If you haven't yet discovered Holly Heyser's Norcal Cazadora blog, then get over there and check it out - always an entertaining, thought-provoking read, as well as an inspiration to women hunters (or shooters as we'd call them here).
Her recent post on her conversation with an anti-hunter is a great example. It reminded me that most of the 'antis' I meet aren't really anti-shooting/hunting at all. They are happy to accept that people kill animals to eat them, or to protect crops and prevent the spread of disease. They'll even accept the social, environmental and conservation benefits of shooting and other field sports.
Their objections boil down to two main areas: i) A misguided idea that most shooters are rich toffs walking roughshod over the local peasants and wildlife, and ii) They are really bothered by what they imagine goes through a shooter's head at the moment he/she pulls the trigger.
Non-shooters don't get why we would go to all that bother and expense to shoot something we could buy in the supermarket for a couple of quid. So they fill in the gap for themselves, imagining some twisted orgasmic thrill at the death of another creature.
To me, that says more about them than it does about me. But it's a real PR problem that we, as shooters, face. And I don't know how we begin to tackle it. Any ideas?