Gentlemen
In several posts this week, it has been incorrectly stated that DSC,and other hunting\conservation organizations have been silent, dropped the ball,hid from, and not addressed, or represented "our side" of the issue as it relates to the recent lion crisis. I cannot, or will not comment on any other organizations efforts, or lack of, but I do want to highlight DSC's responses to this important issue. As has been clearly explained that during the first week of the Cecil news cycle, Ben Carter, the Executive Director of DSC was in Tanzania in a remote area where contact was difficult to impossible. In addition, the situation was fluid, and as we have now seen, rife with mis-information.

n terms of DSC’s actions since the Cecil issue (July 29), DSC has issued 3 press releases (released nationally and Internationally by DSC’s PR firm) related to the topic, produced and released a video detailing DSC’s position on legal lion hunting and has been extremely active on their social media and blog feed (DSC News Center). In fact, on Facebook alone, since the issue broke on July 29, the 26 messages DSC has posted have reached over 559,000 people with over 55,000 interacting to these messages (likes, shares, etc.)

In addition, since DSC Executive Director Ben Carter’s return, he has conducted interviews with: KLIF, Washington Post, WFAA ch. 8 Dallas, Dallas Morning News, Voice of America News – Straight Talk Africa, Minnesota Public Radio, Texas Wildlife Radio Show, Al Jazeera, Wall Street Journal, KERA, NPR – Here & Now, NBC News – New York w/ Mario Garcia, Texas Outdoor News Radio – Bill Olsen, Reuters News, WBAP Radio. And more are scheduled...

Our company is deeply involved with DSC's social media and overall communications campaign efforts, and I can assure you that spreading "our"message beyond the normal channels and into more mainstream media is Job#1 for DSC. The stated goal is for DSC to be a "Go To" voice when future issues call for a response on hunting\conservation issues. Yes, for the reasons I explained above, DSC got a later start on addressing the issue than we would have had minus the travel issue. I can tell you that the DSC model for future issues involves instant, accurate, factual and effective responses and an all out effort to get our side of these important issues to a national and international audience.
So no, Peter Flack and others ( some of whom I admire greatly) who have said DSC has been silent on this issue have spoken without the facts.
Thank you for reading.
Dave

CRICKETS....

Glad to hear DSC has been responding. Too bad it gets drowned out by the rampant BS of the media.
I'm sure the 20/20 story tonight will be the definitive word... Yeah right.

. . . rest assured that silence, in my case at least, is not concurrence. Having been involved in a number of crisis communication situations over the years, I do not see how the handling of this situation from a public relations perspective could be considered timely, appropriate or effective, at least to date. If this were being experienced in a for-profit corporate setting, folks would be freshening up their resumes . . . if not for the handling of the response, for the lack of preparation to deal with such a crisis in the first place. Obviously, different folks can see it differently. Put me in the Flack camp.

I think it was a bit of mis-fortune on the part of DSC in this case, as Ben Carter was in fact in TZ when the crisis first broke Mike! I too hear your pleas for more, and I do believe DSC is sincerely trying to do so. I know that I have been on numerous calls since I literally touched down in the USA last week, asking for my info/advice on the lion issues, facts and figures, etc, etc. I was in Dallas, still trying to get to Denver and these boys were burning up my phone - so they were in fact getting their ducks in a row.

They (DSC & Safari Classics) certainly have not been sitting on their hands on this one, but no doubt more and faster is needed in the future. I do believe one will see that on the part of DSC, and I think Ben is becoming a well versed spokesman. Continued support is needed now, and I hope we can all continue to do so?

Regards to all,

I've read most of the "Cecil" crap here on AR and frankly, had my fill of it long ago over on FaceBook. Folks, there is a reason these events are referred to as "going viral". In all honesty, once the momentum of the story reached a certain point, I doubt ANY response from ANY organization would have stemmed the tide until it ran its course and the fervor started to die down.

As Dave stated, Ben was out of contact when the story broke. Remember guys, when we go on Safari, at least for me, being out of contact is one of the greatest benefits, so I'm not sure how we can be to critical of that. More importantly, per my above comment, I believe any attempt to counter the story in the earlier days would have had about the same impact as a tear in a hurricane. As Bwana Bunduki (Jeff) said a while back, social media has allowed us to relive the Winston / Salem witch hunt days and again live in a pitchfork society. I can't for the life of me see how the "Cecil the Lion" lynch mob was going to be stopped by someone or ANY organization jumping in with a discussion of facts in the midst of the Cat V emotional hurricane that was blowing regarding this issue.

It's easy to throw stones from the gallery. Much harder to get involved and participate on the field. For those implying DSC has done nothing to put forth the hunter's perspective to the masses, I ask the question: Did you miss the attempt to educate the masses to "conservation through hunting" with the Black Rhino hunt that DSC put together?

Could more be done in the education department, sure, but most of the DSC personnel are volunteers so if you have some ideas on how to improve efforts, volunteer, get involved, and help make a difference. I've read some good suggestions here on AR in the past couple of days for how the organizations can improve media relations and get our perspective out. I wonder how many of those suggestions have been presented directly to the guys (and gals) within DSC that can actually make things happen? I attended the DSC Regional Meeting last night and I can tell you that the leadership are truly interested in getting the message out, and not just to the "choir". I think they also realize that "preaching beyond the doors of the church" is easier said than done and it will take a concerted and innovative effort to do so. I would say from what I witnessed last evening, the leadership is committed to finding that innovative method of reaching the main stream media. But just relying on them, complaining, and sitting on arses isn't going to help the effort.

So where do we stand right now, today? We definitely got our asses handed to us with "Cecil", albeit 100% out of ignorance and emotion. But now, do we fight on or just criticize and crumble? We can bitch and complain about how this fight could have been joined earlier (which in my opinion would have just resulted in being steam rolled by the momentum) or we can now take advantage of a little time passing with the story hopefully loosing enough heat that cooler heads will now begin to listen to the counter argument for conservation by employment of science and facts.

Let's focus on what we need to do now.

Of course, we all want DSC and SCI to be successful and effective in this fight.

Two rhetorical questions. If Ben Carter had been in Dallas from the very moment that the story broke, do we believe the last two plus weeks would have played out in a materially different way? If not, then why would it not be incumbent on us all to consider how we have been handling things like social media, public relations and the like in the lead up to the entire Cecil meltdown and what we can do differently in the future?

Mike, do you believe there is ANY action that could have been employed in the heat of the "Cecil the Lion" fervor by our side of the argument that would have "cured" the viral nature of this story before or during the momentum it developed?

I'm sure you'll take my inquiry as a "gotcha" question but it's not intended that way. From my observations, once the main stream media finds a brush fire, the only way it gets extinguished is for it to burn itself out. One only has to look at politics for countless examples, but if you have some specific suggestions, I'm sure Karl, Ben, Richard, Dave and others at DSC would be willing to lend an ear.

This post generally refers to after-the-fact responses. My point is that there is not a consistent, year-round positive PR campaign FOR hunters by major hunting organizations that reach out.

HEre's an example: Seattle city council just approved a tax on guns and ammo within Seattle city limits. BAsically it is a'gun violence tax.' That money will be used to 'offset' he cost of injury due to gunshots, and for prevention. NOW, who the hell do you think will be doing the prevention? That's right, a lefty, anti-gun organization most likely. So in fact the gun owners are now funding their own enemies. Where was ANY organization in response to this while in the process of being voted on?? Where was the pressure to make it so that gun information if delved out by a legitimate organization that knows guns? Talk about crickets...

How does this relate to Cecil? To be terse: Had DSC been in the front lines of externally supporting the very hunting it promotes internally, there would not have been a need to gin up a response, only to refer to information that is already publicly available etc etc. Conducting interviews after the fact is mop-up; damage control. It is trying to do the very best so that the image of the hunter that you never properly defined, that has been defined by those who hate you, does as little hurt as possible to your cause. MIght sound snarky and cynical, but shit, it's very late in this game to try to figure out where to go from here.

I'll also give you a perspective that DSC members might not like. The very name Dallas Safari Club will be a tough sell in the public market, here's why:

Dallas: Republican, oil, wealthy, hick, white, male, redneck
Safari: Foreign, elitist, rich, kill, imperialism, exotic
Club: Exclusive, rich, elitist, competition

In short, it's a club for insecure, rich texas oilmen, who get their kicks off going to Africa to kill exotic animals so that they can feed their ego and overcome their lack of masculinity. If you think i'm ridiculous, you have't been reading the average Joe's response to the Cecil bullshit.

Like it or not, no word is benign, they all have connotations, and people react to those connotations.

Look, I'm 100% pro-safari etc etc. But I also live in the real world, and know a bit about how people perceive things. This is going to be a long, tough fight, and it's imperative that those who now call themselves major pro-hunting organizations do a lot more of the unsexy PR and front-end work, so that when this shit happens it's not all reactionary. People need to know the truth about what hunting really does, but if those who hold the truth never share it, how can they expect anything to change.

mY .02

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Mike, do you believe there is ANY action that could have been employed in the heat of the "Cecil the Lion" fervor by our side of the argument that would have "cured" the viral nature of this story before or during the momentum it developed?

I'm sure you'll take my inquiry as a "gotcha" question but it's not intended that way. From my observations, once the main stream media finds a brush fire, the only way it gets extinguished is for it to burn itself out. One only has to look at politics for countless examples, but if you have some specific suggestions, I'm sure Karl, Ben, Richard, Dave and others at DSC would be willing to lend an ear.

Actually Todd, I do. It would have and will require a culture shift in how we do business in the future. We need to take the fight to the sheeple. Not just in times of crisis but all the time. The positive attributes of hunting and conservation needs to be pounded out continuously. We need to engage social media. Hiding from it brought us here. Time to turn the pitchforks around. People are mentally weak. We can own this. We just have to grow a sack. We are not in the wrong here.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Mike, do you believe there is ANY action that could have been employed in the heat of the "Cecil the Lion" fervor by our side of the argument that would have "cured" the viral nature of this story before or during the momentum it developed?

I'm sure you'll take my inquiry as a "gotcha" question but it's not intended that way. From my observations, once the main stream media finds a brush fire, the only way it gets extinguished is for it to burn itself out. One only has to look at politics for countless examples, but if you have some specific suggestions, I'm sure Karl, Ben, Richard, Dave and others at DSC would be willing to lend an ear.

The problem in my view is to myopically focus on the issue of Cecil as the problem. Cecil was not the problem, Cecil was the symptom of a problem that has been brewing for years. What would the solution have been? Probably a number of things. Education, of both hunters and non-hunters. For example, we still have hunters who say why should they care if lion hunting is abolished. Social media. Building an infrastructure that be used to develop and disseminate information and mobilize hunters instantly. Building a public relations presence and looking for opportunities to publicly engage on hunting issues. Building political muscle in DC. Unifying hunters of all types instead of maintaining vestiges of elitism like "safari" in organizational names, award programs that alienate many, etc. I could go on and on. The point being that issues like Cecil are sort of like long-term health issues . . . someone does not wake up one day with diabetes or heart issues . . . those are the result of years of not addressing issues proactively to prevent those sorts of problems. The interesting thing will be, do we pick ourselves up off the mat and throw out the conventions of the past and get started on some of the long term fixes or do we tweak a little here and there, declare it all good and expect that the result the next time will be different.

Baxter and Bwana
Believe me, many of your points are, well, exactly on point. The leadership of DSC is in agreement that we must be pro active, much as they brought the black rhino discussion out there. We do not have the money, the numbers, or the general media support the other side enjoys, but we do have the fact and science on our side. It is NOT business as usual. The DSC leadership has been in constant, and sometimes very energetic discussions on how the organization goes forward into the future. Baxter, your points on the Dallas SAFARI Club name have merit, and have been discussed internally at length. It has been decided that DSC is the name we will go with. The thoughts on the name are in agreement with ours. Not trying to hide from who we are, just trying to be smart going forward and try to gain the ear of the uninformed masses. Guys, our firm is engaged, looking at new ways of getting our message out, and both the DSC and SCP team truly value input and ideas on the way forward for hunting.DSC is not, and has never been a " good old boys club, run by insiders" It is, in fact, the reason they turned in their keys to the other outfit years ago. Please know your voices are being herd, and take my word that we are working like hell, as is dSC, to make effective changes for the better.
Thanks Men.
Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Mike, do you believe there is ANY action that could have been employed in the heat of the "Cecil the Lion" fervor by our side of the argument that would have "cured" the viral nature of this story before or during the momentum it developed?

I'm sure you'll take my inquiry as a "gotcha" question but it's not intended that way. From my observations, once the main stream media finds a brush fire, the only way it gets extinguished is for it to burn itself out. One only has to look at politics for countless examples, but if you have some specific suggestions, I'm sure Karl, Ben, Richard, Dave and others at DSC would be willing to lend an ear.

The fuels that feed the fire are the words trophy and sport. Period. Without them the antis have no case and the media no story.

When will you guys learn???

<> <> <>

I agree those terms bring unneeded heat to our cause. We are hunters, for MANY just reasons. Good point.

Still waiting for SPECIFIC actions, not generalized plans. I'm not in disagreement with the generalizations as I noted there were some good suggestions, but we need nuts and bolts types of plans going forward. Baxter had a good point in funding an NPR program putting out our conservation message. It's a start. We need more!

Mike, BaxterB: I agree with Dave, many of your points are spot on. We (DSC) realized months ago that we were not getting our message out to the masses. Social media offers a huge window of opportunity for us to educate the uninformed that we didn't take advantage of. That changed on April 1 of this year. Change takes time. We hired the most qualified professionals (and qualified included knowing "hunting") we could find to help us in the social media battle, SCP fit the bill and they are doing a fantastic job. Dave, Tim and I had a couple of heart to heart conversations regarding this and they are as passionate about fixing this as I or anyone else at DSC. Having said that, we were woefully unprepared for the firestorm that arose over a dead lion. I admit it and I don't think you will find anyone in DSC that will claim otherwise. I said in an earlier post that we would fix that and we (I include SCP as part of "we")are working on doing so at a feverish pace. We are actively working to get our (and your) message out, many have said the media won't carry our message, you might be right but they will damn well have the opportunity to carry it because it is being sent to them.
Some have said that the Dallas Safari Club creates a problem and the reasons you give are pretty much the reasons the DSC board decided 2 years ago to start referring to ourselves when possible as "DSC". Todd hit the nail on the head, any of the guys he mentioned will be glad to hear what you have to say, especially me and it doesn't matter if you are a member or not. Good ideas come from all sorts of people and I am sure as hell open to good ideas. If any of you care to PM me a phone number or email address, I'll be happy to contact you. And listen.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Fulson:
I agree those terms bring unneeded heat to our cause. We are hunters, for MANY just reasons. Good point.

Not to overstate it, (because it can't be overstated), but hell, those two words alienate half the hunting community, never mind the general public.

<> <> <>

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Still waiting for SPECIFIC actions, not generalized plans. I'm not in disagreement with the generalizations as I noted there were some good suggestions, but we need nuts and bolts types of plans going forward. Baxter had a good point in funding an NPR program putting out our conservation message. It's a start. We need more!

Who are you waiting on to articulate those specific actions? DSC? Me too. I am not being facetious, let's hear how DSC and SCI articulate the full dimensions of the problem that lead to Cecil, what were the contributing factors . . . once we agree on the causes of the problem the solutions are easier to define.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Still waiting for SPECIFIC actions, not generalized plans. I'm not in disagreement with the generalizations as I noted there were some good suggestions, but we need nuts and bolts types of plans going forward. Baxter had a good point in funding an NPR program putting out our conservation message. It's a start. We need more!

Who are you waiting on to articulate those specific actions? DSC? Me too. I am not being facetious, let's hear how DSC and SCI articulate the full dimensions of the problem that lead to Cecil, what were the contributing factors . . . once we agree on the causes of the problem the solutions are easier to define.

Just noticing you seem to have a plan that is long on generalities and short on specifics.

I have no plan . . . but I also do not collect tens of thousands of dollars a year in membership dues either to ostensibly represent the interests of hunters and presumably have a plan. Since those organizations do ostensibly represent us and hopefully have a plan perhaps they will share their plan . . . or at a minimum their observations on the factors that resulted in the lion shellacking and how they plan to rectify those deficiencies to prevent a repeat.

Hence...my suggestion to have an "on call team" ready to go at a moment's notice regardless of who is where when a crisis goes down. That is how we had to deal with it in horse racing with catastrophic breakdowns. We as horsemen had to have "a team on call" and out 'in front' of the crisis. And it is the way we will have to deal with it as hunters..."IF"...we want to be successful.

I understand the frustration Mike. I feel it too. But the facts are that, at least in the case of DSC, the membership numbers and funds aren't there to strike fear in the hearts of the politicians, command the main stream media, nor counter the antis on a dollar for dollar basis. So to be effective, the organization needs some creative ideas ... force multipliers if you will in the same vein as the way special operations units work.

I'm not part of the DSC leadership team and like you, I don't have a plan either ... at least not at the moment. What I plan to do however is try and do some creative thinking on the subject and see if I can offer some meaningful suggestions going forward.

I'll try to kick off some discussion with this. It appears to me that where the greatest understanding for hunting exists with fence sitters, and even other hunters who may question safari, is in the utilization of meat from hunted animals. A common misconception amongst those same types is that with trophy hunting, the meat isn't utilized 100%. Of course, from time to time, on the hunting shows, we see the host explain what happens to the meat. The way the media would report this is that "Hunter X 'CLAIMS' all the meat from these hunts is utilized", intentionally creating doubt in the statement made by the paid host. What if we start seeing segments from time to time where the actual recipients of the meat tell us how much of a positive impact the donated protein has made on their families. Most of the rural Africans speak english so why not let a village representative tell the story of how foreign hunters have helped their communities, instead of the show's "talent personality"? Get the story straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Would that appear more credible to the masses who might see the story? IMO, the answer is yes.

Then the question becomes, WHERE is this story told? Thru what media platform? I bring this up because about a year ago, I engaged in debate with a well known shooting sports writer from the UK over on FaceBook. Turns out the guy is a wolf in sheep's clothing as although he claims to be a proponent of the shooting and hunting sports, he's all about gun control and ending hunting EXCEPT for his particular interest which happens to be driven upland bird hunting and shotgunning. He posted a thread about how he had hunted elephant once before and found it disturbing, never to participate again. When I engaged him, his stated objection was that no one eats the meat and the great beasts always go to waste. Along with many others with experience, I assured him that all of the meat from the elephants I've hunted were utilized by the locals. When I posted photos of our safari handing out elephant meat in Dande, and additional photos of several locals that swam across croc infested waters of a Zambezi River inlet just to get a chance at the scraps our guys left from my last elephant bull, he "defriended" me and blocked me from further comments. I then posted those same photos on my wall and had quite a bit of activity on the thread. Several anti's chimed in and each one of them were engaged either by me or other supporters. Not all came around on the issue but everyone one of them that engaged ended up carrying on a respectful conversation, even if the initial contact was rather irate. We aren't going to change those with an agenda or the ideologues, but the fence sitters and anti's that are of that persuasion out of ignorance can often be educated to some point.

So, is social media the starting point? Many here on AR state posting about hunting on social media is going to be the end of hunting and should be avoided. How do we get the more main stream media to sit up and take notice of the real issues? I don't know. But I think a good place to start is in finding and exploiting some common ground in order to get a foot in the door. Just getting the masses to listen has to be the starting point IMO. In that regard of getting the masses to listen, I personally thought the Black Rhino donation at the DSC convention a couple of years back was brilliant. Sure, it generated funds for conservation through hunting, but at the same time, allowed the organization to put the issue out where it was sure to generate main stream media buzz, while at the same time offering a reasonable chance for the organization to frame and control the discussion. More efforts along those lines would be great!

You are dead on with respect to DSC, SCI and NRA needing a " crisis response team" ready and able to deal with issues before they spin out of control. I spent 35 years in the early days of the Biotech industry and participated in many such debacles. We were relentless and strategic in figuring out how to to
Make sure the public understood our side of the story and presented the anti biotech fear mongers ( remember Jeremy Rifkin?) as a pure wacko! We were relentless and guess where Biotech is today and where ol Jeremy is? We represent the future of Healthcare and he is just a bad memory!
Don't for a moment think this was easy and the anti- biotech folks had a lot of public support. Point is we won! We educated the great unwashed and were relentless about telling our side of the story! I can be done but where do you think we would be if we just kept silent? Regulated into non- existence that's where!
Sorry SCI, DSC and NRA have failed us! Let's Make sure that we develop and implant a strategy to change public perception to the positive about African hunting! If we don't we are doomed!

Education and information are likely part of the solution, both within our own ranks and outside our ranks, but that is just a supposition on my part. I might suggest that a good starting point would be to develop a better understanding of whether and what arguments and points resonate with those folks that profess to be ambivalent or at least not hostile to hunting. Why do some hunters believe that it does not matter if lion hunting is abolished, if there is an elephant trophy importation ban, etc. Why not engage a professional research group to conduct a series of nationwide focus groups to understand what messages resonate with non-hunters, what messages do not, do messages conveyed in a particular way resonate better than others, how are people forming their impressions currently, etc. I think we even need to be open the possibility that we could learn that education and information will not meaningful move the needle and that efforts ought to be more directed towards building political clout and influence or other areas. If that is case, why be investing a bunch of time and effort into developing an education/informational program that will never be effective. This is public marketing/messaging challenge so before we assume what resonates with and what alienates the public, I would do a little research.

If Ben Carter was hunting in TZ, why didn't he take a satellite phone with him? It costs little to rent one and they have voice mail. With the time zone change, you can talk with the US in the evening after you return from hunting that day.

If he didn't want to take a satellite phone, why didn't someone else get designated to act as CEO of DSC in his absence?

If he doesn't want to do either of the above, he should not go on safaris while running an organization as ostensibly important to us as DSC.

I am glad to see DSC is addressing the issue. Have they given any response to DELTA or the other airlines?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Mike, do you believe there is ANY action that could have been employed in the heat of the "Cecil the Lion" fervor by our side of the argument that would have "cured" the viral nature of this story before or during the momentum it developed?

I'm sure you'll take my inquiry as a "gotcha" question but it's not intended that way. From my observations, once the main stream media finds a brush fire, the only way it gets extinguished is for it to burn itself out. One only has to look at politics for countless examples, but if you have some specific suggestions, I'm sure Karl, Ben, Richard, Dave and others at DSC would be willing to lend an ear.

The problem in my view is to myopically focus on the issue of Cecil as the problem. Cecil was not the problem, Cecil was the symptom of a problem that has been brewing for years. What would the solution have been? Probably a number of things. Education, of both hunters and non-hunters. For example, we still have hunters who say why should they care if lion hunting is abolished. Social media. Building an infrastructure that be used to develop and disseminate information and mobilize hunters instantly. Building a public relations presence and looking for opportunities to publicly engage on hunting issues. Building political muscle in DC. Unifying hunters of all types instead of maintaining vestiges of elitism like "safari" in organizational names, award programs that alienate many, etc. I could go on and on. The point being that issues like Cecil are sort of like long-term health issues . . . someone does not wake up one day with diabetes or heart issues . . . those are the result of years of not addressing issues proactively to prevent those sorts of problems. The interesting thing will be, do we pick ourselves up off the mat and throw out the conventions of the past and get started on some of the long term fixes or do we tweak a little here and there, declare it all good and expect that the result the next time will be different.

Mike,

This is precisely what you, me, Mr. Williams, Mr. Shores and Mr. Burke have been talking about for over 2 years. That would be two lost years.

I also agree with you with regards to DSC's response. It is so late no matter what the excuse, that they should not have bothered.

This battle; probably the most decisive in our time; has been lost. It was not even close. We got our collective asses handed to us.

Where the FUCK is SCI???????

Jeff

You should not be afraid to name your Socialist Anti-American. Anti everything to do with the U.S. sporting scene. Mike has no clue about Africa, he actually left his at that time squeeze in the bush alone to
Pursue the elephant you mention. He blasted the thing with I believe a 458 which near fell apart. It was an interesting story. Mike is very knowledgeable on shotguns and driven shooting but that is it.

You have pegged that boy 100% I have known him for 30 years. Sadly he is not alone.m

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

Where the FUCK is SCI???????

Maybe one of the twenty people that responded to the poll indicating that SCI and DSC were doing a good job handling the crisis will let you know. That still baffles me.

I am not, as of yet, a DSC member, and I certainly do not beat the drum for them, but it is crazy thinking to blame the organization or Ben Carter for a lack of response re the Cecil incident. A sat phone? Really? Even now the story seems to change ever day or two, so how can a response be orchestrated from Dallas, let alone Tanzania? And even though DSC did make a massive effort to get the truth out on the black rhino auction, anyone who doesn't think they got their head handed to them by the media has no doubt been too deep into the single malt. Even the best efforts of the true conservation organizations are no match in the short term for the blitzkrieg of the antis. After the initial fervor dies down, cooler heads can prevail. I spend hours online every week refuting the internet crazies, even though most of the responses express a desire for my immediate mortality. And how many times do posters on AR talk about what they used to do or what they would do, or what qualifications they have, but they are not members of committees in DSC, SCI, NRA, ad nauseum? Last time I checked, most organizations have voluntary positions that go begging for good people. Volunteer, or just stop bitching. Re-read Teddy Roosevelt's, "Man in the arena." We need to stop eating our own. Sorry for the rant, gentlemen, but my wife and I just spent 6 hours in 100+ heat coaching women shooters during an NRA Women on Target event.
Cheers

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Education and information are likely part of the solution, both within our own ranks and outside our ranks, but that is just a supposition on my part. I might suggest that a good starting point would be to develop a better understanding of whether and what arguments and points resonate with those folks that profess to be ambivalent or at least not hostile to hunting. Why do some hunters believe that it does not matter if lion hunting is abolished, if there is an elephant trophy importation ban, etc. Why not engage a professional research group to conduct a series of nationwide focus groups to understand what messages resonate with non-hunters, what messages do not, do messages conveyed in a particular way resonate better than others, how are people forming their impressions currently, etc. I think we even need to be open the possibility that we could learn that education and information will not meaningful move the needle and that efforts ought to be more directed towards building political clout and influence or other areas. If that is case, why be investing a bunch of time and effort into developing an education/informational program that will never be effective. This is public marketing/messaging challenge so before we assume what resonates with and what alienates the public, I would do a little research.

Well said. All too often we look within the group trying to gain acceptance for suggestions on messaging and tactics. They're generally not the ones needing to be persuaded, and probably the least qualified to come up with an effective strategy to sway the undecided or "changeable" opposition. Your suggestion of "focus groups" certainly gives away your profession, but it is a good idea. Employee a firm that specializes in this, as well as effective use of social media to convey the messages.

IMO what is important is who is behind any effort made for pro hunting.For one thing they need to be very aggressive or else any plans or such will go to waste.They must push things through and not give up.