Commentary

Covey: Recent physical attacks on hunters followed years of propaganda

By Mike Covey

I want to discuss the root cause of the recent attacks on hunters in Vermont. This type of violence  against community members who hunt is a direct result of the way anti-hunting groups in the state have chosen to vilify their neighbors who hunt. This is the natural result of seven years of propaganda and  misinformation, and it is entirely predictable. 

With terms like sadist, psychopath, and abuser used to describe community members, it is no wonder  that such an event has now occurred twice. The surprise, perhaps, is that it took so long. This event and  last year’s attack on another member of the community should send a message to everyone associated  with these groups, even peripherally, that it is time to step back and re-evaluate their support. 

The folks who were attacked were victims, but the perpetrators of the recent attacks were also victims.  Victims of an ongoing misinformation campaign that lead them to make conscious decisions to harm  fellow citizens. Neighbors who were engaged in lawful activities and were harming nobody. 

This event further highlights the need for enhanced penalties to be levied against individuals who  choose to harass community members who engage in these outdoor pursuits. We need better  deterrents to this type of unwarranted violence. 

The facts support the value of hunting as it is carried out across the landscape of our state. Hunters are  the single greatest contributor to the security of our wildlife through their financial and on-the-ground  support of quality habitat and stewardship; and the value of the locally sourced, naturally occurring,  organic food that is represented by hunted game cannot be overstated. 

It is undeniable to anyone who  can set aside their personal bias and take a look at the whole picture. This is why those opposed to  hunting feel such a desperate need to control the narrative – they use emotional appeals to cloud  people’s judgment and drive folks down a path, and they know that if they lose that control they lose  the audience. Meanwhile people on both “sides” are left dealing with the anxiety created by this manufactured conflict.

The author is a Williamstown resident and Executive Director of the Vermont Traditions Coalition, an umbrella organization representing Vermont’s sporting, snowmobile, forestry, and other traditional interests in the halls of government. 

Categories: Commentary

7 replies »

  1. It occurs to me that attacking someone who is armed with a rifle is a pretty stupid thing to do.

    It also occurs to me that the fact that these attacks do NOT result in a dead attacker shows who is the actual law-abiding citizen here, and it is NOT the person committing the assault.

  2. Thanks Mike ! The fact that hunters, fishermen, and trappers have been putting their money where their mouths are is a fact. License fees, Pittman, Robertson (1937) and the Dingell, Johnson (1950) acts have been protecting, and managing wildlife long before the “animal rights” people started their campaign to ban sports that they believe they have evolved above, and beyond. The fact of the matter is that they owe sports men and women a debt of gratitude. It is a fact that most species that they “protest for” are in better shape today, than they have been in decades, if not a century because of modern management techniques, of which hunting, fishing, and trapping are the best way to gather data for. How has the prosperity of the deer, bear, moose, coyotes, and small game prospered because of their harassing, and complaining ? Nada ! But it makes them feel soooo good !

  3. Since there has never been evidence that they ever invoke ideological bias, I’m certain that we can count on our federal authorities to investigate these threats as acts of domestic terrorism…

    • I wouldn’t hold my hand over my __ waiting for anti hunters to be classified as terrorists Rich, no matter how vicious their attacks may be.Most of them, like anti 2nd Amendment people, are very liberal Democrats.

Leave a Reply