Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game A Downside of TV Hunting Shows

I liked that part - where you omited the name of the outfitter. Primarly for the reasons you listed after the homework part. Good work on the part of the editors too.

As per the thread - To me, TV hunting shows are basicaly 30 minute commercials. Plugs, break, recap, Plugs, break, recap...then the kill at 29 minutes after the show started. Entertainment at best.

I try to watch every moose hunt show on TV that I can find...but in the end, I learn little about hunting them. Compare with a video such as "Love thunder and bull", and the content is STARK in contrast vs TV shows.

Not very many are worth watching anymore. Do many of you remember the American Sportsman? I remember Curt Gowdy hunting & fishing with guys like Bing Crosby and Phil Harris. The shows were about the time spent with friends and the outdoors more than they were about the kill or selling a product. Wouldnt that be something today?
I throw up in my mouth a little sometimes trying to watch some of these so called pro staffers. I think what some are doing, on TV, give the anti hunting people ammunition.
"Shooting" describes what they do more than "hunting" does.

zeke612... Yes, I remember American Sportsman. That was a show produced in a day when you really had to offer something exceptional to get the networks to put it on the air.

Wait a minnit... weren't "The Dating Game" and "The Gong Show" concurrent with AS? Jeez. My disillusionment grows by leaps and bounds.

Disregard my previous comment. There has never been anything approximating a 'standard of excellence' in TV. To quote Charlie Brown, "Good grief!"

Good analogy LOL

I grew up watching Virgil Ward fishing on TV. It was the only outdoors show we got (pre cable - 25+ years ago)..It would be fun to watch an old broadcast of his from the day, vs the pimping/pluging shows of today.

Also, American sportsman was a nice gem too

I will give a counter point here. This is not meant to argue or be hostile.

I work for a TV show. The hunts are not always the chip shot that the general public feels they are. I hunted and ran a camera for 25+ days in Illinois to get one buck on film dead for the show. I do not live in Illinois. It is hard to show the things like us getting up every morning at 3:30 and in the tree in the cold with 14 degree temps and 20 mph winds. In a 30 minute show you do not see the scouting that we do and setting our own stands and triming branches and moving stands and setting up cameras and camera arms. You do not see us carrying twice the gear of the average hunter in and out of the woods still trying to be quiet and trying not to scent up the place.

What gets shown on TV is the entertaining part, the kill shot and the hero pictures. No one wants to see me up in the tree doing an audio check with my hunter so I can make sure his wireless microphone level will not jump off the scale when he gets excited and starts talking louder. We just can't show all the things that go on.

Hunting shows are meant to be entertaining. Just simple entertainment. If they were all instructional or exactly how things played out in a timeline no one would ever watch them.

But most importantly, we get screwed by outfitters just like the general public. Sometimes we get it more often because we deal with so many more outfitters in a season than the average person does.

Just a little something to think about...

300magman

Good counter point. Hey no slam to you video folks. Don't take it that way please.

The gist of our bitch lies with final producers, who are playing the role of marketing pimps.

In other words, the jist & bitch of the thread (speaking for myself anyways) is that TV hunting/fishing shows are aimed more toward pimping and plugging of the sponsors. That is all it is about nowadays. Money. Money. Money.

Interesting take of yours on the entertainment vs instructional. You do indeed have a valid point.

But much like spam e-mail, most players can sort the wheat from the chaaf. Same with television "programing"

300 Magman, I understand what you are saying.

I agree with 379 Peterbilt too.

Some of my bitch with these shows is just my personal opinion on how a show should be labeled as a "hunt" or a "shoot". Thats just me and another can of worms that I am sure lots of folks wont agree with.

Good counterpoints. Thanks for posting that.

I just wanted to let some folks know that we get screwed by bad outfitters also. It has happened three times this season to my partner and once to myself. Infact I should be hunting at a place right now that has been scheduled for at least 6 months and the outfitter canceled on us at the last minute. That has left us scrambling for a place to go here at the last minute at the last of the season. Some outfitters could care less about being on TV. Others trying to start or expand there business depend on us to provide them with inexpensive national advertising.

Bad outfitters happen to those of us in the industry just as it happens to the hunter who makes that once a year trip.

300
I know what it takes to get a good one sometimes. Having been a guide, that 330 comes all to early and day after day....

OTOH for realism I'd really love to see the real work put into hunts.

When we video our own stuff, we often start with leaving home, the scenery, camp life and the like. Often never get the kill shot, and could care less about the kill shot really. I just love to see all the game out there.

Of course I'm not the paying general public and for you to make a buck you have to do what they demand cause I can't pay your bills!!

Jeff

quite a few years ago, I booked a hunt in Idaho with and outfitter and a relatively new writer for Peterson' Hunting was also on board; in fact My hunting buddy and I shared a tent with him.
In conversing with him, I learned he was a Viet Vet, and could actually hunt and shoot as he grew up that way in Tenn. or Ky ( I can't remember which now).
Anyway, the first day we were paired together and somehow - I can't remember this either - I was given first shot. Perhaps the outfitter figured he get me out of the way and spend the rest of the hunt with him. That may not be fair because I don't know that for a fact. Anyway, we chanced upon a fine 5x5 bull in a fern patch at first light. Here's the part where I determined I wouldn't hunt with him again: upon spotting the bull at about 150-175 yds. away he became extremely animated telling me to, shoot! Shoot! He was almost jumping up and down. We were likewise in some ferns about waist high and there was no rest within 20 yds. and the bull was already tuned to our presence thanks to our outfitter. I ended up taking this shot offhand with my .340 - a shot and a situation I would now enlighten any guide or outfitter I wouldn't be pressured into - and thanks to a lot of summer shooting killed the bull where he stood. The writer later took a raghorn, my bull being the best in camp the whole week.
As the writer later put it, he came to Peterson's by a nurturing Boddington who at the time was editor. I've seen his byline a few times since; he was and is no writer other than a journeyman in the trade but I don't hold that against him. But that is one of the reasons I quit Petersons - it took different directions than I was interested in and its writing seemed to pale from earlier years.
Anyway, this outfitter was booked through Atchesons, then in Butte Mt. but it became apparent he was more concerned with his kill rate which he was very proud of than iother aspects of the hunt.

Edited to add that I find very few TV hunting shows that hold my interest. It doesn't take long to get a feel for what the bigger picture not seen is. That said, I'm sure there are some good ones who do it right and outfitters too.

Why. Why did I just watch again. Killing time I guess. Rugers hunting show. In "russian" Georgia. James Baker takes a Chamois. Full out run, blows rear leg off. Damn piss poor show and then comments, I think he's gonna need anotehr, right after they shout great shot!!!

Now I dislike him. [bleep] to take taht shot.

Jeff

A couple more comments.

First, I know the writer that goodnews encountered very well. He is indeed a fine hunter but very average writer. I don't know why he encouraged you to take the first shot, but....

I am often invited by outfitters to go on a hunt, sometimes for free and sometimes at a discount. (Even on the "free" hunts, incidentally, I am, expected to pay for my transportation, motels, licenses, any fees for getting meat and trophies back to civilization, tips to guides, etc. This came to $8000 on one African hunt, though normally it runs $1000-$2000.)

When on this sort of deal I try to remain incognito as much as possible. If nobody in camp recognizes me, then I am just another one of the boys. Normally I arrive at camp alone, so am often paired with another, full-paying hunter. My normal procedure is to offer him first chance, because the full-paying customers should have priority. (If they don't, and the writers are getting a better hunt, then I cannot write about it in good faith.)

Second, TV hunting shows work differently than mainstream TV shows. The networks PAY to put mainstream shows on the air--and hence it's the network's job to sell ad space.

With most hunting shows, on the other hand, the show's producers PAY THE NETWORK for air space. This normally means that the same guy who is up in the treestand or stalking the tundra is also the ad salesman--and that he has to sell more ads than normal to cover their costs and make any profit at all. To do this, they often have to agree to use their sponsors products, and mention them during the show.

This is one reason why many TV hunting shows seem to have more commercials. They have to, just to break even. And by the way, none are getting rich.

This may change in the near future as right now there are some major changes going on in the TV hunting world. But in the meantime it might help to realize that while, yes, these guys are out to make money, they could be making a hell of a lot more money doing something else. And they are often "multiu-tasking" in ways that most of us could never imagine.

John Barsness

I have a couple of friends that used to do the same thing. Interestingly enough, they are very good hunters and very good shots. They couldn't understand why it would take someone a little longer to get a shot off than them whether it was looking for a better rest or whatever. Now that they are older, they don't do it anymore, but I scolded them a few times that it didn't help matters for the shooter and only made them nervous.

-Lou

John-

On reading your post and rereading mine I realized I wasn't very clear. It was the outfitter who stood behind me urging - no demanding - that I shoot. The writer - I can remember his name - was well-mannered through the whole trip as far as I could tell and I didn't mean that he was yelling at me or that I wouldn't hunt with him again. It was the head guy. In fact the writer wrote the gig up in Petersons with a picture of me and my bull.
He - the outfitter - also complained a lot that Chuck Adams who took a good cat with him didn't give him the bino's he said he would for a tip.

Ah! That makes more sense.

I have seen outfitters/guides/professional hunters get excited quite often, which is not the best way to do things--and I have guided some. The worst are those who have not shot any animals themselves for many years.

I have also heard of writers/TV show hosts/shooting industry people stiffing guides on the tip. They apparently feel that the presence of their great selves (and any mention in print or on TV) makes up for giving the guide $50 after a tough hunt. Also, they are pretty often sure they'll never be back to the same place!

I tend to over-tip, especially if the guide is a good one and works hard. The standard rule of thumb hese days is to distribute 10% of the base cost of the hunt among the guide and cook--and the horse wrangler, skinner, whoever, if they are also involved. But just this fall I tipped a mule deer guide the entire 10% (meaning I had to dig further yet to tip the cook) on ahunt where I didn't kill anything, because I passed up every buck until the last day--and then, when I was about to press the trigger, the buck got a whiff of something and took off like a scalded bat. But the guide went above and beyond the call of duty, so he deserved a good tip.

Some people do not tip at all if an animal is not taken. Now, if the guide is lazy and incompetent, that's understandable--and it does happen. But most guides work hard, and deserve to be tipped for it, whether or not an animal was taken.

JB

I was hunting a Texas rarch for predators while a film crew was there hunting deer for a sequence to air on local TV for Texas Trophy Hunting Mag. As I returned from a distant part of the ranch by truck my guide & I came upon the film crew. One of the camermen was buck naked bent over with his clothers around his ankles. The hunter & a guide was working on his cactus filled butt with pliers. It was not a pretty site. Turns out the videoman was from the north & had his first experience with Texas cactus. After shooting a big deer the crew left with a stop at the nearest hospital. This would have made a great sequel to the deer kill.

I think a lot of this is sort of like "back-seat driver" behavior. It's hard to shut up and let somebody else do his thing.

I used to flyfish on the Bow a lot when I lived in Calgary. One of my friends and frequent hunting/fishing partners had been a guide on the Bow. Sometimes when we went fishing he'd start "coaching" me the way he sometimes had to do his clients. It was very hard for him to not push people, he explained, because he'd seen so many people miss a fish due to their indecision or lack of casting skill, and then they'd turn around and blame him for not getting into fish.

So I can see the guide's viewpoint, too. Until the guide knows your abilities real well, he's more likely to push you to avoid getting pasted around the wicket for failing you as your guide. Unfortunately, most of us don't hunt with the same guide/outfitter on several hunts over several years, but I believe such return patronage would be a boon to both guide and hunter.

DR
Saw part of one just lately where this guy was yelling at the hunter to "Shoot, shoot." It was Ibex in Spain and I just saw a bit of the show, but I would have passed up the shot just for the pleasure of hitting that guy in the mouth. I should add, neither the honter or "guide" were anything to brag about.
People say, "Why do you watch? All you do is criticize." What else can you do when you see junk like that.
The fact is, for a rookie, it's a bad place to try to learn about hunting. The easiest example of which is the extended time it takes to get the shot off.
Oh, well.

On a positve note, just because of JB's note, I may have to revise my tip schedule. I may have fallen behind the times. On the other hand, I've been on both sides of that deal and there are some (few) guys you'd guide for nothing and others you work so hard for but you'd pay not to have to take them again. Guess which one doesn't tip.
t

I dont know if the hunting shows are partly responsible for this or not, but here is my gripe. Where I live here in B.C. there is a strong trend towards numbers. I hate talking to some people about my hunts because their first question is usually " what did it score?". I personally dont give a crap what it scores, as long as I have had a good hunt. Our hunts are self-done(we are very lucky here in B.C.) and usually include lots of backpacking and hiking for sheep, goats, caribou,etc. We still enjoy hunting and bringing something home regardless of whether it makes a book or not. Its interesting that the people I get the most score flack from are not overly experienced hunters, but mabye they watch too much TV.