I believe that that statement about whether he does more harm than good is pretty much an unsubstantiated opinion. Yes, opinion is what forums are meant for, but let's not confuse opinion with fact.
My thoughts are based solely on the factual ways that he presents gun and hunting issues. I mean you all have worked all around the fact that he alone engages the public and does frame and present the debate in factual ways that are impossible to argue with. You have all apparently missed the point that no one else is doing this. And apparently you feel that this kind of thing is not necessary.
Well let me point out for those that are unaware of it, that there is a whole crowd of very public, very well financed, and very dedicated and very vocal anti public figures working very hard for the hearts and minds of the uncommited. I do believe that those public anti-hunting and anti-gun personalities cannot go unchallenged. I don't happen to think that we have any spokespeople to squander especially when there are no other ones waiting to take on that role. So as stated before, while we spend all our energies shooting our own messengers, the opposition enjoys a united front, and dedicated singularity of purpose free of our style of self destructive nit-picking. That's not a real good situation for those of us that still believe in hunting and 2nd amendment rights.