Hunting Debate held in NYC

[mike rossi]

Tickets were sold to this making it a spectator event right in NYC. Thanks Field and Stream.....

 

 

Score:

 

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/1496-hunters-conserve-wildlife

 

Video of debate: http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/1496-hunters-conserve-wildlife

[Dinsdale]

Followed this from another hunting forum.....

 

 

I'm not surprised by the outcome; hunters lost again in voting.

 

Until as a group we find a suitable spokesperson to articulate with the same passion as the anti's, the message will never persuade the neutral majority of the public.

[Elmo]

I haven't had the chance to listen to it yet.  Looking at the results, hunters lost in the panel but they crushed the anti's in the online poll.

 

[DirtTime]

I tried to watch it. I got a little irritated listening to all about Africa for a half hour. Then again, I was irritated at my turkey hunting so far this season too. I will try and watch the whole thing tomorrow.

I hope people do not take offense to this, but, I am about managing the game in the USA and more specific in NY where I hunt.

 

[Dinsdale]

I tried to watch it. I got a little irritated listening to all about Africa for a half hour. Then again, I was irritated at my turkey hunting so far this season too. I will try and watch the whole thing tomorrow.

I hope people do not take offense to this, but, I am about managing the game in the USA and more specific in NY where I hunt.

 

I'm guessing I care about as much as anyone posting on this board, as I care more about hunting in Africa then NY, and I take no offence......its a good question why and maybe I can help that a little.

 

The context of the debate is framed around the "Cecil" the lion hunt debacle.

 

The basic premise is does the money spent by hunters actually protect wildlife abroad and at home; but the "pro" lady on the panel is based in Africa and its her expertise, so her answers are more to that point.

 

Why do I think this will effect you?

 

This is a war of attrition and as hunters we will get nibbled on around the edges til' one day you may just find yourself and way of hunting being the last one standing.

 

Its easy and emotional using all the Disneyfication of African animals to be able to target a small group, often with some wealth and public image to uphold and have our Gov't make it difficult enough to go hunting to effectively shut it down. Its fashionable now to attack 1%'ers and public figures who need to be image conscience for their shareholders and who do a large majority of BIG 5 hunting, I just play around the edges. Anti poaching patrols have taken a huge hit this year with the revenue of incoming hunter dollars to finance year round work for a 4 month hunting season with US citizens booking few hunts due to import regulations. US hunters make up roughly 50-60% of all revenues for African hunting, and number about 5,000 a year or so on average.

 

USF&W have already shut down Lion, Elephant in many cases, and have made effective closures on a list of animals I cannot hunt, not based on the country where the animal lives and THEIR law, but our USF&W service won't allow import under OUR laws. I personally see this as another huge over reach of "we know better than you" mentality Americans in general are so well known for now worldwide. 

 

In Africa this as its a simple economic tenant.....if it pays it stays. I cannot emphasize enough how I see this directly with every trip. I have been 4 times as recent as a few weeks ago, and have spent several months hunting and several sightseeing some of the more less tourist picturesque places in SA,Namibia, and to a lesser degree Zimbabwe. (in 2005 I hunted in close proximity to Hwange Park and where Cecil originated) 

 

OK, so we are still talking about Africa?

 

 

Well the arguments being brought before the courts to stop "safari" hunting by US citizens on foreign soil are EXACTLY the arguments that will be used to undermine the hunting here at home.

 

Its why the Wyoming Wolf delisting is still held up in the courts.

 

USF&W argument is that the science isn't good enough to base hunting as a benefit. That is setting a precedent both in the public(Congress) and courts eyes.

 

Well guess what? The science on setting game seasons is all based on this same science of game management and its going to be incrementally challenged. (and that science is pitiful in NY by the way with basically a dart board due to a handcuffed game dept that has a broad spectrum of responsibilities and getting hunters to shut up is one of them)

 

 

HSUS and similar groups have stated so in internal literature as one of the chief goals and ways to achieve their belief that ALL hunting must end. They have no time table, they will keep steering and framing the message to their skew as long as it takes.

 

 

 And that's why it matters.....

[mike rossi]

I haven't had the chance to listen to it yet.  Looking at the results, hunters lost in the panel but they crushed the anti's in the online poll.

 

Before the debate the poll showed that most favored hunting. However, after the debate most did not. That means in a sense that the antis "won" the debate, that they influenced people to side with their point of view.... We might cover this on our NYC website, not sure. 

Edited May 6, 2016 by mike rossi

[mike rossi]

 

 

Until as a group we find a suitable spokesperson to articulate with the same passion as the anti's, the message will never persuade the neutral majority of the public.

 

Ever hear of Mike Rossi? 

[Marion]

That guy may be a bit too abrasive in his tactics

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Edited May 6, 2016 by The Jerkman

[b79holmes]

Before the debate the poll showed that most favored hunting. However, after the debate most did not. That means in a sense that the antis "won" the debate, that they influenced people to side with their point of view.... We might cover this on our NYC website, not sure. 

 

Because many in the middle are impacted by the anti's emotional message and not our logical one.

 

You need to go right at it with the fact that 'conservation' does not mean nothing dies.  It's how the planet works.

Humans are not exempt from the whole life and death ashes to ashes process etc.

It's about a healthy ecosystem, not animal rights, which I'd argue don't exist anyway.

 

I didn't listen to the initial talk but it's my understanding that just like in the USA being collared and named does not mean the lion could not be hunted, it was really an issue about guide licenses and if he was intentionally baited off a closed area.

 

Bill

[Rattler]

What troubles me is the clear illustration that many people in this audience were influenced by emotional arguments, which is what the anti hunting panelists used most often.  They must have ignored the factual information presented by the pro hunting panelists.

 

Too often, public policy is formed based on emotional responses, that eventually prove to be a real disaster regarding the issue.  And even after that happens, the emotional appeal calls for even more emotional response, claiming the first one's failed because they weren't far reaching enough.

 

Until people start to look at factual information and base decisions solely on that, failure will continue to be the end result.

[Uptown Redneck]

As someone here once posted in another thread about "Anti-Hunters", emotion wins over facts. Facts tend to be boring and most people tune out fairly quickly when numbers are used to support facts, when using emotions to get their point across the "Anti's" don't have to overcome the boredom and quick lost of interest that those in favor of hunting have to overcome when using facts and numbers to make their point. Seems like we need a different approach then quoting numbers and facts when making a case to preserve hunting to those who are undecided. 

[DirtTime]

What troubles me is the clear illustration that many people in this audience were influenced by emotional arguments, which is what the anti hunting panelists used most often.  They must have ignored the factual information presented by the pro hunting panelists.

 

Too often, public policy is formed based on emotional responses, that eventually prove to be a real disaster regarding the issue.  And even after that happens, the emotional appeal calls for even more emotional response, claiming the first one's failed because they weren't far reaching enough.

 

Until people start to look at factual information and base decisions solely on that, failure will continue to be the end result.

The big issue is that the uninformed or those who are in the middle are to easily swayed by the meanderings of too many people in high places that have no clue as to what game conservation is. That game conversation directly relates to land conservation, and vise versa.

These same people who are against hunting would crap a gold brick if hunting was banned and a bear tore the crap out of their house looking for food while they were on vacation in the tropics, because there was no hunters to keep numbers down.

 

Then you have the dunces. You know who they are.

I was in FYE last fall to buy a CD ( yeah, they still make those ! ). I had a Realtree hat on and a Mossy Oak sweatshirt. This dunce walks up to me and out right asks me if I am a hunter. I said yea. He goes into a spiel about animal rights. I smiled and when he was done, I asked him very politely where he though the leather jacket and shoes he had on came from and waked away.

 

The web makes it way to easy for the masses to be mis informed, and be baited into following agendas rather then doing any real research on their own. Because after all, "I read it on the web it's true.".

[gjs4]

Sadly our ranks make it easier to hate than learn or explore. To be the devils advocate on the topic (not necessarily the debate)- any catch those idiot kids from Wi riding the spine shot fawn? Classy move. We will ruin it before anyone has a chance.

From my understanding the economic and nutritional impact of hunting in Africa is huge. Most of our ranks and theirs stateside don't realize how much money hunters out into conservation of places and creatures. Exponentially more than other non hunting interests combined. That in itself is a mountain of a point. Antis use Cecil and the trophy hunting term against us. Heck I shoot 4-5 does a year but only shoot high end bucks if and when I do.... Am I meat Hunter? Yup. Trophy Hunter? Yup. Would a non Hunter and Hunter react different to those terms?yup. Guess we need to embrace the hipster hunters getting into it primarily for table fare. I feel we should also S can all the idiots in our ranks quickly. Bad press is the real enemy.

Will catch up with the actual debate at some point- sad to hear it was a loss in some regards but it was in enemy terroritory and no idea who our representation was.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DirtTime]

Nope! I been trying to watch this for a few days now in it's entirety. I just can't. Over all I made it through about 70%. This really has nothing to do with game conservation in the US as a main point. It did prove a point though, Americans are too busy worrying about what's going on in other parts of the world to care about what's going on in our yards.

I was a little shocked to hear the Albany Pine Bush mentioned. They do a ton to keep that area and the creatures there protected. Just wish they would keep out of state hunters off the preserve.

[Padre86]

Who is surprised that in NYC, where this debate was held, the majority of the audience was against hunting....you could tell from the questions asked that many of the people had already made up their minds and were asking pointed questions about the ethics and morality of hunting, which the moderator was deliberately trying to avoid.

 

I will say that the Field & Stream editor didn't strike me as the articulate, well-spoken representative that hunting groups need for these kinds of debates.  The woman seemed to be a bit better explaining/defending her position, but she also seemed all too eager to escalate the intensity of the debate, which never works to the hunter's advantage.  That said, the hunting rep's did bring up a lot more numbers and statistics while the anti-hunting side was relying a lot more on rhetoric and emotional appeal.  WTF does Cecil the Lion have to do with legal big game Safari hunting?

 

By all accounts, the hunting rep's did a better job of making and defending their argument, but like I said earlier, much of the audience seemed to be anti-hunting from the beginning and no amount of logical arguing is going to change their mind.

[philoshop]

It's a political chess match on a pre-set board. The 'anti' game plan going in is, "Let's see 'em get outta this one."

It's how they continually win the argument. Change the format, and they simply refuse to show up.

[DirtTime]

The average hunter will never get to hunt exotic species in Africa. To be realistic, the average hunter from NY will never even get to hunt a Mule deer right here in the continental US.

If you have the money to hunt exotics, good for you.

 

My problem is we have enough going on right here on our own soil with anti hunters and more that I just really don't care about hunting in other countries and what it means to them. I do understand that some countries depend on the revenue from hunting to keep it going.

 

But, now, I have to add a political aspect. Those same places couldn't give a rats backside about the USA and only see us as a sugar momma. Some will take your money and take you on a hunt whether that hunts legal or not. Which brings me to my next point...

 

Cecil is dead, let it go! No manner of talking about what was wrong with that hunt will bring that lion back! It's over! It's done! Move on!

 

I am so sick of hearing about Africa.

 

How do we get the turkey populations up right here in NY? Why are they so quiet this season? How do we deal with the AR's the DEC is forcing? How do we fight the "Safe Act"?

 

Sorry, I have more to try and worry about then poachers or hunters in other countries. I am trying to get the BS of my own state right first.