- Bill Cooper
- Sep 17, 2024 Updated Sep 17, 2024
- Comments
- https://www.thesalemnewsonline.com/dent_county_life/article_6d57844c-7540-11ef-866f-df810234b8eb.html
Sportsmen all over America have celebrated the success of the North American model of hunter-funded conservation, but the approach contained a flaw that is now threatening to undo the grand works of an entire generation of conservation minded people.
Hunters and conservationists have been so single-mindedly focused on saving, enhancing, and restoring wildlife habitat, that they forgot to tell the 95 percent of Americans who do not hunt what we were doing to vastly improve the fish, wildlife and landscape of our country. In the wake of our many conservation success stories, a coalition of animal rights groups have exploited our blind spot to make hunting culturally toxic to an ever-growing number of Americans. Simply stated, we were distracted by meaningful work while anti-hunting groups reinforced their stranglehold on the court of public opinion.
While sportsmen were busy renewing forests, creating the national wildlife refuge system, managing prairies and other habitats, anti-hunting organizations ran largely unopposed in the cultural realm as they co-opted corporate media, intimidated big brands into submission with mass social media campaigns, harnessed big tech, and cultivated celebrity ambassadors for their cause that included famous names like Leonardo DiCaprio, Paul McCartney, Ricky Gervais, Alec Baldwin, Pink, and Olivia Moon, and many others.
The top ten anti-hunting organizations alone boast a combined 31 million members, have almost 7,000 employees, and generate $1.1 billion annually. Humane Society of the United States and PETA alone account for 19 million members, about 4 million more members than America has hunters. And there are hundreds more anti-hunters groups. Think about that.
While our hunting community was planting seeds of a better future for wildlife, anti-hunting groups were busy sewing seeds of doubt about hunters in the minds of the majority of Americans who do not hunt. One of the most recent prices of our negligence to educate is the rise in the idea of ballot box biology-the ability of animal welfare groups to buy signatures and place anti-hunting propositions on state ballots. These groups know that fewer than 5% of Americans now hunt, so the vast majority of the country’s citizens are vulnerable to being swayed with emotional campaigns that, to date, have trumped the narrative that science-based wildlife management is the only logical path forward. In the process the antis have marginalized the role of fish and wildlife agencies by attacking their science and credibility in the eyes of non-hunters.
While we often see outdoor industry funded polls that show that the majority of Americans support hunting as a wildlife management tool. The results of those polls do not seem to hold up in the face of ballot measures with emotionally charged media and well-organized educational campaigns. Anti-hunting groups have defined ‘trophy hunting’ as abhorrent to the mainstream (although it doesn’t represent reality) and are looking to change the language to make it synonymous with all types of hunting. They have successfully influenced the public as hunting groups have largely left those assertions unchallenged. Big mistake. Hunters are often so insulted from mainstream viewpoints they are sometimes dismayed that most people in this country do not realize all the good that have done for wildlife.
Roughly 26 states have the referendum process, which is often referred to as ‘direct democracy,’ where citizens, not elected officials, make key decisions. That is the apparatus the sporting community has built to lobby legislatures and the Congress is mostly irrelevant against propositions decided by the will of uninformed voters or a public under the media influence of special interests. As noble as direct democracy may sound, the process has become little more than fertile ground for anti-hunting groups to wield their influence in the court of public opinion.
Colorado is the frontline of this new war on wildlife, a proving ground where anti-hunting groups are perfecting the model they will most assuredly transport to a state near you very soon. This November it’s an effort to ban mountain lion, bobcat and lynx hunting (never mind that lynx barely exist in Colorado and aren’t currently hunted or trapped). The strategy behind it is clear: If successful, the anti-hunting groups will eventually create an abundance of apex predators on the landscape through their ballot measures (wolf introductions, black bears—which cannot be hunted over bait or with hounds—and mountain lions). When that happens, the question will be why do we need hunters to control elk and deer populations? Guess what the answer will be by the 95% of the population that does not hunt?
It’s easy to write Colorado off as having been surrendered to the Californication of the West, an isolated island of irrationality. But, ask yourself if hunters in your state are prepared for a vote on the efficacy of hunting when 95 percent or more of the population has no vested interest and limited understanding of its benefits? Would your hunting friends and family be prepared to push back against well-funded emotional campaigns that are not bound by truth, where our opponents have bought scientists to support their specious narratives?
As a hunting community, we’ve been flat-footed in our response and are very late to the mainstream messaging wars. We celebrate our conservation successes mostly with ourselves, convincing one another that we are the true champions of conservation, and we are. Problem is, few in the mainstream know the species and habitats that have been resurrected because of the efforts and dollars of hunters, that we have cleaner air and water, and healthier soils because of the efforts of those same people.
We have reached an inflection point now where the camo coalition of hunter-funded unlimited, society, and forever groups must pivot and embrace a broader mission to build enduring connections to the mainstream. Self-imposed Pittman-Robertson taxes (our money) must be shifted to include managing hunting as a brand to the mainstream, something far bigger and bolder than the well-intentioned but limited R3 program (the industry’s effort to Recruit, Retain and Reactivate more hunters). Simply put, if we do not have hunting, who will care about habitat efforts anyway? No hunting means no conservation funding and, with that reality, is this how the celebrated North American conservation model dies?
The question we all have to answer is, what are we willing to do to win and preserve the lifestyle of hunting, which defines our very existence?
Sportsmen all over America have celebrated the success of the North American model of hunter-funded conservation, but the approach contained a flaw that is now threatening to undo the grand works of an entire generation of conservation minded people.
Hunters and conservationists have been so single-mindedly focused on saving, enhancing, and restoring wildlife habitat, that they forgot to tell the 95 percent of Americans who do not hunt what we were doing to vastly improve the fish, wildlife and landscape of our country. In the wake of our many conservation success stories, a coalition of animal rights groups have exploited our blind spot to make hunting culturally toxic to an ever-growing number of Americans. Simply stated, we were distracted by meaningful work while anti-hunting groups reinforced their stranglehold on the court of public opinion.
While sportsmen were busy renewing forests, creating the national wildlife refuge system, managing prairies and other habitats, anti-hunting organizations ran largely unopposed in the cultural realm as they co-opted corporate media, intimidated big brands into submission with mass social media campaigns, harnessed big tech, and cultivated celebrity ambassadors for their cause that included famous names like Leonardo DiCaprio, Paul McCartney, Ricky Gervais, Alec Baldwin, Pink, and Olivia Moon, and many others.
The top ten anti-hunting organizations alone boast a combined 31 million members, have almost 7,000 employees, and generate $1.1 billion annually. Humane Society of the United States and PETA alone account for 19 million members, about 4 million more members than America has hunters. And there are hundreds more anti-hunters groups. Think about that.
While our hunting community was planting seeds of a better future for wildlife, anti-hunting groups were busy sewing seeds of doubt about hunters in the minds of the majority of Americans who do not hunt. One of the most recent prices of our negligence to educate is the rise in the idea of ballot box biology-the ability of animal welfare groups to buy signatures and place anti-hunting propositions on state ballots. These groups know that fewer than 5% of Americans now hunt, so the vast majority of the country’s citizens are vulnerable to being swayed with emotional campaigns that, to date, have trumped the narrative that science-based wildlife management is the only logical path forward. In the process the antis have marginalized the role of fish and wildlife agencies by attacking their science and credibility in the eyes of non-hunters.
While we often see outdoor industry funded polls that show that the majority of Americans support hunting as a wildlife management tool. The results of those polls do not seem to hold up in the face of ballot measures with emotionally charged media and well-organized educational campaigns. Anti-hunting groups have defined ‘trophy hunting’ as abhorrent to the mainstream (although it doesn’t represent reality) and are looking to change the language to make it synonymous with all types of hunting. They have successfully influenced the public as hunting groups have largely left those assertions unchallenged. Big mistake. Hunters are often so insulted from mainstream viewpoints they are sometimes dismayed that most people in this country do not realize all the good that have done for wildlife.
Roughly 26 states have the referendum process, which is often referred to as ‘direct democracy,’ where citizens, not elected officials, make key decisions. That is the apparatus the sporting community has built to lobby legislatures and the Congress is mostly irrelevant against propositions decided by the will of uninformed voters or a public under the media influence of special interests. As noble as direct democracy may sound, the process has become little more than fertile ground for anti-hunting groups to wield their influence in the court of public opinion.
Colorado is the frontline of this new war on wildlife, a proving ground where anti-hunting groups are perfecting the model they will most assuredly transport to a state near you very soon. This November it’s an effort to ban mountain lion, bobcat and lynx hunting (never mind that lynx barely exist in Colorado and aren’t currently hunted or trapped). The strategy behind it is clear: If successful, the anti-hunting groups will eventually create an abundance of apex predators on the landscape through their ballot measures (wolf introductions, black bears—which cannot be hunted over bait or with hounds—and mountain lions). When that happens, the question will be why do we need hunters to control elk and deer populations? Guess what the answer will be by the 95% of the population that does not hunt?
It’s easy to write Colorado off as having been surrendered to the Californication of the West, an isolated island of irrationality. But, ask yourself if hunters in your state are prepared for a vote on the efficacy of hunting when 95 percent or more of the population has no vested interest and limited understanding of its benefits? Would your hunting friends and family be prepared to push back against well-funded emotional campaigns that are not bound by truth, where our opponents have bought scientists to support their specious narratives?
As a hunting community, we’ve been flat-footed in our response and are very late to the mainstream messaging wars. We celebrate our conservation successes mostly with ourselves, convincing one another that we are the true champions of conservation, and we are. Problem is, few in the mainstream know the species and habitats that have been resurrected because of the efforts and dollars of hunters, that we have cleaner air and water, and healthier soils because of the efforts of those same people.
We have reached an inflection point now where the camo coalition of hunter-funded unlimited, society, and forever groups must pivot and embrace a broader mission to build enduring connections to the mainstream. Self-imposed Pittman-Robertson taxes (our money) must be shifted to include managing hunting as a brand to the mainstream, something far bigger and bolder than the well-intentioned but limited R3 program (the industry’s effort to Recruit, Retain and Reactivate more hunters). Simply put, if we do not have hunting, who will care about habitat efforts anyway? No hunting means no conservation funding and, with that reality, is this how the celebrated North American conservation model dies?
The question we all have to answer is, what are we willing to do to win and preserve the lifestyle of hunting, which defines our very existence?
Exposing the Big Game 