cgasner1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2016
- Messages
- 4,872
Ow it’s already began just haven’t decided if I wanna wait till seasons over and do it all at once.
Newest Poaching case
- Thread starter Lostinthewoods
- Start date
It’s a great thread, especially the fishing with your wife! Your a boarderline influencer!
Potsie
Well-known member
Laundry folded. E-mail written.
Caseknife
Well-known member
I will say up front that I have never watched any "influencers" media. Not on FB, IG, any of that other stuff, interact in a few forums like this, I'm an old guy and learned how to hunt from my father.
If the sponsor of these guys come out and say something to that effect, sure I will give them the benefit of the doubt, but if the guy is found guilty, they better respond appropriately in a timely fashion.
The other thing that I think should happen with these guys that make money off wildlife at our expense, is the fines should be exponentially multiplied if found guilty over the normal guy that makes an honest mistake and is just out there trying to feed his family. F&G agencies have "trophy" fines in poaching cases, why not have the same type of mandatory increase in fines for someone who is monetarily benefitting from said criminal infraction.
the nikster
Well-known member
I’ll bet you have a sock drawer full of Chuck Adams-like stocking caps!
I don't understand how someone could misreport 3 kills of 3 different species if it wasn't on purpose.
That being said, it seems a lot of people seem to be competing while hunting while many of the rest of us don't care how great they are. I think the competition aspects of hunting cause people to do things they otherwise wouldn't.
That being said, it seems a lot of people seem to be competing while hunting while many of the rest of us don't care how great they are. I think the competition aspects of hunting cause people to do things they otherwise wouldn't.
Potsie
Well-known member
You mean this guy?
CR28-20-18260 State of ID vs Brian J Call if anybody is interested.
Recognizing that the situation is serious and the sponsor is monitoring it goes a long way in the right direction in my mind. Silence leads us to assume (we know this is a slippery slope but never the less a human condition anyway) that it is no big deal.
Better to get ahead than to be behind and trying to make up.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,313
If I were a company sponsoring an influencer with the expectation that consumers would be influenced to buy my product by the actions of said influencer, the nature of said influencer’s actions would be very important to me. What message do his actions convey? Accountability? Integrity?
Everyone makes mistakes in the process of living life. Mistakes are those things we unintentionally do while intentionally trying to do things the right way.
Not everyone intentionally disregards laws and ethics in the process of hunting, working, living, etc… Intentional disregard, isn’t a mistake, it’s a conscious decision to take a specific course of action.
As a consumer of products, when companies ignore or support intentional disregard for game laws or ethics by being silent or continuing to sponsor influencers who have been convicted of intentional violations of laws or ethics that is a clear message to me that short term profit and financial gain is their only concern. At a minimum that company conveys an unspoken understanding to me that as a consumer I should not expect any support or assistance from them if I have an issue with their product.
I also realize that by supporting a company that pays an intentional poacher to influence me to buy a product, I am willingly supporting the process that allows this to be “accepted practice.”
At the very least, it’s a huge disincentive for me to buy that company’s product in the future.
idelkslayer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Messages
- 298
That would be an entirely appropriate response, and I feel, should be the default response.
and, 100% regardless of guilt in the court of law, you're gonna have a hard ass time convincing me that someone who get's the G&F books thrown at them is a "stand-up" hunter of "high character" that deserves a position of influence
you don't get the books thrown at you for honest mistakes. you just don't.
^^^This
I am with you on this one. I have been looking for a good reason to drop this service for a long time now, and this seems to be the nudge I needed. Gohunt is a double edged sword. They have some of the MOST influence in the hunting space - at least among the less than 50 crowd. This should be a no brainer, but the constant need for clicks and subscribes is driving the silence... which is what got ole Lampers into this mess to begin with, right?! I hope this is a reset among the hunting community. I encourage all to reevaluate their "views, clicks, and subscriptions". Nothing you consume is free, and if you think it is.... well then YOU are the product.
elkhuntinfool78
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 203
That would definitely be better than staying silent imo
I honestly would have real sympathy for someone poaching a deer strictly to feed their family due to financial hardships but 95%+ of poaching cases are ego driven and not done for sustentance.
I was reading a RS forum on this subject and was surprised to hear about mulitple encounters with Lampers in the field that shed a less than favorable light on him as being extremely arrogant. Hard to believe from what you see on TV. You'd think he'd be very kind and humble from his social media persona. They always say "never meet your heroes".
I was reading a RS forum on this subject and was surprised to hear about mulitple encounters with Lampers in the field that shed a less than favorable light on him as being extremely arrogant. Hard to believe from what you see on TV. You'd think he'd be very kind and humble from his social media persona. They always say "never meet your heroes".
The world has a very real problem with any Joe Schmoe having the ability to become "famous" via YouTube. I have no problem with anyone hustling a living off making YT content but it's turned into a plague on society.
BuckhunterBen
Well-known member
10 years ago I realllly started to drink the kool-aid. OnX, Hush, BRO land of the free. Totally lost my way as a young hunter trying to “keep up with the kardashians” I.e. kill big bucks and fill every tag. If I had a tag go unfilled I was ashamed and would get super down on myself.
I’ve watched all of Brian Calls hunts with Lampers and not once did it cross my mind that they would ever do something illegal, especially with that kind of spotlight.
It is very easy for younger generations to idolize these guys, I grew up road hunting with my dad never making it further than a few hundred yards from the truck.
Hope these allegations wake up some younger guys who are just killing for the content.
Since joining HuntTalk last year you guys have brought me back to reality, pretty cool honestly.
I’ve watched all of Brian Calls hunts with Lampers and not once did it cross my mind that they would ever do something illegal, especially with that kind of spotlight.
It is very easy for younger generations to idolize these guys, I grew up road hunting with my dad never making it further than a few hundred yards from the truck.
Hope these allegations wake up some younger guys who are just killing for the content.
Since joining HuntTalk last year you guys have brought me back to reality, pretty cool honestly.
Catskill.Joe
Active member
Here is what I'd think about crisis communications. You cannot not communicate, and every communication is a strategy. Strategy doesn't mean what is communicated is insincere. It means that brands are searching for what they want to communicate, with the information available, to best support their business and partners - ideally, long-term. And even when brands choose silence, stakeholders interpret it.
In communications, brands live in a state of alignment with an influencer or ambassador. At some point, we all need to buy/do things in which we have zero experience - this is where influencer marketing helps a brand. Consumers link a company’s values to that influencer’s reputation.
Most crisis comms boil down to three familiar moves:
While sometimes recommended by legal counsel, “no comment” is not always neutral. Communication research shows silence is often interpreted as:
A best practice is to not overcommit, but acknowledge. A short "holding" statement signals awareness and alignment with core values without locking into a position prematurely. Sometimes just buying time while sorting out the facts is the best long-term move.
Perhaps a brand's non-statement is because people are busy with hunting season. Perhaps they don't want to burn bridges. Perhaps they feel it is a niche case and making a statement will alert people who didn't know about it - and that will reflect poorly on their brand. Perhaps they're waiting for lawyers to weigh in and they are limiting their exposure based on what is in their contracts. IMO, not making a statement risks bad optics. This doesn't have to be the case with just a simple statement like: “We are aware of the situation. We are committed to our values of conservation, hunting, and accountability, and we will provide updates as more information becomes available.”
IMO, other influencers affiliated with the same brands are not obligated to make a statement. Each person stands on their own merit, actions, and history. It's too inflammatory especially at a time when not all of the facts are played out. The ROI is low. Brands, however, need to communicate that they are aware and are gathering facts.
Perhaps Ryan felt the need to produce results. Hunting media often trades on the killing of big animals = hunter value and fame. This can certainly encourage selfish/ego behavior or pressure unethical behavior. Maybe the market for promotional content and selling products is fueling a brand's communication paralysis (paralysis by analysis). It's also possible that companies are small and the people in charge of these strategies are out of reach for a week or more due to hunting. The complaint was filed Aug. 29 and written about in Gear Junkie on Sept. 3—then MeatEater on Sept. 4. Typically four days is enough time for a brand to align on a comms strategy. I'm curious what comes out this week, if anything.
Thoughtful communication strategies is critical in the hunting space. We have to tell our story to have cultural influence, encourage hunting, protect wild places, and preserve the North American Model. Even these nasty bits are part of that story. Acknowledging it creates trust, and trust is powerful.
In communications, brands live in a state of alignment with an influencer or ambassador. At some point, we all need to buy/do things in which we have zero experience - this is where influencer marketing helps a brand. Consumers link a company’s values to that influencer’s reputation.
Most crisis comms boil down to three familiar moves:
- Condemnation – Distancing quickly: “We do not condone this behavior and are ending our partnership.”
- Support – Expressing solidarity until facts are clear: “We stand with X until due process is complete.”
- Monitoring – The middle ground: “We are aware of the situation and are closely monitoring developments.”
While sometimes recommended by legal counsel, “no comment” is not always neutral. Communication research shows silence is often interpreted as:
- Tacit approval (you don’t condemn it, so you must condone it).
- Avoidance (you’re hiding something).
- Uncertainty (you don’t know what to do).
A best practice is to not overcommit, but acknowledge. A short "holding" statement signals awareness and alignment with core values without locking into a position prematurely. Sometimes just buying time while sorting out the facts is the best long-term move.
Perhaps a brand's non-statement is because people are busy with hunting season. Perhaps they don't want to burn bridges. Perhaps they feel it is a niche case and making a statement will alert people who didn't know about it - and that will reflect poorly on their brand. Perhaps they're waiting for lawyers to weigh in and they are limiting their exposure based on what is in their contracts. IMO, not making a statement risks bad optics. This doesn't have to be the case with just a simple statement like: “We are aware of the situation. We are committed to our values of conservation, hunting, and accountability, and we will provide updates as more information becomes available.”
IMO, other influencers affiliated with the same brands are not obligated to make a statement. Each person stands on their own merit, actions, and history. It's too inflammatory especially at a time when not all of the facts are played out. The ROI is low. Brands, however, need to communicate that they are aware and are gathering facts.
Perhaps Ryan felt the need to produce results. Hunting media often trades on the killing of big animals = hunter value and fame. This can certainly encourage selfish/ego behavior or pressure unethical behavior. Maybe the market for promotional content and selling products is fueling a brand's communication paralysis (paralysis by analysis). It's also possible that companies are small and the people in charge of these strategies are out of reach for a week or more due to hunting. The complaint was filed Aug. 29 and written about in Gear Junkie on Sept. 3—then MeatEater on Sept. 4. Typically four days is enough time for a brand to align on a comms strategy. I'm curious what comes out this week, if anything.
Thoughtful communication strategies is critical in the hunting space. We have to tell our story to have cultural influence, encourage hunting, protect wild places, and preserve the North American Model. Even these nasty bits are part of that story. Acknowledging it creates trust, and trust is powerful.
Last edited:
44hunter45
Well-known member
All my client contracts have out clauses. Some allow termination by fiat, some require 30 day notice. Any corporate lawyer worth his salt would give the sponsors an out.
Especially if the endorsee embarrasses the sponsor in any way.
They could always be sued with a willing attorney. If these influencers are as destitute as some are saying they are gonna need pro bono or crowd funding to make that happen.
Good luck with that. Their influencer buddies are seeing content opportunity, not loyalty.
44hunter45
Well-known member
It makes my laugh that influencers build their brand on their reputation, then cry to a judge that they are losing their livelihood when THEY FUP. That certain red-headed one claiming his children would starve. Narcissistic crap.
Actions have consequences. Too many of these influencers grew up in the T-Ball universe.
We owe them nothing. I'm here on HT because the boss holds his integrity to be more important than his wallet. Seems like an actual grownup business model. Boomer stuff, you know?
Similar threads
