I have written several time in the past about how fragmented the hunting community is, and how “not fragmented” the anti-hunting community is. Many hunters have a “screw em” attitude when it comes to anti-hunting organizations. I will offer that, although we shouldn’t base every website post, every photo, every article around how the antis may capitalize on it – I think we need to respect their organizational abilities, and their focus on the task at hand.

Darren LaSorte is the Manager of Hunting Policy over at NRA-ILA and I met him at the recent NRA Convention. I also heard him speak to a group of bloggers at the convention, and he and I are in full agreement. Darren spoke of just how organized organizations like HSUS, CBD and PETA are – while hunters bicker defending their own interests. Darren’s group is on top of hunting-related legislation, and is well-versed on the activities of those who would ban hunting. He knows of what he speaks.

Now, I know some may question whether the NRA is the best organization to represent hunters’ interests. A recent poll ran on the Desert Rat Blog asked “Do you think the NRA represents the interests of hunters?” Results were as follows: Absolutely – 43%, To A Degree – 32%, Not Really, But It’s Our Best Chance – 16%, Not At All – 8%

I can tell you this. I believe Darren is committed, and I believe that the NRA is committed to defending hunters’ rights. I think they are an important piece of the puzzle. I took a couple of things away from the NRA Convention this year. First off, shooters are united. Try to take away one style or type of shooting – you’ll be dealing with all 2nd Amendment proponents. Second, I came away with a renewed passion for doing what I can to bring a similar culture shift to the hunting community.

Recently, a post on the Coues Whitetail Forums took local hunters to task. “Where all all of these deer hunters?” the poster asked; “We need volunteers”. Now I think there are a lot of reasons why volunteers aren’t flocking to the volunteer groups. That being said, I think my longtime “online friend” Audsley put it best, in another thread:

Important points have been made by several people, but the one that really hit home with me was Bobbyo’s – sportsmen are spread too thin over too many organizations. We have many small voices but not the 800-lb gorilla we could have and truly need.

If 2nd Amendment protection depended on the collective clout of a semi-automatic rifle organization, a handgun organization, a society for semi-auto shotguns and many more, all saying different things and focusing on different issues, we’d all be slingshot hunters by now.

Meanwhile, everyone is getting burned out. The number of banquets required to support each organization may be more than our shrinking sportsmen population can sustain. That’s probably just as true for the people attending banquets as for those organizing them. If you want people to attend your banquet, you need to attend other peoples’ banquets. So the faces a banquet emcee sees looking back at him are to a great extent the emcees and organizers of other banquets.

On the other hand, I also believe that species specialization has made conservation more effective by giving focused attention to every species that is valued by sportsmen and needs assistance keeping its numbers up. Of Arizona’s 10 big game animals, only bears, javelinas and mountain lions do not have sportsmen’s organizations, and as we all know these species have no problems with their numbers. (Groups supporting deer, elk and antelope are actually de facto predator support organizations. If we grow ungulates, predators will thrive.)

The challenge then is to make the process more efficient by reducing cost and administrative burden on volunteers. An effective umbrella organization that would provide admin support (contract workers specializing in event advertising, bookkeeping and possibly even newsletter publication) might work. If so, that could be a big help. But merged banquets, with 3 or 4 groups combining for one super banquet, would really make things easier. I encourage all sportsmen’s groups to look in that direction and be willing to live with some level of friction that can occur when two or more groups try to work together.

But in the political arena, how do we turn a collection of bantamweights into one super heavyweight? AzSFW should be the key, provided the various groups can recognize the need to hang together even though it’s hard at times, and provided AzSFW’s principals can keep in mind that the bigger the tent, the more compromises need to be made. Some agendas may need to be watered down a bit in order to be made palatable for all of the member groups. The alternative is defections.

As time goes by, the groups that are now supporting AzSFW will start asking what they’re getting for their money. Hopefully they will like what they see.

As a southern Arizona sportsmen who belongs to AzSFW, I’ve been very pleased with the service AzSFW has given us. I hope others have the same experience. And when differences of opinion or priority conflicts arise – as they surely will in any statewide organization with such a diverse make-up of sportsmen and regional issues – I hope the member individuals and organizations can work these things out rather than dump conflicting demands on the principals.

Will post more later….

Related Posts