« Bald Eagle Is Officially De-Listed | Main | Secret Service Saves President Bush’s Fishing Trip »

June 29, 2007

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Field Notes at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes.

Discussion Topic: Does Debate Divide Us?

Hal Herring’s recent interview with Ted Nugent obviously touched a nerve. But high-fence hunting is just one of many highly-charged topics we’ve discussed here, including crossbows, hunting deer with dogs, in-line muzzleloaders during primitive seasons, and I’m sure I don’t have to remind you of the black gun discussion—to name a few.

The question is: Are these debates ultimately constructive or divisive? Does the exchange inform our opinions or make us draw deeper lines in the sand? Should we have a wide diversity of opinion within our group? Or should we take the hard line: “You’re either with us or you’re with the antis”?

Tell us what you think.



Yes, it is dividing us.
No it isn't!
Yes it is!!
Oh, go to hell!!!
You're a loser!!!!

Kristine Shreve

In my opinion, debates between people who advocate different methods of hunting aren't a problem, as long as everyone remembers that what ultimately counts is that we're all hunters or supporters of hunting. It becomes a problem when the debates become so divisive that people can't band together to combat initiatives put forth by the antis. The only way to defeat those kinds of things is to provide a united front. We can't do that if debates are allowed to divide the hunting community.


we all can have our own opinions, but we need to remember that we are all proud american sportsmen, and need to stck together


we all can have our own opinions, but we need to remember that we are all proud american sportsmen, and need to stck together

Matt Mallery

Debate built this country.


Just like republicans and democrats who never seem to get along, once something attacks us as a whole we'll come together faster than you can say Osama Bin Ladin with all barrels loaded ready to defend ALL of our god given rights to hunt just like we all have done before. Don't let the postings of a few misguide you about the strength of the whole.


Debate on issues is almost always constructive. Just because you disagree on one topic dosn't exclude you from a certain group[ unless you happen to be muslim].

Sherrill Philip Neese

I think the debates are great. They helps us to think critically and expand our minds. Debates are also great tools for learning as they require you to examine all sides of an issues. Besides, what would hunting camp be like if we didn't have something to argue about. :-)

Here are some of my ground rules when I discuss things...
- Don't get personal. Nothing ruins a good conversation/debate faster.
- Don't take it personal. Have a thick skin and understand that these are just words.
- Keep it clean. No place for rudeness or vulgarity.
- No political correctness. People have to be able to express themselves and talk about various things. People should not be drawn and quartered just because they say something that I find offensive. Well... unless they start downtalkin' my 30:06. ;-)
- Treat it seriously, but not too seriously. No need to make jokes about people's opinions, but at the same time we're talking about hunting and fishing, not the destruction of life as we know it.
- Have fun! The whole reason we talk about hunting, fishing, guns, and bows is because we enjoy it.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts.




Debate and CONSTRUCTIVE exchange of ideas in a free country is a healthy activity, and necessity in order for it to florish. It is also a necessity in the sub-cultures of a free society based on democratic ideals.We as Sportsmen are one of the sub-cultures of that society. Debate is a necessity,nothing can hurt us more than listening to idealogy in an echo chamber. It is only in totalitarian societies (ie. Extreme Islamic Teachings,Nazi Germany, Communism) where debate is stifled and not allowed.

I agree with Walt on this topic. The anti's are no threat when it gets to the nitty-gritty, we'll always side with each other. Unless we let them paint us all with the same broad brush we have nothing to worry about with regard to the anti's and the non-hunting public! As sportsmen it is imperative that we stick with our own ethics, not letting the "group" define us. Teddy Roosevelt would be proud.


I agree with Sherrill. It's not "debate" that divides us. However, crude and (how shall I say it?) "unsportsman-like" attacks on those with other opinions, political parties, or religious beliefs works against the cohesion we NEED as a political group and a community of outdoor enthusiasts. Verbal mud-wresting is a crutch for intellectual incompetence.

Ken M.

"sportsmen" is the key word.Seeing the great TV fisherman on a fenced hunt ,with Four men hearding a buck to his stand is just a little shy of sportsmenship.


As American Sportsmen, we are like
the Muslims. We are too busy
fighting each other than to band
together. As long as some one isn't trying to force me to use a
weapon that I have no desire to use, to each his own.

Our Blogs