So, I have been giving this whole subject a lot of thought.
I don't like contests. For my own reasons. And at the end of the day it really doesn't even matter what those reasons are. Even though I don't like them, I would not actually VOTE to end them. If I had the option to abstain from voting, I might. But if forced to vote one way or the other, I wouldn't like it, but I'd have to vote to keep them.
That this makes me an "anti hunter in hunters clothing" to some of you, is what it is too. Y'all have your own opinions, so be it.
This is a purely political issue. The decision making that will actually effect the outcome has nothing to do with science or morals or ethics. It's politics, plain pure and simple. Whether it should be, or not, doesn't matter. All the facts and logic in the world to show that it shouldn't be a political issue don't change a thing. It is a political issue. And that's that. Reality.
So, those of you who would have me actively support contest hunting, to avoid being damned as an anti-hunter. Tell me how, exactly?
One of my good friends is a non-hunter and a liberal democrat. Like every other person on the planet, he considers himself open minded and fair. Very active voter too, he volunteers for campaigns, goes door to door, does fundraising, all that stuff. He was raised on a farm and eats meat. He gets it that even though he doesn't want to hunt, that other people do, and that some animals have to die for him to live. He wouldn't vote to end the hunting of game for the table. He even "gets" predator control, though he doesn't like it at all, he grudgingly admits that in some cases it's an economic requirement for producers. How he might vote on predator control, would come down to the specifics, he could go either way, depending.
He'd vote to end contests in a second though.
So what do I say to him, to defend and support contests? That it's legal? The context of the question is that he has to decide if it should remain legal. Simply saying "it is and it should stay that way" isn't going to move his or anyone else's meter one tiny bit.
That there is no science to support banning them? For one thing, there is no science showing any benefit for them either. But this is political, science is only useful when it can be used in propping up a political position. I personally don't think science is useful, for either side, in this context. Though I can easily see how either side could take the science that does exist and use the exact same data to support their own, opposite positions. Would make for a lot of flames and heat between those committed to either side but at the end of the day it wouldn't sway those in the middle that matter.
For my personal coyote hunting, I have explained that I do it simply because I love to do it. No other reason. That's not a good enough reason for him. But when I also explain that I'm utilizing a renewable resource and that there are mountains of scientific data to prove that recreational hunters have zero impact on the resource, he agrees that I should have the right to do what I love.
But those explanations for my personal hunting are going to cut no ice in defending contest hunts.
I'm using a real person as an example here. Someone I know very well, who definitely would vote, if given the chance. The fact that he is a liberal democrat, maybe I shouldn't even have included that info though. Because I know plenty of conservative republicans who would be even quicker to vote for banning contests.
So, what do you say, to a non-hunter, to sway them in favor of contests? This is, again, a political issue. Antis are committed to their position. It's the non-hunters that the politicians are tuned in to. It's them you need to convince. What would you have me say to them, exactly? And no, that isn't meant to be a rhetorical question. It's an honest question.
Originally Posted By: crapshootWhat is the difference between a group of men getting together, calling in and killing a hundred or so coyotes over a weekend,where the coyote has an actual chance at survival and using his cunning to live and an airplane chasing them down and gunning them by the hundreds in the name of "predation control"?
Well, so... Coming from an agonostic position, I see some real differences. Granting, off the top, there are no absolutes and that there is a continuum with many shades of gray and exceptions to everything...
Control work is killing specific coyotes in a specific place at a specific time to achieve specific economic and political goals and objectives.
I guess there are probably a few contests that might be able to make the same claims. But the vast majority can't. Not with a straight face anyway.
- DAA
I don't like contests. For my own reasons. And at the end of the day it really doesn't even matter what those reasons are. Even though I don't like them, I would not actually VOTE to end them. If I had the option to abstain from voting, I might. But if forced to vote one way or the other, I wouldn't like it, but I'd have to vote to keep them.
That this makes me an "anti hunter in hunters clothing" to some of you, is what it is too. Y'all have your own opinions, so be it.
This is a purely political issue. The decision making that will actually effect the outcome has nothing to do with science or morals or ethics. It's politics, plain pure and simple. Whether it should be, or not, doesn't matter. All the facts and logic in the world to show that it shouldn't be a political issue don't change a thing. It is a political issue. And that's that. Reality.
So, those of you who would have me actively support contest hunting, to avoid being damned as an anti-hunter. Tell me how, exactly?
One of my good friends is a non-hunter and a liberal democrat. Like every other person on the planet, he considers himself open minded and fair. Very active voter too, he volunteers for campaigns, goes door to door, does fundraising, all that stuff. He was raised on a farm and eats meat. He gets it that even though he doesn't want to hunt, that other people do, and that some animals have to die for him to live. He wouldn't vote to end the hunting of game for the table. He even "gets" predator control, though he doesn't like it at all, he grudgingly admits that in some cases it's an economic requirement for producers. How he might vote on predator control, would come down to the specifics, he could go either way, depending.
He'd vote to end contests in a second though.
So what do I say to him, to defend and support contests? That it's legal? The context of the question is that he has to decide if it should remain legal. Simply saying "it is and it should stay that way" isn't going to move his or anyone else's meter one tiny bit.
That there is no science to support banning them? For one thing, there is no science showing any benefit for them either. But this is political, science is only useful when it can be used in propping up a political position. I personally don't think science is useful, for either side, in this context. Though I can easily see how either side could take the science that does exist and use the exact same data to support their own, opposite positions. Would make for a lot of flames and heat between those committed to either side but at the end of the day it wouldn't sway those in the middle that matter.
For my personal coyote hunting, I have explained that I do it simply because I love to do it. No other reason. That's not a good enough reason for him. But when I also explain that I'm utilizing a renewable resource and that there are mountains of scientific data to prove that recreational hunters have zero impact on the resource, he agrees that I should have the right to do what I love.
But those explanations for my personal hunting are going to cut no ice in defending contest hunts.
I'm using a real person as an example here. Someone I know very well, who definitely would vote, if given the chance. The fact that he is a liberal democrat, maybe I shouldn't even have included that info though. Because I know plenty of conservative republicans who would be even quicker to vote for banning contests.
So, what do you say, to a non-hunter, to sway them in favor of contests? This is, again, a political issue. Antis are committed to their position. It's the non-hunters that the politicians are tuned in to. It's them you need to convince. What would you have me say to them, exactly? And no, that isn't meant to be a rhetorical question. It's an honest question.
Originally Posted By: crapshootWhat is the difference between a group of men getting together, calling in and killing a hundred or so coyotes over a weekend,where the coyote has an actual chance at survival and using his cunning to live and an airplane chasing them down and gunning them by the hundreds in the name of "predation control"?
Well, so... Coming from an agonostic position, I see some real differences. Granting, off the top, there are no absolutes and that there is a continuum with many shades of gray and exceptions to everything...
Control work is killing specific coyotes in a specific place at a specific time to achieve specific economic and political goals and objectives.
I guess there are probably a few contests that might be able to make the same claims. But the vast majority can't. Not with a straight face anyway.
- DAA