SCI Kicks Up Its Game To Protect Hunting

[LivingTheDream]

@Philip Glass I will admit then I was wrong on the PR firm. I hope they do a better job in the future. Both on the defensive and offensive side.

 

[AfricaHunting.com]

SCI does use a Public Relations firm named Howard Communications, Inc (http://www.howardcommunications.com). Not sure to what extent they do work for SCI but it seems to me that their function is more to disseminate their message. I'm not certain but that is my impression.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Whoa hold on a minute! SCI does have a PR firm and I spoke to the man who owns it at the Saturday banquet. Yes they can do more but let’s not get off track here.

Ok, What's his plan of attack on the anti-s or doesn't SCI have one?

 

[Philip Glass]

Ok, What's his plan of attack on the anti-s or doesn't SCI have one?

Ask them.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Ask them.

I don't need to. It's obvious through their website they're mainly a feel good PR company who's main output is blah blah blah, this is what we do, aren't we special type of information.

 

[Dragan N.]

I simply think SCI is just a name. Are they really defending hunters? Where is the massive PR campaign against antis? The antis have gained so much ground in recent years in the court of public opinion and yet SCI has largely remained silent. Do you realize how hard it is to get back public opinion once it becomes engrained in their minds. If they were to respond immediately on attacks to our sport maybe just maybe some folks would say ok wait a second. I m sure in Washington they do work on issues but to me it seems quite slow to see benefits for hunters. I have not been a member for some time and don't see myself going back unless they prove to me they are getting real results. There just seems to be so many issues unresolved. Just my opinion.

Part of the reason why the antis have been more effective comes down to $$$. The HSUS and PETA and some of those other huge anti groups have budgets (through donations) that run in the tens if not hundreds of millions a year. I doubt SCI has the same kind of funds available. Another funny thing is if you look at the budgets of the HSUS and PETA one of their biggest expenditures is advertising. So they use people's $$$ to promote themselves and thus get more $$$ from donations. A very small part of their annual budgets actually goes towards directly "helping" the animals that they claim to care so much about. They also invest tens of millions in PR firms etc... and $$ talks. Bigger $$$= bigger influence.

Now I don't know what SCI's budget is in a given year but from what they claim they invest millions in actual boots on the ground initiatives. But I have no idea what their budget for PR, advertising etc... is, maybe someone in the know can share but I would assume its a lot less than that of the HSUS.

 

[IdaRam]

I’ve been very frustrated (understatement) and quite critical of SCI in the past. So many things to find fault with, but I also recognize it is easy to be an armchair quarterback. There have been times when I’ve felt like not renewing my membership. But when I think about it after I’ve calmed down, I come to the conclusion that would be a mistake. There are a bunch of check marks in the positive column too. One huge positive is all the wonderful things the local chapters across the county do. Not sure about other chapters, but my local chapter does an annual coat drive for school kids. This year they also bought shoes and socks for kids that needed them for school. Every spring/summer they have a retreat for kids and parents who wish to participate, need not be an SCI member. There is horseback riding, archery, education about hunting and conservation, etc. Helping and educating the community is a big focus. Especially those members of the local community who are less fortunate or have serious challenges in their lives.
There are a bunch of wonderful, kind and giving people who are members of SCI.
I will continue to support SCI, even though the head-shed kinda pisses me off sometimes. The old saying about not throwing the baby out with the bath comes to mind

 

[J.Ogilvie]

I didn't follow the Cecil controversy that much after the initial drama, so please correct me if I am wrong with what I am about to say but as a non-member of SCI, here are just my two cents.

Regardless of whether or not the hunt was legal, I think that the conduct of Dr. Palmer and the Outfitter left much to be desired (i.e. using a dead animal tied to the back of a truck to lure the lion out of a protected area, wounding said lion and leaving it to die painfully from a bad shot).

I think that SCI knew/knows that, in the contemporary world, hunting advocacy is an almost vertical uphill battle and the antis will use anything they can to attack and slander hunting and hunting groups. We have been making some good progress in recent years with advocating for hunting and demonstrating its value as a conservation tool, so I completely understand their reluctance in this case.

Again, I may be wrong with my knowledge of how the hunt was conducted and I do apologise if that is the case. Still, I think that what I said can be applied to similar situations, and it is known that Dr. Palmer has broken game laws in the United States in the past.

 

[BSO Dave]

Regardless of whether or not the hunt was legal, I think that the conduct of Dr. Palmer and the Outfitter left much to be desired (i.e. using a dead animal tied to the back of a truck to lure the lion out of a protected area, wounding said lion and leaving it to die painfully from a bad sh

I'm not bashing you, because you are self-admittedly unfamiliar with the details and facts pertaining to that lion hunt. However, your comments above suggest that you got your information from the wrong sources. Big cats of Africa are baited with scent drags all the time. This is the norm.... The false narrative that this specific lion (Cecil) was targeted and intentionally lured from a protected area is more BS...The cat was being bow hunted, and unfortunately wounded. It happens.... Not what the PH or the hunter intended I can assure you.... The cat was ultimately tracked and finished. "LEAVING IT TO DIE PAINFULLY FROM A BAD SHOT" is another BS statement taken directly from the anti's book of rhetoric. If you know anything about hunting, and specifically bow hunting you would not have given any credibility to this statement.

Again, I may be wrong with my knowledge of how the hunt was conducted and I do apologise if that is the case. Still, I think that what I said can be applied to similar situations, and it is known that Dr. Palmer has broken game laws in the United States in the past.

Any previous violations the hunter may have had has absolutely no relevance to this particular situation. More BS put out by the anit's feeding into the false narrative that this was the act of a bloodthirsty criminal that went to great lengths to intentionally violate the law and kill a "pet" lion. I have a record of a game violation for forgetting to sign and date a tag before dragging a deer to my truck because I forgot a pen in my backpack. I paid the ticket and now I keep a pen in my backpack at all times. Does this qualify me for crucification by my peers in the hunting community?

The SCI had an obligation to defend the rights of all hunters in light of this incident. They had many options and chose the worst one of all, which was to scapegoat this guy and denounce his actions before the facts were in. They had a golden opportunity to get out in front of this and in my opinion, they failed their membership miserably. I can understand politicians and private citizens avoiding this like the plague, but not the SCI for Christ's sake!

I see in another post that a couple of the upper SCI guys are on here to participate in these discussions. I applaud them for that, and I sincerely hope they take the organization on a different tack in the future. I truly hope they are not here to justify or defend past mistakes. That would be an insult to the intelligence of every hunter on here. We will see.

 

[J.Ogilvie]

I'm not bashing you, because you are self-admittedly unfamiliar with the details and facts pertaining to that lion hunt. However, your comments above suggest that you got your information from the wrong sources. Big cats of Africa are baited with scent drags all the time. This is the norm.... The false narrative that this specific lion (Cecil) was targeted and intentionally lured from a protected area is more BS...The cat was being bow hunted, and unfortunately wounded. It happens.... Not what the PH or the hunter intended I can assure you.... The cat was ultimately tracked and finished. "LEAVING IT TO DIE PAINFULLY FROM A BAD SHOT" is another BS statement taken directly from the anti's book of rhetoric. If you know anything about hunting, and specifically bow hunting you would not have given any credibility to this statement.



Any previous violations the hunter may have had has absolutely no relevance to this particular situation. More BS put out by the anit's feeding into the false narrative that this was the act of a bloodthirsty criminal that went to great lengths to intentionally violate the law and kill a "pet" lion.

The SCI had an obligation to defend the rights of all hunters in light of this incident. They had many options and chose the worst one of all, which was to scapegoat this guy and denounce his actions before the facts were in. They had a golden opportunity to get out in front of this and in my opinion, they failed their membership miserably. I can understand politicians and private citizens avoiding this like the plague, but not the SCI for Christ's sake!

I see in another post that a couple of the upper SCI guys are on here to participate in these discussions. I applaud them for that, and I sincerely hope they take the organization on a different tack in the future. I truly hope they are not here to justify or defend past mistakes. That would be an insult to the intelligence of every hunter on here. We will see.

I stand corrected. I am sincerely thankful for your response and for letting me know what really happened. Like I said in my original post, I largely stopped paying attention to the topic due to the obvious tsunami of misinformation that was going around at the time. I wanted to wait for all of the facts to come out and thus I was only left with the information that had been provided during the first month or so of the controversy, a lot of which came from individuals and organizations within the hunting community. I clearly should have checked for new developments since then.

Speaking hypothetically, I still think that some lines will inevitably need to be drawn in order to ensure the continued existence of hunting (i.e. issue like captive bred Lions and canned hunting). Still, there is a time and a place for hunters to have these conversations about self regulation, and I don't think that doing it during a major PR disaster is a good idea.

I can only hope that SCI has learned from this incident and will do a better job in the future. Thanks again for the clarification.

 

[Rick Parsons]

I'm sure the dentist who still has tire tracks on his back from the SCI bus that ran him over will be ecstatic to hear this news. The SCI is all over the road with their identity and what they are and are not advocating as of late. Their first priority should have been to clarify their message in hopes of unifying the membership and ending their hypocrisy. No need to move to DC for that.

Regardless, I sincerely hope that they can move forward aggressively promoting ALL hunters' rights. They need to be initiating the conversations, and not hiding in defense of them. Hopefully, this move and new strategy is not too little too late.

As the guy hitting the road to Washington, I agree - I hope it's not too little too late. But I'm an optimist. I think that there is a lot that we can do to keep hunting from being shut down as the antis would like. So I'm curious. When you talk to your non- hunting friends, what do you tell them about hunting, about why you hunt? What kinds of reactions do you get?

Rick Parson

 

[Rick Parsons]

So your going to move the CEO to DC - BFD. Where are they going to put him (old office still empty?), their building is a converted house that already has staff. And what is he going to do - host cocktail parties? They already have lobbyist and lawyers in the building of which he was one. Sounds like he does not want to live in Tucson anymore.

Actually I like Tucson. What is it that you suggest I do in DC?

Rick Parsons

 

[LivingTheDream]

SAVES Act, Any importantion ban/potential ban, lobby to stop any government subsidies for anti hunting organizations, increase public hunting access, increase funding for conservation in US specifically Western States with limited draws...those were off the top of my head, I know you are working on these but figure it's a good start, haha.

 

[Rick Parsons]

Folks,

It's been very interesting reading the replies to the announcement about me going to Washington. I've already responded to the one guy who said I'm going because I don't like Tucson and I'm going to host cocktail parties. Interesting, but not true.

I'm going to Washington because it's at the center of things. If we are going to live up to our mission we need to be where the action is and right now that is in DC.

In 2016, outfitter and hunting organizations from all over the world met in Atlanta to work out how to deal effectively with the growing impact of the anti-hunting movement. This has led to some good work by several hunting organizations. There seems to be agreement (hard to believe about a bunch of hunters, right?) that a key is to find the right things to say to the the very large segment of the public that is neutral about hunting but is easily swayed. It's a real challenge. It is clear that a lot of the old arguments are not working.

Even in Africa the world is becoming more urbanized rapidly. Population growth, with all its pressures on wild places and wild things is galloping along. It's hard to talk to an ever-growing number of people who have lost touch with the real world. How do you get through to youngsters who think veganism is in and the world lives in your smartphone and on twitter and instagram? But this is what we have to do if hunting is not going to disappear. The antis know this. We need to be smarter.

I'm going to Washington to work with the other hunting groups to figure out how to do this. SCI has just adopted a much more aggressive and focused strategy on communications. We agree that it is the court of public opinion that will determine the future of hunting. We will keep pitching for hunting in DC and Brussels and at CITES like we have done for years, but our focus will be on working with the entire global hunting community to get out there in the public arena and prove that hunting is something to be proud of. Hunters are the most important people in the world when it comes to caring about whether the wild things and wild places continue to exist so that we can continue to pursue the ancient cycles of life and death which tie us to reality.

Okay, I'm off my soapbox. I look forward to your ideas, comments and criticisms. I don't have all the answers, nor does anyone. But I know that if we don't get it together we will be fading memory. We at SCI would rather stand and fight, and we know that a lot of good people all over the hunting world want to do the same.

Rick Parsons

 

[Hogpatrol]

I'd like to see a PR campaign that emphasizes how much money hunters contribute to conservation, how many jobs they provide world wide, especially in Africa and the benefits of maintaining a healthy herd to ensure the continued survival of all species. To the best of my knowledge, other than some self indulgent websites, there is no public awareness campaign on network or cable TV or the web. One may see these issues on hunting or shooting sites but that is like taking coals to Newcastle. Having said that, there isn't a day goes by when I don't see on TV, a thinly veiled anti hunting ad sponsored by one of the their organizations.

 

[Pheroze]

It seems to me that the true test is with the current elephant import debacle. If SCI can work with the fact that Zimbabwe has proven their case, and turn that issue into a positive PR campaign for hunting, then there can be little doubt about the new strategy.

 

[BSO Dave]

So I'm curious. When you talk to your non- hunting friends, what do you tell them about hunting, about why you hunt? What kinds of reactions do you get?

Our non-hunting friends understand and respect our passion. My wife and I are always more than happy to have conversations with them to educate and enlighten them on the benefits of hunting as it relates to conservation and habitat preservation. I also point out the hypocrisy of these other "so-called" conservation organizations, their agendas, and where the money they receive actually goes.

As to why we hunt, the most obvious reason is the deep freezer full of hormone & antibiotic-free venison, wild pork, and fish which we are happy to share with appreciative friends and neighbors. The other reasons for why we hunt are the less obvious ones which include our love and profound appreciation for the spending time in the outdoors, encountering the wildlife, and the many challenges and rewards hunting for them provides us.

Interestingly, I have had several people comment to me that they were undecided or had a negative view until I introduced them to a different perspective. We have actually never had a negative reaction afterward from any non-hunter who was open-minded enough to have a conversation. That reinforces my firm belief that hunters have the obligation to get and stay informed on the facts and the numbers that support hunting as the most successful conservation tool we have. We also need to invest the time to have these conversations whenever possible. As so many folks have said before, it is going to be up to the vast majority of the indifferent and undecided non-hunting public that will determine the future of hunting. It is a pretty easy, common sense argument to make when you consider the silly emotionally based argument of the opposition.

 

[Rick Parsons]

Our non-hunting friends understand and respect our passion. My wife and I are always more than happy to have conversations with them to educate and enlighten them on the benefits of hunting as it relates to conservation and habitat preservation. I also point out the hypocrisy of these other "so-called" conservation organizations, their agendas, and where the money they receive actually goes.

As to why we hunt, the most obvious reason is the deep freezer full of hormone & antibiotic-free venison, wild pork, and fish which we are happy to share with appreciative friends and neighbors. The other reasons for why we hunt are the less obvious ones which include our love and profound appreciation for the spending time in the outdoors, encountering the wildlife, and the many challenges and rewards hunting for them provides us.

Interestingly, I have had several people comment to me that they were undecided or had a negative view until I introduced them to a different perspective. We have actually never had a negative reaction afterward from any non-hunter who was open-minded enough to have a conversation. That reinforces my firm belief that hunters have the obligation to get and stay informed on the facts and the numbers that support hunting as the most successful conservation tool we have. We also need to invest the time to have these conversations whenever possible. As so many folks have said before, it is going to be up to the vast majority of the indifferent and undecided non-hunting public that will determine the future of hunting. It is a pretty easy, common sense argument to make when you consider the silly emotionally based argument of the opposition.

That's an interesting response because we've been advised by some pros in the public relations business that a key to getting the message to non-hunters is to humanize the discussion and to change the conversation.

What this means is that we don't quote statistics, we talk about the thrill of hunting. We don't apologize for being hunters, we talk about how it makes us feel to participate in the world around us .

We started an experiment among the SCI staff about a week ago. We invited people to write short essays about how they started hunting and what it means to them. We got some interesting stories and we've invited our volunteer officers to join in. We will evaluate what we get and we may use those as part of an outreach program to the non-hunting world. Most of the mini-essays so far talk about connection to the world in which the prey lives and connection to family traditions.

I didn't grow up in a hunting family but was always outdoorsy. I worked in the US Fish and Wildlife Service where I learned a lot from some top-drawer biologists and enforcement guys who all hunted and fished. When I adopted my wife's children from her first marriage it was a way for me to get close to my step-son Tom. He taught me a lot about hunting. He is also the best naturalist and most ethical hunter I have ever met. For him hunting is true re-creation. So later in life hunting has become a family thing for me as well.

At our Convention this year Chris Cox of the NRA gave one heck of a keynote address about protecting hunting freedoms. He made an interesting point - he said that conservation is a by-product of hunting done well, it is not the object of hunting. We hunt because it awakens our basic nature and makes us truly alive.

These are the kinds of things that we need to get across if we are going to withstand the pressure on politicians and lawmakers from folks who think we are throwbacks to a brutal age and should be outlawed. So I agree with you that we need to find ways to engage with non-hunters in conversations, not shouting matches. The challenge for SCI and all the other good hunting organizations out there is how to do this on a large enough scale to make a difference before it is too late.

Rick Parsons, CEO, SCI

 

[Rick Parsons]

I don't need to. It's obvious through their website they're mainly a feel good PR company who's main output is blah blah blah, this is what we do, aren't we special type of information.

We all agree that our website doesn't do a good job of telling the story of what we actually do. We're in the middle of giving it a make-over. But if you took the time to read a bit, even on our not-so-good website, you should come away with some better idea of what we actually do.

For example, we spend many man-hours in court battles with anti-hunting groups over the status of wolves. If it was left up to the feds and the anti-hunters using the Endangered Species Act, we'd be overrun with wolves before long and out of deer or elk. Wolves can have their place, but we side with the state wildlife agencies in their efforts to manage wolf populations, including hunting when appropriate, to keep the wolves in reasonable balance with other species. If we weren't in the courtrooms and Congress and the state legislatures doing these battles, the anti-hunting groups would have free reign

On the scientific side, through the SCI Foundation, we put money on the ground to study and understand the complex relationships between predators and prey so that the state agencies have the data they need to set quotas and seasons. Without that work, the antis would have a field day shutting down all kinds of hunts.

We spend hours poring over mind-numbing rule makings from the Forest Service and BLM to assure that they are not shutting down your access to hunting lands or your ability to haul out that elk that you finally bagged. We analyze the proposed rules, develop positions, file responses, get the word out to our chapters and members in the area, make sure the file their own comments, and then follow through, sometimes for years, to make sure that the hunters' voices are heard.

These are tiny examples of the hard, tedious work that keeps you free to hunt.

I wouldn't call that blah blah blah.

Rick Parsons, CEO, SCI

 

[Pheroze]

He made an interesting point - he said that conservation is a by-product of hunting done well, it is not the object of hunting.

This makes a lot of sense. And the point "hunting done well" often makes for a good discussion with non- hunters.