Gritty Bowmen-Montana Wild

[tipsntails7]

I have been a Gritty Bowmen fan since episode one, but I am honest enough to say that my excitement and interest in the podcast has waned as of late, but Brian and Aron are both exceptional guys who put out good content and their base of viewers and listeners continues to sky rocket so I always try to listen to give them some support.

I was also an ENORMOUS fan of Montana Wild.

I am really saddened that Gritty Bowmen would give these gentleman a platform to not only promote their latest film but allow them to explain away their actions, and instead of asking educated questions about the situation, allow the podcast to steer to the permit aspect and blame the antiquated process of obtaining the proper permits as the real issue.

This podcast is filled with exactly what every one of their statements and posts after the incident had, excuses and shedding of responsibility. Excuse after excuse after excuse.

Its has very little to do with the permit aspect. while I find it highly unlikely that these gentleman don't understand what monetization is that is fine. simple mistake, and move on.

But It has to do with how they "egregiously" handled the wildlife in that wilderness in order to get the video that they desired. Statements made by FWP investigators were pretty specific in that regards. mishandling of fish for 12-20 minutes, releasing a fish back into the water with the hook still in its mouth so it could be filmed and netted again. Accidents happen no doubt, but those actions only became accidents when they got caught. I don't know about you, but I don't need regulations to tell me that that type of behavior is deplorable.

Think what you want about law enforcement but ive grown up around them all my life and in my family. They don't make statements like that on a whim.

Not a single time in any interaction I have ever witnessed or heard from them, have they owned up to what they did. It is always an admission followed by flippant attitudes, excuses, finger pointing and a lack of accountability.

Brian, If I am not mistaken they plead GUILTY to 11 federal and 38 state charges. Conveniently because of this plea deal the unedited footage will never be public record as it would have become had they taken the case to court. Which you made pretty clear that taking this to court would be the only decision you and honestly any person who cared about their character would have done.

And now that they have a new film out to monetize wildlife they are making the rounds again, Journal of Mountain Hunting, Gritty Bowmen, and I am sure more outlets will follow.

It is extremely easy to look around the "industry" and see the lengths people will go to in order to get good film, or sell products, or create a show. Every time something like this happens it gives hunting a black eye. An eye that myself and thousands around the country have to fight everyday in order to keep the privileges of hunting intact.

In the words of Steven Rinella "they are shooting holes in the bottom of our boat" and we do not need it.

Travis and Zach, the next time I am in Montana LEGALLY fishing, I would have no problem approaching you in person, that way I am not a "Keyboard warrior".

I will also put my name to this as I don't want to be seen as hiding behind the internet.

I hope in the future that you will take into consideration the guests that you prop up with your ever expanding platform, and take into account what it will portray to the hunting and non-hunting community as a whole.

It is a tuff road convincing people on the fence about hunting and fishing the concept of taking the life of something we love and the feelings we have when we venture into wild places. but it becomes exponentially more difficult when faces of that community welcomes back a company that chose to use a resource that belongs to all of us for their own monetary gain.

Sincerely,

Eric Keller


Ps: Mr. Avery, or Mr. Denning, if this is something you do not want up feel free to take it down, as it has been sent to Brian, but hes not been great at responding to his contact form in the past, and im sure he is busy.

 

[Chad E]

I don't think I could possibly agree with the above post more. I continue to be disappointed in their response to the situation. Nobody is perfect and everyone makes mistakes it's how you handle it that counts to me.

 

[Brian Call - Gritty Bowmen]

Eric,

The decision to have Montana Wild on the podcast was a very deliberate and well considered choice I made. I've read your response multiple times. I appreciate the feedback and you're honest and frank opinion. But I can't help but feel as though you've already made up your mind on the Boughtons--it wouldn't matter what they said on the podcast because you've already decided on their character. Sometimes people think they're being open minded when they truly are not. I have a question I like to ask people when they have a firm opinion on a subject that I'm about to challenge. The question is this: "what could I say that would change how you think about this issue?" If the answer is, "absolutely nothing" then we have nothing to discuss because it will not matter what I say--that person's opinion is as firm as bedrock and no amount of new information or deliberation is going to change it. People like that aren't worth having a discussion with.

You heard them blow-off their accusations. You heard them blame the permit process. You heard them dodge responsibility. I heard them take responsibility (multiple times) for their actions. I heard them own their mistakes and avoid blaming law enforcement. It's like we were listening to two different podcasts; in one circumstance you've already convicted them and everything they say is seen through your lenses. Is it an excuse to explain that the regs were unclear? Is it an "excuse" to admit that the permit process sucks and is extremely unclear and frustrating (and it does suck--it sucks bad!). Is it an "excuse" to explain that absolutely no bull trout were killed? I don't see excuses, I see clear and fair explanations. The issue isn't whether they did something wrong or not--they fully admitted to wrongdoing. The issue is about whether or not the punishment fits the crime. I don't believe that the Boughtons are some sort of innocent saints. On the contrary, I believe they really screwed up. But neither do I believe, as you seem to, that Law Enforcement is made up of altruistic angels who can do no wrong. "They (Law Enforcement) don't make statements like that on a whim." Are you saying that Law Enforcement never lies and never spins a story with their own personal bias based on their personal goals and agendas? If you believe that you're wholly ignorant. Law Enforcement is no different from the rest of us humans--people are imperfect and they do imperfect things. The idea that FWP Investigators are somehow faultless by virtue of their job is utter nonsense. And I've grown up with family and best friends in Law Enforcement my whole life as well. They're not all created equal. So, no I do not believe that just because a Law Officer says something that it's automatically true.

And again, could their reason for pleading guilty actually be what they said it was? Why does the reason have to be to avoid allowing the raw footage to be made public? That's a pretty big assumption on your part. Court sucks. It made a lot of sense to me for MW to plead guilty in their situation, retain hunting privileges and move on. If the case against MW was so solid why would the state/feds offer a plea deal? And why would they let them keep their hunting privileges? The same argument that you're making against MW for taking a plea deal could be made in the opposite direction to FWP.

It seems that you're big hang up and what you believe is the real issue is that MW "egregiously" handled wildlife in order to get gain. But no fish were killed??? There were no statements that any Bull Trout were found to be killed. I'm not trying to be an A-hole here, but what the hell did they do that was so bad that it required years of investigation and dollars spent when not a single fish was killed? Can we not spend our time and money on more important game violations? I'm not downplaying the appropriate handling of wildlife--but I am putting it in perspective. If a fish escapes and you gotta reel it in again is that really "egregious?" How is this different than a guy who catches a giant fish on a tiny pole with minuscule tippet? Guys like that have to play their fish for 20+ minutes. Nobody is being investigated for 2 years for "egregious" behavior when that happens--it's called fishing.

Have you have ever been to court? Have you ever had an investigation done on you? Have you ever been on the dirty end of a bad investigation for something you didn't do? I have. The world is full of imperfect human beings--a badge and a uniform doesn't automatically make you exceptional. On the contrary, all too often power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

As for how MW is representing the hunting community? They're doing a damn fine job when you watch their films and follow their content. The non-hunters I know absolutely love MW productions. In fact, nearly everyone I know loves MW productions EXCEPT the fly fishing community (which I think is way too full of self-righteous elitists). In my world, you make mistakes and then you make good on that mistake and get better. But mistakes don't erase all the good you've ever done or all the good you will do in the future.

Rinella poached like a madman in his younger years (See his book MeatEater). He killed hundreds of critters illegally--he never got caught but he came close a few times. Should we kick Rinella off the boat? The dude poached a lot of animals? Rinella changed. He's not the same person he was. And he's probably done more for the image of hunting than most any other hunting personality. So I will not forever condemn people for mistakes--mistakes are how we learn. I'll condemn people who never learn from their mistakes. But I believe in giving people a fresh start--the benefit of the doubt. It would be a shame if we didn't have Steven Rinella today because we crucified him for poaching when he was younger.

I'm not saying that what MW did was right. I'm not saying that what they did was no big deal. I'm not saying that MW got screwed. I'm saying that I will be giving them a fresh start--I'd do that for anyone. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. They've got a fresh start with me. I'm keeping my eyes on them and I hope they do awesome things. But who knows... maybe they'll be in jail next year.

That's my two cents. Thanks for sharing yours. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree. Either way, good luck on your hunts and I wish you the best.

Brian Call

 

[1signguy]

Eric-

One could also argue that the action taken by the Montana authorities demonstrates how well hunting and fishing is policed. They screwed up, were caught, and paid a price... Current hunting rules and regulations are working and being enforced sort of thing...

One could also argue there are two sides to every story and we all know police agencies aren't immune to using over aggressive tactics and practices...

Finally, it could also be argued these guys are news and why not get their side of the story?

Fortunately one can tune out any podcasts/movie etc they don't want to support...

 

[tipsntails7]

Eric,

The decision to have Montana Wild on the podcast was a very deliberate and well considered choice I made. I've read your response multiple times. I appreciate the feedback and you're honest and frank opinion. But I can't help but feel as though you've already made up your mind on the Boughtons--it wouldn't matter what they said on the podcast because you've already decided on their character. Sometimes people think they're being open minded when they truly are not. I have a question I like to ask people when they have a firm opinion on a subject that I'm about to challenge. The question is this: "what could I say that would change how you think about this issue?" If the answer is, "absolutely nothing" then we have nothing to discuss because it will not matter what I say--that person's opinion is as firm as bedrock and no amount of new information or deliberation is going to change it. People like that aren't worth having a discussion with.


Brian Call

Brian, you yourself couldn't say anything to change my mind, Montana Wild and their conduct could have easily at any time in this entire process.

The list of people other than MW that are to blame according to them is longer than the main beams on the bull you shot this year (Congrats by the way). FWP, the regs, Drake magazine, the film commission, USNF.

I do my best to be as opened minded as possible. EVERYONE myself include has made mistakes and will make mistakes. But its how you own up to those mistakes.

Eric,

You heard them blow-off their accusations. You heard them blame the permit process. You heard them dodge responsibility. I heard them take responsibility (multiple times) for their actions. I heard them own their mistakes and avoid blaming law enforcement. It's like we were listening to two different podcasts; in one circumstance you've already convicted them and everything they say is seen through your lenses. Is it an excuse to explain that the regs were unclear? Is it an "excuse" to admit that the permit process sucks and is extremely unclear and frustrating (and it does suck--it sucks bad!). Is it an "excuse" to explain that absolutely no bull trout were killed? I don't see excuses, I see clear and fair explanations. The issue isn't whether they did something wrong or not--they fully admitted to wrongdoing. The issue is about whether or not the punishment fits the crime. I don't believe that the Boughtons are some sort of innocent saints. On the contrary, I believe they really screwed up. But neither do I believe, as you seem to, that Law Enforcement is made up of altruistic angels who can do no wrong. "They (Law Enforcement) don't make statements like that on a whim." Are you saying that Law Enforcement never lies and never spins a story with their own personal bias based on their personal goals and agendas? If you believe that you're wholly ignorant. Law Enforcement is no different from the rest of us humans--people are imperfect and they do imperfect things. The idea that FWP Investigators are somehow faultless by virtue of their job is utter nonsense. And I've grown up with family and best friends in Law Enforcement my whole life as well. They're not all created equal. So, no I do not believe that just because a Law Officer says something that it's automatically true.

Brian Call

Brian, you can tell that it is not a big deal to them, just going off their demeanor when the subject is broached. if thats not the case that is certainly the outlook they portray, Its not a funny situation to me, sorry. But it seems to be a running joke throughout the podcast that its funny because its fishing and the banks were not lined with dead trout and how the laws are old and outdated.

I am not going to go in to the fact that you nor I nor FWP nor MW have any idea how many trout died because of this incident. Alot of factors go into the mortality rate of catch and release fish, the tackle used, the water temp,
and the physiological stress put on the fish.

"the way the regs were suppose to be written and read we were wrong" again...a submission followed by a qualifier.

According to FWP, they changed the regs because of MW.

The catch card debacle, I don't know about you but when I go hunting with a buddy we don't mix all our licenses and tags together in a big pile.

There is an enormous amount of dumb rules and regulations I have to follow on a daily basis, and yet I still manage to do it.

The Nat Geo quip, "If they Don't like you enough" comment , which is nonsense. The purgatory films, the guides ability to "Film". It is not about any of that, or the fact that some guys get away with it or can do it, its about MW, and no one else, it doesn't make what they did right.

"we have our reasons to believe that someone said the right stuff to the right people who don't like us"

I am not trying to be a dick, but if that is the life you choose to live and make money doing this then you should know the rules, and follow them.

I didn't convict them, they plead guilty.

law enforcement obviously are not all saints, and I am sure throughout the country there are Leo's making up stories. Leo's could have easily said mishandling of fish. They didn't, they gave specific times and specific actions. When pushed FWP said they have the video, they were not making it up.

Could that have been a lie, sure I guess.

Eric,

And again, could their reason for pleading guilty actually be what they said it was? Why does the reason have to be to avoid allowing the raw footage to be made public? That's a pretty big assumption on your part. Court sucks. It made a lot of sense to me for MW to plead guilty in their situation, retain hunting privileges and move on. If the case against MW was so solid why would the state/feds offer a plea deal? And why would they let them keep their hunting privileges? The same argument that you're making against MW for taking a plea deal could be made in the opposite direction to FWP.
Brian Call

It absolutely could, I didn't say that is the reason, i just said it was convenient. I ask myself that same question every time I read about a game violation. I don't understand why game violations do not carry bigger penalties. If the case was so shaky why did they plead guilty to 40+ violations? Again, I don't know. But I value my good name more then doing something the easy way, especially if wrongly accused.

Eric,

It seems that you're big hang up and what you believe is the real issue is that MW "egregiously" handled wildlife in order to get gain. But no fish were killed??? There were no statements that any Bull Trout were found to be killed. I'm not trying to be an A-hole here, but what the hell did they do that was so bad that it required years of investigation and dollars spent when not a single fish was killed? Can we not spend our time and money on more important game violations? I'm not downplaying the appropriate handling of wildlife--but I am putting it in perspective. If a fish escapes and you gotta reel it in again is that really "egregious?" How is this different than a guy who catches a giant fish on a tiny pole with minuscule tippet? Guys like that have to play their fish for 20+ minutes. Nobody is being investigated for 2 years for "egregious" behavior when that happens--it's called fishing.

Brian Call

Its really my only hangup quite honestly. The permit and the tributary could easily have been a mistake. like stated earlier you nor MW or Fwp have any idea the mortality rate of those fish that were miss handled. would you like FWP to go drag the river 8-12 months after the incident to see how many dead fish are in the river? Or based off science regarding fish handling and mortality rates make an educated decision that its more likely then not that their actions had an impact?

Playing a fish in order to get that fish in and off the hook as fast as possible is in another galaxy compared to purposely handling with your hands after netting a fish in order to get better footage for a film your going to monetize. Not to mention leaving the hook in the mouth of a fish that you have already played and netted and release so again you can get more footage.

Is it cool to pester and chase wildlife on their winter range. Is it cool as long as it doesn't drop dead immediately in front of you? or did your actions play a direct role in that animals final ending?

Is it ok to walk around the woods looking for deer with a gun out of season? Is it ok to shoot at said animal, but as long as you dont hit it, or it doesn't die right there, or you cant recover the body then no harm no foul? poaching isn't as simple as the illegal take of life.

This is like the fish,turkey, deer, bear argument. because its fish it matters less? or people are offended less?

If I am not mistaken, Bull trout are on the threatened and endangered list. Id say game violations on listed species probably take priority, but I don't work for FWP so I couldn't be certain. again you keep assuming no fish died, but we don't know. what if 1 died? 10? 20? when does it become an "important" game violation?

Eric,

Have you have ever been to court? Have you ever had an investigation done on you? Have you ever been on the dirty end of a bad investigation for something you didn't do? I have. The world is full of imperfect human beings--a badge and a uniform doesn't automatically make you exceptional. On the contrary, all too often power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Brian Call

Unfortunately I have. I have, I have, and unfortunately my wallet is over 30k lighter because of it, but I have a clean record and my good name because of the path I chose.

Eric,

As for how MW is representing the hunting community? They're doing a damn fine job when you watch their films and follow their content. The non-hunters I know absolutely love MW productions. In fact, nearly everyone I know loves MW productions EXCEPT the fly fishing community (which I think is way too full of self-righteous elitists). In my world, you make mistakes and then you make good on that mistake and get better. But mistakes don't erase all the good you've ever done or all the good you will do in the future.

Brian Call

I absolutely loved their films, and they truly have a gift for film making, you will get no argument from me there.

Eric,

Rinella poached like a madman in his younger years (See his book MeatEater). He killed hundreds of critters illegally--he never got caught but he came close a few times. Should we kick Rinella off the boat? The dude poached a lot of animals? Rinella changed. He's not the same person he was. And he's probably done more for the image of hunting than most any other hunting personality. So I will not forever condemn people for mistakes--mistakes are how we learn. I'll condemn people who never learn from their mistakes. But I believe in giving people a fresh start--the benefit of the doubt. It would be a shame if we didn't have Steven Rinella today because we crucified him for poaching when he was younger.

Brian Call

Brian that is a fair statement, and I think Steve is one of the best faces for our community and his content is a favorite of mine. But I don't recall Steve making excuses for his actions. he owned it, and didn't down play the actions or put other people on the hook for his missteps, as far as I can remember.

I am not above giving people a pass or a second chance. I think Steve feels bad because he knows better now and has changed, and understands the impact actions like that can have. I think MW feels bad because they got caught and want to continue to operate in the industry.



Brian, I really appreciate the response as this is a subject that is probably easier to discuss in person over a pint.

I spent the first 20 years of my life in Portland, and have spent the rest in California. Both places are a difficult place to be a hunter, and an even more difficult place to try and convince non hunters that we stand for more then trophies on the wall or kill shot photos.

so when a face that represents hunting and that I personally have recommended to non hunters to watch to get an understanding about hunting and fishing commits game violations in the search for personal gain, it ruffles my feathers. making mistakes is one thing, choosing to make "mistakes" in search of fame or money are mistakes I don't feel hunting can continue to survive.


This all sounds preachy and like I have got the tallest horse in the land, and that is not my intent at all. If MW wants to continue to hunt and fish then more power to them, but in my eyes they should lose the ability to create and put out content that is billed as representing hunting and the hunting community.

 

[Tanya Avery]

You guys both made really good points. Can I just point out that despite the fact you guys completely disagree, you both were respectful and civil in your dialogue. Thank you for not acting like teenage girls


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[kpk]

My guess is that they decided to plead guilty, pay the fines, and move on. Hiring lawyers and trying to fight it in court wouldn't have gotten them anything other than a guilty verdict with a huge pile of lawyer fees to go along with it.

As a perfect example - I got a ticket for no seat belt a couple years ago, a couple hours away from where I live. Went past a trooper on the interstate at 70+ while he was parked. He ran me down and said I didn't have the belt on when I went by. I had it on the whole time (always do) but the belt matches my jacket perfectly. It was a he said/she said. It would've cost me more to take a day off work to drive to that county court than what the ticket cost me in the end. Easy solution for me - plead guilty and pay the ticket.

 

[MT_Wyatt]

I totally agree with Tanya, it's refreshing seeing a respectful debate!

Tips when I listened to the podcast I had the same wonder - I really hoped they would own up to the whole catching a fish, letting it go and reeling it back in thing for 20 minutes. Or outright deny it. I was pissed when I heard that, and that is still my biggest hang up with those guys.

Brian thanks for engaging, it takes time and a lot of thought to formulate a response like that. I respect that you actually have an opinion and do not shy away from controversy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Superkodiak38]

I totally agree with Tanya, it's refreshing seeing a respectful debate!

Tips when I listened to the podcast I had the same wonder - I really hoped they would own up to the whole catching a fish, letting it go and reeling it back in thing for 20 minutes. Or outright deny it. I was pissed when I heard that, and that is still my biggest hang up with those guys.

Brian thanks for engaging, it takes time and a lot of thought to formulate a response like that. I respect that you actually have an opinion and do not shy away from controversy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

x 2

 

[ChrisS]

I haven't listened to the podcast (yet), but the "filming your hunts and being a self-made insta-star" is just starting to get going. It's going to get a whole lot worse. I was fishing this last weekend and had to deal with not one, but two drones buzzing around. Current podcasters and TV stars can get ahead of the curve now and prevent a whole lot of people from making mistakes that result in damaging public perception of hunting (or outright illegal behavior). Randy Newberg isn't shy about talking about what it takes to film on public land and mentions the permit process. Which I don't think a lot of people take into consideration when pursuing their stardom.

However, I do encourage women to continue shooting their bows in yoga pants and posting pictures (Brian and Aaron can do this too, but I don't think they'd get the same number of likes).

 

[alexanderg23]

To me they are/were just new to hunting and fishing. The keeping the fish on the line longer than necessary for video is kind of wrong, but if that's the worst of their crimes, let's let them learn from it and move on.

To be honest, you shouldn't remove a trout from the water to take a picture with it, if your main concern is its health...
And to be more honest catch and release KILLS FISH, especially when its hot.

I liked the podcast, as with most of them. I definitely can't judge them, I've done way worse when I was young and dumb.

 

[Brian Call - Gritty Bowmen]

I dunno... my ass is pretty round. Snyder has a back-with-a-crack. I just might rock them yoga pants.

 

[Tanya Avery]

I dunno... my ass is pretty round. Snyder has a back-with-a-crack. I just might rock them yoga pants.

Oh dear god, please don’t!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Gerard Marcaurele]

I dunno... my ass is pretty round. Snyder has a back-with-a-crack. I just might rock them yoga pants.

While I would find a yoga pants podcast hilarious, it may be something best left to audio only...

 

[fngTony]

I felt Brian's intent was discussing game violations in general with a guest that has been through it. Not to put MW on trial of public opinion.

Social media can do good things for hunting and fishing. Unfortunately it's playing with fire and we will get burned from time to time.

Brian you should do a yoga pants episode. Like Aron I have no butt, I would really like to know what brand won't sag down.

 

[mtnrunner260]

Interesting listen for sure.
Maybe its worrying about a hangnail on a severed hand but if the fishermen did indeed play fish twice for the footage there is no way they can claim no bull trout were killed. I'm not saying they definitively killed any either but it's very possible the fish that went through that went belly up latter in the day.

 

[Ridge Ghost]

Interesting listen for sure.
Maybe its worrying about a hangnail on a severed hand but if the fishermen did indeed play fish twice for the footage there is no way they can claim no bull trout were killed. I'm not saying they definitively killed any either but it's very possible the fish that went through that went belly up latter in the day.

That's often what happens- we don't always see fish instantly go belly-up from playing them too long or from improper handling. They often will swim away slowly and seem fine, only to die some time later. They really can't make a definitive statement that no trout died simply because they didn't see it happen.

 

[1signguy]

What happened to being innocent until proven guilty? All the speculation about fish dying later is just a blivet. These guys paid their debt to society. Lets hope they learned from it. Its elk and deer season- I would rather read about that!

 

[Desk Jockey]

I listened and liked it. Points of law often hinge on intent as much as observable fact. I didn't mind the Montana wild guys airing their side of the story at all and I am not surprised that they didn't come out with a mea maxim culpa story and start flogging themselves on air. They gave their version. They said they thought what they were doing was legal. They made a mistake and they paid for it.

Like others above, I have paid fines for things I probably could have fought and won because it is the cheapest quickest way to resolve the issue.

Coming back to my original point, making a mistake and owning up to it is light years away from some other hunting media figures that have been caught intentionally violating game laws to get better footage.

I think it was a good episode and I think Brian did a good job addressing the topic.

Also, as far as Male hunting media figures in tights or yoga pants, the only one I might be interested in seeing is the "ginger ninja" ryan callaghan. That guy is dream boat.

 

[rbljack]

Thank you tanya!! Lol (in response to Brian in yoga pants shooting the bow on youtube....LOL)

oh dear god, please don’t! ��


sent from my iphone using tapatalk pro