With people there are three types:

The committed and reasonable to our point of view, using logic and understanding the argument. Or just like to hunt, shoot and fish! These are the people that need to actually work in their own interests, voting appropriately, and also armed with good facts and argument to deliver to the uncommitted.

Then there is the uncommitted, with no clear understanding of the topic, or no real interest. Influenceable by good argument, good videos or their emotions at the moment. These people are worth talking to, and trying to sway and influence to the logical arguments of managed sustaainble conservation and utilisation.

Lastly there are the committed antis. Usually negative sorts. Look at everything with a negative viewpoint. Often refuse to even consider good facts, instead rely on their emotions and dislike of "killing animals". I read on face Jofie Lamprecht having a "debate" with a Namibian based anti. Who was a meat eater. Understood the facts Jofie put forward with good manners. But just hates hunters because they kill animals ... One can't reason with these sorts, they aren't usually worth the time or effort. Instead reserve those resources and time for educating the first group of actual hunters, shooters, fishers, and influencing the uncommitted middle group, the majority of the population.

A good way to influence the middle group is with actual food. Either to taste or to watch on video. Using venison, antelope, rabbit, duck or fish or whatever, hunting it, butchering it, cooking a lovely recipe with it and seeing the tasty results. Extra points if people can also taste it.

The association between hunting and good food is often a big winner. Saving species through utilisation and managed sustainable conservation. Meat which is free range, non GM, low in fat, and where the beast enjoys life in the wild, the natural world, conserving species, but is also tasty and good to eat. And its utilisation leads to the sustainability of the wild species.