How is it that F&S can afford a new blog about dogs right after cutting off The Huntress for budget reasons? Editors, would you

[rudyglove27]

Agreed with jay and + 1 for you sir!!!

[FloridaHunter1226]

Im guessing that they think that a blog about dogs would be more populare than a women's blog... although it might be true... i rather them say that then lie and say they had to cut back because of their budget

[Bella]

I guess they just like bitches better.

[jlfreeborn]

I wondered the same thing, just hadn't gotten around to saying anything.

[jay]

I agree about the hypocrisy thing.

With that said, field and stream is a business and their goal is to make money. They make money by developing good articles that folks are willing to pay for. I'm also sure that most of their money comes from their advertisers.

My guess is that a dog forum will bring in more advertising dollars than a ladies based forum.

[Beekeeper]

Brilliant observation Chuckles!

[shane]

In my head, that is.

[shane]

I asked the same question...

[chuckles]

Few things are more discouraging than blatant hypocrisy on the part of organizations who tout themselves as supporters of a way of life. The pursuit and capture of animals for food is credited with instilling honesty, discipline, patience and respect for the environment, others and oneself. The corporation which publishes the magazine and hosts this site claims to honor these values and promote them through the articles, photography and other content published in print and on the internet. While many of the contributors conduct themselves with honor, clearly there is some disconnect between the actions of the management and the values honored by the clients they serve.
Anyone who read the responses to The Huntress’ parting words knows that the loss of the blog was a severe blow to all of us. It is bad enough to subject a source of comfort, inspiration and companionship to the unfeeling dissection of a corporate spreadsheet; to allow some ratio of input to response to determine the fate of a valuable resource; to place a value on a thing that is priceless. It is inexcusable, unconscionable and beneath contempt to introduce something new before the echoes of lament over the loss have even ceased to resound. For shame, F&S, for shame.

[Big O]

Yes, DO TELL !

[Walt Smith]

They won't answer that question because it will cause them to admit what they can't bear to say. The truth.

[chuckles]

How is it that F&S; can afford a new blog about dogs right after cutting off The Huntress for budget reasons? Editors, would you care to explain yourselves to the populace and especially all the ladies?