Animals Australia’s latest anti-hunting ad campaign has got some hunter’s feathers in a frizz, and no wonder. It carries a number of subtle deceptions aimed at swaying public opinion as much by what isn’t said as what is.
It is these deceptions and how they might be effectively countered that we'll be looking at below.
As a 'Mallard' myself, dabbling in this particular pond is likely to see me marked a turncoat as much by hunters as duck advocates, because on this occasion I agree with Animals Australia - Duck shooting is not a sport.
The question is, does its non-sporting status mean that duck hunting is not a valid recreational activity?
The noun ‘sport’ is generally applied to activities in which people pit their skills against other people. This is clearly not the case with duck hunting, most of the time.
However, there are exceptions to the rule e.g. when people compete against other people to down the most ducks within legal daily bag limits, but this is not the norm.
Duck hunting and fishing are more correctly referred to as recreational activities, pursuits or even pastimes.
As with other forms of hunting, and mushroom collecting for that matter, there is a benefit to duck hunting – food gathering – that transcends simple enjoyment of the shooting activity.
As with other forms of hunting, and mushroom collecting for that matter, there is a benefit to duck hunting – food gathering – that transcends simple enjoyment of the shooting activity.
It is this very important distinction that Animals Australia’s latest ad campaign very cunningly strives to obscure from the equation, for the campaign’s message is not in fact that duck shooting is not a sport, but rather that we think it IS a sport or diversion and nothing more substantial than that.
By replacing the word ‘hunting’ with ‘shooting’, Animals Australia is attempting to plant a subliminal message in the public consciousness i.e. duck shooting is a petty activity from which, as with other sports, nothing is derived but fun and a short diversion from more serious activities such as work.
The result they are striving for is acceptance of a specific image; that of hunters going into the field for the day to have a great old time shooting, before returning home empty handed to put their gear away as one does after a football or cricket match.
Animals Australia wants the public to visualise a swamp carpeted with abandoned dead ducks and this would indeed be a reasonable image to embrace, if the object was simply duck ‘shooting’.
In the great tradition of comparing apples and oranges to justify a patently ludicrous proposition, Animals Australia has enlisted the support of young, healthy Aussie sports men and women to paint a picture of what sport is, so’s to coerce the public into conjuring an image of what sport is not.
If one was possessed of the resources to counter this campaign, the way to go about it is relatively simple.
A poster depicting a healthy young Aussie family, all clean-cut and sans any sign of camouflage clothing or guns, gathered in the kitchen preparing a meal of freshly harvested duck would be a good start. The caption might read something like:
"Hunting - the healthy choice" or
“Responsible duck harvest - the essence of freerange, organic, sustainability, just hours from field to table.”
Clearly, writing grab-lines is not my forte, but the message at least is clear. Duck hunting is a strictly regulated activity, which returns a benefit that is absolutely in harmony with today’s emphasis on healthy living, sustainability and responsible resource management.
It cannot be denied that some birds will be wounded or left behind. However, when compared to the suffering and waste common to other means of meat production relied upon by the general public, duck hunting compares very favorably.
Resourcing a campaign of our own on the scale of Animals Australia’s is problematic, but creating informative memes, while lacking the same impact as a TV advertisement or freeway billboard, can still be an effective way of making carefully considered statements.
The important thing to remember is that the Antis are not the target, so statements should not aim to retaliate, but to counter and inform the public, the vast majority of which is not against hunting - yet.
To do this effectively it is necessary to tease-out the campaign’s main messages, which to my way of thinking are:
- Duck hunting is a ‘sport’ and thus simply an amusement,
- Duck hunters kill for the sheer joy of seeing beautiful birds fall dead or wounded from the sky,
- Duck hunters are cowards.
Rebutting the first of these messages is as simple as creating an image of food preparation or consumption in a wholesome family atmosphere as I’ve outlined above, with a caption akin to “Duck hunting is not a sport. It’s a healthy, sustainable way of life”.
The second could be approached in a very similar manner, with images of hunters dressed in the same clothes everyone else wears day to day, putting neatly packaged ducks in the freezer.
The image could be further ‘normalised’ by packaging the ducks in a vacuum pack or on a plastic covered foam tray, in the same way everyone else’s poultry comes home from the store.
The key lays in displaying the ducks in a manner that makes them ducks by classification only, which is what supermarkets strive for when packaging meat in a way that dissociates it from the animal that yields it. Re-association of meat with animal is Animals Australia's objective, hence the use of a limp and lifeless duck as focal point of the campaign.
To my way of thinking it is the third proposition that offers the most potential - duck hunters are cowards.
For 11 years I was a 24hr emergency response coordinator for a major emergency service. This brought me into contact with an extremely broad range of volunteers, who - in their day jobs - were doctors, nurses, paramedics, policewo/men, firewo/men both rural and metropolitan, surf-lifesavers, search/rescue specialists and all manner of people upon whose bravery the public depends every day.
Perhaps it’s because I live in a rural centre, but I was often struck by the fact an astonishing number of these people were not only volunteers with various primary response services, they were often hunters too.
I have to wonder how the Australia public would respond to someone in a Firey’s, an Ambo’s or even a surf-lifesaving uniform, also wearing or carrying some small item synonymous with hunting, saying:
The second could be approached in a very similar manner, with images of hunters dressed in the same clothes everyone else wears day to day, putting neatly packaged ducks in the freezer.
The image could be further ‘normalised’ by packaging the ducks in a vacuum pack or on a plastic covered foam tray, in the same way everyone else’s poultry comes home from the store.
The key lays in displaying the ducks in a manner that makes them ducks by classification only, which is what supermarkets strive for when packaging meat in a way that dissociates it from the animal that yields it. Re-association of meat with animal is Animals Australia's objective, hence the use of a limp and lifeless duck as focal point of the campaign.
To my way of thinking it is the third proposition that offers the most potential - duck hunters are cowards.
For 11 years I was a 24hr emergency response coordinator for a major emergency service. This brought me into contact with an extremely broad range of volunteers, who - in their day jobs - were doctors, nurses, paramedics, policewo/men, firewo/men both rural and metropolitan, surf-lifesavers, search/rescue specialists and all manner of people upon whose bravery the public depends every day.
Perhaps it’s because I live in a rural centre, but I was often struck by the fact an astonishing number of these people were not only volunteers with various primary response services, they were often hunters too.
I have to wonder how the Australia public would respond to someone in a Firey’s, an Ambo’s or even a surf-lifesaving uniform, also wearing or carrying some small item synonymous with hunting, saying:
“Animals Australia calls me a coward” or simply “I’m no coward!”
I have a feeling the sponsors of certain young Aussie sportspersons would be demanding they learn how to back-pedal very efficiently indeed, whether cyclists or not.
In fact on that point I have to say I’m more than a little surprised these sports men and women were given permission to make such emotive statements while dressed in what appear to be official Australian representative regalia. Doing so suggests their statements have the backing of their respective peak bodies.
One wonders if they’ve fully considered the ramifications of backing claims that so many people the community depends on, often in very dangerous situations, are apparently cowards?
In the final analysis though, I suspect we’re too wedded to the idea we must never give any ground to the Antis, to take advantage of the opportunity they’ve handed us.
We'd rather cry, “Yes, it’s a sport, so what? Screw you!” than give up a word that was never exclusively ours, in order to toss a grenade into the enemy camp.
We have a long and honoured tradition of favouring righteous indignation over strategy and the opportunity to deliver a hammer blow. We’re an odd bunch that way!
I have a feeling the sponsors of certain young Aussie sportspersons would be demanding they learn how to back-pedal very efficiently indeed, whether cyclists or not.
In fact on that point I have to say I’m more than a little surprised these sports men and women were given permission to make such emotive statements while dressed in what appear to be official Australian representative regalia. Doing so suggests their statements have the backing of their respective peak bodies.
One wonders if they’ve fully considered the ramifications of backing claims that so many people the community depends on, often in very dangerous situations, are apparently cowards?
In the final analysis though, I suspect we’re too wedded to the idea we must never give any ground to the Antis, to take advantage of the opportunity they’ve handed us.
We'd rather cry, “Yes, it’s a sport, so what? Screw you!” than give up a word that was never exclusively ours, in order to toss a grenade into the enemy camp.
We have a long and honoured tradition of favouring righteous indignation over strategy and the opportunity to deliver a hammer blow. We’re an odd bunch that way!
Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now...
©gmallard2016 all rights reserved
Follow the Hunters' Stand on Twitter @Hunters_Stand
If you'd like to share this post the link to cut & paste is http://thehunterstand.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/hunting-healthy-choice.html
For those wishing to leave comments either anonymously or under their own names (go-orn, I dares ya!), please select the 'Name/URL' option from the drop down menu beneath the comments section at the bottom of this page. You do not need to enter a URL.
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.
I am a very proud duck hunter. Last week I harvested a bag without a single downed bird lost, despite the heavy cover I was hunting. For this I can be thankful to the time and energy spent training our awesome family pet, who also happens to be best friend and great therapy to my autistic son.
ReplyDeleteI have long argued that the most effective way to normalise hunting to the greater population, is to simply present it as food production. Given modern TVs appetite for the new food culture, everything old is now new again. If I had an inkling of culinary talent I'd be presenting memes of the ultimate in organic free range produce prepared in all manner of ways which my family and friends enjoy. Though I can't cook for s@#t, I am thankful that my wife has taken to cooking game food like... well, ... like a duck to water. She has started sharing her duck recipes, with masterchef inspired photos, the response from the neutrals has been positive. Even my far left anti-everything cousin is starting to come around, accepting an invitation for a freerange duck dinner next week.
Meanwhile, Tuesday's dinner was a game feast to behold - the neighbours departed with the left-overs...
John
Thanks for your very thoughtful feedback, John. You are absolutely spot on and I might say you are to be commended for hunting with a dog too. It's a great way to ensure that all your precious fowl are found and in doing so, contributing to the prevention of duck hunting falling into further disrepute And I bet your friends and neighbours' growing 'approval' of your activities is not harmed by not insisting hunting is a 'sport'?
DeleteThere's an very simple equation in play when we call hunting a sport and Animals Australia et al understands this - Sport is for fun and killing should never be fun. It's a rule that's passed down to us in myriad way through our Judaeo-Christian culture, its laws and morals.
While we might resent not being able to describe the activity that affords us so much satisfaction and exhilaration with a simple words like sport or fun, the fact is to do so is to hand a weapon to the Antis, which they can use to turn a naive public against is. "Who cares" we cry. "I don't care what the Antis think!" we say.
It is the mantra of the saboteur whose arrogant denial threatens our way of life every bit as much as anything the Greens say.
I think the term sport is like a collective, as in ball sports are sport, but AFL, cricket and netball are games. Hunting as a collective is sport but duck hunting is just a hunting activity. Social media bypasses traditional media and is a great tool to disperse propaganda as witnessed by the radicalisation of youths. You know the girl typing hatred against duck hunters is slurping KFC but it makes her feel good to know that hunters are bad and she doesn't hunt so she must be good. You know how this works, use lies and misinformation through advertising and get uninformed people to form an opinion based on how they feel about that propaganda and then direct them to social media to absorb more propaganda to solicit donations which are used to create more propaganda about other issues. The people donating don't actually realise the money they give these groups could actually be used against them or there families. Like the budgie breeder who gave money to ban greyhound racing not knowing that Animals Australia wants people banned from owning budgies and parrots. Or the gullible teenager unaware that they want to ban kids from owning pets. This is where those industries and groups targeted by Animal rights groups need to combine and turn the tables by making these groups justify there actions and letting the public know how they can be affected by animal rights agenda's using the same style of advertising and social media. Executive director (Animals Australia) Glenys Oogjes said it was ridiculous that children (under 18) could keep animals when they did not know how to care for them. The Age Tue 21st May 2002. A harsh looking woman with a snarling German Shephard bailing a crying child up against a dark wall whilst there kitten is ripped from their grasp. NO PETS FOR YOU!!! and a Quote from Animals Australia about not allowing children to have pets. Propaganda wins wars but it has to be organised, targeted and done properly. Pretty wetland photo's with smiling hunters simply won't do it.
ReplyDelete