I have not labeled anyone as such. Whatwas said was said tongue in cheek, with a great deal of sarcasm. My exaggertaed response was to say that there 's more diplomacy needed as opposed to knee jerk emotional responses, and that is all. It was , maybe, better off left unsaid, since keyboards don't pick up on such aspects of communicating such as sarcasm. I apologize that you or anyone else took this as personally directed at you or anyone else. I am trying to stress the need for cool heads, and not to inflame the situation with angry responses, that won't accomplish anything other than push someone that has a great deal of determination into a higher mode of resilience--that's all. He professes to be doing this out of a 'pure' motive of wanting to promote hunting, which he feels is in decline(and there he is correct). If that is so, then when and if he sees that how much he has caused a great deal of consternation and resentment among his fellow hunters, my tactic is to turn this on him as to how that he is actually doing more harm than good, and that if he indeed cares about the hunting tradition, than he should be willing to reexamine, not only his format, but his total approach. If he is unwilling, then he is exposed for his disengenuous motives, or he has a change of heart. More difficult--yes! Impossible--no! Then , and only then will it be time to pull the plug via advertisers, as I have said several times. To get in his face won't work, and doing nothing won't work, and there's no guarantee that my approach will work--but, it beats the other 2 alternatives.