What do you think about the HSUS "accurate and conclusive" survey?

[Hoas]

In December 2017 the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) conducted a survey. It declared that the vast majority of Americans oppose elephant and lion trophy hunting. The conclusion drawn soley from 3011 voters out a population of 325 million.

What do you think about the HSUS "accurate and conclusive" survey?

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1590469171036342

Source:
The Conservation Imperative

 

[Hank2211]

I think that statistically, depending on how you designed the survey, that number of responses could be valid. But I don't trust HSUS to do anything properly.

Having said that, I think that if you just asked all Americans if they were in favour of trophy hunting of elephants and lions, without adding anything more, a majority, and maybe even a sizeable majority, likely would say yes.

That's the challenge we have, and why its so important that we get our message about the conservation value of trophy hunting across.

By the way, we could start by banning the use of the term "trophy hunting." It does us no good at all.

 

[ScottG]

They don't understand . People think the animals are shot the head cut off and the body is left to rot. I'd think that was bad if I didn't know better.

 

[Red Leg]

I think that statistically, depending on how you designed the survey, that number of responses could be valid. But I don't trust HSUS to do anything properly.

Having said that, I think that if you just asked all Americans if they were in favour of trophy hunting of elephants and lions, without adding anything more, a majority, and maybe even a sizeable majority, likely would say yes.

That's the challenge we have, and why its so important that we get our message about the conservation value of trophy hunting across.

By the way, we could start by banning the use of the term "trophy hunting." It does us no good at all.

I hope you are correct, but I am not sure even a majority of American Hunters would support elephant and lion hunting in such a survey. This past season, I was back home among the South Louisiana duck hunting community. We got onto the “trophy” hunting topic and the reaction was universally negative. Few hunt deer, and none considered a those antlers or a mounted duck a “trophy”.

Their general view was that trophy hunters were rich elitists who went around the country and the world to kill things for their walls - a bit of uncomfortable truth there. They saw themselves, however, participating in a traditional pastime which was important to maintaining the game and environment they loved. Elephants and lions don’t figure into the world view at all.

I have no doubt you would find similar views among many quail and pheasant hunters, and probably among a lot of annual deer hunters.

We need to get this fixed, and get united - and I am much afraid, that so long as we are perceived as “trophy hunters” we will find that unifiied voice very difficult to achieve.

 

[cpr0312]

For this survey, I'm sure most of the 3000 either don't hunt or don't know much about the outdoors. As in most survey in the US, its usually such a small number compared to overall population, but many hold this a a fair assessment of the public. And generally the people doing the calling or asking the questions have already done some homework on their target audience and know who they are talking to. Take the last Presidential election as an example, if you believed all the polls, Clinton was going to win hands down, who were they polling?? They knew who they were polling..

I don't put stock into anything they say! Something like a whopping 2%-5% of their donations actually goes to helping animals

 

[Hank2211]

I hope you are correct, but I am not sure even a majority of American Hunters would support elephant and lion hunting in such a survey. This past season, I was back home among the South Louisiana duck hunting community. We got onto the “trophy” hunting topic and the reaction was universally negative. Few hunt deer, and none considered a those antlers or a mounted duck a “trophy”.

Their general view was that trophy hunters were rich elitists who went around the country and the world to kill things for their walls - a bit of uncomfortable truth there. They saw themselves, however, participating in a traditional pastime which was important to maintaining the game and environment they loved. Elephants and lions don’t figure into the world view at all.

I have no doubt you would find similar views among many quail and pheasant hunters, and probably among a lot of annual deer hunters.

We need to get this fixed, and get united - and I am much afraid, that so long as we are perceived as “trophy hunters” we will find that unifiied voice very difficult to achieve.

I think you're right that people perceive trophy hunting to be the preserve of rich white men. Partly that's because that's in great part the message that anti-huunting groups put out. After all, there's no group less worth of empathy than rich white men. Is there?

It's a bit hard for me to make this argument, since I have no doubt they would put me in that category, even if I only meet two of the criteria unequivocally. But having hunted many countries in Africa, many times, I, and those who have done the same, know that the reality is much, much different. By far the majority of hunters are average guys who have saved for some years in order to get to Africa and fulfill a dream. Many will go back a second time, and many more would love to but will likely never be able to. Africa caters to those people, and generally does it very well. Having said that, I will be the first to admit that elephants and especially (wild) lions are usually priced well beyond what the average person could pay.

On the other hand, your friends in Louisiana should try an elk hunt in the Western US. Or a desert sheep hunt. Or stone sheep in Alaska. Arguably those are hunts for rich guys.

But really, what does your bank account, let alone your race and gender have to do with whether hunting is good or bad? Absolutely nothing. We need to call the antis on their stereotypes, which are no less offensive because they are directed at white men.

So now that we have SCI on this forum, let's send the message that hunters are pleading for someone to take the lead in uniting us, and then getting our message across.

I suggest there's very little to be gained by trying to get a message across that even hunters don't agree on. Your pals for Louisiana can be our barometer for how well SCI is doing.

 

[wesheltonj]

I would have to look at the poll. However, I suspect it was done "push polling" or the sample was suspect. You can get a poll to support your position no matter how untenable if it designed right. I happened to agree on the term "trophy" that we need to get away from that. Most folks will never hunt, much less hunt out of country other then Canada or Mexico. Africa, Asia, Europe, etc., that's just for the rich WASP's. (I am a WASP, but not a rich one) to put a head on the wall (happen to fall in that category too).

 

[Pheroze]

@Rick Parsons

What is the approach? How do we fix the fact that the anti-hunting lobby got so far ahead despite the fact that they espouse nonsense?

 

[Red Leg]

Most of my "pals in Louisiana" can no more afford an elk hunt in Colorado than they can a PG hunt in Africa. Or if they can, it is not a priority. I am confident we would find similar attitudes among many mid-west quail and pheasant hunters and the annual Pennsylvania deer hunting community in the Northeast. I think they do indeed perceive the average "Trophy" hunter as someone with whom they have almost nothing in common.

It is tough on SCI and DSC as well. Like any organization, they support their contributing members - those writing the checks. Open the magazines and whom do you see - who are in the pictures - what stories do you read? DSC does a better job than SCI due to its localized roots, but there is not a lot to interest the blue color outdoorsman hunting public land this fall.

If they are members of anything it is the local DU chapter, NWTF, etc. We don't figure into their world view at all. Some is their fault - but a lot is ours. We truly do not have an organization in this country which represents all hunters. We are split into factions.

This division of our voice and interests is occurring at an unfortunate time in our country. With respect to both hunting and gun ownership we are losing this generation. Regrettably, with the pace of urbanization, we may very well be on the wrong side of history with no meaningful way to actually turn it around. But we have no chance at all so long as our voice is divided.

 

[gizmo]

I completely agree with what y’all are saying but, is the term trophy such a bad thing? It’s the same as using harvest instead of kill. At the end of the day you could call it hunting rainbows with puppy dogs and ice cream but it doesn’t change the fact that we are killing an animal. Part of our problem is that people are so hypersensitive when it comes to hunting due to the efforts of the antis and media. About time people get their balls back.
As far as trophy hunting is concerned all hunters do it, period. I don’t care if your a duck hunter or a big game hunter. We all get excited at that mature sprig, gambrel Quail, 170” deer or you name your animal. It’s part of our culture and heritage. I really don’t care if that offends people, especially considering people are offended with everything nowadays. As soon as we start using fuzzy terms and hide what we do we have lost. That means we have become ashamed of our past time. I am not ashamed. From the beginning of man people have glorified the hunt and the animal. We know this from cave drawings and ornate head dresses and clothing they wore. A big deer was just as exciting then to people as it is now. To hunt a lion was an honor and right to passage. Yes they hunted for food and so do we, but other than weapons technology little else has changed. Hunting is an instinct and we are predator. That’s why we have sharp teeth and forward facing eyes. It’s certainly not our fault that part of our society wants to deny who they are.

 

[Red Leg]

I completely agree with what y’all are saying but, is the term trophy such a bad thing? It’s the same as using harvest instead of kill. At the end of the day you could call it hunting rainbows with puppy dogs and ice cream but it doesn’t change the fact that we are killing an animal. Part of our problem is that people are so hypersensitive when it comes to hunting due to the efforts of the antis and media. About time people get their balls back.
As far as trophy hunting is concerned all hunters do it, period. I don’t care if your a duck hunter or a big game hunter. We all get excited at that mature sprig, gambrel Quail, 170” deer or you name your animal. It’s part of our culture and heritage. I really don’t care if that offends people, especially considering people are offended with everything nowadays. As soon as we start using fuzzy terms and hide what we do we have lost. That means we have become ashamed of our past time. I am not ashamed. From the beginning of man people have glorified the hunt and the animal. We know this from cave drawings and ornate head dresses and clothing they wore. A big deer was just as exciting then to people as it is now. To hunt a lion was an honor and right to passage. Yes they hunted for food and so do we, but other than weapons technology little else has changed. Hunting is an instinct and we are predator. That’s why we have sharp teeth and forward facing eyes. It’s certainly not our fault that part of our society wants to deny who they are.

I agree with your sentiment - except that part of our society is well on its way to becoming the vast majority of our society. And because they can not tolerate alternative thinking or views, they eventually will put you or your heirs out of business. We better figure this out.

 

[gizmo]

I agree with your sentiment - except that part of our society is well on its way to becoming the vast majority of our society. And because they can not tolerate alternative thinking or views, they eventually will put you or your heirs out of business. We better figure this out.

I’m not understanding what you mean. Maybe I didn’t articulate what I meant. I know we as hunters are the minority. I’m just saying we don’t need to get warm and fuzzy as that is completely counterproductive. We need to edjucate people on a mass scale and shut these antis down.

 

[Mr. 16 gauge]

What do I think? I think that anybody who believes a study to "prove" people are against hunting that was funded by an admittedly antihunting organization, such as HSUS, is not only a dumb ass, but retarded as well. That's like believing a poll by the Catholic church which 'proves' that the vast majority are against abortion, or a poll by CNN that claims the vast majority of Americans are for/pro any of the following: Homosexuality, more gun laws, transgenderism, more gun laws, taking down confederate monuments, more gun laws, sanctuary cities, stricter gun laws, socialized medicine, banning handguns, antihunting, ....and...outright gun bans!!!!
You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe ANY poll/study that is performed or funded by a group that has a bias on the issue.....the idea of studies/polls is that you find a question for the answers, not the other way around. But the Sheeple who believe everything that comes out of "news" outlets and don't think for themselves, or question the veracity of such "studies", ARE a special kind of stupid........unfortunately, they are the norm anymore.
Remember the "olden days" of news reporting (like, when all TVs were in black and white)? Back when you were given just the facts by reporters, and allowed to form your own opinions? I do! God help us when this Tide pod eating generation that can't put down a phone for 5 seconds is in charge.

 

[wesheltonj]

What do I think? I think that anybody who believes a study to "prove" people are against hunting that was funded by an admittedly antihunting organization, such as HSUS, is not only a dumb ass, but retarded as well. That's like believing a poll by the Catholic church which 'proves' that the vast majority are against abortion, or a poll by CNN that claims the vast majority of Americans are for/pro any of the following: Homosexuality, more gun laws, transgenderism, more gun laws, taking down confederate monuments, more gun laws, sanctuary cities, stricter gun laws, socialized medicine, banning handguns, antihunting, ....and...outright gun bans!!!!
You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe ANY poll/study that is performed or funded by a group that has a bias on the issue.....the idea of studies/polls is that you find a question for the answers, not the other way around. But the Sheeple who believe everything that comes out of "news" outlets and don't think for themselves, or question the veracity of such "studies", ARE a special kind of stupid........unfortunately, they are the norm anymore.
Remember the "olden days" of news reporting (like, when all TVs were in black and white)? Back when you were given just the facts by reporters, and allowed to form your own opinions? I do! God help us when this Tide pod eating generation that can't put down a phone for 5 seconds is in charge.

Stupid keeps a lot of lawyers employed.

 

[ScottG]

Not that I am one' but when did being a rich white guy become that bad. The United States was built by rich white guys. The American dream was built on the fact you could go out take some risks bust your but and get rich. They try to stereotype them in to this evil group. This is the same group that then pisses and moans that they are being stereotyped.

 

[jacques smith]

Relative to the survey I give it as much attention as a political pool. I am a trophy hunter and I make no excuses at all, but what is a trophy? It might be a forkhorn buck after 3 tries or it might be a plus 60 inch kudu. As an outfitter in Idaho I never met the hunter that had some sort of expectations relative to size. Granted some were unavailable but anyone who says size doesn’t matter to an experienced hunter is blowing smoke. Yup I got a tape and hunt with goals. I make no excuse. Cheers jacques

 

[BRICKBURN]

The resignations followed a vote by the nonprofit’s 31-member board on Thursday to keep Pacelle in his job, according to the Post. .............

They are willing to say and do anything.

 

[Dragan N.]

I agree with what some of the others have said that the label "trophy hunter" does have somewhat of a negative connotation and that it was exploited by the HSUS in this questionnaire. To the majority of the uninformed population the term "trophy hunter" conjures up the image of a hunter who for instance shoots an elephant takes the tusks and leaves the rest of the carcass to rot. I doubt most of the general public knows that virtually all of the meat from an elephant hunt is consumed by the locals in Africa and very little goes to waste.

But a way I've found that is easy to explain hunting to a non-hunter (who make up the vast majority of the population and not the hard-core antis) is well I eat what I hunt. For instance, moose has much better macros or nutritional value compared to beef and it is "free range organic". Since easily over 90% of the population in North America eats meat they don't have a way to attack you on any "moral grounds". If you eat meat what difference does it make whether you outsource the killing of animals to your meat (slaughterhouses) or do it yourself (hunt)?

As far as trophies go- a good analogy is with cereal and toys in cereal when you were a kid. Yes you get the cereal sometimes because you really want the toy but you also eat the cereal as well. Most people don't buy cereal with a toy in and then take the toy and throw away the cereal. Same thing with trophies- a moose or deer European or shoulder mount is the same thing. Just a by-product from the meat and one that cant be eaten. So what difference from an "ethical perspective" does it make if you put it on the wall or throw it in the trash ? You can't eat horns, skulls and hides.

But to also illustrate the ignorance of the general public- when a lot of people see a shoulder mount or a life size mount they think its the whole front half or the whole animal itself that has been preserved. They don't even realize that it is just the skin which is put over a foam form/manikin.

Now he problem with lion or elephant hunting is that with the case of say free range lion- which run like 50K a hunt- you need a pretty big disposable income to afford this and this is probably going to e outside the financial capabilities or priorities of most hunters. If you can't do a certain thing in your life- people are probably not going to care about it or be necessarily willing to fight particularly hard for it. Self interest does tend to be a strong motivator for people. Its important to show that trophy hunting is only the beginning of hunting bans and that more will come. Hence the need for unity. Divided we fall.