So this follows on last night’s rant, re: intentional bad shots on hunting television shows.  What I’ve got to say isn’t new here.  In fact, I’m probably repeating myself because I know I’ve covered this ground before.  But so what?  It’s my blog. 

I’ve talked to and heard from a lot of hunters who have a range of opinions about TV hunting programs.  Most seem to feel that the programs glorify the wrong aspects of the hunt, emphasize the kill over the hunting experience, and highlight questionable ethics.  In fact, if I tried to sum it up anecdotally, I’d think the overall feeling was pretty damning and there shouldn’t be many sportsmen watching this stuff. 

But the truth is that there are at least three networks wholly dedicated to this kind of programming, along with several other channels featuring at least some hunting/fishing programs.  Someone must be digging it, because the sponsors and advertisers are sure dumping in the cash to keep it alive.  I have to say that on many levels, I’m glad to see this.  With the decline of print media and the rise of the short attention-span culture, television and Internet sources are the go-to media outlets for hunting entertainment.  It’s one more way to perpetuate the sport, to introduce it to new audiences, and maybe even to recruit new hunters.  It’s also an excellent conduit to promote ethics and sportsmanship.  I know for a fact that many viewers are using these programs to learn more about hunting techniques, styles, tools, game species, etc. 

That level of influence comes with a responsibility, and this is where I think that some of the hunting programming, and the networks that host them, really fall short. 

Now I’m not suggesting that hunting programs become didactic, proselytizing ethics sermons.  In fact, I’d hate that, because it would kick off that ever narrowing spiral of, “this is the only right way to hunt.” 

However, I do think that hunting programs definitely should hold their content to a higher standard than, perhaps, the average hunter.  By this, I mean that the average hunter gets over-excited and takes a bad shot from time to time.  They’ll stretch one out past their limits, take a bad angle, or try a low-percentage shot out of desperation.  It’s human nature, exacerbated by the fact that big game hunting is a sport that may offer the average hunter only one shot opportunity in a year.  (And let’s not even go into the economic pressure when a hunter has paid a lot of money for a hunt.) 

Even a highly ethical hunter can fall to temptation or bad judgement from time to time.  I understand this.  These are the real life things that happen in the field.  Sometimes they end well.  Sometimes they don’t.  But that doesn’t mean it needs to show up on the television or computer screen.  Honesty is an important thing, but it’s a virtue that doesn’t translate well to mass media.  Public opinion isn’t usually formed by the subtext of an action…it comes from what they actually see. 

I don’t think that the programs can, or should, utterly sanitize hunting programs.  Hunting is bloody and messy and often imprecise.  Bad shots can happen under the most ideal conditions. There’s no need to sweep those kinds of things under the rug (or onto the cutting room floor).  Explain what happened, show how it was followed up, and hopefully bring it to a positive outcome.  At the very least, make it a learning experience for the hunter and the audience.  The best programs are already doing this, by the way, so it’s certainly not a revolutionary thought.

I’m also not saying that the programs should avoid controversial subjects.  Two shows that come to mind, and have handled this well, are Keith Warren’s “The High Road”, and The Pigman.  On a recent episode, Warren spent some time explaining the benefits of high fence exotics ranches in Texas, and how these ranches are providing habitat and successful breeding programs for species that are endangered in their native lands.  If hunters didn’t pay to occasionally hunt these animals, there’d be no funding for the programs.  It’s a pretty clear message, even if you don’t approve of hunting inside a fence. 

Likewise, Brian Quaca, the “Pig Man”, spent a good part of a recent episode on dog hunting for hogs explaining that, while some folks don’t like using dogs, it’s a critical tool in the management of hog populations.  On the episode, they caught and killed small pigs and large, and again, Quaca didn’t shy away from it, but explained it clearly that this isn’t the same as “sport hunting”.  It’s pest control, and taking the small animals is a necessary part of it all. 

OK, so I’m not doing the episodes or the arguments justice here, but the point is, Warren and Quaca are both educating the viewers about the issues.  They’re not just out there filming kill shot after kill shot and leaving it to the mercies of the audience’s imagination and prejudices. 

At the same time, there needs to be a clear and consistent effort to move away from showing things that are simply indefensible.  That includes intentional “Hail Mary” shots like the one that got me so fired up last night.  There is absolutely no call to take a 300 yard, running, Texas heart shot. It’s a guaranteed waste of meat, if the shot lands where it was intended, so it served no purpose except to claim a trophy.  Maybe the hunter got caught up in the moment, or maybe he felt like he had to take that shot because the cameras were on him.  I can’t say.  But that’s no justification for transmitting that kind of behavior to the world.  The hunter may act in the moment, and that action is irreversible, but the television producers have time to consider and reconsider what they put on the program.  They can edit, they can reshoot, or they can simply cut the scene altogether. 

I think that, overall, the hunting television and video industry has made some steps toward cleaning itself up (I remember the big deal when Outdoor Channel went HD, and in order to be on their new, premium network, program producers had to agree to meet certain ethical standards… whatever happened with that?).  But there’s obviously still a long ways to go.  So what can we, the hunters and viewers, do to help them get there?

I’ve got the only solution I can think of right now, and that’s to kick off a campaign of letter-writing to the programs, the networks, and even to the sponsors demanding a higher level of ethics and responsible behavior on the programs.  We can demand that the programs put in a more conscious effort to manage their content with an emphasis not just on getting the kill on video, but how that kill is perceived by the audience… and how it will play in the field of public opinion. 

At the very least, each of us should send a comment to the program and its parent network every single time we witness something we think is questionable… don’t do like I’ve done so far, and wait until one episode finally sets us off.  Do it every time.  One thing I’ve learned from the evolution of the Internet and online media is that we don’t have to be passive viewers any longer.  It’s almost too simple to click an icon, type up an email, and fire it off to express our points of view. 

Those of us with blogs can also play a role, by publicly calling out episodes and programs like I just did last night.  Just put it in print, on the screen.  Make sure you include the name of the program and the network that carries it, so that the search engines will pick it up.  You’d be surprised who reads it. 

It’s a combined noise that may not get everything we want, but we’ll be pretty hard to ignore.

Here are the three main outdoors programming networks I know of, and one online TV content source.  I’m sure there are others. 

The Pursuit Channel (Hunting Channel)
The Sportsman’s Channel
The Outdoor Channel
My OutdoorTV

Related Posts

No related posts.