So far all I have heard is Nick Pinizotto from USSA 2 times on CBS and now this news of Cameron Haines doing something on HLN.
I personally am very disappointed at SCI. They fell all over themselves to get out the press release on Dr Palmer's suspension but have fell silent since. How about P&Y, GSCO, B&C club where are they? Do they not have anything to say? We go away they go away.
We seem to be getting past the railroading of one poor hunter and now it is trophy hunting in general that is up front stage. Do we not risk losing the attention of folks if we wait to long to speak up. The big networks are still running stuff so people are still listening. The major airlines saw a chance to promote and get some free PR and jumped on it. We will seldom get a bigger audience to speak to than right now.
I don't see NRA run and hide when something terrible happens it has never seemed to hurt them to much.
I agree, now is the time. For a good spokesperson. A young, not unattractive, guy with a nice haircut and minimal facial hair (read--guy next door, not crazy uncle Si), who can speak, argue passionately but not crazily, and is knowledgeable.
The one that comes to me off the top of my head is Steven Rinella. I haven't watched much of his stuff, but have seen a few things that he's done in public, and his American Buffalo books is very very good
Jim Shockey also would be great, eh.
It might help with the fence-sitters. The ship has already sailed with the crazy antis
Came down on Palmer, but nothing else.
Show what happens to meat when it legally taken by a hunter vs meat left to ruin by poachers.
Show how poaching is so damaging- black market sales, loss of game numbers (short& long term), loss of revenue for a country which could benefit jobs, roads, education and provide food for the hungry.
Show how/ how much sportsmen fund toward conservation projects. Show results from the conservation projects.
Show how a country in Africa reaps monetary benefits of sport hunting- employment of people, funding education projects, conservation projects, food for people, etc.
We don't do a good job of telling our story- just showing off trophy animals (which is turning the general population off and turning the antis on).
That's because we hate each other as much or more than the antis do.
On a macro level this country needs to stop allowing minority rule on every issue! Make sure you vote next election because we get the government we deserve!
Charlie you are absolutely right and everyone should be doing that every day whenever an opportunity presents itself. I do that and it is the most effective just like word of mouth and meeting people is the best method I have to grow my business. That does not mean I don't advertise through whatever means are the best to reach a lot of people. A person has to hear a message several times from several places to be effective.
Timing is important why do you think the airlines jumped in the fray so quickly and did not wait for 6 months to announce. In 6 months they would have never gotten on every network show out there several times in one day like they did now. Doubt the networks would have even mentioned it. Other than a few traveling hunters and a handful of zealots it and they would have gotten the message over months it would have been a pretty ho hum moment.
But as a journalist, it danged sure appears the antis are far, far more passionate and dedicated to their cause than hunters.
Take a look at the comments section below about any article that supports hunting. Usually anti-hunters dominate things 10 to 1.
They're very well organized. We run a pro-hunting story and we get hammered from across the nation.
We did a story in spring of 2014 on Theresa Vail hunting turkeys with her dad, and the antis started creaming us within about two hours after the article was up online.
Hunters mostly just had comments about her looks, or took shots at her shooting form.
I get a few e-mails from people on a good pro-hunting story, but that's it. Again, anti's dominate, especially with the online comments they know others will be reading.
There needs to be more proof/documentation of this trickle down affect. There's a lot of inference that big game hunting fees benefit only the landowner. ' The point I try to make is that the proof is in the pudding.' Places that properly regulate and manage a 'game' resource as a renewable resource having intrinsic economic value, have flourishing game populations. This alone should be evidence to the point that animals given a value, become valuable to the locals who otherwise would see them as competition and a burden.
Seriously though, a woman has a lot of clout because people pause to think about it, where as with a man, "Neanderthal" immediately comes to their mind
Back when I lived in a suburban neighborhood and we'd bring deer back froma trip we'd hang them in my garage and then after a few days start cutting them up. I'd leave the door partially up for ventilation.
At first my wife was concerned about the neighbors having an issie with it as to my knowledge none of them hunted, but I told her that this is what I do and it's part of the hunt. I wouldn't flaunt it but I'm not going to completely hide it either.
After a year or so of this one of the neighbors asked me if I was going hunting again and that they really liked the fact that we USED the animals we killed and didn't waste anything and were impressed that we did it ourselves. That seemed to be the biggest issue for them.
Point is, for the people who are non-hunters but not ANTI hunting, the idea of using and not wasting game is a big one. This I believe, should be one of the top priorities in any image/message we try to portray.
Ask a hundred people of the general public if they heard of Jim Shockey, you may get one or two... Ask a hundred if they heard of Kevin Costner, and bet close to 99% do...
I have had people approach me and tell me that they are pleased to see that the meat is being put to good use. I have been having wild game dinners for years, where I invite my hunting friends to come over.
Within the past couple years, I have invited some higher profile, local non-hunters into my home. We'll cooked them a kick-ass meal and given them a level headed explanation of why we hunt.
I live in western New York. It is very rural, and hunting is far more accepted here than it is in the eastern part of the state. Nonetheless, if my efforts change the minds of only a couple people, I still view it as a positive.
Charlie Rehor X 2.....just be a positive minded, positive example of bowhunting. Being an advocate or an ambassador of our sport at a grass roots level can have an impact....especially if we all try to do at least one thing on a frequent basis, which promotes conservation and bowhunting in a positive light.
I find that what you do, when no one is watching, is the best determinant of your personal ethics. If you don't like what you see when you look in the "bowhunting mirror", it is never too late to change. Your progeny will thank you for it....I know that I will....If you DO like what you see, share it with others.....please.
Regardless of the selection, I would hope the individual is someone that think well on their feet, so when a microphone is shoved in their face, they are able to respond in a manner which reflects favorably on the hunting community in general.
I wanted to follow up and let you know I did visit with Mr. Burkhalter on the telephone this morning and SCI is planning an offensive to counter the antis. The PR Firm has been hired by SCI to spearhead the campaign and the thought process is to wait until the emotional reaction subsided and people actually would think clearly with facts vs with emotions. The PR company has monitored the hits on cecil, trophy hunting, SCI, etc and the time is about ripe for SCI to start the offensive, both on a national and state level with a uniform message of factual information. Everyone knows we hunt, but few of the non-hunters realize the benefits gained from trophy hunting. On the national level, they will be broadcasting the economic benefits that trophy hunting brings, preservation of habitat, etc. The PR firm has picked up on the blurred lines that are tossed out incorrectly by the anti-hunting crowd between trophy hunting and poaching that will be addressed. On the state level, Washington will be reaching out to the regional and state guys to do the same thing, but on the state level for SCI. They will need to find someone that is well known/liked/presents themselves well to know and present the facts. The Wall Street Journal was one venue mentioned, as well as others, i.e., radio, possibly television. This will be an ongoing pro hunting campaign to educate the public even when the lion emotions blow over.
Also, writer said this: "But as a journalist, it danged sure appears the antis are far, far more passionate and dedicated to their cause than hunters." Sadly, I think he's spot on with this. This is the most discouraging piece of all of this. Here on bowsite most people share pretty similar beliefs on bowhunting and hunting in general (even though there's obviously lots of infighting). The antis also share similar beliefs. Their beliefs are being disseminated much more loudly and clearly by the popular press in the U.S. The majority of people in the US whose beliefs fall in between the bowsiters mentality and the antis mentality are really hearing only one side- the loudmouth antis. This, to me, is the most frustrating and discouraging piece of all of this. The "bad guys" are winning this fight by being louder and more passionate. Are they more passionate? Are we ashamed to stand up for what we believe in?
A few things -
Randy is a great spokesman, if you're talking to middle-aged white guys who kill things. Very few people have heard of him, and all the antis and non-hunters know what he's going to say. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to meet the guy and share a dinner or a campfire.
Look, the bad guys used emotion and so should the good guys. Rather than a guy like Randy, or some huntress in camo stretched out beside a dead zebra or giraffe, how about an African woman, from a village where legal hunting IS the local economy.
The woman walking her kids to a school that's been built by hunter's dollars and into a medical clinic from the same. Or a mother in a village in a place where legal hunting has been stopped, like Kenya, where there is no such economy, no elephants, no lions, no rhinos.
The Wall Street Journal is a great publication, and without a doubt the most highly respected in the world. It can help change policy and grab attention of those who make policy.
I did a lot of work for them for 15 years. A lot of the pro-conservation articles we did got a lot of attention and won some major awards. Over a four year stretch Winchester ammo sponsored the "Good News on Hunting " contest to encourage such articles in non-hunting publications. WSJ articles got three firsts and a second. (A Sports Illustrated article on 100 years of pheasant hunting in the U.S. :-) ) (Dang sure miss that kind of prize money.)
"My Daughter, My Hunting Buddy," about the relationship my 12 year-old daughter, Lindsey, and I had formed because of our time hunting and fishing drew a ton of positive reviews. (Proud to say it was the idea of my editor at WSJ, which showed the paper's dedication to showing the good of our side.)
Still, I'm in 100-percent agreement with Scoot that we'll lose this battle because the other side is more passionate, more willing to write that letter to the editor, more willing to post a comment on the bottom of anti and pro-hunting articles.
Want to know who can change this thing? Look in a mirror.
We should be our OWN "spokesperson" for hunting.
I'm a lifelong hunter and even I don't know who most all the people mentioned here are and I've never read, heard or seen them. The general public is going to have absolutely NO idea whatsoever, no less read or hear them. At best they are known to only a FRACTION of the hunting world who actually watches hunting shows on TV.
Now that doesn't mean give up on these groups! That means these groups need to learn from the mistake and make sure they don't miss the boat next time. Or maybe they've got something planned I don't know about.
They could have at least said that the facts are quite cloudy at the moment and that they will be proactively responding in full when they are more clear about them. Plus, they should have been saying in the meantime that people should not be jumping to conclusions so early based only what obviously emotional activists are spouting and/or what a questionable government is claiming to have occurred.
In my experience being in Big Pharma, too many layers of lawyers involved usually brings about this kind of result of silence, which can look even worse IMO. We members should be letting SCI know just how disappointed we are with the way they handled this early on. They missed an golden opportunity to defend us with the whole world watching.