The rise of trophy hunting disinformation deniers
Sustainable use activists fail to base their wildlife conservation opinions on evidence.
Trophy hunting disinformation became a semi-popular topic after I published a behind-the-scenes look at the trophy hunting industry’s multimillion-dollar disinformation campaign. My work gave rise to a new type of sustainable use activist – the trophy hunting disinformation denier.
Trophy hunting disinformation deniers refuse to acknowledge pro-trophy hunting disinformation. However, they regularly make unsubstantiated claims about anti-trophy hunting disinformation.
I pose a challenge to trophy hunting disinformation deniers given that sustainable use activists love challenging anti-trophy hunters.
Sustainable use activists’ denial of pro-trophy hunting disinformation
Facebook, Stanford Internet Observatory, and The Washington Post verified my exposé on Inclusive Conservation Group’s disinformation campaign. It is a fact that pro-trophy hunting groups spread disinformation.
But this fact is an inconvenient truth for academics swept up in sustainable use activism. WildCRU Director Amy Dickman denied that I uncovered disinformation when I approached her with my findings.
Dickman told me, “The tactics used by ICG, if true, are of course manipulative (and I suspect manipulative tactics are used on all sides), but posting a genuine statement from an African voice and amplifying that is not in itself misinformation.”
Dickman’s comment blatantly ignored that ICG stated they took “the exact words and facts from the SCI web pages and simply [presented] it through an African’s voice.” There is nothing genuine about American trophy hunters pretending to be Africans on social media.
Dickman also told me that she did not view ICG’s work as misinformation because, to her, misinformation “is very much about false information, particularly when intended to mislead.” Dickman, once again, blatantly ignored that ICG’s own words said that they MISLEAD.
Dickman tweeted at an anti-trophy hunter, “show me the disinformation you see from the trophy hunting industry & I would be very happy to speak out against it.”
When the anti-trophy hunter shared one of my articles referencing the ICG disinformation campaign, Dickman dismissed it as misinformation.
Why is my work not good enough for Dickman yet good enough for Facebook, Stanford Internet Observatory, and The Washington Post? Because Dickman is a trophy hunting disinformation denier and the facts do not suit her agenda.
Dickman is not the only sustainable use activist to publicly deny that trophy hunting groups spread disinformation. IUCN SULi member Keith Somerville ignored ICG’s blatant disinformation, simply stating, “What they claim is their business.”
Sustainable use activists’ failure to provide evidence of anti-trophy hunting disinformation
Dickman accused me of running a fake social media account weeks after I presented her with evidence that pro-trophy hunting groups were using fake social media accounts. Dickman did not provide evidence to support her claim (because it’s not true).
Dickman’s trusted colleague, Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes, a research fellow at a climate change denial organization, also spread a false disinformation accusation without any evidence (because it’s not true).
Dickman’s bulldogs, science communication professor Adam Hart and sustainable use activist Nikolaj Bichel, are guilty of spreading misinformation about disinformation in the trophy hunting debate. Hart previously appeared much more careful than other sustainable use activists about claiming anti-trophy hunting groups spread disinformation but slipped up in a trophy hunting propaganda interview.
Dickman, Sas-Rolfes, Hart, and Bichel have never provided evidence to support their anti-trophy hunting disinformation claims.
Ironically, Dickman tweeted, “If anyone reading this actually IS interested in disinformation around trophy hunting, we've laid out some classic examples, with links to references, in this article.”
The article's authors (Dickman, Hart, Brian Child, and Catherine Semcer) were listed in the ‘People’ section of Property and Environment Research Center, a conservative think tank that spread disinformation about climate change.
The authors provided zero examples of disinformation.
An open challenge to trophy hunting disinformation deniers
Dickman complained about unsubstantiated anti-trophy hunting disinformation in another op-ed. Dickman stated, “Presumably all scientists would agree that science denial and disinformation campaigns are harmful–but we must go a step further and actively call it out, even when it is uncomfortable to do so.”
Why won’t Dickman call out ICG’s disinformation campaign?
Is it because the trophy hunting industry considers her a celebrity? Is it because ICG’s disinformation campaign featured her often and in a positive light? Is it because she lacks integrity?
Sustainable use activists love challenging opponents to backup anti-trophy hunting claims with evidence. Some sustainable use activists, like Hart, supported a challenge that involved killing juvenile elephants as young as 1-year-old if anti-trophy hunters failed.
I pose a challenge to trophy hunting disinformation deniers:
Publicly acknowledge the disinformation spread by pro-trophy hunting groups.
Publish evidence of disinformation spread by anti-trophy hunting groups.
I, however, will not murder baby elephants if trophy hunting disinformation deniers fail to meet the challenge.