PDA

View Full Version : Whats the difference?


hogdogs
October 20, 2009, 12:44 PM
I am sure that I have the right to pose these questions to my fellow TFL folks...

First off... I have never paid to hunt nor paid for a taxidermy mount. I also have never invested a single penny to encourage deer to spend time in a spot so I can shoot them... I have, on the other hand, baited hog traps.

Here we get to the nitty gritty... I will not mention names as those folks know who they are.

Many say they will never bait, pay for a canned hunt etc... So I ask... Do you use the atlatl or do you just use the fire and cliff method?

When and/or if you need to rid your home of mice or rats, do you bait the trap? Why use the trap? You are the top apex predator so run them down and eat them!

Why pay for pest control? Why buy skeeter spray? HUNT THEM!!!

I personally feel it is un ethical to pay for meat that has been kept penned in a fence and suckered or zapped to be butchered and wrapped in plastic. I do consume this processed meat myself.

If a person is within the law of the land, how are they being immoral or unethical?
Fair chase? Give me a break!!! If you are using a firearm or modern bow, how is this FAIR CHASE?"
Brent

Old Grump
October 20, 2009, 12:54 PM
Never had to wrestle a white tail have you?

hogdogs
October 20, 2009, 01:00 PM
OG, I have "dispatched" a couple white tail with a knife but I find it very tuff to wrestle with them after running a couple miles at full sprint:D
Brent

cat9x
October 20, 2009, 01:04 PM
lame thread

hogdogs
October 20, 2009, 01:26 PM
cat, How so? Hit a little to close to home for you?

Considering the posts I have read over the time I been a TFL member, I feel it is actually a decent thread topic. Have you read the replies from hunters regarding "canned hunts", bait and the like? Many of these folks that reply to those threads in the negative actually have the gall to hunt with a rifle!
How dare they bring high technology to the hunt field and callously kill these animals without giving thought to "fair chase"...
Don't like the thread? Report it to Art...
Brent

FrontSight
October 20, 2009, 01:31 PM
I say if it moves, and isn't endangered, and isn't human, then have at it, in any way you want that is quick as humanely possible. Which species you are comfortable with taking is up to you. Fenced, not fenced, tied to a tree, whatever, as long as it's legal where it happens & you don't lie about it.

hogdogs
October 20, 2009, 01:36 PM
& you don't lie about it.
DING DING DING... WE HAVE A WINNAH!!
That is my submission for "Sentence of the year" award here on TFL...
Brent

FrontSight
October 20, 2009, 01:47 PM
DING DING DING... WE HAVE A WINNAH!!
That is my submission for "Sentence of the year" award here on TFL...
Brent

Why, thank you...thank you very much!

When you think about it, cattle, sheep, pigs, chicken, etc etc are all raised on farms / ranches for the supermarket and then one by one slaughtered, butchered, packaged & shipped. They have no hope for escape, and their fate is sealed the day they are born. No different really than being tied to a tree when the farmer comes with an axe in his hand or the rancher loads the steers ontot he truck...

So I see no ethical dilemna in canned hunts at all...they are the same as a farm, except that a "hunter" shoots the animal for sport instead of a slaughterhouse worker slicing its throat for $x amount an hour.

But, the honesty in recounting how you obtained it is where it all comes together. Just like how there is a legitimate market for cubic zirconia, there should be a legitimate market for farmed animals to "hunt".

Christchild
October 20, 2009, 01:48 PM
I have to agree, that when it comes to Harvest/Take of game animals for food, "Canned" hunts, over feeders or whatever, FOR FOOD, and it's legal, go for it.

I would rather not see animals shot that are actually TRAPPED IN A PEN that You can see ALL sides of, especially by guys actually WEARING CAMO (:D:mad:), but aside from that, I'd go to "great lengths" in order to eat.

HogDogs, I didn't really understand what You were getting at in Your OP......

Christchild
October 20, 2009, 02:01 PM
I've been a Fisherman my entire life. I prefer artificial over live or cut bait, but I'm NOT against putting a Shiner, Cocahoe, Live or Dead Shrimp, or Live Worm on a hook. Isn't that Pretty Much the same as baiting Game Animals???

Like I said in my previous reply, I wouldn't be Very Pleased to see animals being shot that are Trapped in a Pen, and have THAT called a "Hunt", which would be like Fishing in an Aquarium...I'll leave that to the Farmers/Industry. But at the same time, I wouldn't give someone "Flak" about it, if they did. I'll just do my thing my way. I enjoy the pursuit, the chase, the hunt. Hunter Vs. Hunted. It's definitely a feeling of Greater Accomplishment, but I'd "hunt" over a feeder, also. I never have, but sometimes, I'd take Easy Street if the opportunity presented itself.

DRice.72
October 20, 2009, 02:01 PM
Hogdogs, I'm going to take up hog hunting just so I can have that sig as a bumper sticker!!!

I think our hunting "ethics" come more from tradition than regulations, though state regulations and their enforcement has changed the way we people hunt.

I'm sure a person hunting in Montana or any other sparsely populated area would have a fit hunting where I live. I also imagine they would more than likely laugh at what I consider a good animal to take.

Lets just take tree stands. Deer have no natural enemies from the air, so they don't look up. Makes a tree stand perfect for keeping out of sight while hunting. The only way a deer will know you are there is if they catch your scent in the wind, or if you make a loud unnatural noise that attracts their attention, right? Does this advantage make it unethical? Our great-grandfathers did not hunt from tree stands.

How about horses, I have heard that deer won't run from a horse,I don't know if that is true or not I have never actually done it, but if it is true would that be unethical as well, would it still be unethical if you were hunting the Bob Marshall wilderness in Montana, or hunting in Canada, where the only access to the game is by horseback?

hogdogs
October 20, 2009, 02:05 PM
CC, My original intent was posed to the membership that feels it is okay to question the legal take methods of some while utilizing the technological capabilities in all other aspects of their hunting.

Here are a few items I feel take out the "fair chase out of the equation...
Weapons
Camo clothing
Scent blocker chemicals
Artificial or natural packaged attractants
Tree stands
Range finders
Any other Optical enhancing device
Shoes

I could go on but what I am going after is to point out the hypocrisy some seem to exude when knocking the use of guides, paid hunts and bait.
Just read the "is this a shooter" thread to see a bit from other hunters who are obviously unaware that the above listed items remove the fair chase aspect...
Me? I am totally happy utilizing legal technology (if a Mossberg 500 and Marlin 336 can be considered "technology") to take my game meat...
Would I attempt "fair chase" hunting? HECK NO... Not unless I knew it was only chance at protein.
Brent

TMUSCLE1
October 20, 2009, 02:07 PM
Is hiring a guide the same as a "canned" hunt? I've seen posts on here that think it is and others that don't. Just like dogs in some parts of the country and some can't do that in other parts.

MLeake
October 20, 2009, 02:13 PM
... there's a difference between a "canned" hunt on a 2000 acre plantation, where the critters have the run of the place, and a "canned" hunt where the animals are limited to a pen, or maybe a baseball field sized enclosure.

While it could be argued that there's no difference between a game animal in a smaller enclosure and a farm animal in a slaughterhouse, I'd have to argue that the animal in the slaughterhouse has significantly higher odds of being put down quickly, with minimal pain - or at least minimal duration of pain.

So, to me, I suppose the questions are: 1) Does the hunter actually have to exert some effort to find the quarry? 2) Can the quarry avoid or elude the hunter?

If the answers to those questions are resounding Noes, then I guess I wouldn't find such hunts ethical.

Christchild
October 20, 2009, 02:34 PM
HogDogs,

I agree. If ALL those things were taken out of hunting, I'd have to be mighty hungry to "fair chase" just about any animal, other than maybe.....baby chickens...:D

DRice.72
October 20, 2009, 02:35 PM
If I had to "fair chase" anything, it would be my house cats. I believe I could take 'em!

.284
October 20, 2009, 02:55 PM
Hogdogs, I think I see your point. I do think you are purposely pushing the envelope with the concept of "fair chase" to prove it.

Are you trying to imply that it is wrong for our fellow members to bash other members for enjoying the same sport they do just because it's done in a manner that conflicts with their methods or beliefs? If so, I couldn't agree more.

No one has the right to stop a fellow sportman from excercising his or her right to enjoy their passion when it's done within the laws that govern their sport or area....The Anti's don't need the help.

I don't bait but, I don't have a problem with those that do. However, if I find a bait pile in lower Michigan.......now I have a problem. It has been banned. It is still legal in the Upper Pennisula......not a problem. Although, if I find a bait pile up there that is more than the legal limit of 2 gallons....I have another problem.

I guess my point is if someone chooses to enjoy hunting by any means legal (canned hunt, 1000 yard shot, bait, no bait....hell.... purchased the entire hunting department of your nearest Bass Pro) go for it.

hogdogs
October 20, 2009, 03:05 PM
.284, Yes that is exactly my intent in this thread...
I personally choose not to bait (also not legal in Fla) nor use tree stands but cannot knock those that do.
I know many do not agree with my use of dogs to hunt hogs. No guns and the bulldogs catch and hold the hog by the ear or jaw. Many folks think it is immorally cruel to either the hogs or dogs or both.
I just invite them to go for a run with me and junior...:D
Brent

DRice.72
October 20, 2009, 03:23 PM
That sounds interesting. I'd actually like to try it. We don't have many hogs here in WNC, and I don't know anybody who hunts them. I have come across them fishing, armed only with a small caliber pistol.

The only hunt I ever had a problem with, it has since been banned, was a hunt offered in Kansas. You paid a fee and you were scheduled a time. At that time you logged onto your computer and went to a web site logged in etc. Then you sat watching a bait pile over a web cam. When a deer came into view, you somehow aimed a rifle from your house and killed the deer. You did this sitting in your house, in your pj's drinking hot cocoa. At the time it was legal, but I really had a problem with that one. I'm glad they banned it.

hogdogs
October 20, 2009, 03:27 PM
Drice, I didn't even have an issue with that hunt. I was concerned that some yahoo would figure out a way to hack in and shoot when the "guide" was not there to harvest the animal or worse... someone shoot an employee as they refilled the feeder...:eek:
Brent

DRice.72
October 20, 2009, 03:38 PM
I think I look at it this way. Would "I" do that. I couldn't bring myself to sit in my comp room and kill a deer. I would have to take a lap top and go outside at least! LOL!

hogdogs
October 20, 2009, 03:41 PM
ROFL... Dressed in $1,000 worth of camo in a tree stand on a long leaf pine in my front yard with a laptop... Now to make a mouse with a pistolgrip and trigger...:D
Brent

DRice.72
October 20, 2009, 03:45 PM
Hmmm the more I think about it, the better that sounds! They dress it butcher it and send it to you too. LOL!

koolminx
October 20, 2009, 03:58 PM
I am a person that will only hunt an animal that has not been baited.

I gotta agree with Scrap a little here again...
In my own personal view canned hunting is NOT hunting, it's SHOOTING... Anyone that has a gun can go and shoot a deer elk whatever.
It takes SKILL and Cunning and Reasoning to walk into the field, and kill your game without bait. A canned hunt has almost none of those things... Neither does sitting in a dang tree waiting for a deer to walk by....

I am a Still Hunter, always have been always will be. Tried a tree once, it felt like cheating.

I use a Bow, and I use a Rifle and Black Powder, in all cases I've been skunked more than not, and I'm sure that even the baited method can be a game of skunked or not skunked.... I just feel pride in knowing that nothing helped me do it, but the car that got me to the woods and my own cunning and skill.

So I base my hunting skills on my self pride, and I would NEVER (If I attended one) try to pull off a baited kill as one of skill and cunning as I would know the lie in my heart, and I cannot be proud of a lie.

Notice that I did NOT say that you cannot be proud of your shot! But, to think that a baiter can be proud of the way he hunted is to go beyond ridiculous in my personal opinion.


K

2damnold4this
October 20, 2009, 04:00 PM
http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article_2557.aspx

hogdogs
October 20, 2009, 04:03 PM
kool,
I just feel pride in knowing that nothing helped me do it, but the car that got me to the woods and my own cunning and skill.
And the gun, ammo, clothing, footwear, optics, bow, arrow, broadhead and any other modern item...;)
The true skill and cunning is the ability to make your own weapon, and get close enuff to put the boots to the quarry... I ain't that good so I use guns:o
Brent

sasquatch
October 20, 2009, 04:06 PM
From the Boone and Crockett Club:

FAIR CHASE STATEMENT
FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.

2damnold4this
October 20, 2009, 04:13 PM
From the link:



Fair chase has been at the heart of modern sport hunting for more than a century, yet it remains elusive—both as a concept and a practice.

A hundred years ago, the Boone and Crockett Club, one of America’s premier hunting and conservation organizations and keeper of the original fair chase creed, defined fair chase as “ the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals. ”

But while we may be able to define “lawful,” what is “ethical” or “sportsmanlike”? What might be an “improper” advantage—or for that matter, what is a “proper” advantage?

Most of us can answer these questions when it comes to flagrant violations—hunting from a helicopter, hunting with spotlights at night, or hunting an animal over bait. But what about those fuzzy areas—using an ATV to cover vast territories in search of antelope or using a high performance rifle capable of killing an elk at 1,000 yards or more? How we answer these questions has a profound impact on the hunting experience itself, and on the future of hunting. Without an ethic of fair chase, sport hunting may be endangered.

By definition, hunting is the pursuit of a wild animal with the intent to capture or kill. Pursuit, the actual chase, precedes the kill; without it, hunting is merely killing. The chase, then, authenticates the hunt and, in turn, the kill puts an end to the chase.

Understood this way, hunting, particularly sport hunting, is about how we, as hunters, engage in the activity—the chase—leading up to the kill. Without restrictions on how we pursue game, the “hunt” loses meaning, ceases to exist. So the question remains, what is a fair chase?

Jim Posewitz, a leading authority on hunting ethics and author of the book Beyond Fair Chase , describes fair chase as “a balance that allows hunters to occasionally succeed while animals generally avoid being taken.”

In this view, the kill is the exception and escape is the rule. Simply put, a chase is fair if the animal has a reasonable chance of escaping the pursuit unharmed. If the animal has little or no chance, the chase is not fair. Fair chase demands a balance of power between hunter and hunted: the hunter’s ability to track, pursue, and acquire an animal must not be greater than the animal’s abilities to elude capture or death.

Fair chase is, ultimately, an expression of the desire to limit the discretionary power of the hunter so that sport hunting will remain enjoyable, challenging, and true to its original character.

For the modern sport hunter with all the advantages of modern technology at his or her disposal, a fair chase ethic imposes a voluntary limitation on the means the hunter may employ to achieve an end. Fair chase is not about the fairness of the kill (the end) but about the fairness of the chase (the means). In fair chase hunting, not only do the means justify the end , but the means are the end: the chase is the hunt. And a fair chase hunter earns the privilege to take an animal’s life by mastering the skills of the hunt.

comn-cents
October 20, 2009, 04:20 PM
I think it is just like anything else that happens in the world. People get it into their heads that it's okay to do it (hunt-fishing-driving-respect to others)in "A" fashion but not in "B" or "C" because they don't approve. They never stop to think that is the same thing, just done in a different manner. "Do what I say not as I do". So we don't look at things the same way, that doesn’t make it wrong.
My wife anti-gun when we meet. More ignorant of (hunting-shooting-etc) now she isn't ignorant of firearms and feels the need to be able to protect herself.

Sorry Brent if I got off the Thread theme.

ZeroJunk
October 20, 2009, 04:21 PM
I don't really care how other people hunt, nor do I expect them to care how I hunt.
But, I can tell you that I don't like the idea of a hunt where the animal is known to be in a confined area and you pay somebody else to take you to him.

There are so many deer now that I can kill more than I can eat and never leave the house, just push the window up.



I think some of these guys post their fantasy of what they dream the hunt to be more than something they have actually done.

hogdogs
October 20, 2009, 04:21 PM
comn, Yer initial part was spot on... a little veer is to be expected...;)
Brent

koolminx
October 20, 2009, 04:22 PM
I agree :D

sasquatch
October 20, 2009, 04:29 PM
comn-cents
I think it is just like anything else that happens in the world. People get it into their heads that it's okay to do it (hunt-fishing-driving-respect to others)in "A" fashion but not in "B" or "C" because they don't approve. They never stop to think that is the same thing, just done in a different manner. "Do what I say not as I do". So we don't look at things the same way, that doesn’t make it wrong.

Maybe, but in the real world words have meaning.

That article from the state of Montana says: "By definition, hunting is the pursuit of a wild animal with the intent to capture or kill. Pursuit, the actual chase, precedes the kill; without it, hunting is merely killing."

So, by definition, hunting and killing are two very distinct activities.

comn-cents
October 20, 2009, 04:30 PM
My comment about my wife coincides with people thinking that their way of hunting is okay and yours/mine isn't. They just don't understand (ignorant) of it being the same thing. Just practiced in a different way.

2damnold4this
October 20, 2009, 05:21 PM
To me, Fair Chase means the animal has a reasonable chance to get away. I like the quote from the article:
Jim Posewitz, a leading authority on hunting ethics and author of the book Beyond Fair Chase , describes fair chase as “a balance that allows hunters to occasionally succeed while animals generally avoid being taken.”

I don't have a problem with someone baiting a hog trap but that's trapping, not hunting.

Big Bill
October 20, 2009, 05:25 PM
Brent - it's obvious from this thread that you really don't understand what "Fair Chase" means. So here is the widely accepted definition.

FAIR CHASE STATEMENT

FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.

HUNTER ETHICS
Fundamental to all hunting is the concept of conservation of natural resources. Hunting in today's world involves the regulated harvest of individual animals in a manner that conserves, protects, and perpetuates the hunted population. The hunter engages in a one-to-one relationship with the quarry and his or her hunting should be guided by a hierarchy of ethics related to hunting, which includes the following tenets:

1. Obey all applicable laws and regulations.

2. Respect the customs of the locale where the hunting occurs.

3. Exercise a personal code of behavior that reflects favorably on your abilities and sensibilities as a hunter.

4. Attain and maintain the skills necessary to make the kill as certain and quick as possible.

5. Behave in a way that will bring no dishonor to either the hunter, the hunted, or the environment.

6. Recognize that these tenets are intended to enhance the hunter's experience of the relationship between predator and prey, which is one of the most fundamental relationships of humans and their environment.

http://www.boone-crockett.org/huntingEthics/ethics_fairchase.asp?area=huntingEthics

I guess you'll have to decide what gives a hunter a proper or improper advantage. To me, feeding deer all year long and then sitting on a stand over the feeder gives a hunter an improper advantage and even though it may be legal, imho it is unethical.

You may have a different opinion and I respect that. But, for me that kind of hunting just doesn't cut it; and, I can see no sport in it.

Big Bill
October 20, 2009, 05:31 PM
Hunting Ethics Today

HUNTERS KNOW BEST
Sportsmen took on larger responsibilities for land conservation in all its forms. They sought, and were deemed worthy to be appointed, directly and indirectly, as stewards over land and wildlife resources. Our predecessors fought to ensure that sportsmen were appointed as stewards - a huge responsibility.

Today, as it has been throughout the past 100 years, State sponsored conservation, enhancement, management, and wildlife law enforcement systems are almost entirely guided and funded by sportsmen and the money they spend on hunting.

TODAY, THE WORLD IS WATCHING
The North American system of conservation is admired around the world because of its continued success. Public and private stewardship works because those who use and manage the resources are the heart and soul of the system. Other countries are trying to find ways to copy what we have done to try and find a better way to save what they have left of their natural resources. While some envy, others still don't understand it.

Activist groups who distain and oppose our hunting heritage are watching for chinks in our armor. How sportsmen and land stewards act and conduct themselves (individually and as a group) is being closely monitored. These groups would like nothing better than to dethrone sportsmen as the guardians over wildlife - particularly those species that are legally hunted. Why they spend millions to cut off the hand that feeds wildlife conservation instead of joining those who fight for wildlife defies logic, yet this is their agenda.

"In a civilized and cultured country wild animals only continue to exist at all when preserved by sportsmen. The excellent people who protest against all hunting, and consider sportsmen as enemies of wildlife, are ignorant of the fact that in reality the genuine sportsman is by all odds the most important factor in keeping the larger and more valuable wild creatures from total extermination."

Theodore Roosevelt

FAIR CHASE SQUIRREL HUNTING?
The concept of Fair Chase is the cornerstone of hunting ethics and is not only applicable in the pursuit of big game. How sportsmen conduct themselves and the image projected is just as important when you are hunting squirrels, rabbits, waterfowl, and turkeys as when pursuing big game. It also does not matter if hunting is done with a bow, rifle, crossbow, shotgun, or muzzleloader - the code of fair chase defines an honorable pastime.

WHAT ABOUT RECORDS BOOKS?
Some record books do not recognize trophies taken behind a high fence. Others do. Some recognize exotic species of big game. Others recognize only native North American species. Some accept both. Some record African and European trophies. Regardless of the rules for entry into these record books, they are more than just a listing of trophies and hunters' names. They are, by and large, history books on big game hunting. They are also biological records used by game and habitat managers to track the success or failure of game management programs and policies. They are also engaging. With an interest in mature, trophy game comes an increased awareness about conservation, and stewardship, and badly needed funding to support management and enhancement of specific species. But, more importantly, these records reflect the successful hard work and dedication of those responsible for wildlife resources - game managers, biologists, lawmakers, private land stewards, conservationists, and, perhaps most important you, the sportsman.

When the first record books were published, intensive management techniques such as game proof fencing, selective culling, extensive supplemental feeding, and highly focused habitat management did not exist or were quite rare. Neither did artificial insemination, breeder bucks, and cloning exist to produce trophy-class animals and improve hunting success. Today, entrepreneurs grow trophies and guarantee success. Whether or not they are entered, accepted, and recognized in a record book is a matter of the rules for each keeper of records. Record books and the entries in those books are incidental relative to the much larger picture of overall wildlife welfare and the future of hunting.

LEGAL VERSUS ETHICAL
Hunting is an intensely personal experience fraught with personal choices. Consider the contrast between what is legal and what is ethical. It is difficult to conceive of a situation in hunting where the commission of an illegal act could be considered ethical. But, the inverse is not only possible, but also common. In short, legality describes the outside boundaries within which ethical choices are made.

For example, some hunters take shots at deer in excess of 300 yards. They have rifles and ammunition capable of accuracy at such ranges. They practice at those ranges and are capable and confident of almost certain clean kills. Other hunters would never think of taking a shot at this distance. It's legal. There is nothing in the game regulations about maximum allowable distances yet many will not take that shot. Why? Some do not have experience with this type of shooting. Others feel the risk is too high for wounding and therefore the practice is unethical. Others might consider that shooting at such ranges, even with a high probability of success, is simply too great an advantage over the prey and would choose to stalk in closer.

The point is, there are many things in the hunting and habitat management world that are legal, yet can be considered by some to be unethical. Again, it is left for each individual to set his or her own ethical standards. Hopefully, all of our collective decisions will shine positively on hunting, management and its traditions.

DIVIDED WE FALL
Hunting is a personal experience filled with personal choices taking place in many areas with varying traditions and rules. The concept of "fair chase" is a noble one and something that is meant to be a unifying, governing force. The concept was not created as a test to divide ethical hunters.

One of the reasons why our wildlife and habitat conservation system works is because individual states regulate what goes on within that state. Can you imagine the train wreck that would occur if the same rules applied for all states regardless of traditions, the diverse species of game, and various habitats found in different regions? Deer hunting with a crossbows is legal in Ohio, but not in some other states. Baiting deer is legal in some states, yet frowned upon by hunters in other states. You can run bear and cougar with hounds in some western states, but only spot and stalk hunt in others. Steel shot, lead shot, plugged shotguns, expandable broadheads, inline muzzleloaders - the list goes on and on. The bottom line - we are too small of a group not to support each other. If you hunt, you belong to a fraternity. If a hunting method is legal in another state, but not in your state, crying foul won't help the bigger picture. If a way of hunting is under attack in another state, your way is under attack, even if you do not agree with or practice this method.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?
As hunters and land managers, we are in the "image business" - even more so now than at the turn of the century when "fair chase" was proposed as the underlying foundation for hunter ethics. For sportsmen to continue to be the dominant force in setting wildlife resource policies we must, and foremost understand our role as conservationists. We should take pride in accomplishments and recognize, and assume the responsibilities that have been passed to us by our hunting forefathers. If we don't stand up for wildlife and its habitats, who will? We are, in the end, a "band of brothers and sisters" in that what we do individually affects us all. We must continue to make the passing on of our traditions to young hunters a priority. And we must get involved in the political process - opportunities are lost through inactivity. Thinking, "it won't happen to me," or "it will never happen here" is a mistake we cannot afford to make. There are many ways you can contribute and be heard on both local and national levels.

The sponsors of this website care deeply about hunting, land stewardship, and our wildlife and offer quality products for the outdoorsmen. Please consider supporting them with your next purchases. Other sponsors include conservation organizations that have been and continue to do tremendous things to protect our right to hunt and to conserve and manage our natural resources. Most are non-profit, volunteer organizations. Your membership and support are needed now more than ever. Lastly, introduce someone to the hunting and shooting sports. Sharing the experiences that make our sporting way of life a special privilege is quite possibly the most important thing we can do. Seeing to it that others understand our history and role as conservationists is the only sure way that what hunters have fought for over 100 years will continue to be in good hands.

"We need, in the interest of the community at large, a rigid system of game-laws rigidly enforced, and it is not only admissible, but one may almost say necessary, to establish, under the control of the State, great national forests reserves which shall also be breeding-grounds and nurseries for wild game; but I should much regret to see grow up in this country a system of large private game-preserves kept for the enjoyment of the very rich. One of the chief attractions of the life of the wilderness is its rugged and stalwart democracy; there every man stands for what he actually is and can show himself to be."

Theodore Roosevelt

http://www.huntfairchase.com/index.php/fuseaction/ethics.now

Big Bill
October 20, 2009, 05:57 PM
I know this was posted above, but it bears repeating.

What Is Fair in Fair Chase?
Thomas Baumeister, FWP Hunter Education Coordinator

Friday, September 19, 2003

This article was Archived on Sunday, October 19, 2003

Fair chase has been at the heart of modern sport hunting for more than a century, yet it remains elusive—both as a concept and a practice.

A hundred years ago, the Boone and Crockett Club, one of America’s premier hunting and conservation organizations and keeper of the original fair chase creed, defined fair chase as “ the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals. ”

But while we may be able to define “lawful,” what is “ethical” or “sportsmanlike”? What might be an “improper” advantage—or for that matter, what is a “proper” advantage?

Most of us can answer these questions when it comes to flagrant violations—hunting from a helicopter, hunting with spotlights at night, or hunting an animal over bait. But what about those fuzzy areas—using an ATV to cover vast territories in search of antelope or using a high performance rifle capable of killing an elk at 1,000 yards or more? How we answer these questions has a profound impact on the hunting experience itself, and on the future of hunting. Without an ethic of fair chase, sport hunting may be endangered.

By definition, hunting is the pursuit of a wild animal with the intent to capture or kill. Pursuit, the actual chase, precedes the kill; without it, hunting is merely killing. The chase, then, authenticates the hunt and, in turn, the kill puts an end to the chase.

Understood this way, hunting, particularly sport hunting, is about how we, as hunters, engage in the activity—the chase—leading up to the kill. Without restrictions on how we pursue game, the “hunt” loses meaning, ceases to exist. So the question remains, what is a fair chase?

Jim Posewitz, a leading authority on hunting ethics and author of the book Beyond Fair Chase , describes fair chase as “a balance that allows hunters to occasionally succeed while animals generally avoid being taken.”

In this view, the kill is the exception and escape is the rule. Simply put, a chase is fair if the animal has a reasonable chance of escaping the pursuit unharmed. If the animal has little or no chance, the chase is not fair. Fair chase demands a balance of power between hunter and hunted: the hunter’s ability to track, pursue, and acquire an animal must not be greater than the animal’s abilities to elude capture or death.

Fair chase is, ultimately, an expression of the desire to limit the discretionary power of the hunter so that sport hunting will remain enjoyable, challenging, and true to its original character.

For the modern sport hunter with all the advantages of modern technology at his or her disposal, a fair chase ethic imposes a voluntary limitation on the means the hunter may employ to achieve an end. Fair chase is not about the fairness of the kill (the end) but about the fairness of the chase (the means). In fair chase hunting, not only do the means justify the end , but the means are the end: the chase is the hunt. And a fair chase hunter earns the privilege to take an animal’s life by mastering the skills of the hunt.

http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article_2557.aspx

Brent - in case you missed the important parts in these three posts - I marked em for ya!

Dragon55
October 20, 2009, 06:26 PM
Hogs if you carry it to the end............. the good Lord gave us a more efficient brain than any other critter on the planet.

By this lone act He made it unfair to the rest of the critters.

Since the first caveman figured out that he could make a pointy stick or get with his buddies to help him run a herd over a cliff we've been getting better at killing the other critters so we could eat them.

Somewhere along the line we learned to pen them up for a while before we killed them and eat them.

It's all a matter of degrees and how far each of us are willing to take advantages and still call it hunting.

The guys above have stated what I think can be whittled down to my comfort zone...
and that is:

If the critter can get away and wants to get away and I pursue it then I'm 'hunting'.

This means:
No penning
No baiting
No tying up a doe in heat to a tree (or using the scent bottle)
Reasonable weapon choice(yes very debatable but a reasonable hunter will know)
Humane weapon choice
And.... most important to me... I will eat what I kill which takes out of contention a lot of critters that are hunted purely for trophy i.e. elephant, large cats, etc.

One other thing....... since I'm mostly a bird hunter(quail, pheasant, snipe, grouse) I'm not real comfortable with the wagon riding canned hunts available out there.

Anyway... just another opinion.

Big Bill
October 20, 2009, 06:38 PM
Dragon - Thank you for saying so eloquently what some of us can't. I agree with your post 100%.

Dragon55
October 20, 2009, 06:43 PM
Awe shucks Bill.... thanx for the kind words:)

Big Bill
October 20, 2009, 06:58 PM
I never thought that being a proponent of "Fair Chase" would get me in trouble with members here. It's somewhat discouraging. :confused:

.284
October 20, 2009, 06:59 PM
First, let me state that your post was well said. However, it is your personal comfort zone and your choice. I too am from the eat what you kill club. I am not bashing you. The intent of Hogs thread was to illustrate that though we may have differing opinions on what fair chase means or what is ethical, we are all hunters in our own right. Some may choose to partake in canned hunts while others may not. The intent here is that as long as the person is in compliance with the game laws, it is that person's right to make the decision that is right for them. And here's the biggie, that we should not judge, but agree to disagree on our personal choices.

hogdogs
October 20, 2009, 07:15 PM
Bill, It isn't the being a proponent of fair chase... It is that many hunters frown on others who have a different opinion on hunt methods. Claiming one person is cheating the game by baiting, hunting fenced plots or utilizing any other legal method is what gets my goat a bit. I personally do not have a desire to trophy hunt but don't knock those who do.
Brent

Big Bill
October 20, 2009, 07:19 PM
The intent of Hogs thread was to illustrate that though we may have differing opinions on what fair chase means or what is ethical, we are all hunters in our own right.Good Point!

fisherman66
October 20, 2009, 07:19 PM
In my own personal view canned hunting is NOT hunting, it's SHOOTING

Koolminx,

How small does the "can" need to be in order to qualify as a canned hunt? 1 square acre? 2 square acres? 3? 50? 100? section?

I don't disagree with your personal view, but the Parks and Wildlife Department defines hunting by limitations in rules and regs. (at least in Texas). I don't have a problem with high fences. I'm just not interested in that kind of hunt.

"Holier than thou" hunters are a little childish. When my son is old enough to hunt I will have a feeder, ground blind, scope, boots, binoculars and a rifle. I will use store bought tools to dress and quarter and eventually butcher. I'll probably use a home range or electric skillet to cooks most of it.

When I go out alone I prefer to still hunt.

Big Bill
October 20, 2009, 07:37 PM
Bill, It isn't the being a proponent of fair chase... It is that many hunters frown on others who have a different opinion on hunt methods. Claiming one person is cheating the game by baiting, hunting fenced plots or utilizing any other legal method is what gets my goat a bit. I personally do not have a desire to trophy hunt but don't knock those who do.
Brent
__________________
Brent - Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is ethical to everyone. All I have ever said in any thread is that certain hunting methods are not for me. What's so wrong with that?

BTW, I also do not think that hunting certain animals with dogs is unethical. For example, it is well documented that wild hogs are getting to be problematic in many areas of the country. In those cases, I think that ANY method to decrease those populations is justified. The same goes for deer and other animals that have overpopulated their range. But, in general, to me and for me 'fair chase' is the way a real hunter takes game.

PS - I'm sorry if I have mistaken your intent in this thread. BTW, if you or anyone else ever wants to come to Idaho to hunt, please consider me a resource in that effort. I would be proud and happy to assist you or anyone else in any way I can.

lizziedog1
October 20, 2009, 07:56 PM
What if a hunter has no other options? If a hunter in California wants to hunt wild pheasants, he pretty much has to go on private property. Getting a property owner in California saying yes to a stranger has the about the same odds as one of us having Jessica Alba say yes to a date request. The other option to hunt on pheasant club with planted birds. For most folks in the Golden state it is either this or nothing.

If anyone reading this gets me access to private property to hunt in California I'll buy you a case of your favorite beverage. this is one offer I don't worry about paying, cause it ain't giong to happen.

Again, should hunter in California hunt on a "club" or not hunt at all?

.284
October 20, 2009, 08:31 PM
Great point. Too many of us don't get the whole story. I personally wouldn't pay to hunt....I don't have to. But let's look at a what if.

A guy posts a thread, "I just put a deposit down on my $10,000.00 Canadian Whitetail Hunt." Some memebers think....what an idiot. Here's the Paul Harvey, "rest of the story". He is taking his dad who taught him everything he knows about hunting who, BTW, has been just diagnosed with a terminal illness. Is he an idiot now?

The point is we get so caught up in what we do and believe that we shoot down other's points of view. Those are the actions that let the Anti's run through the cracks in our armour. My feeling is, the more diverse we are, the stronger we are as a group. This might sound cliche', but don't knock it until you've tried it might apply here.

Art Eatman
October 20, 2009, 09:47 PM
I've been with TFL since it got started. I don't think we've ever really had anybody here seriously advocate unethical behavior, aside from a troll or two.

What I have seen, however, is some degree of stubbornness about some things. Mostly, a lack of understanding or knowledge about why people do certain things, or what is actually being done.

I know of nobody who favors what are called "canned hunts". To me, the "can" means a small pen no more than a residential lot. Maybe even an acre. And I'll accept that there are some (bleeps) who might fence in a piddly little ten acres and sell some sort of "hunt" deal. Okay, that's Bad Stuff.

But I want to know how a hunt inside a high-fenced area of several to many sections can be called "canned". A few weeks ago I was driving along US 90 west of Del Rio. A new high fence was being built. Four miles of highway frontage by my odometer, and no cross fences. The senderos for the side fences went beyond the hills some miles off the highway. Somewhere around ten thousand acres in this "pen". How is hunting in there NOT fair chase?

Why is it difficult for folks to understand that the purpose of a high fence is to keep deer OUT of a pasture where the owner is improving the pasture with native growies and augmented water supplies? He's trying to control the herd to within the carrying capacity of the land. Why is that somehow unethical?

That doesn't mean I approve of these breeding programs for giant deer; I don't. The big problem is that it costs a ton of money to create this proper habitat in country that was ruined long ago by overgrazing with sheep and goats. And the ad valorem tax man doesn't care whether or not you ever recoup your investment. And that's why I don't say much about such doings. The Tax Man Cometh, and he's usually POed.

Then again, you could just leave it as barren old desert where even the buzzards carry rations.

snipecatcher
October 20, 2009, 10:15 PM
If someone on here can convince every other land owner in Texas to either:
A. Donate their land to the state so I will have public land, or,
B. Take down all of their high fences and feeders, so the deer will come to my small piece of land,
I will partake in a "fair chase" hunt, by your definition.
My family has 70 acres in the TX hill country. Two sides of this are bordered by the neighbors 8' high fence. Everyone around has multiple feeders and food plots. Why on earth would a deer jump the high fence to come to our small plot of land when they have everything they need on Mr Rich's land (literally, Rich Ranch)? Yes, we have feeders, and I hunt and kill deer who are feeding under them. I see no problem with this. I prefer to still hunt, and do so every chance I get. There is a much greater satisfaction with stalking through the woods and taking game, but in the end, it is only for fun. I can count on being able to get a deer from the feeder to fill the freezer. If your forefathers had the technology we have today, they would be using it. They did what they had to in order to bring home meat, including using "inadequate" calibers such as the 30/30.

wpcexpert
October 21, 2009, 02:39 AM
What is this with folks bashing baiting??? I don't get it. If you rationalize it, every hunter baits, or at least hunts over/uses bait, atleast they should be. How is hunting next to an oak tree that's dropping acorns different than a guy that throws out a little corn? Both are still hunting over a food source.

What about sitting on a bean field? Natural food or giant bait pile? Am I wrong (by some of you) to not seek out a dropping crab apple tree and hunt over it?

Even spot and stalk hunters are still using food source to a degree. Do you spot and stalk in an area that has absolutly no food source? No, cause there would be no game.

Some of you people need to climb down off your sky scraping horses and think a little bit before you pass judgement.

Everyone uses bait, whether it be a doe in heat scent (or any other scent attractant), a corn pile, a dropping acorn tree, a bean field, a buck decoy, or a call of anykind. Heck, even grazing antelope. It's all "baiting" to a degree. I guess strictly spot and stalk hunters are as close as you can get to bait free. But like I said, you are still depending on the natural bait to keep the animals in the area.

wyobohunter
October 21, 2009, 03:06 AM
kool,

Quote:
I just feel pride in knowing that nothing helped me do it, but the car that got me to the woods and my own cunning and skill.

And the gun, ammo, clothing, footwear, optics, bow, arrow, broadhead and any other modern item...
The true skill and cunning is the ability to make your own weapon, and get close enuff to put the boots to the quarry... I ain't that good so I use guns
Brent
__________________


Oh, and the car that got me to the woods:rolleyes:

I have my limits, I will not do a "canned hunt", but to each his own. I use modern firearms and motorized vehicles, so I can't really claim that I only hunt "fair chase". I Spose it'd be absolutely fair if Moose had 4-wheelers and bullet proof vests.

Rangefinder
October 21, 2009, 08:54 AM
Jeez, I'm kinda think another direction. I think we have to keep making modern firearms better to keep up with fair chase! :D The darn deer here are constantly getting smarter, gotta have a better rifle to be able to get 'em. I could walk off my back porch and kill one with a knife, stick, or stone on any given evening right after sundown---that would be easy---right up until opening morning of hunting season. Then they mutate into super-deer with highly evolved senses and reasoning/strategic skills. It's a conspiracy, I tell you! :D

All right, enough screwing around. When I was a kid I tackled a young muley doe (I was up in a tree when she stopped under the branch I was on), and proceeded to get the ever-loving snot kicked out of me till I wisened up enough to let go. And then there was this moose that use to hang out below our property in the beaver ponds... I was close enough to stick her with primitive weapons quite a few times if I'd wanted to (and here's the key, because I really didn't want to tangle with a cow moose). But if I HAD, she'd probably just give me that look of "Oh, you want a piece of me, little man? Come-on, mama moose is gonna whoop your little white behind and stomp what's left into mud-soup..."

Naw, I do enough the primitive way. Unless I haven't got a choice, I'm gonna keep using my rifle and bow. Recurve is as primitive as I get.

DRice.72
October 21, 2009, 10:31 AM
This has been an interesting discussion. Its give a lot of insight into how people hunt in different parts of the country and how that effects the way those people feel about hunting practices else where. I have never hunted out of a tree stand, not because I'm against, but because I can't afford one. The very few times I been able to go hunting. I have gone to places I know well, not because I want a guarantee on a kill, but because I don't have a lot of time to try to learn a new area. I don't believe I'm far off of what other hunters do in this respect. We go when we can where we can, we buy what we can afford. If given the chance to hunt Alaska, I would be absolutely 100% sure to get a guide. Why? If that chance came to me it would more than likely be a once in a life time deal. I would not want to waste it stumbling around the millions of acres of wilderness on a fast track to becoming bear fodder, having no concrete idea where to go. So would that make me unethical?

oneounceload
October 21, 2009, 10:50 AM
I personally choose not to bait (also not legal in Fla)

What do you call salt blocks and automatic feeders then?

If anyone feels it necessary, whether by custom, terrain, personal physical limitation, or any other reason to use bait, tree stands, whatever - then have at it as long as your DOW deems it legal. Moral issues are another matter for the individual

TMUSCLE1
October 21, 2009, 10:53 AM
No D. Rice, I think you would be ethical. I also got the impression that hiring a guide is wrong earlier in this thread. I guess hiring a guide on a canned hunt is what gets people. To each their own after reading this one.

DRice.72
October 21, 2009, 11:05 AM
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html#list

If you look at this map of Federal owned land. Look at the East coast, those of us that hunt federal game lands on the east coast are hunting canned hunts. You could easily fit any of those parks into leased ranches in the mid-west or Texas. These parks are "fenced" in by areas we can't hunt, like highways, or neighborhoods, and cities.

koolminx
October 21, 2009, 11:10 AM
Fisherman, when I said Canned hunt I was making an overview and I failed to specify that I meant canned to mean a small plot fenced or unfenced, and baited to lure or entice. To me they both mean canned.

Sorry for my lack of explanation and flagrant misuse of the word.


When I hunt, I go out in clothes that have been buried in a leaf compost for about 4 day's, I also wash my hair with scent free soap and then rub saw dust into it then don my cap. Upon arriving at my destination I Still Hunt. Which means I walk until I get my game.
Sometimes I only make 100 yards in an hour of walking, and sometimes I make a hundred yards in 2 minutes. It really depends....

One thing I want you all to know. I do NOT think less of YOU for hunting the way you do. I simply think more of myself than I do of them personally, even when I end up skunked. It's not the same regardless of what's going through your minds from my statement :) (Hard to explain)

Just don't assume that I dislike the person simply because of the way he hunts.

PRONE2
October 21, 2009, 11:28 AM
It's nice to have some members clear up what they are saying. We all hunt, we should all respect one another. Be proud in what you do, if it's safe and legal then hunt and enjoy!

fisherman66
October 21, 2009, 01:40 PM
Kool,

No need to apologize. "Canned" means different things to different people. "Hunting" means different things to different people. Hunting is regulated by the states (and fed in some cases) and I figger they right the rules; they make the definitions.

I've played around with the idea of trappin' hogs. I might shoot pen trapped hogs. No big deal. I won't claim to have hunted them, since that doesn't fit the definition set by our state.

DRice.72
October 21, 2009, 02:18 PM
Good point Fisherman66.

Vanya
October 21, 2009, 03:14 PM
Interesting thread -- thanks, Brent.

One could argue that it's the whole idea that hunting is a "sport" that creates most of these dilemmas... as various people have pointed out here, the notion of "fair chase" goes back just a century or so, and why? Because the elite, of whom Theodore Roosevelt was a fine specimen, wanted to go hunting, not for subsistence, but for pleasure: they didn't need the meat, but they enjoyed the experience.

Defining hunting as a sport, and inventing rules such as "fair chase" to make it a "sporting" activity, did several things, I think. First, it was useful as a conservation device, a way of discouraging overhunting (think of those 19th century bison "hunts," from trains and whatnot, which pretty well wiped them out); second, emphasizing the chase was a way of making it look less like mere killing for fun, which is sort of icky, ethically speaking, for most people.

And I think another consequence may have been to give that elite, for whom hunting in this way was an entirely optional, "luxury" activity, the moral high ground over non-elite folks for whom it was still a subsistence activity. Hunt over bait? Run deer with dogs? Shoot caribou while they're swimming a river? Oh, ick, ick, ick!! Completely unethical, but what can else you expect from the lower classes? :rolleyes:

It's ironic that much of what we're now questioning -- canned hunts, guided hunts for exotic species, hunting animals selectively bred for trophy size -- is available only to the modern version of that elite...

And if contemporary subsistence hunters find the emphasis on "fair chase" a bit annoying, a bit precious, I'd say they have good reason to feel that way.

Right, Brent? ;)

DRice.72
October 21, 2009, 05:34 PM
Nice post Vanya, those are some good points.

DRice.72
October 21, 2009, 06:29 PM
I guess if I sat and thought about it there are two ways to look at it, and depending on which camp you are in there are two ways to go about it.

Let's say for the sake of this post I am planning on going hunting in a national park out west. Some place that in my particular case is no where near me. I have two methods of hunting this park. I can do some research on guides and book a trip, or I can be a purist and go it alone.

First method. I call the better business bureau and get the names of guides who work in the area. Contact them for information about a trip. Once I get the information and pricing. I select a guide book the trip show up and go hunting. The guide will tell me what I need to bring and take me to the areas I need to be in order to make a kill.

The second way isn't so easy. First I would need to research the eating habits of the game I'm going after in that particular park. Then I need to find out just what areas that mast grows in climate wise, elevation etc. Then I need to order topo maps so I can see those areas. I also need to determine what kind of access is availabe to the areas in which I am interested in hunting. Now I need to research weather, I have no guide to tell me what to bring so I'm on my own rember. I need to do this because it is this time of year weather in the parks out west is unpredictable. After doing this I need to check my gun, ammo and other gear. Now I'm ready to go. Once I get to the area I have pre-selected I set off with my maps and compass hoping the area has some well used animal trails and that my flora research will pay off, allowing me to find the mast crops I need to increase my chances of getting a kill.

As I sit and read this I have two reactions. If I score a kill using the first method. I will be absolutely thrilled, it will be the hunt of a lifetime for someone like me. If I use the second method I not only have the satisfaction of the kill, I have the added satisfaction of knowing that I did it all on my own. But in all honestly I would choose the first option. As much as I would love to believe I'm Daniel Boone, the reality is I'm a civilian. I spend as much time outdoors as I possiblly can, that is no where near the amount of outdoor expiernce needed to attempt a hunt alone in the parks out west. Here where I live? No problem. And at the end of the day I will most likely feel I haven't cheated or been unethical.

I'm also looking at the fact I have had to save for this. When selecting a guide I'm going for one who has a reputation for getting his clients meat, or trophies, or both. There is a good chance that guide stacks the odds in his favor. I'm spending a lot of money to go. I don't want to come back empty handed. I can rent a car and just rubber neck if I want a view. I spent the money to get a kill, to go on a hunt. Is that wrong?

Daryl
October 21, 2009, 07:57 PM
Well, what others do is up to them, but...

If I'm HUNTING, I don't want a canned hunt.

Even so, I go up every once in a while and shoot a buffalo for a fee. All I'm doing is buying meat that I have to shoot myself, rather than buying a beef. I prefer the taste, and I don't call it "Hunting".

If I have mice in the house, I'm not into it for the challenge. I'm in it to rid the house of mice, so I set traps.

I love calling coyotes with predator calls. It's my prefered method to get them. That said, if they're a problem for someone raising chickens, traps are more effective for eliminating the offending animal. Why work at calling and killing maybe 50 coyotes in an area when a trap will get the offending critter without doubt?

I've never placed bait to draw in an animal. However, I HAVE hunted alfalfa fields with a bow for antelope. Seems fair enough to me.

I hunt for my own reasons, and my reasons might depend on what sort of hunt I'm on and why I'm on it. I also allow...no, I encourage others to do the same as long as they're within the law.

Dearhunter61
October 21, 2009, 08:09 PM
Boy Hogdogs you really like to stir it up! Since I live in the BIG state of TEXAS I also frequent and am a member of Texas Hunting Forum and there is a thread there today that has gone off the deep end on this type of conversation. It is in regards to a man taking two bucks that total over 500"! Yep that is right 500"! This morning when I first saw it it was 4 pages and when I got home from work and looked at it it was at 22 pages and growing fast. Whew!

I will say there are a few things that I am not crazy about and I stated them in the thread you mentioned earlier...is this a shooter buck...but again I will state that as long as the game is harvested legally I am happy for your success!

Good luck sorting out the hunting problems in our country! :D

oneounceload
October 21, 2009, 08:16 PM
I simply think more of myself than I do of them personally, even when I end up skunked.

Way to go - it SHOULD be about the hunt, not about the kill, whether four-footed or winged......hunting is one thing, killing is another - IF you can combine the two legally, ethically and morally.....good for you

hogdogs
October 21, 2009, 08:19 PM
DeerHunter, I guess I have had lots of impromptu training in stirrin the stink stick since I first hit the net in about '95... Lots of readin' professional pot stirrers...:D
Brent

koolminx
October 21, 2009, 10:09 PM
The second way isn't so easy. First I would need to research the eating habits of the game I'm going after in that particular park. Then I need to find out just what areas that mast grows in climate wise, elevation etc. Then I need to order topo maps so I can see those areas. I also need to determine what kind of access is availabe to the areas in which I am interested in hunting. Now I need to research weather, I have no guide to tell me what to bring so I'm on my own rember. I need to do this because it is this time of year weather in the parks out west is unpredictable. After doing this I need to check my gun, ammo and other gear. Now I'm ready to go. Once I get to the area I have pre-selected I set off with my maps and compass hoping the area has some well used animal trails and that my flora research will pay off, allowing me to find the mast crops I need to increase my chances of getting a kill.

Why in the heck would you need to do anything of the sort?

If I have access I need nothing else, If I can see the borders on a map I need no more info, Elevation means nothing really, on foot you either make it or you do not, and go home.

Deer live in the world, if yo go to where the deer are, there's no need for more research... Unless that's just your bag -o- beans and you like tootin. I reckon I like your philosophy about it, but If I had that kind of time to go scouting I'd be in heaven.... :)

shortwave
October 22, 2009, 12:26 AM
Hogdogs, thanks for this thread. I particularly like #37 post by Big Bill. IMO, more importantly than the underlined paragraph titled 'Legal Versus Ethical' is the paragraph right below it titled 'Divided We Fall'. That paragraph should be a 'sticky'. I think when us hunters start criticizing the legal hunting tactics of others maybe the mods should suggest to the criticizer to read sticky. Are we for certain our ancestors didn`t bait when hunting? Are we sure they didn`t throw speers or shoot bows from the tree tops at their quarry? I`m not. I`d rather think they most likely did both. Back then they weren`t to concerned about who was doing what next door or who was the most macho in the way they hunted. They were worried about one thing, survival. We`ve got hunting laws in place today that enables different tactics of hunting various game so as to maintain our game and keep hunting safe. Laws vary from state to state. Thats whats nice about the 'good ole US of A' if I don`t like a tactic thats legal in my or your state, I don`t have to hunt using that tactic. Also I don`t/shouldn`t criticize any legal tactics cause the anti-gun/hunting organization scan these forums and I wouldn`t want to be guilty of supplying them with ammo, they stretch for. to stop what I love to do.

wyobohunter
October 22, 2009, 01:12 AM
Since I live in the BIG state of TEXAS


Quit yer braggin or Alaska will split in two and Texas will be third:D

ZeroJunk
October 22, 2009, 06:47 AM
Hunting preference aside, the Wildlife people are trying to keep the population of whatever species healthy.
In N.C. they are tring to figure out how to get people to kill more deer because the population is growing at a rate that needs to be checked.
Baiting is legal here and has been. Despite all the unfairness attributed to it by some, it seems to have been no help in slowing the population growth

ChiefMuzz
October 22, 2009, 09:16 AM
Really hunting is separated into 2 categories
1. Hunt for Sport
2. Hunt for Food
Personally I grew up with one foot in each camp. I could survive without putting game meat on my table, but I wouldn't enjoy it as much. Also I enjoy the sport of hunting as much as I do anything else, to an extent. I've hunted 13 years now and have never shot a buck. All my deer have been does. In fact I've never even shot AT a buck. Does it bother me, not really. I've seen plenty in the field. I've just pulled the short end of the stick when it comes to seeing them during the right season, and at the right time. Oh well, eventually I'll shoot one. What sticks in my craw more than anything, is the individuals that feel "canned hunting" animals is some type of higher form of hunting because they can shoot bigger or rarer animals. It's not my cup of tea, so I won't do it, but don't come bragging to me with you 5 year old 14 point when you do. Just enjoy the hunt and enjoy the meal.

As far as not using as many advantages. I hunt in 40 to 50% orange, more for my safety than anything. I don't use attractants as in gun season in PA you really don't need them. Over the years I've become less thrilled with shooting a animal with the typical shotgun/rifle. A couple years ago I got into muzzleloader and use a T/C 50 cal. Hawken. I love it for as much the challenge as the nostalgia of it. Just a couple weeks ago I bought a 454 revolver to use for deer and bear this year. Again for mainly the challenge. Does that mean I'm better than someone with a $1500 rifle/scope combination. Absolutely not. That's just not how I roll ;)

DRice.72
October 22, 2009, 09:20 AM
Quote:

Deer live in the world, if yo go to where the deer are, there's no need for more research... Unless that's just your bag -o- beans and you like tootin. I reckon I like your philosophy about it, but If I had that kind of time to go scouting I'd be in heaven....

Well I was talking about going someplace I have never been before. I know here in WNC, if there is a really good mast crop on the high ridges and you park your self along the edge of a field in natural blind, or slow walk along a river, all your gonna do is have a nice walk. We all know that in the wild the deer are where the food are, regardless of where you live. Nature determines where that food is going to be every year, as we aren't planting feed crops to fatten them up. It is just me. I'd like to know something about the area I'm going to hunt before I get there, esp if I have never been there before. If I'm going to drive 2/3 of the country to go on what for me would be a dream hunt. I'm not going to chance it. Like you said, that's just me and I too would just absolutely love to have the kind of time needed to scout like I described!

ninjatoth
October 22, 2009, 09:51 AM
I've hunted 13 years now and have never shot a buck. All my deer have been does. In fact I've never even shot AT a buck. Does it bother me, not really.

I live in an area where bucks are rare,and not many people see them.Last November was my first hunt ever,I was taken out by my father in law and a big buck happened to show up and I got him.Hunting has alot to do with luck I guess too.Now to fair chase.I just completed hunter's safety and we talked about that one.Firing from a car is not fair chase,using a machine gun etc is not fair chase.The hunting laws haven't been changed in awhile,because night vision is legal here,and all kinds of scopes and guns are getting better to take them from 500 yards,which I think that the laws should be reformed.Maybe limit hunters to 4X scopes or less,I don't know.

ninjatoth
October 22, 2009, 09:57 AM
also,I think about other things expressed in hunter's safety class.And one of them is what aldo leopold said"ethical behavior is doing the right thing when noone is watching,and even when doing the wrong thing is legal".Now take two scenerios,one is legal,one is not:Legal-shooting as many deer as bag limit is,even if that means shooting only trophy racks in a designated penned in area for deer,even if your bag limit is 5 deer.Illegal-a starving family's father harvests a deer without a license.But which one of these scenerios is right?

ChiefMuzz
October 22, 2009, 10:53 AM
I live in an area where bucks are rare,and not many people see them.Last November was my first hunt ever,I was taken out by my father in law and a big buck happened to show up and I got him.Hunting has alot to do with luck I guess too.

Absolutely. Practice, preparation, and a good dose of luck are all part of the equation of a good hunt.

Congrats on the buck BTW. Any deer is a trophy if you worked hard for it.
I was lucky that when I shot my first doe my grandfather, who had just pushed out a big stand pines for me, and my father were both standing right next to me. A group of 20 deer came out in to the clearing I was watching right as him and my father were planning another push. Now that's what I call luck!

ninjatoth
October 22, 2009, 11:10 AM
As far as not using as many advantages. I hunt in 40 to 50% orange, more for my safety than anything. I don't use attractants as in gun season in PA you really don't need them. Over the years I've become less thrilled with shooting a animal with the typical shotgun/rifle. A couple years ago I got into muzzleloader and use a T/C 50 cal. Hawken. I love it for as much the challenge as the nostalgia of it. Just a couple weeks ago I bought a 454 revolver to use for deer and bear this year. Again for mainly the challenge. Does that mean I'm better than someone with a $1500 rifle/scope combination. Absolutely not. That's just not how I roll

I would love to get a deer revolver or muzzleloader.I shoot revolvers alot,but don't have anything over 4" or .357,I would like a 6" .44 magnum.I just shot my first muzzleloader a few days ago at a 100 yard or so range with a half load of powder,and man do those balls move!It hit in a split second with a huge puff of dirt with just a half load.I can't afford anything more than what I have now though.My brother gave me his .444 marling with a nice 40mm scope,and I had it sighted in for free with a laser at the local sports store,and I can barely afford ammo for it as it is,I can't afford another gun,so that's what i'm using this year.

ChiefMuzz
October 22, 2009, 12:49 PM
Black powder is alot of fun as is shooting a revolver. Save up for what you want and hunt for bargains. It may take a while, but when you get the money and find a deal it makes it all the more worthwhile. I don't have a whole lot of extra money at my disposal so I understand what you mean.

James R. Burke
November 4, 2009, 07:48 PM
I have never paid for a hunt, and just hunt wild deer on public land or maybe a freinds forty. We do bait, but I wish they would outlaw it. If you dont bait here you would be the only one not doing it, so in away it forces you to bait. Awhile ago a person asked if I used a in line muzzeloader, sabot, and scope. I said yes I do. I went on to say it is much better than maybe wounding a deer, but if you like total primitive muzzeloading cool have at it. He was a bow hunter. I then asked him if he used a compound, sights, trigger release etc. He said he did. I told him if you dont like the way I muzzeload I would switch if he would make a bow from a tree limb, and a piece of rope. That kind of ended the conversation. Limit a scope to 4x. Thats something to think about. What about a 2x or just open sights. It would save some money. Maybe you could get more hunting in around Alpena lots of good eating deer there.

Uncle Buck
November 6, 2009, 09:15 AM
I find these types of threads interesting.
I am getting to the point of not being able to walk very far (And I was hoping to run with Hogdogs and Junior if I ever make it to Florida, or at least be able to provide a first hand account of their running the hogs!) and I think in a few years I am going to be forced to hunt from a chair.
This brings up an interesting point (at least for me). I will have to cut paths through the woods (That is another way to make sure deer will come by my stand) and put up a blind somewhere along the trail.
I will probably bait (legal, so long as the bait is removed at least two weeks before the hunt) just to make sure I get a deer.
I will be using those ear protectors that are battery operated to help me hear the animal coming, but shut off when you shoot. (More technology.)
I will have to use some sort of lift device to retrieve the animal.

It seems the alternative to this is to give up a hobby/sport that I love. I do not find any sort of ethical dilemma in adopting my hunting to my capabilities. I met a man that bow hunts from a wheel chair and he has some pretty impressive pictures of the deer and rabbits he has taken.

shortwave
November 7, 2009, 08:50 PM
Uncle Buck, don`t give up something you dearly love to do! Some of the anti baiting, stand and blind comments are from those that haven`t been fortunate enough to become 'seasoned' yet. Hopefully they`ll know what you`re saying one day;). I made a portable blind on a trailer for my dad. He hunts/sleeps(:D) over bait. At least he`s still out there sharing time with us.

bcarver
November 7, 2009, 09:27 PM
as few hunters as there are I think we should support each other.
As long as the herd/population of animals is not damaged I could care less.
Now the anti hunters feel differently.
Hey Hotdog are you one of them anti-hunters?

Swampghost
November 7, 2009, 10:17 PM
News from my neck of the woods.
http://www.wptv.com/content/news/martin/story/hunting-camps-martin-county-j-r-outfitters-wptv/O2nPKOAjKEW-wHN1DXEu0w.cspx

Opinions?

This was the best MC Commisioners meeting that I've ever seen. Everybody from PETA, HSUS to NRA was there to discuss a ZONING change!

hogdogs
November 8, 2009, 12:12 AM
Hey Hotdog are you one of them anti-hunters?
Only if they are in my spot...:D
Brent

Buzzcook
November 8, 2009, 01:34 AM
Swampghost I can't really comment on the hunting camp story because I think there's probably more to the story.
A County does have the right to change zoning rules. Neighbors do have a right to complain. The various activists both for and against are just a side show.

Opening a rifle range without the proper permits was just an idiot move. Everything follows from that act.
The question of canned hunts is secondary.

hogdogs
November 8, 2009, 01:58 AM
SG, Excellent results! Glad they managed a "win" for the enterprise...
I may have to send a resume for the cook job!
Commissioners will continue to debate how many hunters will be allowed in such camps, and whether food service will be permitted.
so long as food is free, it is hard to regulate the situation... YEAH I knoe all about restaurant safety laws but I could cook a full meal out doors that would blow yer mind...:D
I also make a right decent N.O.P. (Nut On Patrol) for general security too...
Brent

Art Eatman
November 8, 2009, 10:44 AM
I guess I really got serious about deer hunting back around 1964. Thereabouts. I'd quit booming around the world and got back to the old home territory just outside of Austin, Texas. The old family place of a little over 200 acres.

Way too many deer on it for the carrying capacity of the land; a far cry from the darned-near-none of the WW II era. So, I did my own culling program. I'd get off work and take the jeep and a rifle and drive out somewhere in the pasture and park where I knew the deer would exit the woods. Over some three or four years I shot a bunch of does, mature spike bucks and scraggle-horned bucks. I got pretty doggoned good at cooking Bambi.

I never really thought of it as "hunting", although I'd call it that in casual conversation. To me, "real hunting" was going after a particular nice buck, although sitting in a tree stand was not particularly different than playing Sneaky Snake. Or, what I call "walking hunting", easing along in the more open areas to see who's not paying close-enough attention. It helps if you learn how to use the wind and how to walk quietly and smoothly without making jerky motions or marching like you think you're some sort of soldier. All that's a lot easier if you start out when you're just big enough to tote a .22 rifle, of course. :)

Lease hunting on Texas ranches is the most common system, given that there is relatively little public land here. Texas joined the Union as a sovereign entity in its own right, and owned all the state lands not yet occupied by the individual citizens. Well, seems fair to me for a rancher to charge money to let me trespass in his yard--yeah, big yard. :)

Technology? There's "need" and then there is "want". I figure I "need" my rifle and my knife. "Want" is all that other stuff that folks worry about. I'll water up before I leave camp, and eat and drink when I get back. Okay, some toilet paper to mark where Bambi's waiting for me to come back with the jeep and haul him the two or five miles to camp, depending on how the day went. (Best to shoot 'em near the jeep trail, I've found.)

So I dunno. If Bambi didn't stick his stupid head up at the wrong time, I probably wouldn't break his fool neck for him.

If I'm gonna sit, what's the difference between sitting on the ground all leaned up against a rock or tree, and sitting in a tree stand? Or sitting in the jeep? Sittin's sittin'. I can drift off to snoozeland most any old where--and it's amazing how many times I came awake and saw Ol' Bucky wandering along.

Sneaky-snaking and walking-hunting was a lot of fun for a lot of years, but my ancient back is putting "paid" to that sort of fun, not to mention other funsies. Guess what? That problem's gonna come up for everybody who has ever hunted in any way, shape or fashion. Everybody reading this is gonna get there, some day.

ZeroJunk
November 8, 2009, 11:01 AM
Wandering off I know, but back in 2000 I was bowhunting in the Bob Marshall and noticed tha I was having trouble getting around where I had been like a billy goat years before. The next year I went to the hospital and had a 95% blockage in a heart artery. Luckily it was not a lot of deposits just a piece of plaque that had broken off, but it would have killed me just the same. Thank heavan for stints.

So, I lost 40 pounds and I have walked three miles most every day since 2001. I can hunt the Rockies now as easy now, maybe even better, than when I was 40. A lot of my motivation other than just not wanting to die is hunting the mountains.

Stay in shape as long as you can. If you are overweight get rid of it, no good will come of it.


However, I still like to put a climbing stand in a good spot just to while away the time and see what comes by.

If you do it a while you will see alot of stuff, not just game, that you missed when you thought you were sneaking around.

Edward429451
November 8, 2009, 11:40 AM
What an interesting thread. I have very loosely defined fair chase definitions, nothing radical. I wont bait, I think using scopes is cheating (loosely!), Quad runners no good, horses ehh yes, cheaters because I don't have them and it sucks when they amble by where it'll take me hours to get to! Never paid for a canned hunt, never had a guide, never slept in a huntin lodge. It's tents and sleeping bags and guns and iron sights for me. I walk hunt and sit hunt depending on how tired I am.

Those guys with the ultra mags and super scopes who take their animals at 600 or 800 yards...Oh they cheat hard! That's not huntin', it's ambushin' em. I say this because I can't shoot that far!

I can't even bring myself to shoot coyotes anymore. What's the point if I can't eat it? To save you the near landowner's chickens or such? Fine, invite me over for a cup o joe and then I can see why and will but until then...nah.

All my rules subject to change depending on how hungry we are, and prevailing socioeconomic conditions...I'd rather poach a deer than rob a liquor store!

hogdogs
November 8, 2009, 12:34 PM
Ed, All my rules subject to change depending on how hungry we are, and prevailing socioeconomic conditions...I'd rather poach a deer than rob a liquor store!
AMEN!!!
I can't even bring myself to shoot coyotes anymore. What's the point if I can't eat it? To save you the near landowner's chickens or such? Fine, invite me over for a cup o joe and then I can see why and will but until then...nah.
well yer invited to come over for a "cup o joe" or a shot of unaged corn liquor if you prefer...
But I feel the reason we hunters and outdoors man should shoot the 'yotes any time opportunity presents is strictly ecological in nature... They have no other real predatory threats other than us and their population is steadily growing while they continue to heavily burden the population of many of our preferred game critters. They are indiscriminate killers of the young of deer, rabbits, turkey, quail and many others. By indiscriminate I mean many humans cull what they consider the weaker genetics of a specie. The 'yotes are killing the best of genetics as well as all others. The term "the strong survive" isn't aimed at the very young for the most part as parenting usually protects all until they are on their own. Thus, I want a very limited active 'yote population. As well as the aforementioned predation of our domestic stocks.
I say this because I can't shoot that far!
All my rules subject to change depending on...
Same here, bud, SAME HERE:D
Brent

infntryblu
December 11, 2009, 01:52 AM
I'm 65. After 17 yrs in the infantry and 25 in the Army I can't get around like I used to. Call my paid for buffalo hunt canned, but my first time out I had 16 square miles to hunt. When I finally found the herd, I had to HUNT to get in for a good clean shot with a 44 Automag. It took me a whole day. Baiting is not hunting, even if others do it. Neither is a tree stand. Hunting is more than the shot or the game. Its scouting the animal's habitat, It's finding the animal, then working your way in to get a proper shot. If you don't do these things you're not HUNTING. You might as well go down the street and shoot your neighbors dog, or a stray cat in your yard. I'd like to go hunt wild buffalo but I can't physically handle the effort it takes. Horses would be ok, but I don't ride any animal that can **** when it's at a full gallop. Hunting is as you perceive it. I was just brought up on a different set of standards. Want a more enjoyable time hunting, try my method. When you bag the game you'll have a whole different perspective and feeling of accomplishment that you have matched wits with your quarry.

ZeroJunk
December 11, 2009, 07:30 AM
I've been within 10 yards of an elk, 30 yards of a grizzly, 20 yards of a black bear, a few feet of a deer, 40 yards of a moose.( on the ground by the way) Of course, some years I might hunt 60 days or better.

If I want to spend some of that time lounging around in a tree stand, good for me.

Go in to some crowded eastern gameland and have everybody sneaking around like they think they are an indian. See how that works out.

taz1
December 11, 2009, 10:11 AM
hunting is ----- looking for.

when i hunt food to feed my family im gonna take that animal any way i can peroid.:eek:

when i hunt game for pleasure i like to get real close/ try my stealth agenst his instincts.:cool:

when i hunt tracks to hone my skill i like to use use a camera.:)


true fair chase dosent exist--its predator prey --- smarter wins.:D

ethics in the animal world---babies= helpless= first eaten.
old - injured= weak= second eaten
mature= 50/50 chance =last option
humans in the animal world in true fair chase ( what god gave us )= extinct.

Art Eatman
December 11, 2009, 11:05 AM
Some folks fuss against a man-made stand. Other than comfort, how is that different from sitting in a tree or on a hillside so you can look down into the brush? How is the style different from that of a cougar?

Baiting? Get out your little highway map. US 90 in Texas. Say, from around Del Rio to San Antonio. Okay, everything south of that on down to Mexico: It's gently-rolling to flat, and the unfarmed areas are brush. The "Brasada". Catclaw, mesquite, prickly pear and blackthorn. The only way to move through that mess is on cattle trails or man-made trails, the senderos. The only way you'll ever see a deer is near bait, from a high stand.

Sure, some of us are skilled in sneaky-snaking and all that. So? In today's society, not all that many have the access to the learning that's gone into that skill. City folks with office jobs, for instance, and city folks in general.

I was danged good at driving a 200 mph race car, but I don't put down folks who drive slow at 80 on an Interstate, just because they don't know how to deal with high-speed corners. Snobbism ain't real neat, you get right down to it.

snipecatcher
December 11, 2009, 12:10 PM
Some folks fuss against a man-made stand. Other than comfort, how is that different from sitting in a tree or on a hillside so you can look down into the brush? How is the style different from that of a cougar?

Baiting? Get out your little highway map. US 90 in Texas. Say, from around Del Rio to San Antonio. Okay, everything south of that on down to Mexico: It's gently-rolling to flat, and the unfarmed areas are brush. The "Brasada". Catclaw, mesquite, prickly pear and blackthorn. The only way to move through that mess is on cattle trails or man-made trails, the senderos. The only way you'll ever see a deer is near bait, from a high stand.

Agreed. Some land is conducive to walk hunting, but in many areas of Texas, it is nearly impossible. Everything in South Texas sticks, pricks, or bites. Then again, I've hunted land in Matagorda County, on the middle coast, that was old growth oaks on a riverbottom. Perfect for walk hunting. Our current 70 acres in Lampasas county is not good walk hunting land. Too many cacti, and the cedars are so thick you can hardly walk through them unless you are on a trail. Thus we hunt from stands.