A bowhunting (sort of) article published in the NY Times

[dreamingbig]

Hey all,

Here is a  !  Publishing a "bow-hunting" article in the NY Times.

I read this in the paper today and almost became sick to my stomach several different times while doing so.  Read the article at the link and then we can discuss where the author was a bit misguided at times.

Enjoy.   

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/sports/othersports/06elk.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

[Todd_ID]

It's pretty clear that the author was not a hunter, but it was not too terribly written coming from a non-hunter.  He could have picked a word other than slain when referring to the number of animals harvested.  I think it's a good thing to put hunting in front of the masses in a positive way rather than trying to hide it in a back corner.  If only we could get articles that put a favorable spin on the sport into all of the major papers!  The sport is shrinking, and publicity like this is needed to get it back into prosperity.

[DOUBLELUNG]

I read this in the paper today and almost became sick to my stomach several different times while doing so. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/sports/othersports/06elk.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

I'm not seeing anything to protest about the article.  Seems factual.  Wealthy dude spends scads of money to buy opportunities to kill wildlife the average Joe can't. 

Don't bash the nonhunter for writing what seems to be an accurate and unbiased story; if the rich dude looks like an ass for taking a running shot with trad archery gear, then tells the reporter piously that he passed other opportunities because he didn't want to wound an animal - that's the story.  Good reporters report fact, not the spin any special interest - including us hunters - wish would be put on it. 

If you don't like this kind of @#$%^&, work to get the high bidder $$$ out of tag allocation.  I'm all for landowners selling access, but state-regulated tags should NEVER be available to the highest bidder, it goes against everything the American model of hunting conservation is built upon. 

We hunters have failed to police our own and keep hunting pure, as a tool for conservation that used to put the critters first, ahead of government budget concerns and our own selfish desires for easy opportunities at vulnerable wildlife.

[dreamingbig]

While I agree that getting an article on bowhunting in the NY Times is beneficial I found myself questioning the author's choice of words and descriptions at times.  I guess the bottom line is that I felt it didn't exactly put bowhunting's best foot forward.  Here are some the of sentences/phrases that frustrated me a bit.

1.  "...had [bgcolor=#0000ff]slain[/bgcolor] 28 big-game"  Perhaps he could have written harvested or killed or anything else; slain seems to take it to another level.

2.  "Bow Hunters’" and "bow-hunting" A minor gripe here but when did bowhunter and/or bowhunting become two words or hyphenated?

3.  "So from August to December, [bgcolor=#0000ff]elite[/bgcolor] hunters have descended on the tule range here in pursuit of a trophy elk."  Elite is a bit of a over generalization.  Sure Duggan has the super slam all with trad gear but to suggest that all bowhunters hunting tule elk are elite while nice to say is probably going a bit to far.

4.  "the number of applications to hunt early in the season [bgcolor=#0000ff]nearly doubled [/bgcolor] to 566 in 2008 from 317 in 2007"  While definitely a sizeable increase it is still 68 applications short of double.  I guess he is rounding liberally.

5.  "Hunted to near extinction after the Gold Rush, the tule population was protected by California law until its number surpassed 2,000 in the 1980s. Then the state game commission began granting permits to outfitters. [bgcolor=#0000ff]Despite the hunting, the population has grown to exceed 4,000 elk[/bgcolor]."  I wish this point would have been made more clear.  It was written from the glass half empty view point.  Perhaps it could have said.  Since then the support of sportsman has increased the herd size to over 4000.

6.  "a weapon with pulleys and cables granting a range of 60 yards or more."  While some bowhunters certainly take longer shots, this is another gross generalization.  Oh and why is a gun a gun or a rifle a rifle but here a bow becomes a "weapon?"  And I am being too sensitive?

7. "In five days of hunting, Mr. Duggan would [bgcolor=#0000ff]fire[/bgcolor] only once..."  Come on... there is no trigger to pull on a trad bow, no powder to ignite...  Shoot might have been a better choice.

8. "holding back for fear of [bgcolor=#0000ff]maiming[/bgcolor] his prey."  Yes maiming is synonymous with wounding or injuring but doesn't it sound much more ominous?  Perhaps it could have been mentioned that he had too much respect for the animal to take a risky shot?

9.  "He left wet and tired and empty-handed."  I wonder if these were Mr. Duggan's thoughts.  Sure he was probably bummed about eating tag soup but perhaps he will cherish the memories that he took home with me of the hunt.

Anyway those were my thoughts.  I wasn't really considering the money that spent on the landowner tags and the effects it has on the sport; that is a discussion for another time.

[fc2038]

I read what you posted and I was thinking the same thing with the authors specific word selection, But I also agree that he probably wasn't a hunter and beside the poor word selection in a couple areas I think it wasn't that bad. But that is just my opinion. If someone was slamming hunting there most likely would be no doubt about it.

[rooselk]

I certainly understand the criticisms of the article. But overall I thought it was positive - which is actually somewhat of a surprise given that the NYT is a major newspaper not know for its' hunter friendly articles. That said, my primary concern would be that the article could give to the impression that bowhunters are a bunch of rich guys with an expensive hobby.