Excellent article

W

Worth Mathewson

Active member
Many know that National Geographic published an excellent pro-hunting article in the November 2007 issue. If you haven't read it, you should, as it is important to us all. There is little question that the editor will get thousands of protests for running the article. I think we need to thank him. This can be done by writing: Editor, NGM, PO Box 98199, Washington, DC. 20090-8199. Or email: ngsforum@nationalgeographic.com. I hope you will all send your thanks. W. Mathewson
 
I have not read the article yet. Looks like I need to get on that. Thanks for the reminder.

Brian F.
 
I read it the day it arrived. I was thrilled to see it in NatGeo, but did wonder about the possible slam from the PETA People. NatGeo gets slammed for all kinds of petty stuff so I am expecting to read some truely awesome letters of discord in the next few issues.

Anyone willing to put down some coin on if they will print a letter that basically says "A dead animal is not conservation" or something along those lines? That would be a suckers bet and the bookies would be giving low ods for sure.

My only "problem" with the article was that it was written by a hunter, and that will be indentifed by the Haters as some sort of biased view point. I feel that if a non hunter that was genuine in their journalistic intent had penned the article then the folks that are on the fence about hunting might have been pushed a little more to our side.

Anyone that does not hunt will read about those huge amounts of money we spend and hopefully see that if not for us there would be no wildlife in much of the US these days.

I was glad to see that the whole Second Ammendment issue was not brought up.
 
Do you really think a non-hunters point of view would be non-bias or not slanted in a different perspective. Look at the history of trying to give so called non-bias reporting of the hunters or shooters perspective a chance. Hunters had good intentions of trying to get the message out they want, but the wicked pen did them dirty.
 
Last edited:
That is my point exactly. A real journalist would not pen a bias view. There are maybe two or three real journalist on this planet. Nobody knows who they are since they have yet to be published anywhere. Editors will never accept their stories since they will not bend to an editors will. Here in Anchorage, there were a couple of folks that were close to being real, but when they reported on non political and non personal experience stuff the veil came off and their bias showed through and I lost my faith again. The one that came the closest to being a real journalist lost her desire and moved back east to help run a canoe rental business with her family. The fate of all real journalists is to stop writing since no one will publish your work.

The piece in NatGeo has all the truth it needs to be convincing, but we here in the choir already know the truth. Those on the fence folks that have never joined a choir might hear a clearer truth if someone like them had written the article. Our choir needs more members and getting some of those fence sitters onto our side is what we need.

There will always be people that Hate something. We need every trick to keep the fence sitters from falling onto the other side of the fence. Once they taste what's growing in that yard they won't have the energy to climb back up onto the fence. Hate will suck the life right out of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top