Lets pull together and beat the antis in this vote. Fixed link

[Strick9]

Done , The link may be confusing but as a hunter you want to vote "For the Motion".

[coyote1]

Done. Some of those comments are unbelievable.

[kwcb12]

Got my vote.  Wish I would have read y'alls post about avoiding the comments.

[Marc]

I see the options of "For the Motion" or "Against the Motion," but I cannot figure out what the "motion" is? 

[catman529]

Done...do yourself a favor and don't read the comments. Whole lotta ignorance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

too late made me all sorts of grumpy.

Me too. Most of those idiots have no clue as to what they are talking about at all......

no kidding, they are completely clueless. No sense arguing with them either, people like that have a well defined bubble to live in

[Dr Juice]

Done. Thx for the heads up.

[Old Gobbler]

Personally I wouldnt give the antis the satisfaction of debating them , it's exactly what they want PUBLICLY

they only have political power in areas like this why grant them the opportunity

[Marc]

 

Personally I wouldn't give the antis the satisfaction of debating them, it's exactly what they want PUBLICLY

they only have political power in areas like this why grant them the opportunity

I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree.

There is a small percentage of society that is anti-hunting, which is probably about the same percentage of strongly pro-hunting.  The vast majority of this country is in the middle and for the most part ambiguous about hunting.  There is an important and large difference between anti-hunting and non-hunting...

Certain events (such as Cecil the Lion) have been used successfully by the anti-hunting community to sway more people towards the "anti" side...  And that is our fault as hunters and representatives of the sport.  We as hunters have done a very poor job in communicating and educating society as to the roles that we as hunters play in conservation and habitat management.

And the media does not help either...  On many of these "unbiased" debates, we have a well-spoken, well-dressed speaker, pointing out all of negative aspects of hunting (many of which are vastly mis-represented). And representing hunters we see some guy in overalls with extremely poor articulation skills, or someone like Ted Nugent, who although is well-spoken and intelligent, comes off as looney-tunes...

I for one welcome a public debate with someone who is well-educated and well-spoken speaking for our sides of the issue.  It is high time that the hunting community makes some attempt to educate and show the public the levels of conservation and land management that hunters are involved in. 

It is our job as responsible outdoorsmen and women to show the public that there is more to hunting than killing something.  We put healthy food on the table (utilizing the game we take), we conserve our resource and are instrumental on multiple levels of maintaining and improving habitat which benefit multiple species of wildlife, and we are doing all of this while spending quality time with friends and family in the outdoors...  The majority of the public does not know or understand this, and that is our own fault.

I welcome this debate and look forward to seeing the results of such.  This debate is not to sway the opinion of the anti-hunters, but to educate and inform the non-hunting community as to both side of the issues and allow them generate an informed opinion.

I take some degree of pride in having personally swayed the opinions and misconceptions of a number of non-hunters...  Whether anti-hunters or non-hunters, I address such discussions with respect, courtesy, and facts.  Having been in social settings in discussions with anti-hunters, and they lose their composure (while I maintain mine) has proven a successful tactic to sway those in the conversation who were undecided about the issues of hunting.

[OldSchool]

Thanks for the heads up snapper.

Done...do yourself a favor and don't read the comments. Whole lotta ignorance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One of the things that's always amazed me about this is the fact that some of these people will tell us what cruel and unfeeling monsters we are, then in the same breath tell us all the nasty things they'd like to do to the folks that hunt. Something isn't right there.

too late made me all sorts of grumpy.

Me too. Most of those idiots have no clue as to what they are talking about at all......

no kidding, they are completely clueless. No sense arguing with them either, people like that have a well defined bubble to live in

[OldSchool]

Wow, I don't know what I did wrong with my last post, but I sure made a mess of it.

Bob

[albrubacker]

Done!  And I made sure to avoid the comments section.  I can handle only so much stupid for one day! 

[sixbird]

Personally I wouldn't give the antis the satisfaction of debating them, it's exactly what they want PUBLICLY

they only have political power in areas like this why grant them the opportunity

I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree.

There is a small percentage of society that is anti-hunting, which is probably about the same percentage of strongly pro-hunting.  The vast majority of this country is in the middle and for the most part ambiguous about hunting.  There is an important and large difference between anti-hunting and non-hunting...

Certain events (such as Cecil the Lion) have been used successfully by the anti-hunting community to sway more people towards the "anti" side...  And that is our fault as hunters and representatives of the sport.  We as hunters have done a very poor job in communicating and educating society as to the roles that we as hunters play in conservation and habitat management.

And the media does not help either...  On many of these "unbiased" debates, we have a well-spoken, well-dressed speaker, pointing out all of negative aspects of hunting (many of which are vastly mis-represented). And representing hunters we see some guy in overalls with extremely poor articulation skills, or someone like Ted Nugent, who although is well-spoken and intelligent, comes off as looney-tunes...

I for one welcome a public debate with someone who is well-educated and well-spoken speaking for our sides of the issue.  It is high time that the hunting community makes some attempt to educate and show the public the levels of conservation and land management that hunters are involved in. 

It is our job as responsible outdoorsmen and women to show the public that there is more to hunting than killing something.  We put healthy food on the table (utilizing the game we take), we conserve our resource and are instrumental on multiple levels of maintaining and improving habitat which benefit multiple species of wildlife, and we are doing all of this while spending quality time with friends and family in the outdoors...  The majority of the public does not know or understand this, and that is our own fault.

I welcome this debate and look forward to seeing the results of such.  This debate is not to sway the opinion of the anti-hunters, but to educate and inform the non-hunting community as to both side of the issues and allow them generate an informed opinion.

I take some degree of pride in having personally swayed the opinions and misconceptions of a number of non-hunters...  Whether anti-hunters or non-hunters, I address such discussions with respect, courtesy, and facts.  Having been in social settings in discussions with anti-hunters, and they lose their composure (while I maintain mine) has proven a successful tactic to sway those in the conversation who were undecided about the issues of hunting.

Can't tell you how many people I've debated online about hunting. They usually default to emotion, which I gladly point out. I've had quite a few people lean my way after using logic to explain the philosophy and practice of hunting...

[sixbird]

AND, cast my vote "for..."