BigGameHoundsmen.com

Apparently the Natural Resources committee has been getting a lot of phone calls. I talked to Patty today, and will be faxing my letter in the morning. I will also Fed Ex the original to them to be certain it gets there in time for next Tuesday.

When I said I wanted to send in a letter, she said "I am assuming this is for 1221?"

Keep the calls/letters coming in. It might just work.

RIFLEMAN wrote:Hi Liz,

Has anyone seen the reporters stuff from the dinner...VERY curious to find out how that ends up.

No, nothing yet. I am betting that the reporter will wait as close as possible to the hearing on the 24th so as to make the situation all the more dramatic and influence the outcome all the more.

-Josh
CHC President
http://www.californiahoundsmen.com

All you have to do is call, Josh. The story with the footage of the Houndsmen meeting will air Monday, April 23rd -- the day before the hearing. We'll also cover the hearing. "To make the situation all the more dramatic and influence the outcome"? Nah, just reporting both sides as fairly as I can.

Thanks,
Dan Noyes
ABC 7 News
San Francisco

All you have to do is call, Josh. The story with the footage of the Houndsmen meeting will air Monday, April 23rd -- the day before the hearing. We'll also cover the hearing. "To make the situation all the more dramatic and influence the outcome"? Nah, just reporting both sides as fairly as I can.

Thanks,
Dan Noyes
ABC 7 News
San Francisco

I hope you do what you said "reporting both sides as fairly as I can" if you do it will be the first time that anybody has when it come to our way of life, we are always portrayed as the blood thirsty houndsmen just look at the how the HSUS has tried to sell the propaganda for years on how inhumane we are in every aspect of what we do.

Dale Tobiassen
North Central California Houndsmen

Mr. Noyes,

I hope you are a man of your word. I got some questions for you. Why are you waiting until just before the hearing to air your footage? You are no stranger to interviewing and reporting stories on hunters that use hounds, whats your stance on SB(1221)? Do you support or oppose the use of hunting with hounds in California?

CRA wrote: Do you support or oppose the use of hunting with hounds in California?

And let us know what info you base your answer on.

Dale Tobiassen

Mr. Noyes here is reason to support us. My daughter and her pups that are going to be future bear hunters by God. Dont break her heart please.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

CRA wrote:Mr. Noyes,

I hope you are a man of your word. I got some questions for you. Why are you waiting until just before the hearing to air your footage? You are no stranger to interviewing and reporting stories on hunters that use hounds, whats your stance on SB(1221)? Do you support or oppose the use of hunting with hounds in California?

We do it all the time -- outline an issue the day before a hearing, then cover the hearing itself. That gives our viewers more depth on the topic than if we just covered the hearing the day it happened.

My role is to show both sides of the issue; my personal opinion doesn't really matter. I've been at this long enough that I can understand both sides, and present the primary points they want to make.

Dan Noyes wrote:

CRA wrote:Mr. Noyes,

I hope you are a man of your word. I got some questions for you. Why are you waiting until just before the hearing to air your footage? You are no stranger to interviewing and reporting stories on hunters that use hounds, whats your stance on SB(1221)? Do you support or oppose the use of hunting with hounds in California?

We do it all the time -- outline an issue the day before a hearing, then cover the hearing itself. That gives our viewers more depth on the topic than if we just covered the hearing the day it happened.

My role is to show both sides of the issue; my personal opinion doesn't really matter. I've been at this long enough that I can understand both sides, and present the primary points they want to make.

Mr. Noyes, When you use the terms like, " present the primary points they want to make". Whats that mean? They being who? Its a simple question you either support or oppose SB (1221). Your personal opinion absolutely matters when you have the power of the bay area news media at your fingertips.

Just play fair and do your reporting without a personal bias towards hound hunters is all that the hound hunters of California ask of you. You were allowed access to our annual CHC dinner and treated fair please return the favor.

A FAIR non bias view is all we ask for, you talk a good story now just back it up.

Dan Noyes wrote:My role is to show both sides of the issue; my personal opinion doesn't really matter. I've been at this long enough that I can understand both sides, and present the primary points they want to make.

I'm hoping for the same, a fair non-biased article, it's unfortunate that it usually seems when it comes to the media a fair non-biased article is about as easy to find as chicken teeth.
I'm hoping he will surprise us with a decent report...I'll keep the faith until I read it for myself, then I'll pass my judgment (hmmmm...not passing judgment, hell, if everyone would do that then there would be no SB1221 would there?).
But Dan that article that started the whole AB2110 debacle was certainly not what I would call un-biased, not in a million years

Hi Dan,

Welcome to the site.

All you have to do is call, Josh.

No worries. I figured it would air when it aired.

The story with the footage of the Houndsmen meeting will air Monday, April 23rd -- the day before the hearing.

But I called it right, did I not. ;>) At any rate, thank you for letting us know. What time can we look forward to it? I would presume at some point during the 5-7 pm and perhaps again during the 9-11pm slots?

We'll also cover the hearing.

Great to hear. We thank you for your continued interest. As you can tell by the comments that were provided, we appreciate the need for and role of objective reporting. As you stated, I, too believe that your personal opinion does not matter. Ultimately, journalistic integrity is the only thing that does.

-Josh

Dr Dan Noyes,
I don't see how you would have two sides to a issue if one side never participated in, or observed the sport of hound hunting. That to me is like not ever watching a football game, let alone participating in one and then saying that it should be outlawed because it's to violent . The two sides, the good and bad should come from people that have participated in the sport. The other people are just speculating on there side which is never good. I just say that people want to give the bears side of the issue that will never happen, bears don't have the emotional ability to give there opinion. If we had commonsense in the main stream news, it wouldn't stir people up. They are there to make controversy and make things look worse than they are, to stir emotions which isn't good for us. As you can see its hard to score when you are always playing defense which hunters in general have been doing for some years now. Tides are changing, hope all hounds man show up in Sac. on april 24th to witness the change.

RIFLEMAN wrote:Hi Dan,

Welcome to the site.

All you have to do is call, Josh.

No worries. I figured it would air when it aired.

The story with the footage of the Houndsmen meeting will air Monday, April 23rd -- the day before the hearing.

But I called it right, did I not. ;>) At any rate, thank you for letting us know. What time can we look forward to it? I would presume at some point during the 5-7 pm and perhaps again during the 9-11pm slots?

We'll also cover the hearing.

Great to hear. We thank you for your continued interest. As you can tell by the comments that were provided, we appreciate the need for and role of objective reporting. As you stated, I, too believe that your personal opinion does not matter. Ultimately, journalistic integrity is the only thing that does.

-Josh

Thanks, Josh. See you there Tuesday. Monday will air at 6pm, and probably a second time at 9.
Dan

CRA wrote:

Dan Noyes wrote:

CRA wrote:Mr. Noyes,

I hope you are a man of your word. I got some questions for you. Why are you waiting until just before the hearing to air your footage? You are no stranger to interviewing and reporting stories on hunters that use hounds, whats your stance on SB(1221)? Do you support or oppose the use of hunting with hounds in California?

We do it all the time -- outline an issue the day before a hearing, then cover the hearing itself. That gives our viewers more depth on the topic than if we just covered the hearing the day it happened.

My role is to show both sides of the issue; my personal opinion doesn't really matter. I've been at this long enough that I can understand both sides, and present the primary points they want to make.

Mr. Noyes, When you use the terms like, " present the primary points they want to make". Whats that mean? They being who? Its a simple question you either support or oppose SB (1221). Your personal opinion absolutely matters when you have the power of the bay area news media at your fingertips.

Just play fair and do your reporting without a personal bias towards hound hunters is all that the hound hunters of California ask of you. You were allowed access to our annual CHC dinner and treated fair please return the favor.

"They" means both sides, the hunters and the ones who want to ban hound hunting.

Liz ODell wrote:I'm hoping for the same, a fair non-biased article, it's unfortunate that it usually seems when it comes to the media a fair non-biased article is about as easy to find as chicken teeth.
I'm hoping he will surprise us with a decent report...I'll keep the faith until I read it for myself, then I'll pass my judgment (hmmmm...not passing judgment, hell, if everyone would do that then there would be no SB1221 would there?).
But Dan that article that started the whole AB2110 debacle was certainly not what I would call un-biased, not in a million years

I reported what I saw first hand.