I had known a woman for a number of years and one day she said, “I didn’t know you were a hunter. That surprises me—you’re such a nice guy.” I thanked her for the backhanded compliment and asked why she would think nice guys didn’t hunt, and we went on to have an interesting, civil discussion about hunting. It can be done.

Tip 1: Pick Your Battles.
I’ve had discussions that range from respectful and productive to heated, emotional, and useless. Discussions can be worthwhile; arguments are usually a waste of oxygen. If the other party starts out or very quickly becomes angry, loud, or refuses to listen or respond to your position or facts, you may be engaged in a frustrating waste of time, and the sooner you can end the encounter, the better. The higher the volume―from both you and them―the less chance any actual understanding will occur.

Tip 2: Find Common Ground.
While about 5% of the population are active hunters, some 75% of the general population support legal hunting to some extent. That support ranges from complete understanding to those who’ve never really thought about the topic. Regardless, there are a lot of opportunities to find common ground by engaging with them (when appropriate) and providing information and explanation. Don’t be pushy, but be prepared to explain the benefits of regulated hunting, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, why you hunt, and the many benefits of hunting to both humans and wildlife. There are many people who refuse to be confused with facts, but many more are reasonable and rational when provided with solid information.

Tip 3: “Organic Meat.”
I don’t remember where I heard the term “organic meat,” but I’ve used it to great effect several times. Some anti-hunters are also very careful with their diet, and organic foods feature prominently in their food choices. When I’ve told anti-hunters that I hunt because I prefer organic meat, and that I can control the handling of my food from field to table to ensure maximum safety and quality, I have seen an actual brain glitch stop them in their tracks. Many anti-hunter arguments are based on a perception of moral superiority and superficial slogans, and when they are co-opted, it causes either confusion or actual thought and analysis.

Tip 4: Trophy Hunting.
The intensity of anti-hunting arguments can depend on many variables, such as hunting style, target animals, and hunting gear that is employed. Trophy hunting is a particular trigger, but the tags fund many wildlife programs, population goals are managed, and hunters pursuing antlers also produce quality meat for their families or for donations. Using modern weapons, trail cameras, optics, and ammunition may seem to provide the hunter with an unfair advantage, but the number of unfilled tags each year show that human brains and expensive gear do not provide a lopsided advantage. Plus, trapping and varmint hunting are often vilified until an exploding population of beaver, raccoon, or coyotes causes problems in suburban neighborhoods and hits home for the anti-hunter.

Tip 5: How Should Wild Animals Die?
Circling back to the woman who was puzzled by my being a hunter, and her opinion that hunting is cruel, I asked her a question she had never thought about: how should wild animals die? My contention is that a hunter’s bullet is much more humane than the other options: starvation, disease, predation, injury, or terminal stress from heat or cold. As much as some people don’t want to admit it, humans are part of the natural world, and we should participate in it. Hunters have nothing to apologize for, but we need to understand how to defend ourselves when challenged.