Your new boss has invited you and your spouse out to dinner. Sometime between the main course and dessert, his wife turns to you. "What do you do for fun?" she asks.
"Well, in the summer I like to fish," you respond. "But in the fall and winter, I mostly hunt."
"Euwww!" she exclaims. "You murder Bambi?"
What now? Do you mumble an excuse and change the subject? Or do you make a sarcastic remark and look for another job? Let's face it: hunters are increasingly under siege by a small but vocal minority of activists in this country. Though their assertions are based in emotion, not reason, their arguments have just enough basis in fact that they sound good.
To refute them, you must both be an analytical listener and also have accurate facts at your fingertips. Even a concise and factual rebuttal to any claims a staunch anti makes is unlikely to change that person's mind. Think about it: is an anti-hunter going to say anything that will convince you that his or her position is right? Of course not. Nor are you likely to change him or her. That's the bad news.
The good news is that you're unlikely to encounter a highly committed anti-hunter in a social situation. Recently the National Shooting Sports Foundation commissioned a Gallop Poll to find out just how widespread support is for anti-hunters and other animal-rights activists.
WHAT THE POLL FOUND is encouraging. Only 8 percent of the population said they strongly support a total ban on hunting. That makes the argument that hunters are a small minority who impose their wishes on society somewhat ironic. Other studies have shown that most anti-hunters are women.
You're far more likely to run into a non-hunter who either has some anti-hunting leanings or is not convinced one way or the other. While this kind of person may sound anti-hunting, he--or more likely, she--may be open-minded enough to listen to what you have to say.
In either case, approach the discussion as if it were a debate. In a debate your purpose is not to convince your adversary, it's to sway your audience by the clarity and conciseness of your arguments. Even if you're dealing with a unyielding anti, you can make some points that will give bystanders something to think about. And remember: no matter how many times you hear this, or how trite it sounds, when you get into a discussion with an anti, you represent all hunters.
KEEP YOUR COOL and don't get argumentative! If you find yourself in a social situation with someone who makes provocative remarks about hunting, evaluate the circumstances. Ask the person what kind of outdoor activities she enjoys. The response will help you determine whether the person is genuinely interested in your point of view or just trying to bring about a confrontation. If you decide the person has a confrontation in mind, remain calm and polite. Indicate that you respect the other person's point of view by saying something like, "Well, we all have a right to our own opinion, and I certainly don't want to impose mine on you. We may just have to accept that you and I have different ideas about hunting, and let it go at that."
Then offer to make literature about hunters and hunting available to the person. If she becomes angry or abusive, politely excuse yourself and walk away. People like that want you to blow your cool; when you don't, you not only frustrate them and deprive them of a target for their rhetoric, you also present a positive image of hunters to any onlookers.
Whatever you do, don't get into an argument. When you argue, you start defending a position. Then people don't hear what you say, and you don't hear what they say. The discussion becomes pointless.
If you decide you're dealing with someone who is genuinely interested in discussing the issues, the first step is to establish with that person that you and she share common ground. Tell her the conservation of wildlife is important to you, and as you talk, continue to indicate that you care about animals as more than just the game you hunt.
ONE POINT YOU MAY HAVE TO MAKE is the difference between caring about individual animals, and caring about a group of animals. Antis generally are interested in the welfare of the individual, while game managers and hunters concern themselves with the health of the overall population. If you're not aware of this, you may find yourself frustrated before you ever get to the important issues.
Ask her what she objects to about hunting. Chances are she'll say something like "I hate the idea of a hunter killing an animal just for a trophy and then leaving the meat in the woods to rot," or "I hate it when hunters kill deer out of season." That gives you something you can agree with, which provides the common ground you need. Encourage her to talk about these concerns and define as many points of agreement as you can.
Mark Damian Duda is the director of Responsive Management, a project designed to assist wildlife management organizations to understand people in relation to natural resources.
Duda advises against using the term "sport" hunting. Most people perceive this as hunting for the "thrill of the kill." If you use the term you'll erect an emotional barrier which will prevent people from hearing what you're trying to get across.
He also discourages the argument that hunting is necessary to prevent game from overrunning the carrying capacity of an area. While that may be true for some large herbivores, it's not true for smaller game species such as birds, rabbits, and squirrels. Instead, portray hunting as a legitimate use of wildlife resources in cases where populations are large enough to sustain a harvest.
ONE ARGUMENT ANTI-HUNTERS ALWAYS bring up is that children who hunt engage in anti-social behaviors as adults. Duda says this argument has no basis in fact. He cites a study by Ann Causey at the University of Georgia. "She found absolutely no evidence of a connection between hunting as a child and anti-social behavior as a adult. It's an argument that's been used by anti-hunters against hunting and it just simply isn't true."
Another common argument is that hunting causes species to decline. "Legitimate hunting does not hurt populations," Duda says. "In fact, if you look at the healthiest wildlife populations in the nation, they're populations that are hunted."
Your anti may bring up the argument that hunters are interested in preserving only game species. Acknowledge that hunter dollars have brought about large increases in the populations of whitetail deer, wild turkeys, wood ducks, and other game species. But point out that through sportsmen's efforts, beavers have come back from about 100,000 individuals in the 1920s to more than 15 million today. Bald eagle nesting pairs have risen from 400 to more than 2,660. And trumpeter swans have come back from a low of 73 birds to more than 12,000.
If, during the course of your discussion, the anti-hunter brings up a point you can't address, don't bluff. Many activists are surprisingly well-informed, and if you make a misstatement, you may blow your entire case. Tell her you don't know the answer but that you'll find out. Then follow up: when you do come up with an answer, make a point of calling her and telling her.
ONCE YOU'VE GIVEN THE ANTI-HUNTER an opportunity to express herself, it's your turn. Here's where a little research comes in handy. Before you find yourself in this kind of situation, check with your state game and fish division to find out what economic benefits accrue to your state through hunting and fishing.
Nationally during 1989, the sale of hunting licenses alone contributed almost $400 million to the nation's economy. These funds support not only game management, but non-game and endangered species programs as well. Once other revenue sources, including duck stamps, travel and accommodations, and the sale of hunting gear are added in, hunters contributed more than $560 million to wildlife conservation, and $1 billion to the nation's economy during 1989.
If you have numbers such as these at your fingertips, you can then ask the anti what plan she has to replace this input into your state's economy. You can bet she doesn't have one. Ask her how, once Pittman-Robertson funds which amounted to $146.5 million during 1990 are no longer available, she plans to provide funding for wildlife refuges and other wildlife programs.
No matter how well informed you are, chances are not very good that you'll change a committed anti's mind. If you think of your discussion as a form of a debate, however, you be able to win over some of the spectators around you.
For Your Information
Some of the facts in this article were taken from National Rifle Association publication "NRA Hunter's Fact Card (#00890)," a wallet-size reference sheet that you can carry with you. Other titles available include: "Hunting's Future?: It's Up To You (#07450)," "Placing Hunting in Perspective (#HW5N5012)," "Hunting and Wildlife Management (#07520)," and "Animal Rights Terrorists & Their War Against Mainstream America (#00150)". Limited copies of these publications are available for a nominal charge from the NRA. To order, call the NRA toll-free at 800-336-7402. Be sure to mention the publication number in your request.
Or contact the Hunter Services Division, National Rifle Association, 11250 Waples Mill road, Fairfax, VA 22030.
Copyright (c) 1990 Carolee Boyles-Sprenkel. All rights reserved.