Op-Ed: For Predator Hunters It's Win Some, Lose Some

Lest folks begin to think that everything involving the anti-hunters is doom and gloom, there are points of light from time to time.

Op-Ed: For Predator Hunters It's Win Some, Lose Some

Lest folks begin to think that everything involving the anti-hunters is doom and gloom, there are points of light from time to time such as a recent court victory in Alaska.

The NRA reported: “Great news for hunters in Alaska: Predator hunting, in accordance with Alaska law, can continue on the nearly 77 million acres of National Wildlife Refuge land in Alaska. 

“Predator hunting was threatened, thanks to a federal lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), in CBD v. Bernhardt. The NRA and Safari Club International and others intervened as defendants in the lawsuit and argued against the CBD’s various claims against predator hunting on Refuge lands.

“This is an important victory for hunters and I’m proud NRA was an integral part of this litigation,” said Director of Hunting Policy for NRA-ILA, Erica Rhoad. “Because of this case, states will continue to have the right to manage their wildlife as they deem appropriate.”

As much as it is proper to celebrate court victories, the truth is that pro-hunting forces don’t win every case and every case costs money — a lot of money. 

The strategy of the antis in these matters is simple: Drain the pro-hunting war chests while sucking up time – time for the antis to do more mischief. Ultimately, antis figure time is on their side because, in addition to their lawsuits and legislative lobbying, they also have big league public relations operations that spew out lies and partial truths, all with the thought of corrupting the minds of the general public against hunting.

The antis’ antics are bolstered by a generally sympathetic social and mainstream media. Filtering the antis’ lies through the media is a perfect recipe for fake news and the false assumptions it leaves in the minds of the underinformed.

Antis figure that if they keep on-message and on-track, chipping away continuously at the freedom to hunt and other personal freedoms on every front, that in the end, they win. They figure they can win the war through attrition since their multi-faceted campaigns also happen to be recruiting tools in which they get misinformed low information folks to buy into their BS.

By using perverted illogic, they also dupe the unassuming public into donating money, time and votes to their cause. Yep, they not only bolster their numbers for perceived political advantage, but also milk and bilk the public to finance their insanity.

For purposes of this kind of discussion, there are three basic groups of people: Pro-hunters, anti-hunters and non-hunters (those who don’t particularly have anything for or against hunting).

The number of pro-hunters is relatively small, and the number of anti-hunters is relatively small. Neither of these groups is large enough or rich enough to force its will onto society all by itself. To win, either of these groups has to do several things in a specific order. 

First, it’s crucial to win the hearts and minds of the unaligned general public. The idea is to garner enough support or outrage to cause the unaligned masses to actually do something. That something can range from contacting elected officials, voting a particular way on ballot measures or donating money for the cause.

When anti-hunters conduct surveys or petition campaigns, they are creating the perception that their lies are supported widely. In fact, often the very questions in the surveys themselves are forms of brainwashing. 

With what those fake numbers and misconceptions are alleged to mean, antis lobby elected officials to pass laws and regulations to hinder or halt hunting. Whether the elected officials buy into their pap intellectually is somewhat moot, because the antis also have funds to help the campaigns of their friends and oppose the campaigns of their opponents.

And when they are not successful on the legislative front, the antis go to court and file nuisance lawsuits that badger government agencies while forcing pro-hunting groups to spend lots of money in defense.

Another Example

Another segment of these campaigns is to raise money to finance their activities. And anti-hunting is big business. First, the antis line their own personal pockets with fat paychecks. Then they use what’s left over to finance their nefarious political and legal assaults.

The recent mountain lion trapping ban in New Mexico is an example of one of the ways the antis work.

A domesticated dog was caught in a poacher’s illegal snare and died, triggering a bill called “Roxy’s Law” in the legislature, where it went nowhere, so the antis went to the state’s Game & Fish Commission and filed a lawsuit arguing that trapping poses a direct threat to legally protected species such as the Mexican wolf, which is federally protected.

The result was a unanimous vote by the state’s Game Commission to ban cougar trapping in the state.

Mountain lion hunting will continue in New Mexico, but this is a stellar example of how the antis work. 

They don’t settle for defeat when they lose on one front like they did with the New Mexico legislature — they just go somewhere else such as the Game Commission and get “something” they want, even if it isn’t all of what they set out to get.

In this case, the antis ended up getting the trapping ban they set out to achieve. And from the antis’ perspective, both trapping and hunting should be banned worldwide forever, so the same strategies and actions can be applied to hunting as was applied to trapping.

Again, the concept here is that the antis figure that, over time, they will end up getting the whole enchilada, so to speak, even if they have to get it one little bite at a time.

No, not everything is doom and gloom. But the fight isn’t over yet, either.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.


Discussion

Comments on this site are submitted by users and are not endorsed by nor do they reflect the views or opinions of COLE Publishing, Inc. Comments are moderated before being posted.