Sadly, I have to agree with the sentiment on here. There are a large chunk of "hunters" that are total idiots (for lack of a better term) that give these "celebrities" a platform.
Good article in my opinion, but like someone else pointed out, the reason these guys have the platforms they do is because there exists an audience for them.
In most instances, it is not necessarily what the serious hunter wants to watch. Some people just watch what is produced and what is distributed. The networks control a huge part of that final outcome. Weave good content (and yes, there are some great people producing outdoor TV who have a concern) among the junk, and see what sticks.
It is more of a function that networks have decided to use "hunting and conservation" as the concept by which they will execute their business model. Make no mistake, the networks are in this to make money via entertainment. If they thought it would sell, I think those in charge would aspire for a camo version of WWE.
I can assure you that the networks do not share the level of concern about hunting and conservation, as most here share. When I, and others, made complaints long before the Busbice/Brackett bullchit, those complaints were ignored. Why does the network actively promote an ass clown like Nugent, a serial violator of game laws, and by most accounts, a net negative for hunting and conservation? Why do they let Theresa Vail continue to host a show, when a worried camera guy who was on the hut reports that she shot two grizzly bears when only having one tag? Why do they let ......(insert poacher here)?
Because the folks inside the networks make the decisions about what makes money in the short term. They do so with little or no regard as to the consequences these decisions have on the image of hunting and conservation.
Jim Posewitz, upon hearing two of his Board Members, me and Still Kickin', were going to start a TV platform to try provide a different voice, had this to say, "Society did not have to invent anti-hunters, along came outdoor TV." I still have no reply that could counter Poz's claim. Rather, his observation from ten years ago is even more valid today.
It will be interesting to see the struggle for control over the image of hunting. The networks think they inherited that image from the print titles, some of which they have acquired. The print titles not owned by the network are not giving up that tussle, as evidenced by this F&S article.
If you are going to subscribe, digitally or in print, to a hunting or outdoor magazine, Field & Stream and Outdoor Life are two that are not owned by the network and are taking on some of these topics. They will make good use of your money.