TESTING THE GROUND FOR A STATE-WIDE BOWHUNTERS’ BRANCH OF THE SHOOTERS & FISHERS PARTY

Increasingly Bowhunters are being targeted by the ant-hunting lobby. Our discipline has been maligned as cruel, irresponsible, even primitive, and as a bowhunter myself I am increasingly concerned that the liberty to practice my hunting discipline may be under even greater threat than that faced by shooters.

I believe it is past time that bowhunting had a strong, united, well-informed and relevant advocacy and policy development voice of its own, to rally behind the Shooters & Fishers Party’s efforts on our behalf.

One obvious and cohesive way to do this is by launching a state-wide Bowhunters Branch of the Shooters & Fishers Party.

For those of you concerned that this might in some way weaken S&FP, perhaps because you fear that it could be a divisive move, there is no need for concern. I have been chatting with the S&FP about the idea and if there’s enough support for such a branch, the Party is all for it. It would be embraced in much the same way the Party has embraced fishers as a stakeholder group with similar, yet at times divergent concerns and objectives.

What would it look like, and how would it benefit bowhunters?

At the present time the Shooters & Fishers Party's efforts to represent our stake in weapons ownership and hunting, is based largely on a combination of feedback from its general membership, and on a system of consultations through loose affiliations with external stakeholder groups. While this has been helpful to date, it may not be as sound a representative base as an bowhunters branch within the Party itself might be.

Of course setting up such a group within the Party need in no way diminish the value or relevance of feedback from non-archers within the Party, or even external stakeholders.

What it would mean, though, is that the S&FP would have ready access to a known and specific stakeholder group within, making it quicker and easier to obtain advice on important issues, such as policy and legislation, while perhaps also affording the Party a source of expert comment on occasions when our discipline is criticised by the media, or those who would see our rights diminished and our discipline over-regulated or even abolished.

I don’t want to be too prescriptive about the nature, purpose and benefits of an bowhunters branch of the Party. Determining what it might look like is, at least in part, the purpose of this field-up grassroots consultation. I will however go so far as to suggest that there are some basic yet important things to discuss and establish initially, and they are:

• Does the sector (you) think there may be broad benefits associated with the development of a state-wide Bowhunters Branch of the Shooters and Fishers Party?
• What would your expectations be of the branch in terms of representation?
   
• What would its consultative obligations be e.g. strictly internal, or both internal and external to the branch membership?
   
• What would the benefits be, as you see them?
   
• What would the pitfalls be, as you see them?

Finally, and potentially the most vexed issue…

• What would your expectations be regarding lines of demarcation? For example, would you expect that:
  
  (a) only archers would comment on archery and bowhunting related issues, and only shooters on gun and shooting related issues,
  
  (b) would you expect to be consulted on all issues pertaining to hunting and weapons ownership, regardless of the issue and/or the discipline?
  
  (c) a combination of (a) and (b) ?

Again I stress that this is intended to be a primer for discussion and debate, to assess support (or otherwise) for the idea. It is not intended to be an expansive manifesto or mission statement. 

If this consultation is going to have any integrity at all, it is important that we spread the word far and wide, inviting all stakeholders to contribute to the process. It is fine to discuss the idea on facebook and in other online and face-to-face fora, but it is even more important to register your feedback in one place, to make it accessible by all, and to give the S&FP in particular an opportunity to gauge support.

This will be difficult if we don’t adopt a central place to register our thoughts and views.

It is for these reasons that I suggest you register your feedback on The Hunters’ Stand blogspot, where everyone will be able view the progress of the discussion as it unfolds.

I will undertake to post all feedback lodged, without bias, regardless of whether it is for or against the idea, without amendment, but with one proviso...

I will moderate any abusive, threatening, needlessly profane or grossly offensive comments right out of the debate! With consultation and representation comes responsibility, and I think it best to begin as we mean to continue, embracing the highest levels of probity and ethics.

So there you have it, a bunch of words about what I think. But what do you think, that’s the important question.

I hope you’ll spare the time to share your thoughts below. Don't forget to open the little drop-down box under the comments window and select an identity. There are loads to choose from, including "Anonymous". If you want to leave your name or 'handle' select "Name/URL" and type in the name you wish to appear with your comment. You do NOT have to enter anything in the URL field.

If due to some glitch you cannot leave a comment below, you can email it to thehunterstand@gmail.com and I'll make sure it's posted for you. Just be certain to include a name or identity at the end of your comment, and that's the ID I'll post it under. 

Anyway, I’ll get outa ya way now….