Does the outdoor channel hurt the image of hunters?

[Mature Buck]

I stopped watching the outdoor channel months ago once I figured out 99 percent of their content is canned shoots and fair chase is non existent I remember one episode where they were "hunting" in South Texas and the deer they killed had a tag in its ear. I watched some more shows and all I could see was more tags in ears and more fences in the background. I don't thinking I've ever seen a show on the outdoor jannel where they were not advertising a deer farm or canned shoot "ranch" also more than not on the outdoor channel it is some wannabe macho man that jumps and giggles like a school girl when he takes the life of an animal and yells "I smoked his ass" the other thing I ate is they always take poor shots and retrieve he animal the next day and by that time it is eaten out by crows or coyotes and all that remains is their precious antlers and thy don't care because they dont care about he meat. these people represnt hunters in media and give real hunters a negative image and fuel anti hunters. I guarntee you there would barely be any anti hunters if all outdoor channel wannabe stara acted like Randy. do you guys watch the outdoor channel and what do our think about this issue?

 

[Schaaf]

Did you get it all off your chest?

I am not a fan of the majority of the content on the Outdoor Channel.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

I think it is mixed on several of the hunt channels.some decent shows,,some that suck too.

 

[belly-deep]

Most of the hunting shows are terrible. I can't believe people even watch them.

As far as image damage, I'm not sure. Some of that stuff is like a bridge game. You have to know what you're looking at to know what is going on.

 

[shootbrownelk]

I don't think many Anti or Non hunters would pay an extra fee on satellite or cable TV to get the Outdoor Channel or the Sportsman's channel.... I do agree about many of the shows on those two channels are not worth watching.

 

[antlerradar]

I used to wonder why Public land success rates were so low. After watching most hunting shows it is easy to see why many hunters are unsuccessful.

 

[sbhooper]

I don't think many Anti or Non hunters would pay an extra fee on satellite or cable TV to get the Outdoor Channel or the Sportsman's channel.... I do agree about many of the shows on those two channels are not worth watching.

I agree with this. Antis are not going to be changed one way or the other on their feelings, by watching the Outdoor Channel. It affects more of us than it does the looney crowd.

I watch the Outdoor Channel, Pursuit Channel and Sportsman Channel often, but sift through the crap to watch some of the good shows. I don't like the bs naming of deer, or acting like eight-year-olds when someone has success. On the other hand, there are some very good shows, that show some serious hunting, too.

Randy is one of the top ones for sure, but I also like Western Hunter, Meat Eater and some others off and on. I really think meat eater is going in the right direction showing different aspects of the hunt and eating what you harvest.

 

[mtmuley]

Mostly whitetails and turkeys. You gotta sift through them for sure. mtmuley

 

[nidahunter]

As soon as they show some guy sitting in a heated box blind over a food plot bitching about how tough of a hunt it is I turn it off. They need to watch Randy pack out an elk form a hole in New Mexico if they want to see a tough hunt...

 

[richp]

I watch the Outdoor Channel, Pursuit Channel and Sportsman Channel often, but sift through the crap to watch some of the good shows. I don't like the bs naming of deer, or acting like eight-year-olds when someone has success. On the other hand, there are some very good shows, that show some serious hunting, too.

Randy is one of the top ones for sure, but I also like Western Hunter, Meat Eater and some others off and on. I really think meat eater is going in the right direction showing different aspects of the hunt and eating what you harvest.

This is the Bear Grylls vs. Les Stroud conundrum. Sensationalizing adventure, survival, hunting, etc. is what gets the ratings. Biggest problem there is that EVERY show must contain a kill, period.
What I'd like to see more of, and it happens to be my own personal belief; drawing blood on an animal means that you filled your tag.

 

[Cornell2012]

My short answer is yes. I wish I was in control of sponsor funding so I could help curate the public image.

I agree with this. Antis are not going to be changed one way or the other on their feelings, by watching the Outdoor Channel. It affects more of us than it does the looney crowd.

@sb and others: I think you're missing part of the danger here. These channels get bundled into some packages that have nothing to do with hunting or outdoor channels. The antis see these and their opinions are further confirmed. If this disgusts even hunters, just think what it does for the majority of people (70-80% of the population) that neither hunt nor are anti hunting? Hunting is allowed to exist because this majority hasn't been turned against it.

Think about it - if you were someone who hadn't really been exposed hunting (maybe you know that there is one dude at work that hunts deer or something on his grandfather's 60 acres) and you were flipping through the channels and came across the Outdoor or Sportsman channels. You see a show at random, some dude is wearing camo, carrying a gun, and talking to the camera. You are a little curious about hunting, so you keep it tuned in. (It's gotta be better than spending your next half hour flipping through the 500+ channels of TV you pay for, right?) You keep watching and you see how these show personalities portray hunting. The guy takes a shot from a quarter of a mile away, and breaks the deer's back leg. It limps around a bit while the host loads another round. After running 50 yards further away, it finally stops and the host shoots again. It looks like a hit this time (you couldn't tell from the footage that it was a gut shot) but it runs off a bit further and the hosts get all excited and start congratulating each other. You watch a few more minutes and see advertisements for a variety of different things: camo clothing; gun ammo being sold by a very muscular dude and/or a very attractive blonde woman; artificial deer pee that you are presumably supposed to shower in; and finally the next show up where the host was apparently raised by pigs. After commercials the hosts go looking for their animal and spend the remaining 5 minutes of their episode doing trophy photos and talking about how their super powered rifle/scope combo from x company could have taken down this creature from twice that distance, but they didn't need to thanks to their fake deer pee and camo from y company.

I don't think this experience is likely to make this person interested in hunting, or even learning more about hunting.

It is my opinion that we are our own worst enemies when it comes to anti-hunter recruitment. We've got an entire generation that, despite not growing up in rural areas, is interested in hunting for a variety of reasons, and yet 95% of the media that we show the world is doing just about everything right to drive them away forever.

 

[Mature Buck]

Lol reminds me of those Drury clowns bitching about "its 73 degrees outside!" And how they are "hunting hard" when they are just sitting in a plush blind for 1 hour before a farm raised giant deer shows up lol it's so sad how sppolied they are they give real hunters such a bad name.

 

[MJE2083]

I think it's like anything else...some programs are good, some are bad, many in-between. Personally I find the number of commercials on most shows outrageous. I personally would like to see more shows focused on the story and experience rather than being focused on the trophy or a virtual advertisement for Lodge/Outfitter XYZ. I think that networks/producers need to be more careful about the content of such shows and avoid showing things that may be viewed as immoral or unethical by many people. I know in this day and age everyone finds something to be offended by, but things such as spearing bears, shooting pigs out of a helicopter, etc... show "hunting" in a poor light IMO. Unfortunately the shows that are on the networks now obviously exhibit what the majority of people want to see, otherwise they would not be as successful. Sadly the members of this forum and other like minded individuals are probably in the minority when it comes the general hunting public.

 

[sbhooper]

My short answer is yes. I wish I was in control of sponsor funding so I could help curate the public image.



@sb and others: I think you're missing part of the danger here. These channels get bundled into some packages that have nothing to do with hunting or outdoor channels. The antis see these and their opinions are further confirmed. If this disgusts even hunters, just think what it does for the majority of people (70-80% of the population) that neither hunt nor are anti hunting? Hunting is allowed to exist because this majority hasn't been turned against it.

Think about it - if you were someone who hadn't really been exposed hunting (maybe you know that there is one dude at work that hunts deer or something on his grandfather's 60 acres) and you were flipping through the channels and came across the Outdoor or Sportsman channels. You see a show at random, some dude is wearing camo, carrying a gun, and talking to the camera. You are a little curious about hunting, so you keep it tuned in. (It's gotta be better than spending your next half hour flipping through the 500+ channels of TV you pay for, right?) You keep watching and you see how these show personalities portray hunting. The guy takes a shot from a quarter of a mile away, and breaks the deer's back leg. It limps around a bit while the host loads another round. After running 50 yards further away, it finally stops and the host shoots again. It looks like a hit this time (you couldn't tell from the footage that it was a gut shot) but it runs off a bit further and the hosts get all excited and start congratulating each other. You watch a few more minutes and see advertisements for a variety of different things: camo clothing; gun ammo being sold by a very muscular dude and/or a very attractive blonde woman; artificial deer pee that you are presumably supposed to shower in; and finally the next show up where the host was apparently raised by pigs. After commercials the hosts go looking for their animal and spend the remaining 5 minutes of their episode doing trophy photos and talking about how their super powered rifle/scope combo from x company could have taken down this creature from twice that distance, but they didn't need to thanks to their fake deer pee and camo from y company.

I don't think this experience is likely to make this person interested in hunting, or even learning more about hunting.

It is my opinion that we are our own worst enemies when it comes to anti-hunter recruitment. We've got an entire generation that, despite not growing up in rural areas, is interested in hunting for a variety of reasons, and yet 95% of the media that we show the world is doing just about everything right to drive them away forever.

Good points.

 

[noharleyyet]

Cornell pegged it....

 

[Joe Hulburt]

TV hunters who are willing to poach to feed their ego are the biggest problem in my opinion. There have been a bunch of them too and some still have sponsors such as Bob Beck. They are driven by ego and greed as opposed to an actual love of the hunt. I can handle shows where they hunt in a different way than I choose but people that put the love of themselves over conservation and ethics are definitely a black eye to us all. IMO companies that sponsor these slobs should not get any of our money.

 

[MJE2083]

I don't think many Anti or Non hunters would pay an extra fee on satellite or cable TV to get the Outdoor Channel or the Sportsman's channel.... I do agree about many of the shows on those two channels are not worth watching.

Individuals may not subscribe but you know anything shown on those channels is now out in the public eye. You bet your butt that anything shown on those channels that the anti's can use against us, they will find it and use it to advance their message.

 

[MJE2083]

I appreciate some of the firearms shows although they are just commercial after commercial. I'm a gun guy and really can't find that sort of content anywhere else on TV.

 

[ol_spark]

Short answer yes. The only thing the celebrity hunters have done is raise the cost of sporting goods and outfitted hunts. I told Hank Parker that in person years ago when he first started pushing that Outfitters Rating concept at tha Eastern Sports Show in Harrisburg,Pa. Its not odd that all those guys hunt the same outfitters. Just follow the money trail. That is all that it is about money. They don't care about image they portray or they wouldn't act like giggly school girls. Even my wife remarks how stupid that looks like everyone knows it's put on. Anyone who has taken a first time hunter out and enjoyed the excitement with them knows what true excitement is. Money is the driver for all these shows otherwise you wouldn't hear the remarks about "getting it done" now it's on to Nebraska or where ever their next canned hunt is. Every time I hear that it just makes me realize even more it's not for the love of the sport, it's for money because after all they are"professionals". If my 11 year old grandson spots bad shots made on camera and fake excitement, I'm certain others can also. Even he has figured out who the real hunters hunting public land are, they are the ones that don't always shoot the biggest trophy. For TV, It's all about the shot not about the joy of hunting for the majority of the "celebrity hunters"
That my 2 cents worth. Thanks for reminding me why I only watch Randy, Nate Simmons and Cody Robbins.

 

[ol_spark]

On second thought, I did enjoy the eradication of hogs that Ted Nugent did from a helicopter in Texas a few years ago. He made no pretense about it being hunting though.