I still respect the man or woman who has to hunt to feed their families more than someone who doesn't, I think that they respect their "doe" kills more. They're more families in the south that hunt to feed their families than obviously you think Craig.
Are they doing it with handguns?
It's interesting the ways people invent to make themselves feel superior to their fellow man.
Just remember while you're looking down your nose at guided hunts and making ignorant generalizations about "rich guys", Elmer Keith made his living as a hunting guide and I'm quite certain that Taffin has been on more than one guided hunt. I'm sure neither would agree with your condemnations.
The idea that the so-called "rich guy" (what does that even mean?) is somehow less of a hunter is absurd. Some of the most hardcore hunters the world has known have been wealthy. Many of them have written well-known tomes of their adventures. Do you really think that the man who works his fingers to the bone to go to medical school to become a doctor, law school to become an attorney or builds his a successful business from nothing is somehow less of a hunter or a man because he has money to spend on his hunting passion? Or that the man with nothing who hunts deer to feed his family is somehow morally superior? Do you not see how divisive these comments are? Sorry but this tells a lot about the person making these judgments and generalizations and none of it is good. Yeah, there are both righteous and undesirable hunters at every socio-economic level. There are "rich guys" who hunt strictly to feed their ego and there are poor folks who poach all year because they don't care about the law. Do we judge all by the few? Or individuals as individuals? It's more prudent to leave the judgments out of it altogether, absent of overwhelming evidence.
