what happened to JIM ZUMBO?
Moderator: Excalibur Marketing Dude
-
bait pile willie
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:56 pm
- Location: london ontario.
what happened to JIM ZUMBO?
Does anybody know what happened to jim.the way I heard it he wrote an article about a certain type of firearm condeming its use, there were enough protests that his sponsers pulled the plug.I DONT KNOW WHETHER THIS IS TRUE OR NOT.does anybody know?
-
Woody Williams
- Posts: 6440
- Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 5:07 pm
-
crazyfarmer
- Posts: 5250
- Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 10:21 pm
- Location: Virginia
- Contact:
'Terrorist' Remark Puts Outdoorsman's Career in Jeopardy
Zumbo's Criticism of Hunters Who Use Assault Rifles Brings Unforgiving Response From U.S. Gun Culture
By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 24, 2007; Page A03
SEATTLE -- Modern hunters rarely become more famous than Jim Zumbo. A mustachioed, barrel-chested outdoors entrepreneur who lives in a log cabin near Yellowstone National Park, he has spent much of his life writing for prominent outdoors magazines, delivering lectures across the country and starring in cable TV shows about big-game hunting in the West.
Zumbo's fame, however, has turned to black-bordered infamy within America's gun culture -- and his multimedia success has come undone. It all happened in the past week, after he publicly criticized the use of military-style assault rifles by hunters, especially those gunning for prairie dogs.
"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity," Zumbo wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life Web site. The Feb. 16 posting has since been taken down. "As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."
The reaction -- from tens of thousands of owners of assault rifles across the country, from media and manufacturers rooted in the gun business, and from the National Rifle Association -- has been swift, severe and unforgiving. Despite a profuse public apology and a vow to go hunting soon with an assault weapon, Zumbo's career appears to be over.
His top-rated weekly TV program on the Outdoor Channel, his longtime career with Outdoor Life magazine and his corporate ties to the biggest names in gunmaking, including Remington Arms Co., have been terminated or are on the ropes.
The NRA on Thursday pointed to the collapse of Zumbo's career as an example of what can happen to anyone, including a "fellow gun owner," who challenges the right of Americans to own or hunt with assault-style firearms.
From his home near Cody, Wyo., Zumbo declined repeated telephone requests for comment. He is a 40-year NRA member and has appeared with NRA officials in 70 cities, according to his Web site.
In announcing that it was suspending its professional ties with Zumbo, the NRA -- a well-financed gun lobby that for decades has fought attempts to regulate assault weapons -- noted that the new Congress should pay careful attention to the outdoors writer's fate.
"Our folks fully understand that their rights are at stake," the NRA statement said. It warned that the "grassroots" passion that brought down Zumbo shows that millions of people would "resist with an immense singular political will any attempts to create a new ban on semi-automatic firearms."
Some outdoors writers drew a different lesson from Zumbo's horrible week.
"This shows the zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual foolishness," said Pat Wray, a freelance outdoors writer in Corvallis, Ore., and author of "A Chukar Hunter's Companion."
Wray said that what happened to Zumbo is a case study in how the NRA has trained members to attack their perceived enemies without mercy.
Zumbo's Criticism of Hunters Who Use Assault Rifles Brings Unforgiving Response From U.S. Gun Culture
By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 24, 2007; Page A03
SEATTLE -- Modern hunters rarely become more famous than Jim Zumbo. A mustachioed, barrel-chested outdoors entrepreneur who lives in a log cabin near Yellowstone National Park, he has spent much of his life writing for prominent outdoors magazines, delivering lectures across the country and starring in cable TV shows about big-game hunting in the West.
Zumbo's fame, however, has turned to black-bordered infamy within America's gun culture -- and his multimedia success has come undone. It all happened in the past week, after he publicly criticized the use of military-style assault rifles by hunters, especially those gunning for prairie dogs.
"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity," Zumbo wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life Web site. The Feb. 16 posting has since been taken down. "As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. . . . I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."
The reaction -- from tens of thousands of owners of assault rifles across the country, from media and manufacturers rooted in the gun business, and from the National Rifle Association -- has been swift, severe and unforgiving. Despite a profuse public apology and a vow to go hunting soon with an assault weapon, Zumbo's career appears to be over.
His top-rated weekly TV program on the Outdoor Channel, his longtime career with Outdoor Life magazine and his corporate ties to the biggest names in gunmaking, including Remington Arms Co., have been terminated or are on the ropes.
The NRA on Thursday pointed to the collapse of Zumbo's career as an example of what can happen to anyone, including a "fellow gun owner," who challenges the right of Americans to own or hunt with assault-style firearms.
From his home near Cody, Wyo., Zumbo declined repeated telephone requests for comment. He is a 40-year NRA member and has appeared with NRA officials in 70 cities, according to his Web site.
In announcing that it was suspending its professional ties with Zumbo, the NRA -- a well-financed gun lobby that for decades has fought attempts to regulate assault weapons -- noted that the new Congress should pay careful attention to the outdoors writer's fate.
"Our folks fully understand that their rights are at stake," the NRA statement said. It warned that the "grassroots" passion that brought down Zumbo shows that millions of people would "resist with an immense singular political will any attempts to create a new ban on semi-automatic firearms."
Some outdoors writers drew a different lesson from Zumbo's horrible week.
"This shows the zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual foolishness," said Pat Wray, a freelance outdoors writer in Corvallis, Ore., and author of "A Chukar Hunter's Companion."
Wray said that what happened to Zumbo is a case study in how the NRA has trained members to attack their perceived enemies without mercy.
The most important blood trail leads to the Cross...
Phoenix
HHA Optimizer
Hawke scope
Boo strings
Boo tuned trigger
Phoenix
HHA Optimizer
Hawke scope
Boo strings
Boo tuned trigger
I know his position as the hunting editor with Outdoor Life magazine was ended because of his comments against AR type rifles being used for hunting. He posted these comments on his blog, and it didn't take long for the backlash to happen. Outdoor Life immediately went into damage control mode and canned him, even though he later rescinded his comments. Coincidently, the issue I just received has an article that explains why these guns are suitable for hunting (of course it was not written by him).
-
flbuckmaster
- Posts: 969
- Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:23 pm
- Location: CRAWFORDVILLE, FLORIDA
I SAW A SHOW ON THE OUTDOOR CHANNEL WHERE HE APPEARED WITH OF ALL PEOPLE TED NUGENT AND HE APOLIGIZED AND EVEN SHOT SEVERAL ASSUALT RIFLES. UNCLE TED WAS NOT FORGIVING AS WELL.
JAY
JAY
Invalid Session. Please resubmit the form.
Invalid Session. Please resubmit the form.
Invalid Session. Please resubmit the form.
Invalid Session. Please resubmit the form.
Invalid Session. Please resubmit the form.
-
bait pile willie
- Posts: 657
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:56 pm
- Location: london ontario.
The NRA is very outspoken of course about the second amendment and how that it is needed to defend all the other amendements and our freedoms. I concur on that. They also toot their own horn on how they are defending all Americans freedoms and that it is also every Americans duty to defend these freedoms also, hence the need for an armed and free society. I concur on that also. I find it very ironic that they were one of the first organizations to demand that Outdoor Life terminate Jim Zumbo simply because he exercised the most precious freedom Americans have, the Freedom of Speech. There were also thousands of emails and letters by once loyal readers of Jim's also looking for some blood. Sure, I know when you work for someone they can dictate a lot of "politically correct" rules and policies but Jim simply made a statement that I truly believe most hunters agree with in that AR type guns have no buisness in the deer woods. I also concur with Mr. Zumbo on that. He didn't say let's outlaw them, or that no one should be able to own one, he just said they don't belong in the deer woods. If Jim would have said "I don't think .22 caliber rifles belong in the deer woods" do you think there would have been a stink over that? Of course not. Jim has dedicated his life to the great outdoors and has done more for conservation and the shooting sports than most of us could only dream about. And for all that, after a life time of giving and giving to the sport he truly loves he was not given the courteous by his employer, the NRA and a lot of sportsmen the same rights that thousands upon thousands of people have fought and died for. Their idea of freedom of speech is "say anything you want as long as you agree with me". Subsequently, I have cancelled my subscription to Outdoor Life and cancelled my NRA membership. I just can not support that type of censorship.
BUCKEYE
A man who makes no mistakes usually doesn't make anything at all.
A man who makes no mistakes usually doesn't make anything at all.
Outdoor Life and the NRA also have freedom of speech, and they exercised it. Outdoor Life fired Zumbo because they thought keeping him would cost them money. His speech was not censored in any way, he just got fired and made some people angry. He was even allowed national media coverage to explain his position.
Most of us have or have had a job where shooting off our mouth could get us canned. Ask Dan Rather or Don Imus.
Most of us have or have had a job where shooting off our mouth could get us canned. Ask Dan Rather or Don Imus.
-
ratherbefishin
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:01 am
- Location: ISLANDER
Our Canadian government spent $ 2 billion on a long gun registration program that according to their very own statistics has not resulted in saving even one life.The only area that showed a decrease was firarms related suicide-which they tout as ''proof'' the programis working-but fail to mention suicide death by hanging went up by exactly the same amount.The sad fact is that if some poor soul is determined to take their own life-nothing will deter them
The general consenus by firearms owners is that the Canadian gun registration program was designed to make it ''look like'' the government was ''doing something''about crime-without actually doing anything.The major populations of Canada [and where the votes come from] are 3 major urban areas-Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver-where the inner city firearms related violence is.So, from that point of view-the firearms registration program was a complete success-in getting votes
The general consenus by firearms owners is that the Canadian gun registration program was designed to make it ''look like'' the government was ''doing something''about crime-without actually doing anything.The major populations of Canada [and where the votes come from] are 3 major urban areas-Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver-where the inner city firearms related violence is.So, from that point of view-the firearms registration program was a complete success-in getting votes
Yes big tiny I understand this but Rather and Imus did not work for or support organizations proclaimimg that they are fighting for our freedom. As soon as one of their members exercises one of those freedoms they call for his head. They can talk the talk but they can't walk the walk.
As for the NRA I still support their objective and their goals but at what price? Are they willing to reach their goals no matter the price? Are they willing to destroy a mans career because he made a sensible statement? Maybe all the sports writers should shut up about allowing crossbows into Archery season for fear of being terminated by their employer. We can't select whom may or may not use these freedoms and what they are allowed to say and what they are not allowed to say. It just defeats the entire purpose. I would also ask Outdoor Life before this latest issue when was the first or last time they endorsed or suggested the use of any type AR rifle for deer hunting? How many people on this forum would like to see hunters carrying them in the woods and fields?
I still side with Jim Zumbo about AR type weapons for deer hunting. It does not make me right nor does it make me wrong. Just an opinon. I also feel if someone wants to use one for deer hunting then by all means do so. I just feel there are better choices, much better choices and I do not think I should loose my job for saying so. So until outdoor Life reinstates Mr. Zumbo and the NRA appoligizes to him I will use my Freedom not to spend one red cent on these organizations.
As for the NRA I still support their objective and their goals but at what price? Are they willing to reach their goals no matter the price? Are they willing to destroy a mans career because he made a sensible statement? Maybe all the sports writers should shut up about allowing crossbows into Archery season for fear of being terminated by their employer. We can't select whom may or may not use these freedoms and what they are allowed to say and what they are not allowed to say. It just defeats the entire purpose. I would also ask Outdoor Life before this latest issue when was the first or last time they endorsed or suggested the use of any type AR rifle for deer hunting? How many people on this forum would like to see hunters carrying them in the woods and fields?
I still side with Jim Zumbo about AR type weapons for deer hunting. It does not make me right nor does it make me wrong. Just an opinon. I also feel if someone wants to use one for deer hunting then by all means do so. I just feel there are better choices, much better choices and I do not think I should loose my job for saying so. So until outdoor Life reinstates Mr. Zumbo and the NRA appoligizes to him I will use my Freedom not to spend one red cent on these organizations.
Last edited by buckeye on Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
BUCKEYE
A man who makes no mistakes usually doesn't make anything at all.
A man who makes no mistakes usually doesn't make anything at all.
I think OL should re-hire him. He went to the trouble to try out the weapons and admitted he was wrong publicly. The NRA has made up with Zumbo as well and he is one of their Great American Hunters Tour speakers. I don't see any reason not to hire him back.
BTW - I use a sporter AK chambered in .223 for deer hunting. The only shot I have taken with it put a six-point in my freezer last year. I figured if uncle sam thought the round was good enough to shoot at armed resistance, then I could use it on deer and be OK. Modern projectile design has made all ammunition more effective.
BTW - I use a sporter AK chambered in .223 for deer hunting. The only shot I have taken with it put a six-point in my freezer last year. I figured if uncle sam thought the round was good enough to shoot at armed resistance, then I could use it on deer and be OK. Modern projectile design has made all ammunition more effective.
-
ratherbefishin
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:01 am
- Location: ISLANDER
The whole thing comes down to perception and personal taste.Traditionally the line between ''hunting ''rifles and ''military'' rifles was blurred.To the uninitiated , a ''black'' rifle is somehow more dangerous or offensive than the exact same semi automatic action in a ''hunting'' rifle stock.Theoretically,a guy going around in fatigues wearing a black mask and carrying a black rifle is viewed as more intimidating than his counterpart wearing regular hunting clothes and an orange cap carrying an ordinary rifle or shotgun.
However,while it is clearly our right to dress and carry military looking weapons-how the public perceives us is another matter-and those people's votes are just as effective as ours,involking our ''rights'' could be a rather hollow victory if the tide of public opinion goes against us.There;s no point in giving the anti's more ammunition-because trust me-they are looking for any excuse to curtail us or even shut us down.
As a case in point, and to illustrate what I am saying the anti seal hunter group continue to post pictures of white coats being killed-even though that has been illegal for 20 years-but the perception is more powerful than the fact.Same thing with trapping-the anti trap people continue to post pictures of land animals caught in leg hold traps-again,hasn't been legal to use leg hold traps for land sets for many years.The Ontario hunters lost their spring bear hunt by anti hunters who used picures of orphaned cubs-inplying they were orphaned as a result of the sows being killed by hunters in the spring bear hunt-where in fact the cubs were orphaned as a result of vehicle death-not hunters at all-but they still lost their season.
The conclusion-''facts'' don't count-''perception'' does and if we ignore that we just might pay a higher price than we thought we might-loss of seasons, territory,choice of firearms,or even the opportunity to enjoy going for a hunt at all.
Just don't say it can't happen-because it already has
However,while it is clearly our right to dress and carry military looking weapons-how the public perceives us is another matter-and those people's votes are just as effective as ours,involking our ''rights'' could be a rather hollow victory if the tide of public opinion goes against us.There;s no point in giving the anti's more ammunition-because trust me-they are looking for any excuse to curtail us or even shut us down.
As a case in point, and to illustrate what I am saying the anti seal hunter group continue to post pictures of white coats being killed-even though that has been illegal for 20 years-but the perception is more powerful than the fact.Same thing with trapping-the anti trap people continue to post pictures of land animals caught in leg hold traps-again,hasn't been legal to use leg hold traps for land sets for many years.The Ontario hunters lost their spring bear hunt by anti hunters who used picures of orphaned cubs-inplying they were orphaned as a result of the sows being killed by hunters in the spring bear hunt-where in fact the cubs were orphaned as a result of vehicle death-not hunters at all-but they still lost their season.
The conclusion-''facts'' don't count-''perception'' does and if we ignore that we just might pay a higher price than we thought we might-loss of seasons, territory,choice of firearms,or even the opportunity to enjoy going for a hunt at all.
Just don't say it can't happen-because it already has
Well jh45gun if that is true I will cancel my cancelation. I truly hope that they have. Since they are spokesman for most gun owners and as they say our "Freedom Fighters" I just want them to respect everybody's individual rights so when asked I can say with pride
" I am the NRA"
" I am the NRA"
BUCKEYE
A man who makes no mistakes usually doesn't make anything at all.
A man who makes no mistakes usually doesn't make anything at all.
I have to agree with that, not that I understand why people feel that way. The 1903 Springfield and 98 Mauser was a battle rifle in two world wars, and is a popular hunting platform to this day. Most people don't realize there has been no difference in military and hunting firearms until recently. For some reason, folks are more intimidated by an AK than a BAR, even though they have a similar operating system and the BAR fires a much more powerful round.ratherbefishin wrote:The whole thing comes down to perception and personal taste.Traditionally the line between ''hunting ''rifles and ''military'' rifles was blurred.To the uninitiated , a ''black'' rifle is somehow more dangerous or offensive than the exact same semi automatic action in a ''hunting'' rifle stock.Theoretically,a guy going around in fatigues wearing a black mask and carrying a black rifle is viewed as more intimidating than his counterpart wearing regular hunting clothes and an orange cap carrying an ordinary rifle or shotgun.
The AK I use looks more like what people are accustomed to seeing in a hunting rifle, so I hope I am not frightening too many with it. I even did a camo job on it so it's not a black rifle.
I have always personally preferred traditional stocks over pistol grips. I feel like they carry and store more easily as well as being easier for me to use effectively in that configuration. I don't know how stock selection became a barometer for rifle scariness.