Posted: 3/15/2007 6:38:40 AM EDT
|
recently wrote a column defending Zumbos comments, and criticizing the resulting backlash from gun owners, resulting in several letters to the paper an comments in the local newspaper forum, such as this one http://forums.theithacajournal.com/viewtopic.php?t=3943 I am still trying to dig up the original column to post here, but thought that some of you could post insiteful and polite rebuttals to some of the comments on the forum above. edit: found the column and the forum for the original story: Famous hunter did not deserve his fate The biggest news in the outdoors world right now is the fall of Jim Zumbo, the world's most-famous hunter, who fell victim to the Pro-Gun Right's double standard in his ill-thought Feb. 16 blog on the Outdoor Life's Web site. Associated with the famed outdoors publication for three decades and Hunting Editor since 1979, Zumbo had the audacity to say in print (actually, cyberspace) that rifles patterned after assault weapons had no place in hunting. He called them terrorist weapons and wished aloud that the various state game departments would outlaw them from hunting. The fallout was immediate and widespread. Amid waves of protest to the blog, Remington Arms canceled its sponsorship of his Outdoors Channel television show. Cabela's severed all connection with him, as did Mossy Oak. Even Hi Mountain Jerky and Seasoning walked indignantly away from its sponsorship. On Friday, Outdoor Life accepted Jim's resignation. Understand that Zumbo's printed opinion echoes stances I share and have heard repeatedly in hunting camps — often from fellow outdoors writers — for the last 30 years. The difference was that Zumbo said it in public, and they wouldn't. Never mind that we of the pro-gun faction preach the difference between weapons and hunting firearms when the public needs to be impressed. But point out the same fact in a hunting or shooting forum and you'll be vilified. Anyone who's handled an M-16 as a combat weapon recognizes the AR-15 as a twin without the select-fire switch. It's an effective and thus popular target rifle, but of dubious value as a hunting tool. On the other hand, we're guaranteed the right to bear arms, presumably of our choice. While the Constitution guarantees the right to own firearms, one wonders how popular the AR-15 and its ilk would be if there wasn't a looming political presence intent on taking them away. Zumbo simply wasn't allowed to state his opinion. And that's a shame. Not only a shame because it may be the end of a storied 42-year writing career, but more so because of the humiliation this caring, compassionate man has to endure. I'm proud to call Jim Zumbo my friend — today just as much as last month. Nothing he's said or done would ever change that. There are those who'll cry “name dropper” when a hack from a small town newspaper claims an affiliation with a icon like Zumbo. So be it. We roomed and traveled together when he was the crowd draw for the NRA's Great American Hunters Tour and I was a face on the undercard in the early 1990s. He lived in Wyoming and I was working in the West at the time. We were further bonded as native New Yorkers — he being raised in Newburgh. His father still lives in Sacandaga, has a sister in the Albany area and one of his daughters lives here in Ithaca. Above all, Jim Zumbo is not only a significant figure in the hunting world but also a heck of a guy. In an industry that lionized alcoholic egomaniacs like Jack O'Connor and Elmer Keith, Jim richly deserved his fame and popularity. In every hunting camp we've shared, at every show or conference, he was invariably friendly and engaging with those around us — from Inuit families to fawning camp followers to kids seeking autographs to bumbling waitresses to corporate types to crusty celebs like General Chuck Yeager and Hank Williams Jr. I absolutely defend his right to say what he felt. The First Amendment to our Constitution carries just as much — if not more — weight than the Second. He doesn't deserve anything that's being thrown at him by fanatics, some of whom weren't even born when he first joined the NRA 40 years ago. He immediately realized that speaking his mind was a mistake in this closely bonded and ever-paranoid industry and he apologized for it before offering his resignation. Public memory is short. We forgave Smith & Wesson's leveraged sellout of the industry — although it took a change of ownership combined with the passage of time. We forgave old Bill Ruger's “traitorous” plea to Congress to ban high-capacity magazines, although that benevolence was hastened somewhat by his $1 million contribution to the NRA Museum. The fanatics aren't going to “forgive” Jim any time soon, but someone has to understand how ludicrous — and unfair — it is to vilify this fine man. http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070301/COLUMNISTS26/703010369/1006/NEWS17 http://forums.theithacajournal.com/viewtopic.php?t=3669 and his response to criticism: http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070308/SPORTS/703080374/1006/NEWS17 The response to last week's personal defense of noted outdoors figure Jim Zumbo in this space was the most ever received in 40 years of journalism, and I am forced at this point to cut off the debate and move on to other subjects. The whole situation did expose some elemental truths: Google.com and Internet contact trees really spread the word fast and far; some people don't like me anymore; and there are some derisive terms that I'd never heard before, or maybe I just didn't recognize the spelling. It was heartening to see that fully one-third of the responses were supportive. But just as disheartening is the fact that approximately 80 percent of the pro-gun respondents ridiculed hunters per se right along with Zumbo and I. |