IFish.net banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,459 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Was surprised to see a front page article on the Grandfather that took his Granddaughter out for the grouse hunt.
I am sure that the anti hunting crowd will send him all kinds of hate mail and tell him he is a terrible person etc.
I was a little bit surprised that the writer chose to write that the grandfather laughed and said "you blew its leg off".. Not the best choice of words for one of the most anti hunting papers I can think of.

I think I am going to find his address and send the guy a letter to counteract the evildoing that the antis are no doubt working on at this very minute.

Who's with me?


Oh, in order to do so, I need someone with a paper in hand to get me the guys first and last name and the town he lives in(it was mentioned in the article) And I stupidly left the paper at the office.

I can find his address from that.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,102 Posts
Re: oREGONIAN FRONT PAGE

The Oregonian, or "the dead fish wrapper" as some call it will use such articles to get to the anti crowds indirectly. I don't subscribe to the newspaper, and rarely watch news on TV for that matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,255 Posts
Re: oREGONIAN FRONT PAGE

Was surprised to see a front page article on the Grandfather that took his Granddaughter out for the grouse hunt.
I am sure that the anti hunting crowd will send him all kinds of hate mail and tell him he is a terrible person etc.
I was a little bit surprised that the writer chose to write that the grandfather laughed and said "you blew its leg off".. Not the best choice of words for one of the most anti hunting papers I can think of.
duckboy, I agree I thought the same thing.
It was not the "best" statement to put on the front page.

CH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
542 Posts
I thought the article was well written, but I did cringe a bit at the part about it's leg being blown off. At least that part of the story was buried on page 15 instead of the front.

The story was written by Larry Bingham.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
The anti-hunting set has plenty of emotionally charged arguments with or without the grouse article. What else would grandpa say at such an exciting moment?
My wife (who does not hunt, but is happy to cook the game) asked me to take her hunting after reading the article.
If you want to debate the quality of the writing fine, but I think it described an honest moment with out alot of baloney. We should quit worrying about what sound bite is going to get pulled and start taking more young hunters and spouses afield. :twocents:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
I wrote a similar post. With all the real hunting reports, it quickly slid down to page 2.

http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=170185

I am VERY sensitive to this, pretty much being married to a low grade anti-hunter, who doesn't want any animal to suffer or die. Ever. For any reason. I get to hunt by explaining that dying from a gunshot is a much easier death than starvation, disease, or predation by an animal without a gun. Wild animals rarely die from old age, especially prey species. She is smart, and understands, but does not want to see or hear about it.

I also wrote a letter to the writer, trying to determine if the subtext I perceived was intentional. I was pretty hot at the time, so I was pretty harsh and accusitory.

Most of my problem is with the language. The repeated use of "Kill" as opposed to "take" or "harvest." The flowery language and quote selection from the grandfather, "Roared with Laughter" "Blew it's leg off" "Blew it clean out of the tree." Grandpa might have said (and probably did) "Nice shot." "This will make a fine dinner." I didn't see too many quotes like that in the article.

I copied Bill Monroe. I got a response from Bill very fast, and he defended the article, the writer, and the editors of the paper. I won't repeat his letter, unless he gives me permission, but he thought the article was accurate, and we need to own what we do. We kill, not harvest. I respectfully disagree, and told him so. If "Kill" is appropriate language, why not "murder" or "slaughter" or "eviscerate"? He said the writer and the editors were "courageous." I think the article, which looks like a pro hunting piece, is in fact, a cowardly, subversive anti-hunting piece. Agree to disagree.

I read it twice, and my wife read it, and she is a part time writer and editor, and she agrees the article painted hunters like a bunch of barbarous rednecks, stumbling through the woods looking for blood, and we were darn well gonna raise our younguns like that too!

When hunters hit the front page, it is usually bad, someone lost, a shooting accident, poaching, etc. I thought for once, we might get painted in a good light, on the front page, not in the back of the sports section. A nice piece about the great aspects of hunting, something about passing on tradition, stewardship, and all that. Then I read the headline, the sub headline and my heart sank. It's a shame in my book. Spilt milk. Not much you can do about it now. I hope I have it wrong. I hope it was not written with an anti-hunting intent, and that most people won't read it that way. But I don't think so, the subtext is there.

Bill's retiring, a new outdoor writer will be selected. I hope he is a good one, and stands up for hunting and fishing, and the right to do so.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
945 Posts
I'll be looking this one up. I still spend time every week responding to both positive and negative articles I find around the web concerning this. I especially respond to anything I see posted about or by Peta or the hsus. Its like anything else, if you see the same viewpoint over and over again especially as you grow up, your going to accept it as valid, regardless if it is or not. More outdoors men, hunters, and fishers need to do this, because if you look at the stats, less people % wise are getting into the sports. My kids are educated about my views, but most of their friends, who are completely uninformed just blankly accept the rubbish from the peta and hsus because Pam Anderson said so, and have no clue of the rest of the story of what they are up to (none are ready to give up Mcdonalds yet but didnt know they are supposed to be vegans).....Needless to say they listen to that garbage, because they haven't heard anything else to the contrary. I'll subtly explain my side, and the rest of the hsus/peta side to them and they can figure it out themselves.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,459 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I thought the article was well written, but I did cringe a bit at the part about it's leg being blown off. At least that part of the story was buried on page 15 instead of the front.

The story was written by Larry Bingham.

I need the name of the Grandfather in the story, and the town he lives in...

I want to send him a note and say that it is too bad that more grandfathers do not follow suit and get their grandkids into hunting too.

Can anyone find me the name and the town where the grandfather lives? It is in the article, I know i saw it in there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,203 Posts
I was just shocked and amazed that they actually put anything hunting related in that rag, front page too.

They should be thanked for running it, but coached as how to word certain aspects better. The writer is most likely a non hunter and doesnt know any better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,452 Posts
The repeated use of "Kill" as opposed to "take" or "harvest."
....
We kill, not harvest. I respectfully disagree, and told him so. If "Kill" is appropriate language, why not "murder" or "slaughter" or "eviscerate"? .
Kurt, I have to agree with Bill on this one.
Harvesting is something done to crops.
Slaughtering is something done to livestock.
Hopefully we always eviscerate or dress our game.
Concerning murder, unless the animals are considered human or equal to us, its not murder, at least not in my eyes.

When we hunt and successly take the life of an animal, we kill pure and simple. If we don't like the word kill, or see it used in print, then perhaps the bunny huggers have convinced us we are doing something morally wrong.
I'll never be convinced of that, because I know we live in a world where everything at some point in its existences kills something else in order to survive. Thats the nature of things, if people would turn off the Disney Channel and spend more time on Animal Planet, maybe the masses won't be so confused.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
Kurt, I have to agree with Bill on this one.
Harvesting is something done to crops.
It's definition 9 from dictionary.com:

har·vest
1.Also, har·vest·ing. the gathering of crops. 2.the season when ripened crops are gathered. 3.a crop or yield of one growing season. 4.a supply of anything gathered at maturity and stored: a harvest of wheat. 5.the result or consequence of any act, process, or event: The journey yielded a harvest of wonderful memories. –verb (used with object) 6.to gather (a crop or the like); reap. 7.to gather the crop from: to harvest the fields. 8.to gain, win, acquire, or use (a prize, product, or result of any past act, process, plan, etc.). 9.to catch, take, or remove for use: Fishermen harvested hundreds of salmon from the river. –verb (used without object) 10.to gather a crop; reap.

Look at your own use of "dress" v. the far more accurate "eviscerate." Are you putting a clothes on the animal? No you are removing it's insides.

I never call a shot with the word "kill em" but I do say "take em".

Nothing wrong with using words which don't stir up negative emotions in the non-hunting set. I like being called a hunter. I really do not want to be labeled a killer, slayer, exterminator, by non-hunters, although I do occasionally kill the game I hunt. In my opinion, it is a small, important part of hunting, but not necissarily the centerpiece. The punctuation, not the sentence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,452 Posts
Kurt, I agree with your passion and sentiment on this issue.
But concerning the people we are up against, hunting is just a milepost in the road towards veganism. There is no common ground we can ever reach with these people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
For people who are pro- or anti- hunting, this article has little impact. But for the average non-hunter who maybe doesn't care all that much, it can push them one way or another.

It had an influence on my hunting.

As I said before, my wife is a low grade anti- and when she read this article, she felt justified and vindicated. And I have spent years (13 to be exact) to bring her over to our side of the fence, and one non-news piece that happened to make the front page (she would have never seen it in the sports section) has probably set me back a good long ways. Can you tell I am not happy about this?:mad:

There is so much good about hunting. Tradition, stewardship, a commitment to nature and to taking part in nature. It is unnecessary and foolish to focus on one thing, the kill.

On the lighter side, when I read about the grandfather saying "you blew it's leg off" to his granddaughter, I was thinking "and that was your share. Guess you go hungry tonight."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,452 Posts
As I said before, my wife is a low grade anti- and when she read this article, she felt justified and vindicated.
Ok Kurt, sorry I missed that part.
I can now understand your position.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,994 Posts
So why does a nobody (Larry Bingham) get 2 photos and front page sunday status and Bill Monroe gets several pages back in the sports section??? Bill is this guy in training to take over for you??? Are you coaching him??? Could someone at least introduce him to this site so we can get to know him before we all form opinions from his front page story.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top