What To Do About Bad Behavior On Outdoor TV
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
I just don’t watch them. I tried, but I learned nothing from them that I would have/should have learned better by actually being in the field with an experienced hunter. It’s not to say that, as a hunter, I don’t have a visceral desire to watch these shows. It’s just that I’m trying to grow out of mere visceral desires; I’m trying to be a man.
Television caters to the basest instincts, and can therefore not be expected to support civil, adult behavior. Instead, (esp. in beer commercials), T.V. just keeps tweaking our animal spirits. It works well enough for profit.
If I want to learn something or experience the thrill of the hunt, I’ll go hunt with you or Holly or Hank. That is, if you’ll suffer my jinx occasionally.
July 21st, 2010 at 11:44 am
Add VERSUS as a cable channel that carries hunting and fishing shows.
Sorry, I can’t join in on the feedback to hunting shows. That would require I watch them. I’ve watched a few fishing shows and none really held much interest for me. It’s not as though I was there doing that – just watching someone else. I fish a lot, both shoreline and boat, saltwater, streams, and ponds, but watching – nada.
Same with hunting shows. I watch one now and then, but they’ve also never held my interest long. The excitement of being in the woods or fields, or making contact with game just doesn’t come through for me. They take place in game infested locales and mostly don’t reflect what the majority of hunters experience.
July 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Interesting post Philip! Like Joshua above, I don’t want much TV, but do admit to looking at a lot of hunting/kill shot videos on YouTube (often pretty gnarly). If I had cable I’d probably watch the hunting shows. I also watch a lot of surfing videos and there are a bunch of similarities. Hunters and surfers spend TONS of time/effort/money getting into position to have an amazing experience — getting barreled, getting the animal you’ve wanted. The actual experience is so fast and fleeting. Watching that exact moment is powerful stuff — irresistible really, because you know you’re not likely to be in that position and you want to so badly! Hunters are going to watch those shows because they can’t not watch. Would be cool if they were produced in the way you suggest. There’s a great surfing magazine called The Surfer’s Journal that’s like the ‘thinking surfer’s’ mag. It takes a really cool approach to documenting the whole sport of surfing. You should check it out http://www.surfersjournal.com/ I wish there was an equivalent publication for hunting! Is there? For now I’ll read your blog
July 21st, 2010 at 5:06 pm
In today’s standards there is no such thing as ethics it seems on TV anymore, and that goes for some hunting shows as well. Taking hail mary shots like you mentioned due little but attract the attention of wannabe sharp shooters and makes the hunting season more dangerouse as they think it will get them a high reputation and awesome camp fire story.
The tradition of hunting is hurting as it is, don’t need a bunch of people on TV making it worse.
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:04 am
Thanks fellas.
As I wrote this, I realized that I know a lot of folks who aren’t regular viewers of the hunting programs. Personally, I can’t resist the vicarious thrill I get, especially when real life (work and family) keep me from getting into the woods as much as I used to.
Josh, I recognize the drive for profits, but self-destructive behavior is not a sound, long-term business model. There’s already a demonstrated distaste for the hunting programs by many serious hunters. Add that to the efforts of antis to leverage any bad example against the sport, and it simply makes good business sense for the industry to police itself a little better (although by and large, they’ve eliminated a lot of the most egregious content).
Bill, I used to be a die-hard offshore fisherman before moving to California. Between the insane regulations and big, rough, cold ocean, I haven’t had the motivation to continue the sport here. Even so, I never could stand to watch the televised fishing… something I find closely akin to watching televised golf.
As far as the game-infested locales, etc… I’ve got to say that several programs are actually getting more involved in do-it-yourself hunts on public lands. They’re turning in some pretty good content, too. While most of the programs still follow the pornography model (right down to the cheesy music), the better shows are actually turning in more of a storyline. One can hope…
Ian, YouTube is one of the worst perpetrators of showing unethical, dangerous, and flat-out illegal hunting content. Unfortunately, there’s very little that we, as consumers, can do about what appears on that venue. Because so much of it is amateur and unsponsored, there’s really very little accountability and no source of compulsion to get them to clean it up. The thing is, there’s some really cool stuff on there too… so I get a little conflicted. Just have to sort through to get the stuff I want to see.
The industry, on the other hand, IS driven by sponsors and advertisers. This gives us, the consumers, a little bit of leverage… sometimes too much (recalling the Jim Zumbo black rifle fiasco).
By the way, I think you nailed it on the similarity of hunting vids and surfing video. While I generally avoid most televised sports, hunting and surfing footage can almost always make me stop in my tracks. I’ll check out that magazine.
July 22nd, 2010 at 8:08 am
Phillip, if there were built-in incentives for long-term strategic thinking of the sort you mention, instead of the short-term gains inherent in our current economic structure for corporate enterprises, I’d be much more optimistic than you about self-policing. Sadly, even if most were to want to self-police, they often cannot, due to market constraints.
At the very basest level, for example: How many times are you willing to watch a show where nobody gets a shot at anything? Seeing as you are willing to take me hunting, I’d guess you probably have thicker skin about that sort of thing, but most of those eyeballs the channels are hoping to get actually want to see animals being shot.
It’s akin to “reality” TV. They aren’t really reality (we used to call them game shows), because nobody wants to watch a show of somebody going to their job at Burger King for eight hours a day, and then going home and watching TV. It’s the same for hunters, I think: They don’t want to watch a show where some dude goes out and comes back with nothin’ most times, just like them.
July 22nd, 2010 at 9:10 am
But Josh, the options are to do nothing but grump about it and face the bigger consequences of the industry failing to get its act together… or try to do something, even if it offers a slim likelihood of success.
The big difference between hunting TV and the “reality” shows is in the impact that the negative images create. Wife Swap is probably not going to provide much political impetus to, say, ban marriage.
In cleaning up the hunting programming, I’m not even suggesting that they get out and do more DIY, public land hunts or anything like that (although the hunters on the better programs are skilled and dedicated, and they very often bring in great footage and a high success rate). I’m only saying that closer attention must be paid to unethical situations, both real and perceived.
I absolutely expect most of them to continue to follow the porno formula, because viewers DO want to see action, most of the time. There’s a reason you see such a predominance of turkey, pheasant, and waterfowl hunts… there’s a lot of action. I don’t have a problem with that, even knowing that many of these filmed hunts take place on fenced preserves.
The only reason I have any hope at all that a viewer-based response can make a change in the industry is because it started to happen already. Like I mentioned previously, the Outdoor Channel had a contract that required producers to meet certain ethical guidelines in order to be featured on the network’s new HD channel. They did this because of the feedback from viewers who were tired of the same kinds of things I’m talking about now… unethical shots, poorly disguised fenced hunts, and worse.
I don’t know what happened with that in the long run, but I do know that the initiative took place at the peak of the outdoor programming boom (about three or four years ago), and before the economic situation got so tight. There are now fewer networks competing for the best programs, which means there’s probably a little more leniency.
The bright side is that the vast majority of hunting programs I’ve seen do pay close attention to things like ethics, safety, and conservation. There’s really not that much clean-up necessary.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:25 am
Phillip, if it works I’m all for it. If I had cable, I wouldn’t watch it until it changed… voting with my feet (or eyeballs), of course.
Your Wife Swap example was hilarious. I’m hoping the Bachelorette will create the groundswell to ban collagen implants…
July 22nd, 2010 at 1:28 pm