Hi Kelly,
Well, that was enlightening. Way to just point out the bad points Mr Noyes and completely disregard any positive insights I KNOW many Houndsman gave you during your selective interviews.
1. Dan Noyes included our comments regarding the inherently non-consumptive nature of hound hunting not once, but twice in the news story.
2. Dan Noyes included our reaction to the footage provided to him by HSUS where he indicated that is was extremely rare.
3. Dan Noyes included a portion of when we said the Pledge of Allegience as well as comments indicating that, "we are your friend, your neighbor," etc in the story; doing so humanizes hound hunters and reinforces the fact that we are just like everybody else.
4. Dan Noyes included a comment that illustrates how passionate we are about our hounds and furthers the argument that this is an integral part of our identity.
Also way to allow Senator Lieu to lie on national television about the use of GPS collars on hounds that if you did any research at all would know that its against the law with a hefty fine in California.
You got him here. I, too, think Dan Noyes should have done his homework and called this out to the viewer's attention.
Also did you actually look into WHERE this supposed "poll" was taken and the specific wording and mentioning the use of hounds on bears to determine if it was legitimately 83% of Californians statewide or 83% of Californians in a SPECIFIC area/county/region?
You could win another point, here, too. Though he did indicate the study was commissioned by HSUS, Dan Noyes could have scrutinized the survey for its fidelity.
I personally think Dan Noyes gave us a fairly decent treatment given the amount of time allotted. I've seen much worse.
I would love to see Dan focus his investigative skills and efforts in scrutinizing what makes HSUS tick and what keeps them funded; most unknowing individuals are incredibly surprised by what they find. He could garner some pretty prestigious journalism awards on this material alone.
