The hard and established facts will be the only way to stop the antis in their tracks, the thing to remember is that these people, when finished with one anti-agenda will quickly move on to the next. It is just a way of life for them to protest one privilege then the next right, then attacking our blessings of liberty and so forth and so on.

We still have to present our argument as: “Sport Hunting” Brings In Revenue And Preserves Resources and Habitat.

Stopping, Sport Hunting will only cut off much needed revenue and poaching will increase to astronomical levels because people who enjoy hunting will do it anyway, legal or not.
Also, do the antis have any organization which helps to fund habitat preservation and keep herd numbers up to balanced levels like our current D.F.G. system does?

The now overpopulated Mt. Lion numbers are direct evidence that the antis do not have any solid contingency plan to ensure a proper balance between predator and prey.
Since Theodore Roosevelt and John Mueirs plan seems to be working, for over (80 years now) I believe!
Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke!

Next time the State of California’s premier anti, Senator Diane Feinstein, begins talking about more restrictive gun laws ask why she still holds a carry permit when we could not get one if “our” lives were blatantly threatened.

***And the reason I bring up Ms. Feinstein is that she is gearing up for yet another attack upon the hunting community with several anti hunting issues she will be pushing hard for this year.

Educated and factual information backed by solid scientific evidence, along with exactly how much revenue the State would lose if it stopped Sport Hunting altogether, is the only way to win this battle against the anti hunting ,animal rights agenda.

It wasn’t market hunters who initiated those changes (although one of the first game wardens in the US was a “converted” market hunter), it wasn’t professional hunters, and it wasn’t subsistence hunters. It was sport hunters. People who hunt for the sake of hunting, for fun and for diversion.

And yeah, we can and do just call it “hunting”, on a regular basis. I’m not saying to change a thing. And call yourself whatever you like. But there’s a distinction to make, and it’s precisely BECAUSE the anti-hunters want to make “sport hunting” look bad that I believe in pointing out that is those “sport hunters” who are responsible for the positive changes in the resource and habitat.

And as to this:

By using the term “sport” we are lumped together as bloodthirsty killers rather than hunters.

No, Arthur. We are lumped together as bloodthirsty killers because we are hunters… by ANY name. You can call yourself Jose if you want, and the antis are still going to lump you together with other hunters, market, professional, and sport.

As far as to whether any of you are “sport hunters” or not… well, that’s for another post.

At any rate, it’s a great book to read.

All of the fringe benefits of this “Legally Defined Sport of Hunting” include all of your above comments and then some.
Especially, the monetary benefits which the states currently enjoy from all of our licensing fees, excise fees and taxes, heavily taxed ammunition, sporting clubs clothing and gear etc.etc.

If I were to argue this point in a court of law against the anti-hunting community the crux of my argument would be all of the moneys “lost” if “Sport” hunting were stopped altogether!

And furthermore, until sport hunting is outlawed, I am very proud to call myself a “Sport Hunter” !

Still, I think calling it sport hunting does offer a huge opening for the anti hunting brigade. As NorCal said, it projects an image of people who are just out to shoot animals without regard for anything else.

I don’t know that justification of why someone hunts is necessary, but I do believe that explaining why people hunt can’t hurt. The more people who understand why hunting is appealing and what benefits it brings, the more people that will support hunting in the future.

I also, as Norcal said, will not embrace a name that is used against me. By using the term “sport” we are lumped together as bloodthirsty killers rather than hunters.

If we need to distinguish between the hunters of old who hunted species to extinction and us, I prefer the term “modern” or “regulated.”

Personally I prefer simply hunter and if someone like Bob accuses me of something our forefathers did then I will simply tell him that today hunting is very different, explaining what the difference is, and that I cannot be held responsible for what happened 100 years ago.

-ov-