Does The OC review any shows before they are aired? I would think they would have to. The reason I ask is because, despite always seeing some borderline unethical stuff, what I just witnessed is by far the most flagrant. It was episode 7 of Trophy Hunters. This lady is in a blind with her "guide" when this buck they had captured on trail cams comes in with some does. These deer are feeding along unmolested and unaware anyone is around. As the buck feeds along with the does, he is moving left, slightly quartering towards her. Not a perfect scenario, but a much better shot than the one she is about to take. Her "guide" tells her to wait as he is starting to get more broadside, at the same time the buck is walking right in between the hunter and a doe. At the exact moment the buck is eclipsing the doe, so perfectly you can't even tell there is another deer behind the buck, he tells her to shoot, which she does. This doe is no 100 yds behind the buck either. More like 10 feet. Maybe it's just me, but thats a shot I would not have ever taken. Especially when all that was needed was to wait another 3 or 4 minutes for a clear shot which would not risk wounding another animal. Why would they air something like that? Certainly not a message that needs to be sent to novice hunters or the anti-hunting community. JMHO.
Hey Big Fin
- Thread starter sturge
- Start date
Sturge - The Outdoor Channel has a QC process that every episode must go through. First pass is to make sure it complies with the production guidelines they give us (about 40 pages). Much of that is looking for technical compliance with codec, delivery, commercial allowances, proof of music licensing, HD, formatting of billboards, not putting in any websites URLs, not putting anything in the lower right hand corner, not making any announcements that are a call to action, ......................
Then, it is up to the QC person, who most often is not a hunter to decide if any of the content is a problem with the ethical hunting guidelines we are given.
So, many of the situational things I see problematic as a hunter, end up in the finished product.
Example a few weeks back was as a hunter returns to bear camp and shoots a bear eating out of coolers. I am sure the QC person does not understand the notion of "A fed bear is a dead bear."
The host and guide did not bear-proof their camp in a known bear area, and for some reason that got missed by QC, even though human-bear encounters are the top reason for grizzly deaths in our area and the main reason we have temporary closures to hunting. And, if human-bear conflicts continue, the Grizz management plan for the lower 48 calls for further restrictions on human activity, including hunting in the areas of MT, ID, and WY that surround YNP.
Seems to me that would have been a good time to illustrate the benefits of proper food storage and how important that is to the future of hunting access on public land. Instead, as the bear ran off, they shot at him/her on the run, taking two shots to put him/her down.
The best way for that kind of stuff to get more priority from all networks is for guys to email them and point it out.
I would say OC is one of the best at catching that stuff. There is one network that will go un-named, where anything goes. Some networks have no QC process.
If you are inclined, I would email them and point that out. It will get noticed and will help with some of the very things you mention as to why there should be a better QC at ALL the networks. [email protected]
Thanks for bringing that up.
Then, it is up to the QC person, who most often is not a hunter to decide if any of the content is a problem with the ethical hunting guidelines we are given.
So, many of the situational things I see problematic as a hunter, end up in the finished product.
Example a few weeks back was as a hunter returns to bear camp and shoots a bear eating out of coolers. I am sure the QC person does not understand the notion of "A fed bear is a dead bear."
The host and guide did not bear-proof their camp in a known bear area, and for some reason that got missed by QC, even though human-bear encounters are the top reason for grizzly deaths in our area and the main reason we have temporary closures to hunting. And, if human-bear conflicts continue, the Grizz management plan for the lower 48 calls for further restrictions on human activity, including hunting in the areas of MT, ID, and WY that surround YNP.
Seems to me that would have been a good time to illustrate the benefits of proper food storage and how important that is to the future of hunting access on public land. Instead, as the bear ran off, they shot at him/her on the run, taking two shots to put him/her down.
The best way for that kind of stuff to get more priority from all networks is for guys to email them and point it out.
I would say OC is one of the best at catching that stuff. There is one network that will go un-named, where anything goes. Some networks have no QC process.
If you are inclined, I would email them and point that out. It will get noticed and will help with some of the very things you mention as to why there should be a better QC at ALL the networks. [email protected]
Thanks for bringing that up.
Obviously not an ethical shot if it happened the way you described it. One thing I will mention is that sometimes the camera angle and the hunter's angle is much different, so it may have only appeared that the doe was behind the buck to the camera's angle. Even if that was the case, they should have mentioned it in the commentary.
I saw the same show and thought the same thing.I just considered the source and shrugged it off.That reminds me of a Jim Zumbo episode where they must of been re-enacting the kill shot as the young hunter who was taking aim had hands that were completly covered in blood.I felt sorry for the young lad having to act like he was hunting.Thanks Randy for keeping it real, I know I sure appreciate it.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
Most of the stuff I see on outdoor shows seems questionable. I watched the primos guys drive from their stand to a downed buck with an ATV the other day. I know that one guy is big and fat, but I would bet that 1) he could have walked 300 yards to the buck 2) they were getting paid by the ATV company to show that. Sell out ethics for a quick $$...way to go Will Primos.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
Oh, and way to keep it classy Randy...don't stop.
Similar threads
