What is the public image of hunters?

No matter what the terms, celebrities and their publicists are pleased when sta­rs make the magazines and tabloids. Any news that draws attention can make box office sales a little more lucrative. After all, all publicity is good publicity, right? ­Well, here in the real world, it's not always so easy.

­As a rule, most publicity that highlights hunting tends to be negative. If hunters want to protect their sport and pastime, an image overhaul might not be such a bad idea. A mere 5 percent of Americans hunt, making hunters a small minority. With such a small demographic, pro-hunting groups will be sorely outnumbered when the fight of hunters vs. lobbyists picks up.

Anti-hunting organizations are growing not only in number, but in funding as well. In 2004, these activist groups raised about $290 million [source: Swan]. They have many available resources and time to put together anti-hunting campaigns that hunters may not be able to counter. Don't count hunting advocates out though, as there are hunting/conservation groups working daily to defend and regulate their sport.

While the jury's still out across the nation regarding the ethics of hunting, it's clear there are practices that will continue to haunt hunters. The activities of hunters who participate in poaching, Internet hunting or heavy drinking while hunting bring negative attention to the already controversial sport. And anti-hunting organizations aren't going to let the actions of these less-than-angelic hunters go unnoticed.

PETA is probably the most widely known animal rights organization in action today. On the next page, find out how hunters face off against one of their biggest adversaries.

­

When there's no clear majority, it's hard to see what side of a controversy is the "ri­ght" one. And when you're talking about hunters and PETA, the public is usually split. Both groups have plenty of press, positive and negative.

­PETA is an acronym for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. As the name suggests, this non-profit group works to protect animals from cruel or unnecessary treatment. They have strong opinions when it comes to hunting. Hunting was once a necessary means for gathering food. But, today it isn't necessary -- PETA believes hunting is purely a sport with no positive value. In fact, they say it's had negative effects, such as contributing to the extinction of some animal species. Members of PETA believe ecosystems will balance themselves and don't need regulation, especially if that regulation comes with the painful death of animals. In the end, they say hunting puts a strain on ecosystems that would otherwise balance themselves through natural selection.

Hunters obviously have very different views. They see the evolution of hunting as long and rich. To the sportsmen themselves, hunting is an experience that brings them into nature, testing their skills and instincts in way that nothing else could. They see their sport as a way of regulating populations in an easier manner for animals. Instead of starving to death, or dying of disease, as an animal would through natural selection, they're killed unexpectedly. Hunters aim for a quick, clean kill so animals don't suffer.

Both groups have their points and counterpoints and the debate is nowhere near ending.

Is that image of the hunter in your mind still an unpleasant one? Whether it is or not, there are plenty of ways for you to voice your opinion. Visit the links on the next page to get an even more detailed view of the modern hunter.