OPEN SEASON ON SPLITTERS

As an advocate/activist with more than 20 years experience negotiating bureaucracies and tackling Ministers on a number of politically unpopular issues, I know only too well just how tricky the business of representation and advocacy can be.

Plan as one might, there will always be unexpected hurdles to negotiate, often without warning and more often than not, specifically contrived to be unexpected.

No one knows this better, nor learns the hard lessons faster, than those relative few souls brave, foolish or naive enough to accept the post of public spokesperson for their cause. 

Such people are destined to be judged and loathed, not only by the opponents of their cause, but also by an ever shifting percentage of the very stakeholders whose concerns the spokesperson strives, in good faith, to represent.

The more controversial the issue and diverse the stakeholder group, the more fraught the spokespersons’ job becomes, as he quickly learns he is obligated to be all things to all armchair critics, all of the time.

If the issue is apple production, for instance, there will always be those who are dissatisfied by the spokesperson’s failure to draw an orange analogy, and still others who are miffed because he failed to equate it all to the price of eggs. 

The business of firearms advocacy is no different. 

Whether one is the spokesperson for a representative organisation, or simply someone endeavouring to counter the ridiculous sensationalist claims of the media, to displease shooters on any single point, no matter how minor, is to risk a backlash of public vilification. 

This is a fact that Nick Harvey, Technical Editor for Sporting Shooter Magazine, and Robert Brown of the Shooters, Fishers & Farmers Party, both know only too well I'm sure.

Each man has recently come under fire for perceived failures in advocacy and representation, and both has been disrespectfully and childishly lambasted publically by those either arrogant or naive enough to believe they could have done better. 

What were their crimes?  

In the case of Nick Harvey, it was daring to pen an opinion piece in which he challenges the stereotypes of shooters promulgated by the media, which also included a personal opinion on one aspect of the National Firearms Agreement some considered to be traitorous. 

It was enough to see him viciously attacked by the shooting fraternity’s equivalent of Sharia police, who waved away the man’s inestimably valuable 60 year contribution to the shooting and hunting sectors with, “But really, what has he done recently?”

After which, Harvey was dubbed with a puerile pejorative based on a 1940s comic cartoon figure, designed to humiliate, belittle and punish the wrong thinker. 

All of it because in an article that addressed a number of issues very adequately, Harvey’s position on one aspect of the post 1996 NFA did not comply with prescribed and authorised doctrine.

A similar jihad was recently launched against SFF Party MP Robert Brown for what some considered his lacklustre performance on the SBS Insight program on gun control 20 years after Port Arthur.

Brown’s critics were particularly scathing, but this said far more about their total lack of understanding of the way such programs assemble an audience, along with the basic realities of pre-recorded programming, than anything else. 

The vast majority of the more than two hours of filming that goes into the final 50 minute Insight program (including ads) was always destined for the cutting-room floor. 

Ironically, those ordinarily keen to accuse the media of only putting to air that which serves to portray shooters in the poorest possible light, on this occasion did a back-flip worthy of Nadia Comaneci.

They ‘reasoned’ that if the bits of the program that went to air portrayed Brown’s performance in a less than glowing light, he must have performed even more poorly in the edited bits.

I mean, really?

As we all know, the media is committed to covering up our more inglorious moments caught on camera, I don’t think!

As one who has occupied an ‘experts’ seat in the audience on Insight and similar programs over the years, I can appreciate Brown’s no-win situation better than most. In fact many who had been invited to join the studio audience for this event declined because they too foresaw the outcome. 

But had no-one appeared to represent shooters the outcome for us in public relations terms would have been terminal. The sector recognised this and so two representatives sallied forth as whipping boys for the media and an audience bourgeoning, not with objective experts and analysts, but with victims invited to be loud, angry, emotional victims. 

One need only look at any of the dozens of reports that followed in the print media to see whose pictures and quotes feature to the exclusion of all reason and objectivity. 

Short of apologising to the victims of Port Arthur on behalf of all gun owners and undertaking to work in future towards greater gun control, nothing Brown could have said or done would have prevented his cunningly edited portrayal as an angry, insensitive, disingenuous, bearded ogre.  

In short, whoever turned up with the intention of contending that shooters are not all monsters and guns are OK in the proper hands, was destined to be pilloried by the Greens and the majority Howard-worshiping anti-gun audience, strategically stacked by the Insight program for maximum pathos and emotive controversy. 

I commend those who took the bit between the teeth and strove, on our behalf, to make the best of a set-up. What’s more, I challenge their critics to have a crack at being the public face of firearms advocacy and show us all how it should be done.

Ironically, those who have been most critical of the likes of Brown and Harvey, also push the line that every shooter/hunter should make the effort to call-in to radio programs taking shooters and hunters to task, in order to defend their fellow enthusiasts on air.

In principle it’s a theory...not a good one perhaps, but it’s a theory nonetheless.  However, I have this to ask of those encouraging our comrades to take the bit of public advocacy between their teeth. 

Why on earth would anyone bother, if they risk being taken to task, ridiculed and inducted into a cartoon character shit-list of fame if their performance doesn’t meet the standard laid down by the Brotherhood of Don Farq-Al? 

Advocacy and representation is a complex and imperfect ‘science’. It is only made more complex and imperfect by harsh public criticism and the ostracisation of people doing their best to gain ground against insurmountable odds on a heavily mined playing field.

Dividing the sector by attacking people who, while agreeing with us on 9 of 10 key objectives, have reservations about the 10th, is unproductive in the extreme and part of a naive and outdated approach to advocacy and representation that has hardly served us well to date.

While there is great wisdom in the phrase, “United we stand, divided we fall” there is no fabled lost second verse that runs, “And vilify all the splitters”, despite what Monty Python may have counselled on the topic. 

True unity comes only with open constructive dialog and compromise. Not necessarily the compromise of principle, but rather the kind of compromise that permits people to work together towards mutual objectives, and agree to disagree and work separately towards others.

Naming and shaming people publically for perceived failings in public performance, is a very dangerous, arrogant business. 

It is dangerous because it plays into the hands of the Antis who seek to discredit our advocates and demonstrate a dysfunctional sector full of angry people with guns.

It is arrogant because the critic presumes the right not only to speak for ‘us’, but also to marginalise someone who may be a very great asset to us and the sector over-all.

Of course everyone has the right to disagree with public statements thought ill-considered and even damaging. This does not, however, necessitate the pursuit and punishment of a transgressor, and the application of juvenile pejoratives that serve only to demonstrate to potential new talent that perhaps they’re better-off keeping their heads down.  

There is far more to be gained by constructively debating the issues of contention with a view to convincing the apostate of the merits of your doctrine, or if need be, accepting that Australian shooters and hunters were not all tipped out of the same mould.

Of course if we're really striving for a one size fits all style of advocacy, managed by angry people who'll brook no moderation, error or compromise...

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...

©gmallard2016 all rights reserved

Follow the Hunters' Stand on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2016/06/open-season-on-splitters.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.


If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com This service will not include notification of new comments. 

All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.  

"GUNS WERE INVENTED TO KILL PEOPLE!" - REALLY?

Of all the predictable and tedious claims of those hoplophobically opposed to firearms ownership, there is one I consider a real standout for the level of inane stupidity it betrays...

“Guns were invented to kill people!”  

The claim is of course ludicrous, but as with so many of the Antis' mantras, it may not immediately appear so to those who lack any real motivation to interrogate its veracity.

The Antis deploy these statements in the knowledge that those they’re intended to influence – the general public – lack sufficient stakeholdership in the gun debate to explore the issues thoroughly.

The vast majority of Australians don’t own guns and may never have even seen a gun close up.  As a consequence, when they hear the claim “Guns were invented to kill people” alternative applications for firearms don’t automatically spring to mind. 

Because the proposition is succinct and appears a reasonable assertion at first glance, the public is apt to accept it, if only as the trite mantra it is. 

This is the Antis' goal!

Of course guns were not invented to kill people. They came about as the result of technological evolution, as an improvement on preexisting hunting tools, just as the spear superseded the club and the bow superseded the spear as a means of dispatching quarry. 

Their purpose was harvest, not murder or war.

The fact that the original purpose of clubs, spears and guns would come to be perverted, does not mean they were invented to kill people anymore than it is reasonable to suggest the hammer was invented to kill people by virtue of its current popularity as a murder weapon, or that screwdrivers were invented as offensive weapons simply because they’re so often brandished by junkies robbing 7/11s.

The fact that some guns have been developed specifically with military applications in mind is undeniable, however, on the whole these are not firearms most Australians wish to, or indeed may legally, own.

All this stuff may seem remedial and in fact it is, but it does not always appear so to people who lack any 'stake' in thinking things through. For this reason it is important to patently and politely repeat the obvious whenever necessary. Not to the inveterate hopolophobe, but to those who are open minded and therefore prone to the influence of ludicrous propositions effectively sold. 

As is so common among our fraternity, my love of hunting is just one facet of a broader life-long interest in self-reliance. Once known as the self-sufficiently movement, it has been re-birthed in the 3rd millennium as 'Homesteading'. 

It was during a recent visit to one of my favourite Homesteading websites that I happened upon a typical example of the activity outlined above. 

Homesteaders are often torn – in my view unnecessarily – as to whether there is a legitimate place for firearms and hunting in a life that strives to be simple, responsible in the use of resources, and humane in the management of livestock.

Homesteader websites are favoured territory for anti-gun campaigners seeking to sell their message to what is often a reliably stereotypical audience i.e. well educated, well intentioned yet often naive young couples with a social conscience, fleeing the rat-race to live a simpler life in the bush where acreages upon which simple homes may be built are still ‘affordable’.

The Antis favour these sites all the more for the fact the chances of being rebutted by opponents well informed about gun issues are relatively slim.  

It was on just such a site that I watched a discussion that began reasonably enough, descend to plumb the depths of insanity and extremism after being hijacked by a rabid hoplophobic animal rights activist. 

Rather than going into detail I will simply say that every nonsensical “the sky is falling” statement and false statistic drawn from Emotional Blackmail for Dummies had been deployed to bludgeon an audience whose position on responsible firearms ownership had been, at worst, ambivalent prior to the arrival of Chicken Little.

Of course I couldn't resist engaging with the forum and with a little effort I was able to turn things around to the point that, while not yet sold on the indispensable value of firearms to the serious homesteader, they were at least considering the proposition on merit rather than emotive and erroneous propaganda.

I did this in the way I have always found most effective; by engaging directly with everyone except Chicken Little, whom I ignored to the point of provoking a stress induced molt I’m sure. 

It wasn’t long before emulation of this strategy made it obvious everyone approved. 

While I had the forum's attention I thought I’d have a crack at explaining why it had been so easily subverted by extremist influences, in the hope this might serve as a means of identifying and avoiding repeat performances.

I did this by explaining the principle of 'stakeholdership' in contentious debate, using the statement “Guns were invented to kill people” as my focus, simply because it was a statement that had received almost unanimous support.

I explained that it is easy to denigrate and demand the abolition of something one has no personal stake in. If one doesn’t own a gun it is easy to disregard or simply overlook its practical and ethical value, while subconsciously absorbing ridiculous claims as though they are undisputed facts. 

It is also easy to demand the abolition of something one does not own nor see any future need to own; totally disregarding the value the subject item might have to other people and the hardship they may suffer for its loss.

Conversely, it is dead-easy to defend something harmful and even deadly, provided we approve of its responsible use in our own hands.  

The example I used was something everyone these days can related to – mobile-phone cameras.

Used safely and ethically, they are a very useful gadget, but when put to purposes for which they were never intended, they have the potential to inflict great misery and even death.

This statement drew cries of “How can you even suggest cameras are as dangerous as guns?” from Chicken Little, whom I promptly ignored except to thank her for being so accommodatingly predictable as to ask the desired question on cue.

Mobile-phone cameras are handy for taking family snaps, capturing glorious sunsets, recording the details of traffic accidents etc; they are even handy for the ubiquitous narcissistic pouty-mouthed selfie, but their presence in communications devices has also made them a favourite tool of paedophiles.

Perverts looking to share images of naked little girls and boys captured at the beach, in school sports and public pool changing-rooms, in the toilets at pre-schools and in a hundred other places my mind is insufficiently bent to speculate on, once had their efforts hampered by camera bans. 

However, no one is ever asked to surrender a phone before entering these places of vulnerability and since cameras became standard with even the cheapest disposable phones, there has been a quantum increase in discreetly obtained 'pornographic' images uploaded directly to the internet from the location they were captured.

Once uploaded, the paedophile can delete the images from his/her mobile device, thus destroying all evidence of their activities, making them difficult to nail with the goods so to speak.

As the passage of time is revealing, children who’ve been abused and/or exploited often grow into very troubled and vulnerable adults, some of whom will develop chemical dependencies, depression, eating disorders, habits of self-harm and so on, often culminating in the ultimate act of self-harm, suicide.

To paraphrase the claim often made about the purpose of guns, surely it is reasonable to assert then, that “Mobile-phone cameras were invented for child pornography".

It seems an absolute no-brainer that banning cameras in mobile devices would be an appropriate step to take in the interests of child protection. After all, a ban on mobile-phone cameras does not mean anyone would be deprived of either a phone or a camera.

They just wouldn’t be available in one device, therefore the loss is simply one of convenience and a very recent convenience at that.  

As little as 10 years ago phone cameras were the stuff of Sci-Fi novels and our lives were in no way diminished for that fact.

Yes, no matter how one looks at it, banning mobile phone cameras is a small price to pay to combat the scourge of child exploitation...yet who would agree to such a ban without bitter complaint and protests focusing on the unfairness of punishing the innocent and responsible for the sins of a relative few criminally deranged perverts? 

I can answer that question for you.

The people who’d complain the loudest would be the very same people who believe it is perfectly fair and reasonable to punish a majority of innocent and responsible firearms owner for the sins of a relative few criminals who use guns illegally!

I’m happy to say the forum took on an entirely different tenor by the end of our brief exploration of stakeholdership. 

It goes without saying tho', Chicken Little’s opinions were not changed one iota for the exercise and that’s to be expected. But at least now a number of open minded, intelligent and practical young people are aware of the dynamic of naive ignorance anti-gun campaigners strive to manipulate and exploit for their own advantage.

If you can think of any analogies similar to the mobile-phone camera example I outlined above, why not let us know in the comments section below. A compilation of such examples may prove a useful resource for anyone involved in future debates.

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...

©gmallard2016 all rights reserved

Follow the Hunters' Stand on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/guns-were-invented-to-kill-people-really.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.


If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com This service will not include notification of new comments. 

All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.  

HUNTING: THE HEALTHY CHOICE

Animals Australia’s latest anti-hunting ad campaign has got some hunter’s feathers in a frizz, and no wonder. It carries a number of subtle deceptions aimed at swaying public opinion as much by what isn’t said as what is.

It is these deceptions and how they might be effectively countered that we'll be looking at below.

As a 'Mallard' myself, dabbling in this particular pond is likely to see me marked a turncoat as much by hunters as duck advocates, because on this occasion I agree with Animals Australia - Duck shooting is not a sport. 

The question is, does its non-sporting status mean that duck hunting is not a valid recreational activity? 

The noun ‘sport’ is generally applied to activities in which people pit their skills against other people. This is clearly not the case with duck hunting, most of the time. 

However, there are exceptions to the rule e.g. when people compete against other people to down the most ducks within legal daily bag limits, but this is not the norm.

Duck hunting and fishing are more correctly referred to as recreational activities, pursuits or even pastimes. 

As with other forms of hunting, and mushroom collecting for that matter, there is a benefit to duck hunting – food gathering – that transcends simple enjoyment of the shooting activity.

It is this very important distinction that Animals Australia’s latest ad campaign very cunningly strives to obscure from the equation, for the campaign’s message is not in fact that duck shooting is not a sport, but rather that we think it IS a sport or diversion and nothing more substantial than that. 

By replacing the word ‘hunting’ with ‘shooting’, Animals Australia is attempting to plant a subliminal message in the public consciousness i.e. duck shooting is a petty activity from which, as with other sports, nothing is derived but fun and a short diversion from more serious activities such as work.  

The result they are striving for is acceptance of a specific image; that of hunters going into the field for the day to have a great old time shooting, before returning home empty handed to put their gear away as one does after a football or cricket match. 

Animals Australia wants the public to visualise a swamp carpeted with abandoned dead ducks and this would indeed be a reasonable image to embrace, if the object was simply duck ‘shooting’. 

In the great tradition of comparing apples and oranges to justify a patently ludicrous proposition, Animals Australia has enlisted the support of young, healthy Aussie sports men and women to paint a picture of what sport is, so’s to coerce the public into conjuring an image of what sport is not. 

If one was possessed of the resources to counter this campaign, the way to go about it is relatively simple. 

A poster depicting a healthy young Aussie family, all clean-cut and sans any sign of camouflage clothing or guns, gathered in the kitchen preparing a meal of freshly harvested duck would be a good start. The caption might read something like: 

"Hunting - the healthy choice" or

“Responsible duck harvest - the essence of freerange, organic, sustainability, just hours from field to table.”

Clearly, writing grab-lines is not my forte, but the message at least is clear. Duck hunting is a strictly regulated activity, which returns a benefit that is absolutely in harmony with today’s emphasis on healthy living, sustainability and responsible resource management.

It cannot be denied that some birds will be wounded or left behind. However, when compared to the suffering and waste common to other means of meat production relied upon by the general public, duck hunting compares very favorably.

Resourcing a campaign of our own on the scale of Animals Australia’s is problematic, but creating informative memes, while lacking the same impact as a TV advertisement or freeway billboard, can still be an effective way of making carefully considered statements.

The important thing to remember is that the Antis are not the target, so statements should not aim to retaliate, but to counter and inform the public, the vast majority of which is not against hunting - yet. 

To do this effectively it is necessary to tease-out the campaign’s main messages, which to my way of thinking are:

1. Duck hunting is a ‘sport’ and thus simply an amusement,
2. Duck hunters kill for the sheer joy of seeing beautiful birds fall dead or wounded from the sky,
3. Duck hunters are cowards.

Rebutting the first of these messages is as simple as creating an image of food preparation or consumption in a wholesome family atmosphere as I’ve outlined above, with a caption akin to “Duck hunting is not a sport. It’s a healthy, sustainable way of life”.

The second could be approached in a very similar manner, with images of hunters dressed in the same clothes everyone else wears day to day, putting neatly packaged ducks in the freezer.

The image could be further ‘normalised’ by packaging the ducks in a vacuum pack or on a plastic covered foam tray, in the same way everyone else’s poultry comes home from the store.

The key lays in displaying the ducks in a manner that makes them ducks by classification only, which is what supermarkets strive for when packaging meat in a way that dissociates it from the animal that yields it. Re-association of meat with animal is Animals Australia's objective, hence the use of a limp and lifeless duck as focal point of the campaign.

To my way of thinking it is the third proposition that offers the most potential - duck hunters are cowards.

For 11 years I was a 24hr emergency response coordinator for a major emergency service. This brought me into contact with an extremely broad range of volunteers, who - in their day jobs - were doctors, nurses, paramedics, policewo/men, firewo/men both rural and metropolitan, surf-lifesavers, search/rescue specialists and all manner of people upon whose bravery the public depends every day.

Perhaps it’s because I live in a rural centre, but I was often struck by the fact an astonishing number of these people were not only volunteers with various primary response services, they were often hunters too.

I have to wonder how the Australia public would respond to someone in a Firey’s, an Ambo’s or even a surf-lifesaving uniform, also wearing or carrying some small item synonymous with hunting, saying:

“Animals Australia calls me a coward” or simply “I’m no coward!” 

I have a feeling the sponsors of certain young Aussie sportspersons would be demanding they learn how to back-pedal very efficiently indeed, whether cyclists or not. 

In fact on that point I have to say I’m more than a little surprised these sports men and women were given permission to make such emotive statements while dressed in what appear to be official Australian representative regalia. Doing so suggests their statements have the backing of their respective peak bodies. 

One wonders if they’ve fully considered the ramifications of backing claims that so many people the community depends on, often in very dangerous situations, are apparently cowards?

In the final analysis though, I suspect we’re too wedded to the idea we must never give any ground to the Antis, to take advantage of the opportunity they’ve handed us. 

We'd rather cry, “Yes, it’s a sport, so what? Screw you!” than give up a word that was never exclusively ours, in order to toss a grenade into the enemy camp.

We have a long and honoured tradition of favouring righteous indignation over strategy and the opportunity to deliver a hammer blow. We’re an odd bunch that way!

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...

©gmallard2016 all rights reserved

Follow the Hunters' Stand on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/hunting-healthy-choice.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.


If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com This service will not include notification of new comments. 

All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.

KILLIN' CRITTERS WITH YA BARE HANDS

"Godwin's law" is an internet adage, which asserts that any online discussion that goes on for long enough will eventually see one or a number of participants comparing their opponents and/or their philosophies to Hitler or Nazism, regardless of the topic.

Similarly, given sufficient time and desperation among one’s opponents, any discussion about the validity of hunting as a 21st century activity, is apt to conclude with an example of what I’ve come to refer to, with considerable pretension I confess, as “Mallard’s law”.

Mallard’s law is a social media discussion adage, which asserts that if a discussion about hunting goes for long enough, someone will claim, “if you were serious about hunting being natural for humans, you'd chase-down your victim and kill it with your bare hands!”

Australian Andrew Ucles has made a name for himself harvesting meat armed with
nothing more than his bare hands and a troubling contempt for personal hygiene. 

It’s a common rejoinder that is as vacuous as it is insincere and it deserves to be challenged on at least two fronts. 

Before I get into that, however, it behoves me to declare my position regarding online arguments about hunting, to wit: they are a complete waste of time and energy.

For the most part, arguing with anti-hunters on social media does the cause more harm than good. If you are one of ‘those people’ who would regale me with the story of the Anti you won-over in debate with your cogent arguments, don’t bother, as I'm going to tell you that you were not discussing hunting with the class referred to as anti-hunters.

No Anti was ever won-over by logic, reason or moderation. Those who are, are vacillators; people who feel uncomfortable about your hunting, but are willing to concede that when conducted responsibly, to put food on the table or to control species devastating native fauna for instance, hunting might be OK.

Such people are not anti-hunters. They are simply people who are challenged by the notion of hunting.

This is often the result of swallowing true anti-hunter propaganda, but just as frequently it results from watching appallingly inappropriate YouTube videos posted by irresponsible yobbos who arrogantly reserve the right to do whatever they please, regardless of the broader consequences.

Such idiots are every bit the enemy of responsible hunters true anti-hunters are!

But back to “Mallard’s law”...

It is futile to engage in any sort of defence of the use of arms to take quarry, because in doing so one accepts the proposition that there are reasons for, and ways of killing animals, that one’s opponent will consider acceptable.  

This simply isn’t true of the inveterate anti-hunter, short of the mercy-killing of a beloved pet after a long and happy life. ‘Happy’, that is, as defined by the animal’s owner and advocate.

Rather than engaging in a futile attempt to defend mankind’s use of evolving technologies of varying efficiency for the past million years or so, one should ask a simple question:

“So if I chase-down an animal, lure it with food or ambush it in the manner of other species, you’re happy for me to throttle it to death, skin and eat it, is that correct?"

The answer of course, will be a resounding “NO!”  So why bother posing the proposition?

Because it is not the anti-hunter’s opinion that will determine whether hunting continues to be a legal activity in Australia. Our future rides on the will of the general public, the vast majority of which hold no strong views either for or against hunting.

  

Our objective should be to demonstrate to the public that the anti-hunters’ claims of concern for human technological advantage etc., are simply a smokescreen. 

We should aim to demonstrate the truth, which is that anti-hunters do not believe it is acceptable to kill any animal, anytime, anywhere for any purpose and therein lays the common thread of deception in all their arguments. 

When we demonstrate the truth of the anti-hunters’ philosophy that no matter what the animal may be, it deserves always and eternally to live free from fear of human predation, we stand to give the general public a 'stake' in the debate.

We reveal the adversary as someone who is equally, yet surreptitiously offended by Jane & John Citizen who love to gather around the barbeque with friends.

  

This is the truth we need to reveal to the public, because while people who don’t hunt may be unconcerned and even at times pleased to applaud a little hunter bashing, they will not wear crazy vegans and animal rights extremist types criticising them for their love of sausages, pies and a bit of steak occasionally. 

I’ve spoken often about the significance of stakeholdership in public debate. Ignored, it will always work against us. Acknowledged and exploited, it stands to be one of our most effective tools.   

In all statements and arguments of our opponents, we should be searching for the stakeholder angle with a view to identifying the components of claims and allegations, which also have implications for the wider community.

It’s not as difficult as it may seem. 

As with the example above, it can be as simple as demonstrating that an opponent’s participation in a debate and their complaints about hunters’ use of modern technologies, are utterly insincere.

  

In the case of disciples of Ingrid E. Newkirk (PETA), it may be as simple as posing the question:

“Isn’t it true you vehemently oppose ownership of pets of any kind, considering pet ownership an act of cruelty and oppression?” 

Thus we immediately identify PETA as the enemy of everyone who has a ‘stake’ in the ownership of dogs, cats and goldfishes.

The point being that the examples I’ve provided do not pivot on a defence of hunting, which in my view we have been wedded to for far too long.

The defence of hunting, no matter how erudite, will appeal only to those with a stake in hunting. Whereas to undermine the credibility of an opponent by revealing the ramifications of their philosophies for the wider community, has the potential to impact on those with no stake in hunting at all, but nonetheless may have some sway in its future.

It is time to adopt a more studied approach to public debate.

Rather than relying almost exclusively on attempts to sway public opinion with statistics and obvious truths the community simply has no stake in thinking about, the emphasis should be reversed.

We should become proficient in the art of tasking our critics to prove their often totally ludicrous statements and claims, one example of which is explored in some detail in Semi-Automatic Placebo Policy.

Becoming proficient in these debating tactics need not be a chore. 

The Antis’ arguments against hunting are comparatively few and routinely recycled.  If a club were to sift through interviews posted online, noting the best and worst of the their arguments, a mock debate aimed at practicing various forms of rebuttal might be organised, perhaps as a fundraiser in place of the traditional trivia night.

In fact if people reading this article were to leave examples of the Antis’ usual arguments, both challenging and inane, in the comments section below, it might go some way to developing a resource that budding advocates can sharpen their debating skills on.

The days when labeling opponents communists, vegan idiots or drugfucked hippies could be considered a valid form of rebuttal - if they ever existed - have long past. 

Whatever technique one employs in public discourse, unless it is delivered with an easy smile, politeness and even a little charm, it is destined to fail. 

As gay conservative anti-new-age-authoritarian commentator and Breitbart journalist Milo Yiannopoulos often says, "provided one is witty and charming, one can get away with saying anything!"
And let the record show, he does!    

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...

©gmallard2016 all rights reserved

Follow the Hunters' Stand on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/killing-critters-with-ya-bare-hands.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.


If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com This service will not include notification of new comments. 

All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.    

   

EXPLOITING THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED

“If you really loved the bush, you’d leave the guns (and bows) at home and enjoy it like the rest of us, without killing things!”

This is a challenge often aimed at hunters, and it is one that betrays a number of misconceptions, the following being principal among them:

1. Hunting and killing animals is the same thing

2. A hunters’ singular interest lies in killing animals, and 

3. Hunting is the same as bush-walking, sans the killing animals bit.

Hunting is not intrinsically harmful to the quarry; a fact both my car keys and my children have, in their turn, drawn great solace from over the years.

Hunting is a process involving the identification and pursuit of a quarry and it is from this process that hunters derive the major component of their pleasure.

The kill accounts for a nanosecond of the hunting experience. It is the culmination of a successful hunt, but it is not what draws hunters to the wild, nor does every hunt result in the taking of quarry. 

If killing animals was the primary objective many believe it to be, there are far less costly, less time consuming ways in which that desire might be slaked; volunteering for the RSPCA or PETA among them.

The hunter is driven by an urge as old as humanity itself, a need to subject him/herself to the most fundamental processes of self-reliance, observation, instinct and stealth, known collectively as ‘survival’.

The fact that some believe bush-walking provides the same outdoors experience as hunting, but without the weapons, is an indication of just how naive and ill-informed hunting's critics can be.

  

The vast majority of bush-walkers will avail themselves of the designated trail from a car-park to some feature of human visual impact – a waterfall, a quasi-phallic rock formation or a really cool old tree.

The hunter, on the other hand, is focused exclusively on what peaks his quarry’s interest. 

It is primarily for this reason that, despite Australian forests playing host to record numbers of hunters, they are rarely seen by the public except perhaps relaxing at camp sites after a day in the field.

The hunter follows trails too, but not those created with accessibility and a tour schedule in mind.  In fact the trails we follow are often all but indistinguishable from their surroundings and may not appear as beaten ground at all.

‘Trails’ are often marked by things as subtle as vague footprints on soft ground, grasses pushed over in a specific direction by the belly of a deer, bark rubbed from a tree at a height that betrays the nature of a specific traveller, a few hairs clinging to the end of a fallen branch, a rock that has recently shifted position and so on.

All these signs are most often found on the roads less travelled, and such signs are apt to place the hunter in locations seldom seen by the average member of the public.

The hunters’ mind and instincts are focused on the observation and recognition of minutiae in ways few other outdoors enthusiasts will be, and these skills are often brought to bear in extraordinarily remote and inaccessible locations. 

Of course as a child of the 60s I am a bona fide Luddite when it comes to 21st century technologies. Even so, I find myself wondering why the scientific community doesn’t routinely avail itself of the resource hunters represent.

Surely it would not be a costly proposition for perhaps the Department of Primary Industry and the Forestry Corporation, in partnership with a university research centre, to develop a system whereby hunters booking a hunt could check a box indicating their willingness to participate in research activities.

Almost every hunter carries a smart phone as a matter of course these days, equipped with camera, GPS and so on. If researchers would send them information such as a picture and detailed description of the subject species, a photo of its scats, tracks and so on, along with an outline of its preferred habitat, many hunters would be more than happy to keep an eye out for evidence of habitation.

Such evidence would likely come from locations seldom travelled by members of the community participating in a koala count for example, and of course pictures taken these days can include a GPS tag identifying the subject’s exact location no matter how remote.

A website might be developed where hunters were encouraged to upload photographs of interesting finds for identification e.g. birds, reptiles, plants, fungi, orchids and all manner of things, some of which may be rarely seen on the beaten path.

This may help to bring the hunting and environmental communities together as laymen and experts alike are challenged to name that fungi, identify that track or reveal the owner of this skull, while potentially increasing the sum of knowledge about species and their ranges.

With telecommunications coverage rapidly increasing, a dialogue between hunter and researcher might take place in real time, so that specimens could be recovered under instruction from those who know exactly what they need for detailed research purposes.

It may even be possible to develop a 'kit' containing slides, phials for specimen collection, plaster for casting and other basic field recovery gear that's unlikely to prove a burden to the hunter. 

Not only could such a system be a practical research tool, it might actually be a fun way to bridge the gap between hunters and those who presently and incorrectly see us as nothing more than environmental plunderers.  

Indeed, given time, hunters’ participation and contributions to various research efforts would become enshrined in the ‘acknowledgments’ of research papers and the like.

This is just a kernel of an idea, but one I think worthy of exploration by those far better equipped than I to consider all its possibilities and ramifications. 

Perhaps most importantly it has the potential to put our various skills to use in a way that isn’t just about killing unpopular species, which, while a valid contribution to environmental protection in itself, is not a contribution the public easily warms to.

It is my belief that for too long we have rested on the "we're ridding the landscape of ferals" mantra, while the potential for cooperative scientific partnerships has remained largely unexplored.

If you have any ideas about how a resource such as I've outlined might be developed, or how it might be used to maximum effect, please share your ideas in the comments section below.

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...

©gmallard2016 all rights reserved

Follow the Hunters' Stand on Twitter @Hunters_Stand

If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is 
http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/exploiting-road-less-traveled.html

For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.


If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com This service will not include notification of new comments. 

All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.