Never heard of the guy until this thread, so I looked him up. Watched a handful of segments from his show. The show definitely isn't for me. Too much "show" for me with all the antics and music. I kept waiting for Vince McMahon or The Rock to jump out. Didn't seem like hunting as much as it did entertainment (or lack of). He also at times seem to have a real lack of respect for his quarry. I'm not a big fan of huntng shows, but I thought this was pretty bad. Now in the show's defense, I only saw 4-5 min clips online and not a full episode. My opinion is based on the clips they showed from "hunts".
He is pretty intense and flashy most of the time and I understand that it might not be for everyone... I just see him as a guy that really likes shooting his bow. Doesn't matter if he is hunting or shooting at a target in his back yard. I enjoy the show most of the time. As I stated before in this thread, he is one of the reasons I decided to purchase a bow. Never saw shooting a bow as being so fun until I watched his show. Now I see the excitement in different areas of archery that I hadn't noticed before.
No, I disagree. The choice of a shot and the ability to make it are two different things. I think we both know where each other stand on this one. I'll leave it where it is for now. On a whole different note you want to join me on a pig hunt at my lease in NE Texas? NR license is cheap.
I would love to join you, little piggy's are tasty (we have tons of them here too)... but money is super tight right now and traveling is out of the question for the time being... Might have to even hunt local public land (and one tiny plot of private land that I have access to) this upcoming season due to cash flow... or lack thereof...
thanks for the invitation and the good wishes. It will eventually pan out, not like I'm begging on the corner... never could let myself make superfluous purchases when money gets a bit tight you know...
Last time I checked, hunting was a privilege; it is an activity which can be taken away by a simple majority vote. We can hunt properly (by taking high probability shots-as deemed by all of us), or we can hunt improperly (by taking low probability shots-as deemed by all of us). If we do it wrong, it will be taken away (take a look at bowhunting in Europe and what is happening in Australia presently if you think I'm kidding). For the most part, we know the difference between right and wrong, as well as what the public perceives as right and wrong. I think it is safe to affirm a common consensus (a line has been draw) across the bowhunting community, and within the public eye, that head shots, head on shots, and facing away shots (with archery equipment) are unacceptable, period! The fact that someone is willing to risk losing it all for the rest of us (on national TV) is either pure arrogance or pure stupidity! That's all I have to say about that. Greg and Greg, you guys can hunt with me anytime!
One thing that always kind of makes me shake my head is how defensive SOOO many people get when one person tells another what they think of thier shot selection. Yea I understand that everyone's got different abilities, yadda yadda yadda, but there are high % shots and low %. That fact cannot be argued. If someone out there takes a low % shot, I think its rather commendable someone tells them so. (sometimes the tactfulness can be questioned) Now, the person can either take the advice and think about it, or completely dismiss it & go on thier way. WHY do so many feel the need to get super ultra defensive. Do you people act that way everytime your boss or anyone makes a comment to you?
Ryan, there have been a lot of threads over the years that I just sit back and let you speak, simply because, I have no better words for the situation. Well said.
Hunting isn't a privilege here in Louisiana, it happens to be a constitutionally protected right. The fact is that what you deem acceptable is completely unacceptable to those who wish to ban bow hunting though. They don't see your "high percentage" shots as ethical or in good taste. Like I stated before, who is to set the line? The thing that makes me shake my head is when someone will tell me what I should or should not be doing based on their own personal code of morals or ethics. To make the leap from "defending ones own morals" and "acting that way every time your boss makes a comment to you" is quite a leap. Why is it such a big deal for one to defend his or her position? It is ok to question the ethics and morals but not ok for the person in question to defend themselves? That is quite a liberal stance you have there.
I beg to differ. If you're a "legal citizen" of the USA and you are legally allowed to do something (hunting in this case), how is this not a "right"? I certainly feel priviledged to be able to hunt, but it's my right to choose wether or not I do so. They don't say "the priviledge to bear arms", it's said "the right to bear arms". Right? :D As far as the simple majority vote goes, it won't ever be simple. There's waaaay too much money involved (all the way around) in this activity for it to be taken away. OOPS, I appoligize for the temp derailment.
Is it really that hard to figure out that there is a differance in the effectiveness of a head on shot vs. a broadside shot? There is a life at stake, so we as hunters OWE it to the animal to try to make the best shot possible and to kill that animal as quick and efficently as possible. God put these animals here for us to kill and eat, yes.... but I'm pretty sure they aren't here to be our pin cushions for chucking arrows at. I may kill deer, but I also respect them, and am not all about taking chances to kill one.... when I let an arrow go its only because I have that "perfect" shot and I "know" that animal is going to be dead within a few seconds.
People have to base thier ethics/morals on something and typically that is thier own experience. Defending yourself is fine, IF you actually have a defense. "Who are you to tell me what to do" is not a defense. And it really isn't a stretch at all. Boss questions what you did & you are likely going to lay out your thought process and explain why it was such. Or do you tell him "who are you to question what I did" Now ythat I've typed it out, maybe I am wrong that it is a leap and people get defensive for taking poor shots because they actually have no defense, so " who are you to question me" is all they got.
Thanks for the correct spelling of "bear". Actually, most money generated from hunting comes from "gun hunting". Don't you think guns and hunting are rights? THAT'S what I'm saying.
I didnt realize this was going to be such a heated debate. I was just saying it was nice to see a unique type of bowhunting show instead of the usual 12 point buck comes in and they take the shot and get him. I agree he does some stupid **** (like shooting a rattle snake, which i dont see any sport in at all) But i generally like the show because he hunts non traditional bow hutning show animals and he adds in some practice and trick shots which i find entertaining. i never said i endorsed taking unethical shots. i was just merely saying i enjoyed watching the show.
Actually it is quite a well thought out defense. A defense that this particular country was founded on. Show me where in the US Constitution it says "The right to hunt". It doesn't matter if it seems sporting to you or not. It is legal. That is one of the main reasons this thread got so heated in the first place. One doesn't need to justify what they did when what they were doing is legal. I don't think I would enjoy high fence hunting but who am I to question someone who does? Its legal right?
