Tolerance and communication on this forum

[duffy4]

"Wow, 8 pages....

I'm going to bury a comment in here and then hopefully never come back.

I'll stick with my original opposition to using a crossbow for elephant. I understand that others strongly disagree and I'm ok with that. Everybody has an ethical line at which something becomes distasteful. I don't expect anyone to have the same ones as me. I'm ok with that too.

I don't like it when people try to portray someone who takes an ethical stand against someone else as being anti-hunting. I'm certainly not. I don't follow any group 100% and will always state my right to criticize. If anyone thinks this weakens the fraternity or supports the antis then feel free to state your opinion. I won't agree and I don't have to.

I don't pretend to think that because I have a point of view/opinion or ethical stance, everyone or even anyone has to follow such guidelines or even agree. Doesn't change my stance. More information on the situation might (although not really in this case) and I'm always open to such things.

I keep trying to tell my wife to be more tolerant of other people. They do things differently because they see the world differently and that is alright. She has trouble with it sometimes because her logic and reason aren't followed by many others. I see that many people also struggle with this.

It is always funny that the longest threads end up being about ethics and values. I guess people have some pretty deep seated ideas on how the world is or should be and have a difficult time accepting the fact that others think differently.

I don't intend to be personal in this post. It is not directed at anyone. I've mostly enjoyed the discussion. I just won't be contributing to it anymore.

8 pages is enough."



This is a quote from another thread. If more people had this kind of attitude to the disgussions on the forum, there would be a lot more constructive exchange of information and OPINIONS. Instead of the pointless "rants" and arguments that so often show up here.

I do believe in RIGHT and WRONG in some situations but in so many cases there are a variety of view points and opinions without a right or wrong.

You can say "I do not agree with you" without saying "you are an idiot" You can say "I didn't care for the picture of the fellow with the dead wolf" and not mean "I am against shooting wolves".

Have a fine day and don't get a fine today!

Robin in Rocky

[Dick284]

Well thought out and adequatly conveyed thoughts Duffy.
Definatly something that a lot of us here can take from that post, and hopefully learn from.
Thank you.

[Skinnydipper]

I'm in with this respectful attitude Robin..........well said!

[Tundra Monkey]

Well said Duffy.....no place for it here.

IMHO the only thing wrong with the hunt and show was that it was too short. The entire hunt could have been done over an hour show. I feel that this is the major problem with these shows. If they took the time to show "the entire hunt" and experience it would not only be more entertaining but also serve the purpose of educating the hunters and the antis that tune in. I'm sure that if the time was taken to explain all of the math and crap that a certain poundage and grain of pointy thing is sufficient to supply enough kinetic energy to take out an elephant. Show the "carcass utilization" and benefits to the community. Show the days of walking and work involved.

I wholeheartedly believe that if the benefits of sport hunting were explained on these shows that the majority of "undecided" people out there would gain an understanding of it and see the benefits it provides.

A perfect example of this is polar bear hunts. For example, a community is allocated 24 polar bear tags. They can allocate up to 1/2 of these to sport hunts. An importable bear hunt nowadays is $30000+. This obviously benefits these communities (not many over 500 people in them so $30000 times 12 is huge). If these are not able to be sold do you think that the bears will not be killed by local hunters? The only difference would be the $'s involved $30000+ compared to $100/foot....maybe $150/foot if it's a 10' bear. Pretty obvious I think.....unless you're one off those people who form opinions on what you think by listening to people that have never been out of the city, breathed in the arctic air and believe that those cute little fellows on the Coke commercials are now starving and swimming 100's of miles to a non-existent ice pack. If you speak to locals or your own Govt for that matter....the bear population is fine.....and always being researched.

The vast majority of polar bear guides that I know guide, carve and hunt/fish. They are arguably the last "true" hunters on earth. They are the MOST RESPECTED members of their community.....and rightfully so.

my 2c's

tm

Hey Duff, I'm all for people taking ethical stances and truly admire those that do but when that ethical stance turns into slagging another hunter that is conducting himself within the bounds of the law and fair chase, is that really ethical any more? That's where I draw the line.

If it's not for you fine, don't partake and I'll respect that but try and have an equal tolerance for those that do partake. There is most certainly room for discussion, providing it's constructive....I just draw the line when it's destructive. There is a big difference!

[Copidosoma]

Ummm, those comments were mine (thanks for posting them BTW). I don't claim to have the hunting experience of most people on this forum (I most certainly don't). But, I've been around long enough to know that there is a wide range of opinions and methods out there. I disagree with alot of them but I don't think that my way is necessarily the best either (I hunted with a 12lb 308 this year and plan to use it for sheep one day, pretty stupid eh?). I'll express my displeasure at seeing something and maybe won't have much respect for whoever did it. But, if that expression leads to a discussion that degrades as so many around here do, then we've all lost something.

I think that opposing viewpoints are critical in keeping an activity (hunting) healthy. Otherwise we start to sound like Marxists or something (must stick to the party line. Critics are counter-revolutionary and to be discredited and removed etc.). We must be able to agree to disagree sometimes and know that understanding and accepting (not necessarily liking) viewpionts that run counter to ours is a part of learning.

I'll get off my self righteous soapbox now.

Cop, I was with ya all the way through your post until you said you wouldn't have much respect for someone that did things contrary to your way. I think that's where these things start to degrade. Not picking on you BTW and if you carry a 12 pound gun sheep hunting, man I have all the respect in the world for you but I think as soon as we loose respect for those that do things different than us us, how long is it before that disrespect turns to intolerance? Like I say, it may not be for you but try to respect the fact that it may be for others. That's where constructive discussion begins.

[Copidosoma]

Not to take you on personally sheep but...
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it can't be criticized (the gun registry is legal right?).

One has to be careful criticizing a person who does something so it doesn't degrade into "slagging" but I think it is fair game to criticize a person's actions and motives for those actions. Legal or not.

It isn't for me to force others to follow my ethics but I think it is my job to voice an opinion (not totally informed as it may be) when I see something questionable. Feel free to disagree with me or try to educate me but don't expect me to see it your way (necessarily).

[Copidosoma]

"until you said you wouldn't have much respect for someone that did things contrary to your way."

If I said that (or if that is how it came across) then that wasn't what I was meaning.

I don't have to like the people I work with. Heck, I don't even have to respect them. As long as they get the job done well. That doesn't mean I'll have them over for dinner on Saturdays.

This guy (ele with a crossbow) did something I think is ethically wrong. I respect the fact that he has tremendous hunting experience and apparently has done alot for hunting in general. Great. I still don't like what he did and if given the opportunity (not that it will ever happen) to hunt with him I'd probably turn him down and might even tell him why. My loss I'm sure.

I doubt that all the legality in the world and all the greatness that this guy embodies will ever make me agree with what he did.

I guess I can respect someone who does things contrary to how I do but it will certainly be limited and I'll still criticize them if I think it is necessary.

.

Not to take you on personally sheep but...
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it can't be criticized (the gun registry is legal right?).

Cop...that is the ultimate strawman but regardless, I never said things can't be discussed but why should another hunter have the right to slag another hunter that is doing things within the law and the bounds of fair chase. Please no more references to constitutional issues or federal law. Let's keep it hunters talking about and respection other hunters.

I love to hear your opinion and truthfully you've always been one of the guys that has presented it respectfully. I just wish all others did.

Originally Posted by lurch

Duff,

I appreciate your comments. By some of the replies it looks like some others get it as well.

Thanks for the reality check

Lurch

And the sarcasim begins once again.......

[Copidosoma]

Sorry, it was just a really obvious example.

Criticism accepted as being valid.

I just don't think that legality is the ultimate (or only) measure of an action.

I can think of a zillion things that are legal that I have an issue with. I don't think it is fair to be defamatory about it but I think I can be direct and blunt. He did something therefore I have a problem with him (although mostly just with what he did).

I can think of a zillion things that are legal that I have an issue with.

As can I Cop but is not that a good place to begin a constructive dialogue....rather than starting a sentence with 'It sickens me"?

Would not, "I've never hunted elephants but I do have some concerns that a crossbow may not be an appropriate weapon" be a better way to get some constructive discussion begun?

Just my thought anyhow.

You start out blunt and aggressive and people on the other side of the issue are going to fire back that way.

.

lurch, I was hoping Duffy's post was going to be a good platform for discussion and I'm sure that's why Duffy started it and so far it's been a very respectful exchange of ideas but when you start sniping from the sidelines, where do you think things are going to end up. I'm all for hearing your thoughts on the subject but cheap shots from the sideline certainly aren't constructive. Hope you take these comments in the spirit they were intended.

[Tundra Monkey]

I'm pretty much a staight shooter (when we're not talking rifles anyway)...so Lurch.....I read your post....it does not sound sarcastic to me. I read your second post / disclaimer and I think I got it right.

Am I right in assuming that it was not intended to be sarcastic?

tm

[Copidosoma]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

As can I Cop but is not that a good place to begin a constructive dialogue....rather than starting a sentence with 'It sickens me"?

Would not, "I've never hunted elephants but I do have some concerns that a crossbow may not be an appropriate weapon" be a better way to get some constructive discussion begun?

Just my thought anyhow.

You start out blunt and aggressive and people on the other side of the issue are going to fire back that way.

You are certainly correct and if everyone followed this approach these message boards would be a whole lot more useful.

One problem is that if anyone ever did start out with "I've never hunted elephants but I do have some concerns..." someone else would come along and say something along the lines of, "I've hunted elephants all my life, as a matter of fact, hunting elephants is all I think about. So let me tell you how it should be done".

[Copidosoma]

Originally Posted by duffy4

"
You can say "I do not agree with you" without saying "you are an idiot" You can say "I didn't care for the picture of the fellow with the dead wolf" and not mean "I am against shooting wolves".

Robin in Rocky

You can say "I'm against shooting wolves" without saying "everyone who shoots a wolf is a monster" and you can say "I like shooting wolves" without saying "anyone who doesn't like people who shoot wolves is an idiot"

Like sheep said, reasonable (and useful) discussion requires that we conduct ourselves responsibly.

You are certainly correct and if everyone followed this approach these message boards would be a whole lot more useful.

One problem is that if anyone ever did start out with "I've never hunted elephants but I do have some concerns..." someone else would come along and say something along the lines of, "I've hunted elephants all my life, as a matter of fact, hunting elephants is all I think about. So let me tell you how it should be done".

But is that really a bad thing? Sometimes intolerance is borne out of ignorance and once we learn more about a specific aspect of hunting, we may well change our views. I know I have on many aspects of hunting after having taken the time to learn about them. In some cases, I've actually participated and become a convert. Other times they still weren't my cup of tea but at least I walked with greater knowledge and often more respect for the participants.

.

.

Originally Posted by sheephunter

As can I Cop but is not that a good place to begin a constructive dialogue....rather than starting a sentence with 'It sickens me"?

Would not, "I've never hunted elephants but I do have some concerns that a crossbow may not be an appropriate weapon" be a better way to get some constructive discussion begun?

Just my thought anyhow.

You start out blunt and aggressive and people on the other side of the issue are going to fire back that way.

If you read the post he started out with something along the lines of "I don't understand why he shot this particular animal" and I am not sure that he would have gotten a different reaction.

Originally Posted by lurch

Duff,

I appreciate your comments. By some of the replies it looks like some others get it as well.

Thanks for the reality check

Lurch

This doesn't sound like a cheap sot from the sidelines.

If you read the post he started out with something along the lines of "I don't understand why he shot this particular animal" and I am not sure that he would have gotten a different reaction.

It would have from me 340......it was the sickened comment that raised my ire. Pedophiles and wife beaters sicken me.....other hunters acting with in the bounds of the law, fair chase and that ensure the clean kill of an animal don't.

[Copidosoma]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

we may well change our views.

Yeah, it happens to me all the time. But sometimes it doesn't. I might understand something more but I still will be against it.

The "bad thing" is when someone who is knowledgable about something believes that only their opinion is right and everyone else is just ignorant. Everyone can use some education.

[Bull Shooter]

I'm not seeing it, where was Bill "slagged"? Regards, Mike

Everyone can use some education.

Amen to that!

[Waxy]

I could write pages on this topic.

I agree with sheephunter that how things are intially phrased is critical. There's a respectful way of doing it, and there's an inflammatory way. Phrases like "sickens me", while they may accurately represent your views, are not going to lead to constructive conversation. (Not taking a shot at anyone here, just trying to make a point, you could replace "sickens me" with just about any extreme statement.)

Another point I'd make is that everyone should read, and then reread, a post before you respond. Make sure you actually understand a person's post and respond to the post itself, not simply to what you object to in general or want to respond to. Be SURE that you are responding to their point and their actual position, not a single line that catches your attention. Put in context, and if you're not sure, ask them to clarify. I think this simple guideline would eliminate a lot of the conflicts here.

To my mind, the problems start when a discussion becomes "I" and "you" rather than remaining in the collective or objective. That's not to say that some "I" and "you" isn't acceptable, or even a good thing at times, but that's when the slide to personal rather than objective starts.

I find it really unfortunate when posts become "us" vs. "them", these issues are rarely black and white. However, it does seem that people inevitably seem to line up on one side or another, and you end up getting nowhere, because in reality, most people are in the middle somewhere. Diverse opinions are great, that's what keeps us honest and moving forward, and no one should ever be afraid or reluctant to post their opinion for fear of being attacked by one side or the other.

We all slip now and then, and I for one am no angel, but overall, I think this place is pretty good. Unfortunately there will always be those that for whatever reason are incapable of keeping it civil. I simply make a note of these people and I choose not to interact with them. We all have that choice.

Waxy

[Bull Shooter]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

It would have from me 340......it was the sickened comment that raised my ire. Pedophiles and wife beaters sicken me.....other hunters acting with in the bounds of the law, fair chase and that ensure the clean kill of an animal don't.

Clearly, he did not understand why the hunter shot that particular animal.

- there was no mention of where the meat was going to go
- he didn't know if the head was going to be taken for a mount

I think the following four posts (yours included) did a great job in explaining the hunt and what happened to the animal. It kind of went south from there. If I thought a game animal was going to be wasted I would be sick too. Regards, Mike