Hunting is wonderfully complex. It is a social activity that brings us together with friends and family. Hunting is also deeply embedded in conservation politics. Regulated hunting is an important tool of wildlife managers and hunting organizations play an important role in lobbying for conservation outcomes. Therefore, hunting is also a social-political act. When we hunt, we are an embodied expression of that social-political act. What political statements do we make through the companies we support? Hunting and fishing exist in a complicated social-political fabric. The choices we make as hunters and anglers shape our individual expression of the social-political act we engage in when we go into the field. It is worth reflecting on how we express our ethics through hunting and the people we surround ourselves with.
During a recent chat with a friend, we discussed watching the hunting and fishing world come face-to-face with issues around racism, sexism, and homophobia that had, for far too long, remained niche issues in those communities. I commented that the hunting community often insulates itself from wider social issues. Paradoxically, we are active on important conservation issues while allowing passivity around social issues. In addition, we have allowed outdoor companies to remain largely indifferent and silent on social issues. “Not anymore,” he replied. One way we can actively engage with critical social-political issues is to support organizations and companies that reflect our ethics and address issues we care about. Many of us become members of organizations that advocate for issues we feel are important. We can encourage those organizations to speak out and support important issues. We can also support companies who actively work to build a progressive, positive, and inclusive hunting community. Do our consumer choices make statements about our ethics and politics? Should we consider those statements in our purchasing decisions?
The history of conservation in North America is full of complexities and contradictions. As hunter-conservationists, we often celebrate the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, hanging some of our identity as progressive conservationists on its seven foundational principles. The North American Model is complicated. It simultaneously celebrates democratic access to wildlife and is rooted in the disenfranchisement of Indigenous peoples’ access to their lands. It establishes shared public ownership of wildlife regardless of social status or identity and therefore subverts Indigenous concepts of relationships with wildlife. The historical conservationists we celebrate took chances; they put themselves in the public and took stands that often positioned them in opposition to powerful political and industrial interests. Rachel Carson, a marine biologist, conservationist, and author of the ground-breaking book Silent Spring, alerted the world to the dangers of pesticides and their devastating impacts on habitat and wildlife. In 1962, Carson took a stand against the chemical industry and is credited with initiating the grassroots environmental movement. Theodore Roosevelt, big game hunter, conservationist, and president of the United States from 1901-1909, used his time in political office to create “150 national forests, 51 federal bird reserves, four national game preserves, five national parks and 18 national monuments on over 230 million acres of public land”. Roosevelt, along with others, sounded the public alarm over the drastic decline of large mammals across North America. Certainly, Teddy Roosevelt ruffled the feathers of more than a few political interests. Winona LaDuke, an Indigenous environmental activist, speaker, and author, has spent decades supporting movements around Indigenous food sovereignty, sustainable development, women’s rights, and ecological restoration. She has run for vice president with the Green Party of the United States. LaDuke’s conservation and political activism have always been deeply intertwined. In 2016, she supported protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
We might not all agree with everything Carson, Roosevelt, LaDuke, and countless others stood for in their efforts. We might find ourselves benefitting from the outcomes of their work while disagreeing with some of their individual politics. But that’s really the point, isn’t it? Throughout the history of the conservation movement, people have recognized the need to take personal chances, make strong political statements, and tirelessly work to improve the circumstances of the natural world. The political history of the conservation movement is inescapable and inarguable. It is also a history we should be proud of and eager to engage in.
In spring 2020, wider political events such as Black Lives Matter brought up a range of complex issues that permeated all subcultures and communities, including hunting and fishing. The outdoors community, including hunters, anglers, bird watchers, and environmentalists of all kinds, became acutely aware of the need to look inward and examine our own communities. Introspection and critical self-reflection are the foundations on which we build self-improvement. To strengthen and enrich the outdoors community, we need to be able to examine ourselves with humility, honesty, and a commitment to self-improvement. One of the lessons we learned from the social and political events of this year is that our community is not as inclusive as it should be. We heard a groundswell of voices express that many folks do not feel included or represented in the outdoors community. In some cases, people were explicitly excluded from outdoor activities. On May 25, a video of a woman calling the police on a Black birdwatcher in Central Park went viral. The man did not commit a crime, gave no reason for anyone to call the police and in the end, the woman was charged with filing a false report. In response, initiatives such as Black Birders Week worked to increase the representation of Black scientists and bird watchers in the outdoors community. Organizations such as The Wildlife Society and the Society for Conservation Biology released statements in support of diversity and inclusion. It is on all of us to ensure that the outdoors community is welcoming and inclusive. We must ensure that Black, Indigenous and people of colour, women, the LGBTQ+ community, and all communities feel safe, welcome, and represented in the hunting world.
“Intersectional environmentalism [is] the type of environmentalism where both people and the planet are considered, so both social and environmental justice are considered, and [they’re] talked about in the same conversation.” Leah Thomas
There are many things we can do to strengthen our community. There are many powerful voices out there telling us what we can do to support marginalized and underrepresented groups. Find them on social media and follow their blogs. Listen to those voices and take their suggestions. One of the pieces of action I think we can all take is to reflect on the companies we give our money to and hold them to a high standard.
We often talk about hunters and anglers as a somewhat unified – if highly diverse – community with shared interests and values. Companies across the outdoors world tell us that they are more than simply a business transaction. They tell us they are part of our community and share our motivations and values.
“Our values reflect those of a business started by a band of climbers and surfers, and the minimalist style they promoted in their lives and their sports.” Patagonia
Hunting, fishing, and outdoors companies present themselves as active members of the outdoors community and they build teams of staff and ambassadors who represent their company personality. If hunting companies are part of a hunting community, do they have any specific roles and responsibilities to contribute to that community?
“The roots and tradition of hunting have always been important to me. I want KUIU to continue to contribute to the tradition through storytelling. I want KUIU to be a source of inspiration by living and breathing Mountain Hunting.” Kuiu
“First Lite is about more than simply producing awesome gear. Supporting the people and groups who protect our sporting heritage is an equally important part of who we are as an organization and a group of folks who love to hunt.” First Lite
In my view, it is not enough for companies to state on their websites that they are committed to the values of hunting or to representing hunters. If conservation is political and dependent on action by dedicated individuals who are part of a community, I want to see outdoors companies demonstrate this commitment with action.
I would like to see more companies take an active stand to support a fully inclusive hunting community. We need to challenge the culture of passivity in which hunters and hunting companies have found themselves sitting comfortably concerning difficult and important social-political issues. We need to push companies to take a position and express their values publicly. In a 2018 article published in Gear Junkie, hunter and conservationist Nicole Qualtieri reviewed Kuiu’s then-new women’s line. Qualtieri quotes Kuiu founder, Jason Hairston, from a 2016 interview in Men’s Journal, in which he said, “I won’t make clothes for women, and I won’t make clothes for fat guys, because then the skinny guys won’t look good in them. I want Kuiu to be an aspirational brand”. It is troubling to me that Men’s Journal would even print this statement. It is troubling that Kuiu’s founder found it acceptable to explicitly exclude women from his company and culture. Kuiu deliberately positioned themselves as a company that values women less than men. This is not a commitment to the values on which the hunting community says it is built. After reviewing the new offering of women’s clothing Qualtieri concluded, “If KUIU is attempting to keep women out of its line of vision, there’s no better way to do it than by creating a line with no true outerwear. And outerwear is what KUIU does best. Unfortunately, there’s not a single piece in the collection that would keep me hunting in the hills in any sort of weather”.
Consumer choices matter. As consumers of hunting products, we can impact the companies we choose to support or not support. We can reach out to hunting companies and let them know why we are purchasing their products or why we choose not to support them. I hope that Kuiu has put in the effort over the last two years to include a wider diversity of outdoors people in their company. I hope other companies have paid attention to the response to Kuiu’s comments. On the other hand, consider companies like Hunt To Eat. Hunt To Eat defines itself as built on three pillars: community, real food, and conservation. On its website, Hunt To Eat states that its community includes all folks who go outdoors. In Hunt To Eat’s view, the community “is not defined by race, politics, education, wealth, or gender; it’s simply a human community”. Instead of creating binaries and dividing, Hunt To Eat is “excited to find modern, progressive, inclusive ways” to support the outdoors community. When you look around at Hunt To Eat’s roster of ambassadors and contributors, there is diversity and representation across social-cultural communities. Their products made direct statements to ensure everyone knows the company is inclusive and supports a positive outdoors community.
We can learn a little about the companies we support by observing their activities, images, and media presence. Who do you see on their websites? Do they amplify the voices of diverse groups of people? When critical social issues arise, how do outdoors companies respond? Do they express support for equality and inclusiveness or do they remain silent? What are outdoors companies doing to contribute to conservation? Do they enroll in programs to give back to communities of people or support important conservation initiatives (e.g. 2% for Conservation)?
A group of women in the late 19th century took on the fashion industry to protect birds. Dozens of species of birds were being pushed perilously close to extinction as fashion designers wanted their feathers for hats. In response, a group of women formed an early version of what became the Audubon Society and “boycotted hat makers and shopkeepers to put feathers out of style, and lobbied for protections against poaching”. These actions contributed to the creation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918.Conservation has never been a man’s game. We just need to amplify the voices and stories of a much more diverse community. Women pushed for feather-free hats in the late 1800s as a measure to reverse bird decline. Source: Audubon SocietyI am proud to be part of the hunting community. The history of conservation in North America is complex and intertwined with colonialism. At the same time, there are conservationists throughout history who stuck their neck out and worked to create a conservation legacy we can be proud of. It’s now up to us to apply those lessons in our own social-political context. I started hunting in my 20s. I was looking for an activity, an ethic, and a group of people I felt encapsulated an outlook on life I was shaping and struggling to express. I’ve spoken in the past about how my involvement in politics and music really brought me to the world of hunting and conservation. We will not address racism, sexism, and other forms of inequality by purchasing one company over another. In reality, we will not address these issues through any one action. It will take consistent actions and changes on many fronts over time. However, can we move the dial by demanding that companies demonstrate a commitment to progressive values and positive action? My point here is that we should all find the things we can do to make our communities more inclusive. It’s about holding our communities accountable and to a higher standard of positivity and inclusivity. As far as outdoors companies are part of the outdoors community, we should also expect them to contribute to improving our community.
For me, hunting has always been political and I have always seen the potential in hunting to improve social conditions. I believe the hunting community has a moral obligation to take account of its own identity and history. I also see numerous historical examples of cases where the hunting community demonstrated its potential to engage with issues to improve society. Hunters deal every day with the morally and emotionally charged issue of life and death. We address that complex and loaded issue head-on with honesty. I think that predisposes us to be able to accept personally and politically challenging issues. So we should put that potential to good use by applying it to wider social issues. Finally, as hunters, we often talk about the benefits of hunting to conservation, the development of personal ethics, and a wide range of other benefits. If this is true, we need to continue to demonstrate it. We can show those in society who might want to restrict hunting that we are a positive community of people working to make the world a better place. If so, should we actively support companies that reflect the values we want to define our outdoors community?