Best Way To Beat the Antis

[Dexter]

How many of you guy contacted anyone regarding this post thread?

Marsh Harrier ‘shot’!

What happened to the scientific method? It’s irrelevant to these people, all they want is the sensational sound bite to raise their profile and provoke their ****ter and Farcebook followers into action. Of course when it’s discredited or proven to be fake news .................. deafening...

www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk

It's the only way IMO.

 

[reloader54]

You know this for a fact? You have evidence and are personally aware of the attitude and inflexibility of the majority of those opposed to shooting? yes I have first hand experience of both hunt and driven shoot unprovoked violence.

Do you Bollocks. It is pointless generalisation. nice language.

Look in a mirror. I do every morning,

There are a number of philosophical concepts which I find useful. great if if it works for you, crack on.

Do unto others and you would be done by...give "them" the credit of similar intelligence and passion perhaps. I have tried believe me I have.

Look for the best in people and you will find it...look for the worst and you will find that too. I know which one I prefer to live with. I rather take a neutral viewpoint and see how they or the situation develops.

Alan

 

[Alantoo]

really??? I'm not resorting to swearing on a "public forum" what sort of "image" is that portraying?

I have edited and removed my uncharacteristically strong naughty word for you.

I am sorry if you found it offensive.

Alan

ps I note you have now quoted it so presumably you were not actually that concerned with how our image was portrayed.

pps I now note that my edit did not stick, oh dear.

 

[User00025]

I LIKE being subversive.

Most mustelids are.

 

[reloader54]

This is a thread about how to counter the arguments of those opposed to shooting....it is a question that you have chosen not to answer or engage with for some reason.

What is with the Tampon reference?

Alan

you seemed to be argumentative almost for the sake of it. you have no idea what I have experience in my life [regarding my years keepering ] and you choose to tell me i'm wrong in how I feel about anything.

 

[reloader54]

I have edited and removed my uncharacteristically strong naughty word for you.

I am sorry if you found it offensive.

Alan

ps I note you have now quoted it so presumably you were not actually that concerned with how our image was portrayed

you just cant help yourself can you, even an apology has to include a snide comment.

I have no wish to continue this pointless dialog, please don't post any more personal insults. thank you.

I apologise to the op of the poll, maybe it could have had a box,, expose antis and sabs for what they truly are.

 

[Alantoo]

you seemed to be argumentative almost for the sake of it. you have no idea what I have experience in my life [regarding my years keepering ] and you choose to tell me i'm wrong in how I feel about anything.

We are discussing the best way to counter anti-shooting arguments...what do you think is the best way to achieve this?

Alan

 

[kes]

Shooting in general is under constant threat, whether it is politicians and their ever more restrictive gun & wildlife laws, or from very well resourced campaign groups like Wild Justice, but how to we address this threat? Personally I believe that it helps to be a member of at least one shooting organisation and that collectively they should co-operate together like they have recently done successfully over the General Licences. But what do others think? Here's a short poll - more than one choice allowed.

Tim you put no choice for "shooting orgs should better represent shooters, should 'go on the front foot', use legal challenges where appropriate as WJ did, challenge Police where appropriate through the legal system, base their performance related pay on actually that - performance. You would have got 100% for that one - all my criticism is to engender a capable, respected, intellectually sound and study based defence of shooting. So far NGO have secured legal backing for culling buzzards in one case - who supported them financially - members - I was one.
Others need to see the writing on the wall as you have noted in your first post. If we have no united, respected support, you can count the days...................

 

[Alantoo]

Alantoo posted...You know this for a fact? You have evidence and are personally aware of the attitude and inflexibility of the majority of those opposed to shooting? @riddick replied... yes I have first hand experience of both hunt and driven shoot unprovoked violence.

The majority of those opposed to shooting is not confined to the few dozens of hunt saboteurs you have had the misfortune and unenviable experience of having to confront.

This thread is about how best to counter the message from the anti shooting pressure groups and reach and educate the majority of those opposed to shooting, who are in their millions. Those millions influenced by those pressure groups, who voted to support Labour's fox hunting ban and the millions who condone the current government's imposition of further restriction on firearms and the licensing system.

If you lump them all together and persist in labelling them all scum and sub-human, and approach any interaction with the fixed view that they are "devoid of reasoning", and "simply will not listen", there is no possible dialogue and no possibility to persuade them otherwise. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Alan

 

[jimbo1984]

Exactly as kes said , shooting orgs should do more , I’m a member of 3 I like bits of what they all do ... one that I used to be a member of should be disbanded it’s so inept ....

 

[countrryboy]

Exactly as kes said , shooting orgs should do more , I’m a member of 3 I like bits of what they all do ... one that I used to be a member of should be disbanded it’s so inept ....

And that's another reason why 1 big super org is not a good idea.
Wot if they become completely useless too ( which would be the most likely outcome as paralysed with in fighting trryng to get so many different venue points, sometimes conflucting to agree)

I've always thought 2 big orgs is a better set up, still 2 big orgs so not too fractured a voice and ud hope they would keep each other on there toes and if 1 dropped the ball on something the other would cover it ( like CA done over the LAG debacle)

The massive problem we have now is ALL the orgs are pretty bloody useless, if only 1 raised the game is hope the others would follow.

 

[BryanDC]

Alan Makes some very good points in his first post.
With regards to the survey, option 1 is a must. If the shooting organisations don't work together, then it just going to be an uphill struggle. But! there an option missing. Where is the option for the positive promotion of hunting and shooting? Not just on social media. That has to be a major priority of the shooting organisations. The Jægerforbund here is very active in promoting hunting and shooting with young people and other groups.

 

[jimbo1984]

And that's another reason why 1 big super org is not a good idea.
Wot if they become completely useless too ( which would be the most likely outcome as paralysed with in fighting trryng to get so many different venue points, sometimes conflucting to agree)

I've always thought 2 big orgs is a better set up, still 2 big orgs so not too fractured a voice and ud hope they would keep each other on there toes and if 1 dropped the ball on something the other would cover it ( like CA done over the LAG debacle)

The massive problem we have now is ALL the orgs are pretty bloody useless, if only 1 raised the game is hope the others would follow.

The ngo and CA have recently been very active unlike another ....

 

[User00025]

Pure and simple. You will never "beat" out and out antis, they have a mind set you will never change. We need strong leadership to educate the public at large who do not understand why or what we do. Unfortunately we are lacking this and our organisations very rarely appear anywhere outside game and country fairs, where they minister only to their members. As individuals, some of us do try and I have recently changed somebody's mind from seeing me as a "Murdering ...." to being a chap who called round with some rather nice steak and talked about deer and wildlife in general. He is in fact buying a Larsen trap after our chat on the promise that I will do the necessary when he catches them. If only I can change the minds of one or two more I will be happy.

 

[kes]

And that's another reason why 1 big super org is not a good idea.
Wot if they become completely useless too ( which would be the most likely outcome as paralysed with in fighting trryng to get so many different venue points, sometimes conflucting to agree)

I've always thought 2 big orgs is a better set up, still 2 big orgs so not too fractured a voice and ud hope they would keep each other on there toes and if 1 dropped the ball on something the other would cover it ( like CA done over the LAG debacle)

The massive problem we have now is ALL the orgs are pretty bloody useless, if only 1 raised the game is hope the others would follow.

With respect, Your logic appears to me to be flawed.
I base my comment above on the fact (in my eyes and my morals) when you are employed to do something you give it your whole focus and do it. You dont look to expand your controls other than by achieving your goals you were employed for. You use all your intellect and talents to deliver to your key audience, what they are your key audience for.
That should mean that one large organisation, led well and with conviction WILL achieve more than two competing smaller organisations.
Effort alone does not achieve what I am suggesting. You need a strategic thinker in charge with unshakable conviction that his members come before anything else, even his own interests. However he cannot achieve this alone but set the direction and steers the organisation and fronts all and his members in public. Staff need to be chosen for like values and commitment and focused through performance assessment and respect him. One such large organisation will achieve this better than two. A key element to achieve success for members and staff is to gain respect/credibility. Think about the CA CEO. (Maybe the BASC CEO but no obvious results yet except GL).

Your members and 'those' you intend to influence/hold to account/and eventually see as partners, must be aware of your intent/conviction/honesty and integrity of purpose. No flannel, no thoughts, just sound facts and an unflinching resolve to see the truth succeed. Establish a reputation for honesty and integrity and impose what is 'right' via the law, without fear or favour. Illegal acts by your members e.g. should result in their organisation expelling them and taking court action against them.

Perhaps this rather personal rant will help you understand my and perhaps others perspectives. Its why I quote the NGO, they fit my idea of what a shooting org should largely be, however they are small but peopled by committed enthusiasts who give their time for free mostly.

Compare the above with the main two orgs - CA stand closer scrutiny and have recently earned more respect for action and validity of argument but remains multi focused - the one organisation with but a single focus and the money to act has failed and is currently failing my tests and I suspect the tests of others. One ORG which is 'fit for purpose' as set out above is better than two, one multi-focused, the other failing. Two therefore compare not at all with what is needed to support shooting - IMHO.

 

[Alantoo]

I agree that being proactive is the best way to educate, rather than the rearguard action of responding to yet another negative portrayal.

Being pro-active applies to proselytising on an individual basis as well as by the shooting organisations.

There are obvious dangers in relying on the shooting organisations/insurance companies to do the educating for us. Whilst they should obviously work together I feel they are better as individual organisations. One size cannot fit all...look at the EU ( ) and the breadth of views on here, and we all have stalking in common. There is also the inevitable disappointment when the organisations fail to meet our varied expectations, which they are doomed to.

Those celebrity chefs stalking, shooting and cooking films will have done a lot of good for us in reaching and educating the general population. Encouraging that sort of "matter of fact, just incidental to a normal way of life" example may be another way the media unit at BASC could be developed...

Alan

 

[kes]

I agree that being proactive is the best way to educate, rather than the rearguard action of responding to yet another negative portrayal.

Being pro-active applies to proselytising on an individual basis as well as by the shooting organisations.

There are obvious dangers in relying on the shooting organisations/insurance companies to do the educating for us. Whilst they should obviously work together I feel they are better as individual organisations. One size cannot fit all...look at the EU ( ) and the breadth of views on here, and we all have stalking in common. There is also the inevitable disappointment when the organisations fail to meet our varied expectations, which they are doomed to.

Those celebrity chefs stalking, shooting and cooking films will have done a lot of good for us in reaching and educating the general population. Encouraging that sort of "matter of fact, just incidental to a normal way of life" example may be another way the media unit at BASC could be developed...

Alan

Alan, The EU comment was hardly fair.
Its a very different beast. Its potential was huge but unrealised because it lost its way (in so many ways).

A single shooting org would have to be (as should the EU), accountable to all its members because it has but a single purpose its structure needs to reflect that and not be an 'excuse' for 'democracy'. If you consider that not humanly possible I disagree, Take BP, and any other number of huge companies, they have a single purpose and are immensely successful at what they are there to do - make money for shareholders, nothing else.
Not beyond the bounds of credibility to expect a well-run shooting org to 'preserve shooting' and 'protect members interests'. Just the dedication and focus I feel is lacking in some, at a critical time.

 

[Alantoo]

Alan, The EU comment was hardly fair.
Its a very different beast. Its potential was huge but unrealised because it lost its way (in so many ways).

A single shooting org would have to be (as should the EU), accountable to all its members because it has but a single purpose its structure needs to reflect that and not be an 'excuse' for 'democracy'. If you consider that not humanly possible I disagree, Take BP, and any other number of huge companies, they have a single purpose and are immensely successful at what they are there to do - make money for shareholders, nothing else.
Not beyond the bounds of credibility to expect a well-run shooting org to 'preserve shooting' and 'protect members interests'. Just the dedication and focus I feel is lacking in some, at a critical time.

Analogies can never be 100% accurate can they!

I agree the larger the membership of the shooting organisation, the more authority it can bring to bear and the more influence it can wield. But conversely the less it can represent any individual member.

My EU nod (and smiley) was in the notion of the Tower of Babel...the differing needs and expectations from every individual member...the reason I voted out of the EC in 1976 was because I had read Victor Papanek's Small is Beautiful and feared the prospect of huge bureaucracy.

But equally your BP analogy contains the flaw that every player involved whether worker bee, management, CEO or investor understands and contributes to that single purpose of profit. The "purpose" or reason for members of a shooting organisation are varied. And while some obviously overlap, the gamekeeper, deer stalker, pigeon, grouse, vermin, pheasant, long range target and practical shooter have differences and need differing argument and approaches to justify and support.

Alan

 

[Chasey]

IMHO you need to work through as shooting organisation and most individuals do not have the skills to represent them selves or are too emotionally invested to balance the politics.

Rather like the old "the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client" saying

BASC is I believe the largest shooting organisation? We should all support it regardless of weather or not we are members of another shooting organisation. Strength in number and financial strength is required. If you begrudge the £80.00 per year then be honest, you don't realy care do you.

We should all monitor performance and actively elect the right people for the job in BASC rather than letting it be an "old mates club"

BASC should be MUCH more proactive in its publicity in support of hunting and conservation

BASC should be MUCH more active on social media like SD and generally on social media platforms which represent support or opposition to hunting and conservation related to hunting.

The problem with all such organisations is they all too quickly become insular and loose the support and respect of their own members.

Slagging off BASC is easy, supporting it guiding it and understanding what it has to deal with, is a hell of a lot harder. IMHO

 

[User00047]

I believe that our best tactic is for the “shooting organisations” to be proactive (as I’ve mentioned previously on here)
They need to start campaigning for things such as , for some random examples that I am just making up off the top of my head: compulsory culling of vermin on nature reserves......adding an extra day to the grouse season......government funding to help pay for ammunition spent during driven grouse shoots......extra subsidies for any land owners with active vermin management.....lower the minimum age to hold FAC to 10yrs old.....etc. etc. Things that we actually aren’t too bothered about but annoy the anti hunting/shooting people enough to ensure that the antis are always outraged and on the defence and have less time to Attack us.
That’s what I’d like to see.