NRA Hunting Show Canceled By NBC Sports Network

The NBC Sports Network is canceling Under Wild Skiesa hunting show hosted by NRA lobbyist Tony Makris.

The reason? An episode in which an elephant is hunted and shot sparked controversy, but NBC is mostly upset about comments Makris made comparing critics of the elephant shooting to Hitler.

Markis comments are above. Here’s the statement from NBC:

Under Wild Skies will no longer air on NBC Sports Sports Network due to the program’s close association with its host, whose recent comments comparing his critics to Hitler are outrageous and unacceptable. NBCSN will continue to air all of our other quality outdoor programming.

Meanwhile, comments from members of the Obama administration comparing House Republicans to suicide bombers get a collective yawn from the media.

Because these sort of standards for civility are only applied to the right.

avatar

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Yuna Braska

    Allow me to summarize Rob’s juvenile braindropping:
    Two wrongs make right

    • borborygmi45

      “Meanwhile, comments from members of the Obama administration comparing House Republicans to suicide bombers get a collective yawn from the media.

      Because these sort of standards for civility are only applied to the right.”

      I notice this is a favorite argument used by Conservatives. Are they wishing that they too could get a pass for saying something uncivil. The low road, the uncivil way, must be very effective for the Conservatives to ignore their so called principles…..or perhaps there really isn’t an effective way to counter uncivil, sort of like the ‘Do you still beat your wife?’ question. I am betting the principles are as bedrock as they want the electorate believe they are.

    • borborygmi45

      Notice Rob doesn’t take exception to the Hitler Comparison he is just ticked because the gentleman was criticized for it. FYI I don’t think you should compare the House Republicans to suicide bombers either……

  • Matthew Hawkins

    He should be fired for hunting elephants. Where is the sport in that?
    While elephants are not yet endangered species they are at risk due to the illegal ivory trade and poaching.
    A true outdoorsman does not shoot fish in a barrel.

    • JoeMN

      This article appeared in THE NGAMI TIMES dd 22 – 27 September 2013. It says it all:

      END OF AN ERA AS HUNTING IS BANNED

      Sixty years of trophy hunting has ended in Botswana with a massive loss of employment, income, foreign currency, and tourists.

      The hunting season officially ended on Tuesday – appropriately without
      any power in Maun, the centre of a once-thriving industry that injected
      millions of pula into already fragile economies in towns and villages.

      Now all that Botswana is left with to lure the foreign tourist is
      photographic tourism, which is already recognized by the industry as not
      being particularly lucrative given some of the areas which the
      government has set aside for such safaris.

      That
      decision has seen safari companies closing down in Maun, hunting camps
      being pulled down, potential big game hunters transferring to Tanzania
      and other countries, boreholes that supplied much needed water holes for
      elephants and other animals being closed, and villagers losing
      employment and food. It is believed that up to 3 000 employees –
      professional hunters, managers, general staff, vehicle drivers, trackers
      etc – along with as many as 10 000 family and extended family members
      will be affected by the closure. Many villages rely on concession fees
      paid to them by hunting companies.

      The
      article adds: “What makes this situation so ridiculous is the reason
      behind that draconian government decision.” He then quotes from Ministry
      of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism press release that the decision
      “to impose this moratorium on hunting was made in the context of a
      growing concern about a sharp decline in the populations of most of the
      wildlife species that have been subjected to licence hunting.”

      Robertson says “in a nutshell, hunting is being blamed as the root cause
      of the dramatic decline in numbers of both predators and antelope
      species that occur naturally in northern Botswana and the Okavango
      delta. This is, of course, a load of cow poop.”

      He says the
      truth of the matter is that Botswana has too many elephants “and it is
      their influence on the environment that is impacting all the other
      species.” He writes that a draft elephant management policy was drawn up
      in 1991 (but) “ in typical lackadaisical and inefficient fashion, the
      policy was never adopted or implemented even though it made a
      recommendation that management of elephant numbers was necessary because
      of their impact on habitat.”

      As a result, the elephant population in Botswana jumped from 80 000 to the latest figure of 210 000.

  • WOOF

    Animal slaughter is not feel good TV.
    Save Babar !!!

  • Roy_Bean

    The ironic thing is that nbc news and the democrat party are using the same tactics that Hitler did to get control of Germany in the 1930s. Notice that I said tactics, I didn’t compare their beliefs.

    • Yuna Braska

      Godwin X2
      Here’s your sign!

  • sbark

    but on the other hand NBC is giving ObamaCare free advertising…….they are calling a White House feed to encourage and explain signup a “news item” and givng them free air time.

    • LenYol

      Televised lying.

    • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

      OH MY GOD!
      It’s like they are encouraging people to follow the law.

      How dare they!

      • sbark

        Oh you mean like acting like a King and illegally delaying the employer mandate and illegally granting waivers to cronies and political favorites………..you mean like those examples of following the law …….
        The Rule of Law means nothing to the Left…..

  • Yuna Braska

    It’s a good thing Hitler is only two syllables…. as that about maxes out your typical right winger….If not Hitler, whatever would they use for their unoriginal association fallacy bigotry

    • jl

      Professor Yuna- Right… like Liberals never used the Hitler moniker during the Bush years. I know hypocrisy is not a big Lib concern, but please try and keep up.

      • Yuna Braska

        Right after you unoriginal bigots whining your absurdly asinine Hitler/Nazi association fallacy….I think crying about hypocrisy is your second most absurd and unoriginal cry baby act
        You blithering quarter wits are like so many pull string dolls, repeating the same half dozen whines and cries randomly

  • MrSkeptic

    What is animal racism? Why do these right wing idiots always use Hitler as a metaphor? I bet this idiot didn’t think there would be any negative consequences to shooting an elephant in the face. This just goes to show how self-centered and socially unaware these NRA types are. They are totally clueless. Hopefully this guys life will be destroyed over this. He deserves it.

    • Thresherman

      You know, I get so tired of people who are totally ignorant of what they are talking about , smugly hoping that people’s lives get destroyed because they think is right simply because they think it.
      Well, to those of us who actually have a passing knowledge of what is going on regarding this matter, think that perhaps you are deserving of the penalty that you would blindly impose on a man who is working to IMPROVE the plight of African Elephants.

      You see, when you live in a country that is home to these creatures, you don’t have the ability to have a Barack Obama or a Harry Reid to run up trillions of dollars in debt. As such you have actually engage in practices that garner revenue in order to get what you want done paid for. Following the decolonization of Africa many former colonies, now nations, fell into anarchy and as a result, wildlife preservation became nonexistent. This resulted in widespread poaching of wildlife and especially elephants for their ivory.

      Then about 15 to 20 years ago, a few nations began to practice modern game management techniques, one of which was the controlled hunting of elephants. This turned elephants into a resource that could be profited from. Now liberals think profits are evil, but in this case they led to acquisition of more habitat and more wardens to eliminate poaching. A lot of this was funded by fees and other associated expenses paid for by elephant hunters.

      This led in turn to larger and healthier elephant populations in the countries that employed these practices. Yet certain kcufheads want to wish people, who promote these activities that are resurrecting African Elephant herds, have their lives destroyed.

      As such, we once again have yet another example of liberals, through stupidity and ignorance, seeking to destroy those who are doing the very things that they sit on their fat asses and dream about. If anyone needs their life destroyed, it is them.

      • JoeMN

        The truly remarkable thing here is that the local population now has a vested interest in conservation.

        Their livelihood depends on a healthy elephant herd.

        The poaching of elephants for their ivory on the other hand, was another classic case of the tragedy of the commons.

        http://www.iwmc.org/elephant/981127.htm
        Hunting of elephants by
        tourists is cost effective, profitable and easily monitored. The
        foreign hunter pays for all participation in the hunt, including government
        fees, and for taking the natural resource. A government representative is
        usually present. Animals are taken under a quota. The stakeholders in
        such an arrangement include the hunter, the professional hunter (guide),
        the regulatory agency (National Parks or Wildlife) and the people who live
        with the elephants (the community).

        Imaginative approaches are
        being implemented in the different hunting countries such as Zimbabwe’s
        CAMPFIRE communities collecting data and setting their own harvest quotas.
        In South Africa, many ranches have their own herds of elephants.
        Other countries such as Cameroon, Botswana and Tanzania are implementing
        programs where hunting benefits communities. Tying in the management to
        those who benefit provides an appropriate monitoring loop in
        management.

        Though elephant hunting has been banned for a 30-year period in Kenya, poaching has not reduced.

        Next time you see a hunter libs, thank him for saving the elephants.

        • Thresherman

          “Next time you see a hunter libs, thank him for saving the elephants”

          Like that will happen. Asking them to consider two seemingly opposing idea in their heads at the same time would cause their heads to explode just like playing Slim Whitman caused the Martians heads to explode in “Mars Attacks!”

      • Yuna Braska

        Let me see If I’ve got this straight ad hominem stupidity of yours straight:
        Mr. Skeptic is ignorant, Obama is to Blame for Bush’s debt, someone imaginary opponent is clueless about Africa’s colonial history, hunting elephants wasn’t profitable before game management, and liberals are ignorant… you somehow conclude ALL this…
        because Mr. Skeptic mocks the tired and moronic Hitler/Nazi comparisons made daily by you brainwashed quarter wits?

        • Thresherman

          This is actually quite funny. How you make the leap from game management practices to Obama vs Bush over debt takes a special kind of stupid. It is the kind of stupid that prevents one from viewing issues dispassionately and allows him/her to indulge in emotional vitriol.

          Here is another example of those who think they are “Right” simply because they think they hold the correct emotions. “Don’t challenge me or I will call you such a name!” is their usual method of debate.

          • Yuna Braska

            I agree…. it is really a stupid leap to invoke the debt, and every other red herring you moronically dragged into this conversation with your blistering rant above
            So when your done with your delusional ad hominem narrative about liberals thinking they’re correct based on emotions….
            LOL
            See if you can support your emotional outburst with some facts, you big cry baby

          • Thresherman

            Game management works. There, now go ahead and call some more names. Unemotionally, of course.

      • MrSkeptic

        Yes, shooting elephants in the face is the BEST way to improve the plight of elephants. What kind of sick world do you live in?

        I have a solution. Why not let hunters hunt poachers. Hunters can shoot poachers in the face for a fee and all of the money that is generated can go to improve the lives of elephants. If a few hunters get killed in the process, oh well. At least they died for a good cause.

        The fact that a guy gets off on shooting an elephant in the face says something about that guy. He is sick. You know he is sick when he opens a bottle of champagne in celebration. He has no empathy for the elephant. He is only thinking of himself and his abnormal desires. All of the money spent on shooting an elephant in the face could have been donated to the elephants. This is what charitable and noble people do…they help without hurting those they help. This is morally superior to your ghoulish game management.

        • JoeMN

          What kind of sick world do you live in?

          _______

          Certainly not the Disney movie you appear to.

          http://www.africanhuntinggazette.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=183&Itemid=25
          In addition to improving living standards by providing employment,
          building schools, funding clinics and distributing meat, safari
          companies also make an important contribution to research about wildlife
          and habitat.

          Virtually aLL the hunting companies use their own funds to
          train, employ, house, feed and equip dozens of anti-poaching game
          scouts to monitor illegal hunting and fishing, and to confiscate
          illegal firearms and gin traps. Many companies purchase or reward the
          turning in of such material. The increase in Mozambique’s wildlife
          populations as a result of reducing poaching is astounding. We can all
          be genuinely proud of the safari industry’s very real contribution to
          the people and animals of Mozambique.

        • Thresherman

          This is about what I expected for a response. When an uniformed opinion is countered by an informed one, only rarely will the holder of the uniformed one recognize this. Usually it is SHUT UP! they explain.

          Such people are extremely proud about being “Right” even though they cannot put forth proof or facts to show that they are such, instead they are “Right” because they hold the correct emotions. Game management is a science with a proven track record. All one has to do is look and see what various DNRs or Fish and Game departments have done in this country to preserve and increase habitat and maintain large and healthy populations. But that matters not to the MrSkeptics of the world. All you have to do is look at his choice of words. Rather than acknowledge that shooting an elephant in the head is both the safest and the most humane way to dispatch such an animal, he goes on about how the hunter shoots it in that “face” just to imply that the hunter is a some sort of a subhuman who rejoices in the savagery of the act for its own sake. There is not a single supportable fact in that, but it is chock full of vitriol and emotional hysteria and as such presents no argument that a thinking person is bound to respect.

          One will never convince such unreasonable people with facts and evidence, for anything that conflicts with their emotionally held beliefs will be rejected. To do otherwise would mean that they would have question the basis of their beliefs and such a thought elicits an even more hotly emotional denial. They simply do not have the intellectual honesty to do that.

          • Thresherman

            Oh, and how much money have you donated to habitat and poaching prevention for elephants being that it is morally superior? I’m curious because most liberals who claim moral superiority generally do so by confiscating other peoples money to further their so-called altruistic aims.

          • MrSkeptic

            I see you changed the subject. That must mean I steamrolled you in debate. In addition to the lesson I gave you in morality, here is a lesson in logic. What I do with my money doesn’t change the conclusion that non-harmful means with good outcomes are morally superior to harmful means with good outcomes. The truth stands on its own. Look carefully at this syllogism:

            Premise 1: Non-harmful means with good outcomes are morally superior to harmful means with good outcomes.

            Premise 2: MrSkeptic donates a lot of money, some money, very little money, or no money to elephant welfare (take your pick).

            Conclusion: Therefore, Non-harmful means with good outcomes are morally equal to or superior to harmful means with good outcomes.

            This is a non-sequitur. Premise 2 is unrelated to Premise 1 and both premise 2 and 1 are unrelated to the conclusion.

            You have a problem. Your problem is you know that non-harmful means with good outcomes are morally superior to harmful means with good outcomes. To say otherwise is to sanction every deplorable act in the name of a good outcome. For example, you would have to say that chopping up 20 year old Billy for body parts and giving them to those who need them is equal to superior to using science to create body parts from technology and materials that harm no one. Only ghouls believe the ends justify the means. Are you a ghoul?

          • JoeMN

            MrSkeptic

            Your premise of non harmful means with good outcomes is faulty.

            Elephant populations must be kept in check as well.

            Otherwise they decimate the food source of other animals in their environment, and destroy crops, causing them to be killed by farmers.
            Not to mention disease.
            Thus the need to manage elephant populations.

            _______

            For example, you would have to say that chopping up 20 year old Billy
            for body parts and giving them to those who need them is equal to
            superior to using science to create body parts from technology and
            materials that harm no one

            >>>>>>

            The flaw in your logic is rather apparent here.

            Ask yourself, why would a ghoul bother helping those who need body parts in the first place ?

            I see your problem quite clearly , Mr Skeptic
            You are trying desperately to replace reason with emotion.
            This may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but it will not result in a positive outcome for the elephant.

          • MrSkeptic

            Hey idiot. This isn’t a discussion about the effectiveness of game management. It is a discussion about values and whether the end justifies the means. In other words, it is a moral discussion. With all your intellectual boasting you think you would catch on to that. Basically, you are arguing that paying a fee to shoot an elephant in the face and drinking champagne afterward is superior to simply donating money to protect elephants from poachers. Harm elephants is considered morally superior to non-harm. Your morality is depraved. The end doesn’t always justify the means and there are less harmful means available. It is just a matter of. choosing it. Are you telling me that hunters have no free will and are compelled to shoot elephants in the face and drink champagne? And you wonder why I think people like the guy in question are subhuman. This guy deserves to be alienated and have his career ruined. He didn’t realize people value elephants more than his sick lust for the kill.

          • Thresherman

            This gets better and better. You now admit that people that support policies that you don’t like you view as subhuman. Never mind that their policies produce positive results where yours have not. I guess, by using your emotional revulsion based thinking, I could say that you are subhuman because you would rather see the indiscriminate slaughter of herds of elephants by poachers rather than allow a single one to be taken legally. But I wouldn’t do that because I don’t have this need to feel superior to others as some clearly do. If I call someone stupid it is because their thinking is demonstrably stupid. So if someone rejects the selective culling of a few certain elephants, which has the effect of drastically curtailing poaching, improves the herd and improves habitat and while that rejection results in widespread poaching where bulls and cows are slaughtered and orphaned calves are then left to starve all in the name of that person’s desire to feel morally superior, then that is stupid, stupid and inhumane.

            When there is another active, viable option, I may reconsider. But as long as best you can do is some off the cuff idea of charitable donations that currently have no effect while smugly claiming a moral superiority, and that reality of orphaned starving calves remains, I consider your position stupid, inhumane and quite frankly repulsive.

  • Yuna Braska

    Well… If we’re going to use such a broad and tenuous version of the word for the purposes of red herring indictments.
    Rob’s such a hypocrite.
    He just quoted Thomas Sowell the other day, a man who can barely make it a week without comparing liberals to Hitler/Nazzis.

    Don’t get me wrong…. I like the daily conspiracies, whines about liberals being hypocrites, … makes you all very predictable…. and makes for an easy drinking game. If Rob couldn’t just vapidly whine hypocrisy, or scream conspiracy…..He might have to rub those two bigoted working brain cells together to do something worthy of print… like make a point about policy/issues with factual premises

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com Goon

    Oh my God, these liberals are out of control. What next, the NHL and NFL will be no contact?

Top