to spell this out for others who aren't conscientious enough to follow the rules as they are intended, but who look for loopholes, instead. The Big Game Guide is online for anyone to read who wants to. Spears are not specifically proscribed in my province either, but that doesn't mean that some self-aggrandizing showboat is entitled to use them.
What matters to you is not an argument, and you do not have a God given right to anything (maybe this is one of the significant Canada-USA differences in perspective). We are very privileged to live in countries in which there is sufficient wealth and game to allow us to partake in sport hunting at home, or abroad if we so choose. Sport hunting is a privilege and not a right. Privileges can be taken away if we abuse them, and I do not look forward to my next animal ethics meeting at which time this will be discussed and I will have nothing to offer in defense of the actions of Spearman. Maybe I'll just tell enter into the debate that it is our God-given right to do whatever the hell we want in pursuit of our blood-lust and any of the commie leftist pinkos on the committee who don't see that can just shove it. Persuasive.

I get what you are saying about keeping to the spirit of the law. I also get the frustration with aggrandizing. But, as a hunter, the choice of weapon has nothing to do with "blood-lust", that's not what it is about at all. Not even close. I don't hunt with a spear, but I am can see why people choose different weapons to increase the challenge and the adventure of the pursuit. If it results in an ethical harvesting of the animal I am at a loss to understand why a spear is worse than a spike in the head in an abattoir.