Commentary: Hunters have an undeniable branding problem

(Editor’s note: Russ Mason is a regular contributor to Michigan Outdoor News.)

The word “hunter” has five defined meanings:

• A person who hunts game,

• A dog used or trained for hunting,

• A horse used or adapted for use in hunting with hounds,

• One that searches for something,

• A pocket watch with a hinged protective cover.

None of these definitions associate hunting or hunters with wildlife conservation.

Among explanations for the implied disconnect, perhaps the simplest and best is the unflattering way that hunters are presented in the media. As examples, consider: Elmer Fudd, the two goofball hunters in Men in Black I, Walter Palmer (aka, Cecil the lion killer), the professional hunter/villain in the Robin William’s film Jumanji, poaching incidents that clutter news feeds, i.e., “law enforcement needs public help in identifying…”, or “Iowa farmer nabs antler thieves…”.

MORE HUNTING COVERAGE FROM OUTDOOR NEWS:

Outdoor Observations: EHD impacts Michigan hunters in some areas as reported harvest goes over 170,000 after opening weekend

Pennsylvania bull hunters do well in elk hunt, cow harvest down

Tom Pink: Where are the ducks in Michigan?

Not surprisingly public approval of hunting is always higher (usually much higher) than approval ratings for hunters. The consequences of this difference are more than semantic.

More than 90% of Colorado’s registered voters say that hunting should be legal. Simultaneously, 45% of these same voters voted in favor of a proposal to ban lion, lynx (a federally listed endangered species for which no hunting season exists) and bobcat “trophy” hunting earlier in November.

Although hunters have an undeniable branding problem, there’s a plausible remedy.

State-based wildlife councils (nimrodsociety.org), like those already operating in Colorado and Michigan, educate the non-hunting public about the value of hunting. Because evidence shows that council outreach and marketing can shift public attitudes towards hunting, perhaps it’s time to explore whether councils can make a difference in public attitudes towards hunters.

To provide context, the two states with established wildlife councils are Colorado and Michigan. Logistically, both councils are separate from the state wildlife agency and supported by a small ($1-1.50) surcharge on hunting and fishing licenses.

When Michigan initiated its Wildlife Council in 2012:

• 39% didn’t think hunters were responsible people.

• 42% didn’t think or didn’t know whether hunters followed regulations.

• 61% didn’t think or didn’t know whether management was important for healthy wildlife populations.

• 44% believed or didn’t know whether legal regulated hunting led to species extinctions.

Today, 84% of Michiganders support hunting and 89% believe that hunting is important to the state’s culture.

Now, suppose that wildlife council marketing efforts went beyond hunting, per se, to communicate similarities between hunters’ values and those of the non-hunting public.

For example, survey data show that 82% of Americans (hunters and non-hunters alike) support animal welfare but oppose animal rights. This may be why animal rights organizations misleadingly label their agencies as “animal welfare” when promoting and funding animal rights and anti-hunting agendas.

Here’s how two animal rights proponents spin their support for Colorado Prop 127:

According to the actor Robert Redford, “Mountain lions and bobcats are vital to the ecosystem, and their lives should not be reduced to trophies or pelts. Banning trophy hunting and fur trapping is not just about protecting these magnificent creatures, it’s about safeguarding the integrity of our natural world for future generations.”

According to Samantha Miller, campaign manager for Cats Aren’t Trophies (CAT), Prop 127 “is not an anti-hunting issue. This is an-every-Coloradan issue. You know animal cruelty when you see it, and this is an opportunity to fix that.”

(Editor’s note: As of Nov. 12, with 95% of precincts reporting Prop 127 had 54.8% no votes)

These are the obvious implications about hunters from these statements:

• Hunters only care about is trophies and pelts (again, this despite the fact that Colorado law explicitly requires hunters to save the meat from harvested lions and bobcats);

• Hunters do not care about healthy, sustainable populations of mountain lions (this despite the fact that regulated hunting grew the lion population in Colorado from about 125 (in 1965) to 3,800 to 4,400 (today);

• Hunters do not care about conserving wildlife for future generations (spectacularly untrue and contrary to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation);

• Hunters engage in animal cruelty (this despite the fact that all regulated hunting is premised on the Fair Chase concept of a painless, quick kill).

Bottom line: Hunters’ image problem is more than the occasional tasteless Facebook post.

Animal rights and anti-hunting organizations aim to convince non-hunters that hunters, unlike them, are mean-spirited and thoughtless oafs, or what Annie Proulx called “those faceless grey men who eat deer all year long” (The Shipping News). Wildlife Council marketing campaigns have been shown to improve the image of hunting, so why not task them to do the same for hunters?

For more information about the Wildlife Council concept, visit nimrodsociety.org.