It’s becoming painfully clear that animal rights groups—many of them headquartered in Washington, D.C.—have found their most effective weapon yet: ballot box biology.
For years, these organizations have recognized a simple political reality: hunters make up only about 5 percent of the U.S. population. In a direct-to-voter fight, anti-hunting activists like those odds. So rather than engaging through the traditional legislative process, they increasingly sidestep it altogether. Their strategy is as effective as it is cynical: gather signatures, qualify emotionally charged ballot initiatives, wrap them in benevolent-sounding language, and then unleash media campaigns built more on sentiment than science.
The goal is obvious. Pick off one form of hunting at a time—or, in places like Oregon, push toward ending hunting altogether.
This is a movement designed to bypass the lobbying and grassroots infrastructure the outdoor community has spent decades building. It takes the battle straight to voters, many of whom have little or no connection to hunting, wildlife management, or the realities of conservation funding. And in that arena, facts alone are often no match for carefully crafted emotional narratives.
That should be a wake-up call.
If the hunting community wants its way of life to endure, we need a seismic shift in how we communicate with non-hunters. For too long, we’ve relied on a familiar script: the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, “science-based management,” and the assumption that the facts will speak for themselves.
They won’t.
Animal rights organizations have become increasingly adept at manufacturing their own “science,” often by funding cooperative academics and university researchers willing to help muddy the waters. The result is confusion among the general public. The question is no longer simply what the science says—but whose science voters are being asked to trust.
And while that debate plays out, these same groups are actively undermining the legitimacy of state fish and wildlife agencies, portraying them as outdated, biased, or captured by hunters. In some states, they don’t even need to win at the ballot box. They have allies in governors’ mansions—elected officials hostile to hunting who appoint anti-hunting commissioners to wildlife boards and commissions. Colorado has recently offered a vivid example of that reality, where commissioners appear far less interested in wildlife science than in ideological outcomes.
The hunting community cannot afford to keep playing defense.
If we want our lifestyle—and the conservation system it supports—to survive, we must do two things at once: tell the hunter-conservation story more effectively and go on offense against our opponents. That means exposing the misinformation, financial motives, and strategic deception that too often sit beneath the polished veneer of animal rights campaigns.
This fight can no longer be waged only in legislative chambers or commission meetings. It must be fought in the court of public opinion, because that is where the battle is increasingly moving.
And if we’re serious about winning there, we must think bigger than our category ever has before.
We need to communicate with the mainstream at scale—through messages, platforms, and spokespeople that resonate far beyond the traditional hunting audience. In particular, the future of hunting may hinge on our ability to connect with urban and suburban women, a demographic that anti-hunting groups understand all too well and have targeted with precision.
The stakes could not be higher.
If hunting disappears, so does the single most effective user-funded conservation model in the world. State fish and wildlife agencies—already under pressure—would be left scrambling for relevance and resources. Without hunters, they may become as endangered as the very species they were created to protect.
There is, however, reason for optimism.
One organization has already shown what it looks like to take this fight directly to the public. Berman and Company, a Washington, D.C.-based PR and strategy firm supported largely by the agriculture and pet industries, has been doing exactly what the hunting community needs more of: winning the narrative war.
Now imagine those efforts amplified across television, digital media, and social platforms nationwide.
That’s the kind of volume this moment demands.
The anti-hunting movement understands that culture shapes policy. It’s time the hunting community recognized the same truth. If we fail to adapt, we will continue losing ground—not because science is against us, but because we’ve allowed our opponents to dominate the conversation.
The future of hunting will not be decided solely in the field, in the legislature, or in the courtroom.
It will be decided in the minds of the American public.
And it’s long past time we started fighting like it.
– Chris Dorsey
Chris Dorsey is an award-winning media pioneer, author, strategist and philanthropist who is the founding partner of Dorsey Pictures, a Global-100 television production company with offices in Los Angeles, Denver and Detroit. He’s executive produced more than 110 television series on 20 cable and broadcast networks spanning his 30-year media career. Most recently, he founded Mission Partners Entertainment Group, a company redefining the world of giant screen/IMAX natural history content and education.
