Hunting and Social Media

These days everyone has a high-quality camera in his or her pocket at all times, they also have the ability to share that content with the world, instantly. Generally speaking, that content can then be seen, copied, saved or repurposed by anyone and everyone on the Internet. This is still a relatively "new" phenomenon and recent history has shown that the public can get very passionate about all kinds of issues very quickly, and the reaction is often not one based on knowledge, fact or understanding, it's purely based on emotion and perception of that issue.

"Trophy" or just hunting in general, might be the best example of how the common perception is completely wrong. 95% of those who comment and are offended by hunting have never hunted, don't understand hunting, don't understand hunters or why we hunt, have zero practical real word experience in hunting, wildlife management or conservation. They condemn hunting as a barbaric blood sport and spit venomous hate towards all those who take part.

As hunters, we need to understand that the majority of people don't hunt, and we need to take responsibility for what we post on the internet, how we post it and where it is posted.

We need to take the higher ground and in order to do that, we need to be able to see the story from both sides. We need to understand what the general public think and see when we talk about hunting or show off our hunting images and videos.

- From the Non-hunting prospective -

For argument's sake, think of this simple hunting photo and how that photo might look to someone who doesn’t hunt or has never been exposed to hunting. The person looking at this is not an anti-hunter or an activist, they’re simply a non-hunter. An individual who has never hunted doesn't understand why people hunt or even in some cases given it much real thought to hunting. They're practically disconnected from hunting and the natural environment and have never had hunting explained to them from the perspective of an educated hunter.

When a non-hunter sees a hunting photo, often this is what they see:

At face value, they see a dead animal and two triumphant hunters sitting behind its lifeless corpse. Why are they so happy? Why are they smiling? Without the context of the “hunt”, the way a non-hunter perceives that photo is based on what they know (or what they think they know) about hunting and hunters.

A non-hunter will draw firstly from the common perception of animals and the natural world; where all animals live in harmony, have names and participate joyfully in the "circle of life". Given what they see they can be forgiven to think that a perfect balance in nature exists at all times, absent of any human interference or influence at any level. After a lifetime of watching animal documentaries, natural geographic or in some cases just the Disney’s version of the natural world, #hakunamatata. Constantly we're seeing an “idealistic version” of the natural world and the animals that live there who are constantly given human names, family structures that people can relate too, and we're told a warm fuzzy story to hold your attention.

Without the context and experience that hunters have, this perception of the natural world and animals is all that a non-hunter has to draw on. They're emotionally connected to that dead animal in the photo. They think about the animal's family, and how it's been cruelly torn from its life of harmony.

Next, they attach the negative hunter stereotype that has been reinforced repeatedly from a very young age: that of an uneducated redneck halfwit who gets pleasure from the killing innocent animals, or the rich American trophy hunter who kills an “endangered” Lion for purely the sport, or the callous bastard hunter who murdered Bambi’s mother, or simply the self centred hunter that kills innocent animals to boost their own sallow ego's.

Understand, this is not the fault of the general public or the person view this hunting photo, non-hunters never made a conscious decision to dislike hunters or hunting, they don’t think or feel this negatively towards hunters because they’re out to get us. It’s simply how the general non-hunting public has been conditioned and indoctrinated over time to see hunting and hunters. This has regularly taken place in nearly every form of media since the days of Teddy Roosevelt (who did phenomenal amounts of good for animal conservation, well before it was popular to do so), hunters and hunting have been portrayed in a very negative light.

Take a second to think about it; from children’s cartoons, Disney films, Hollywood blockbusters, and countless popular TV shows the hunter is always the bad guy; a calculated villain or the degenerate half whit. So often "hunting" is used a connotation to indicate when a character is evil or can't be trusted. While on the other hand animals are romanticized and humanized making them more loveable. 

As a result, non-hunters simply can’t comprehend, based on what they know and all the information they're been continually being fed, why anyone feels the need to go into the wild and take an animals life and how on earth they could possibly enjoy the process of doing so.

Granted in New Zealand we have a unique scenario. The perception of our introduced game animals is somewhat different and legally speaking there is no difference between a common ship Rat and a Himalayan Tahr. We live in a complicated melting pot where some New Zealand non-hunters would happily see all warm-blooded animals of all species exterminated completely from the New Zealand environment. This is a subject we will explore in much greater detail in the future but in the short term remember that it is still the non-hunting public in New Zealand that will hold the majority vote based on their perception of hunters and hunting. It's our responsibility to convey hunting in a positive and accurate light, show the public that we care about the conservation of the New Zealand natural environment, and the animals we hunt. Even if they chose not to hunt we need the general non-hunting public to have an accurate idea of why we choose to hunt and who we really are as a group.

- What this means for hunters -

When a hunter sees the same hunting photo we see it in an entirely different light, we accept it because we’re armed with the context, experience, and understanding of what hunting really is and we have our own personal convictions for why we hunt. We understand, that hunting photo is the last part of a journey, quest or mission; be it hours, days, weeks or even years of hunting to reach that moment. We can automatically comprehend the time, work, effort, social elements, personal challenge, personal development and the skill that is required to get to that point. We all see and respect that dead animal in the photo but depending on the scenario we also see a valid justification for its harvest. Be it a sustainable clean meat source for our friends and family, conservation value to the environment, and in some cases a dollar value on the animal itself which in turn provides protection for the greater good of the population and other animals that live there. It's never as simple as a photo may subject, hunting and the reason for hunting is an incredibly complicated and multi-layered scenario in every case.

As hunters, we inherently understand that the smile is fuelled by everything leading up to that moment and the “hunt itself” generating happiness. We’re not simply rejoicing the fact the animal itself is now dead, its far more complicated than that.

Hunters understand the complex set of emotions that we all experience when we take an animals life. There is a respect for the animal itself, a genuine appreciation for the animal, the bittersweet knowledge that the hunt itself is now over, being a part of and connected to the natural environment, and a feeling of responsibility to now utilize that animal to the best of our abilities.

(NB - "Pest control" and in New Zealand the case can be slightly different, but the motivation to better the natural environment we love through reducing numbers is present).

All of this considered it’s simply unrealistic and naive to expect non-hunters to simply “get it” when they see a smiling hunter behind a dead animal. How could they possibly comprehend all of that based on one photo?

That’s like expecting someone to understand fully comprehend the quality of 700-page novel by simply having them read the last page.

As hunters, we have a responsibility to show empathy towards those who don’t hunt and take the time to explain to them why we do it, why it's a huge part of our culture and why it's an important part of who we are. It’s these conversations and our ability as hunters to convey “why” we hunt to the non-hunting population that will ensure we can continue to hunt and retain our social license to do so. (See post "What is the Educated Hunter" for more context on this subject)

- Social Media and Sharing Content Online -

Taking all this into account, as hunters, we need to be conscious of what we post and say online and on social media. We can’t simply ram hunting down the throats of those who don’t hunt and expect them to accept or understand hunting. In reality the "because I F**king can"  kind of attitude when confronted by a non-hunter actually inflicts more damage to hunting and the image of hunters in the public eye. 

Sharing photos or videos of bloodied animals, kill shots, squealing bailed pigs or anything that could be seen as distasteful, disrespectful, or excessive can be easily taken out of context by someone never exposed to these kinds of images. As hunters, we're conditioned to seeing this kind of content, after all, death and all that goes with it is a small part of hunting, but when it's shown out of context it can do real damage. We have a responsibility as hunters to see it from the non-hunting majorities’ side, most people don’t understand or have the context to go along with that kind of material.

We should be proud to be a hunter and we should never apologize for being a hunter. However, in the day an age of social media and sharing we all have a responsibility as hunters to be mindful of what we put out there and how it affects the image of hunters and hunting in the bigger picture.

This kind content is simply ammunition for animal activists and anti-hunters who effectively exploit the emotional attachments the non-hunting population to deliberately make hunters look bad. Think about how often the New Zealand Media uses hunting, firearms and anti-1080 stories as “click bait”; simply pandering to the emotions of the general public and as a result damaging the image of hunting and hunters.

Think about what you’re sharing, where you are sharing it, who can see it, what you say, and how it might look from the perspective of a non-hunter. 

Food for thought,

The Educated Hunter

Whitelock took so much flack over this photo, in the end they had to bow down to the public perception even though he was one hundred percent in the right. I even saw New Zealand hunters giving him stick?! Before you judge, make sure you know what you're talking about, educate yourself.

Just post "Rich Texan teenager kills Giraffe for fun" and watch the internet explode; the reality is that the money she contributed to this ecosystem is one thousand times more practical and real than anyone of her critics who are so quick to judge, spit violent hate and condemn.