Holly, I'm glad your a hunter, and thank you for making good, sound arguments for hunters on your site. Having said that, you obviously are not a parent of a 12 year old girl. I am, and trust me, she sees worse walking down the hallway at her school than in the "booth babes" pics. Sex is everywhere, on tv, movies, magazines, newspapers, billboards, you name it. The best thing an ACTUAL parent of a 12 year old girl can do is be proactive. She's already had the "talk", unfortunately because so many of her friends were "talking" about it. We teach our kids about "good values" and "self respect", so they aren't "taught" what they should look like or dress like by pictures on a hunting and fishing web site. If you had a 12 year old daughter, I think you'd realize that they're ALOT more privy to matters of the flesh than you were at 12. If a 12 year old is "damaged" by the images and comments on this site, it is a direct result of piss-poor parenting, not F&S's recklessness and insensitivity. I think that being a hunter in California, you'd have enough to argue about besides F&S's corruption of your 'rose tinted glasses' view of a 12 yr. old's innocence. Lighten up, sex sells, whether it's woman's magazines, cars, guns, chewing gum,web sites or boner pills. Heck, a 12 year old knows that!

No serious person can argue with what she has to say - the only real question is whether or not Field & Stream will have another Booth Babes feature next year - that's a question the Editors should answer.

My guess is, that by giving this letter a prominent position on the web page they are trying to have it both ways - temporarily placate the viewers who dislike the feature by publishing this letter now and then running the Booth Babes feature again next year.

Ms. Heyser, respectfully, you are wrong, ma'am. We men (pigs?) who appreciate the beauty of the Booth Babes are not necessarily knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers who make crude remarks at every attractive woman we see. If you are married or have a significant other in your life then please know that physical attraction played a large role in your meeting. Certainly other things came into play, such as sense of humor, intelligence, et cetera but at the end of the day there was a feeling of physical attraction.

I hunt and fish and shoot with my 12YO daughter; she is my favorite outdoors partner by far. I have taught her to shoot, hunt, fish, tie flies, and even how to tie the dreaded wind knot. BTW, she really enjoys the wind knot, saying "Cool, Daddy, do that one again!" For some reason I think she likes the scowl on my face as I address the aforementioned wind knot.

The other woman in my life looks nothing like a Booth Babe, yet I love her no less. She goes into the back woods with me, shares the experiences, and never looks back with anything but fondness on our time there. She is a strong wonderful and beautiful woman who feels no threat from a woman in a magazine, this one or any other. Neither she nor my daughter feels any threat from a Booth Babe. If you want to level the playing field, then add some "beef cake" to the SHOT show and be quiet. I would look upon such young men and say "Dang, I wish I looked like that now. Dang, I wish I looked like that 20 years ago!"

Ultimately, Ms. Heyser, thank you for your input. It has given me things to think about, and I realize that I have nothing to fear for myself or for my daughter from the appearance of Booth Babes in F&S. We are both stronger than that. I will look for other places for guiding my beautiful daughter through life than someone who teaches a traditionally liberal profession (journalism) in a very liberal state (California).

After reading all these comments for the past few days, I'm thinking it's finally time to weigh in here about some of the things folks have said about what I wrote:

1. To those of you who just disagreed with me on principle, God bless you for having something intelligent to say, even though I disagree with it.

2. To those of you who resorted to suggesting that I'm ugly and/or a lesbian, all I can say is this: Wow. I haven't heard anything that facile since junior high school playground shoutfests.

3. To those of you who were offended by the language on my blog - mostly slang terms for the body parts that were on display in the photo gallery: fair enough. If you prefer the clinical terms for all of our body parts, that's fair. And if you don't like crude metaphors, that's also fine. To all those people who loathe profanity of any kind - even soft profanity - I'm sorry I offended you. It's a fair hit to criticize me for that.

But, if you think that my use of the word "boobs" is the same as Field & Stream posting the booth babes photo gallery, you've completely missed the point. See item 5 below for the point.

4. To those who think I was attacking individual booth babes, or the marketing principle behind them, or their presence at SHOT, I must reiterate that my quarrel was with Field & Stream. Like I said, I understand marketing. But I also know the difference between a private space and a public magazine website.

5. The point of my argument? I fear I lost some of it in my effort to meet Mr. Licata's requested word count and to focus on what had most caught his attention: the metaphor of girls being in the room. I now realize I erred in sacrificing an essential point, though I'm not sure it would've made a bit of difference in the funfest here.

The point is that when you shove images like these in girls' faces, it affects them deeply. Some become anorexics and subject themselves to mutilation at the hands of surgeons so they can have the "right" measurements. Most just spend the rest of their lives thinking they're not good enough. These images matter a LOT.

Of course, Field & Stream is not responsible for this phenomenon - of that I am well aware. Fashion magazines and Hollywood bear the brunt of the blame in my book. But my wish here is simple: It would be really nice if a hunting magazine - particularly one of the most respected in the country - would be a place where girls could see themselves simply as fellow hunters, not as sex objects who are defective if they don't have deformed measurements or don't dress provocatively.

6. Why don't I pick on Sports Illustrated for its swimsuit issue? Simple: I write about hunting. SI is not a hunting magazine. F&S is. I don't like the SI swimsuit issue either, but I'm not a subscriber, and - as some of you have admonished me to do - I pick my battles. I do subscribe to F&S, so that's a battle I chose. (And speaking of things I don't like, I'm not fond of all the erectile dysfunction ads either because I think it's offensive and unfair to men that the pharmaceutical industry has decided they should remain as sexually active as 20-year-olds until the day they die. Go ahead and call me PC for that too.)

7. For those of you who actually want to think about this subject, I suggest you read some of the comments on my original post - the one that got Mr. Licata's attention. (Here's the link: http://norcalcazadora.blogspot.com/2010/01/ahem-there-are-girls-in-room....). There you will see the sincere responses of many women who didn't think I was on crack or from Mars to make the points I made. At least one divulged that she had been anorexic and confirmed that features like the booth babe gallery ARE part of the problem.

If you don't feel like going to my blog, it's worth pointing out that Jacee and Terri Lee are two women who have really hit some of the key points in comments here (and my apologies for leaving out others who have done so as well - not that being mentioned by name would do you any favors here). But if you just want to have a flame war, please don't bother coming to my blog - while I welcome disagreement there, I do NOT tolerate abuse of fellow commenters.

8. Finally, to all those here who had the guts to listen to what I was saying with an open mind and actually defend me, I thank you, and many, many other women hunters thank you for taking a minute to consider how we might actually feel about some of this. I know it didn't earn you any friends here. And trust me, I know it's hard to willingly subject yourselves to the brutal ridicule of your peers. OK, some people think it's fun, but I don't.

I hit "Post comment" now with a heavy heart, because I know this comment will fall like fresh meat on piranhas. Oh well. Have fun.

Come on, guys, be honest. Read the comments under the booth babes gallery and honestly tell me you'd want your 12-year-old daughter who is trying to learn how to hunt to read those. I think the writer here makes some dang fine points.

And to you a-holes who made snickering comments about seeing the writers photo and "rest my case," you are the kind of ignorant fools that scare women out of these sports. And if you're going to go there, why don't you show us all your photo? I'm sure you guys are great looking and built like pro atheletes, right? Please....

This is Anthony Licata, the editor-in-chief of Field & Stream. We started booth babes a few years ago just to let readers in on laugh that we all have at SHOT show. Over the years it's become pretty popular. No surprise there since 95% of our readers are men.

But a good editor has responsibilities beyond giving readers what they want. Here at F&S, we've got to consider how we can promote and grow the great sports of hunting and fishing. I'm not saying Booth Babes is preventing us from bringing new people into the sport, but I will say that we've got to welcome more women into these traditions if we want them to thrive. I'll also say that I've been in hunting camps where women just another member of the gang, and I've been in ones were women sportsmen were patronized and made to feel uncomfortable. I know where I'd rather hang out.

That's why I asked Holly Heyser to write a version of that smart take I saw on her blog. I'm glad she's got people talking. We love discussion on this site.

But I would like to remind everyone that no matter who you disagree with, let's try to keep the conversation civil. First of all, Holly is a guest here, and being rude to your guests is just poor form and makes us all look bad. Second, smart discussion is always better than personal insults. And I know this whole discussion started on looks but do we really want to go there? Speaking on behalf of F&S editors and bloggers, we're one rough looking bunch, and I certainly wouldn't want anyone judging our team on that!
Anthony

Holly,

I opened the F&S email titled Annual Booth Babe Roundup and looked at the pictures. After I viewed those I looked at the Best New Shotguns pictures. Neither one struck me as unusual or a big deal and still doesn't because isn't. I am the father of two daughters that are now married with one expecting a baby girl this spring. My first granddaughter will be raised by a mom and a dad and visited often by her grandparents. If F&S still has the Annual BBR in 12 years and she looks at it I'm confident no tramatic influence will occur because she will have been raised in an environment that is in balance. At least that is my hope and will do all I can to help that happen, including as many trips to the woods and water as she interested in going on. I will leave it to others to feed your piranhas. Great metaphor by the way, egos really love fresh meat and yours will soon be satiated but as you well know, never satisfied.

Are you guys serious? She says upfront that she is not offended by the photos. She is not blasting Field and Stream for being part of some kind of wicked moral decay in popular culture. She is not crusading for a perfectly PC world. She is not blaming Field and Stream for exposing kids to these images.

The point she is making is quite simple. Would you want your 8-12 year old daughter sitting there and listening while you and your friends enthusiastically voice your appreciation for the fine figure of a scantily clad stripper?* That is, in effect, the way one would classify what is going on here.

*(I've got nothing against strippers, but don't fool yourself into thinking these are wholesome girls-next-door...in Vegas? [granted I'm sure there are some babes who are actually employed in the industry])

I don't know how a young girl feels when she reads the comments and innuendo relating to these photos. I do think there is a good chance that it might be a little off-putting, or make the community here seem a little more unrelatable to a young girl trying to join the ranks of sportsmen.

I don't feel strongly one way or the other: the booth babes really don't get me revved up, and I don't really know what kind of an effect it has on the younger female readership.

I don't have a dog in this fight; I am just disturbed sometimes by comments that betray a fundamental lack of comprehension by the poster. I apologize for the lengthy post.

Uh, that is exactly what I did. I used her own words in both of my posts. The first one she was trying to offend men with "salacious remarks". The second was "had a real problem with F&S posting its 2010 SHOT Show Booth Babe Roundup on this website Wednesday" to provide proof that she found the segment offensive, when you said "She says upfront that she is not offended by the photos". She did not say that at all. If fact every word she writes is to explain why she finds it offensive. Are you paying attention at all?

of⋅fen⋅sive  
–adjective 1. causing resentful displeasure; highly irritating, angering, or annoying: offensive television commercials.
2. unpleasant or disagreeable to the sense: an offensive odor.
3. repugnant to the moral sense, good taste, or the like; insulting: an offensive remark; an offensive joke.

As Buckhunter said I've been watching this mud pie fight from the sidelines. I agree totally with his point that women love the attention, so do men. I also see that a failing of our society is the acceptance of foul mouth behavior on the streets and in the media, particularly blogs. Movies and TV are now full of it now. I can't go anywhere and not hear the "F" word thrown out as I used to hear "heck" and "darn". The commentary on this particular thread has brought out a gush of it pointed at each opposing view point.

Back to my initial point. Women do love attention and so do men. I've even seen my pastor begin to glow when a female shares a smile or a compliment with him. We are all human.

I don't have young children but I do work with youth groups and the over riding comments I hear from young females concerning such skimpy booth babe attire is disbelief, giggles and comments of toppling over from the after market add ons...

What does have an effect on young females in a hurry is the language being thrown at them right and left. Since they see so many potty mouth people using such, they quickly pick up on it.

My wife is an attractive and intelligent woman; she also works in the outdoor sports industry. I accompany her to trade shows and she and I have a wonderful time critiquing the "booth bait" as she refers to them, all the usual as you would expect, after market add ons, over done and under clad... We laugh and go on our way.

My wife has never once been threatened by the "babes". She has been intimidated and thoroughly peeved by the way many of the men in the booths treat her. "Hey Sugar", "Honey you need what I have,”Wolf Whistles, "Hay baby I'd like to do business with you..." The comments go on and on. She does an excellent job in defending herself and usually does not want me to say anything. She also won't do business with many of these buttheads. But, on occasion she will introduce me as her husband. 6'2" inches of disgruntled husband looking down his nose at the idiot of the moment usually provokes a quick apology and even additional discounts on occasion. This is the side of the shooting sports business that many folks don't know about.

Good discussion people, but let’s keep it civil!

"The point is that when you shove images like these in girls' faces, it affects them deeply. Some become anorexics and subject themselves to mutilation at the hands of surgeons so they can have the "right" measurements. Most just spend the rest of their lives thinking they're not good enough. These images matter a LOT."

Right! So...

I propose a ban on folks that are in shape and attractive, as well as images of such people. They might screw things up for those with low self-esteem, bad diets, lazy lifestyles, weak personalities, and mushy bodies.

crm3006 - that is stepping low. Gotta admire a woman who posts a picture of herself in camo facepaint after a duck hunt. I know guys that are too vain to do that.

I think Holly has a great point. By the way, Anthony, if you're sincere with that piece you just added, why don't you pay Holly to come back and resume her "Huntress" column? I miss it! Her column was a breath of fresh air, a different perspective that needs to be seen and heard!

Manners, the point is good manners make us gentlemen.
The lady has legitimate points worth consideration.
It is not about censorship it is about choices; do you want to be a gentleman or not?
At some point in my life it dawned on me that a worthy goal was to become a gentleman. I don’t know why; maybe just to be different - the term gentleman is so rarely used anymore; is that because there are so few gentlemen left?
The issue of good parenting has been brought up. Hmm… as a good parent / grandfather there are comments which would lead me to believe those fellows are untrustworthy and unsuitable to be allowed in the same room as my daughters and granddaughters unsupervised. (Just another free choice I choose to make.)
In this day and age one must also consider another motivation--
Males who wear makeup, earrings, necklaces or other traditionally female trinkets may feel the need to thump their chests and shout out their interest in females just to make sure everyone knows they have that interest. …While men who are obviously secure with their maleness feel no need to advertise it to the world.

Well where to begin. I am not someone who frequents this site or subscribes to this magazine. I only now have added a user name just to post this comment.

There is one very pointed reason why I don't. The way women are portrayed here and treated here. This link was sent to me or I never would have known about it.

Let me start by saying, it is not my website and I think the owners of this business and those readers that want to check out booth babes or fishing babes or whatever they want have that right. They can portray women hunters however they would like.

I have the choice to not come to this site and I don't. I have the choice to walk past those boothes at SHOT, and I do. Businesses that choose to send a message to me, that they think that women hunters are just sex objects will NOT get my business and they probably don't care.

I will probably never come back to this site again and that is my choice. I do however feel, there is a reason that the readers of this site are mostly men. A lot of women do not feel comfortable here, that is simply a fact.

I have hunted since I was 10 and have been dealing with this for some 30+ years. As someone in the industry I feel it gives women a bad taste and I for one am trying to encourage women.

Men (and some women) can tells us all they want to get over it, but it is and will continue to be an issue to a lot of women. Women don't want to see these pictures for various reasons. I agree they shouldn't look.

But just the fact that they are on the site will deter women from finding a lot of other great articles etc. that are to be found here.

Just because sexy sells and is all over websites, billboards, TV etc. doesn't mean that women want it thrown in their faces on any site, or magazine that is suppose to be about a sport they love too. (That includes Sports Illustrated etc.)

My favorite saying is evil prevails when good men (or women)do nothing. And while I am NOT saying this is evil, I am saying a lot of good customers do nothing or say nothing, and just walk away. This time I chose to say something and walk away.

NorCal Cazadora

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Most of us here could care less about booth bait and even less about foul-mouthed blogs elsewhere. Like I said earlier, politicians and journalists (and you seem to be a bit of both) should expect to be flame sprayed when you toss a steaming pile into the room. You never got flamed in Letters to the Editor in your newspaper job?

You seem tough enough to duck hunt so let a little water roll off your back and don't take yourself or me too seriously.

Best regards,
WMH

I kind of find it funny, in a sad sort of way, middle age guys getting worked up about pictures of gorgeous 20 year old's holding onto guns. Reminds me of the commercial with the geeky guy searching for "chicks and swords" on the internet. Some guys never seem to grow past sitting in their parents basement with a copy of a magazine their dad had hidden in his workshop.....

From Ms. Heyser's blog:
"Well, good lord, some of the commenters were talking about what they were doing in front of the computer screens as they looked at those photos, if you get my drift, and F&S just let those comments sit there." For citation:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5478505267875308908&postID=4172...

And I am appalled by Chad Love's blatant ass-kissing of this woman by way of his self-serving citation of his previous entry from F&S Field Notes that he claims as a "vox clamantis in deserto" post earlier in the same blog. Chad may indeed see himself as a "voice crying in the wildnerness" but I do not see it so. He is as free to state his feelings on the matter as I am to cancel my subscription from his magazine. I am sure he will feel it to be a badge of honour.

The boner ads in the back of the magazine still tick me off. I know it's advert money, but come on. Not a great way to hold a new demographic.

One of my favorite things to do at SHOT (I didn't attend this year) was go up to these booths where said ladies were and ask a semi-technical question. This immediately separates the Jesse Abbates'(I'm a big fan - she can really shoot) in the world from the Jay Sin's(obvious stage name). I LOVE looking at beautiful women. But I have to say I am ever even more impressed with ones that are the real deal. If said Jay Sin is 'working' where she is at her true (my understanding after doing a google search is that she's a XXX porn queen with something of a following....)place of (ahem) expertise and choosing, it would be far away from a manufacturer of firearms. She's not there because she loves firearms - she's there for the $$$. So it's on her, that manufacturer who hired her, and then in turn whoever publicizes the whole thing.

I understand that sex sells. And let's keep the debate honest - it sells to both men and women. All I am saying is lets have truth in advertising here. If Jay Sin shoots IPSC or sporting clays I applaud her for being there. If not, give us a woman that is honest in what she does. I doubt Jay Sin is an authority on AK47's. However, she probably has seen a gun or two in her time though.

Most things in the media wind up being a 'lowest common denominator' item, whether it's sex, or politics, or whatever. The people selling are going for what is the easiest to digest for those who are buying. It's easy for standards to be too high. It's harder to do the right thing. You be the judge of what's right for you.

Unintended consequences:

Holly's exitement about her increased notoriety is expressed her in her own words on her blog. From this it is apparent that she enjoys the attention. What is not clear is what her expectations were when she decided to hate the story about Booth Babes and feel compelled to write a negative review which included a presumption that fathers lack the ability to use discretion when in the presence of their daughters. The terms she chose to use are well known and have been repeated enough. As a person in the academic and jouralistic profession one might wonder how she would grade her own work. Personalizing the title with 'I hate' would probably not be recommended although I admit to not having any formal training as a writer except for one technical writing class in tech school about 30 years ago. If the premise was to somehow protect preteens from exposure to what she considers an offensive story that would somehow dissuade them from hunting or fishing, I contend that she missed the mark.

My experiences with young people regardless of gender indicate that they will decide for themselves if outdoor sports is something they want to persue and continue with. My two adult daughters occasionally fish and target shoot but choose not to hunt. If they ever change their mind they know they are welcome to join me. I doubt this pictorial article will have much of an effect on any individuals determinations. On the other hand, thanks to her, many 12 year olds that read here have by now clicked on the Manswers link and discovered the virtues of eating beaver during Lent and have increased their knowledge of physics by learning about the distance that boobs travel when women jog a mile (.25 miles according to the 'scientific study')which she finds seriously funny. F&S as well as other publications need to promote their enterprize in order to continue their existence and will not stop employing the use of these kinds of stories that generate this much interest.

No doubt Holly will continue to promote her own self-interest as demonstrated by her blog. Perhaps she will choose her remarks more carefully in the future and consider the unintended consequences.

DakotaDan said "The other side of the calculation is that sporting women do not have a reasonable alternative to F&S"
Thankfully you are quite wrong. I long ago decided to forgo reading F&S due to the sexist content. Too many ads for erections and sex enhancement in the back, female models posing as hunters,half naked women holding fish, ads for pseudo porn calendars (Racks and Women in Waders). I don't need to find a way to 'deal with' the misogyny of the website or magazine. Instead, i looked and found Gray's Sporting Journal. Classy, entertaining, helpful, inspiring, fun to read. And absolutely no sexed up women catering to the men who think that that is what women are for. You also don't find comments like these on their website. Check it out if you want real people talking about real hunting/fishing.

I only found this post because of Holly's blog (thanks Holly!). If some of the vitriolic posters actually cared to do research or site actual research that has been done, instead of espousing their beliefs, they would discover that women and girls are actually put off by such images and this type of representation of women has a negative affect. It also affects the way men perceive and treat women. That should be clear from the comments on this post.

The reality of hunting today is that the numbers are dropping and this type of behavior and imagery does nothing positive to attract people to the sport. I am happy to 'get over it' and stay away from F&S and every time I teach a young person to hunt I'll make sure they know that the magazine and its readers aren't mature enough for them to bother with or be associated with.

Some valid points, Field and Stream is about hunting and fishing. We hunters are becoming a smaller group every year and we need to be doing what we can to welcome and bring in more people to our sport rather.

I want to read reviews about new rifles, pan fishing tips and how to better train my black lab. There are other magazines, or a simple google search, that will give me all the other pictures I want.

I find myself reading Fur, Fish and Game more and more.

Well, I don't get "worked up" about them, but, if you want a look at the new rifle/pistol/shotgun, they're easier on the eyes than a bearded dude with a large belly.

Ever take a look in any of those romance novels a lot of wives read? They have gotten to be just barely disguised "adult reading".

This kind of stuff is everywhere. I don't get upset by either side of it.

Sidewinder-
Well said, Sir. +1

Valid points.......

But to me it has the vibe that women shouldn't be behind a booth unless they are covered up like amish women. They can't all be ugly. BTW,I would not call all the girls in the booth babes gallery babes.....

We can all argue the in's and out's of this issue till were blue in the face. But the fact is Field & Stream is a company just like the ones who are promoting thier products with these booth babes. Does having the booth babe roundup encourage visitor to thier website? Yes! So Field & Stream is making a business decision to boost sales with booth babes. Does everyone not notice the ads in the back of each issue selling male "enhancement" pills or the better sex videos? They are no different than the booth babes. This goes to show that for Field & Stream, morals are out the window when it comes to attracting visitors to their site.

I am embarrased at the fact that I can't even visit Field & Stream's website or read thier magazine without being exposed to some form of sexual advertising. Every form of media is using this type of advertising, however I would prefer to not see it in Field & Stream.

If you want to look at girls in skimpy clothes visit another site or read other magazines.

I personally could care less if field and stream runs the booth babes or not, I can see how some women could get offended and some might just get excited. I think the editors sometimes forget there are quite a few women that read this magazine. That was pretty clear when they cancled the huntress blog. I also wonder what your 12 year old daughter is doing on the internet without parental guidance in the first place. As far as my post on the blog goes I stick by it--The Kalishnakov is very very sexy. I do mean the gun.

OK I wasnt going to post, but now I am..each of us as parents has an obligation to instill good values in our children. They will spend a lifetime witnessing good and bad. I agree with iowaguy..lets just leave the booth babes to those who want to look at them and concentrate on our next hunting trips...this is all not a big deal unless we make it one..

in what educated state/states are children allowed to hunt at the age of 6...7...10. Why is it that of the thousands of email readers of F+S, if a FEW do not like it, the rest should be ashamed of themselves, and not allowed to see such material in the future. I am quite sure that in no way was anyone held at gun point and forced to click on the title "booth babes". Anyone could simply ignore it, but perhaps then, on that day, at that moment in time, a few would have absolutely NOTHING to complain about...Let me help you. Spend time arguing about the govt, the lack of education in the country, jobless and homeless, etc. Leave the girls who ARE working to be able to decide what is ok and what is not. And, by the way, the publisher and editor of this magazine is doing a hell of a good job for all its readers.

Well, folks, now that the dust is somewhat settled, and all of the hoopla, hyperbole and hype is somewhat abated, I would direct your attention to some of the quotes I lifted directly off of Ms. Holly A. Heyser's Blog. I'm sure that all of us here who have impressionable teen and pre-teen children and grandchildren want to have such a fine journalistic example as Ms. Heyser writing a column in F&S, as has been suggested by bloggers more than once, since this tempest in a teapot began. Other than the quotes of WA Mtnhunter, and myself, all remarks, and language used, is quoted directly from Ms. Heyser. No attempt has been made to put anything in context, these are just her own words, from her own blog. Mark me down if you wish, -1s do not affect me in the least, but I will stand by my position that it is always a less than attractive feminist who is the most likely to object to attractive women on display, and the first to cry exploitation. This is a new twist in the playbook, that the enjoyment of pictures of attractive ladies, is going to drive away all the young female participants to the shooting sports!
One last note, by way of explanation. If you read all the way to the bottom of the quotes, in the authoress' own words, we were set up. She linked to her own blog, after being provocative, to invite in a reader base that she knew would be sympathetic to her cause. Guess we stuck our own paw in the bear trap!

From NorCal Cazadora. Enjoy.

"Hell, there goes your chance of ever writing for Field & Stream!"

".....and saw the name "Anthony Licata" in my inbox, I must say I just about pissed myself. I know that name, I know that name... That's the editor of Field & Stream. The editor!"

The comments actually start off eerily supportive, but they quickly turn into pretty much what I expected.

WA Mtnhunter: Let's see a photo of the author. That could explain a few things. Just a thought.....

crm3006: WA Mtnhunter- Follow the link to her blog, click on her picture, enlarge it if you dare, ALL IS EXPLAINED!!

"I thoroughly enjoyed having chicks dressed as sluts for my role models. But now it just pisses me off."

"Barf. No, effing barf."

"Personally, I don't get my undies in a twist about it. I know men are biologically driven to open their wallets more easily in the presence of nice tits."

".....acceptable, leading to a whole lot of anorexia and - for those with money, anyway - boob jobs."

"What I'd really like to see is some indication that F&S gives a s**t that YOUNG GIRLS are their readers too. Is anyone out there?"

"....that it's worth pissing us off "

But why did I link? Simple: I hope my readers will leave comments on that "gallery." That way I know F&S will hear from us. And there will be something worth reading in the comments between the unintelligible digital pantings of the teenage boys.

The problem is that this company is too interested in titilation (believe me, the girls ARE hot) and cranky political diatribe (no matter how accurate). It cheapens the big picture.

JOB ONE is to perpetuate the sports we love. Sweet girls and comments about Hillary's prodigious rear end does NOT, as Mr. Steinbrenner would say "put fannies in the seats". Our wat of life is giving way to video games. The mission is not to placate the folks who already do what we do, but to so enthrall the youngsters and people in cubicles that they YEARN to experience the outdoors. Which is why the vilification of someone like Jim Zumbo, who has stirred the yearnings of many (and may have made a misguided statement), is not only patently un-American, but plain stupid. It is presiding over our own extinction. Great art, great stories, great information, just like the old days...guess I'm dreaming.

I've been reading some previous comments and just have to ask JohnR:

If you say:

"I DON'T LOOK at the booth babe pics, and NEVER HAVE as I have never had an interest in them"

Do you see any contradiction in almost immediately following with writing:

"I JUST LOOKED at the booth babe pics. Aside from possibly two females who may have been chosen because of their obviously large American breasts"

and

"The attire of the booth babes I OBSERVED HERE (with the exception of one or two) however appeared no different than what I see women wearing on a regular basis."

and

"the remaining pictures APPEARED TO ME"

Does there appear to be not only an interest but a very close observance and analysis of the details of female apparel that appears in the story about the Booth Babes and at the mall?

You were probably just peeking for research purposes and the quotes are take out of context, right?

WAM,
You have no problem throwing around your opinion (which you have every right to do), I'll throw around mine. You lecture plenty of people on this site on a daily basis.

If you think this woman is a liberal femi-nazi, you haven't a clue what far-left liberalism or feminism is.

And no, I haven't a clue how little girl's minds work. And that is exactly why you won't find me arguing with Holly, or any other women, on how I know better. If we have a thread on how little boy's minds work, I'll consider myself an authority and argue accordingly.

LOL! Sgaredneck, the cure for that condition is Springsteen or, possibly, the Allman Brothers.

Just go away Holly. Your first post presented a skewed analysis, painting the booth babes as "hoochie mamas" and accusing the F&S readership as a whole of making "salacious remarks", and tossing out phrases like; "unintelligible digital pantings of the teenage boys. You have succeeded in dividing the readership, you have brought in sympathetic readership from another blog, as was your intention, to support your position, and start your verbal donnybrook.
You have advocated political correctness on an issue that would not be an issue without you, yourself, making it so. Even though you have somewhat changed your belligerent tone in your second posting, the fact remains, you are a rather foul mouthed and left leaning person. Your attitude screams "I wanna play with the Big Boys, and they have to play by MY rules." Political correctness mixed with militant feminism may play well in California, and your slang terms, soft profanity, and crude metaphors may be acceptable on your blog, but not here. We expect better of visiting ladies who are guest posters. You have succeeded in creating a division in the readership, stirring animosity, and concocting controversy. Now, please, just go away.

On a good note, I learned there are some very nice people who are on this site! Thanks to all of you!

This is just coporate amaerica's way of playing men. Yes these girls are hot, but they have no idea what they are trying to get you to look at "uh duh like I guess it's works". I understand the concept, I mean it's nothing new (been around a gazillion years and yet men and women both still fall for it). Altough you don't see too many hot guys advertising kitchen appliances, so maybe it doesn't work as well on women. I would be more apt to check out a company that was secure enough with their product to not sink to using the all to often surgically enhanced women to get your attention. If their product was really all that good in the first place it would sell itself. I also agree that it is not appropriate in a setting such as this not just for the young ladies, but the boys as well. These women don't even look like that on the street.(Have you checked out some of the celeb without makeup sites?)There are plenty of other websites for that kind of photojournalism.

I'm one of the guys, I'm just not one of the gay guys. But "Booth Babe" articles haven't got one blessed thing to do with hunting or fishing or the great outdoors. Not to mention, lots of women hunt & fish - they just don't talk about it much. I'm a grandma & I'm still chasing some very nifty guys away with a stick so (a) we know I'm not ugly as a mudpuppy & (b) I'm not oooold, & (c)'sexy' ain't only about T & A. More, it's about ability, spunk, & stuff like that. Let's have more articles on interesting things & leave the T & A stuff to some other publication.

MLH-
I'm not that low, or shallow. I was looking past the face paint.

HOLY FREAKIN CRAP!!!! This is getting a bit ridiculous. If you dont like the pictures then dont click on them and browse through! Jesus, it sounds like a bunch of 2nd grade tattle tales whining because someone didnt do something they liked or thought was appropriate. Get over it people. To me this equals PETA bitching because we choose to hunt....ya know what....worry about what you do a little more and less about what others are doing. Im done.

Question, why would a 12 year old girl wanting to learn about hunting abd fishing be reading the comments on the booth babe pics? Seems like there's oh, say 1,000 other places on this website to get good info on the "in's and out's" of hunting and fishing than in the 'comments' section of the booth babe pics.

You go girl! I say equal time for equal crime, Where is the Booth Beef! Gonna go all soft porn with the nubile women and all howsabout some nice boymeat to oogle...After all the Hunt is the Hunt and there are Cougar in the woods!