Quoted from the article:
Meanwhile, Mitchell thinks social media does have one upside for Alabama's Eastern wild turkey.
"Social media has drawn more people into turkey hunting," Mitchell said. "I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I think a lot of it has called attention to the plight of turkeys and the perceived turkey decline. I think or hope people have gained education through social media more than anything."
So in the sections above this quote, the article references how advancements in technology and techniques are making hunters more effective at killing turkeys (no argument there - been saying this for years). Yet they go on to say social media is an upside? And people are gaining education via social media?
Sorry, but that made me laugh out loud. I'd wager that most new hunters who come to turkey hunting via social media influence 1)Are doing it because they think it's "cool", 2) aren't joining the sport because they want to be advocates for the plight of turkeys as referenced in the article, and 3) sure as heck aren't being educated on more traditional tactics for hunting turkeys via what they see on social media. A quick search of any social media site is flooded with clowns doing all sorts of shenanigans to kill turkeys, and if that's their basis for joining the sport, well, we're only adding potential turkey killers, not advocates for the bird, to our ranks.
