By Chris Lamphere
Effort to ban “wildlife killing contests” sheds light on public image consideration for conservationists.
A group of animal rights activists is ramping up efforts to ban hunting contests in Michigan, and some conservationists fear this is just the first step toward a much larger and more destructive goal.
In August, Project Coyote announced a campaign to end what activists have provocatively termed “wildlife killing contests” in Michigan. In a press release, Project Coyote defines wildlife killing contests as “organized events during which participants compete for cash or prizes by killing the most, the largest or the smallest animals over a certain period of time.”
“The momentum to ban wildlife killing contests in Michigan has already begun with both the Washtenaw and Kalamazoo County’s Board of Commissioners taking significant steps in 2021 by passing resolutions opposing wildlife killing contests,” reads Project Coyote’s August announcement. “It’s now time for the entire state to follow the example of these two counties and end cruel and ecologically destructive wildlife killing contests statewide.”
Merle Jones, public relations director for the Michigan Trappers and Predator Callers Association, said similar campaigns have resulted in bans in 10 states so far, with California the first to pass legislation in 2014 prohibiting hunting contests. Jones and other conservationists have been sounding the alarm over the last several years about these campaigns, which started targeting coyote-hunting derbies but have since been expanded to include numerous other species.
“It’s a zero-sum thing,” Jones said about the campaigns, which he believes aren’t just about hunting contests but ultimately hunting in general. “They don’t want any harvest at all,” said Jones, who added that if hunting contests are banned in Michigan, it could set a legal precedent for eventually banning other types of hunting.
In its press release, Project Coyote claims efforts to ban wildlife killing contests have a lot of public support.
“Opposition to wildlife killing contests continues to grow as awareness of these events builds, with national polling showing that 80% of Americans oppose them,” the press release states.
Jones said part of the reason the campaigns have been successful in other states is because activists are able to portray the act of hunting in a negative light using visceral and unflattering language.
Replacing the word “hunting” with “animal killing” is an example of this. Jones said similar tactics have been used to demonize other facets of hunting and firearm ownership. Examples include the terms “trophy hunting” and “assault rifle,” Jones said.
These strategies have been effective in other states, which is why the announcement that Michigan would be next on the activists ’agenda was cause for alarm.
“To say it’s a slippery slope would be a drastic understatement,” Jones said about the potential ramifications of banning hunting contests. “Someone said to me it’s like they’re chipping away at the iceberg, but it’s more like they’re blowing the whole iceberg apart.”
By appealing to emotion rather than reason and sound science, Jones said activists have been able to convince large segments of the population that hunting is basically akin to murder of animals, and not an essential part of wildlife management.
Coyote hunting, for instance, plays a crucial role in keeping their populations in check. Too many coyotes in an area can lead to a host of problems for the natural balance of an ecosystem, as can overpopulation of just about any other species. Research also has shown that coyotes reproduce so quickly that even extreme hunting and trapping pressure lead to minimal impact on the population over time. For instance, a three-year study conducted in South Carolina found that coyote populations reduced by 78% each year were able to rebound to pre-trapping levels in nine months.
Activists contend that this is the result of compensatory reproduction, which essentially means that coyotes instinctively reproduce more when survival chances are lower. Still, Jones said this concept has not been studied thoroughly enough to be fully understood and certainly not well enough to make it the basis for major wildlife management policy changes.
With hunter participation down across the board, Jones said hunting contests provide an opportunity to introduce more people to the activity, along with the social bonding and camaraderie that comes along with it.
There also is the economic value that these events bring to the state.
Michigan United Conservation Clubs Executive Director Amy Trotter said hunting tournaments contribute to a $11.2 billion industry.
“It’s interesting to note,” Trotter said, “that there doesn’t seem to be the same outcry to ban fishing tournaments, which operate the same way, with cash and prizes given out to those who reel in the most and the largest.”
Echoing concerns that Jones expressed, Trotter said legislation passed in other states is so vague that it might eventually be expanded to include all forms of hunting.
There are also questions such as what exactly constitutes a hunting contest and what kind of impact they actually have. A group of adult hunters standing over a pile of dead coyotes is one thing, but what about a squirrel-hunting tournament organized by the Boy Scouts? What about a buck pole?
Recognizing the danger posed by activist efforts in other states, MUCC’s membership in 2020 passed a resolution in favor of preserving hunting contests in Michigan.
A Public Image Dilemma
While MUCC and other conservationists plan to oppose efforts to ban hunting contests, Trotter said this issue brings to light another challenge they face, and that has to do with how the public perceives hunters.
Trotter explained that pictures of dozens of dead animals hung up or stacked in a pile may not be the best way to communicate the value of hunting to the general public since many people are not hunters themselves. She went on to explain that this kind of imagery can used by activists to paint an inaccurate picture of what hunting is all about in order to sway public opinion and change the law.
“We just need to be mindful of how it looks,” Trotter said. “Being cognizant of the outsider that’s looking in.”
Trotter said MUCC staff are developing recommendations to help hunting contest managers determine which images are appropriate for public consumption and which could be used to harm them.
Jones agrees that it would be wise for people to be more mindful of the content they are putting out and strive to promote a healthy wildlife management message.
At the same time, however, Jones said he doesn’t think hunters should shy away from who they are just because some people don’t like it.
“I think we could do a better job marketing but also do it more boldly,” Jones said. “It’s OK to hunt. We hunt because it’s part of our nature, and we enjoy it. We can’t hide that.”
Jones said a campaign he’s looking to emulate to raise awareness of this issue is the effort to pass Proposal G in the 1990s. Prop G was introduced as an alternative to Prop D, a ballot initiative prohibiting the use of bait piles and dogs to hunt bears.
While many in Michigan initially supported the idea of banning bait piles and dogs to hunt bears, Prop G proponents gradually shifted public opinion through an extensive marketing campaign
emphasizing the importance of relying on experts to make wildlife management decisions and not ballot box biology.
The campaign was extremely successful, leading to a landslide victory for Prop G and a resounding defeat of Prop D.
“I’d like to learn more about how that process unfolded,” Jones said.
You must be logged in to post a comment.