PETA is after a guy in CA - article mentions AH

[mark-hunter]

I get that I normally just share my pics with close friends that I trust.

Me too!

 

[sierraone]

I view all of this just like I view tattoos. (hear me out here)

What you post on the Internet are like tattoos. It's your life and you are able to make permanent decisions with your own life. However, if that tattoo (or hunting photo) injures your ability to go to a particular club to close a business deal or prevents you from getting a job to improve the quality of life of your family, then that becomes a problem.

Unlike a tattoo that only follows you in your life and is your 100% right as an American, there is a bit of a difference.

The hunting photos are going to end up being like pictures of you wearing a white robe and burning a cross, or goose-stepping to the songs of Wagner. This isn't just your life you're playing with at that point, its something that may haunt your children in the future. That's the problem if you have kids, the "sins of the father" may haunt them in the future. EVERYTHING on the Internet is forever. (go to the waybackmachine.org) It's what can happen to your progeny in the future for your choices that may live on after you die.

It's not that I agree with the antis, nor that I've given up my values, its that I don't want pictures to be my Internet legacy in 500 years. I want my words to be my legacy. I try to make reasoned arguments and thoughtful comments so that what I say is what must be quoted rather than a picture that is sensationalized to harm my heirs for things they did not do.

Please understand that I'm not judging anyone, or even judging tattoos. I'm a libertarian-leaning freedom lover that relishes that people have the right to do whatever they want provided it doesn't hurt anyone. My point is that we have to be careful when exercising our rights injures our families. Be careful. Be thoughtful.

Best post of all.

 

[Gater]

If you can help fight these lunatics, any support you can give is greatly appreciated.

Please Help Fellow Hunter in Fight Against PETA & Anti-Hunting Media

You may have seen the thread on here about the smear campaign that PETA, the LA TImes and anti-hunting "media outlets" have waged against fellow hunter Aaron Raby: https://www.africahunting.com/threads/peta-is-after-a-guy-in-ca-article-mentions-ah.58414/ Because of these articles and the video...

www.africahunting.com

 

[Deleted member 15212]

While PETA and all those other organizations are doing their part in writing their state representatives, and pushing to ban what we love dearly. What are the organizations we support doing? Why are they not doing the same thing? We have great discussions here, and have great ideas, but we always seem to blame the hunter for doing this and that, or how stupid that was, etc, etc, etc. But what happens after we logoff from this or other forums? Do we write a letter to our elected officials, do we call to defend what we love, or try to defend the hunter who killed the elephant??? No, because we believe what we read. That my friends is the problem we have. We sit on our a$$es and do nothing, and that is why they are winning and gaining ground every day.

Well... I do. I even send emails and I've signed petitions in not just my state of California, but other states as well. I was a big supporter of trying to shoot this California sb1175 down and thats the only reason I agreed to speak with the LA times as it was meant to be about how this bill doesnt do anything for wildlife and habitat. Unbeknownst to me, it would seem LA times and pEtA were in kahoots and released all this mess about me and my ordeals at exactly the same time literally days before the bill was to go to vote. I tried standing up for us and look where it got me. Do I regret it. Nah... because if I dont stand up, then who will?!

 

[Randy F]

This is the first site that I’ve actually posted any pics to. Seriously, I don’t even have a Facebook account. I only share them with people I believe actually would give a hoot about it anyway. That’s because I’ve fought the good fight from early on (and continue to do so) with people who seem to not want to ”get it”. Some of which I happen to be related to. That’s not to say I’m not proud of them. We all should be.
But I don’t need anyone’s approval. It’s nice, but I don’t have a need for it.

I am a farmer raising potatoes and vegetables commercially and I think I battle the same people on that front. How do you argue with someone with the mentality that beef, eggs, milk, chicken, pork, and yes, vegetables come from the store?! They actually believe that and argue that we shouldn’t even have these animals or crops because they’re not needed.

My point is that what I’ve learned through these conversations over the last 35+ years is to pic my battles. I’m not going to convince anyone who isn’t willing to even listen to reason much less be accepting. I’ll do my best to state my case and let it go from there. I’ll never convince anyone who is an anti-hunter to accept my way of life. But I’ll fight like the dickens if they try to take it away.
So I’ll stay with it to try to keep it from going to a vote. If it does I’ll vote. But I’m done trying to convince anyone that beef and milk have a pre-store life.
UGH!

 

[JPmbogo]

I believe the concept of "trophy hunting" may be a root cause of public relations with the non-hunting public. Does is really matter that my elk rack, or kudu mount, or elephant tusks are bigger than yours? We might all be better off if Rowland Ward, Pope and Young, etc. did not even exist. I am not suggesting that as hunters we should not record our hunts with photographs, mounts, etc. Instead, emphasize the experience. It's the journey, not the destination.

 

[rookhawk]

I believe the concept of "trophy hunting" may be a root cause of public relations with the non-hunting public. Does is really matter that my elk rack, or kudu mount, or elephant tusks are bigger than yours? We might all be better off if Rowland Ward, Pope and Young, etc. did not even exist. I am not suggesting that as hunters we should not record our hunts with photographs, mounts, etc. Instead, emphasize the experience. It's the journey, not the destination.

It absolutely is. The problem is we are fighting a battle that shouldn't be fought in a war that has already been lost. ANY credible pro-hunting conservationist (except those financially incentivized to disagree) states "The term Trophy Hunting is unsalvagable".

We will never escape the perception that "Trophy Hunting" is defined by the public as killing endangered or rare animals solely to chop their heads off and decorate a macabre alter to a fragile ego.

What needs to change to save the sport:

1.) Selective Hunting is the new term. Definition: Investing the most in conservation with the least amount of consumption. A selective hunter does not harvest any animal for meat, but rather selects mature animals past the peak of breeding age to provide the least impact on the species and the most personal challenge.

2.) We need to abolish identities in the record books. Everyone gets a PIN or unique ID. Your name isn't in the book. The book is to identify long term trends in animal quality and to document improvements or declines in the wild species of a given area. It needs to be 100% about the animal. This approach will of course fail when SCI, P&Y, RW, Buckmasters, and B&C make money on record book entries and by selling "trophy awards" for people that pay the most money to kill the most diverse amount of animals. This approach has horrible optics to the public and serves NO purpose to the conservation of a species beyond providing funding for the above organizations.

SCI will run the sport into the ground before they give any ground on the two points above. Thus, we are funding an unwilling battle in a war that has already been lost.

I say all this as a SCI member and measurer. (that has NEVER entered a single animal in the record book myself...why would I, why do I need to?)

 

[Gunnie]

It may have been said by others in the thread. However if we truly wish to combat these things we need to have education campaigns of our own to combat the lies and attacks they perpetuate. It’s not enough to give the information that what we do helps conservation or feeding villages after the fact. Not when every day school children are targeted in ad campaigns that we are murdering the last of everything. When was the last time you saw a SCI commercial on TV? Now think about the last one from The animal Foundation, Humane society, or PETA. We need to stop with the damage control and start before hand on the benefits to the entire system as a whole. Get actual numbers of game animals out in the eye as compared to there viable habitat. That would help the since 1950 the worlds elephant or lion or leopard or whatever animal they speak of has fallen this much and this person shot one.

 

[rookhawk]

It may have been said by others in the thread. However if we truly wish to combat these things we need to have education campaigns of our own to combat the lies and attacks they perpetuate. It’s not enough to give the information that what we do helps conservation or feeding villages after the fact. Not when every day school children are targeted in ad campaigns that we are murdering the last of everything. When was the last time you saw a SCI commercial on TV? Now think about the last one from The animal Foundation, Humane society, or PETA. We need to stop with the damage control and start before hand on the benefits to the entire system as a whole. Get actual numbers of game animals out in the eye as compared to there viable habitat. That would help the since 1950 the worlds elephant or lion or leopard or whatever animal they speak of has fallen this much and this person shot one.

We do not have a marketable product to advertise. You cannot tell the general public about SCI supporting conservation without an immediate rebuke from the left that is much more appealing/sensible to the average non-hunter.

SCI charges people $35 to enter animals in a record book. If you add enough items into that book proving you've killed as many animals as possible, you can pay SCI for trophies and receive them at award ceremonies. (you pay to go to the award ceremony, you pay for the awards, you pay for the book entries). This is not a winnable topic with the public. Saying that some fat old white guy paid $27,000 to nominate himself and BUY himself a plaque and then PAY for himself to go to a dinner to PAY a firm to let him come on stage to receive the awards he self-nominated, self-identified, and self-purchased is not a winnable conversation to have with anyone.

But that's where the bulk of SCI's money comes from. So long as that is the source of funds, SCI will ingratiate themselves with their benefactor even if it means flushing the sport down the tube. That's the conflict of interest that causes SCI to be unable to have a dynamic public outreach in mass media.

SCI's methods of gaining the revenue to operate will never be acceptable to the general public.

 

[Gunnie]

We do not have a marketable product to advertise. You cannot tell the general public about SCI supporting conservation without an immediate rebuke from the left that is much more appealing/sensible to the average non-hunter.

SCI charges people $35 to enter animals in a record book. If you add enough items into that book proving you've killed as many animals as possible, you can pay SCI for trophies and receive them at award ceremonies. (you pay to go to the award ceremony, you pay for the awards, you pay for the book entries). This is not a winnable topic with the public. Saying that some fat old white guy paid $27,000 to nominate himself and BUY himself a plaque and then PAY for himself to go to a dinner to PAY a firm to let him come on stage to receive the awards he self-nominated, self-identified, and self-purchased is not a winnable conversation to have with anyone.

But that's where the bulk of SCI's money comes from. So long as that is the source of funds, SCI will ingratiate themselves with their benefactor even if it means flushing the sport down the tube. That's the conflict of interest that causes SCI to be unable to have a dynamic public outreach in mass media.

SCI's methods of gaining the revenue to operate will never be acceptable to the general public.

Understand and when put in that light very poor choice to spread the message, someone else can spread the message I simply used them as there kind of the big one as a result of years doing it. While it may look like SCI doesn’t care about more then money to the average joe. Ive seen first hand people’s opinions change regarding hunting when they realize that it’s not just about that trophy like they paint it. We can’t win any support from people if they don’t get the information. All of the benefits hunting has is lost on the average joe because they’ve never heard about it. Managing heards for success, money put in the economy, food on tables, people with jobs who otherwise wouldn’t have them. Pointing out the average hunter does in fact care about more then just the head on the wall.

ETA: Of course the fanatics who think killing people to let animals thrive is a viable solution will never see light and will never gain support from them.

 

[rookhawk]

Understand and when put in that light very poor choice to spread the message, someone else can spread the message I simply used them as there kind of the big one as a result of years doing it. While it may look like SCI doesn’t care about more then money to the average joe. Ive seen first hand people’s opinions change regarding hunting when they realize that it’s not just about that trophy like they paint it. We can’t win any support from people if they don’t get the information. All of the benefits hunting has is lost on the average joe because they’ve never heard about it. Managing heards for success, money put in the economy, food on tables, people with jobs who otherwise wouldn’t have them. Pointing out the average hunter does in fact care about more then just the head on the wall.

ETA: Of course the fanatics who think killing people to let animals thrive is a viable solution will never see light and will never gain support from them.

I agree overall with you, Gunnie. But what's the winnable game in all of this?

-End SCI's source of revenue by abolishing the awards system.
-Eradicate all names from the record book so it is clearly "about the animal" and conservation.
-Eliminate the term Trophy and Trophy Hunting from all vernacular.

THEN:

Go after the public that they are about sustainable use in perpetuity of all wild resources to ensure they live on forever. Explain selective hunting in a limited capacity. Explain the record book's utility and why it exists to measure the health of the species in the wild. Explain how regulated hunting in partnership with other initiatives has protected species.

 

[Gunnie]

@rookhawk I’m not saying they or the score system should be abolished. Can’t say one way or another on that subject. I think the end game is simply getting more people to see the light on the benefits of the system. We will never have total support. I think the other points you make is sound. How many times in our forums do we tell people forget the tape, trust your PH and be happy in the hunt overall. It shouldn’t be about the trophy and I think to most it isn’t. Yet the numbers matter in sustainability of quality animals.

 

[IvW]

Bottom line is do not give the antis/greenis ammunition to use against us.....

 

[jeff]

The anti's will never run out of ammo to use against us as they will manufacture their own, they aren't concerned with truth.