Considerable discontent has arisen within the social media savvy contingent of the shooting and hunting fraternities over recent months.
It has the potential to do substantial damage to our public image, while creating and nourishing petty rifts within, thus threatening whatever unity the sector may have once enjoyed, albeit tenuously.
Before examining this rift further, it behooves me to acknowledge that no-one is in a position to accurately determine exactly how widely spread this discontent really is, simply because our only reference is the relative few shooters and hunters who actively engage in debate and advocacy via various social media platforms.
That said, I believe it would be a mistake to adopt a "It's just a bit of fun" or an “It’ll blow over” attitude to the issue.
Unlike the schoolyard spats it resembles, which are soon forgotten once all the name-calling and spitting is done, social media bullying campaigns leave indelible evidence of individuals’ intemperate foolishness that continues to generate angst for years after the original grievance is settled.
Worse still, these squabbles have a habit of being self-perpetuating, with new squabbles breaking out over emerging issues once the habit of retaliatory name-calling and vilification is acquired.
Worse still, these squabbles have a habit of being self-perpetuating, with new squabbles breaking out over emerging issues once the habit of retaliatory name-calling and vilification is acquired.
I am speaking about the “FUDD campaign”, the aim of which it appears is to label and publically shame hunters and shooters found guilty of expressing ‘wrong’ opinions.
The vehicle and methodology by which this media campaign is prosecuted is not new; in fact it will be very familiar to many if not most.
What makes it unique is the fact it is being pushed by our own people and their media, rather than by the mainstream agencies from which we’ve all come to expect nothing better.
It strikes me shooters and hunters have long had a perfectly serviceable epithet which they apply to those who criticise and condemn them on philosophical grounds.
We call them “Antis.”
I can see little difference between the grounds upon which the ‘FUDD’ mantle is bestowed, and those epithets applied by Antis when labelling shooters and hunters with such terms as cowboy, redneck, psychopath and so on.
The term ‘cowboy’ for instance, has no application in the Australian landscape in terms of its literal definition; nor does redneck or psychopath. They are simply terms intended to belittle, express disapproval and undermine the legitimacy of one’s opinions and activities.
This appears to be the ‘FUDD’ raison d’etre too.
This appears to be the ‘FUDD’ raison d’etre too.
Those engaged in FUDDing are no more accountable to the broader shooting and hunting communities than the likes of Sunrise program hosts David Koch and Andrew O’Keefe, who likewise use the vehicle of their respective shows and their fan base to belittle advocates who do not hold the prescribed views or perform acceptably.
There appears to be no tribunal of appeal that might allow the ‘FUDD’ to refute claims made against him, nor redeem his name and standing by explaining his actions or statements, perhaps by putting them in some context.
There also appear to be no hard and fast guidelines for the charge of FUDDery; the FUDDworthiness of the individual being determined at the sole discretion of a shadowy and some have suggested, politically motivated, FUDDocracy.
But all levity aside, turning on our fellows due to perceived philosophical heresies is unlikely to achieve unity by making an example of the ‘disloyal’, which is surely what the FUDD movement is all about.
It is in fact more likely to backfire on FUDDers, as the critical microscope is turned on their statements and activities, which, as it happens, I took it upon myself to do this past weekend.
During one (1) broadcast alone, high-profile FUDDers made no less than three (3) statements, which, if brought to the attention of our adversaries, could be used against us to catastrophic effect.
And I didn’t even get through the entire show, let alone do it with a view to finding error in minutiae and pedantry.
I will not repeat or attempt to analyse their 'transgressions' here. My intention is not to humiliate or score cheap points for slighted comrades.
We are none of us perfect, nor are we all the same in our ideals and approaches to advocacy and representation. I believe this diversity is one of our greatest assets. But whether this is true or not, we certainly do absolutely nothing to further the cause by doing the Antis’ work for them.
And as I have said in previous articles, what message this campaign is sending to those on the outside who may be considering joining our ranks, is anybody's guess.
And as I have said in previous articles, what message this campaign is sending to those on the outside who may be considering joining our ranks, is anybody's guess.
Yes, our elected and formally appointed representatives owe their constituencies a measure of accountability, as do those with audiences who tune in with the expectation of hearing the news of the sector.
However, we are not all members of that elite and sometimes handsomely remunerated group.
However, we are not all members of that elite and sometimes handsomely remunerated group.
Many are simply individuals expressing opinions they are completely entitled to express in a free society, which is something many of us claim to prize at least as much as our current shooting and hunting privileges.
Australians have never believed running folk down for having a go is an acceptable alternative to stepping up to the line and having a shot yourself. I’d like to think that’s part of the Australian spirit we’ve been able to preserve, along with our much cherished shooting and hunting cultures.
However, if some do think it’s time to try a different approach, they’d better be confident they can do more than simply talk about how it shouldn't be done, and be prepared to put their theories into practice and deliver for us too.
I believe if we are ever to be taken seriously and respected by the wider community as once we were, we must learn to put aside childish campaigns, keeping in mind that while we refuse to do so we are leaving evidence of our anger and intolerance all over the interweb.
It’s only an matter of time before a clever adversary will draw to the public’s attention, all the sniping and hostility within our ranks, asking the question, “Do you really want people like this to have guns?”
I know I would!
Anyway, I’ll get outaya way now....I’m late for my FUDD support group, which is poor form, as I suspect I’ve just been elected President.
©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/2016/06/the-year-of-fudd.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.
Are you advocating that we ignore Fudd comments like "nobody needs a semi auto" and therefore implicitly condone such statements and allow media to use those comments against us?
ReplyDeleteWell, to begin with I believe the claim that to ignore comments such as you quote is therefore to implicitly condone them, is a nonsense. Failure to ridicule or publicly condemn someone for stating “I salute my brother for shooting all those fagots in Orlando” is not to implicitly condone the slaughter, which is a logical progression of your claim.
DeleteWhat I do say is that holding formally appointed representatives accountable for their statements is certainly appropriate, if you are a member of the constituency (the party or group) that appointed them to press your issues in the public sphere. On the other hand, to criticise them for their perceived failures, while remaining silent about their productive efforts is petty and childish, especially if the people doing the criticising do not bother to support the representatives with membership of the agencies for whom they speak. By getting involved you have a vote with which to determine formal policy and with which to admonish them productively when they fall down on the job.
Let's not be silly about this FUDD business. It's a campaign to punish and silence, not usher in change, which it simply won't do.
There is a HUGE difference between criticising people for failing to do their job properly and lampooning ordinary men and women for daring to express their honestly held views on Facebook. Having a shot at someone because they don’t agree with you, by making fun of their name for instance, is fundamentally 5th grade. It is just as fundamentally at odds with the notion of personal liberties that many among the FUDDocracy claim to value.
As to your concerns that the media will take FUDD comments and use them against ‘us’, you have not stipulated who ‘us’ is. Would it be the ‘us’ who believe the hardline approach towards open/concealed carry, the abolition of the registry, the ‘right’ to cite “self-defence” as a genuine reason, return of semi-automatics etc., is what heaps so much suspicion and negative publicity on us, thus putting all firearms privileges at risk for the sake of some hardcore extremists ‘us’?
Or is ‘us’ the people who believe failure to lobby for all those things or nothing at all, jeopardises the pursuit of open carry, semi-autos, no registration etc?
Who did the "them" and "us" survey of all stakeholders to determine what the majority of "us" believes to be the objective and where is the paper outlining the methodology and outcomes?
As for the suggestion that expressing “FUDD” opinions on Facebook makes us vulnerable to attack by the media...isn’t it a shame the FUDDocracy isn’t concerned about the ammunition provided to our detractors in the form of gory hunting photos posted on unsecured Facebook pages and YouTube videos depicting hoons engaged in acts of cruelty bordering on the psychopathic and public statements to the effect, "Feral pigs should be declared a game species" and we should be able to shoot any plentiful native species. If you want to talk about statements likely to damage "our" reputation, there's two right there. Should the perpetrators of those statements be FUDDed?
Nope, they’re worried the media is going to have a field day with comments like, “I do not agree we need open carry in Australia” and "no one really needs a semi-automatic", despite the fact those making such statements are not representatives and therefore of zero interest to the media. Sure, I can see the media going nuts with that sort of thing - NOT!
It is tremendously difficult to treat a fudd as a person with whom you have a community of opinion when you don't. A collaborator is a collaborator. "I can do my sport and yours is [insert condemnatory adjective here]!The law shouldn't be changed to accommodate people like you" , "People like you shouldn't be allowed firearms". Fudds have decided to sell out that part of the sport out that John Howard disliked. I condemn them absolutely. When you see the fudds, tell them we could use their support for the full spectrum of the shooting sports. What they do shouldn't be "that's all folks".
ReplyDeleteAs above. Are all people accountable to the FUDDocracy for all opinions? By what democratic process was the criterion for FUDD identification and requisite penalties determined?
DeleteThere are terms for the enforcement of penalties for unacceptable ideas and opinions in absence of such processes, two of which are autocracy and dictatorship.
So you aim to silence people who use the word "Fudd? To prevent comment by those who seek more than a side by side 12 bore? Are you not engaged in what you complain about here? My complaint, which stands, is about those who belittle other shooters for wishing to engage disciplines beyond the scope of the NFA and yet are prepared (without comment) to accept the material support of the same people they denigrate.
DeleteInteresting. You complain that I aim to silence, which is apparently not the go with FUDDers (?), while the person in the comment below states that silencing alternate views is precisely the objective of the FUDD campaign.
DeleteHowever, to answer your question, no. I do not aim to 'silence' anyone. But puerile abuse is neither discussion nor debate. It is simply oppression and I do stand against that. I also stand against people who hold themselves up as shining examples of what we should all profess, who belittle people during a public broadcast, by making fun of the name given them by their mum and dad. Exactly how is that activity inspirational let alone praiseworthy?
Further, the application of "FUDD" has not been restricted to those who "belittle" as you claim. To express an alternate view i.e. "I don't think anyone needs a hand gun" is in no way belittling. It is opinion and at worst, unsupportive. Yet I have heard the primary FUDDers applying it to ANYONE whose personal opinion doesn't toe the line. A line, by the way, that was established without consultation with the sector at large.
Perhaps if the FUDD campaigners had some clear rules they followed, say that the FUDD title was only applied to people who openly and clearly belittle as you say, or perniciously insult and abuse, there would be some minor merrit in the campaign, but there are no rules.
But all that aside, the only question that really matters is that associated with productivity, especially if you maintain the FUDD campaign is about unity. So here's my question...
How many people who've been lumbered with the FUDD epithet have come running back to the fold having seen the light and apologising for their former heresies?
If the answer is Fudd-all, then clearly the campaign is about oppression, not unity.
My $0.05
ReplyDeleteThe "us" is the broad church of all shooters of all disciplines.
Anyone who advocates restricting the rights of someone else in the church is divisive and bigoted. By definition, seeking to restrict or ban something they have no stake in.
They are entitled to their opinion but not to share it in public.
If you aren't going to publicly push for our rights - all our rights - then at the very least shut up and stop stabbing us in the back.
These people are Quislings, Appeasers and 5th columnists.
Gary, you said they aren't elected representatives but the media does find these people and promote their views - have you forgotten Kyabram Field @ Game members last year?
Until the media exclusively listen and report from our official elected reps, I will continue to silence FUDDS unless you can show me a better way of stopping these comments getting out there.
Happy to listen and learn, but I see this as a serious issue that has to be dealt with by the community. SSAA Qld saying "nobody needs a semi auto" is an example of a statement that must be responded to in such a way that nobody will think of repeating it.
You say the FUDDs are seeking to ban or restrict something they have no stake in. If that were the case, they would be Antis. But please be honest about this. People are being called FUDDs, via public media, for no greater crime than saying things like "I do not believe anyone needs a handgun in the home for self defense."
DeleteThat is in no possible interpretation other than the paranoid mind, an effort to ban something. It is an opinion and many of these opinions, for which people are FUDDed, are not even expressed on one of the FUDD crowd's Facebook pages.
The FUDD campaign is acting as the Polit Bureau might, hunting down people who don't spout party doctrine and taking action to silence them.
That is interesting in itself, because while you state the FUDD campaign's raison d'etre is to silence, others who've taken exception to my article claim it is not to silence at all, and that what they perceive to be my effort to silence the FUDDers is undemocratic and oppressive.
And therein lies half the problem. The FUDD campaign has no set rules or criteria and while they complain about sending mixed messages about gun policy, they are the very model of mixed messages themselves.
But again, this is largely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the productivity of the FUDD enterprise, especially if you maintain the FUDD campaign is about unity.
How many people who've been lumbered with the FUDD epithet have come running back to the fold having seen the light, apologising profoundly for their former heresies as they return?
If the answer is Fudd-all, then clearly the campaign is about oppression and disunity, not unity.
The way it is going the FUDD campaign will accomplish only one thing. The marginalisation of the sectors most articulate and well connected campaigners. I'm not sure the sector as a whole is going to give the FUDDers a spot in the Shooters' Hall of Fame for pulling that one off.
"How many people who've been lumbered with the FUDD epithet have come running back to the fold having seen the light, apologising profoundly for their former heresies as they return?"
ReplyDeleteWe don't need to convert them, just stop them stabbing us in the back and undoing our hard work
Well, at least you've been upfront about the objective being to silence opinion not endorsed by the FUDDocracy, I'll give you that.
DeleteBe aware, tho', that running a very public campaign to silence the opinions of people the media and the public would likely consider moderates, is more likely to catch the media's attention than any single event in the past decade, including the Adler debacle.
"SOME SHOOTERS DO NOT WANT HANDGUNS, SEMI-AUTOMATICS"
Is not a headline anyone will rush to print.
On the other hand:
"EXTREMIST GUN DEBATE ELEMENT SEEKS TO SILENCE MODERATES"
Definitely has potential.
I guess we can count on some publicity out of it, if nothing else. Mind you, I’d not personally want to be among those responsible when it happens.
One of the in fighting issues I see that can be seized upon is the squabbling between land holders and hunters. I quite often see the us and them arguments come out on many forums. The perceived privilege of farmers is a point of resentment among a lot of hunters.
ReplyDeleteThe silly thing is if anyone is going to win the argument for the return of semi autos, farmers are going to have a more "legitimate' perceived reason than casual hunters. Yet there is a pervading us and them argument going on.
I am a small land owner and I was considering getting some help in to clear out pests on the property. I was pissed at the attitude on some hunting and gun pages towards land owners, I was new to Tas and didn't know too many locals.
Hunters also in tas are against farmers from processing deer shot on their own properties for sale to the public. so instead of talking with farmer groups, hunters ran off to the government and put their protests in. No wonder farmers don't have much time for the part time shooter.
One group seems to want to pull the other down to their level of right of ownership when it comes to fire arms instead of working as a united front. The old argument, if I cant have it no one can, has always worked well to further the cause.
Sorry, had my whing. sorry if I got off track.
Yes, well you've nailed the problem very succinctly, Anon. No regard for strategy!
DeleteNo, what people would rather do is call 'wrong thinkers' arseholes and be done with it. There's little effort required and zero need to defend a proposition if you can just run them down and shut them up.
No point wasting ya valuable time negotiating compromises when a knee to the groin is faster and so much more satisfying.
I take the points that division between LAFO`s is definitely to be avoided if possible. I also agree that the "antis" might use such division against us. I do suggest, however, that there is fault on both sides. There is great tension at the moment, with the NFA review imminent, & many fearing the worst. 20 yrs. of frustration at being publicly ostracised & pilloried, are taking their toll. Sadly, there still seems to be some of the attitudes that brought us down in `96 lingering on. I refer to those who don`t see the big picture, that we are ALL LAFO`s, & must mutually support each other. NO shooting discipline is superior to any other. We MUST get past the handgun / rifle / shotgun / olympic "cliques" that cause division. In my opinion, this has contributed to the "FUDD factor".LAFO`s are now splitting into those who accept the status quo on gun laws, ( the "nothing we can do" brigade,& those whose 20 yr. frustration now have them screaming "enough is enough". To call the latter extremists is not helpful. Sure there is a small, ( but growing) number who want all those things the Americans have, but is that a bad thing.? Those who will not put their heads above the fox-hole, for fear of drawing the "enemy" fire are the FUDDS, & they will never affect change. The "FUDDers" feel they are doing all the fighting for a better deal, & scornful of those who don`t join the cause. The status quo is NO LONGER acceptable to a growing number of LAFO`s & some change must happen. The FUDDS must either get on board, or sit down & keep their defeatist comments to themselves.
ReplyDeleteYou raise some interesting points, but I put this to you.
DeleteCalling people names is not a plan. Kicking them for having the wrong ideas is not a strategy. Ostracizing people is not a substitute for a compelling argument. It is simply self-indulgent, vengeful abuse.
It will not get a single letter containing a cogent case written to a single minister. It will not send a single persuasive message to the public. It will not win any more seats in government. In fact it has already cost us many, as those who may have voted for a moderate pro-gun representative will go back to voting the standard Liberal or Labor instead, if only in anger.
When one sally's forth to drive the sector into a new era, he is obligated to have a plan for the new before he starts to demolish the old. There is no plan!
I have heard stuff on a certain show that makes me pound the desk with anger and frustration when I think of the damage it will do if the media gets wind and capitalises on their astounding faux pas. Where's the accountability there?
When I was at Uni one legal maxim stuck in my mind above all others. "He who comes into equity must come with clean hands." The FUDDocracy could do with a bloody big block of Solvol!
I see your point but also see the point of the "fuddocracy". what I don't see is anyone on either side proposing a meeting to discuss a co-operative stance on the matter so I fear the worst from the NFA review. Name calling and antagonising never brings a good outcome so until the "fuddocracy" and the "Fudds"meet and come to terms there will I fear be no progress.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's fair to blame the FUDDed for this situation, gmoose. While the FUDDocracy is centralised in the form of a hunting program and its fan-base, those they're FUDDing aren't. That's the problem. They are just individuals, some new, some naive, some malicious sure, and many simply yet to hear a compelling argument for changing their point of view.
DeleteIt is absolutely impossible to bring those people to a table to discuss their differences, simply because they are random targets.
But random or not, they are now angry when there was no need to anger them on the eve of an election. And their support is very probably lost forever, all for no better reason than to satisfy the desire to offend because it takes far less effort that a reasoned argument.
Great article, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments Gary. The fact is, if the media want to jump on anything, it will be to highlight the division in the shooting fraternity and paint the "fudsters" as bigoted, extremist rednecks. The moderate viewpoint will not create the headline or impact they desire. The funny thing is we all hate the extremist Greens and animal rights activists and see them as loonies, well the fudsters are creating their own similar position on a the shooting side. One thing I've noticed is that the fudsters group take great pride in running down groups like the SSAA and their hierarchy, yet I can almost guarantee NONE of them have ever stood for office or indeed even volunteered their time to help out. Anyone who has ever been a member of a group that has to deal with government agencies would know that nothing gets done quickly or painlessly.
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ, The butcher. One of 2 key Fuddsters is in fact a standing member of the SSAA committee...Sydney or maybe the NSW branch, I cannot remember which.
DeleteOne assumes they are aware of the FUDD campaign, so make of that nexus what you will.