Ozbow

Afternoon All.

As far as how hunting is portrayed, reported, etc., this is a post that all members of Ozbow should read. How things are perceived can be significantly different to reality.

http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=582

wishsong wrote: And as Matt siad . perception does matter ! But I would hope that we act in the correct way , not because we fear that we are being scrutinised , but because it is the way we actually wantto behave as custodians of this tradition and the wild places we all love so much .

That is exactly right Ben. When we introduce new people to what we do the battle is to do in a way that takes the focus away from the main thing of importance is getting a kill. There is a lot of young guys/girls getting into bowhunting but their primary focus is always about kills.

There are just far too many threads starting on various forums which are all about how many kills you made this year etc etc and most are made by our younger hunters. I know we all go through this phase to a certain degree but knowing what it is gives us the tools to introduce others in a different way.

Trying to get the perception across that it's not all about a kill to new comers to bowhunting is something that we must do. It's a big mindset to change but is doable.

gidget wrote:How I was wrong, the ABA deserted me & my group of hunters in our time of need.Left to fend for ourselves & fight our own battle. Held guilty until proven innocent, but we prevailed & the 100% ethics of our group shown through. But it could have ended much worse. But I will leave that there, it is still a little raw for me to chew yet.

ABA will never change if instances like this are left unchallenged.

We will be voting at Branch AGM's soon and I and others could be voting for the ABA rep that did this to you and your friends because we do not know what he has done.

Could your group write an open letter to ABA through their forum asking them to explain the double standards?

Due to the fact that he publicly accused you of some infraction causing your current feelings he should be made to publicly apologies to your group. If he does not he does not deserve to be holding the position he currently does.

Michael

This is a topic that comes up time & time again and its been around for a long time as we all know. It definitely needs addressing and soon, time is running out. I agree with one main point mentioned and that is a umbrella organisation linked into all shooting, fishing and hunting sports is needed. Every Firearms, Archery, fishing & hunting etc. related organisation donates a percentage of their members fee to an umbrella organisation that deals with government legislation.

This is IMO the only way and i mean the only way, that we hunters and Shooters are going to defend our sport. Now this is where i get annoyed and that is we have had all these shooting organisations for a long time and still even in this politically correct age & hunting sports under fire more than ever in our history that this has not happened,Why?

This umbrella organisation could then advise, regulate & educate hunting & shooting organisations & cover bad publicity from hunting mags etc. It could then have a large member base and full time staff to lobby our Goverments to protect our sport & way of life.

I have Thought of this over & over again,WHY, has this not been done. Well fellows you tell me?...Roscoe

ps In the mean time i will continue to learn how to make bows & arrows from boards & trees so that when it does become illegal i can still hunt and they will have to pry my self wood longbow from my cold dead hands....Roscoe

Rock Steady wrote:

gidget wrote:How I was wrong, the ABA deserted me & my group of hunters in our time of need.Left to fend for ourselves & fight our own battle. Held guilty until proven innocent, but we prevailed & the 100% ethics of our group shown through. But it could have ended much worse. But I will leave that there, it is still a little raw for me to chew yet.

ABA will never change if instances like this are left unchallenged.

We will be voting at Branch AGM's soon and I and others could be voting for the ABA rep that did this to you and your friends because we do not know what he has done.

Could your group write an open letter to ABA through their forum asking them to explain the double standards?

Due to the fact that he publicly accused you of some infraction causing your current feelings he should be made to publicly apologies to your group. If he does not he does not deserve to be holding the position he currently does.

Michael

I have had two experiences with ABA heavyweights on a matter that should have been a walk up start for cooperation and collaboration and instead all I saw and heard was petty ego stroking and playing of the man (me) and not the ball and a couple of other sundry unsavoury things - including quite unneccessary rudeness - much of it based on a "don't you know who I am" approach. Well I knew who they were, but otherwise could not give a stuff. It is not enough to have a reputation. You have to live up to it.

I will never join that organisation.

SSAA is a well run organisation - politically connected, media savvy and prepared to speak out on behalf of members and not preach to the converted.

looseplucker wrote:It is not enough to have a reputation. You have to live up to it.

Sadly ABA seems to live up to theirs John, that is the problem.

Jeff

Stickbow Hunter wrote:

looseplucker wrote:It is not enough to have a reputation. You have to live up to it.

Sadly ABA seems to live up to theirs John, that is the problem.

Jeff

Morning All.

roscoe wrote:This umbrella organisation could then advise, regulate & educate hunting & shooting organisations & cover bad publicity from hunting mags etc. It could then have a large member base and full time staff to lobby our Goverments to protect our sport & way of life.

IMHO - If it was to take that approach nothing would change.

If you want to change things you need to apply some effective pressure. Take a lead from the NRA and deal with government the way they do. The only thing that motivates your average politician more than the real possibility of losing power is the real possibility of losing their seat.

NRA http://www.nraila.org/ActionCenter/

GrahameA wrote:Morning All.

roscoe wrote:This umbrella organisation could then advise, regulate & educate hunting & shooting organisations & cover bad publicity from hunting mags etc. It could then have a large member base and full time staff to lobby our Goverments to protect our sport & way of life.

IMHO - If it was to take that approach nothing would change.

If you want to change things you need to apply some effective pressure. Take a lead from the NRA and deal with government the way they do. The only thing that motivates your average politician more than the real possibility of losing power is the real possibility of losing their seat.

NRA http://www.nraila.org/ActionCenter/

On paper it is a sound idea but would not work in this country. We simply just do not have the numbers on our own as bowhunters to exert that kind of pressure. Only as one common voice will we have the numbers to achieve that kind of pressure.

Like it or not all the hunting disciplines in this country need to band together under one united front to protect the hunting future fir our kids and theirs to come.

Hi.

On paper it is a sound idea but would not work in this country. We simply just do not have the numbers on our own as bowhunters to exert that kind of pressure. Only as one common voice will we gave the numbers to achieve that kind of pressure.

You may have misread my comment. For me:

roscoe wrote:This umbrella organisation

Assume you have the umbrella organisation.

roscoe wrote:... then advise, regulate & educate hunting & shooting organisations & cover bad publicity from hunting mags etc.

It could do these actions until the cows came home but their will still be little chance of change. If you want change you would be far better off targeting the individual Politicians

GrahameA wrote:If you want to change things you need to apply some effective pressure. Take a lead from the NRA and deal with government the way they do. The only thing that motivates your average politician more than the real possibility of losing power is the real possibility of losing their seat.

Grahame & Matt, this is in the same vein as my suggestion of a powerful advocate...someone who could convince their audience that to ban hunting is ( Oh, how I hate to use this meaningless term... but here goes...) "Un-Australian" and that any member that supported such an "Un-Australian" ban should not have a seat.
It works. Hell, this kind of media advocates helped convinced Middle Australia that a tax on the super profits enjoyed by the mining industry was somehow against their interests, when it was only ever against the interests of some CEO's massive bonus!
It's not pleasant, and I don't like it at all, but sometimes you have to sup with the Devil just to get a meal. Because of our relatively small numbers using someone like this to help put pressure on the holders of marginal seats may just be a part of the answer IMHO.

I agree Grahame we need to target politicians but is it not better to do that with the voice of a couple hundred thousand rather then the mere thousands that bow hunters alone make up.

Give me the voice of one and I will get a sore throat but give me the voice of thousands and I will show you how to bring down a mountain.

excelpoint wrote:Like it or not all the hunting disciplines in this country need to band together under one united front to protect the hunting future fir our kids and theirs to come.

I would say "all archery disciplines" need to band together to protect archery. Surely no-one is naive enough to believe that an idiot who pings a dog or cat or roo with a bin is not, in the media, reflecting badly on all who love archery - even those who do not hunt?

looseplucker wrote:

excelpoint wrote:Like it or not all the hunting disciplines in this country need to band together under one united front to protect the hunting future fir our kids and theirs to come.

I would say "all archery disciplines" need to band together to protect archery. Surely no-one is naive enough to believe that an idiot who pings a dog or cat or roo with a bin is not, in the media, reflecting badly on all who love archery - even those who do not hunt?

You are right but in my experience I have met far more target only archers that are apposed to hunting then that are for hunting. Given that archery as in target archery is widely accepted I don't ever see it as a sport being in jeopardy.

Whenever there is an incident in regards to some protected animal etc being shot the media and public perception always seems to reflect back on hunting. You never see the media saying the such and such was shot with a "target" bow, it is always a "hunting" bow. That is why I said that all "hunting" disciplines need to band together. In this I mean rifle hunters, hound hunters, bird hunters etc etc

Well, it means that there is a lot to be done. When the firearm buyback happened, a lot of people were not expecting to be targetted, but they were. Yes, the media always says 'hunting bow' and the tip turns out to be a field point that is exactly why the organisations do need to be involved - and not just the hunting ones.

I realise there are issues with the target fraternity, but if restrictions come in for bows, it will affect everyone, not just the hunters.

looseplucker wrote:Well, it means that there is a lot to be done. When the firearm buyback happened, a lot of people were not expecting to be targetted, but they were. Yes, the media always says 'hunting bow' and the tip turns out to be a field point that is exactly why the organisations do need to be involved - and not just the hunting ones.

I realise there are issues with the target fraternity, but if restrictions come in for bows, it will affect everyone, not just the hunters.

Yes too right. I lost a couple nice guns in that buy back, I just hope we can get all to be involved. To often I have heard target only shooters quite openly state how they think we as bowhunting give "archery" a bad name with the nodding of heads all round. Mind you though this is only based on my limited exposure to "target only" shooters so I would hope it is not a widely excepted view.

The problem was it seemed to come from some of the more influential persons down where I was.

What is coming in the future is not just going to effect hunters, but target shooters alike. They wont stop at hunters, they want to ban any sport that uses a weapon. I see a bow and rifle not as a weapon but as a tool,But anti's see it as a weapon. Instead of punishing people for offences carried out, they prefer a ban all approach.

All it takes is a lunatic to go on a shooting rampage with a bow and next minute you will have bow registration with genuine reason just like our firearms.


what is that old saying "united we stand, divided we fall"

I have a question. If an Archery, Bowhunting, Firearms, fishing etc. organisation donated a percentage ( or an amount) of their membership fee to an umbrella organisation for the purpose of protecting hunters, shooters etc, would that influence you to join an organisation.

I know that i would join such an organisation straight away...Roscoe

roscoe wrote:What is coming in the future is not just going to effect hunters, but target shooters alike. They wont stop at hunters, they want to ban any sport that uses a weapon. I see a bow and rifle not as a weapon but as a tool,But anti's see it as a weapon. Instead of punishing people for offences carried out, they prefer a ban all approach.

All it takes is a lunatic to go on a shooting rampage with a bow and next minute you will have bow registration with genuine reason just like our firearms.


what is that old saying "united we stand, divided we fall"

I have a question. If an Archery, Bowhunting, Firearms, fishing etc. organisation donated a percentage ( or an amount) of their membership fee to an umbrella organisation for the purpose of protecting hunters, shooters etc, would that influence you to join an organisation.

I know that i would join such an organisation straight away...Roscoe

Yes I would to.

Personally I cannot see "target archery" getting banned. Given that it is an Olympic sport and the AIS and state based institutes of sport have programms funded by the government for it.

Didn't stop them banning weapons that our olympic athletes used like auto shotguns -

And I am not talking about a ban - I said 'restrictions' -which could be anything from age, to licensing, certification etc - more ways to skin a cat than banning it.

And restrictions on ownership would have to be across the board.

looseplucker wrote:Didn't stop them banning weapons that our olympic athletes used like auto shotguns -

And I am not talking about a ban - I said 'restrictions' -which could be anything from age, to licensing, certification etc - more ways to skin a cat than banning it.

And restrictions on ownership would have to be across the board.

Auto shotguns to my knowledge have never been used in Olympic competition.

Restrictions are certainly not a good thing but I think unless we can come up with a way to collectively fight together they may be inevatable.

Maybe if the target archers want to disown us we should start pointing out that it is usually a field or target point that has been used on a native. As in.. "Nothing to do with us or it would have a broadhead on the arrow, go and talk to the target archers at the local F.I.T.A. based club" Keep pointing this out to Police and media outlets like local papers, etc and it wont be long before they feel the blowtorch to the belly and we have the target archers feeling our insecurity about losing our rights. Then they are onside and using their relatively larger resources to fight for the right for ALL archers, bowhunter or otherwise, to have a bow. I know may not help but at least they will know how we feel and stop betraying us! "Giving them a bad name" For Petes sake! Who do they think they are?

On another point, I can't understand how shops sell this equipment to novices without at least giving them a talk about what's on and what's not on as the bare minimum, y'know?

Hmm - I am pretty sure there was an issue with auto loaders and our olympians having to train offshore - anyhow, you get my point - the fact the one is a target thing and an olympic sport will not matter a hill of beans when and if restrictions come in. I expect at the least a person will have to be 18 or over to buy a bow - and <18s will have to be under supervision of an adult etc at a recognised practice facility or on private property (sundry other regulations etc etc).

And what Moreton says is pretty much on the mark - if other than a broadhead has been used then the point should be made LOUD and CLEAR by the annointed ones this target gear appears to be being used which makes it hooliganistic use of a bow as well as unutterably cruel and warranting condemnation and punishment to the full measure of the law.

And you can bet spherical portions of your anatomy that if and when restrictions come in the first to bleat will be the target people....and at the moment as there does not appear to be a cohesiveness among archery interests in Australia, that will be played on and we'll be picked off one by one.

Craig don't get me wrong mate I don't want to lump all target archers in the same bin. My experience was just a small negative one. I would hope this was just a minority view.

Unfortunately with the shops it could very well be a double edged sword. To a lot of shops a sale is a sale and the only way that will change is if they are forced to do so. Unfortunately that can probably only come from legislation on bows.

A case of dammed if you do dammed if you don't.

LP I do see your point mate and agree with a lot of what you say. The worst part about the gun buyback was that 6 months later little Johnny decided that we could keep our Auto shotguns for target use only. To bad that most had already handed them in go be crushed.

Anyway enough on the guns. I honestly think that we have a much better chance of uniting all "hunting" disciplines to fight the fight.

Given the ego that has been rampant through the main archery organisations I think any chance of a long lasting and healthy alliance would go the same way as the dodo.

I tell you this - they can ban it as much as they like. Big deal. I will still hunt with bow and arrow on private property, or even my own if I get lucky enough to get a patch of dirt with game on it. Love to see them police it.

looseplucker wrote: I tell you this - they can ban it as much as they like. Big deal. I will still hunt with bow and arrow on private property, or even my own if I get lucky enough to get a patch of dirt with game on it. Love to see them police it.

I understand your frustration and appreciate the sentiment of what you posted but it is exactly that type of attitude that we cannot afford to been known for. Being known as the type of people that will not behave within the law will be the quickest way for us to end up exactly where we are trying to stay away from.

roscoe wrote:I see a bow and rifle not as a weapon but as a tool

Yeah, you see that sort of semantics a bit these days. Knives are now Edged tools.
I think when applied to hunting, the bow and rifle are both tools, which allow you to kill, and for most people that's a fair definition of a weapon.

excelpoint wrote:

looseplucker wrote: I tell you this - they can ban it as much as they like. Big deal. I will still hunt with bow and arrow on private property, or even my own if I get lucky enough to get a patch of dirt with game on it. Love to see them police it.

I understand your frustration and appreciate the sentiment of what you posted but it is exactly that type of attitude that we cannot afford to been known for. Being known as the type of people that will not behave within the law will be the quickest way for us to end up exactly where we are trying to stay away from.

Sometimes the only way to oppose a bad law is to break it. My reasons for so doing are not a "so what, I'm lawless" attitude - but it would be a bad law, it would be discriminatory (as you can bet our indigenous brothers will not be banned from hunting for cultural reasons), impossible to police and to enforce. As a lawyer any law that has those effects must be opposed - and by all means possible, including breaking it to demonstrate how farcical it is.

looseplucker wrote:

excelpoint wrote:

looseplucker wrote: I tell you this - they can ban it as much as they like. Big deal. I will still hunt with bow and arrow on private property, or even my own if I get lucky enough to get a patch of dirt with game on it. Love to see them police it.

I understand your frustration and appreciate the sentiment of what you posted but it is exactly that type of attitude that we cannot afford to been known for. Being known as the type of people that will not behave within the law will be the quickest way for us to end up exactly where we are trying to stay away from.

Sometimes the only way to oppose a bad law is to break it. My reasons for so doing are not a "so what, I'm lawless" attitude - but it would be a bad law, it would be discriminatory (as you can bet our indigenous brothers will not be banned from hunting for cultural reasons), impossible to police and to enforce. As a lawyer any law that has those effects must be opposed - and by all means possible, including breaking it to demonstrate how
farcical it is.

And hence just feed the MAJORITY of the public who do not support or care for what we do more ammunition against us. I'm sorry but that type of attitude is and has contributed to where we stand today, on the brink of losing our past time for good.

I just hope that when the time comes and we need to fight legislation that we can get better advice then simply "if you think the law is farcical, just break it".

Perhaps , if worst came to worst and the laws changed dramatically regarding bowhunting etc, publicly posting or advocating breaking and/or ignoring the law is not being helpful.