I'm a millennial (though I hate being grouped in with most others of the same category) that is an adult-onset hunter. I grew up in a household that was anti-gun and never hunted. I can name maybe a half dozen people in my group of friends and extended family that hunt, or have hunted at one point in time. I started hunting four years ago while living in the third largest metropolitan area in the country. I'm acutely aware of the impact and value of social media due to my line of work (corporate security and investigations) and live in a political climate that would likely not even bat an eye if hunting, and even firearms were regulated into obscurity.
Being a pickup truck driving, gun owning, pro LGBT, pro choice, pro legal weed, pro law enforcement (albeit with a healthy dose of reform and demilitarization), fiscally conservative hunter that wants a strong military and free, useful healthcare for the nation living in the Chicago area puts me in a weird position that can’t be easily categorized. What it does allow is a fairly unique perspective that helps me to see both sides of the aisle when it comes to a lot of the hot topic discussions at hand.
The fact of the matter is that maybe 6 percent of the population hunts, and while this community on Hunt Talk is relatively informed on the political issues surrounding public lands, conservation efforts, habitat management, and other concerns that are at the heart of our own motivations, the other 94 percent of the population is either ambivalent or against our causes largely due to the perceived stereotype of the American hunter. That other 94 percent of the population is who we need to present the most accurate portrayal of American hunters to.
Social media is an extremely powerful force that can be manipulated into being a weapon used to further a cause or turn a nation against it. If Cecil the lion was killed five to ten years ago, I'm not sure if it would have been more than a short piece on the evening news instead of a global spectacle. 1.2 million people signed a petition titled ‘Justice for Cecil.’ That's more than the population of Montana. If 1.2 million signed the petition, imagine how many more were swayed from being ambivalent towards hunters to against or had their own perception of hunters further tarnished, not simply because of Palmer’s actions, but because of the overwhelming emotional state of social media that is thrust upon us every minute of the day.
Being attuned to the issue of social media and its wide sweeping potential audience, I am particularly careful about what I post on my own personal profile, and have created a sort of pseudonym in a hunting website, YouTube channel and Facebook page that I run with friend and fellow HT member where most of our photos, stories, and other hunting related media goes. It’s not because I don’t want to be known as a hunter; it’s common knowledge among most people I know, but I understand that lots of people, even those that aren’t anti-hunters, aren’t all that enthused about seeing dead animals scattered in among baby photos and cat memes in their Facebook feed. It’s hypocritical because I don’t think any one of them thinks twice about eating a steak or cheeseburger, but many people simply choose to ignore the fact that there’s a piece of a dead animal on their plate. That’s their prerogative, and I’m not going to be the one that puts a bad taste in their mouth about hunters. If someone wants to know more about my adventures hunting, they can follow the page and website, I won’t force it upon an unwilling audience.
Even if you don’t participate in social media yourself, there is still a chance that photos and other media that you create can make it into the mainstream, and that it’s still an issue to be aware of since 1.5 billion with a B people are active on Facebook alone every month. It’s a powerful tool that can cause a global shift in perspective with just the click of a mouse. The anonymity and ease of supporting a movement or idea online is something that just can’t be matched or outrun by other forms of media consumption.
Do we feel that anti-hunters are just as entitled to never apologize for their position as we are for ours? The idea that one should never apologize for their position is a bit misguided. How great would it be if instead of never apologizing, some anti-hunters actually chose to apologize for their misconceptions after being introduced to hunters in a more positive light than the bloodthirsty killers that decapitate animals to fill their trophy rooms that are often portrayed in the media? I used to be ambivalent, leaning anti towards guns and hunting, unaware of the positive uses and impacts of both. I've been on the other side of the aisle, and know that with the right image, it's possible to shift perspectives.
There are a lot of people out there in positions like mine, conflicted in their ideals and uneasy about identifying as a hunter due to the perceived stereotypes. Perhaps with a bit of leniency and understanding on our part we can turn that 94 percent of the population into 90 percent, maybe over time even lower.
