I have been a subscriber to Field and Stream for several years. I have enjoyed the magazine for the most part, but it does have several things that I don't like as well as I have seen in other magazines. First off, the magazine seems to run in two modes...hunting and fishing. From about February to July you will just find articles about fishing. The articles also seem to be too focused on bass fishing, something that we don't have as much out here in the west. Then from August to December the magazine switches to hunting, but seems to be way too focused on whitetail. They touch on birds, and other big game, but not as much. I do enjoy reading it, but it doesn't touch on all the aspects of the outdoor world. I have yet to see many articles on duck hunting. And that is a number one priority to me!
Recommended: Yes
No variety
My review can be summed up in three words, lack of variety. I subscribed to this mag. for five years, I've always liked it, but never "had" to read it, I can understand that there is only so much you can write about and keep it a family oriented (as opposed to serious sportsman's mag). But there have to be more things you could write about other than how to pattern deer/bass/trout/elk ect.ect.ect. , I've always like the stories they've had, but can't justify spending money just to read them.
If they could just write more about equipment and things it would be ok, but the only equipment they write about is not reviewed, they just reprint the manufacturers little quote, "this light is the brightest ever" ect.
If all you want is funny stories and a few new tidbits of info every once and a while, buy it. If you want articles on equipment, places to go, and things like that, look elsewhere.
Recommended: No
Not Like It Used To Be
Field and Stream is the granddaddy of all outdoor magazines. The greatest names in outdoor journalism have had bylines in this venerable publication. Some real up and comers are practicing their trade in F&S, notably Datus Proper, Bill Heavey and Keith McCafferty. They are fortunate enough to have the premier conservation writer of this generation, George Reiger as a regular columnist.
All of this praise being said, F&S has taken a new, albeit undesirable direction. Their format has changed to more "how-to" articles than the glorification of our sports. Hunting and fishing is a lifetime pursuit, not a task. By its nature our sports are poetic, emotional and traditional. To me, a good hunting and fishing magazine is not an instruction manual. It incorporates the how-to with the why-we-should. Field and Stream bills itself as "The Soul Of The American Outdoors". Its recent directional change seems to be turning away from this mission. I hope that the top editorial management staff (Slayton White and David Petzal) will find their souls and that the new owners (Time-Warner) will understand that more people read Field and Stream because it IS the Soul of the American Outdoors and will keep it moving ever toward that mission
Recommended: Yes
Is it local?
Is the spots that they tell you local to you? Not all the time. They always tell you about a different state, or talk about the other end of your state. They need to talk more about where we live and where we fish. I would only buy this when i am in the mood to just read about fishing stories, but if i want tips on local areas I go to fishing and hunting news. I dislike it because it is not local to me. I would not buy it if I wanted to local fishing tips, but it is some great reading. They have some great stories.
