Reasoning with an Anti-Hunter

[Old Ways]

This is a discussion I think we have all had from time to time. The way we handle it can either fuel their fire or undermine their objections. Just saying "It is my right" doesn't cut it. The one I have had best success with is based on the very reasons I decided to become a hunter some 25 years ago. It goes this way.

First I ask them, "Are you a vegetarian?" Most are not.

Then I ask them, "Where do you get the meat you eat?" I have found most have not put any thought into that. They say from the store, etc.

I then like to ask, "Do you think that way is better for nature and animals?" They always say yes.

Then I tell them that, "I know how you feel. I use to feel the same way. I thought hunters were destroying the natural world that I loved."

Then I say, "I learned that when I buy meat from a modern grocery store I am actually destroying whole forests and ecosystems. Let me explain. For there to be the store a portion of the natural world had to be destroyed. For there to be the meat a slaughter house had to be built so another portion of the nature was destroyed. For there to be the cow a farm or ranch had to maintained which consumed a huge portion of a forest or detroyed a whole ecosystem and all the natural creatures that lived there. Some actually have cattle packed into pens with no vegitation just being fattened up so they can be killed. To get the cattle feed other farms had to exist so more wild areas were lost to grow crops. Not to mention all the environmental pollution involved in all the processes."

Then I bring out, "On the other hand, when you choose to hunt you buy a license that helps support natural areas. Then you go into an area with a surplus of game and harvest (they like that word better) an animal for your personal consumption. While you were there you enjoyed nature and watched animals thriving in their natural environment. No forests cut down, no fenced in ranches, no slaughterhouses, no stores. Just taking a surplus animal from nature the way man has done for thousands of years"

I then like to ask them what they think about that. Sometimes they get the point right away sometimes I have to get more graphic with my description of the frogs and fish being killed as the ponds are filled in for parking lots and the squirrels, rabbits, deer, hawks and songbirds all losing their homes so they can have a hamburger.

If they say they understand but could never kill an animal so need to buy meat I tell them, "I understand, my wife loves wild game but trusts me with the killing part to do it the right way." I also encourage them that if they are going to purchase meat to do so from a smaller, natural type farm where there is less environmental impact. I also tell them it's healthier for the livestock and them too.

If they say, "Well why don't YOU buy meat from one of them instead of killing a deer?" I tell them, "If I had to I would, but I believe the most natural way is the best way and what is more natural than taking only what you need from natures surplus and doing what you can to protect the wilderness for all to enjoy."

Anyway, I have had somewhat good success with that line of reasoning so I thought I would share it with you. It would also be good to hear some other methods that have worked well for you. Thanks,

[vermonster13]

If you are speaking with a reasonable meat eating anti this could work. But that is only if they are open to hearing what you say. The biggest factor that plays into any talk with an anti hunter is their body language and openess to discussion. Be sure there is a possibility of discussion and not just frustration and verbal combat. In many cases just walking away is the best course of action. Now for undecideds there is a much greater upside in most cases and it is good to be informed and prepared for a talk with such. Be honest and open, do not get defensive, if you don't know an answer say so. Honesty and a willingness to find answers can go a long ways. I spend some time each week reading on the anti sites to help me have an understanding of their reasoning and thus help me be better prepared to deal with the half truths with facts. Know your opponent and educate yourself to deal with them in a professional and respectful way after all the one you are talking to may not change but someone else listening in may see the light.

[Old Ways]

V13, I am not talking about engaging picketing or protesting antis here. I am refering to a casual conversation as it is presented in day to day life. And yes the conversation above is one only used with meat eating antis.

You bring out some good points too, thanks.

[Baim]

As a "former anti" I can only add that many antis have a very warped perception of hunters as being those "manly men" who go out into the woods with their testosterone and weapons for the sole purpose of sport and bragging rights.  For many antis the idea of hunting to feed your family was lost many generation before they were born. Simply put, most antis are just uneducated about the benefits both economically and environmentally that hunting provides. Many antis are unaware that hunters provide food for homeless shelters, provide protection to motorists and crops, and also ensure healthier herds of wild game.  They are uneducated about the pittiful and often times unethical treatment of commercial animals..treatment that most hunters would find appalling.  We live in such a commercialized society, our children are raised on McDonald's hamburgers and most don't spend even an hour a day outside. After 20 years of this type of lifestyle..its no wonder these kids grow up have such negative reactions to us.  They read about poachers and illegal fur traders and thats the extent of their "hunting" knowledge. I think Steve is smart about getting the truth out there.  After being an anti for 25 years, it took someone like Steve to show me just how wrong I was.

~Steph

[Dave Bowers]

Good stuff guys....and Baim, pretty darn cool that you came to our side.

[snag]

Good way to go about it, Old Ways.  I would call that the "velvet hammer" method.  You softly hammered your point home.  The truth is hard to deny. Thanks for the explanation.  David

[Talondale]

Well, to be the devil's advocate that same arguement could be turned against us.  High efficiency agriculture allows a higher yield per acre of meat than natural resources.  If we converted all ranch land to natural habitat the land would not sustain enough variety of game to feed the people of the world.  Just like wild forage cannot sustain a population as well as dense grain plantings.  I understand your point though and it may work with some but in reality intensive farming allows us the luxury of leaving more open areas natural since we can produce all we need on smaller ranches/farms.  

Two arguements I like to use are: we are part of nature and so taking part of the predator/prey cycle is just as natural for man as it is for the wolf.  A wolf will be far more efficient at hunting than I will and he will not limit himself to the number of kills as I do.  

The other thing I like to do is ask them how they think a deer will die in the wild.  They will not be able to name one method of death for a deer in the wild that does not involve great levels of stress and suffering.  The only swift death a deer can possibly look forward to is being hit by a car or killed by a hunter (unless in lion country where it could be ambushed by a cat and killed quickly).  I offer a swift humane end to a graceful creature who will be utilized and remembered, much more fitting death than exposure, starvation, and disease, or being chased and dragged down by packs of wild dogs/wolves/coyotes.

[JStark]

Talondale,
High efficiency agriculture has its share of problems, too.  For example, here in California we are known for farming previous desert, moving water hundreds of miles (about 20% of California's energy consumption is in moving water), and irrigating land that quickly begins seeping heavy metals (selenium, mercury) down into watersheds.  2/3 of our freshwater supply is threatened by heavy metals in the Sacramento Delta.
Also, the monocultural ag. practices you refer to kill millions upon millions of creatures, from tiny mice and shrews and voles to baby ducks, and the meat is never eaten by the people who kill these.  Also, pest measures (even at organic operations they want rodents killed) kill untold millions. I ask even vegetarians who eat so as to not kill things, "is your calculus one of total mass, or of numbers of individuals killed?"  One grassfed buffalo or deer's death may jeopardize a few parasites, but one harvester moving through a field is a wanton reaper of destruction.  And is one deer worth more than a thousand little duckies?
I really like your comparison of means of dying, and I will use that one as well.  It is extremely fitting, I'd never thought of that before.

[Daniel Hugelier]

All you guys present great arguments to support hunting.

I just finished Reg Darling's book, Coyote soul Raven heart. I bought two more copies for friends that don't hunt and were against hunting before they knew me.
Reg presents the idea that hunting is a deeply personal and spiritial event like no other author I've experienced before.

These two guys who never hunted have each already asked if I would take them along this season. I had asked them to read page 95 first and then start the book. They haven't even finished yet, but they too have already been deeply moved by his script.
Part of the hunting experience is a desperate attempt to touch and smell dirt, hear birds, watch the sun move and witness the awesome creation of earth. All the good hunters I know work to preserve that. Seems like you all do too.
Anyhow, I highly recomend the book to everyone,

Dan Hugelier

[Snakeeater]

There are lots of aspects to why we hunt and why hunters are needed. The second point is what I often use.

Many times the anti will talk about letting Nature takes its course. If they say that then you can present this scenario for him/her to think about. If we want to let Nature control the wildlife then we have to give Nature what was present before Man came on the scene, a balance between large predators and adequate habitat for the wildlife.

That means we need to reintroduce large predators back into the ecosystem. So we put bears, wolves, coyotes, and mountain lions back if they were there before. If we are not going to do that then we need to either live with overpopulations of deer and other "prey" species which is bad of the animals, the habitat, and your neighbors ornamental shrubs. Or, we allow Man to operate as the only remaining large predator in the ecosystem and hunt.

It also means that if we don't reduce the size of the "prey" species then we need to give them more habitat. So, the anti and four of his/her friends need to level their townhouses and turn them back into usable habitat with food, water, and security cover for every deer that isn't killed that year. They will also have to double that every year if they want to save another deer the following year.

Most of them don't understand the big picture and how their "recommendations" actually affect the wildlife they, or more accurately the organizations they support, say they speak for.

Also, remember that just like religion and politics you will not change someones opinion in one meeting, but you can give them some information/truth to take with them and think about. After enough folks show them the other side of the discussion the ones who are sensible and open to change will see what really is happening.

[2Blade]

Great points im faced with this when I go to school (im out for personal reasons but im going back) id dare say most all of my school is apposed to hunting it is an alternative school mostly "hippies" go there they believe all hunters are toothless rednecks who shoot stuff for fun beat their wives chew tobacco carry shotguns and are highly racist the typical white trash mado. I know this isn't the case for most hunters but they look at me and all of us that way.

They tell me if I want to eat meat to go to store and but it I explain a coyote kills a deer in much more gruesome death they say that's natural I say so is hunting so they ask if I think im better then a coyote? I say no but my method of killing is the animals expires in seconds and with an arrow they feel little or no pain. It seems no matter what I throw at them they come up with something else to try and prove me wrong so ive pretty much given up on trying to get through to them. The only time they listen is when one of my teachers tell them apparently when an adult says it its true I ask them is it anymore wrong for me to kill and animal for food as you kill a plant to eat? Yes because plants dont feel pain give me a break! Then again ive had a few kids not the "hippie" type think its cool that I hunt they like the killing part anyway each year I bring a few teachers fresh deer meat and they love it. Its nice to know there is still a few sane people left in this world.

What should I do to help on our part? Im actually suppose to be doing an archery demonstration at school and everyone thinks that's awesome its weird these people hate hunting but are willing to see me shoot a deer target what goes through their heads?

The one statement that burns me more then any I go by what God tells me to do im a firm beliver in the Good Lord and I use the statement Rise,Kill Eat and they respond there is no God your an idiot boy that gets me more then anything.

[JStark]

I only know that 'they will be known by their acts'.  It doesn't help the frustration, but doing what is good and right is good and right. And, in the end, we want them on our side.  I say, blind 'em with your insights and knowledge of nature gained by your hunting years, understanding herds and tracks and animal numbers and relationships, and let 'em know you have made a decision after ethical thought.  If they are still mad after that, then as my Grandmother used to say, "let them scratch their mad place".
You'd be surprised how many hippies are hunters, too (ever see the "Deerskins into Buckskins" guy?)

[JBiorn]

Read Patrick McManus' story---"Fried flies please, hold the viccysoise". He hit the nail on the head, too.

 Good thread.

 Jeff

[JBiorn]

Also I have often found that the "anti" types always seem to forget that as human beings, we are part of the ecosystem as well. We are predatory creatures(well, omnivores), and we have a responsibility to try and maintain the natural balance of things.

 Jeff

[JStark]

Jeff, that's it!  Many of those poor souls have never had a real experience in nature.  Some have seen nature, but they treat it like a theme park or a television show, watching it only.  They think they are being so superior, and talk as if we can be these disembodied spirits upon the earth and actually 'leave no trace'.  It's as impossible in a wilderness area as it is on the freeway as it is underneath where they sit in their houses.  They have a hard time understanding true interaction because they get to have so few themselves...