High-Fence Hunting ad in October GON

[Ramey Jackson]

Kill the Horse!!! Kill the Horse!!!!!!!!


Also, Networker, pull up a chair more often...more support maybe right under your finger tips!

 

[Throwback]

Let's hunt behind a high fence, over a pile of corn for an imported deer that is genetically engineered!


T

 

[HT2]

Dave.....

I'm with you bud....

Good Letter....

Let's see if they "might" put it in the November issue.......

 

[Jim McRae]

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.

That's got to be an all time record for the longest post in Woody's history. My head hurts.

Jim M.