Who's Gonna fill their shoes?

Huck,

I see what you are saying but dont agree. Kobrine, Nesbit and others wouldnt be near the "conservationists" you tout them as without money.

Many hunters today place too big an emphasis on the kill. When you read the stories, the emphasis is too much on the kill-instead of being in natures great outdoors. A dead animal is most certainly the object of a hunting trip. Don't get me wrong I hunt hard with relentless perseverance to fill my tags, but it becomes an anticlimax when compared to the many pleasures of the hunt. After this there is a self-satisfaction for having accomplished a successful hunt and to have made a good shot. But a hunt based only on trophies taken falls short of what the ultimate goal should be. I like to think that hunting should be looked upon whether it is a hunt near home or a trip to some far off place, as an opportunity to be at peace with your inner soul as you pursue the the animals that live there. We can all be "heroes" by setting an example of being ethical hunters and passing that example onto others so they may experience the privilege of hunting.

Tom,

Did the money fall from the sky and knock the gentlemen I tout talented or something? Or, was it their talent that brought them money? What am I missing? I'n not sure about Steve, but Archie started with zero. So did Gary Bogner. As bow hunters, haven't they accomplished a lot? The money earned via hard work put these hunters in positions to be successful. Is that wrong? Then I have to ask, was it the money placing the arrow or the man? The fact that they use money to continually promote conservation (could use it to buy fancy homes and fast cars) makes their performances better than the average guy. Moreover, nothing is stopping others, at least in this country, from getting ahead based on performance. With risk comes reward...and to my knowledge nobody has drown in the sweat of an honest day's job. Apply your talent, work hard(er), save your money, avoid foolish spending...kill a Bongo.

Mike,

But a hunt based only on trophies taken falls short of what the ultimate goal should be. I like to think that hunting should be looked upon whether it is a hunt near home or a trip to some far off place, as an opportunity to be at peace with your inner soul as you pursue the the animals that live there. We can all be "heroes" by setting an example of being ethical hunters and passing that example onto others so they may experience the privilege of hunting. .

Well said. I believe, however, there is more to it than simply being an ethical hunters. Being a good... no GREAT citizens comes immediately to mind. An ethical hunter can still be a louse to others. Heroes are distinct because they go above and beyond what is expected from everyone else.

Originally Posted by iamyourhuckleberry

I do not like the inclination that money is inheritly evil in this conversation (those that have verses the have nots). Money is generally given to someone for their performance of a particlar task(s)...whether it's PHing, bowhunting, or throwing footballs. If a person's performance, on all levels, is subpar, do they get paid? Naturally, the answer is no! When I see reward for good performance, I'm inspired to perform better myself. What makes Payton Manning a football great? Perhaps it's because he throws a football better than any man out there-among other things-like reading a defense! He represents the epitome of hard work and dedication. For 14 years he gave this to his team and his community. Why should he not be considered (as a one percenter) one of the greatest football players to ever play the game? I'm not buying the, 'if they're of average income, then and only then they're a hero.'

Has anyone looked into the criteria necessary for the Bow Hunter's Hall of Fame? Maybe their criteria could be employed as a heroes baseline.

I guess what I'm saying Huck is that hunting and sports are not alike in any way....at least to me. Steve Kobrine (or whoever) did not get wealthy because they are better hunters than anyone else, as opposed to Manning who obviously can throw a football better than most. Hunting is not a pursuit that rewards financially based on performance.....and I sure hope it never is. Kobrine inherited a great sum of money (from what i've heard and can't verify in any way) and is able to pursue hunting as an occupation. That is fine and great...seriously. But to claim him as a better conservationist or even visionary in hunting circles is more than I can swallow.

I am a professional (attorney) and I own three companies that are growing in a tough economy. I don't have a problem with people working and succeeding financially. But I do have a problem with someone who has money (from whatever source) being held above others as some uber conservationist or idol figure. Because you have the means to hunt in far away lands doesn't make you any better mentor, hunter or sportsman than the guy who never leaves the back 40. In fact, I bet there are quite a number of hunters who have never left their state hunting, who are (dare I say it), better hunters than a lot of todays "famous" archers.

I guess what I'm saying Huck is that hunting and sports are not alike in any way....at least to me.

Yeah, I guess Tom.

I can see how successfully hunting sheep, goats, ibex and the sorts at extreme altitudes, polar bear and musk oxen in extreme cold, and practicing with one's equipment to perfection should not be affiliated with athletic endeavors. Anyone can do it, right? Keep in mind and I say this respectfully, we're not talking a 300 yard walk to the treestand and three hours worth of sitting.

Steve Kobrine (or whoever) did not get wealthy because they are better hunters than anyone else... Hunting is not a pursuit that rewards financially based on performance

Are you sure or still guessing? Chuck Adams got wealthy because he is/was. Jim Shockey might argue against your case as well. These boys didn't turn heads because they were pretty, at least not in the beginning. Every person I have mentioned to this day is still highly involved with hunting. Do you honestly think average men paying huge amounts of money flock to hunt with these lads just to bump elbows? If Shockey and the rest didn't perform well-better than average-their businesses would fail? They would fail. For performance, they get recognition. They get wealthy in their pursuits.

But I do have a problem with someone who has money (from whatever source) being held above others as some uber conservationist or idol figure.

Well, I have a problem with someone who has money being held below others because they have money. Are you not establishing a double standard? All else being equal...no money-ok, Money-not ok.

Because you have the means to hunt in far away lands doesn't make you any better mentor, hunter or sportsman than the guy who never leaves the back 40.

Nor does it make you any less a mentor, hunter or sportsman than the guy who never leaves the back 40. You have basically excluded these individuals because of their means rather than their methods. Is that fair?

I use the word "better" loosely. Frankly, contributing $100 per year is better than $0. Abiltities may be the same.

WOW, thanks for everyone who is defending the producer. I don't have very many heroes in my life, but I have great respect for people who are successful in business, whatever that business might be. The people on this web-site give me great inspiration in a multitude of ways. When I see resentment of wealth, it disappoints me. I am a proud Canadian but often see a resentment here that I don't often see among my American friends. Reading these comments helps me to see that America is moving back towards the financial and moral GREATNESS that she once had.
I may be wrong, but I think that Tom's point has been taken out of context. I don't think Tom is resentful of others success but feels that the fame wouldn't be there without the wealth and ability to travel and hunt.
I feel that both Tom and iamyourhuckleberry are thinking much the same way. I often get overly defensive in regards to successful people because so many are resentful of success because they are not inspired enough or smart enough to get the same.
Now I'm getting carried away.
My two cents (pennies), Mike

Yes Mike, I believe Tom and I are very much on the same page. We have our subtle differences of opinions, and that's the neat thing about living in a free society. We can respectfully agree to disagree.

Hi, I just tuned in because I am a Hunter Ed Instructor for my state and was conducting a class yesterday. Then to tired to sit down at the computer.
We teach that the killing of a living being is no game therefore not a sport. The term Sport became attached to hunting back in the Roosevelt and early hunter conservationists days. Before the concept of Fair Chase was the thought that a non-commercial hunter was a sporting fellow.
However, as in all human endeavors, a group will turn it in to a competition. Recently on an outdoor/sport channel I watched a group of individuals using lasers & cameras demonstrating their hunting skills and abilities without killing any animals - Sport.

"So then, does this exclude bow hunters outside America? You're spot on Randy, however, all of us need to think beyond America and deer hunting.
iamyourhuckleberry"
Ok "Huck"you got me on that one. Yes we should look at ALL hunters no matter where or what they hunt. But as Lee Greenwood would say "I am PROUD to be an AMEICAN"


thanks/randy

Me too Randy, me too. However,

I hope by now, you can tell I am not an exclusionist. I will give credit where credit is due...

You are welcome! Keep up the good work!

Will

I like watching Tim Wells on TV. He's a hell of a shot and funny too. Relentless Pursuit is the TV show.

iamyourhuckelberry,
Earlier in the post you mentioned Byron Sadler. In my opinion, Byron is a "hero" of the sport. Yes, he is wealthy and thus, able to hunt most places that most of us only dream about, but he does this for the love of bowhunting, not the accolades that come with it. If and when you meet Byron, I think you will agree that he is the "real deal". Very modest unassuming gentlemen that loves the sport and spends a lot of time promoting it locally in his community. Genuinely...a good guy. I wish I could say the same for all of the "famous media hunters" that are on our television sets every week. While I am sure that some are good and honest folks I can also say that some are not. This opinion comes from good hard working outfitters and PH's that have had to put up with some of these "TV Pro Hunters". I have heard more than a few horror stories. The point to all of this is that while we all (or most) enjoy watching these guys on TV and videos, look within your own community, whether that be your church, local SCI Chapter, your own hunting club, that's really where the heros are. The ones donating their time to take kids out hunting or the wounded warrior that returned home. The guys that spend there weekends cleaning up our bay systems from abandoned crab traps, or volunteer to donate game to feed the hungry.These guys are everywhere in our society. They are your friends, your neighbors and your brothers/sisters, etc...

Buff,

I understand and I agree. But, I cannot be the only individual seeing the undertow. Do you agree that men like Bryon should not be excluded because of their means verse merit?

I would love to meet Bryon in person. I spoke to him once over the telephone. He gave me valuable information on a hunt I was about to take. I appreciated the fact he took time from his schedule to even talk to me. How could he not be a role model, or hero?

Thanks Buff. You have given me a glow. I needed that today.

Huck,
Yes, I do agree. I also understand, somewhat, the ones that have resentment for those that can afford to pursue this sport in all the corners of the world. Everyone has to be looked at on their own merits. Wealth and the ability to "hunt anywhere" is a relative thing. What I mean is, to some, I might fall into this catagory? As compared to someone that has never left their home state, I guess I could! To me, the guy that goes to Africa EVERY year, might fall into that catagory. Is it a "bad thing"??? Hell no. Do I resent these people? Hell no! I know people that fall into all of these catagories. I look at them individually. There are some that I admire and some that I wouldn't give the time of day. The ones that hunt for the joy of traveling to a far off land and to live the experience that comes from not only from the animal they pursue, but also the people and customs they will live with on their adventure, the ones that really dont care about "Diamond Awards" etc..., these I admire. I also admire the guy that always seems to outsmart the biggest buck on the deer lease consistently even though he has never hunted outside of Texas. The point is to not perpetuate this "class warfare" that is seeping into our society, especially in our hunting fraternity. Judge individuals on their merits, not their pocket books.

The ones that hunt for the joy of traveling to a far off land and to live the experience that comes from not only from the animal they pursue, but also the people and customs they will live with on their adventure, the ones that really dont care about "Diamond Awards" etc..., these I admire.

Buff,

It's funny you mention Diamond Awards. Back in 2003, I started participating in SCI's World Hunting Award Program (WHAP). When I say "participating", I mean contributing money-which was/is essentially another manner for me to give back. Yep, prior to 2003, I didn't care about the Diamond Awards either. Such nonsense didn't mean a hill of beans to me! I felt I was just as good (perhaps better) than those snobby rich guys foolishly tossing their money away. I felt I could "do all that" without expending my hard earned cash, and so I used the WHAP as a road map for my adventures both domestically and abroad, nothing more. Brother, let me state for the record, I do love adventure and travel! Outside my family, I find there is nothing more pleasurable than globetrotting; I use hunting as the propellant. Today, I care immensely about the Diamond Awards (I've seen the light). I'm sure Byron does as well. He would not continue to purchase them if he didn't (are you aware he has completed the World Hunting Award Program with both rifle and bow?). So why do Byron (I'm surmising for Byron) and I feel so deeply about this program, so much so that we are both willing to get actively involved? The answer: 1) The Diamond Awards raise the bar. While competing against no person other than ourselves, we both establish unique start and finish lines. When we're done pursuing and wisely using one natural resource, we move onto another (i.e. another far and away adventure). What we do is the very thing he and I enjoy-for the very reasons you beautifully referenced above. 2) If you are a true believer and advocate of World Conservation, then you understand conservation efforts require significant funding. You can talk about conservation-like most people do. Or, you can actually pony up financially. How many times have you heard someone say, "I have the world recorld hanging on my wall." Well, no they don't if they haven't actually stepped up to the plate to become part of a conservation organization (can anyone name one conservation record book organization that allows free participation?) Another words..."Talk is cheap!" The Diamond Awards again serves as a check list of sorts. It is another way for the hunter/conservationist to be all he/she can be! We have an obligation to continually go above and beyond to protect and pass on that wonderful heritage we call hunting. 3) We all know conservation is an endless battle. The Diamond Awards keep us focused. We are not willing to settle nor are we willing to quit. We assess, we revise, and we continue to push conservation forward.

Say what you want about the Diamond Awards...they are not inherently evil. As a matter of fact, as a hunter, there isn't a single one of us that hasn't benefited from a Diamond Award. Thank goodness there are individuals willing to pursue them!

Again, all things being equal, you have to admire the man who gives any amount of money over the man who merely takes. That's how I see it anyway....

I think all the record book committees benefit conservation. I have no problems with people entering every animal they take in them. It isn't cheap to do so, but it does give recognition to the animal and it's place in history. I will never enter another animal in the books...because of the time and money to do so, but enjoy once in a while looking over the records to see what is considered a "book" animal. It takes a lot of dedication to complete all the SCI award levels.