urban shooter

[Bill Monroe]

FYI...
We'll run a story in the morning about a construction worker just outside city limits in the Bethany area near West Hills who shot a deer on someone elses property last week, apparently without permission. Also near a school and in a residential area inside the urban boundary but outside the city. I believe he later tracked it to another neighbor's lot and finished it off.
The wounded deer was known to the neighborhood and at least one resident saw it limp by her house after it was shot the first time.
I'll follow it up in Sunday's column.

[dla]

If he was outside the incorporated city limits and if the property owner doesn't press trespassing charges then he is OK. I'm not saying that what he did was particularily smart or sensitive to the city-dwellers. And since he didn't cleanly kill the animal with the first shot, I don't think he was particularily ethical in his hunting technique.

I hope this incident doesn't become a big anti-hunting piece or a push for more goofy anti-gun legislation. I don't think highly of the Oregonian.

[fishlis 1]

Okay, this guy was unethical. Legal? Maybe, maybe not, but i think this is the kind of story that the animal rights activist's are going to eat up. Those people will find some way to turn this around and make it look like every hunter in Oregon would do this. They will smear hunter's. Finally, i they will find a way to use it in some future campaign to show how unethical and inhumane hunting is. But what an idiot!!!

[Bait Bucket]

I guess I would only ask that the article doesn't give the general public the impression that all hunters act as this man has.

[Chromaflage]

As I understand, and as it has been presented to me by an OSP Game Enforcement Officer in my kids' hunters' ed program, what he did was illegal. Technically, he needed explicit permission to hunt private property. Again, that's what I was told by the OSP. However, if he wounded the animal on public land and it wandered onto private land, the landowner must grant permission to obtain the animal.

ORS

[FishBowl]

Great Bill
Just what we need, people that make every hunter in Oregon look like idiot's. Oh well got to sell them papers don't ya

[Grits]

Last week all ATVers were drunks who didn't/can't hunt and this week your going to portray hunters in another unethical light.

How about doing stories that portray a positive image of hunting?

Everytime the papers do stories on "poachers" the word hunter always gets used. As a hunter I would think you would want to portray the sport in a better light but as said before that doesn't sell papers in the liberal Portland area.

Not that what this guy did was right but some states have gone to controlled urbanized hunting as a way to control deer populations that are menacing/dangerous to urban dwellers. Hunting is supposed to be a herd management tool and given the number of deer I see in downtown Salem compared with the number I saw hunting in the Walla Walla this year I would say the urban herds need more management than any of them.

[skein]

Thanks for the heads-up, Bill. I appreciate your letting us know about the article in advance rather than being blind-sided.

We have an opportunity to think about what we're going to say when someone mentions it, rather than spitting and sputtering and sounding like an idiot.

Forewarned is forearmed. Thanks, Bill.

Skein

I'd much rather have Bill write this up than any other "reporter". He will treat hunters fairly.

[Chromaflage]

I have to weigh in on what seems to be the consensus here so far. Every time someone does something stupid with a gun and the media splashes it, it paints the rest of us ethical and responsible hunters in a bad light. inevitably, "hunters" are becoming more evil all the time. Why continue to fuel the fire of the antis?

ORS

[Mello-Yello]

Here's an idea. [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

Maybe the media can spin it so it focuses on the poor ethics of construction workers and not on hunters.

Oh, but wait, that might leave the impression that all construction workers are like this nimrod? Gosh, we wouldn't want that. I mean, it wouldn't be fair to the majority of construction workers who would never do such an irresponsible thing.

Hmmmm

[The Overfishin Condition]

I am obviously against the idea of shooting a deer RIGHT in a neighborhood, ESPECIALLY on someone else's property without permission. However, I have considered the possibility of hunting deer in some areas that back up to neighborhoods, but alas thought better of it. Muzzleloader would be too powerful, and archery would run the risk of the deer limping out of the woods into the neighborhood or clearings (not likely- seems like they find the thickest brush around to lay down and die in.) Anyway, I think the worst part about it is that there's one nice buck back there, but the parcel of land they're living on is small, will be developed soon, and before that will have a main road adjacent to it. So this small herd of deer is destined to slowly be cut off from cover and feed, and or get hit by cars until they're out of existence. It's too bad we couldn't harvest one or two, and make use of the meat.

[Rip'N'Lips]

The article is on the front of the Metro section today.

It is sitting in the break room here at work, and a co-worker said... "those damn hunters"... I had a couple minute conversation on the situation, but can't be in the breakroom all day to defend hunters everywhere.

I think in this situation we should be able to sue the 24-year old who just had to shoot at this deer. He is exactly the reason why people hate hunters...

What a -------!!!!

Rip'N'Lips

[MooseTurd]

Shooting a deer in a residential neighborhood? Even if it was legal, the guy's a moron.

[skein]

My strategy is going to be to diffuse it, not argue it.

When someone lumps all us hunters in with this guy, I'm gonna agree with them and say, "It's true. THIS guy is a jerk! I don't care what you're doing, in sports or any other endeavor, there's always someone who does something stupid to mess it up for everyone else. Whether it's the idiot after work who flies into road-rage during rush hour, or the guy who crowds in line at the check-out line, there's always one who messes it up for the rest of us. Remember, though, if it happened all the time, it wouldn't be newsworthy. In truth, you're much more likely to be caught in the crossfire of a gang or drug incident than you are by some idiot who thinks he's a hunter. And trust me, this guy is NOT a hunter."

And leave 'em with that thought - This guy is not a hunter.

Agree, diffuse, and single out the idiot as different from the rest of us.

My cupple scents.

Skein

[pathetic novice]

At least they presented it fairly w/o blaring antihunting slant. Shouldn,t this dude be in a little trouble with his boss? Whan I'm at work, they don't just let me "take 5 for a quick little harvest before I go back to work! You gotta be off the clock to hunt; preferably not in someone's neighborhood... sure would like to have a backyard with deer in it though. Saddle Mtn. unit hasn't been too kind to me so far.

[dimwit]

Oh great, you know we're going to see this quoted in the next anti-hunting initiative's ad.

[Chromaflage]

You know, there are several statesint the country that require ALL hunters to carry hunters' education cards. Not just for safety reasons, but regulatory education. Every year, here in Oregon, we hear about a few incidents that involve ignorant animal shooters. If we required ALL hunters to successfully complete hunters' ed courses, these acts could then be deemed "willful," carrying a threat of much stiffer penalties. Not to mention that it could help eliminate the "ignorance" factor.

I would advocate an initial full course with a refresher requirement every five years.

IMHO

ORS

[ 10-23-2003, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: OregonRedside ]

[dla]

Well the Oregonian story is all that I've come to expect from that cageliner. <sigh>

I agree that everybody should take Hunter's safety ONCE. But the biggest change should be to get Hunter's Safety back into schools. Right now it is a grungy shoe-string operation short on material, time, facilities and instructors. It used to be easier for a kid to get their drivers license than to complete hunter education.

Too bad the local cageliner didn't put in a plug for Hunter's Education instead of the space for lame legislative restrictions in areas outside the incorporated city limits.

[Chromaflage]

The reason I advocate refresehr classes (2 to 4 hours) is becuase regs change and, believe it or not, people forget. As far as schools, yes, I agree fully. We teach our kids about the risks of "unprotected sex," defensive driving, stranger danger, drugs and alcohol - but nothing, virtually nothing, is discussed regarding gun safety. Where's Eddie Eagle when you need him?

ORS

[Bill Monroe]

dla (and a few others)...I don't see an email for you, which is too bad...this will have to do.

I can't help how you feel about the Oregonian...excuse me, I mean the "local cageliner"...but your reaction is common enough in the profession. We call it "break the mirror." If you don't like what you see, blame the reflector, not the reflection.

And by the way, we're not in business to sell papers...well, we are, but it doesn't drive our news efforts. The public has a right to know what's going on around them...good or bad.
Our story was balanced and fair...the guy was even turned in by a hunter and hunting families.

And also, quite right that if it were normal behavior it wouldn't be news so it's good that it is news because it's still unusual. I hope you can follow that.
ATVs, shooting in neighborhoods, etc....Our mission should be to change behavior or ban it, not whine because it's exposed.

Sunday's column will address most of the issues, including hunter education.
I don't foresee school ever again taking up hunter ed. They're as strapped as anyone else and are trying to give kids basic educations. The state is no longer rural enough to tolerate a choice between teaching firearms handling instead of music, fine arts or phys-ed, no matter what our personal inclinations are.

You don't have to break the mirror, you know.

Just don't look at it.

[ 10-23-2003, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Bill Monroe ]

[chynook]

I have a solution, why not rename it to the Californian, for as liberal as it has become, it closely resembles the majority of the people who have come from there. Then you, and the newspaper you work for, will feel more at home making the majority of us hunters look like those that you choose to report on. I lived in Oregon for over 40 years, and with the influx of Californians and their nimby (not in my back yard)attitudes, not to mention a lousy liberal Governor, I had to get out. I don't read your paper for the same reason. I am not sorry. - but if your employer enjoys making us all look bad just to fill space (you don't write to sell papers, correct?) maybe you are the one who should feel sorry. And if you don't, it doesn't really matter - I won't be reading about it.


EDITED DUE TO MODERATOR REQUEST

[ 10-24-2003, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: chynook ]

[Mello-Yello]

I tend to disagree with having the schools teaching our kids hunter education. This is our responsibility. And, it's our responsibility to teach everyone else by setting the example.

Bill, you make a good point. However, if two weeks from now, we find out different facts, facts that downplay what happened, would you run another article stating that? Not likely.

Years ago, a good friend of mine was hauled off the job in cuffs. His estranged wife had gone to the police, claimed he'd sexually abused his daughter. Cops felt they had reason to believe her. It made the front page. In a small town, that's devistating. A few days later, she fessed up that she'd fabricated the story, even got his daughter to fib about it. She was just mad at him. He was released, charges were dropped, she was fined. And guess what, that part of the story didn't even make the paper. To this day, (some 15 years later) there are still people in town that carry suspicion about this guy. Her fault? You bet...Cops fault...No, not really. Media's fault...absolutely!

The media sees things through the media's eyes. Once your on that side of the fence, you can't see what Joe Public sees (and visa versa).

Personally, I don't see where this story is even newsworthy. It's stupid, it proves nothing, solves nothing, and bottom line...it means nothing.

Not a jab at you Bill, just the media in general.

M-Y

[Ramstrong]

If all schools had a Frank D'Amico it wouldn't be a problem. I liked getting credit for learning patterns for dekes or the proper way to field dress a deer. Even if I could flip for bass better than he could

[dla]

Bill: Its not a mirror, its a microscope. The Oregonian micro-examines one little flaw and in the process smears all hunters.

I've seen the Oregonian CHOOSE to do this countless times on numerous subjects.

Because of the way the human mind works, those without personal experience to balance/correct what they read in the Oregonian will naturally log it away as "uncontested fact". And when they are on "Who Wants to be a Millionare", or marking their vote by mail ballot, they will call upon that "fact" to make a decision. Thus, the Oregonian "microscope" is journalistically and intellectually dishonest - and the Oregonian staff knows it.

Trying to understand an issue by reading the newspaper is like trying to tell time with a clock that only has a second hand.

[dimwit]

My reaction after reading it was: Why is this even news that warrants metro section front page (and a cute deer picture too)! Was it a slow news day? Not enough negative gun stories for the Oregroanian to fill its quota? A new slant on the same agenda?

That being said, it was ultra stupid. But certainly not worthy of that level of coverage.

[Bill Monroe]

I'm starting to like the idea of Oregonians cramming themselves into Washington so they won't have to read the paper...clearly we're running out of sand with all the heads buried in there.

dla...It's far more than one little flaw...it's a problem that's affecting the image of hunting statewide. And I agree we could do more to be more thorough on some issues. On others we're very good about presenting all the sides. But there are lots of issues and only so much space. You talk like someone who gets their information from radio or television...that's guessing time without even a second hand.

[ 10-24-2003, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Bill Monroe ]

[Bait O' Eggs]

I didnt respond to this post until I had a chance to read the article in question. [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

I am not an Oregonian fan in any way shape or form. [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] (Most people IMO in the local journalism business come from U of O and that alone is enough to not read the rag ) If it wasnt for my wife, I would not get the Oregonian.

I pretty much knew the slant the paper would take and it would only make me mad. I have to admit I didnt find what I expected, maybe because Bill didnt write the article maybe because the Oregonian didnt want to make a bunch of hunters mad when they have there guns in the back window of their truck.

The article didnt bash all hunters which was good, it just pointed out the fact that some "doughball" (dont use the word hunter) shot a deer pretty much out of somebodies yard. Ya it was stupid for him to do, ya it probably wasnt the safest thing to do. But when I compare it to a lot of hunting back east the only difference was the weapon of choice. I have seen where my brother in law hunts in Wisconsin. The area is heavily populated (probably more populated than where our local doughball tried to fill a tag) and the hunters in Wisconsin use a shotgun because the slug doesnt travel for miles like our centerfire rifles. As our population climbs and people move into the hunting areas looking for places to build homes, they need to expect to have hunters, hunting around their homes. Not the way I want to hunt, but it will be the way of the future for our grandkids grandkids in Oregon assuming the greenies dont ban hunting all together by then. There are a lot of states back east, where there are no wilderness areas for the hunters to get away from the houses and they have successful safe hunting with weapon restrictions.

Bill - what is the process to submit articles to the Oregonian for publication, besides letters to the editor? It might be time we get a team of hunters writing stories, building a non anti hunting sentiment in this state. Sort of like tuna fever on the salty dog board. Talk about it, romanticise it, and you get others wanting to do it, rather being against it. A half dozen pages of golf and bowling scores every day with the 500 - 1000 word outdoor article tossed in a couple times a week doesnt cut it. (if you dont like the mirror, lets reframe it)

[dla]

Since I couldn't find an e-mail or pm for you I took care of the AUP infraction. (Inflammatory)

Rauly

[ 10-24-2003, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Rauly ]

[Wet_Willy]

I personally don't fault Bill for running this story. I don't think anybody would doubt this guy did something rediculously stupid. Does it become newsworthy only when the bullet travels a half mile and wounds or kills a child inside their own home!!! C'mon.

My first reaction as I read this story was as a father and how devastating that bullet could have been to a family. My second reaction was disbelief at how thoughtless this person was to have shot a gun in/near a residential area. My third reaction was disappointment as an avid hunter that this individual was having a serious impact on the rights all of us hunters enjoy currently. All the reactions I see here are "how could Bill write this story, it isn't newsworthy, he's trying to undermine us outdoorsmen, the Oregonian sucks..."

I for one would rather read a dozen stories like this one if they prevent one story about an innocent person harmed or a family devastated by an act like this. This particular story really touched a nerve and would have the same affect on anyone who has gone through the devastation of a thoughtless loss...

Bill

[outdoor.spec.ops]

Rumors are they eat dogs in china town, that might make you a good story.............I bet they don't even use guns, more of a barbaric action...

[Bill Monroe]

Thanks BOE.
Actually, I think there are more Beavers on the staff than ducks. Sorry.
Space is one driving force for coverage. Golf gets more because its advertisers focus on that day of the week. Outdoor ads are spread all week, although not as intense.
I beat my head against the wall all the time about the high number of anglers and hunters in the state and the reduced news and feature coverage. It's a situation they're aware of and may alter by next summer. Meanwhile, I'm trying to step things up with at least a feature every week in addition to the column and Thursday stuff.
Also, when the outdoor section tanked several years back, I pitched a wildlife column in the homes and gardens section. It's very popular as well as time consuming. But I also use it to bridge the gap between hunters and bird watchers because most of us are both. That makes it a valuable tool that I don't want to surrender.
But it all takes more time than I sometimes have.
In a perfect world, we would return to having two outdoor writers and more space to fill.
It ain't perfect again, yet...but we're working on it.
As to your suggestion for more submissions, I don't see that happening either. We don't have the space, and editors would have less control over important things like accuracy, style and story selection. I'm happy to take story ideas any time and try to work them in.
And anyone is free to write their objections, complaints and concerns about coverage to one of the paper's editors.
Hmm...this is rambling and you've got a bit of an inside taste of things...better call it a -30-

[Old Coot]

Ya know, before the media can profit from a stupid hunter story, some hunter has to do something stupid. The Oregonian didn't start this fiasco, the idiot did. And, like it or not, the idiot considers himself to be one of us, a hunter. So does the public.

Not to argue, but I disagree with dla about the public getting its image of hunters from the media. They get the image from hunters. The media isn't out shooting holes in road signs, dumping boned-out carcasses along the road, shooting out of truck windows, killing game animals in yards or on the Sunriver Golf Course, or shooting each other out in the woods.

(Before you start yelling at me about how it's vandals with guns who shoot up road signs, not hunters, the same arguement I use with non-hunters, know that I've been monitoring one 40-mile stretch of truly remote blacktop for over twenty years. The new signs grow bullet holes the first weekend in October, every year. Coincidence?)

Two years ago I was fortunate enough to be the camera operator on an OSP decoy setup. Six carloads of hunters drove past in the hour before first light. Five of those cars, count 'em, five, stopped and somebody commenced shooting at the decoys.

Look around and see who is sharing your sport. They are trashing the sport, and our names along with it. We all need to work overtime to educate others and polish the image, or we lose the sport. I try to effect change by teaching Hunter Ed. Try it, you might like it!

[Bill Monroe]

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[The Overfishin Condition]

Looks like it's flame Bill time! How bout you folks look up "idiots" address and send him a few letters! He's responsible. Cause Bill wasn't out there shooting, in fact, why don't one of you well read gentlemen who insist on blaming Bill go read the article and tell me where it says he, and not Laura Oppenheimer wrote it. This story would get spread one way or another, people have mentioned it to me, that don't read the Oregonian, they saw it on the news. Seems some folks were pretty stirred up about this, and they would have made their story heard one way or another. This is like a company who has an employee get drunk, drink and drive, kill someone, then blame the papers for the negative publicity. Dimwit, anyone can take a quote out of context and twist it, read the rest of Bill's comment. Someone did something stupid, and it wasn't Bill Monroe or the Oregonian, spend your energy placing blame where blame is due, don't take your frustration out on this man. The fact of the matter is, this post should probably be moved to the LIG form. Bill posted this topic as a fair-warning that some news was going to be published about an idiot, that could possibly tarnish our image as hunters. However, this thread is barely about a hunting, not about a hunter, and more about you people criticizing a man, criticizing the way he does his job, and bashing his company. I think the AUP calls for full names attached to posts, doing JUST the latter, let alone getting personal with someone about their profession.
"It ain't the smoke, it's the fire that gets the burnin' done
If it wasn't for the bullet, nobody'd fear the gun
It ain't the bark, it ain't the growl, it's the bite that hurts
Thunder's just a noise, boys, lightnin' does the work"

[ 10-24-2003, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: The Overfishin Condition ]

[Rauly]

Time to sit back and think before you post. Thanks.

Rauly

[Mello-Yello]

Yep, she's heatin up.

Rauly's right, things are getting carried away.

Bill's not the media's spokesperson.

Bill, I'm surprised you tried to defend it. I guess it was noble, but in the process you sorta came across as a defender, thus putting you in the firing line.

Wouldn't bother me a bit to see this post locked.

Rauly, ifish ever thought of having a venting board???

[REEL HANDEL]

BOE-Hooray for you. the oregonian sucks.

[Bait O' Eggs]

Coot - nice post [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]


Bill - So if I hear you right:

1. We are stuck with you
2. Even if one of us wrote a great article the editor would rather publish golf scores :depressed:
3. We can read about watching birds in the home and garden section
4. I can complain all I want to the editor [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]
5. Somebody who actually attended OSU (probably didnt graduate) works for the Oregonian
6. I guess the reflection cant be changed in the mirror, and if I want to find a use for the Oregonian, I should buy a bird.

[dla]

How does the non-hunting public (93% of the population) get its view of hunting from hunters? Do you think non-hunters seek out hunters to listen to stories? Stop and think for a moment.

The non-hunting public doesn't care one bit about hunting. They don't notice boned-out carcasses. They're not out driving around on the backroads during the fall. They don't care anymore about shot up road signs than they do graffitti on the fence. Hunting goes on invisibly to them.

They get their view of hunting from the media. When the media micro-examines and sensationalizes a hunting accident, the non-hunting public is led to believe that it's not safe to go outdoors during hunting season. Do you think the Oregonian would report the fact that it is statistically more dangerous to drive to Lincoln City than it is to go hunting during second season Elk?

The media is often used by people with an agenda. Thats why gun-control laws that do nothing are passed, and why bear and cougar bait and pursuit hunting is banned.

I agree that only hunters have enough manpower to police the sport. OSP can't do it.

I wonder how many people died in traffic accidents last week, which the public considers an acceptable risk and not "news worthy"?

[dimwit]

I can't help how you feel about the Oregonian...excuse me, I mean the "local cageliner"...but your reaction is common enough in the profession. We call it "break the mirror." If you don't like what you see, blame the reflector, not the reflection.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">So you're categorizing us and everyone that criticizes the "cageliner" article with this idiot? You're saying that if we don't like the article it's because we see our own "image" in what was reported. That's a pretty arrogant attitude. Maybe you don't like the criticism here because you see YOUR "image" in what's being said. I hope that's only what you said and not what you meant.

[MooseTurd]

The non-hunting public doesn't care one bit about hunting. They don't notice boned-out carcasses. They're not out driving around on the backroads during the fall. They don't care anymore about shot up road signs than they do graffitti on the fence. Hunting goes on invisibly to them.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">My inlaws are non-hunters, have 40 acres in the country and deal with this kind of nonsense every year around deer hunting season. It's not invisible to them.

[Bill Monroe]

OK, then, my last post cuz the column will be in the paper in the morning...although I sure hope no one locks the subject in this post. The paper needs its critics. In fact, that's what the public editor does...advocate for readers. His name is Mike Walden and he's not always popular in the newsroom. Give him a call or send an email.

(BTW, I didn't have space for any discussion of the hunter education issue, but can get into that subject later, maybe in a follow up...and yes, if Joe Webber is found innocent or wants to speak out, we'll cover that as well...My understanding from the fish and wildlife commission is that the mandatory hunter ed idea will ultimately happen, but no one is sure when.)

BOE:

1. Yup, you're stuck with me I'm afraid. However, if things don't improve in, say, six years...then I'm oughtta here.

2. The editors (and I) are always interested in a really great article, or even a mediocre one if the story or news angle is strong. We buy free-lanced material all the time. But you asked about regular weekly submissions on a single subject and that's not something we do other than through our regional correspondents. I don't see it happening with hunting or fishing because I have enough trouble myself trying to get space. If you want me to pitch the idea, give me a call (503-221-8231 or LD to my desk at 888-222-8231) and we'll work on a strategy.

3. There are about 10 times as many birdwatchers out there as hunters (most of whom also are wildlife watchers and lovers) and I'm of far more value to hunting readers as a hunter writing about birds, too, than turning the space over to a non- or anti-hunter. I hope you can see that. Frankly, it's fun, but very time consuming and something I've thought about trying to get out of. But then I think back to the very first call the first day that column came out...a lady asked me point blank on the phone: "I thought you guys just killed things?"

4. That wasn't an arrogant suggestion that you take your complaints to an editor. On the contrary, it was meant to suggest that my whining is so common down there that it means far less than a lot of readers calling to ask for more outdoor consideration...that's where you can make a difference. I would never tell a reader to go pound sand anyway...it's not my style (99 percent of the time, anyhow).

5. All OSU staffers at The Oregonian were told they'd graduated. Maybe it was just to get us out of Corvallis before the football team improved.

6. You don't have to go buy a bird to use the paper. You can also catch a fish.


I always avoid driving to or through Lincoln City, as well as rifle elk hunting (I'm a bow-hunter for elk).

dimwit...The paper needs its critics. The break-the-mirror reference speaks to the motive for your irritation. If you think it wasn't newsworthy because of the incident's isolation, that's one thing. As a matter of fact, I discovered from OSP it's a statewide problem.
But if you or someone thinks it shouldn't be in the paper because it makes hunters look bad, whether or not it's a problem (and the same was true of ATVs), then that's where the image needs to change, not the mirror. The paper's purpose is to report significant events in the lives of the community...good or bad...it's up to the community (remember all those bird watchers?) to change or ignore the factors leading to the events.

There...I'm going fishing...sorry for the misunderstandings anyone may have had, but not for the forum...it's valuable for all of us.

[HOGGEMIN]

Like the Oregonian or not to fight the anti's we must also know what the anti's are doing and stratigizing on doing. Bill does the best he can but the Oregonian is liberal like PDX. We need to all write the Oregonian and ask for more colume space for our side of the picture, this will give Bill a better chance at printing our side.
To many Hunters and fisherman are to apethitic and won't lift a finger let alone donate money to our cause. the anti's have millions of dollars and we only have thousands to fight them. Thats why we lose our rights at the ballot box. we are a major minorty so being that we need to unight and not bicker amungest ourselves and fight the antis at there own game. United we stand devided we fall, the anti's want us to fight amoungst ourselfs then we will be weaker. Listen to Ted Nugent if it is a leagle form of hunting than we must fight tooth fang and claw to protect it. So you might not trap or bird hunt but it is leagle. So defend it don't tear it apart or put down those that do. If we all folowed that we would not have the couger & bear problems we have today. More hunters voted for measure 18 than voted against it. this is not intender for one specific person but us all we are all sportsmen and women we all need to get off our lazy ***** and fight, get your friends to help also. Join Oregon Hunters Association, join N.W Stealheaders Association, join something. Or there will be no more hunting or fishing for our great grandkids.

[Straydog]

Coot,

You say it better than anyone here. Well done!

Pretty sad to see the emphasis being placed on the messenger rather than the fool that opted to wound a deer in a residential area. There in lies a lot of our problem. Ignore or down play the stupid act but drag the messenger through the mud. As long as this attitude prevails, little will change.

I have been selling shooting sports equip. since 1975 and have spent way too many hours observing and listening to people preparing to go into the field with guns that are either clueless as to how to safely conduct oneself or have the attitude that it is their God given right to shoot what, when and where they choose and no danged law is going to change that.

We are our worst enemy in tems of how we portray hunters and fishers to the rest of the world. Heck, just read the posts on this forum concerning "ethics" in terms of who hunts where and how. Same on the fishing board. And you people want to blame the press??? Man, what a cop out.

You want to make a differnce and use the Oregonian to do so? Everyone that wrote a comment on this thread should write a letter to the editor announcing you are a true hunter and loudly and clearly denouncing the fool that put many kids and adults at risk so he could take home a deer. Deluge the paper with letters denouncing the act of this peron and make sure you tell them you are real hunter. Take some responsiblity to effect positive change, don't expect a newspaper to do your job!

By the way, many, many thousands more people golf than hunt and their numbers, unlike hunters numbers, are growing daily. This might offer some clue as to why the column inches devoted to golf is greater than those devoted to hunting. It is a numbers game and clearly there are more people interested in golf than hunting.

[ 10-26-2003, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Bait Bucket]

I just read the article. The statement by Cleary and Seaholm about this young fellow and the whole incident not being representative of the typical hunter saved the story as far as I'm concerned. Still, the article belongs in the criminal section and not in the sports section.

Certainly, there are positive things that can be written about hunting. As it is, I find the Oregonian not much more than The Washington Post West.

Strong letter to the editor to follow.

Have a great day.