Trophy hunting has taken a beating...

[enysse]

S.W. Smith, you bring up a lot of great points. The outdoor TV is filled with a lot of BS. Yes, those people do hunt on the best properties, properties not even the avg. hunter will ever hunt. I know a lot of people disguised with all of those shows. I don't mind them, but I watch it with a day dreamers mentality.
You are right also, it's hard to find a shooting range in the USA anymore, lawyers and regulations ended many.
Like you said no one likes to give out there hunting or fishing information or show another person how to hunt anymore....frankly I could go anywhere 30 years ago, now everything is leased up or closed off to hunting, it's getting very expensive.
I do get people that want to go out West in the USA to hunt, but when I mention costs, most are turned off immediately....even on public ground it's not cheap. And it's cheaper to go to the grocery store and buy steak as they tell me.

 

[K-man]

After a discussion at a "social event" it came across that I was a hunter. I explained that on my second safari, over 4000 lbs of meat was donated to the anti-poaching patrols, the local villiage and school. I also explained the difference between hunters, meat poachers, and the gangs of organized ivory/rhino poachers. I also explained my trophy fees paid the anti-poaching patrols, and protected even the rhinos that we couldn't hunt. The real kicker is when I told them the land used to be a cattle ranch with almost no wildlife on it 25 years ago. I then asked them what they would change about it if they could. Only one person said if you could go and take only pictures, that would be a good solution. I asked them what they would pay to do that, and then THEY realized the math wouldn't work. I realize that I am in Oklahoma, with a bit more normal outlook, but the message needs to get out what we ACTUALLY accomplish with our hunt fees, not just vague ideas.

 

[johnnyblues]

Eco tourism..

View attachment 46562

I shamelessly copied this from a similar post over on another forum.

Is this really what they want..??

What a sad image...

Even the lioness with her back turned seems disgusted

 

[johnnyblues]

Simon...get a low cost film team into Moz....make a documentary about what you are trying to build from scratch....make it show what time, money and effort it takes to do it...those not too thickheaded will get the message....about who the real conservationists are..

Great idea. But how do we bri

Simon...get a low cost film team into Moz....make a documentary about what you are trying to build from scratch....make it show what time, money and effort it takes to do it...those not too thickheaded will get the message....about who the real conservationists are..

Great idea but how do we bring it to the masses?

 

[Royal27]

Great idea. But how do we bri

Great idea but how do we bring it to the masses?

This is where we need someone like an Ivan Carter to step up and go main stream. Supposedly this was why he left Tracks, to do a more main stream show. He announced that at DSC last year. Haven't heard anything about it since though.

And the way he handled the lion thing on FB didn't raise my confidence....

 

[S.W. Smith]

I think a PR campaign would be huge. There are all those infomercials that show starving children in Africa. How about a hunting commercial showing a whole village pigging out on an elephant, then we cut to a hunter who says, "I fed a village in Africa." Then you show a beautiful scene of the sun coming up over a pristine plain covered in animals, cut to a hunter to says, "I helped keep this land wild." Then you show a rhino grazing in a field, cut to a hunter who says, "Rhinos still exist because of me." Second to last you show a game warden who says, "Thank you hunters for helping me protect my land." Finally you cut to a hunter who says, "Thank you Africa for allowing me to be a part of the world." I'm just spit-balling here.

 

[tag soup]

Another good pro trophy hunting article in the NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/w...t_tnt_20150810&nlid=24002923&tntemail0=y&_r=0

 

[billc]

I think another thing we as hunters overlook is joining with the people who could give us the way to get the word out. The hunting groups talk to hunter and look to have a one side view to the people on the fence. We need to get the hollywood people or sports stars who hunt and do the shooting sports to speak up just like all the clueless ones do to try and stop it.

There is others out there that are scared to talk up because we dont do a good job of uniting all hunters. Like him or not you have people like donald trump and his family who has hunted in africa you dont think he knows people at the different airlines or the right people in the media to help. It is time we reach out and think outside the box to help the sport we all love.

 

[Hank2211]

It's a big mistake to assume that our problem is driven by social media. That's true, of course, so far as it goes, but the mainstream media picked up this story and ran with it. Newspapers in the UK, the US, Canada, all covered the story - not once, but on an ongoing basis. TV, including the national news in these countries, did as well. Radio - including our national broadcaster here in Canada, same thing. Many of them looked for and took opportunities to keep the story alive. In fact, there was another story about it in our national newspaper today, and local columnists have picked up the story in our local newspapers. Almost all were against the killing of Cecil, and against trophy hunting. Most recently the story was extended to the airlines banning the shipment of trophies (which hit me this week, unfortunately). And I've already seen references to the movie "Blood Lion" in the mainstream media. More, I'm sure, will come. Overtime this issue shows signs of dying down, the antis will be ready with a new story to keep it alive.

Most of the people who I know are more or less in my age group (50+) and most of them don't get their information from social media, yet all were informed, all were asking, and while if they care to listen I can - and do - make the case for hunting, it's clear the mainstream media is having an influence.

The focus on the antis and social media is, I think, misguided. We need to keep the majority of non-hunters, who read or watch and are influenced by traditional media, on our side.

This problem was created by professionals - people whose business it is to exploit the media, social and traditional, to get a point across and to fundraise. We will need to be equally professional in our response. And that means that very few individuals or organizations will have the means or the knowledge to take this on. SCI can certainly do it, and as a long time member, I wonder, are they? The one press release I have seen to date was totally inadequate and unhelpful. I certainly hope they are putting some great minds to work on this problem. This will be the great issue facing hunters over the next decade, I believe, and we need to go into this battle at least as well equipped as those spreading the big lies.

 

[Mr. 16 gauge]

This is the mind set......we here all know it, but anybody that thinks that the antis know what they are talking needs to be shown this video!!!

While this apparently was shot in the U.K., I've seen similar incidents in the USA as well......

"PETA......taking STUPID to a whole new level since 1980!"

 

[siml]

@Mr. 16 gauge , that video just about sums it's up.

@UKHunter . thanks for the offer, I will have a discussion with the Moz govt next week about filming, see if they will support a project like that.

 

[siml]

It's Friday afternoon, busy fighting rush hour traffic to get to KFC...I wish, picking up villagers to cut up elephant meat. Thats the closest they will ever come to KFC or Mc Donalds. 48 people.

 

[S.W. Smith]

It's a big mistake to assume that our problem is driven by social media. That's true, of course, so far as it goes, but the mainstream media picked up this story and ran with it. Newspapers in the UK, the US, Canada, all covered the story - not once, but on an ongoing basis. TV, including the national news in these countries, did as well. Radio - including our national broadcaster here in Canada, same thing. Many of them looked for and took opportunities to keep the story alive. In fact, there was another story about it in our national newspaper today, and local columnists have picked up the story in our local newspapers. Almost all were against the killing of Cecil, and against trophy hunting. Most recently the story was extended to the airlines banning the shipment of trophies (which hit me this week, unfortunately). And I've already seen references to the movie "Blood Lion" in the mainstream media. More, I'm sure, will come. Overtime this issue shows signs of dying down, the antis will be ready with a new story to keep it alive.

Most of the people who I know are more or less in my age group (50+) and most of them don't get their information from social media, yet all were informed, all were asking, and while if they care to listen I can - and do - make the case for hunting, it's clear the mainstream media is having an influence.

The focus on the antis and social media is, I think, misguided. We need to keep the majority of non-hunters, who read or watch and are influenced by traditional media, on our side.

This problem was created by professionals - people whose business it is to exploit the media, social and traditional, to get a point across and to fundraise. We will need to be equally professional in our response. And that means that very few individuals or organizations will have the means or the knowledge to take this on. SCI can certainly do it, and as a long time member, I wonder, are they? The one press release I have seen to date was totally inadequate and unhelpful. I certainly hope they are putting some great minds to work on this problem. This will be the great issue facing hunters over the next decade, I believe, and we need to go into this battle at least as well equipped as those spreading the big lies.

I have to respectfully disagree. The focus is on the younger generation and they most certainly are influenced by social media. Traditional media is for all intents and purposes, dead. The large majority of people get their news from their Facebook feeds, Reddit, and from Twitter links, and they use these same forms of communication to spread misinformation.

Hunting suffers from a serious lack of on demand access to information about hunting and all its facets; information that is not very well disseminated. Part of that, I believe is due to the fact that hunting is very monetized and the information is gated so to speak. Take for example, domain names. Let's assume you wanted to know something about hunting. Maybe you try hunting.com. Nope, that's a redirect to Bass Pro's hunting gear section. How about hunting.org. Again redirects to a site which will redirect you to the sale of hunting gear. If you want to learn about hunting you either have to know someone who hunts, which for the vast majority is usually a parent who taught you to hunt, or you have to dig your heels in like I did and learn as much as you can. I was fortunate enough to find someone who is willing to take me hunting and get started. Without help or a serious interest people will form limited opinions on hunting based on limited information. Do you honestly think the average person read more than one or two Facebook posts about Cecil before forming an opinion? They didn't come here in droves and seek information. They didn't contact their Fish and Game or conservation agencies. They weren't prompted by TV spots to go to a website to learn more about how hunters keep African animals from going extinct. They didn't do any of these things because the information isn't presented to them in meaningful ways.

I do agree with you however on your point about the professionals, they are supposed to be our industry leaders, our champions and their voices seem mighty small in the world at times.

 

[IdaRam]

Great conversation and a bunch of good ideas expressed so far. There is no limit to what we can accomplish if we band together and pool our resources.
It seems that some of our major challenges will be; a) coming together with a cohesive targeted message b) what are the most effective mediums to deliver the message to the target demographic and c) FINANCIAL
Hopefully this conversation is just the start of a movement!
For my part I can pledge the following:
I have a good relationship with some folks at the Outdoor Channel, both behind the scenes and tv personalities. I also have good connections with several tv documentary producers. I expect these folks would take my call and are certainly sympathetic to the cause. I could not promise anything other than an audience. I suspect funding would be the major hurdle to overcome.
Simon, @TMS , if you can move the ball with the powers that be in Moz, I believe I have a real shot at delivering a professional tv documentary crew. Once again, funding dependent.
I will certainly use every contact I have to open the door.
Let me know what you think.

 

[siml]

@IdaRam , "cohesive targeted message" I agree, we need the right front. I will have talks next week in Moz.

 

[IdaRam]

Let me know how it goes Simon. I'm excited about this, I really think it can happen.

 

[enysse]

The large majority of people get their news from their Facebook feeds, Reddit, and from Twitter links, and they use these same forms of communication to spread misinformation.

You are 100% correct, people are glued to their phones
Yes, the people still watch TV, but people love gathering information from web news. It's an important source that most hunting organizations ignore.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I've been meaning to get to this thread since seeing the first post by Simon earlier today. And now it's past 11pm and I'm bushed but a few thoughts before I go to bed.

1. Hiring a PR firm I think is a good idea, but understand their efforts are aimed at getting your message out. They may tweak the message a bit, but we have to provide that message.

2. What should that message be? I think we need to just hammer away time and time again the positive aspects that hunting has on both wildlife and the people that live with and around that wildlife. This is particularly of concern in Africa. The picture above of the people riding out to harvest the meat from an elephant is the type of picture that needs to be out there. Trophy hunting by foreign hunters DOES NOT mean the meat is wasted!

3. Point out that while national parks like Kruger have their place and certainly support people with jobs, it's impractical to make whole countries into national parks. So what about the wildlife outside these parks?

4. A huge emphasis needs to be placed on anti-poaching efforts by the various outfitters. I know Charlton-McCallum Safaris in Zim have their own anti-poaching program in the Dande area. Please look up their website and the DAPU program.

5. Unity : This has been a summer of disunity like I've not seen before in the hunting community. Time to put the bitching and moaning aside, stop getting pissed at each other over petty things, agree to disagree on those issues you can't find common ground on and start acting like adults. We all can agree that the emotional arguments put forth by the anti's are just that, emotional and have no logic. But then we turn around and act like children fighting on the playground with each other. Sorry for the rant, we don't see much of that on AH and without question much less than on other websites. But nonetheless it happens at times. When you wear that AfricaHunting cap, be above that fray and lead by example. And as respectfully as I can, this extends to outfitters too. For example, specifically among the Zim and S. African outfitters. There can be no doubt that there have been RSA outfitters involved in issues that have occurred in Zimbabwe. To the point now that if anything happens in Zim that makes news, there are those that presume a S. African must be involved. And then.......a lion named Cecil came along, and there was no S. African involved. Now some may be inclined to stick their fingers in the Zim's eyes, and while I can understand that reaction all things considered, I say once again to be above that. It does not good to pick at each other and it only plays into the anti's hands.

6. Emphasize that yes doctors (both human and animal) / dentists hunt but frequently they combine their hunting trips with time spent amongst the people in the bush donating their services.

7. I appreciate SCI and what they do. But perhaps change the "First for Hunters" slogan to "First for Conservation" I know the perception and perhaps reality amongst some folks is that SCI is an old boys club that spends more time handing this and that award to their more well to do members. Reality or perception, it's up to SCI to control this. Again if you are thinking I'm bashing SCI, I'm not, but that is at least the perception that many have who are hunters. So what does the average anti/non hunter think?

8. SCI / DSC / RMEF / DU / FNAWS and whoever else I can add to this list......can we not appoint leaders from these organizations to help deliver a unified message that promotes the positive aspects of hunting?

Okay that's enough ramblings for the night. Sorry for the rant and I'm sure this reply is not cohesive, just throwing out some ideas. Looking forward to this thread continuing on and being productive.

 

[UKHunter]

Whatever the way we chose to try and combat this, its needs to be individualised and inclusive. There is no good just trying to educate people about just the benefits of hunting in Africa for example, as to many that has no effect or influence on them. Ideally articles, posts, films, etc are made to represent all forms of hunting across the globe, such as the UK, UK, Australia, etc.

A series of TV shows, each 10-15mins long, representing hunters, the local community, the benefits, the reasons why but also the reasons how. If each show was presenting a different country it would be a good start to combat the issue.

A good idea as mentioned above, would be to get figures of influence in society to back the video and even appear in it.

 

[siml]

Phil, some great input. Thanks.