Whats the difference?

[hogdogs]

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
Brent

[sasquatch]

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]

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]

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]

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]

comn, Yer initial part was spot on... a little veer is to be expected...
Brent

[koolminx]

I agree

[sasquatch]

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]

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]

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]

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/huntin...=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]

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.p...ion/ethics.now

[Big Bill]

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]

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]

Dragon - Thank you for saying so eloquently what some of us can't. I agree with your post 100%.

[Dragon55]

Awe shucks Bill.... thanx for the kind words

[Big Bill]

I never thought that being a proponent of "Fair Chase" would get me in trouble with members here. It's somewhat discouraging.

[.284]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.