Tony Knight with a bear shot on Vancouver Island with TV host Jim Shockey.
I'm not a big television fan, and would rather read a book than watch dumb television shows. Many people apparently agree with this philosophy.
OK, folks, want an example. Most television hunting shows focus on turkeys or whitetails. Most of the show hosts are from down south. Now, I mean no disrespect to any one, but I'm tired of hearing deer antlers being called "horns." Call ‘em what they are, not what they aren’t.
Deer do not have horns. They have antlers. Bison, goats, muskoxen and sheep around the world have horns. Horns on big-game animals continue to grow while antlers are shed every year. I even hear a few people from Michigan call a deer's rack "horns." Guess again, fella, and try to get the show terminology correct. It will give you and your television show a lot more credibility, at least North of the Mason-Dixon Line.
This is just one of the things that trouble me.
On occasion, and I mean that both figuratively and literally, I'll watch a television hunting show. I shy away from some because I have a major problem viewing many bloody, brain-dead, poorly-thought-out shows. I hate watching shows with the host walking around in his underwear. Not only is it stupid, but it’s rude to the viewing audience, regardless of age or gender.
Many hunts are filmed on a game ranch. I don't care if the deer they shoot are raised behind a fence as long as the host informs the viewing audience. Too many people view these shows, and consider the host a superb one-of-a-kind hunter. How many hunters do you personally know who kill a big buck every week and everywhere they go?
Some of these folks probably are excellent hunters, and great shots, and some may not be but the viewer is left out of touch with what is real and what is not. Most people think if they see it on television, this is reality. Guess again.
I won't name names, and I'm not out to bad-mouth anyone. But I see things on some shows that fly in the face of what I consider good form and good hunting ethics. Some set poor examples for their viewers. Some hunting shows are good, show vivid detail, and they are watching masters of the hunting art in action. Jim Shockey, who I’ve hunted with, falls in this category. He is the real deal.
Here is an example. A guy was sitting 25-30 feet up a tree, and along comes a buck walking directly at him. The bow comes back to full draw, the deer catches the movement and stops to look up, and our hero shoots the animal in front of the front shoulder near the brisket.
The deer was shot in full daylight, and suddenly it has turned extremely dark, and they find the deer pm;u 75 yards away after a perfect shot, or so they say. Does this mean that taking whatever shot the deer offers will make the viewer a better hunter? Not hardly, because they may assume that this was a good shot when in fact it was a horrible shot placement.
There are two high-percentage shots that hunters should take: broadside and quartering-away, and the latter is the best. The showing of this deer being shot in front of the front shoulder, coupled with the fact that it had apparently taken hours and perhaps more than one day to find the animal, is never explained. Again, a poor example is set for novice hunters. Sportsmen who know better won't watch these shows more than once because they have a great deal of respect for the game they hunt and shoot.
The hunt for most longtime sportsmen is much more important than the kill.
Another show I recently watched saw an arrow hit a deer in the front shoulder blade. There was hardly any penetration, and the animal ran off with the arrow dangling down. They later found a deer, and it shows the animal with a round hole behind the front shoulder. It appeared to be a different deer, one that may have been shot with a rifle to provide a dead animal for the show. Folks, you were suckered on that one.
Right, wrong, I'm not the hunting-show police. It's not up to me to act as an unpaid overseer of how they produce their shows. I made a vow to my readers many years ago that I wouldn't fib, lie, prevaricate or tell something which was not true. For 44 years I've kept that promise, and I’m very proud of the fact.
I write books, magazine articles, newspaper articles and columns, and now write for my personal daily website. I write a daily blog, and one must have countless experiences to continue to write a story every day, but what I write is what I've done. There's no need for exaggeration. I've hunted on a professional level for most of my life, and I want my professsional image to be squeaky clean.
Granted, this is just a personal observation about some television hunting shows. Each person has his or her own sense of personal ethics, but when I see someone shoot a buck in the shoulder, and when they "recover" the deer and it looks different, I have a problem accepting such things. It's just flat wrong! I just saw one show where a bear was shot in the water. That's not legal in the any of the places I hunt.
Image is all-important for television hosts or writers. Project a good one.
Many years ago, a hunter who had numerous whitetail bucks in the record books (before they were disqualified) got into making videos. I bumped into him on a hunt, and he wanted me to watch his latest video.
I almost walked out before the video ended. He was proud of the live "kill" and "pass-through" shots. In one scene he shot a buck, it ran off, stumbled and fell in a tiny stream. The camera zeroed in on the downed buck, blood spurting into the air and turning the creek water red, and he asked what I thought of his latest masterpiece.
"That is the most disgusting video I've ever seen!" I said. "It makes me want to puke. How many "pass-through" shots are needed? I believe your sales will fall if you leave the buck-in-the-creek and spurting blood in that video. We all know an arrow-shot deer bleeds and dies, but is it necessary to video such a scene? It would be like videotaping one of your children or a parent dying. Some women will ask their husband not to view it when the children are around. Some women will just make the video disappear."
He left in the spurting blood portion of the buck kicking and thrashing in the creek, and the video didn't sell well. Then, other video producers started an attempt to clean up some of the gorier hunting videos.
He didn't speak to me again for several years, but later admitted that he and the video producer made an error in judgement. I am not the guy to say such things mustn't be shown. I'm just a guy who feels that some things don't deserve to be shown in all their blood-and-guts glory.
Some things are better left alone. The outdoor magazines long ago avoided bloody abdomens, blood around the nose and mouth, tongues sticking out and most outdoor writers take time to clean up the animal and stick its tongue back in before shooting photos. A live deer is majestic to look at but a dead deer just looks dead, even if it has been cleaned up. You can put lipstick on a pig to make it look better, but in the end, it is still a pig that has been tramped up a bit.
Sorry to natter on so long on such tasteless topics. I just saw one of the shows a few days ago, and felt I had to write about it. Journalists should report only that which is honest and true, and if it doesn't cause other people to get wild-eyed with horror when they see it.
Frankly, I'm tired of the fist pumps, the knuckle bumps, the thumb-grip handshakes, and the phoniness of some of these shows. The laughing and giggling when something dies leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
Class will carry a television hunting show. A few television shows have class and many do not. It's my choice to choose which few outdoor shows I watch, and we never linger on the bad ones.
