As a member of SCI, I get email updates on almost a daily basis.

As there have been a couple of conversations on this forum lately about posting photos on social media, I thought it was rather timely when I received the information below today from SCI.

Personally, I think the correct answer is "don't post hunting photos on Facebook, period" but short of that, SCI's recommendations seem reasonable.

I copied and pasted the entire email for those on AR who don't belong to SCI, or don't receive email updates (sorry, the imbedded links in the email didn't transfer with the copy-and-paste).



Social Media Best Practices


With hunting season right around the corner, we want to take the time to remind you of some social media best practices for hunters. Our anti-hunting foes aren’t stepping back from targeting our community online. Without taking the proper precautions, social media can place you in the crosshairs for privacy violations and personal attacks.

Knowing how to safeguard your information and privacy on social media is key to effectively utilizing Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms. Time after time we hear stories of anti-hunters attacking our fellow hunters on social media. The trolling antis will stop at nothing to harass good men and women for participating in a very legal activity - hunting. Back and forth engagement on social media is often more detrimental than helpful; before responding to any attacks reach out to our DC office and let us know what is happening so we can assist.

Always remember that anything you post on social media has the potential to live on the internet forever. Be smart when choosing what hunting photos to post online. If your photo is bloody, has the animals’ tongue hanging out, or isn’t respectful to the animal and the hunter, just don’t post it.

One important step you can take is to spend a few minutes ensuring your social media profile has the appropriate privacy settings in place.

We suggest you take the following steps with your Facebook profile:
•Change your Privacy settings so that ◦only Friends can see your posts;
◦the audience for your past posts is limited to Friends; and
◦search engines outside of Facebook cannot link to your profile.

•Change your Timeline settings so that only Friends can post to your timeline (if you know all of your Facebook friends) or only You can post (if you have friended people you do not know well).
•Change your Followers settings so that only Friends can follow you.


By taking these steps, you make it more difficult for non-Friends (such as anti-hunters or spammers) to view your profile or contact you. If you would like a visual guide to walk you through these suggestions step-by-step, click HERE.

While you’re checking your privacy settings on Facebook, head over to our Hunter Advocacy Facebook page and give us a LIKE! You can search for “SCI Hunter Advocacy” or click HERE.

Remember that we as hunters must stick together but we must also make certain we take proper precautions to ensure that our memories are shared only with those we want them shared with.

If you have questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out to SCI’s DC-based Hunter Advocacy team at hunteradvocacy@safariclub.org.

SCI obviously has it all wrong. . . again.

The mentality to make your page private is an obvious move. This is why I asked the questions as to ego, the want and desire for all to see the hero shots.

If the guys who are telling me I'm wrong truly believe their own convictions, put your Lion kill shots up on FB, public settings and watch the threats to you, your families and business receive. If its worth it to you, please carry on.

Again, I see no upside to this activity.

If you want to share your photo's send an email to your friends. Many AR members receive private hunt/fishing reports from me. I have complete control over my audience.

A great example of what NRA, SCI and DSC should be doing more of . . . arming hunters with good information to help fight the fight against the persistent attacks on hunting. Tips such as these, fact sheets for hunters on the positive role hunting plays in conservation, changes in the messaging in television programs sponsored by NRA, SCI and DSC, efforts to take the fight offensively to groups like HSUS . . . I like the more proactive efforts. We are quick to criticize, and when they do something right we should be equally quick to call that out too.

"Tips…" from the same organization that offers rewards for killing as many animals as possible?

It would be interesting to graph the growth of the anti movement and the SCI message. I mean, in the 1950s and 1960's it was cool to hunt big game. Movie and singing personalities did it. The well off and royalty did it. Then came the inner circles and diamond awards and hunting turned into what it is today--guaranteed hunts, high fences, social awards for killing the most and biggest, game farming allowing the middle class to get in the coveted "book."

We are all in a jam we can't (and won't) be able to get out of.
Cal

I still don't get the whole social media thing.....

We can put or best foot forward for free:
Behave well, speak well, post tasteful pictures, etc.
We are our own marketers. Many hunters are being more thoughtful this way already.

PS, Sometimes I think we are a bit to pugnacious with the Anti hunters.
"Them against us" "They are stupid."
Well, we are pretty stupid too, at times, and we shouldn't let the program get so polarized. We have to get ahead of it.

The "war" should be viewed as a marketing issue. They, the anti hunters, are competitors trying to win over the same public opinion that we want. We don't knock the competition, we emphasize the advantages of our product and service. ie. money spent, conservation, family values, outdoor adventure, etc. Our sport and ourselves have to be attractive. We have to show that we add something to society, the economy and nature, not just take stuff (animals, birds, fish) away from the world.

I have been beating this drum for a long time. ( Even my dog ignores me.)
We can win if we were smart.

Let me put it this way: If marketers can get half of North America to vote liberal than marketers could sell "Hunting" to the masses.

Do you know that, last year, Land Rover turned their marketing back on us because we (hunters)are bad news!

Here are two ideas ( I don't think that the second one will appeal to you very much. Just trying to be creative):

1. The Gun industry is really asleep at the switch on this and should be doing some serious marketing to the non-believers. (In the 60's Ruger promoted family values in their adds.)
Do you want these big gun companies to use their marketing millions to make us hunters look good? Boycott one of them and watch what happens!

2. Someday, the hunters will realize just how much P.R. trouble those assault rifle have got us in. We could throw the libs. a bone on the assault rifles and leverage our PR and freedom on hunting, way up in the process.
Eventually are going to lose some rights on the military type of firearms anyway. Lets get ahead of it and get something for it. ( I think that the NRA and SCI are spinning their wheels to much.)
What could we get? We could make Hillary or Donald the second coming and in turn, I bet they would cut us a ton of slack, plus huge PR. "America is a nation of outdoores people" ta-da!

Please don't laugh. Just think it over.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brian Canada:
2. Someday, the hunters will realize just how much P.R. trouble those assault rifle have got us in. We could throw the libs. a bone on the assault rifles and leverage our PR and freedom on hunting, way up in the process.
Eventually are going to lose some rights on the military type of firearms anyway. Lets get ahead of it and get something for it. ( I think that the NRA and SCI are spinning their wheels to much.)
What could we get? We could make Hillary or Donald the second coming and in turn, I bet they would cut us a ton of slack, plus huge PR. "America is a nation of outdoores people" ta-da!
QUOTE]

Brian;

From your handle and location, I think it's safe to assume you are Canadian.

Please don't take this as an insult to you or your country, but the main reason we Americans can't give up on what you (and many others) refer to as "assault rifles" is because to do so, we turn our collective backs on the 2nd Amendment.

That part of our Constitution guarantees ownership of arms as a right, not a privilege.

"Assault rifles" for the most part are simply semi-automatic firearms built on, typically, the AR (from Armalite) platform. They are no different than a Ruger 10/22, a Browning BAR, or a number of other self-loading rifles as far as function. They just look "scary" to people not involved in the shooting sports.

Yes, we are dug in on giving any quarter to gun control groups and politicians, because their agenda is incremental chipping away at rights--today "assault" rifles, tomorrow semi-auto handguns, the next day limits on ammunition possession, and so on.

Having said that, I will acknowledge that some hunters and recreational shooters (clays, metallic targets, SASS, etc) have no use for the "black guns." Others don't care for handguns--I had one gentleman who is deeply involved in hunting Africa tell me that he wouldn't own an AR because "all they're made for is killing people."

In summary, I just don't see how negotiating a deal with any Administration will be of any benefit; to the contrary, I think it would signal weakness of resolve and simply encourage the "antis" to press even harder for their ultimate goal: total disarmament.

Nitro, Yes I see what you mean. ( I'm a Canuck. Different deal completely.)
I also think you make other good points and I get it.

I kind of wish that I didn't post some of my comments. I didn't think them through properly.
I had a run away!

If you give the 'antis' a bone they will probably bite your hand off. "Thin end of the wedge."

Thanks for kindly posting good info. I was mostly talking through my hat, I think. Brian

Yes Brian, when I saw your post all I could do was shake my head. It is exactly that attitude"...........the willingness to throw others under the bus.........that has Canadians in the position we are in. There are many Canadians who own and enjoy shooting "assault rifles".

It is a slippery slope, tossing others into the fire in the hopes of keeping you interests safe. Just goes to show you how many just don't get it!

Although this discussion is straying far away from the issue of hunting and social media, it raises an important point.
If everyone could simply incorporate the notion that the Bill of Rights outlines our civil liberties, it would become obvious to all that firearms ownership is one of them. I, for one, do not accept ANY of my civil liberties being curtailed.

Skyline. I got it all wrong. I should have thought it through more before I posted it. I wish I never did.
I was standing up talking when I should have been sitting down listening. Brian

Yes, the is thread HAS strayed from its original purpose, which is to provide a little guidance for those who, for whatever reason, wish to continue posting hunting experiences on social media.

While I still think staying away from Facebook and other sites is the best policy, at least SCI has offered some worthwhile suggestions.

We tend to lambast SCI pretty regularly, but when they provide recommendations that could be useful, I think we ought to give them a little credit.

quote:

Originally posted by Skyline:
Yes Brian, when I saw your post all I could do was shake my head. It is exactly that attitude"...........the willingness to throw others under the bus.........that has Canadians in the position we are in. There are many Canadians who own and enjoy shooting "assault rifles".

It is a slippery slope, tossing others into the fire in the hopes of keeping you interests safe. Just goes to show you how many just don't get it!

+1 X1000!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Nitro Express:

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Canada:
2. Someday, the hunters will realize just how much P.R. trouble those assault rifle have got us in. We could throw the libs. a bone on the assault rifles and leverage our PR and freedom on hunting, way up in the process.
Eventually are going to lose some rights on the military type of firearms anyway. Lets get ahead of it and get something for it. ( I think that the NRA and SCI are spinning their wheels to much.)
What could we get? We could make Hillary or Donald the second coming and in turn, I bet they would cut us a ton of slack, plus huge PR. "America is a nation of outdoores people" ta-da!

Brian;

From your handle and location, I think it's safe to assume you are Canadian.

Please don't take this as an insult to you or your country, but the main reason we Americans can't give up on what you (and many others) refer to as "assault rifles" is because to do so, we turn our collective backs on the 2nd Amendment.

That part of our Constitution guarantees ownership of arms as a right, not a privilege.

"Assault rifles" for the most part are simply semi-automatic firearms built on, typically, the AR (from Armalite) platform. They are no different than a Ruger 10/22, a Browning BAR, or a number of other self-loading rifles as far as function. They just look "scary" to people not involved in the shooting sports.

Yes, we are dug in on giving any quarter to gun control groups and politicians, because their agenda is incremental chipping away at rights--today "assault" rifles, tomorrow semi-auto handguns, the next day limits on ammunition possession, and so on.

Having said that, I will acknowledge that some hunters and recreational shooters (clays, metallic targets, SASS, etc) have no use for the "black guns." Others don't care for handguns--I had one gentleman who is deeply involved in hunting Africa tell me that he wouldn't own an AR because "all they're made for is killing people."

In summary, I just don't see how negotiating a deal with any Administration will be of any benefit; to the contrary, I think it would signal weakness of resolve and simply encourage the "antis" to press even harder for their ultimate goal: total disarmament.

Extremely well articulated Nitro E! Agreed 100%!!!

For the life of me I can't see any reason to be on FaceBook. When I ask people why they are on it, they say things like being able to send photos of their kids to friends. Well, I can do that with Email. If I were on FaceBook, the last thing I would do would be to post pictures of big game I had shot.

I see no purpose in social media for normal, well-adjusted people.

I would no sooner join Facebook than I would leave my front door wide open and allow every stranger on the street to stroll through my house and paw through my personal property.

Social media is a truly bizarre phenomenon.

Of course, it's founders are billionaires.

But to me, that just reinforces the notion that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average person.

Great post Michael.
I'm storing this one in the "Golden Nugget Of The Day" file.

We act like social media is all down side and no upside. At the NRA's Hunters' Leadership Forum meeting last fall, a couple of points were made. One, the vast majority of Millennials get their news and information from social media sources. I am not arguing whether that is a good thing, a bad thing or just a thing . . . but to ignore social media is to ignore a generational reality. Two, Wayne LaPierre made the point that social media has been a game changer for the NRA. No longer is the NRA dependent on the mainstream media for getting its message out. Through social media the NRA can now take its message directly to people without a filter. Far from lamenting social media, LaPierre was applauding its virtues.

In the final analysis, it really does not matter whether any of us think social media is good or bad . . . it is increasingly the communication medium of choice for a huge and growing segment of the population and far from going away anytime soon it is only going to get bigger.

Well put Mike...
A strategy of "ignoring" something is no strategy at all.
Like it or don't like it, it's there and it's real.
I would like to see a proactive and intelligent strategy (SCI) promoting the benefits of hunting...the history of hunting and conservation...
Strategies on helping feed the poor....
SCI...,step it up!!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
We act like social media is all down side and no upside. At the NRA's First for Hunters meeting last fall, a couple of points were made. One, the vast majority of Millennials get their news and information from social media sources. I am not arguing whether that is a good thing, a bad thing or just a thing . . . but to ignore social media is to ignore a generational reality. Two, Wayne LaPierre made the point that social media has been a game changer for the NRA. No longer is the NRA dependent on the mainstream media for getting its message out. Through social media the NRA can now take its message directly to people without a filter. Far from lamenting social media, LaPierre was applauding its virtues.

In the final analysis, it really does not matter whether any of us think social media is good or bad . . . it is increasingly the communication medium of choice for a huge and growing segment of the population and far from going away anytime soon it is only going to get bigger.

Well Said. Social Media is a game we must learn to dominate and bend to our will to educate the uneducated.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
We act like social media is all down side and no upside. At the NRA's First for Hunters meeting last fall, a couple of points were made. One, the vast majority of Millennials get their news and information from social media sources. I am not arguing whether that is a good thing, a bad thing or just a thing . . . but to ignore social media is to ignore a generational reality. Two, Wayne LaPierre made the point that social media has been a game changer for the NRA. No longer is the NRA dependent on the mainstream media for getting its message out. Through social media the NRA can now take its message directly to people without a filter. Far from lamenting social media, LaPierre was applauding its virtues.

In the final analysis, it really does not matter whether any of us think social media is good or bad . . . it is increasingly the communication medium of choice for a huge and growing segment of the population and far from going away anytime soon it is only going to get bigger.

Mike your assessment is spot on. Social media is here to stay, but no one is forcing anyone to use it. I think the key is to pick the parts of social media that work for you and avoid the aspects of it that cause you concern. The bottom line however is that everyone needs to be more cognizant of just how pervasive social media is and how quickly information can be used to do good or draw and quarter an individual or business.

It is very important NOT to be asleep at the switch when using social media and think before you type and post.

quote:

Originally posted by Marty:
I still don't get the whole social media thing.....

Doesnt matter if you get it or not.

The next generation of hunters....or anti hunters live and breath it.

The right, pro-gun and pro hunting folks are way behind the curve on shaping public opinion via FB, Twitter, etc. Partly our fault, partly because the owners and drivers of the tech are anti gun, anti hunting leftist.

Oh well, fight with what you have, not with what you wish you had.

What I don't get is the notion of being part of a hive. I know it's a geezer alert, but I simply don't want to be connected to everybody all the time.
I will write letters and emails, contribute money, and try to influence people in person, but I will leave being Borg to others.
I am not discounting social media's power and importance to our cause, but it's not an instrument I play.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

SCI obviously has it all wrong. . . again.

The mentality to make your page private is an obvious move. This is why I asked the questions as to ego, the want and desire for all to see the hero shots.

If the guys who are telling me I'm wrong truly believe their own convictions, put your Lion kill shots up on FB, public settings and watch the threats to you, your families and business receive. If its worth it to you, please carry on.

Again, I see no upside to this activity.

If you want to share your photo's send an email to your friends. Many AR members receive private hunt/fishing reports from me. I have complete control over my audience.

Couldn't agree more.

People don't actually care about you as much as you think they do and nowhere close to as much as you do you. The rest are using your pictures to inflame the anti hunting movement. Case in point- The whole collared lion thing wouldn't have been the firestorm it was without pictures.

I know of another collared lion (problem lion just outside of Etosha) that was collected several months after the Zim lion under similar circumstances that didn't make the news. Why wasn't it a big deal? Because it was not publicised and there were no pictures taken.

We are our own worst enemy with social media.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
We act like social media is all down side and no upside. At the NRA's First for Hunters meeting last fall, a couple of points were made. One, the vast majority of Millennials get their news and information from social media sources. I am not arguing whether that is a good thing, a bad thing or just a thing . . . but to ignore social media is to ignore a generational reality. Two, Wayne LaPierre made the point that social media has been a game changer for the NRA. No longer is the NRA dependent on the mainstream media for getting its message out. Through social media the NRA can now take its message directly to people without a filter. Far from lamenting social media, LaPierre was applauding its virtues.

In the final analysis, it really does not matter whether any of us think social media is good or bad . . . it is increasingly the communication medium of choice for a huge and growing segment of the population and far from going away anytime soon it is only going to get bigger.

While I 100% agree with Mike, let me point out a slight error to avoid any confusion . The meeting was the NRA Hunters Leadership Forum. It was NOT the NRA First for Hunters. I don't want anyone to get confused between the NRA and SCI.

My bad, you are 100% correct Larry. I will edit above.

An argument could be made that by exposing more people to "hunting" photos, hunting can be made to be seen as more "normal" and desensitize people to the sport of hunting.

That is basically what the progressives do when hiring homosexual people to be news reporters, or making movies and TV series that have homosexual leads.

Just saying.

BH63

Ummmm and how's that working for you???


Unless you take these folks and drop them off in Kruger alone with a firearm for three weeks will they begin to understand the concept of hunting. Heck, 99% of the population doesn't want to know how their chicken arrived at the grocery store all quartered and nicely wrapped.


Exposure to hunting pictures simply isn't getting the job done.

Have any of you ever seen the TV show Naked & Afraid? For the longest time. I would not watch it because of the name. Now I love it.

The bottom line is that they turn some people loose in a remote place with minimal survival gear and they have to survive off the land. They have no food or water as well as no clothes or shoes. It is amazing how quickly the most hippy, left wing whack job becomes a killer as soon as they become hungry. For whatever it is worth, they in the the RSA for the latest season. It is tough country. I keep wondering how we might use something like this to our advantage.

Larry I have been watching N&A also, and the theme of the current series in South Africa is largely based on HUNTING. My take is that it falls under the "if you eat it then it's ok" category.

Side note, I don't know how edited/fake it is, but I am amazed they allow these guys to blunder around given the number of lion that appear to be in the area. Any of our SA members know where this was filmed, and any insight?

Bill:

I have wondered about that. I suspect there is a ton of stock footage that is being used. I know that in other episodes, they would show video of snakes that are not even found in the area where they are filming.

I know another show is "scripted"to a certain extent. I wonder about this one.

The other thing I found hard to believe is that they let these people stay who had tick bite fever.

Back to the subject, what we kill is eaten.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill C:
Larry I have been watching N&A also, and the theme of the current series in South Africa is largely based on HUNTING. My take is that it falls under the "if you eat it then it's ok" category.

Side note, I don't know how edited/fake it is, but I am amazed they allow these guys to blunder around given the number of lion that appear to be in the area. Any of our SA members know where this was filmed, and any insight?

Bill,

I know that the BBC had a show like this and the contestants were under constant supervision. someone was always watching. In Botswana it was PH Chris Dandridge who once had to swoop in and rescue a pair who foolishly decided to camp next to a waterhole. They never knew Chris was about but he kept close watch over them.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Ummmm and how's that working for you???


Unless you take these folks and drop them off in Kruger alone with a firearm for three weeks will they begin to understand the concept of hunting. Heck, 99% of the population doesn't want to know how their chicken arrived at the grocery store all quartered and nicely wrapped.


Exposure to hunting pictures simply isn't getting the job done.

Actually quite good. I have posted pics on fb of a large mule deer and ellie both lying where they were shot. I have received quite a lot of "likes" and zero "dislikes". To be fair, I am picky about who I "friend", but even the non-hunters seem to appreciate the sentiments I post along with the pics.

BH63