Trophy hunting has taken a beating...

All we are trying to do is get "thoughts/ideas"....

Johnny7604 said:

I hear ya brother. I have racked my brain to try and figure that out. I'm sure an expert in media will have better ideas than me but what about taking an open minded non-hunter hunting. Get them to describe everything from the point of view of someone who has not hunted before.

I don't mean an anti-hunter but and unbiased charismatic professional person maybe even one of some kind of repute or fame and get them on the hunt of a lifetime. A hunt that embodies everything it means to be a hunter and make a documentary about it showing everything, include the facts and figures, the economic and social benefits, and interview the guy along the way and get his/her perspective along the way.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I like it. Now if by some miracle Nat geo or PBS would film this and get it out to the masses we would have people talking.

Peter Flack saw this coming.

http://www.peterflack.co.za/blog/amateur-hunting-bodies-have-failed-their-members/



Amateur hunting bodies have failed their members
Written by Peter Flack

For 25 years my job was to help save failing organisations. A key part of the rehabilitation process was to ensure they had properly funded, professionally managed public relations strategic plans in place, which were measurable and measured regularly. In May 2012, I was asked by a senior executive of a hunting association to convene a meeting of the other hunting bodies to see whether there was a united way to promote hunting and its benefits, including the important role it played in conservation. The meeting went well and was followed by two meetings with a prominent and well respected PR firm. To date, however, nothing has been done to give effect to their well thought out proposals.

So, I am angry. Angry because, despite many warnings and requests, our amateur hunting bodies have done little or nothing to counter the professional PR of the animal rightists and which they have used for years to revile us hunters, to turn us into the pariahs of the western world and the case of the recently illegally poached lion in Zimbabwe is yet just another example of how pathetically poor they have been. When something like this happens, they are about as prepared as the captain of the Titanic and rush around straightening the deck chairs on the sinking ship. There is no crisis management strategy, there is no well-managed, professional, well-considered, coordinated response. They run around like headless chickens and, when eventually a response is forthcoming, it is poorly written, far too little, far too late and appears only in media which hunters read. This is not public relations. This is preaching to the converted!

I belong to five amateur hunting bodies and I have not come across one article or interview from any of them in a major newspaper, TV channel or radio station producing a cogent, well-reasoned response to all the lion hysteria. Why? And where are the regular articles, month in and month out, in a variety of media, showing the key role hunting plays as one of the pillars of sustainable use and conservation to educate those undecided about the benefits of hunting? And what have they done to educate the media in the first instance? I see Blood Lion and The South African Conservation Success Story documentaries being privately funded but nothing by our hunting bodies. Why? I read article after article by people opposed to hunting. I see them quoted on TV and radio and what is the response of our amateur hunting and conservation bodies? Little or nothing. Why?

I can only think of one answer. None of them has a well-funded, written public relations strategy, backed by a written, measurable and measured action plan, run by a top class, professional public relations firm designed to deal with situations like this. If they did, they would have been well prepared for exactly such an eventuality as the current situation. They would have good relationships – built up over many years – with journalists who would have asked them for their responses before publishing some of the ill-informed garbage they have. They would have been inundated with requests to appear on TV and Radio and been well rehearsed, well prepared and polished in their appearances.

They would have been able to brief the press with well-reasoned and convincing articles based on empirical evidence, showing how hunting is the main pillar on which wildlife and wildlife habitat conservation is built and these articles would have been carried across the media. They would have been unified in their condemnation of illegal poaching, canned and put-and-take killing, as well as the intensive breeding of wildlife to produce animals with exaggerated horn lengths and unnatural colour variants and hybrids. They would have made us proud to be hunters.

Did they, for example, know that the TV program, Carte Blanche, was going to carry an insert on hunting on Sunday 9 September? And, if they did, why did they not secure an invitation to put across their views?

Instead, what do we have? It has been left to Rosie Cooney of the IUCN to write the only article I have read recently in response to the illegal lion killing that can remotely be seen to fit the above bill and I set out a copy of it below. I also set out an open letter I wrote two and a half years ago to all hunters, including the executives of the hunting and conservation associations to which I belong. It gives me no pleasure now to say, “I told you so”. It gives me no pleasure to contemplate the excuses, the angry and nasty words that will be flung around now but, the long and the short of it is, they have failed us.

It is not as if they do not have the money. It can only be that they are either incompetent or living in a fool’s paradise or both. No business of any size in the private sector is run without a coherent, written public relations strategy backed up by a detailed, written action plan. How in Heaven’s name could the executives of our organisations possibly think that, under the ever growing threats we have been under for years, we could continue to survive as is, let alone prosper, without something similar?

As a senior officer bearer of a hunting association branch said, “Just because we are an amateur hunting body does not mean we want to be managed in an amateur manner… And we must not think because some of us are only shooters or occasional meat hunters that the knock on effect of this attack, which is mainly directed trophy hunting, is not going to affect all hunters and shooters negatively.”

They have failed us. Simple as that. I can only hope that, at the next AGM of your hunting and conservation association, you bear this at the forefront of your mind when you vote for the candidates. Things cannot continue as if nothing has happened. As if nothing has changed. It is time for all good hunters to stand up and be counted and vote for competent, proactive, business orientated hunters who know how to manage and can bring about the changes needed. Failing this, we need to think seriously about forming, funding and joining a new hunting and conservation organisation based on unashamedly ethical principles with clear, business based plans to represent us properly.

RIP Cecil the lion – what will be his legacy? And who should decide?
Guest post by Rosie Cooney – 31 July 2015

Outrage over the death of Cecil the lion has led to calls for a ban on trophy hunting, but would this have the desired results?

Cecil the lion, a magnificent and much loved senior male, was lured out of a safe haven in Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park last week and illegally shot, to endure a protracted and painful death.

Global outrage and calls for a ban on trophy hunting have followed, but what would be the consequences if such a ban was introduced?

Trophy hunting is the “high value” end of hunting, where people (often wealthy and mainly Westerners) pay top dollar to kill an animal. In southern Africa an area close to twice the size of the region’s national parks is used for trophy hunting.

It arouses disgust and revulsion – animals are killed for sport and in some cases (as with lions) not even eaten. Even the millions of weekend recreational hunters filling their freezers are uncertain about trophy hunting.

It seems to have little place in the modern world, where humanity is moving toward an ethical position that increasingly grants animals more of the moral rights that humanity grants (in principle at least) to each other.

So let us move now through the thought bubble where the European Union and North America bans the import of trophies; Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe and others ban trophy hunting; the airlines and shipping lines refuse to carry trophies; and the industry dies a slow (or fast) death, ridding the world of this toxic stain on our collective conscience.

Would a ban save lions?

We turn to survey southern Africa, proud of what we have achieved by signing online petitions, lobbying politicians, our Facebook shares and comments. Did we save lions? Have we safeguarded wildlife areas? Have we dealt a death blow to wildlife trafficking? Have we liberated local communities from imperialistic foreign hunters?

Let’s go back to Hwange National Park, the scene of Cecil’s demise. The Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, responsible for managing this park, derived most of its income for wildlife conservation across the country from trophy hunting. With minimal revenue from central government (not well known for its good governance and transparent resource allocation), it is now in trouble.

Hwange staff have been radically cut, and there is little money for cars or equipment. Bushmeat poaching is on the rise and the rangers are ill equipped to cope. The commonly used wire snares are indiscriminate, and capture lions and other predators, who die agonising and pointless deaths.

Communities pay the price

In Namibia, more than half of the community-owned conservancies (covering 20 per cent of the country) have collapsed because the revenue from non-hunting sources (mainly tourism) is not enough to keep them viable.

Namibia’s innovative communal conservancies have been responsible for dramatic increases in wildlife outside of national parks, including elephant, lion and black rhino over the last 20 years, with income from trophy hunting and tourism encouraging communities to turn their land over to conservation.

Communities retain 100 per cent of benefits from sustainable use of wildlife, including tourism, live sales and hunting – almost 18 million Namibian dollars in 2013.

This money was spent by communities on schools, healthcare, roads, training, and on employing 530 game guards to protect their wildlife. Now it is gone. A few conservancies have managed to find wealthy philanthropic donors – but they cross their fingers the generosity will continue to flow for decades to come.

Communities are angry – they were never asked by the outraged what they thought about this. Few journalists or social media activists ever reflected their side of the story. Their right to make decisions for themselves has been expropriated by foreign people, who are not accountable or responsible for living with wildlife.

Disappearing wildlife

Where the conservancies have collapsed, wildlife has largely been wiped out. The bad old days have returned, and wildlife is worth more dead than alive.

Hungry bellies are fed with illegal bushmeat and the armed poaching gangs have moved in. Communities are no longer interested in helping police to protect wildlife, game guard programmes have collapsed for lack of funds, and rhino horns, lion bone and ivory are being shipped illicitly to East Asia.

In South Africa, trophy hunting has stopped, including the small proportion that was “canned” (where the lion is effectively trapped). On the private game reserves that covered some 20 million hectares of the country, though, revenues from wildlife have collapsed.

Those with scenic landscapes that are easy to access and have adequate infrastructure can make enough from photo-tourism to be viable. But other landowners are returning to cattle, goats and crops in order to educate their children, run a car, pay their mortgages.

Wildlife on these lands has largely gone along with its habitat – back to the degraded agriculture landscapes from before the 1970s when wildlife use (including hunting) became legal here. Lions that were on these farmlands are long gone, and those that remain in national parks are shot as problem animals as soon as they leave the park.

Speculative? Yes, but a reasonable prediction. This has happened before.

Bans on trophy hunting in Tanzania (1973-78), Kenya (1977) and Zambia (2000-03) accelerated a rapid loss of wildlife due to the removal of incentives for conservation. Early anecdotal reports suggest this may already be happening in Botswana, which banned all hunting last year.

Let us mourn Cecil, but be careful what we wish for.

Rosie Cooney is chair of the IUCN’s Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy(CEESP)/Species Survival Commission (SSC) Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group. These views do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.

Dear Hunter,
By Peter Flack

As a businessman I have learned over many years that, for any organisation to succeed, whether it is a club, church, company or country, it needs four things. Firstly, leadership and, preferably, strong, decent, visionary leadership. Secondly, a written plan, something most people call a strategic plan and that plan must be in writing or else it is merely a wish, a hope or a prayer. Thirdly, it requires a management team (who have been intimately involved in the preparation of the strategic plan) to implement it and this management team should be both coherent and cohesive in the sense that they should amongst themselves have all the attributes and skills necessary for such implementation. Finally, the strategic plan should be broken down into small, measurable, bite size bits – an action plan if you like – because unless you measure performance regularly you will almost certainly not obtain the desired result.

The strategic plan breaks down into a number of individual or sub strategies of which one of the most important is the marketing strategic plan. Marketing consists of a number of different facets, namely, sales, advertising, public relations, strategic planning itself and what many people call true marketing, in other words, developing a need in your target market for the products or services which you produce.

Having run a number of companies quoted on stock exchanges in South Africa and around the world and having spoken to many of my peers doing similar things, I can honestly say that none of us would have attempted to run any of these organisations without a dedicated public relations strategy. The obvious question to ask, I suppose, is why?

I clearly remember my introduction to the field of public relations. It was at the start of my first corporate job as a 35 year old CEO of a mining contracting company. I was shown a print advertisement displaying the photograph of a large, grumpy, middle aged man sitting in a big, old fashioned, wooden chair, facing the camera. He had the face of an English bulldog and wore a three piece suit, English brogues and a gold watch chain across his waistcoat. The words beneath the photograph read as follows, “I do not know your name. I do not know the name of your company. I do not know what products or services your company supplies. Now tell me again why you think I should do business with you?”

The man who showed me the photograph and whose firm I have used many times as my public relations expert, went on to explain that everyone has a public image, whether he or she likes it or not. You can either choose to manage that image yourself or the market will do it for you and, in the latter case, you will almost certainly not like the end result.
Both of these examples apply to the hunting industry. The general public do not know what products or services the industry supplies and, as we have not managed or marketed our image, the public has done it for us with the help of animal rightists and the result has been that, as hunters, we are inevitably on the back foot and the defensive when it comes to portraying hunting and the critical role that it plays in conservation whose foundation is built on sustainable use.

To give you an example how many companies, in this case let me call it Company X, make use of professional public relations firms, let me describe the following:

1. In the warm summer months, every week, Company X would typically entertain a journalist, investment analyst, banker or investor for lunch during which time X would give him a short fifteen minute presentation (supported by documentation and photographs which he/she could take away), of what X had been doing, what X were currently doing, what X intended to do and how X intended to do it over the next three/six/twelve months.
2. During the cold winter months X would take groups of these people on tours of their facilities, always including an overnight stay in order to cultivate these people in a social, as opposed to business, environment.
3. The public relations firm was tasked with ensuring that a positive article concerning the affairs of X would appear in a newspaper/magazine/trade journal/on radio/TV, at least once a week/month/quarter.
4. The public relations firm also provided a weekly clipping service whereby they provided copies of every publication mentioning X or the businesses with which X was involved.
5. X would meet with the head of the public relations firm at least once a fortnight and he would often attend board meetings by invitation as it is critically important that such a person is intimately involved with and up to date concerning all the operations of the company for the simple reason that, should an emergency occur, there is never enough time to then start briefing your public relations firm. It goes without saying that it is also then too late to go and instruct one for the first time.
6. One of the objects of the exercise is to ensure that, over time, X becomes the spokesman for their industry and that, whenever there is a major event affecting that industry, X is contacted by the media for comment before anything is published. In addition, and probably more importantly, should X, its staff or the industry itself make a mistake, as one or more of them inevitably will, that X is given an opportunity to comment before X reads about the adverse publicity in a newspaper or listens to it on the radio or watches it on TV.

No one in the hunting industry is doing anything remotely like this and it is, therefore, no wonder that, when we become aware of negative publicity affecting the industry as a whole or one or more of its constituent organisations, that we appear a lot like termites when someone stabs a stick into the nest. We rush out, usually each in a different direction, while the hard, wooden stick is focused and keeps on prodding at the same spot, killing more and more of us termites as we continue to rush out from the same hole.

In May I attended the four day conference of CIC – The International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation in Cape Town at which every speaker, almost without fail, mentioned the critical importance of conveying to the general public the vitally important roles that hunting plays – ecologically, economically and culturally – in the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitats and how the failure to do so is not only playing into the well organized and well funded hands of the animal rights movement but is having the most dire and detrimental negative effects on wildlife and wildlife habitats.

The major organisations concerning hunting in this country are well known but, for the sake of completeness, let me mention them here, namely, the Confederation of Hunting Associations of South Africa (CHASA), the Professional Hunting Association of South Africa (PHASA), the South African Hunting and Game Conservation Association (SA Hunters) and Wildlife Ranching of South Africa (WRSA). During and after the above conference I met with representatives of these bodies except WRSA – they did not attend – and they agreed, in principle, to the following:

1. To hold a joint strategic planning session in order to determine those in areas of common agreement and interest amongst them which could benefit most from being managed by a professional public relations firm.
2. The appointment of a professional public relations firm on a three year contract to manage these issues for them.
3. The contribution of R20.00 per member per year to fund the fees of the professional public relations firm.
4. Once a quarter for each member to:
   1. Host a lunch for members of the media selected by the public relations firm at which they will provide brief presentations on various aspects of hunting and conservation, in general, and the organisation’s activities, in particular;
   2. Invite members of the media selected by the public relations firm on an outing to demonstrate practical aspects of hunting and wildlife conservation, for example, to a firing range, a game capture operation, a hunt, a game lodge;
   3. Provide the public relations firm with information which will support an interesting article on an aspect of hunting and wildlife conservation preferably demonstrating its role in the ecological, economic or cultural aspects of wildlife and wildlife habitat conservation.

Each year the four members will meet, taking turns to do so at one another’s offices, to review the public relations strategy and amend it, from time to time, as may be dictated by prevailing circumstances. As Winston Churchill famously remarked, “I reserve the right to change my mind in perfect harmony with changing circumstances.” Should the members be unable to reach consensus on any of these decisions, then such decisions will be determined by majority vote, each member having one vote for every R20.00 they contribute to the funding of the public relations fees.

To date, none of the above has come to pass despite one or two encouraging meetings amongst the main organisations referred to above.

While it is unlikely that the benefits of the public relations program sketched out above will be fully felt until the third year, unless we start now, that a third year will never come. As a businessman of many years standing, I can honestly say that there may be other ways to manage effectively but, if there are, I not only do not know what they are but I do not know anyone in business who does and this is certainly what I currently teach at University business schools in two provinces. Following this course of conduct has allowed the management teams of a number of companies of which I have been fortunate to form part to turn around their operations from the brink of bankruptcy to success and, in the famous case of Randgold, from a share price of R3.50 to R42.50 in five years.

If we value our hunting; if we would like our children and grandchildren to hunt; if we believe that hunting is part of our cultural heritage; if we believe that, without hunting, in the medium to long term, there will be no wildlife to hunt and no wildlife habitats for them to inhabit; if we believe that hunting makes economic sense for our country then, surely, R20.00 per year per hunter is not too much to ask for and I would urge you, plead with you, beg you to actively support the initiatives of these four organizations not only monetarily but also by offering to host the media on your ranch, by writing articles demonstrating the positive effects of hunting and suggesting members of the media and other opinion makers who would benefit from such exposure.

Most importantly, however, I would ask you to ask the office bearers in your hunting organization why they are not doing anything like this to protect and promote the hunting we all hold so dear.

I thank you so much for taking the time and trouble to read this.

hunthardsafaris said:

Peter Flack saw this coming.

http://www.peterflack.co.za/blog/amateur-hunting-bodies-have-failed-their-members/

Click to expand...

Just got that email a few minutes ago, good timing I guess. I have exchanged a couple of emails with Mr. Flack in the past. I know that he and Craig Boddington are friends. I think I will email Peter and provide him the link to this thread and invite him to join the discussion.

The article mentioned above is precisely what I have been say here on AH for months. PR firm PR firm PR FIRM....We could have really mitigated the damage caused by anti hunters. The hunting world as I have said is way behind the times in the fight to preserve our beloved sport. Do I hesitate to say sport?...You know I caught myself doing that as I was typing. If I hesitated imagine what the anti's feel like. They must feel empowered beyond belief. They rant and rave the get media attention the get print attention and why not.....We have said ZERO. If someone doesn't step up to the plate and unite us I fear we have not seen the worst yet. Don't put it past our gov't to ban international trophy hunting. God help us all if that happens. And no one to blame but ourselves.

S.W. Smith said:

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.

Click to expand...

Let's agree to disagree on this. I think we need to focus on traditional media just as much as social media, if not more. Social media can whip up a furor in no time, but traditional media has staying power. We need to focus on both.

We also need to understand that our message is counter-intuitive. People do not intuitively get that killing animals is (sometimes) good for conservation of animals. We all have to spread this message one person at a time, but we need to get our organizations to band together and come at this on a global level - and I'm quite serious about this. We are losing battles all over the world - countries closing to hunting; airlines refusing to take trophies; European countries closing to CITES species; Australia refusing imports of lions, etc., etc. etc.

Since we all agree none thing - that our organizations need to get together and work on this collectively, we need to send that message out to them. If everyone undertook to send an email today, to SCI, DSC, etc., we might make a difference.

It's worth a try.

Hank2211 said:

Let's agree to disagree on this. I think we need to focus on traditional media just as much as social media, if not more. Social media can whip up a furor in no time, but traditional media has staying power. We need to focus on both.

We also need to understand that our message is counter-intuitive. People do not intuitively get that killing animals is (sometimes) good for conservation of animals. We all have to spread this message one person at a time, but we need to get our organizations to band together and come at this on a global level - and I'm quite serious about this. We are losing battles all over the world - countries closing to hunting; airlines refusing to take trophies; European countries closing to CITES species; Australia refusing imports of lions, etc., etc. etc.

Since we all agree none thing - that our organizations need to get together and work on this collectively, we need to send that message out to them. If everyone undertook to send an email today, to SCI, DSC, etc., we might make a difference.

It's worth a try.

Click to expand...

I think all avenues of mass communication should remain on the table for the time being. If a PR firm is hired, I would think that is where their expertise comes into play in prioritizing where resources (i.e. $$$) are assigned.

PHOENIX PHIL said:

I think all avenues of mass communication should remain on the table for the time being. If a PR firm is hired, I would think that is where their expertise comes into play in prioritizing where resources (i.e. $$$) are assigned.

Click to expand...

I agree Phil. As Peter Flacks article said PR firms make the right media and journalists connections. They seek out the PR firm on these matters once they know who represents hunters. Leave it to the professionals. Sure as I m typing this they will do a better job of representing us than dare I say SCI. Sorry but just look at the state of affairs throughout the hunting community. SCI IMO has failed us miserably in speaking publicly when things like this occur. Even a media statement regarding the airline ban should have been addressed to defend law abiding hunters. Instead nothing. I've been a long member of SCI but am seriously rethinking my membership.

Michael Bane had a really good pod cast today that is worth taking a half hour to listen to. Start at minute 29:20 at the link below on today's title;

Nemsis Arms, Ruger Redhawk and that Lion...
http://outdoorchannel.com/down-range-radio

It is somewhat deliberate and methodical, so some people will find it to have a bit of slow start and deliberate pace, but Michael does a very food job of delivering a "cohesive message".

Offering the anti-hunters that chance to put their money where their mouth is - this would need t be done tactfully.

Ivan posted a status update August 6 offering to take anyone interested on a safari for Cape Buffalo, complete with the up-close stalks that hunters routinely make. The participants would close to within ethical shooting distances, set up, and "shoot" a buffalo—with a camera. In return, they would pay the same amount a hunter would expect for a similar hunt: $3,000 for the trophy fee, roughly $1,250 per day for the actual trip, plus the anti-poaching and community fees that are required. In total, the photo safari would cost between $20,000 and $25,000.

The problem is you have people sitting behind a computer, tweeting away, that have never been to Africa and do not understand Sustainable Conversation - have a look at the below:

As I mentioned I emailed Mr. Flack and informed him of this thread and invited him to join us here. I received a reply from Eileen Flack, not sure what the family relationship is there, but she said Peter would be reading this thread.

So if you've not already seen this Peter, I do hope you will join AH and participate in this discussion. Looking forward to meeting you in Dallas!

TMS said:

How can we as hunters/ph's/guides and outfitters help turn the tide? I would like all involved to share any ideas that could help. @johnnyblues mentioned in another post, why not get a PR firm to help.

Lets see if we can put something constructive together.

Click to expand...

Simon, I strongly believe in the PR angle here to defend,educate, and battle. Battle the anti hunting movement and educate the public on what hunting is all about and where the dollars go. The word trophy hunting is a touchy phrase for sure. Maybe that word needs to be removed from a public forum while educating them I m not sure. But I know in my heart we need professional assistance in educating the general public, not only to defend us but to expose folks like PETA and others who donate very very little to conservation.

No one except hunters understand where our dollars go and none of them who donate to anti hunting groups realize the money they donate never or rarely gets to the wildlife. We understand the antis are completely naive to protecting wildlife. Their only agenda is to stop hunting. If only someone would put together a documentary on hunting, conservation, and the anti hunting point of view and have it shown on Nat geo or PBS we may truly educate the public. Now I realize that could be very touchy for us, so we certainly need someone who will not further bash us. The documentary needs to be slanted more towards hunters and conservation. Putting a film together would have to be very tastefully done for sure as showing hunters next to dead animals offends some people.

S.W. Smith said:

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.

Click to expand...

S.W.,
I like that approach....creative and would deliver a good message.

barryk said:

S.W.,
I like that approach....creative and would deliver a good message.

Click to expand...

Love is S.W... That's a great start. It quite apparent at least to me that SCI and DSC have no idea how to combat the anti hunting folks we have today. This is why we need a high powered PR firm. I know it cost's money but no one can convince me the money somehow could not be raised. We are always fighting back once were knocked down. Hell I don't like it at all. Look at the airlines ban, look what almost happened with the 4457 forms, look at Cecil etc etc. Once anti hunting sentiment set's in it's like a cancer. I applaud Shane's video but as I said who is seeing it? With need national media attention, we need the kind of attention the NRA brings out. If they are coming on board to help hunters as I ve heard this would be huge. I would love though to see a "born free" style documentary on the good hunting provides to the wildlife and to the people of Africa.

johnnyblues said:

Love is S.W... That's a great start. It quite apparent at least to me that SCI and DSC have no idea how to combat the anti hunting folks we have today. This is why we need a high powered PR firm. I know it cost's money but no one can convince me the money somehow could not be raised. We are always fighting back once were knocked down. Hell I don't like it at all. Look at the airlines ban, look what almost happened with the 4457 forms, look at Cecil etc etc. Once anti hunting sentiment set's in it's like a cancer. I applaud Shane's video but as I said who is seeing it? With need national media attention, we need the kind of attention the NRA brings out. If they are coming on board to help hunters as I ve heard this would be huge. I would love though to see a "born free" style documentary on the good hunting provides to the wildlife and to the people of Africa.

Click to expand...

JB,
I received my September/October 2015 Safari Magazine in the mail today....I would just as well see them drop the magazine and put the money toward an aggressive PR campaign.....I suppose they need the publication to promote membership but even shifting some of that magazine expense to PR would be more beneficial to our cause.

Thank you for the kind words, gentleman!

15 years ago I said very publicly that hunters needed to stand with shooters. Now it's time for shooters to return that favor.

I'm not sure how to turn the tide. I can control my shows on OUTDOOR CHANNEL, but I am preaching to the choir.

Michael Bane