Our local newspaper's outdoor writer wrote a column on programming on the Outdoor television shows last Sunday.

I wanted to get some comments on it. Other than the cheap shots at regional accents (Hell my Okie Dad said bu-uhhks) what do y'all (some Okie rubbed off on me) think. In some way I agree with him about some of the techniques. But it seemed to me to be more elitist than anything else.


Outdoor channels leave something to be desired

Now in Bill's defense (and I've never met him) he does work with our local SCI chapter on hunter's safefty programs and is a proponent of hunting and fishing. Given the attitude of the Oregonian I'm surprised that they have a pro hunting outdoor columnist at all.

But it's my opinion that even though we all could stand constructive critisism, this column is just more fodder for the antis.

Wadda ya tink...

-Steve

This article is horribly written. Bill pointed out obvious weakness of outdoor TV, but then instead of dissecting the problem and offering solutions, he just quit thinking.

To contrast, read a movie or TV review in any major newspaper or magazine. Those critics don’t just point out strong and weak points of what they see. They write about why those points exist and how the thing works in light of them, and you get a better understanding not just of the show but of film or TV itself.

Bill just leaves you knowing way too much about how he and his wife watch TV. Yeah, he offers the antis some fodder, but mostly it’s because he looks like a dolt.


Okie John

Question to Bill...

Have you ever watched network news?

quote:

Our local newspaper's outdoor writer wrote a column on programming on the Outdoor television shows last Sunday.

I agree with the guy! And my solution, cancel the programming. To many whitetail and turkey hunts, the need for a interpretuer, to many staged shots (Dave Watson),to much emphasis on trophys instead of enjoying the hunt, to much advertising for the "cough silencer" and the like, one to many Buck Mcneely's with the accent and absolutely no public speaking ability, a, a ,a a,a, the list goes on and on!

I watched them all, and when I first got the programming I thought "this is great"! But soon lost interest and enjoy an outdoor magazine better. 10 minutes of hunting and opinions, and 20 minutes of advertising.

In Kentucky, we don't know where we're from! We were neutral during the civil war, sometimes we are grouped with the "Midwest" states, and sometimes we're a southern state.

We do know about cornbread, fried chicken, and manners. The "southern drawl" is as much a part of our culture as the Bostonians saying they "Pac da Ca". I don't think too much of Yankee speech and in my trips out west, I can't tell a lot of difference in the dialect. However, I won't let that stop me from meeting new people. This country is full of great people in spite of our dialects and our differences. If you don't want to hear the drawl, turn off the tube...it ain't hard to do...weuns even has rumots n da sowth!

As far as what the shows do to our sport, I couldn't agree more. From that perspective, I totally agree. I still believe most of the shows are films of somewhat canned hunts to say the least. However, I can't say I blame the guys. Some of those guys are making a lot of money because someone is buying the products they endorse.

My favorite is the "Paid Programming" section the Outdoor Channel was airing early one morning. I can't remember the name of the product, but Hank Parker endorsed it. You just spray the stuff on anything green and deer come from miles around to eat that weed!

I can't believe people buy that garbage. You know, it reminds me of an uncle I hunted with when I was a kid. Each year, he made some of his secret deer scent. There is no telling what he put in the stuff. One morning, his son shot a decent buck after he had poured some of the concoction on a bush. From then on, the uncle and all four of his boys religiously used the stuff and swore by it....the sun shines even on a dog's hind end now and again.