Jim McRae
Senior Member
Once again, where's the "beating a dead horse" icon, this has already been debated ad naseum.
Jim M.
Jim M.
Welcome Guest!
SlipperyHill Mo
Senior Member
Dead Horse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is not a perfect world!!
This is not a perfect world!!
Mechanicaldawg
Roosevelt Ranger
Just for the record, GONetwork has made no statement, at this point, either pro or con, concerning high fence operations.
The Network is set up so that it may be the voice of all Georgia Sportsmen.
As for the magazines stance on this issue, I can't speak. It seems that I have read several editorials, or perhaps they were letters to the editors dealing with this issue, but I don't know that I have seen a true effort on behalf of the publisher to take a stance against high fence operations in Georgia.
I will bring this thread to their attention.
The Network is set up so that it may be the voice of all Georgia Sportsmen.
As for the magazines stance on this issue, I can't speak. It seems that I have read several editorials, or perhaps they were letters to the editors dealing with this issue, but I don't know that I have seen a true effort on behalf of the publisher to take a stance against high fence operations in Georgia.
I will bring this thread to their attention.
Mac
Senior Member
Well said, Phil
I would like to hear GON's comments on that one.
I would like to hear GON's comments on that one.
Keith48
Senior Member
This is just like the baiting issue in a way. I know a guy that has been busted several times for hunting over a feeder. I keep telling him it is against the law, but he says that it will be law one day, so he is getting a head start and the small fines don't bother him. I told him he was a poacher (which he didn't like) and that he should work to change the law, not break it. Once it is legal, I say hunt over it all you want to.
Same with fenced operations. Right now they are legal, so I have no problem with someone running one or using one. As for the name-calling on this thread, just because someone chooses a different form of hunting than you does not make them a "dummy." Grow up.
Same with fenced operations. Right now they are legal, so I have no problem with someone running one or using one. As for the name-calling on this thread, just because someone chooses a different form of hunting than you does not make them a "dummy." Grow up.
Randy
Senior Member
The problem is the use of the word "hunting." You do not have to hunt something that is fenced in. If you want to "shoot" a fenced in animal and it is legal then go for it. Just do not fool yourself in to thinking you are "hunting." You don't have to "hunt" inside a fence. I have killed hogs in a fence many times. As a kid my Grandfather would raise them and then every fall we would kill one to eat. We just stuck the 22 up to his head between the eyes and it was over. Nothing to shooting fenced animals.
First off, I don't believe in high fence operations. I think it's sad that some feel like the only way they can enjoy hunting is killing a penned up animal.
That said, I know from my radio days that in the advertising world you can't necessarily turn an ad down because you do not agree with them. I'm not sure what the regulations are on the print side, but I do know that in Radio, there are all sorts of anti-discrimination laws that have to be followed. I'm fairly sure that print is the same way to some extent. This may be a bad example because it is more regulated than other ads, but when the elections came around, we could select the races we were willing to air commercials from. Otherwords, we could choose Governor/Senate only and not take any city council ads. However if we took 1 city council ad we had to take everyone's city council ad. As far as the content goes, we had little control there as well. Although we could prevent them from using foul language or something like that, if they chose to call their opponent a gold toothed elephant who wollered in frog slime all day we just had to grin and bear it.
That said, if you magazine accepts hunting club ads, I doubt that you can descriminate to a paticular club just because you do not approve of their methods.
There is of course the profit need as well. The facts are over the last 5 years or so, advertising profits have been down for most outdoor magazines. That fact became evident to me the first time someone welched on a royalty payment for an article. I went from readily able to sell articles to magazines to struggling to sell a few paultry pieces a year. The most common reason given by the editors, "Profits are down and we aren't buying very many freelance articles right now." Many magazines and e-zines have went out of business over the last few years and a lot of what is left is on the very large end of the scale and the very small. I run my web site for 1 reason, I figured if I was going to get stiffed on my articles, I might as well be using them in my own magazine and not giving them to someone else. Maybe one day, I'll break mine out and be able to make money with it. So far, over the last 2 years, it's been a loosing proposition. There are a bunch of state magazines like GON, TVO, and KY Game and Fish that are limited in their market, tight on money, and willing to take about any advertising revenue they are offered in order to survive.
Skipper
Mechanicaldawg
Roosevelt Ranger
The publishers of GON can and have rejected ads in their magazine.
The publisher related, just last month that he turned down an ad from a popular boot maker because they were using what he deemed to be profanity in their ad.
Also, we know that the State has turned down ads for the popular guide because the product in the ad was at odds with the principle of Fair Chase.
The publisher related, just last month that he turned down an ad from a popular boot maker because they were using what he deemed to be profanity in their ad.
Also, we know that the State has turned down ads for the popular guide because the product in the ad was at odds with the principle of Fair Chase.
GeauxLSU
Senior Member
Jeff,Jeff Young said:
I obviously was under a false impression (from no source I can think of than myself). I guess if and when they answer that question will determine if I cancel and/or renew my membership.
Anyway, this thread is NOT about the ethics of high fenced hunting, it's about an advertiser potentially being hypocritical. I THOUGHT GON was a big fair chase proponent. If so, they have an issue. If not, they have issues, just not hypocrisy in advertising.
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil
*******
Hunting anything behind fences is like shooting a pet, they probally could get those deer to eat out of thier hand. This is one problem with hunting today, to many people are becoming obsessed with growing and taking "Monsters" and "trophy whitetails", I think sometimes we forget what we started hunting for. I know myself I was introduced to hunting for fellowship, family, and appreciation and respect of the outdoors, how could penning up an animal no matter what species and hunting it be respectful to what mother nature loans to us. I think we forget who is really in control sometimes. Does anyone remember 3 hurricanes in 5 weeks and now ole Helen is grumpy. Don't get me wrong, I want to kill nice bucks and have but they have never been behind a fence. I just think that one day if I have a son I would want to teach him about the thrill of tracking,scouting for, and taking a totally wild and free deer and not opening the gate to go hunting and making sure you close it behind you so the animals don't get out.
THE TITLE HAS BEEN EDITED FOR TYPING AROUND THE CENSOR
Hunting anything behind fences is like shooting a pet, they probally could get those deer to eat out of thier hand. This is one problem with hunting today, to many people are becoming obsessed with growing and taking "Monsters" and "trophy whitetails", I think sometimes we forget what we started hunting for. I know myself I was introduced to hunting for fellowship, family, and appreciation and respect of the outdoors, how could penning up an animal no matter what species and hunting it be respectful to what mother nature loans to us. I think we forget who is really in control sometimes. Does anyone remember 3 hurricanes in 5 weeks and now ole Helen is grumpy. Don't get me wrong, I want to kill nice bucks and have but they have never been behind a fence. I just think that one day if I have a son I would want to teach him about the thrill of tracking,scouting for, and taking a totally wild and free deer and not opening the gate to go hunting and making sure you close it behind you so the animals don't get out.
THE TITLE HAS BEEN EDITED FOR TYPING AROUND THE CENSOR
Throwback
Chief Big Taw
75% of the threads here are dead horses, so what's the point?
T
T
short stop
Senior Member
I don't see the problem . Not stirring the mud but it's AMERICA here isn't it ! Every state has different laws governing such fencing ,baiting , weapons. As MY $0.02 on GON they are a company driven by the almighty $$$$$$ . Do I subscribe -----no SS
sr.corndog
Senior Member
High fence hunting
Arn't most of the OLN, Buckmaster and Ted Nugent shows from high fence hunts. We all watch and we all want to have a wall hanger like they show on TV. That is why we watch and wish!
Arn't most of the OLN, Buckmaster and Ted Nugent shows from high fence hunts. We all watch and we all want to have a wall hanger like they show on TV. That is why we watch and wish!
Dead Horse!
Here we go again with a few certain members telling the rest of us what REAL HUNTING is and how we should hunt and how we should raise our children. If it is legal and the law defines it as hunting then it is hunting!
Sorry we don't all hunt the same way or think the same. I'm thankful for that. Some have more time and money to spend than others. Some land has an abundance of trophy game while other land has little if any game. I don't agree with all types of hunting myself but I will defend your right to do so as long as it is legal. If I help take away your form of hunting the next one to be taken away might be the one I enjoy the most. Hunters need to support each other not help to take away anothers way of hunting.
Here we go again with a few certain members telling the rest of us what REAL HUNTING is and how we should hunt and how we should raise our children. If it is legal and the law defines it as hunting then it is hunting!
Sorry we don't all hunt the same way or think the same. I'm thankful for that. Some have more time and money to spend than others. Some land has an abundance of trophy game while other land has little if any game. I don't agree with all types of hunting myself but I will defend your right to do so as long as it is legal. If I help take away your form of hunting the next one to be taken away might be the one I enjoy the most. Hunters need to support each other not help to take away anothers way of hunting.
Jim McRae
Senior Member
GeauxLSU said:
For the first time ever, I agree w/ Phil. Hit the nail on the head this time.
Jim M.
GeauxLSU
Senior Member
Jim, the FIRST time EVER!?!? Really?!?! Out of EVERTHING I've ever posted?!?! Wow....Jim McRae said:
For the first time ever, I agree w/ Phil. Hit the nail on the head this time.
Jim M.
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil
High Fences and High Pocrocy
As Ludlow Porch says, "Beating a dead horse is more fun than you think."
I have been watching this thread run for a couple of days and would have responded earlier but I understand there has been some problems with the login function and I was unable to login initially. Thanks to the Moderators for getting me put back together again.
The first thing I want to say is how much I have enjoyed the postings. Rarely do I get a chance to follow what people think, to get the real skinny, and, favorable or unfavorable, to hear the unvarnished truth (or opinion) openly expressed. I enjoy it and I think we need more of it.
So to all who have participated and for the rest of you lurkers, thanks.
But now I do need to contribute to this thread.
There are two basic truths that I want to discuss here in hopes that they will lead to positive action from us all.
The first basic truth is that as information increases, rhetoric decreases. I believe I will be able to supply some information that will be helpful to the group and that will put GON in a more positive light.
The second basic truth is how easily one can step into hypocracy while attempting to avoid it. I will illustrate this better below.
I would like to speak first to how GON feels about high fences. We oppose hunting inside high fences. This is generally known. Were that general knowledge not a fact, there would be no basis for the claim of conflict of interest or selling out for money and thus, being hypocritical.
So we agree that the record shows that GON opposes the hunting of anything behind a high fence.
Question is, does accepting ads from those who market such hunts make us somehow less principled than our position would indicate?
On first blush, to some, it seems to. I understand their viewpoint. But I think a bit more information may be helpful to them.
Please consider this. There is no way for GON readers to know of ads we do not accept. How could you? You don't see them.
While there haven't been many, there have been some. One such ad that we recently rejected was from a national leader in hunting footwear. They are a full-page, full-color advertiser. (Read that as much more money for the ad than a one-third page black and white advertiser.)
This was their third of 12 ads in their advertising contract. That means that what was at stake was more than just one month's worth of advertising; we were putting at risk 10 full page ads in 10 months if we objected to the ad.
This particular ad contained a 3-letter word that describes something that occasionally gets kicked — a word we found out of place in a magazine such as ours. The word was not "can," but that is close.
We knew before we called them that if we rejected this ad, we could lose all their business for that ad cycle and for all future years.
If we overlook principle and sell-out character for ad dollars, as has been suggested, we would have accepted this ad without question.
We rejected the ad.
They told us GON was the only objecting publication they had on a national campaign.
We told them we understood but we were going to support our standards.
That ad did not run in GON and they did not replace that ad that month with another ad. We lost that month's ad revenue.
But fortunately, they did not cancel the entire ad contract.
In this case, we stood for principle.
Did we stand for principle in the high-fence case? The answer is yes but the principle we stand for is one more basic and I think important than high fences. The principle is free speech.
Could we have rejected any and all high-fence ads?
Yes.
Then why didn't we?
Some presume it is because we were thirsting after the almighty dollar. I hope I have set that rational aside.
I made the decision to accept ads from these organizations and for good or ill, here is how I made it.
I want GON to be the voice of Georgia's sportsmen - your voice. I want it to be the voice of all Georgia's sportsmen. To reach this goal, I have to be willing to tolerate opposing points of view in the magazine; not only tolerate these voices, but provide accommodation. If GON is to be seen as a fair and open market place of ideas for us all, I have to protect the right of others to say things that I would oppose.
This principle parallels that famous quote that says, "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
As in the footwear company ad, there are certain words that we curb. We do not accept ads claiming "guaranteed hunts" for instance. Nor do we accept ads selling something that is illegal, like an exotic hunt inside a fence. But we do accept ads from legal operators who, in addition to the services they advertise in GON, also offer hunts inside high fences.
While I personally disagree wholeheartedly with the notion of hunting behind a fence, I likewise disagree with the notion of the press, founded on the principle of free speech, stiffling such speech. Wouldn't that be censorship? And wouldn't censorship by the press be hypocritical?
Is the right of speech open just to me? No.
The famous publisher H.L. Menkin once said, "The power of the press belongs to the *** who owns one." I think Dan Rather agrees with Menkin. I don't.
I want everyone to be able to come to GON and to believe he will get a fair chance to have his voice heard. Not that he will prevail, but that he will not b e squelched arbitrarily by me.
I believe that a well-meaning concern for hunting may have carried some over the line to suggeest censorship of speech dealing with otherwise legal activities.
Given the choice of being true to speech, and thus being subject to accusation of being hypocritcal on fences, or being true to fences and thus hypocritical on free speech, I choice to the more open, less censored choice. But you can see how in trying to avoid being hypocritical on one point exposes you to the charge on another point.
On a parallel subject, I personally dispise those who burn the flag. But not so much as I cherish the right of free speech. If I must stomach one to protect the other, so be it. In doing so, I may again be open to a charge of being hypocritical.
In March of this year, on the fourth floor of the state capital, I stood before a committee dealing with the issue of hunting exotics inside fences. I told them a bill that would legalize such a practice was a bad bill. Seated behind me in that room were two GON advertisers there to speak in support of the bill I was there to oppose.
One of those advertisers canceled his ad immediately. The other still advertises with GON. Both are good men. Are either of them hypocritcal? I don't think so.
But now I come to what I believe is really important about this discussion.
Rather than chatting or ranting about any particular thing here, I would like to see something done.
Last March, I could not send that fence bill directly to dave or any of us. Nor could I provide a place for each of us to vote so we can see exactly how we all feel about any particular issue.
Today, I can.
We have developed the GONetwork to be the voice of Georgia's sportsmen. We can vote on any issue of the day. When the vote is held, I will take the results of that vote to each state Senator and to each state house Representative and tell him or her how all the members of the GONetwork who live in that offical's district voted.
If one would like to charge me with being hypocritical about anything, wait till you get a load of this. Suppose the majority of GONetworkers in a district support hunting behind a high fence? If I carry that message to the representatives am I being hypocritical? Some will say yes.
I say I have prepared a place where we all have a voice. Rather than just talking about things, we can do something about it. If you would like to freeze the expansion of high fence operations in Georgia (as sportsmen did in South Carolina), you can use the GONetwork to help you do that.
If, on the other hand, you would like to expand the number of high-fence operations in Georgia, you can use the GONetwork to help you do that, too.
And for the record, I will help both of you. So long as I have anything to do with the GONetwork, all Georgia Sportsmen will be heard.
But none of us can do anything so long as we just talk about it.
Write a bill, ask for a vote, put the question on a GONetwork Ballot.
GON will report the results. We now have a way for us to act, rather than talk. We need to use it. We all need to use it. And we need to be thoughtful and prudent as we consider the actions of our fellow sportsmen. It is important that we find the things that unite us and focus as much as we can on those positives.
I will add that the GONetwork does not have a position on this subject yet because the members of the GONetwork have not expressed their opinion as yet. When the time comes, my vote counts just as much, or as little, as yours.
I hope I have sucessfully addressed most of the questions about this issue as they apply to GON and the GONetwork. I follow this web board and value the opinions I find here. Generally, I think this group is the cadre, the talent pool, from which much of the energy to make a positive change in Georgia will come.
Thanks for your time.
As Ludlow Porch says, "Beating a dead horse is more fun than you think."
I have been watching this thread run for a couple of days and would have responded earlier but I understand there has been some problems with the login function and I was unable to login initially. Thanks to the Moderators for getting me put back together again.
The first thing I want to say is how much I have enjoyed the postings. Rarely do I get a chance to follow what people think, to get the real skinny, and, favorable or unfavorable, to hear the unvarnished truth (or opinion) openly expressed. I enjoy it and I think we need more of it.
So to all who have participated and for the rest of you lurkers, thanks.
But now I do need to contribute to this thread.
There are two basic truths that I want to discuss here in hopes that they will lead to positive action from us all.
The first basic truth is that as information increases, rhetoric decreases. I believe I will be able to supply some information that will be helpful to the group and that will put GON in a more positive light.
The second basic truth is how easily one can step into hypocracy while attempting to avoid it. I will illustrate this better below.
I would like to speak first to how GON feels about high fences. We oppose hunting inside high fences. This is generally known. Were that general knowledge not a fact, there would be no basis for the claim of conflict of interest or selling out for money and thus, being hypocritical.
So we agree that the record shows that GON opposes the hunting of anything behind a high fence.
Question is, does accepting ads from those who market such hunts make us somehow less principled than our position would indicate?
On first blush, to some, it seems to. I understand their viewpoint. But I think a bit more information may be helpful to them.
Please consider this. There is no way for GON readers to know of ads we do not accept. How could you? You don't see them.
While there haven't been many, there have been some. One such ad that we recently rejected was from a national leader in hunting footwear. They are a full-page, full-color advertiser. (Read that as much more money for the ad than a one-third page black and white advertiser.)
This was their third of 12 ads in their advertising contract. That means that what was at stake was more than just one month's worth of advertising; we were putting at risk 10 full page ads in 10 months if we objected to the ad.
This particular ad contained a 3-letter word that describes something that occasionally gets kicked — a word we found out of place in a magazine such as ours. The word was not "can," but that is close.
We knew before we called them that if we rejected this ad, we could lose all their business for that ad cycle and for all future years.
If we overlook principle and sell-out character for ad dollars, as has been suggested, we would have accepted this ad without question.
We rejected the ad.
They told us GON was the only objecting publication they had on a national campaign.
We told them we understood but we were going to support our standards.
That ad did not run in GON and they did not replace that ad that month with another ad. We lost that month's ad revenue.
But fortunately, they did not cancel the entire ad contract.
In this case, we stood for principle.
Did we stand for principle in the high-fence case? The answer is yes but the principle we stand for is one more basic and I think important than high fences. The principle is free speech.
Could we have rejected any and all high-fence ads?
Yes.
Then why didn't we?
Some presume it is because we were thirsting after the almighty dollar. I hope I have set that rational aside.
I made the decision to accept ads from these organizations and for good or ill, here is how I made it.
I want GON to be the voice of Georgia's sportsmen - your voice. I want it to be the voice of all Georgia's sportsmen. To reach this goal, I have to be willing to tolerate opposing points of view in the magazine; not only tolerate these voices, but provide accommodation. If GON is to be seen as a fair and open market place of ideas for us all, I have to protect the right of others to say things that I would oppose.
This principle parallels that famous quote that says, "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
As in the footwear company ad, there are certain words that we curb. We do not accept ads claiming "guaranteed hunts" for instance. Nor do we accept ads selling something that is illegal, like an exotic hunt inside a fence. But we do accept ads from legal operators who, in addition to the services they advertise in GON, also offer hunts inside high fences.
While I personally disagree wholeheartedly with the notion of hunting behind a fence, I likewise disagree with the notion of the press, founded on the principle of free speech, stiffling such speech. Wouldn't that be censorship? And wouldn't censorship by the press be hypocritical?
Is the right of speech open just to me? No.
The famous publisher H.L. Menkin once said, "The power of the press belongs to the *** who owns one." I think Dan Rather agrees with Menkin. I don't.
I want everyone to be able to come to GON and to believe he will get a fair chance to have his voice heard. Not that he will prevail, but that he will not b e squelched arbitrarily by me.
I believe that a well-meaning concern for hunting may have carried some over the line to suggeest censorship of speech dealing with otherwise legal activities.
Given the choice of being true to speech, and thus being subject to accusation of being hypocritcal on fences, or being true to fences and thus hypocritical on free speech, I choice to the more open, less censored choice. But you can see how in trying to avoid being hypocritical on one point exposes you to the charge on another point.
On a parallel subject, I personally dispise those who burn the flag. But not so much as I cherish the right of free speech. If I must stomach one to protect the other, so be it. In doing so, I may again be open to a charge of being hypocritical.
In March of this year, on the fourth floor of the state capital, I stood before a committee dealing with the issue of hunting exotics inside fences. I told them a bill that would legalize such a practice was a bad bill. Seated behind me in that room were two GON advertisers there to speak in support of the bill I was there to oppose.
One of those advertisers canceled his ad immediately. The other still advertises with GON. Both are good men. Are either of them hypocritcal? I don't think so.
But now I come to what I believe is really important about this discussion.
Rather than chatting or ranting about any particular thing here, I would like to see something done.
Last March, I could not send that fence bill directly to dave or any of us. Nor could I provide a place for each of us to vote so we can see exactly how we all feel about any particular issue.
Today, I can.
We have developed the GONetwork to be the voice of Georgia's sportsmen. We can vote on any issue of the day. When the vote is held, I will take the results of that vote to each state Senator and to each state house Representative and tell him or her how all the members of the GONetwork who live in that offical's district voted.
If one would like to charge me with being hypocritical about anything, wait till you get a load of this. Suppose the majority of GONetworkers in a district support hunting behind a high fence? If I carry that message to the representatives am I being hypocritical? Some will say yes.
I say I have prepared a place where we all have a voice. Rather than just talking about things, we can do something about it. If you would like to freeze the expansion of high fence operations in Georgia (as sportsmen did in South Carolina), you can use the GONetwork to help you do that.
If, on the other hand, you would like to expand the number of high-fence operations in Georgia, you can use the GONetwork to help you do that, too.
And for the record, I will help both of you. So long as I have anything to do with the GONetwork, all Georgia Sportsmen will be heard.
But none of us can do anything so long as we just talk about it.
Write a bill, ask for a vote, put the question on a GONetwork Ballot.
GON will report the results. We now have a way for us to act, rather than talk. We need to use it. We all need to use it. And we need to be thoughtful and prudent as we consider the actions of our fellow sportsmen. It is important that we find the things that unite us and focus as much as we can on those positives.
I will add that the GONetwork does not have a position on this subject yet because the members of the GONetwork have not expressed their opinion as yet. When the time comes, my vote counts just as much, or as little, as yours.
I hope I have sucessfully addressed most of the questions about this issue as they apply to GON and the GONetwork. I follow this web board and value the opinions I find here. Generally, I think this group is the cadre, the talent pool, from which much of the energy to make a positive change in Georgia will come.
Thanks for your time.
Let it rest. That poor horse cant take another beatin.
Talk about.......... Buck movement, Moon Phase, The Rut, Where ya going to hunt, How ya going to gut it when you shoot it.........anything but baiting and fenced operations. Give it a break, yall are wearing me out. Instead of complaining on this web site, if you feel that strong about these issuses, do something about it.
Talk about.......... Buck movement, Moon Phase, The Rut, Where ya going to hunt, How ya going to gut it when you shoot it.........anything but baiting and fenced operations. Give it a break, yall are wearing me out.
Instead of complaining on this web site, if you feel that strong about these issuses, do something about it.
leo
Retired Woody's Mod 7/01-12/09
Networker
Thanks for your input explaining GON's position on this issue
I, for one, appreciate you posting your comments here on our forum and hope most of our members can also.
leo
Thanks for your input explaining GON's position on this issue
I, for one, appreciate you posting your comments here on our forum and hope most of our members can also.
leo
