EXPOSING BIAS KEY TO RETAINING OUR HUNTING RIGHTS

A short time ago, I posted a rant on the Stand (here) and elsewhere via social media, that drew some considerable critical response. Nothing unusual in that; my opinion pieces and randomly shared views often get the public’s blood up, but the mail I received from hunters in response to this particular rant, genuinely surprised me.

The rant in question took the form of a response to an article published in a small rural paper (here). Said article centred on the plight of a swamphen that had been seen in a public area, impaled with an arrow. The article carried the headline, “Swamp hen used for target practice” and the journalist quotes witnesses to the bird’s plight, who claim that the swamphen had been targeted by a hunter – sorry  –  a cruel and vicious hunter. I say witnesses to the bird’s ‘plight’, because no-one actually claims to have witnessed the event that caused said plight. In short, the notion that ‘a hunter’ was responsible, and that the bird was deliberately ‘targeted’, is nothing more than simplistic speculation.

Some appear to think my response was an effort to cover for an irresponsible archer. Nothing could be further from the truth. I abhor both abject cruelty and the illegal ‘hunting’ of native species. However, there is not a single shred of evidence cited in the article that could not just as easily be put down to an arrow overshooting a target to impale a hapless swamphen that lay in long grass behind it, leaving the target archer – not a hunter – absolutely none the wiser.

I must say I was absolutely gobsmacked to discover that hunters were all too willing to draw and promote the same speculative conclusion proffered as fact by the WIRES ‘expert’ & Co.

There is nothing to be gained by hunters standing up to condemn actions based on scenarios that are pure supposition. To do so simply adds fuel to a fire that doesn’t even warrant a match. The public expects hunters to critically and angrily disassociate themselves from acts of cruelty.  It is all too predictable and serves only to give the public the impression that even hunters don’t approve of hunters.

For far too long we have been working on the assumption that if only we can find an argument cogent enough, we will strike some Aristotelian “golden mean” that will result in the antis appreciating our point of view. It will never happen! Objections to the hunters’ culture tend to be the stuff of core values, and core values are inviolate.  But there is a simple strategy, overlooked for far too long, that will go a long way towards preserving our rights, if only we have the will and the unified commitment to implement it.

The battle for the future security of our culture and hunting rights will be won or lost in the court of popular opinion, which is controlled by the media. As anyone who has tried will tell you, getting a positive hunting story in the paper – any paper – without it being editorialised negatively and to death is nearly impossible, so we have to think a little creatively. We also need to redefine our core objective.

In many respects we are very lucky. The vast majority of people don’t care if we hunt or not; they are unconcerned about the fate of the average feral pig or deer, until the antis, through their manipulation of the media, give the public cause to care.

Politicians, by and large, do not act to change legislation (laws) unless there’s a vote in it. Ergo, The Greens and the antis strive to incite anger in the community that will move politicians to act in order to garner votes, or at least not lose them.  The key to winning the battle therefore lies not in convincing the antis and the general public that what we do is noble and glorious or even just OK. The key lies in ensuring that the public continues not to care either way, and unlike the battle to turn the antis to our cause, this is perfectly achievable.

We need not struggle to get positive hunting stories into the papers if we learn to take strategic advantage of the fact that anti-hunting stories will certainly appear. The trick is two-pronged 1. get a word in on their coattails, and 2. Make sure that word is focused on why the antis’ view of the world cannot be trusted.

Alas, the second prong requires restraint and that’s a sacrifice that few are willing to make. It is important not to succumb to the temptation to tell the reader too much about why hunting is a good thing. Rather, one must respond in such a way as to imply that fact, and have faith that the public will draw the right conclusions. This requires a consistent approach over time, but it can be done.

My response to the swamphen story is an example of this strategy in play. A potted version will almost certainly appear in the Readers’ Letters section of the relevant paper. My response does not, as some appear to believe, make excuses for an irresponsible archer; rather it challenges suppositions and casts doubt on scenarios that would almost certainly be accepted as fact if permitted to go unchallenged.

We should make a concerted effort to respond to such stories, wherever they might appear. We must respond quickly and calmly and with logical and considered rebuttals that focus on deconstructing the antis’ simplistic version of the ‘facts’. Do this consistently and we begin to chip away at their credibility, exposing the antis’ lack of concern for the truth, just as long as their version of events suits their paranoid world view and associated objectives.

This strategy requires a centralised coordinated approach. It is my hope that the newly formed Field Archers and Bowhunters Branch of the NSW Shooters and Fishers Party will assume that role, but your assistance will be required too. The FAB will need the support of archers, bowhunters and fair-minded people throughout NSW willing to be on the lookout for vexatious reports in their local media, with a view to bringing them promptly to the FAB’s attention.

If we successfully sew the seed of doubt antis’ biased brand of truth, at the very least we will ensure that the public continues to feel justified in not caring about hunting, either way. And surely that’s more than half the battle won?

Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now......

If you would like to receive notifications when new posts are uploaded to the Hunters' Stand, send your name and email address to thehunterstand@gmail.com  This service will not include notification of new comments. All information provided will be treated with the utmost confidentiality and discretion.