Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Africa Tracks Across Africa and Boddington

I have a somewhat controversial opinion on certain aspects of hunting TV shows.
Ivan is a PH, and he guides others for the show, and I have no problem with that.
The writer-hunters who do all the hunting and killing for the shows/publications--well, they could be documenting others who are enjoying their occasional trips to Africa or where-ever.
Documenting one's monthly killing trips for profit just doesn't seem right. I know CB has served his country honorably, but I hope he is done with the constant killing of game animals for profit. Same goes for the muzzle-loading record holder, and the well known Texas/Alabama-based TV hunter shows.

Oh come on - you have got to be kidding. "documenting one's monthly killing trips for profit just doesn't seem right" - but it is ok if Craig wants to write about you killing something?! Or your friend at the range? I am afraid that is a sense of ethics that is bit too finely tuned for me to get my head around. In literary circles where do draw your line? Does Hemingway pass your test? How about Ruark? or Osa Johnson? Or is it just modern writers and film makers who fail your ethical hurdle? Fortunately, the market arbitrates both pretty ruthlessly. And you can vote in that market by neither watching nor reading.

Steve,

While I disagree with your opinion, I will not argue as it is only an opinion.

However you stated Ruark didn't hunt Africa more than three time. He actually hunted almost every year from 1952 until 1964. He died in 1965. There were years he made three safaris.

From Terry Wieland:

Roosevelt made one safari; Hemingway made two. Ruark, at his peak, made two or three safaris a year; at times, he practically lived in Africa. He hunted in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Mozambique; he made Harry Selby famous

I think about folks trying to make a living doing these TV shows and I cringe. The logistics, the daily challenges of finding game, making sure the sponsors gear is showcased, getting close to animals, getting into a shooting position that is best for the camera not the gun, hitting the target well enough to have a show, marketing the sponsorships so it can be made and broadcast, going to trade shows and hunting/fishing shows for PR and marketing....on and on and on. It isn't the same as printed media and the camera does blink in the editor's office.

The challenge is finding the show that has enough credibility to hold my interest.

Redlegs, what was the largest bore you ever fired? I know you couldn't see the target when you fired it.

Ok thanks. That is a great line and may borrow it sometime.

And I am probably guilty of "using too much gun" in what should be a serious, friendly discussion about what constitutes the ethical commercial use of our sport. So with appologies to Steve, let me try again.

I believe we can all agree that man has been exploiting the killing of animals for personal, commercial gain for a very long time. I think we would also all agree that much of that take was a very bad thing for the animals - the passenger pigeon, the American Bison, and the African elephant - however romanticized the ivory trail - to name a very few. But it is really only in the 20th century that income derived from hunting through others' appreciation of the telling of the sport really became a viable means of making, or in most cases, supplementing an income. And to be sure, while there is some great 19th century hunting literature, Roosevelt probably really set the modern genre in motion with African Game Trails. In that case he was able to get the Smithsonian to pick up tab for most of the safari and of course, his resulting monumental work, was no small commercial success. The Johnson's did the same thing for cinematography after the war, though, their work was clearly and solely aimed at creating a commercial demand for their adventures.

What I think we have seen in the ensuing eighty plus years is a dramtic compression in time and space, along with greater and cheaper access to more exotic hunting fields than in the past. That explosion of opportunity has created a corresponding explosion in the hunting industry and those who earn a living through it. And international opportunity for the working class hunter which did not really exist until well after WWII. When Ruark was writing his articles to "True" magazine and "Outdoor Life" - and yes his African adventures figured in many of them - such journals were very few indeed. And of course, television was in its infancy. Today, commercialization is rampant and yes, I do believe much of that commercialization creates ethical issues, but I would argue, it is also probably saving our sport.

Some of the things which bother me are small enclosed game farms where deer are artifically created into Frankensteinish freaks and sold to "hunters" for enormous sums; or as others have argued on this forum, the shooting of the great cats in enclosures; and my particular hang up, the deliberate wounding of game in order to povoke a charge for a camera. I also hate much of the new technology. Sniping an elk at 600 meters is an interesting technological stunt - but it isn't hunting.

Which brings me a long way around to Craig and his use of print and media to earn a living. His "I went hunting ..." stories sell well. They do so because journals sell copy when his work is on the content page. With very rare exceptions, no one has accused Craig of not believing in and practicing fair chase. In other words, he is not abusing the game he pursues and about which he writes. He is also one of the few in the industry who makes his way solely on his talent and that tireless keyboard. He'll get a USMC retirement in a couple of years, but he doesn't have that yet. Heck, I don't even know the guy, though we are of the same age, and my active military career paced is Marine reserve component career. But he seems, as Hemingway would say, to write true. He even admits in print when he screws up. And he sure doesn't need me to defend him.

So, if that literature and video is not for you, I do fully understand. I personally can't abide the whole redneck branch of the current genre - whether duck commanders or bone collectors. But, I don't think what they do is unethical. And by helping keep hunting more or less mainstream - and by certainly keeping it an accepted hobby of the middle class, I believe that branch of the literature and film are helping keep a pulse in our sport.

Ok thanks. That is a great line and may borrow it sometime.

And I am probably guilty of "using too much gun" in what should be a serious, friendly discussion about what constitutes the ethical commercial use of our sport. So with appologies to Steve, let me try again.

I believe we can all agree that man has been exploiting the killing of animals for personal, commercial gain for a very long time. I think we would also all agree that much of that take was a very bad thing for the animals - the passenger pigeon, the American Bison, and the African elephant - however romanticized the ivory trail - to name a very few. But it is really only in the 20th century that income derived from hunting through others' appreciation of the telling of the sport really became a viable means of making, or in most cases, supplementing an income. And to be sure, while there is some great 19th century hunting literature, Roosevelt probably really set the modern genre in motion with African Game Trails. In that case he was able to get the Smithsonian to pick up tab for most of the safari and of course, his resulting monumental work, was no small commercial success. The Johnson's did the same thing for cinematography after the war, though, their work was clearly and solely aimed at creating a commercial demand for their adventures.

What I think we have seen in the ensuing eighty plus years is a dramtic compression in time and space, along with greater and cheaper access to more exotic hunting fields than in the past. That explosion of opportunity has created a corresponding explosion in the hunting industry and those who earn a living through it. And international opportunity for the working class hunter which did not really exist until well after WWII. When Ruark was writing his articles to "True" magazine and "Outdoor Life" - and yes his African adventures figured in many of them - such journals were very few indeed. And of course, television was in its infancy. Today, commercialization is rampant and yes, I do believe much of that commercialization creates ethical issues, but I would argue, it is also probably saving our sport.

Some of the things which bother me are small enclosed game farms where deer are artifically created into Frankensteinish freaks and sold to "hunters" for enormous sums; or as others have argued on this forum, the shooting of the great cats in enclosures; and my particular hang up, the deliberate wounding of game in order to povoke a charge for a camera. I also hate much of the new technology. Sniping an elk at 600 meters is an interesting technological stunt - but it isn't hunting.

Which brings me a long way around to Craig and his use of print and media to earn a living. His "I went hunting ..." stories sell well. They do so because journals sell copy when his work is on the content page. With very rare exceptions, no one has accused Craig of not believing in and practicing fair chase. In other words, he is not abusing the game he pursues and about which he writes. He is also one of the few in the industry who makes his way solely on his talent and that tireless keyboard. He'll get a USMC retirement in a couple of years, but he doesn't have that yet. Heck, I don't even know the guy, though we are of the same age, and my active military career paced is Marine reserve component career. But he seems, as Hemingway would say, to write true. He even admits in print when he screws up. And he sure doesn't need me to defend him.

So, if that literature and video is not for you, I do fully understand. I personally can't abide the whole redneck branch of the current genre - whether duck commanders or bone collectors. But, I don't think what they do is unethical. And by helping keep hunting more or less mainstream - and by certainly keeping it an accepted hobby of the middle class, I believe that branch of the literature and film are helping keep a pulse in our sport.