Take a non-hunter afield

As more than 15 million hunters take to the field all across the US,
discussions around campfires and coffeepots predictably will come around to
"What are we going to do to save the hunting heritage?"

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service recently published results of
a three-year survey of thousands of Americans about hunting. They found
that 40 percent strongly approved of hunting. Another 33 percent moderately
approved of hunting. Only 22 percent either strongly or moderately disapproved. A
whopping 81 percent of the respondents believed hunting should remain legal, while
only 16 percent thought it should be outlawed. In another survey, only 3 percent of those
surveyed supported the tactics of animal rights extremist groups.

However, the Fish & Wildlife survey also asked about the image of the
hunter. Sixty-two percent of those surveyed believed that "a lot" of
hunters broke hunting laws or practiced unsafe behavior, such as drinking
to excess and firing guns recklessly. These polls show that the non-hunting
majority doesn't have much of a problem with hunting, but they do have a
problem with hunters.

Donating money to various hunting organizations, setting a good example in
the field, and stocking schools and libraries with books and videos that
cast hunting in a positive light are all basic steps every hunter must do.
Taking kids hunting is also crucial to passing along the heritage. But we
must do more. The hunting community needs to engage in a grassroots public
relations campaign as well as any media programs.

As you plan out your fall, I offer two suggestions about what you can do
to help the future of hunting by inviting some neophytes into your hunting
party as a way of education.

Take someone from the media hunting

By its very nature, hunting is mysterious. It takes place far from the
general public. Unless you experience it first hand, you only hear about
what happens to hunters from stories. Despite the fact that hunting stories
are one of the oldest art forms, if they appear in the news today they will
be found on the "Outdoors" page in the sport section, which is seen by few
non-hunters.

It's no secret that a lot of the press is anti-gun and anti-hunting.
Educating those folks may not be easy. If you mail flyers and press
releases to the media it won't hurt, but these people are flooded with
press releases, mailings and phone calls. The saying "If it bleeds, it
leads," is unfortunately all too true when it comes to a lot of the media.
Sensationalism gets people's attention and all media compete for readers
and viewers to stay alive. Hunting accidents and poaching fall into the "If
it bleeds, it leads" category of news. Consequently, the only hunters that
most of the non-hunting public ever hears about fall into this category.

It's also true that editors and writers who have negative attitudes about
hunting will pick up and report on negative hunting news, so the hunting
community has to take steps to minimize such events with a zero tolerance
policy for carelessness and poaching.

If you want to change the way the media reports hunting, take a lead from
the National Shooting Sports Foundation (www.nssf.org), which has been
conducting weekend seminars for journalists for the last couple of years.

Invite journalists afield with you. I know a radio D.J. in his late
twenties who was invited deer hunting several years ago. He went out as a
skeptic and came back excited. During the next year he took a Hunter
Education class and learned how to shoot. On opening day the following year
he bagged a 10-point buck. Today, he hosts an outdoor show on the radio,
interviews hunters on his regular programs and is an avid hunter and
staunch conservationist.

Take a teacher hunting

As a result of writing two books about hunting ("In Defense of Hunting" and
"The Sacred Art of Hunting") in the last six years I have visited a number of
colleges and universities around the U.S. and Canada and spoken with faculty
and students. Overall, there is a general trend at colleges and
universities, including those with schools of natural resources and
forestry, to move away from teaching and conducting research about hunting,
even though hunting and fishing license sales remain the main source of the
budgets of state fish and game departments. One consequence of this trend
is that state fish and game departments tell me of many people applying for
jobs without ever having gone hunting or fishing. Some have never even gone
camping.

At colleges where they have wildlife management programs, often any
research proposal must pass a research committee that must approve of any
research involving live animals. At several major universities there are
anti-hunters serving on these committees.

I attended a noon-hour brown bag lunch to discuss "Current Trends in
Hunting" at one major university where they do have a wildlife management
department. I expected that we would be talking about recruitment and what
to do about anti-hunters. What quickly occurred was a debate among students
and faculty about whether hunting was appropriate. Some of the wildlife
faculty, I soon learned, were anti-hunting.

To "educate" students for entry into professions that manage wildlife and
fisheries, and not insure that they have firsthand experience with those
sports, let alone classes to study them, is like a medical education that
turns out doctors without ever having cut up a cadaver.

One way to ensure that students of the future will at least be educated
about the heritage and value of hunting is for hunting organizations,
individuals and corporations to endow teaching positions that require
professors to teach and conduct research about hunting.

Money runs higher
education. This is an expensive proposition. Endowments may run into the
millions. Some people will argue that with limited resources, money would
be better spent for habitat. Maybe so, but this is the best way to ensure
that students of the future will know something about hunting before they
approach you in the field as game wardens and managers.

The next best thing to endowing teaching positions would be to ensure that
faculty who teach students about wildlife and fisheries have firsthand
experience with hunting. Many do not.

So, as you are planning out your list
of people to invite into your duck blind or deer camp this fall, consider
asking teachers. If they have first-hand knowledge of the spirit of the
hunt and its ethics, teachers are less likely to pass on misinformation to
their students. All we need to win any argument about the value of hunting
is to have the truth on our side.

James Swan is the author of the book "In Defense of Hunting."

To purchase a copy visit his website.