I want you all to ask yourselves; and in full honesty; out of all the folks that post here, how many of them would you like to represent you, the hunter, in a general public debate forum? I am ashamed to say that a lot of the folks here are the last person I would want talking to the general public or media on my behalf, the "average hunter." There are a lot who I feel would be an accurate and respectable representative of my kind of people here ( you know who you are,) but a great many who are a detriment to "the cause." To all those on the same page, I commend, and thank you..... to all those opposed, go figure........
Only those opposed would feel the need to respond negatively to this posting.......

Hi, Woodrow:

Is your point that the gun-toting, right-leaning, blood-and-guts hunting fraternity doesn't have anybody as dignified as Sven Robinson to represent us?

(Americans: Sven is Barney Franks squared.)

kk

Ted Nugent is on Conan O Brian AND Donahue
(MSNBC) on the 25th.

I say loud, long and hard, that there are few people I have met on this site that would shame me speaking out in defense of our shared madness, or few that are unqualified to speak for the fraternity that we belong to and hunting, shooting and all that goes with it make us a fraternity of some sort. We, in the United States, live in a Republic. To make our system work, we need on free, fair and open political and social debate. We depend on it. Woodrow, if we hold to your stance, we cut individuals who may not be as articulate as the next man, but who still have something of value to say off at the knees. Drumming them out of our fraternity smacks of elitism and snobbism and goes against everything I believe in, and from what I gather reading post at this site, it rubs a large number of the fanatics that gather here the same way. A stumbling, bumbling spokesman speaking or writing a few words from the heart sometimes has more positive affect a PhD speaking or writing volumes.

Woodrow:
That's kind of a "loaded" question there isn't it?

Roger; Great post!

First, in my opinion the greatest percentage of people here, wether they post or not are good people. I've met some really nice people here we stay in contact off the forum and I'm proud and honored to call them friends!
You know, if you get a truck load of potatoes, you're going to find some bad ones!

As for a representative, I think a perfect combination of Rush Limbaugh,Ted Nugent,and the Lawyer from Wyoming Spence, take these qualities, reincarnate and include John Wayne! You'd have a board that no one could touch!
Talk about your "Four Horseman"

[ 02-23-2003, 21:33: Message edited by: Marsh Mule ]

Woodrow,

YOU are a snob. I am not being no more negetive than your post. What? if someone does not like or agree with your post then it will be considered negative.

I am not considered a well educated man. I am not very articulate and I am not sure if I even spelled it right. I have to 'work at it' to express my thoughts. I would do poorly in a debate for it would take me a day to have a response. With that being said, I have been successful in life without the education. I also contribute and share my experience as a hunter to promote and educate future hunters. So what does this make me?
What have you done to put back into our sport?

You state, "My kind of people". What do you mean by this?
I guide hunters for a living in very remote areas. I have seen your kind. Their nose is up in the air until you leave them alone for a brief period. They realize they are in a pickle without you. All of a sudden, Mr. Smarty pants is on equal terms with me.
You know what Woodrow, it is just human nature. I don't hold it against them. I work just as hard for the multimillionare snob cocksucker as I would for anyone else.(not saying you are this). It is only fair. Remove all the bullshit and we are all the same.

I agree, there are those that are better suited for public debates but that does not make them any better hunters than anyone else.

If you are so ashamed of us mabe we could ask Saeed for a seperate forum for ashamed people of your kind.


Daryl

Woodrow,

I normally don't answer posts such as yours but yours certainly deserves some attention.

The beautiful thing about Saeed's forums is that anyone can participate, well educated or not. Everyone here is welcome to have a say.

I have noticed that most here do not feel, at all, as if they NEED representation from someone else. I think they can, and do, represent their views and feelings very well.

I'm sorry that you feel you need someone to represent you views to the mainstream. Allowing others to represent our views and how we feel has gotten this country, and its government, into the shape it's in now. While I don't agree with every opinion or subject posted here, I respect the right of the individual to express him or herself.

Joe

Whether it is a fault of mine or not I don't know.

But I don't normally use the same wording to someone who is of the same persasion as me as I would to someone I was trying to debate with who had a different opinion.

In other words...

I feel confortable pointing out exactly where the bear s%#t in the woods to like minded friends but would make a different reference to that same exact spot to someone who is not of like mind.

Gee, after reading that I'm not sure I made my point clear, oh well....

Woodrow,
I am not exactly sure what point you are attempting to make with this thread. Having said that, there are those on this forum whom I would not wish to be seen as representing me, in any arena. I specifically refer to those individuals, that use profanity and physical threats, as a means of debating a topic! These individuals must have somekind of antisocial personality disorder. Unfortunately, there seems to be FAR too many of them posting here at AR!

If that is the point of your post then I agree with you. I do not believe that an education is necessarily required to be a spokesman for the hunting and shooting sports; however, the ability to speak eloquently is a definite advantage.

Lucs

What, Common folks representing the likes of Woodrow or myself? Well sir, I think not! Woodrow, you know where you can stick the Grey Poupon HAHA!

[ 02-24-2003, 08:11: Message edited by: TC1 ]

Woody, tell us more. What, exactly, are "your kind of people". In my 65yrs, I have found that folks that feel an exclusivity in "my kind of people" are rarely my kind of people.
As posted, we are a group of like minded folks arguing around a campfire. We're not in church. We can fart, burp, scratch our nuts -if we've got 'em-, eat our peas with a knife and generally not bother with a whole lot of protocal. We can state our opinions straight from the shoulder. Man to man, as it were. The crudest one here may well be the most eloquent in a different forum.

Elkslayer,
Understand what you said to a "T". When I was teaching during my USN days I developed three distinct vocabularies to give the same lesson. One for the newbees, one for my peers and one for persons like Woodrow. Even to this day I find that I do that. I speak differently to my farm workers than I speak to my suppliers than I speak to the other farmers I come in contact with. We have some in each group whom Woodrow would seem to want to run with. To bad too 'cause most of these people are really knowledgeable, likeably and competent in their field they just have no room for other ways or anyone who believes differently than they.

I argue for guns and hunting even when I haven't hunted and still earning for a rifle...

[ 02-24-2003, 07:50: Message edited by: LSG ]

Damn! I have got to stop taking naps in the evenings,I think I missed something along the way.
Who yanked Wood's chain? and what was going on.I
would expect that most views weather express the same or not on this site would be pro-hunting/guns and game mangement.Haven't seen other wise.

We've see what appeasement has brought us over the years. It looks like you need an "in your face" approach like the green nazis use if you're going to get anywhere.

I hope what Woodrow means is since people have a tendency to categorize others into "special interest" groups, as a special interest group whose pursuit is often the subject of public scrutiny hunters should be concerned about who the public perceives as our spokepersons. This scrutiny has a ugly side to it called Legislation. Our pursuit can be legislated and enforced practically to a stop.

A "spokesperson" like Nugent is a two-edged sword. He attracts some with his primitive logic and repels others with his abrasiveness. You might argue that Ted does not speak for you but as long as John Q. Public is out there thinking he is, he does. The guy in the gunstore loudly proclaiming the devastating effect of his 19-round Cro-Magnum is going to have on Mr. Evil's brain if he even puts a big toe in his yard makes Ms. Soccer who hears it wonder if he's about to go postal. And the hunter in the local diner regaling his buddy with how deer carcasses were scattered like firewood around his stand might give the non-hunter at the next table visions of slaughterhouses.

They are speaking for us as hunters and their audience will be speaking against us as voters.

We are all spokespersons and camo is our uniform. Every time a hunter steps into a public place wearing camo he can honor or disgrace his uniform and the rest of us along with it. All we can do is hope to keep our lawmakers reminded that we are diverse and that a few slobs don't reflect the entire group. At least their being lawyers makes that easier.

It is disturbing to think that others have such a dramatic impact on one's personal private activities. I understand, believe me. A person should be able to speak his mind. Hunting is not a dirty little secret but let us each remember that every word we say heard by a non-hunter makes the NRA's job either easier or tougher.

Let's forget the philosophizing as to how things should be and deal with the political reality of defending a controversial activity in a republic rapidly embracing anthropomorphism. Because we may all rest assured, if we lose the public relations battle we will lose the legislative war.

[ 02-24-2003, 15:01: Message edited by: steve y ]

I wouldn't want Genghis representing us but otherwise I'm so deeply conflicted about this issue I'm just going to go back to the bunker and load more ammo. Do you have any idea how much time you can kill by putting together 1000 rds of .308 with "0" run out? Then Neck turn 500 .17 Ackley Hornet cases. Sorry, my eyes were glazed over and I got lost...Time to wash my cammo, let me know how this turns out guys.

Woodrow
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Is it that you feel that some of the people who post here are not sufficently articulate to properly present a pro-hunting position, or is it that you disagree with what has been said here. I get the feeling that something is bothering you, if so spit it out. One thing that I would like to see on someone who would represent us is clarity, your post lacks it. I'm not offended by your post but rather curious as to your intent. Why don't you elaborate on your origional post.

Terry R.

Woodrow,
I have relativly new to the forumns and have "lurked" them for months and have only posted maybe 3 times. But some of your post I agree with. Probably 80 percent of the posters here, can not or would not represent my beliefs on hunting and fishing. I come here to hear those 80 percent that would not be a good representation of me. Why? Because I learn more from them than I do from people who agree with me totally. I like a good debate and I learn from every one I have ever entered.

GTR

[ 02-24-2003, 23:53: Message edited by: GTR ]

Steve Y, excellant post and answer. Sometimes, indeed, we are our own worst enemy. - Dan

Wow.......Where to begin....
500AZ, Steve Y, and Dan Belisle got my point of my original post exactly, and provided the type of feedback I was interested in reading. If I was looking for people/someone to argue with I would have left my hunting gear on my girlfriend's craft table again!
Ross Spagrud: Not much from you on this posting, but glad you saw it. For those of you who have the time and are interested, check out Ross's recent posts and/or his website. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a hunter who wouldn't want this fella representing him or her.
RogerK: I couldn't agree with the last sentence of your post more; unless to edit it to read, "the person speaking from the heart ALMOST ALWAYS has a more positive effect."
MarshMule: This post was intended to be "a loaded question," and at the risk of poorly representing even myself, to prompt those individuals who share a similar view to share what they think. I knew that there would likely be those who would want to attack me as well, but those are the risks you run when posting in an open forum.
Yukoner: You've called me "a snob", yet you doesn't know me. You seem to feel that you are one of those people who I would not want representing me..... Are you? In case you have any lingering suspicions as to whether I am actually a "millionaire cocksucker", I assure you that my girlfriend wishes I had a million bucks, but, alas, I am restricted to living within my means as an average wage earning fella, like most. Furthermore, I would not call you "a snob" as this is the type of disrespectful banter that tends to lend to the "Anti-hunting/gun" community's argument that we are nothing but ignorant, gun-toting neanderthals.
OVIS: We all do "need someone to represent our views to the mainstream." We can all do our little bit in various ways, but, unfortunately most of us are not in a position to reach, or speak to, very large audiences including the media. It is within these large audiences that live the larger group of non-hunter/non-gun owners. It is these people we have to reach in someway and convince them to allow us to continue in our traditions. It is the loud fanatics that these people will put up a wall to, which if we are not careful in managing our image as hunters, in the long run, will end our existence as hunters.
StillCrawfish: I too was a regular member of the USN. On a different thread, I would be curious to know why you wouldn't have spoken to me as a newbie or as a peer...when in fact I was both at one time.
KMule and Recono: Thank you for providing examples postings which do nothing for a thread.

For those who have asked or are unsure what I meant by "my kind of people" I offer the following. "My kind of people" are folks who use and enjoy the outdoors in responsibly, and share the priveledge of doing so with others. This is done in a non-combative manner and unobtrusive way in order to promote "the cause" people who are interested, and try to have those who do not share the same interests at least respect my passion for hunting, and wish for me to be able to continue in the tradition.
"My kind of people" love being in the outdoors, near mountains, creeks, swamps, and meadows. They view the act of bringing home meat to their table as a gift, not the objective. These people do not care how many heads hang on their wall, but like having these things to remind them of the experiences they have had while afield.
Finally, the goal of my statement "Only those opposed would feel the need to respond negatively to this posting" was to attract meaningful dialogue from posters who share my beliefs, instead of posters who are just always on the lookout for an argument. Sadly, these are the type of people who I was thinking about when I made my original posting. Not those wishing to debate; but those just wishing to argue within the anonymity of the internet......
CDW

I have noticed that when the press covers a hunt, they always find the scroungiest, most ignorant rednecks and use them as the typical hunters.

Not the best foot forward.

Jerry

Woodrow:

I guess Dave James has come closer than anyone here to what I would say to your hypothetical question (and plea for attention, and first shove in a confrontation, whether you think it is or not). I would say that most that post here disagree about many things, which caliber is better for what, political issues, etc. But I feel that by far most here would represent me perfectly in a debate in my hunting and gun owning stance. Just because they might put things a bit more blunt than your (guess) stiff upper lip upbringing would like doesn't mean they could not be very cordial and effective in an media produced meeting of minds.

That being said, I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire. Is that what kind of response you were looking for? PLEASE RESPOND

W.Wilson: Seems you missed the point too. And hold the "P", I don't plan on catching fire.
JerryM: That is exactly what I'm talking about, yet those "scrougy rednecks" are always the ones jumping up to the camera for the press, without having the slightest idea that they are shooting themselves in the foot.
CDW

[ 03-04-2003, 06:52: Message edited by: Woodrow ]

Point taken Wood, they'ed get off subject and start name calling before they understood what was being discussed. The proof is in the pudding.
wort

Nope, not off subject at all, I gave my opinion too, just not pleased with your type of post, as it was only meant not to be objective, just to fish for answers like mine.
And no, I haven't called anyone any names Wort, I disagreed with his post and then appeased his goal.

It's funny though, this type of post reminds me a lot of another Canadian gent who hasn't posted here for awhile. His posts would normally go:

"Ok, I'm going to make an statement. It will surely tick most folks off. But I've already made up my mind. Those who agree with me are all knowing Xen masters of the universe, and are also probably tall, muscular, and good looking too. Those who disagree with me are surely knuckle dragging, potbellied, neanderthal, redneck Yanks." Then he made his statement.

When he got blasted to hell and back by ninety percent of posters he would throw up his hands and say "Whaaaaaaat?!!!!! What'd I say?!!!!" Sound familiar?

[ 03-03-2003, 23:20: Message edited by: W. Wilson ]

wort

is that like, 'a wort on my ass'

got no time for snobs!

Daryl

Woody, considering your (poor) attempt at being politically correct, I'd go easy on the "redneck" word were I you. There's a whole lot of us rednecks roaming around. Some of us even have collech educations and indoor plumbing. You can spot us by the fact that we would rarely use such an asinine term as "my kind of people".

Yukoner: These posts of your's....... are you serious???? Maybe I'm forgetting, but don't you guide in the Yukon, as you stated? So, you are technically representing me as a Canadian AND a hunter???? Great.
CDW

Beemanbeme: If you check again, you'll notice I used the term redneck as a quote from the posting 2 posts above mine. However, like Jeff Foxworthy said "I don't think you can talk about Rednecks unless you are one, and I are one, so". The term redneck is, in my books not a derrogatory term in my books, but as a slang word in the english language, is open to interpretation.

For better or worse there are people I would rather not see representing (or claiming to
represent) myself and my hunting/fishing/trapping/
firearm community. On occasion we have been hurt
by the actions of both individuals and groups
that were unable to carry the fight for our cause.

Having said that I salute any honest effort to
upgrade our community and I stand (albeit somewhat
reluctantly) with all who stand with me.

I would humbly suggest that prior to engaging the
media or trained ARA's in a direct dialog people
should ask themselves if they feel truly capable
of advancing the cause. If so, go get em......

My personal experience and feeling is that one should tailor their arguments and behaviour in a
specific fashion that takes into account the opponent and the audience.

Have fun!!!!!

Yukoner, you prove the point I was making. Few times can someone have a difference of opinion without name calling or insults. Now you tell me, if you can, why people can't discuss a topic and have different views and each state his or her sides and leave it at that. Insults and name calling are'nt going to change anyones mind. Adults should be adults and act accordingly. A rare commodity these days.
wort