Ella Langley has committed an unforgivable celebrity offense: being the person she sings about. Old photographs of the country star hunting deer, including with her father, have resurfaced, and the internet’s Department of Recreational Misery has opened an investigation. A daughter enjoying the outdoors with Dad? Better summon the compassion police. Somebody appears to be having a wholesome afternoon without their permission.
A successful, attractive young woman carrying a rifle presents a terrible casting problem for the anti-hunting scolds. Where is the slobbering villain? Why isn’t she ashamed? They ordered a monster and got a country star. Apparently, female empowerment expires at the sporting-goods counter. You may smash the glass ceiling, sweetheart, but don’t you dare sit in a deer stand.
One critic hoped she would learn from the past. Yes. Next time, take more pictures. These people call themselves a movement—by the numbers, apparently a very small one.
The reports identify online hecklers, not a proven PETA operation. But PETA’s published positions provide a useful tour of the ideological neighborhood. Its principle is that “animals are not ours to experiment on, eat, wear, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way.” That's where dinner, your boots, and the rodeo go. Apparently, civilization needs to apologize and change into something hemp.
Citing overpopulation, PETA says, “We work hard to prevent more dogs and cats from being born.” It encourages adoption and says it doesn't want to confiscate well-cared-for animals, but it opposes buying from breeders. Your Labrador can stay. However, his family tree has been served with a cease-and-desist order. Try selling that platform at a Little League game.
The medical position deserves attention. Asked about sacrificing ten animals in an experiment to save 10,000 people, PETA argues that animals deserve the same protection against sacrifice as humans. Its answer: “There is no logical reason to deny animals the same rights that protect individual humans from being sacrificed for the common good.” That’s not simply opposition to unnecessary testing. It’s an ethical veto even in the lifesaving hypothetical. Grandma, we regret to inform you that the laboratory mouse has better representation.
Outside this ideological terrarium, the country looks different. A 2025 national survey by Responsive Management found that 73 percent of adults approved of legal hunting; 86 percent agreed others should be allowed to hunt legally regardless of their own views. An angry comment section isn’t America. It’s a handful of people mistaking a keyboard for a mandate.
Nor should anyone confuse the movement’s appetite for attention with a shortage of money. PETA reported more than $110 million in contributions for fiscal 2025. Apparently, there is no closed season for collecting checks. Celebrity outrage strikes me as a splendid fundraising format: borrow somebody else’s fame, manufacture an emergency, pass the hat. The endangered species is perspective.
To my ear, these performances don’t establish moral authority. They reinforce the impression of a fringe crawling out from under its ideological rock to scold people who have better things to do. A father and daughter in the woods make a far better advertisement for humanity than strangers competing to be the ugliest voice under their photograph.
Maybe now is the time for country music’s hunters to step up and defend one of their own. There is certainly no shortage of them. Luke Bryan, Jason Aldean and Tyler Farr have made hunting part of their public lives through Buck Commander. Blake Shelton and Miranda Lambert have hunted together on television.
Add Luke Combs, Morgan Wallen, Riley Green, Cody Johnson, and Craig Morgan—all public about their hunting. That’s not a fringe. It’s a festival lineup. How about putting some of those voices together for Ella? Post the pictures. Tell the stories. Make it clear she doesn’t owe strangers an excuse for sharing a deer hunt with her father. Surely an industry that sells this much backbone can spare some for a young woman under attack.
And female artists—country, pop, rock, every genre—ought to be morally outraged by the personal attacks on women who hunt. This routine didn’t begin with Ella. PETA called hunter Kendall Jones a “small person who kills animals for fun.” PETA UK mocked Melissa Bachman as a “Lara Croft wannabe” and questioned whether hunting made her a “strong and powerful woman.”
Apparently, women are free to define themselves once the compassion committee approves their wardrobe and weekend plans. You don’t have to hunt to recognize bullying. You don’t even have to approve of hunting to defend another woman against personal abuse. Sisterhood shouldn’t require a vegan loyalty oath. Supporting women should mean something when a woman carries a rifle instead of a protest sign.
Which brings us to a question for Washington: Why should organized personal vilification receive a federal tax break? PETA identifies itself as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization. I think it’s high time Congress examined whether the rules adequately distinguish legitimate charitable advocacy from organized bullying campaigns, and the IRS scrutinized documented conduct against those rules.
Organizations such as PETA should have to demonstrate that their activities satisfy the requirements for tax exemption, not simply point to the word nonprofit and expect everyone to stop asking questions. A nonprofit designation should not be a camouflage jacket for bullying law-abiding citizens.
That scrutiny must be fair. Preventing cruelty to animals is an expressly recognized tax-exempt purpose, and unpopular advocacy may qualify as educational. A few ugly statements do not, by themselves, establish grounds for revoking an organization’s exemption. The issue is not whether PETA disagrees with hunters or raises a great deal of money. The issue is whether its actual operations meet the standards attached to its tax privileges. Apply that test consistently—to organizations on every side.
And there is already a relevant standard. The IRS’s test for educational advocacy flags distorted facts and substantial use of “inflammatory and disparaging terms,” with conclusions driven more by emotion than objective evaluation. It requires considering the full circumstances, not reaching a verdict based on one offensive sentence.
Fine. Examine the circumstances. Ask where instruction ends and personal vilification begins. Calling a woman names and distributing the insult as a press release does not strike me as a graduate seminar. If organized bullying qualifies as legitimate nonprofit education merely because somebody puts a charitable logo on it, the tax code has become a punchline. Apparently, compassion means never paying taxes on your contempt.
So congratulations, Ella. Being denounced by this crowd belongs somewhere between a platinum record and a good venison supper. Consider this an open invitation: bring your father, come hunting with us, and we’ll film the celebration for television. We’ll supply the cameras and hospitality. Your critics can supply the publicity. They already seem willing to work for free.
– Chris Dorsey
Chris Dorsey is a Coloradan, 30-year media veteran, biologist, outdoor television producer and natural history filmmaker whose writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Forbes and dozens more national titles.