Hypocrisy sums up the trophy hunting industry best. The industry claims critics are racist, yet they are guilty of promoting racial inequality. And now trophy hunting advocates, leaning heavily on their scientific credentials, are proclaiming “media misinformation is an increasing concern” in their latest opinion letter.
The timing of this letter could not have been better for the industry. Pro-trophy hunting organizations were recently accused of intentionally spreading misinformation and working closely with climate change denial groups (although, this will be argued as just another coincidence).
The opinion letter’s lead author, Adam Hart, was joined by other members of the scientific community including IUCN SULi members Amy Dickman and Dilys Roe. Curiously, though, the letter was also co-authored by Catherine Semcer. Other than being another member of the IUCN SULi, Semcer also works for the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), a climate change denial group.
PERC is funded by the likes of Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the most influential climate policy lobbyists. Allowing someone working for a climate change denial group to co-author an opinion letter about misinformation is not just odd, it’s hypocritical.
And it demonstrates a lack of credibility for the rest of the authors. Especially when they leverage climate change denial to strengthen their argument, calling it “particularly pervasive.”
Despite knowing Semcer works for a climate change denial group, Dickman defends their relationship saying they share “concerns about how conservation was being impacted by simplistic and misguided narratives.” As well, Dickman was not concerned about PERC using her profile on their website saying that it is “their choice.” Roe was asked about having a member of a climate change denial group in the IUCN SULi group, but failed to respond.
It is very interesting how trophy hunting advocates proclaim defamation and demand articles be removed when they are criticized, yet seem to have no problem being associated with climate change denial groups. The audacity is almost beyond comprehension.
Other than the hypocrisy, how do the authors’ opinions stand up to scrutiny? The answer is not well at all considering the authors fail to provide evidence of misinformation. What the authors do is provide evidence that counters negative opinions of trophy hunting. And that is not to say they even do that well.
For example, the authors reference an article claiming that trophy hunting is driving polar bears to extinction. But the authors fail to demonstrate how the article spreads misinformation unless inferred that opinions contrary to the authors’ stance are untrue.
It is unclear if the authors believe the evidence provided was incorrect, misinterpreted, or both. And there is scientific evidence to suggest the claim is not outside the realm of reality, studies show that trophy hunting can increase the extinction potential of species due to climate change and that polar bears are already in danger of being extirpated from many regions by 2100 with sea-ice declining.
Hart and the others simply refute the claim by citing an outdated study from 2006 concluding polar bear hunting is sustainable and well-monitored. However, they fail to note Safari Club International Foundation provided “a travel grant and research funding” for the study. Citing a study funded by a prominent pro-trophy hunting organization known for spreading misinformation is not a good look for an opinion letter condemning misinformation against trophy hunting.
Additionally, research shows members of the scientific community are easily influenced by their donors. But grant requests submitted to Safari Club International Foundation leave no doubt of the purpose of the research funding, scientists’ goals explicitly include benefiting Safari Club members and preventing restrictions on trophy hunting.
Safari Club International is also one of the biggest lobbyists against polar bear protections, along with the NRA and Dallas Safari Club. Safari Club International and the NRA are interlinked with the oil and gas industry, helping develop grassroots support for the removal of environmental regulations. As well, Dallas Safari Club has a formal partnership with the oil and gas industry-funded climate change denial group PERC.
When species like polar bears are protected under the Endangered Species Act, they are not simply protected from hunting. The habitats of protected species are also protected under the legislation. When hunting groups lobby to remove protections on polar bears, they are also lobbying to remove protections on their habitats. And when that is successful, it means drill baby, drill.
Safari Club International’s Melissa Simpson tip toed around this idea when speaking about opening up access to tightly regulation environments. Not surprisingly Simpson has a long history working for the oil and gas industry. To think these connections are coincidences would be naïve.
As mentioned previously, Safari Club International Foundation also funds misinformation campaigns on social media. And it just so happens the Facebook pages conducting the campaigns post content defending climate change denier and ardent polar bear trophy hunting supporter Susan Crockford.
Ironically, it seems the authors may have inadvertently helped spread misinformation while attempting to refute misinformation about polar bear trophy hunting. But that should be expected from a hypocritical industry.
Support my work and access more stories here.