I have watched the show many times. I like it. We are judging his channel and what type of person he is based off ONE 62 yard shot that he did perfectly. I've never seen him take that long of a shot before. If I'm not mistaken, he donates the meat to feed the needy in those areas. So he is an unethical person?? I think he gives an option for city people to see that they can hunt even in these cities and not have to drive out to Public land. WIn for us all. I think he is a good person from what I've seen. But several have said, "I would never watch those stupid videos". Hunting is a dying sport, if we don't shed light on the sport to the next generation then we wont have to worry about yardage on a bow shot. If a city kid sees his videos and gets involved with archery in his school because of it, maybe the sport will last.
I think we should say congrats and go about our own business.
We hang from mesh saddles and ropes 20-30 ft in the air while having wives and children at home and we are calling him unethical??? C'mon guys!!
I'm curious about the following statement, from the one hunting production that I watched its unclear:
"I think he gives an option for city people to see that they can hunt even in these cities and not have to drive out to Public land. WIn for us all."
Are they bringing innercity youth to hunt behind homes in these neighborhoods? Or, are you saying that the publicity generated by these hunts opens up more public innercity and municipal hunting opportunities? Or, just that folks who live in cities and can get the permits and permission have another option instead of shlepping out to the boonies?
If they are bringing underprivileged youths hunting, cool.
If you are thinking either of the latter options, let me ask, are the spots these guys hunt open to the average Joe?
Since this post seems to focus on the benefit of hunting publicity, I'll make a comment about that,
Hunting publicity is not always good even when it's nothing bad. It's a real conundrum. What may create interest may also create barriers, intentionally or otherwise.
For example, I grew up with a good size wood lot behind my parent's home. Many hunters hunted this woods, freely. I can't remember a dispute or ever hearing of anything but positive hunter interactions.
Well, the state record archery buck was taken from those woods, and following that publicity some fellows did the leg work to lock up most of the properties so they'd have exclusive opportunity to hunt. How many hunters did that put out and how many future hunters without the time and means to travel to the nearest public never got into the sport because they didn't have the available opportunities.
I was lucky to start off hunting on the tail end of when deer camps were still the way it was done. Community and camaraderie were as much a part of the experience as taking game. There are more big bucks being taken now, which you'd think would fuel interest in hunting and yet there are fewer hunters. Why?
My own speculation is that property owner concerns about liability in our litigious society as well as rising anti-hunting sentiment are only part of the problem. The Big Buck quest popularized by TV hunting has hunters locking down multiple parcels and buying up land for their own use, making access to the opportunity to hunt less available no matter the interest. Camp and community hunting has taken a hit, and there's further fallout.
If it wasn't for some very smart public officials from long ago setting aside some ground for all to enjoy, I fear we'd be on a crash course to have a hunting environment more like the European model.
But...If these guys are saying come on fellas, come and hunt where we do...cool.
