I often hear other hunters rant and rave about PETA and their extreme acts of foolishness. But I have to wonder, should we really focus on PETA and the other extremist radicals as much as we do, or, should we be more concerned with other factors that threaten hunting and the opinions of other demographic groups?
Let's face it, the majority of people in this country live in either an urban or suburban environment and not hunters and do not have any meaningful direct contact with the natural world. Most of these people recognize PETA as extremist fools and laugh them off as idiots but enjoy it (or at least the men do) when they put attractive women in very scanty outfits at some event to generate publicity.
It seems to me that when hunters focus their justifications for hunting against the likes of PETA, we can appear as just another extremist group to alot of the people who consider PETA idiots but who don't have any direct exposure to hunting and really don't care about it one way or the other. For the long-term protection of huntnig, should we instead try to develop arguments that justify hunting to this large group of (non-PETA) urban and suburban people who have limited exposure to the natural world yet are rational and practical people? And what are the justifications for hunting that will resonate with this group of people?