It is currently September 19th, 2017, 5:30 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
PostPosted: March 15th, 2011, 5:07 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: March 12th, 2011, 12:34 am
Posts: 2855
Location: Moose Pass, Alaska
Membership Status: Life Member
Ted Kinney
PBS Member
Member # 34

posted January 15, 2011 02:37 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey guys, don't want to hijack our other great threads, but wanted to explore some ideas a bit further. We seem to say a lot that PBS was never meant to be a political organization and that early leaders wanted the organization to be fraternal only.

This doesn't match my memory from reading the magazines as a kid from about 83 on, but I WAS just a kid THEN. Maybe dad just called my attention to the political stuff to educate me, knowing that I would read the hunting stories on my own anyways.

Just posting to hear your thoughts and to help me reconcile something that I don't understand. How did we get to this 'fraternalism only' state - or have we always been there as has been discussed recently? My read on things is that this fraternalism only idea is new, but folks that have been members far longer than I tell me I may not be completely on target (not a new thing for me).

For example, would Tom Shupienis agree about the "fraternity only mandate". Here are his thoughts from the 1977 history:


Tom Shupienis' observations about our progress:

"From a slow and insignificant beginning PBS has grown and prospered into an organ of bowhunters that has made its presence felt. If we continue in the same direction, I see no reason why we cannot soon be the prime source of sophisticated opinions in matters relative to bow hunting legislation, and our standards will be the goals of all bowhunters."

So, I suppose his vision didn't come to fruition, but would HE like this "Fraternity only" idea? I never met him; I don't know.

. . . I'm lucky, I have access to an archive of our magazines and newsletters dating back to the mid 70's. SO, many great articles have been written in our magazines - it is a joy to read through them.

. . . I'm thinking about going back through the years with an eye towards understanding better this question about political involvement vs. fraternalism only. For example, I was reading some really great stuff this morning from Tim Reed, Jim Chinn,and Vern Struble about our fight against anti-hunters from the early 90's. Those guys were passionate about these issues - fascinating to read.

At any rate, I am interested in hearing more thoughts about the politics and the PBS. It seems my view of the history of the organization as a kid growing up with the magazines was different than those of you who lived it.

Anyways . . . I'll stop talking now. I really am interested in learning from you guys that were there (and anyone else that has an opinion). C'mon, give me some Knowledge through Exerience . . . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pittsburgh PA | IP: Logged |

Larry Schwartz

PBS Member
Member # 93

posted January 15, 2011 03:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted,

You are right in your saying that the PBS has not always been a fraternal only organization. As we look back at the early history of the Society we can see that some of the key things we did were related to legislation, like opposing the Pod/poisoned arrow and the anti-hunting movement. One of the challenges associated with taking a political stand is that sometimes you can't get a concensus among the members on it. I think that there definitely are positions that we can take and promote, if they are universal enough that the membership could support it. For example, we could take a position against a common problem like poaching, but I don't think we could (or should) take a position that pits one regions hunting style against another, like baiting for bears in the East and not baiting in the Northwest. We just need to choose our stands with care.

As for the Shupienis quote, it reads to me like it was a vision that he had and not necessarily what the general concensus was.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Annapolis, MD | IP: Logged |

Ted Kinney
PBS Member
Member # 34

posted January 15, 2011 04:04 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the thoughts Larry. I agree with everything you said.

Even if the Shupienis quote was just a vision and not general concensus (and I think you are correct about that); it is clearly different than the current direction of the organization.

Was Tom just a lone voice of activism in the fraternity or have we shifted focus as an organization?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pittsburgh PA | IP: Logged |

Tom Kidwell

PBS Member
Member # 103

posted January 15, 2011 04:42 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back when I joined, and ever since for that matter, my opinion is that we are primarily a fraternal organization... but not one that would sit on their hands when our sport was confronted with important issues.

I agree with Larry. It's hard to define issues sometimes which would rally 100% agreement in opinions. PBS'ers are passionate about their sport. It's hard to be that passionate about anything without voicing your opinion; an opinion that may not be shared with all members. As a fraternal organization, I think we have enough genuine respect for each other's opinion that when confronted with important issues we can bond together and do what has to be done to the best of our ability. We did it in the 70's, and we're doing it today as well.

--------------------
PBS
Compton - Life Member

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Oklahoma | IP: Logged |

Tim Roberts

PBS Member
Member # 74

posted January 15, 2011 06:04 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been thinking about the things that have been in the various post about this.
Fraternalism, is a good thing, but in order to have that fraternalism we need to have some common ground to create that bound. Now just bowhunting alone would not do that, it is way to broad of a subject, so we narrow it down, and we in the PBS have got it to where we all agree that United we Act for Preserving Bowhunting's Traditional Values. Even in that there have been things that have been brought up, that in some parts of the country there are things that are viewed as okay, but in other parts of the country harm those traditional values.
I have heard of a few times that when the PBS has been asked to take a stand on something that will be harmful to those traditional values that we have agreed to preserve there has been a response that really doesn't help.
Maybe, it would be good to list exactly what the traditional values are that we are willing to preserve, and then damn well make sure that we take a stand to preserve and defend them. I don't see where or how this would make us political in any way.
A recent example was here recently in Utah, a friend called me and said that they are considering allowing electronic laser range finders to be mounted to your bow. A member posted something on here about it and got no response. I thought about it and figured, it would be nice as a member of the PBS, to have a letter stating our position on electronics, and how they aren't bowhunting to go along with the email I sent in.
All around us there are opportunities to make our presence known, in a good way, without being political, and in a way that would let others know about us. Standing up for what you believe in shows that you are willing to help others, while having the ability to help yourself.
Sorry Ted, if I hijacked this in the least bit..........

--------------------
>>>>----------------->
We must always remember the importance of the Journey....For it is the Journey that defines the Destination.
>>>>----------------->

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Livin' in Utah...Huntin' in Montana! | IP: Logged |

Ted Kinney
PBS Member
Member # 34

posted January 15, 2011 06:52 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No problem, Tim. Your post is relevant.

The Utah thing comes and goes and you don't hear much about it coming from the PBS. Heck, I didn't even know about it.

Why doesn't the PBS issue a statement - because we are just a fraternal organization.

Fair enough - I wish it were different - but fair enough. It is the current strategy and I do enjoy the fraternal aspects of the org, so its ok.

My question is were we always this way? I have just started looking into this question. So far, I have reviewed issues 1Q91, 2Q92, 4Q92,and 3Q92. In all four, there are A LOT of "political statements" made (or at least statements relevant to the bowhunting politics of the day).

Some examples:

Pres. Tim Reed 1Q91 - There will be a great deal to do in educating bowhunters because that is what it is going to take to confront antihunting . . . we have a job and it will take you and I along with the PBS and every other hunting organization in existence to put our message ahead of the antis . . . The PBS will be there for all of our sake."

From our frequent website contributor, John Vargo - 1Q91 - "PBS is one of a few lights that are burning brightly during these troubled times. We have the experience, knowledge, and dedication to provide the leadership required to help our sport survive."

Fred Ricther - 2Q92 - "What is important is that pro hunting factions need to educate the voting public about hunting, fishing, and trapping . . . we have a battle on our hands that will determine the future for hunters, fisherman, and trappers in America. Every single sportsman should make a financial donation to the WLFA to help finance the fight."

(I found lots of other fascinating stuff in just these four that I can post if there is interest.)

. . . I don't know this stuff doesn't seem like 'just' fraternalism. This seems like good ole fashioned bowhunting thought leadership. I love this stuff. Isn't this the kind of stuff that draws people in? Isn't this the kind of stuff that attracts those that are fighting the local fights in the state organizations?

Maybe I'm nuts, but I always thought it was this kind of stuff that led to our high membership numbers in this era.

. . . I don't know, but I am having fun digging through these resources. I'll keep looking around. And, please do keep the thoughts coming (if this at all interesting to others). Maybe I will stop over to Dad's tomorrow and pick up some 70s and 80s stuff for review.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pittsburgh PA | IP: Logged |

Tim Roberts

PBS Member
Member # 74

posted January 15, 2011 07:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Ted.
Studying history is good, and it is also important, I wish I had the resources that you have to go back and look through the magazines.
From what you have said, it sounds like the problems that the PBS decided to stand up to back then, are very similar to the ones that we are facing today. One difference is today, the new anti hunter is destroying bowhunting by eroding away the traditional values, with one new gadget and gizmo at a time. For the most part I can't see that we as an organization, are doing anything about it.

Keep having fun and looking, for one I am interested in what you learn!!!

--------------------
>>>>----------------->
We must always remember the importance of the Journey....For it is the Journey that defines the Destination.
>>>>----------------->

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Livin' in Utah...Huntin' in Montana! | IP: Logged |

Jim Curlee
PBS Member
Member # 131

posted January 15, 2011 08:29 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You guys keep hashing this political thing over.
Tell me what impact 1400 people are going to make on any national legislation?
Our state trappers association has 2100+ members, we have a say in Minnesota, then the DNR does what they want. We don't have any say anywhwere else in the country, unless we supply money along with our opinion. Oh yeah there are about 6000 trappers in the state, so the MTA has 1/3rd of the trappers.
Minnesota has over 60,000 "bowhunters", do you really think they care what the PBS, think's, or take's a stand on? They don't know or care who, or what we are.
In order to be heard, you have to scream the loudest. This means alot of members, I'm afraid we don't qualify.

Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Minnesotah | IP: Logged |

P.J. Petiniot
PBS Member
Member # 24

posted January 15, 2011 08:35 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jim Curlee:
You guys keep hashing this political thing over.
Tell me what impact 1400 people are going to make on any national legislation?
Our state trappers association has 2100+ members, we have a say in Minnesota, then the DNR does what they want. We don't have any say anywhwere else in the country, unless we supply money along with our opinion. Oh yeah there are about 6000 trappers in the state, so the MTA has 1/3rd of the trappers.
Minnesota has over 60,000 "bowhunters", do you really think they care what the PBS, think's, or take's a stand on? They don't know or care who, or what we are.
In order to be heard, you have to scream the loudest. This means alot of members, I'm afraid we don't qualify.

Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed, and if for no other reason than this, even considering being political is somewhat laughable. Same problems ATHA had being taken as a serious voice, and why Compton needs to steer completely clear of such things.

The PBS can and should do as it always has, lead by example and leave the hard core battles for those with the money, desire and numbers to do so.

As usual, Jim knows that of which he speaks.

--------------------
The unspoken word is capital. We can invest it or we can squander it.
- Mark Twain's Notebook

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Indiana | IP: Logged |

Ted Kinney
PBS Member
Member # 34

posted January 15, 2011 11:34 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim,

I am afraid I may not be expressing my point effectively. I am not suggesting that we become a lobby group. I am not suggesting that we start leading letter writing initiatives. I am not saying that we have political power.

I do happen to believe that our organization should stand for more than just fraternalism. Rather, the PBS should provide a voice to other bowhunters. The PBS should be thought leaders. We should be talking with the state organizations about what is going on. In the magazine PBS members should be sharing with each other what we are hearing on the front lines. The PBS should have opinions and positions and try to motivate others to see the value in our traditional values.

This is not about becoming a lobbying group or passing questionable ethics guidelines and such; it is about allowing the great leader-members to lead.

Consider our regular membership application, as an example. We have for years asked about participation in other organizations and we have done a fantastic job recruiting real leaders. How many PBS members have held leadership positions in state organizations? So many among our ranks really have valuable insights and great things to say about what is going on in the world of bowhunting today . . . but all of our PBS communications emphasize fraternalism to the point that these insights go unsaid in PBS media channels (perhaps the website could change that?).

My point is that it seems - based on just a few resources so far - that this wasn't always the case. The idea was suggested in some of the recent threads that PBS was always focused on Fraternity - and to be sure, fraternalism has always and should be a major part of who we are; but my hypothesis is that we didn't always have this commitment to fraternalism only.

It seems that when our membership numbers were highest, the PBS was a thought leading group that was on the forefront discussing issues that mattered to bowhunting.

. . . In my opinion, that really helped with the whole relevancy question. In the early 1990's (the issues I reviewed this morning), I would think that if I were a bowhunter and member of my state organization and read those magazines; I would say "Hey, there are great hunting stories in here AND these guys are making a lot of great points about the things that I am passionate about and the things I am fighting so hard to protect in my state." Today, we have a heckuva a lot of great hunting stories, but not as much of the latter.

Again, I don't want to lobby anybody about anything. That's not my point. I would just like to see more thought leadership - maybe politics is the wrong word. You are right, Jim, we have no power to directly impact legislation - no argument there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pittsburgh PA | IP: Logged |

Ted Kinney
PBS Member
Member # 34

posted January 15, 2011 11:45 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . One last thought, because I don't want to send the wrong message. I am not being critical of PBS leadership or council. I think they are doing just fine - in their role, so much of the job is administrative and involves putting out the fires that come across the desk. They don't have time to consider the goofy pain-in-the-butt musings of jackasses like me. They work hard in their positions and do a good job.

Rather, I am just trying to spark some discussion among our PBS brothers and sisters about where we were, are, and should go . . . and at the same time, I'm hoping I may just learn a little bit from hearing perspectives from others.

I'm not trying to push a point - I just think it is an interesting discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pittsburgh PA | IP: Logged |

Mark Baker

PBS Member
Member # 28

posted January 16, 2011 12:36 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been reading through the other threads, and I like the discussion. Being "just" fraternal is really kind of a "cop-out" of sorts I think. I don't know, but we have way too many leaders among us to NOT make statements. That being said, I think our role, on a national scale, is one of being leaders "by example", and not so much as lobbyist, or activist. Those battles are better fought locally. And a good point made about member numbers on the national battle as well.

What we do have IS history, and experience, and "leaders" as members.

As much grief as it may have brought about within the ranks of PBS, stances such as the one taken on the ATV issue, and traditional values, and things like this are what is going to make us significant among "other" national orgs. And standing up for things makes us leaders as such....that other orgs, nationaly and from the states will recognize PBS as stewards of what is right in bowhunting by doing so. Some of these can be hard-line, some may have to go through some review from time to time. But having that "banner" type national organization like PBS does in fact do a lot of good to those local groups fighting the tough fight.

Does that make sense?

We don't need to please everyone all the time. Any group taking a stand for anything will indoubtably alienate someone....that is a sign of "doing something". And most PBSer's are mature enough to recognize that they may not like everything that happens, but they always have a voice, and collectively, we will most likely do what is best, I think.

Fraternalism can still be our main function, but can't we have a good discussion among friends and agree to stand up publicly for what is the right thing to do, to ensure bowhunting for future generations? I think so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Livingston, Montana | IP: Logged |

Ted Kinney
PBS Member
Member # 34

posted January 16, 2011 07:55 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well stated, Mark. Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pittsburgh PA | IP: Logged |

guy p
PBS Member
Member # 86

posted January 16, 2011 08:14 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frankly I have never been able to understand why there cannot be room for both, the Fraternalism and the politics. Some people are not good at politics-(example see Washington DC)LOL so in those cases your off the hook. But we can all be thinkers, as Ted said. You can find the doers, they emerge usually when the issues hit close to home.

When we had the youth LEADERSHIP (capitalized it because it reflects politics) hunt in Utah I ask some of those folks who control and influence the politics of hunting to come up and speak to the youth (future leaders?). It happened, started with in the first minutes camp got underway when the warden and local biologist showed up, to talk about the laws. Later in the week it was a member of the wildlife board (retired USAF Col. in his real life), and an undercover warden. Another day the forest recreation manager, and compliance officer. Then a non hunter /outdoorsman (book editor by day) who I've been able to become acquainted with over the past few years. A group he started is maybe now 50 strong here locally. And they are watch dogs of our watershed. I watched a letter campaign they did last year STOP a ski resort in a critical watershed. Which also benefited the wintering critters in those lower reaches of the canyon.

We don't have to go to DC to get lost in that mill. The dollars that cloud common sense seem to run amuck. But certainly on local and some regional issues PBS should be the "voice of reason". When it comes to issues of hunting.Those voices can be developed developed because of our Fraternalism.

--------------------
gp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Smithfeild Ut | IP: Logged |

Kevin Dill

PBS Member
Member # 127

posted January 16, 2011 09:17 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken to its most basic level, fraternalism by itself gives us no reason to be a group other than the desire to socialize and share our common interests. This organization (PBS) has a direction and a purpose other than holding a prom every two years! PBS has long stood up for the Society's beliefs, and has shown some volume of political voice in several issues over the 50 years of our existence.

To me, it's not about whether we're politically active as a group (we have been, and are) but what issues we choose to weigh-in on. Granted, we are an organization of 1400 with a very small voice. If I extrapolated that to my personal life, I'd toss my PBS ballot in the shredder and skip the next general election.

"Faith without works is dead."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Southern Ohio | IP: Logged |


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: March 15th, 2011, 5:08 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: March 12th, 2011, 12:34 am
Posts: 2855
Location: Moose Pass, Alaska
Membership Status: Life Member
Tim Roberts

PBS Member
Member # 74

posted January 16, 2011 09:42 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said, Mark!

--------------------
>>>>----------------->
We must always remember the importance of the Journey....For it is the Journey that defines the Destination.
>>>>----------------->

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Livin' in Utah...Huntin' in Montana! | IP: Logged |

Rick McGowan
PBS Member
Member # 56

posted January 16, 2011 10:26 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are internal politics and external politics, when the council says, "all members will do what we tell them" thats internal, when there is a problem at the federal or state level thats external and we seem to be mixing these all up together. When it comes to the state or local level, sometimes less is more, I have heard a polititican say that sometimes it only takes the rational comments of ONE person to help them decide how to vote, in this case, a face to face discussion with one of their voters is going to carry WAY more weight than a blanket statement from some group they never heard of, headquartered in another state, we are far better off being political on an individual basis for that reason AND for the fact that what makes sense in AK or MT or any other state, may make no sense in the rest of them or the rest of the world for that matter. I've never heard ANYONE or or any organization outside of PBS asking us to "lead" them, if you want to lead by example, you just do it, you don't tell everyone to "watch me and do as I do", PBS has the reputation of being "elitest" and telling everyone that we will be your role models, is another nail in the coffin. The whole big problem of politics and PBS is that the vast majority(the silent majority) of members have made it very clear that they do not want PBS to be the national political bowhunter organization and the few(non silent) members continually push PBS to become what THEY want it to be the members that are tired of being preached to about politics and being told what to do by the council have lost interest in PBS. Maybe some members would look forward to a banquet that was four days arguing about politics, but that not why I or a lot of other members went, I can argue politics all day long everyday if I choose, the banquet was place to see old and make new friends and swap bowhunting stories and obviously a lot of members agree with that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Georgia, USA | IP: Logged |

Kevin Dill

PBS Member
Member # 127

posted January 16, 2011 10:47 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick...

I like the way you made your point.

Internal politics. External politics.

We're gonna have the internal variety no matter what. External...ahhh...those are the ones we must "pick & choose" carefully.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Southern Ohio | IP: Logged |

Mark Baker

PBS Member
Member # 28

posted January 16, 2011 01:57 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trying to "become" the biggest or bestest...smacks of amateurism, which we ain't. We don't have to try, just do. It's relatively easy to carry on discussions, take votes, and take stands on what we feel is right. As times change, we may want to change...elect council that can effectively debate and enlighten us that are less involved. But some "constants" ....given that we are trying to protect and ensure the survival of something that we all wish would change very little....is a given.

There's no need for heated discussion or debate during a banquet. Have a good time, visit our friends. But among regulars, I see it as our duty to set a certain tone, show a certain "rock solidness" in our beliefs, to those who are associates....to our kids and the next generation...to others who view PBS from afar....and anyone who takes a look at us.

We can't just be the organization that raises money and funds just to throw a big party every two years!

I can tell you, in my personal experience, that we relied heavily on Pope & Young's equipment rules as "the example" (before they waffled and caved on it) to get what we needed here in MT done a decade ago. We did'nt ask them for statements, or money, or anything. They just were there, and their prestige was recognized by non-bowhunting F&G commissioners. It helped us tremendously. This is what PBS needs to be.

Like the song says...."you've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Livingston, Montana | IP: Logged |

Mark Baker

PBS Member
Member # 28

posted January 16, 2011 02:03 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One more thing...the existence of a regular member forum to discuss these things would clearly, IMO, be a huge tool in helping the council to make decisions and shape agenda and take a lot of that need for decisions to have to be made in a member meeting during the banquet. It's nice to be able to discuss in person, but a lot of BS can be waded through ahead of time by doing the stuff we are doing here.

And I believe, having it viewable by associates as well, helps them to see what "responsibility" is all about here.

There is no doubt in my mind that this medium is where our future is going to go, and it can clearly serve to get more regulars involved than ever before, and influence more associates and non-members to see what we're about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Livingston, Montana | IP: Logged |

Barney
PBS Member
Member # 13

posted January 16, 2011 03:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 good posts Mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wyoming | IP: Logged |

John Vargo
PBS Member
Member # 25

posted January 16, 2011 04:35 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"the existence of a regular member forum to discuss these things would clearly, IMO, be a huge tool in helping the council to make decisions and shape agenda..."

Great point Mark. Do council members want to listen? Some council members become intoxicated with power to the point where they no longer are willing to listen to the membership. I observed this arrogance from several council members when I served the council. I was told, in a condescending manner, that by virtue of being a council member and being on other national/stte bowhunting groups these council member were far more enlightened and entitled to make decision on our behalf.

No one is saying that PBS is, or should be, 100% fraternal...although that is the PRIMARY intent. With only 1500 or so members, it is difficult to be relevant on a national basis. We best "lead by example." We do not compromise our values. There are issues that the organization can rally around like crossbows, poison pod arrows, etc. where we all clearly can tell what is right and what is wrong. Local issues such at ATVs, baiting, etc. we should steer clear of. We need to be very cautious getting involved in any issue that will pit member against member. PBS members can best address local issues working with their state hunting association groups.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Iowa | IP: Logged |

Ted Kinney
PBS Member
Member # 34

posted January 16, 2011 05:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with everything you've said above Mark.

Rick, undoubtedly, you know this organization better than I do. If you say the majority just wants to party and that's what the PBS should be about, that's fine. Maybe you are right. I don't share your opinion, but PBS has no shortage of diverging opinions (fortunately, we agree about 90% on all issues that really matter).

My initial question in this thread was whether or not that is how it has always been.

I have to say, it doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, as I look through the magazines overtime, we really have been on the forefront of bowhunting current events throughout our history. And there has been no shortage of discussion of these matters in the magazine.

So, we seem to have changed. That's fine. Still a darn good organization with the best bowhunters in the world. If this change over the last 5 or so years is what the membership wants, then I can live with it - I'm here for the long haul.

I do worry though, that adopting the position we have over the past few years where we are living from banquet to banquet raising money just to fund the next party (aside from the youth hunt and scholarships, which are awesome), will ultimately result in membership numbers continuing to drop. I'm not preaching, but we could be in serious trouble in 10-15 years (or less).

This is why I think this question is important. I can't seem to ignore the idea that in times when our membership was really growing (late 70's through the 80's and into the 90's), we were also thought leaders on the issues of the day. Our magazine, in addition to having great hunting stories, was one that kept us all informed about what was happening around the country on issues that mattered.

Like it or not, we have to face the question of relevance, I do think, as I look at our past there is some support for this hypothesis:Thought leadership leads to a growing membership; "fraternalism-only" leads to static/declining/aging membership.

And, yes, maybe I am in the overwhelming minority. I'm ok with that. And I don't mean to preach. As I said in another post, I just want to do what I can to make sure this organization is available to my 6 month old son when he is my age. Is fraternalism-only the path to get us there?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pittsburgh PA | IP: Logged |

Jim Curlee
PBS Member
Member # 131

posted January 16, 2011 05:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John;
Couldn't have said it any better, myself.
Thanks
Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Minnesotah | IP: Logged |

Rob Burnham

PBS Member
Member # 399

posted January 16, 2011 09:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark, John and others as an associate member (working on my regular membership novel now) I am glad that I am able to read these discussions about PBS. It's important to know how others think and feel.

One thing that has meant a lot to me about PBS is the fact that it has remained true over the years on it's positions on the things that are important to Bowhunting. Not caving in and keeping the traditional values at a time when the masses are looking for easy.

Thanks again for making these discussions available for me to read. You guys are the core of what the PBS is all about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rockville, Virginia | IP: Logged |

John Vargo
PBS Member
Member # 25

posted January 16, 2011 10:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob, you make some good comments. We sometimes stray a bit too far from who we are but eventually we make it back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Iowa | IP: Logged |

Rob Burnham

PBS Member
Member # 399

posted January 16, 2011 10:34 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John I'm looking forward to sharing camp with you in July... It's going to be a camp full of PBS'ers and no doubt great memories will be made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rockville, Virginia | IP: Logged |

Cory Mattson
PBS Member
Member # 38

posted January 17, 2011 08:58 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted - I think we were viewed as leaders of the day back in the 80s because PBS had a page in every Bowhunter Magazine. This reached a HUGE number of non PBS members.

Rick - excellent post

John - also great post - clear and to the point

Not sure where this will go but if some of you guys want to be politically active you will find yourself alligning "us" with other groups. WLFA is a good example and this was promoted by some of our "leaders" in the past. I went to a "media training seminar" at WLFA headquarters. My opinion is that they are sleezy - I will have nothing to do with them.

NRA - is another outfit who is actively promoting crossbow use during bow seasons, keeping rifles legal to kill gobblers in springtime in WV, and trying to take away a 4 county 'bow-only' hunting area and turn it into a gun hunting area (which would destroy it in ONE year) - so you see the NRA is my enemy. Not a popular stand and I know most folks reading this support the NRA - "for life" - whatever.

So what's my point: That I do not think PBS members can even agree on political issues. YET - fraternally I can appreciate our differences and dedication to woodsmanship and bowhunting.

External: I would be pissed off immediately if we got cozy with the NRA or WLFA - got it.

Internally: I have life long friendships that frankly would remain even if PBS no longer existed. Internal politics I still ride an ATV without a bowcase - love hunting baits - and I am not even anti crossbow since there is not enough difference in a compound bow and a compound crossbow for me to be bothered with.

In the end we are fraternal and have never had a unified voice on anything but poison or outright poaching.

PBS was the headquarters for serious hunters dedicated to using bow and arrow. That is how I see it. So my question is - has this interest gone away - or - do newer hunters look elsewhere for dedicated bowhunters to learn from ???

<><
<-------cory--------<<<<<<

--------------------
< <-------------------<<<<<<<

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: NC | IP: Logged |

Jim Curlee
PBS Member
Member # 131

posted January 17, 2011 09:29 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cory;
They watch TV, what a role model that IS!
Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Minnesotah | IP: Logged |

Tim Roberts

PBS Member
Member # 74

posted January 17, 2011 09:45 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are some great post on here, and hopefully it leads us to some more good conversation, which I hope will bring us to action one way or the other, soon.
Not sure how to start into this...............
We all know that bowhunting is under attack, it seems that every year there is a new list of states that are on the list for the crossbow battle, and pretty much every state has something going on with adding some type of new technology, and if industry can't get these in through the proper channels, they back door it. They are killing us this way.
One great example of this is in Montana. The game Commission decided sometime back, what legal bowhunting equipment is. Now there is a bill that could make a lighted knock legal. This is nothing more than an attempt to side step the Commission, and bring in something that is needed, why?
In Utah there is the issue of the electronic laser range finder mounted to a bow.
Point that I am trying to make is this, we are loosing, Traditional Values are loosing one piece of technology, one state, one small piece on a daily bases.
Writing a letter of support, for the efforts of the organizations fighting these battles, is in my opinion, not being political, but standing up for the things that we believe in.
The up side to this is it gives the PBS recognition, it would also serve to help us stay focused on those traditional values that we desire to preserve.

Cory, I don't think the interest has gone away, nor are newer hunters going else where to learn. Industry is doing everything they can to take ownership of bowhunting away from bowhunters, and get it to a point that they are the owners of bowhunting. Every time someone trades experience and knowledge for a boughten gadget or gizmo, they loose part of the experience. When you loose the experience, you loose the knowledge, without the knowledge it is no longer something that you own.

The idea that was posted above, about the PBS having a type of advertisement in most of the major magazines, is a great idea!

--------------------
>>>>----------------->
We must always remember the importance of the Journey....For it is the Journey that defines the Destination.
>>>>----------------->

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Livin' in Utah...Huntin' in Montana! | IP: Logged |


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: March 15th, 2011, 5:08 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: March 12th, 2011, 12:34 am
Posts: 2855
Location: Moose Pass, Alaska
Membership Status: Life Member
John3

PBS Member
Member # 48

posted January 17, 2011 11:15 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great posts and ideas here.. In the end all I can do is answer if and when the Council calls. If it helps the PBS I am in..!

--------------------
"There is no excellence in Archery without great labor".
Maurice Thompson 1879

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Villa Ridge, Missouri | IP: Logged |

Rick McGowan
PBS Member
Member # 56

posted January 17, 2011 01:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted, I think you are lumping the internal and external politics all together. Its the internal politics that have gotten PBS to where it is now, not the external ones and frankly we never have done all that much on the external ones anyway. The problems have not developed in the last five "static" years, but way before that, lots of us saw it coming and discussed it and how to reverse or stop it over ten years ago. Nobody wanted to be the bad guy then or now to break it up. I'm not sure what you are suggesting on which way PBS should go, but I know when I get off the track, I always end up going back to where I know I was on it and start over from there, usually I wander around in circles first for a while though, hoping to find it the easy way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Georgia, USA | IP: Logged |

Dave Watson

PBS Member
Member # 243

posted January 17, 2011 01:34 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been around PBS for a lot of years now (Please Steve H. - no smart remarks!! and have seen this outfit turn both ways over the years, from strictly fraternal, to somewhat political. PBS has survived, for the most part, by being pretty much non political, and when it required some politics, the members stepped up and joined forces with other outfits who truely had political clout, and added our membership to the fray. PBS is, and will always be, a fraternal organization, and that is what has made PBS what it is today, and what the founding fathers wanted it to be "back in the day".

I do agree, on a slightly different subject, that at times, SOME members of Council tend to be rather aloof in decision making and when you challenge the decisions, you get a response of "I know what we need here, and your input is discounted". I saw this attitude as recent as the last gathering in Nashville when some were dismissed by at least one council member, because he did not agree with them.

We are all in this together, from strengtening our membership, to educating the public on what the word "Professional" means in our name. Being a fraternal organization will insure our success in the coming years, being political could and may, ruin our image in some minds. We can always join forces when need be, by adding our membership numbers and members savvy to issues, but do so with care.

--------------------
Hunt them close, hunt them fair

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edneyville NC | IP: Logged |

John Vargo
PBS Member
Member # 25

posted January 17, 2011 10:28 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said Dave.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Iowa | IP: Logged |

Rick McGowan
PBS Member
Member # 56

posted January 19, 2011 12:59 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, very well said Dave!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Georgia, USA | IP: Logged |


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: March 27th, 2011, 8:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: March 15th, 2011, 9:50 am
Posts: 9
Location: Dallas, Texas
Sam Dunham wrote:
"From a slow and insignificant beginning PBS has grown and prospered into an organ of bowhunters that has made its presence felt. If we continue in the same direction, I see no reason why we cannot soon be the prime source of sophisticated opinions in matters relative to bow hunting legislation, and our standards will be the goals of all bowhunters."

Sound wisdom! :)



+1!!!!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  



Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
greenmiles v1.1 designed by CodeMiles Team -TemplatesDragon-.