What's Wrong With This Picture? pun intended

[butch50]

September 2005, American Hunter Magazine, published by NRA. Page 30, Article titled "Cam Lessons".

A few years ago, Mark Drury got a wild hair to get into game surveillance. He bought a truckload of trail cams, scattered them across his Midwestern hunting spots and snapped some 4,500 photos of whitetails each season (italics added). The co-host of the popular Drury Outdoor videos has now become somewhat of a voyeur; he switched to Mini Dv 'Wildlfe Eye" units to get live, streaming footage of deer day and night in their feeding areas and bedrooms. By cross referencing those prints and loops of video with aerial maps and the actual glassing of bucks, Drury has pinned down the movements of some monsters and killed them...One time an 11-pointer popped up two days on two different cams in late November. Drury had never seen the gray-faced, belly sagging giant before, and he'd scouted and hunted that farm for years. But those two photos were enough. He moved in one day in December and smoked the 6 1/2 year old deer with a muzzleloader.....

This is disgusting. What's next, tagging the deer with radio collars, following them by sattelite, shooting them with remote controlled guns mounted in the trees and calling it a clever hunting technique? :barf:

Worse yet, the NRA prints this garbage as not only acceptable but in fact they write as though this is a great idea and worthy of emulation. :barf: What are they thinking? They are bragging on yet another another slob hunter that doesn't really want to hunt, he just wants to score points on the antler scale regardless of tradition or hunting ethics! This isn't remotely (pun intended) fair chase hunting.

Boone and Crockett definition of fair chase hunting: 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. http://www.boone-crockett.org/huntin...=huntingEthics

Doesn't the NRA support fair chase hunting? OBVIOUSLY NOT!

[DimitriS]

Ya I understand what you mean. Its not hunting if you have maybe one or 2 cams to just get a basic understanding about where the deer might be thats different then putting up that many that you can track the deer almost down to a science Now thouse cams are small and in my dads or any other hunters who are my friends friends truck we can put in a single one over 100+ of them just in the back area. That isnt fair chase. :barf:

If he stayed out in the feild for months getting ready for deer season and wasting countless hours in the bush just watching deer then fine it was fair eventhought he tracked down the deers patterns so well but turning his little area for forest into a version of "The Trueman Show" thats not fair chase :barf:

Dimitri

[Avizpls]

What's next, ... shooting them with remote controlled guns mounted in the trees and calling it a clever hunting technique?

Live-Shot.com

haha, and you thought you were being sly by forecasting a WAY off implausible situation.

[Double Naught Spy]

The B-C ethicst thing is just too funny. Apparently using bows and/or guns does not give the hunter an unfair advantage for the taking of game.

This is disgusting. What's next, tagging the deer with radio collars, following them by sattelite, shooting them with remote controlled guns mounted in the trees and calling it a clever hunting technique?

Its not hunting...

This is interesting. The guy in question used the cameras as scouting tools so that he would have an idea on where to find animals. I don't see this as being any worse than hunters who scout hunting areas before the 'hunt' so that they can determine what areas will be most productive. In Alaska and some other parts of the world, hunters use helicopters and planes locate game before they start their hunt. Are these methods unethical? Both give unfair advantage to the hunter to determine animal locations that they otherwise not know.

For stereotypical hunting, I don't see how people call it hunting. Many use feeders to draw in the deer before hunting season and then lay in wait when hunting season opens and then snipe returning deer that are hoping to feed from the now empty feeder.

Duck hunters often use decoys and calls to draw in ducks and then ambush the ducks as they come into range.

Hunters often use camoflage, blinds, and elevated perches to be able keep from being spotted by the intended game that otherwise would likely perceive the hunters as threats and move away.

All these things give hunters unfair advantages over the game they want to kill. As such, the methods are in conflict with B-C ethics.

[kingudaroad]

He moved in one day in December and smoked the 6 1/2 year old deer with a muzzleloader.....

Must of left his laser gun in the truck.

[psycho nut]

people make me sick :barf:

[tintcutter]

This is an unethical situation. It is not good for the growth of the population of deer. If 1 billion people do it to all the animals, it will not be good for the population growth of people. So this is a basis for your hunting ethic, asking is what you are doing a healthy thing?

[Twycross]

Frankly, I don't see the reason this is considered unethical. The argument goes that if he got out in the woods and watched the deer with his own eyes for a month, and memorized their habits, that would be fine. But if he sets up electronic eyes to do it for him, that is disgusting and unethical. I think this is being a little lazy, and taking away from the spirit of the hunt, but if that is the way he wants to do it, let him be.

If 1 billion people do it to all the animals, it will not be good for the population growth of people.

I doubt there will be a billion people doing it. I, for one, don't have the money for truckloads of cameras.

[Pointer]

Is hiding in a tower over an auto-feeder... well you know what I mean.

I'll take any advantage I can get... the opportunities are few and far between.

Camoflage, night-vision glasses, binoculars, scope sights, and long range never-knew-what-hit'em-rifles, hearing enhancements, multiple hunter drives, dogs, grenades and dynamite, and estru-piss on your boots...

[CarbineCaleb]

Certainly it's a more efficient way of harvesting meat, but I think it's pretty strange. You could drain a (dammed) lake and pick up all the fish, and call that "fishing" too... but I wouldn't call it fishing.

If it's to be a sport, fishing and hunting should be a kind of contest, you against the creature, with you using your wits and knowledge of the outdoors and animal's (general) behavior. If you use some overwhelming technical or other artificial tactical advantage to get your quarry, can still do that I guess, but that's no contest, and no sport any longer, just meat harvesting.

[butch50]

The B-C ethicst thing is just too funny. Apparently using bows and/or guns does not give the hunter an unfair advantage for the taking of game.

It actually says improper advantage - there is a world of difference in those two words.

[CarbineCaleb]

It actually says improper advantage - there is a world of difference in those two words.

+1. All sports, not just outdoors sports, have the concepts of rules and fair play - I would argue that this is one of the principal things that actually *makes them a sport*.

[DAVID NANCARROW]

Not sure if the NRA actually promotes this kind of game taking. It sure isn't economical-when you think about the cost of what it took this guy to take a tired old buck, I think he could have gotten several meals of filet mignon with all the trimmings.

However, I'm not gonna get my pants in a twist because I think the guy did something wrong. Just does not seem to be as much fun.

[fisherman66]

I find that more acceptable that the schumks that constantly shoot young 6 and tiny 8 pointers.

I find that more acceptable than canned hunts.

The guy used a muzzle loader, that seems a little bit more fair (although I'd like to see a bow in his hands.)

I find it more acceptable than having sacks of corn every where (although I admit I hunt over corn sometimes.)

Show me a poor gut shoot deer and I will say the guy either needs more practice behind a rifle or quit hunting. That is unethical in my book.

[DimitriS]

If you use some overwhelming technical or other artificial tactical advantage to get your quarry, can still do that I guess, but that's no contest, and no sport any longer, just meat harvesting.

Your assuming people who will do this type of thing even want the meat in the first place they might only be going for the biggest buck to mount on the wall.

I find that more acceptable that the schumks that constantly shoot young 6 and tiny 8 pointers.

Hummm It all depends where you go hunting. In the area's we go hunting up (Ontario Canada) here your going to think you were really lucky in luring a 10 point buck to your stand with calls etc. With the avarage of bucks are your so called "tiny" 8 pointers. Everywhere is different. Someplaces deers grow really large antlers and in other places they dont got as large depending on there food sources etc. So please next time think about it before you call someone a "schumk" because they kill "little deer" in your eyes.

Dimitri

[fisherman66]

I have thought about it and stand by my word. How often is a doe looked down upon by the typical hunter. Doe are often less gamy and more plentiful.

Trophy hunting is fine by me when a buck is truely a trophy. Taking a young (and often potentally superior) buck out of the gene pool before he matures and mates is pitiful management. "Live for the moment" hunting is destuctive in the long run.

All I have killed are "little" deer. All does except one button buck I didn't evaluate properly (I was a schumk that day.)

Guess what? We are seeing some good 8 pointers. They are mating! Give me a few years and I may have a wall hanger; maybe not, but we will have thought long term.

[DimitriS]

Fisher,

A bucks age isnt always based on there antler size you do know that right ??

Just because where you go hunting 8 point bucks are small doesnt mean anything. In another place you can get bucks that will never get any bigger then 8 points for the most part because of the lack of the foods and the weather effects there growth no matter what age they are.

If you cant understand that I feel bad for you. I suggest you pick up a book or 2 about deer at your next trip to the bookstore and learn about how deer grow differently in different areas.

PS My hunting group takes just as many does if not more each season then bucks so your thought about people passing up does to kill bucks isnt always the case.

Dimitri

[fisherman66]

OK, I don't know how not to speak in generalizations on this topic.

"There are two types of hunters..." - I know that is BS, but I see those who shoot diminuative deer because they have knobby things on their skull; with no regard to what potential they hold. You can fault me for having distain for horn hunters.

If I didn't have a dedicated plot of land where deer and game could be managed I could slip into that fold. I am thankful for the opportunty to see deer grow and the ability to notice the same deer year after year (and notice their growth and offspring.)

Over the years I have become more adept at aging the deer and understand sustenence, weather, and DNA will limit the growth of deer. That's where a inferior buck should be removed.

We are currently on land that was robbed of a bunch of imature bucks 5 years ago. It is frustrating to see the skulls laying around with a few sparse horns sticking out. The previous hunters just left them there. We leave them there to remind us to think ahead.

[Capt. Charlie]

Trophy hunting is fine by me when a buck is truly a trophy. Taking a young (and often potentally superior) buck out of the gene pool before he matures and mates is pitiful management. "Live for the moment" hunting is destructive in the long run.

I personally don't like hunting for trophies only. Found too many headless deer Caucasus on my cousin's farm, meat left to rot .

Anyhow, if you think about it, predators take the old and sick, while we take the very best. What's left for the gene pool? The old and the sick. Proper management can ensure that lots of guys like this are out there for harvesting. (shot this pic yesterday, and there's lots more like him around here.)

[fisherman66]

Capt;

That is a magnificent animal. Hope he gets his groove on.

[Ben Swenson]

[...] in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.

Would anyone care to tell me in objective terms what defines "improper advantage"?

One of the guys who got me started in hunting has years of experience, knows deer like the roof of his mouth and can walk out back in blue jeans and a heavy jacket with a bow and a single arrow and come back in within an hour with a gutted deer without a problem. Is his experience and knowledge "improper advantage"? I, for one, could strap a GPS collar to every deer within sixty miles and run around for a week with a gun set up to automatically fire accurately at the collars and I'd be lucky to bring anything home at all. Is my bowhunting from a tree stand an "improper advantage"?

When it comes to hunting, different folks have different levels of tolerance for their own use of advantages, but there seems to be a nearly universal disdain for anyone who wants something to be a bit easier than our own style.

[DimitriS]

Fisher your right you need to think ahead and we do think ahead since all the land we go hunting on is private farms etc that our group members own.

Now thats a big deer Charlie

Ben I think there is a difference between learning how to hunt and outsmarting animals through learnt skills then just using technology to your advantage. A hunters that learnt how to outsmart and be good at hunting is different then using technology and using it to out do deer so you can just kill them all.

Deer learn how to adapt and survive hunting season and the elements. Hunters with experiance learn how to outsmart these older smarter deer. They both put there time and effort to get better at what they are doing so a hunter that can go into the bush and have a deer in a hour isnt a unfair advantage. A hunter with little expericance using camaras/other technology to try and gain my advantage artifically is wrong and unfair last I checked deer dont have any technology to help them survive.

Dimitri

[butch50]

Think of it this way. Hunting is a sport that has evolved from what once was a necessity. We don't hunt now because we have to, but we are descended from people who recently did hunt out of necessity. Hunting for sport should reasonably emulate the hunting of the past, it is what our sport is about, emulating the past. Hunting in the past put men and game on a reasonbly level plane - the men had brains and guns while the animals had super senses and instincts plus intimate knowledge of the terrain. A man with a gun who paid attention could kill deer, but it wasn't a given and it wasn't easy. Moving beyond that to the point where killing deer is far more certain is improper advantage.

"Wiring the woods" with cameras that gives one the ability to be in multiple locations simultaneously (and 24/7 at that) for scouting - that is an improper advantage. Over use of new technology is an improper advantage. Infra-red heat probes, super electronic ears, scent blocking suits, feeders, high fences, these are in my opinion improper advantages. There are other improper advantages as well, but these are some of them.

[Ben Swenson]

Ben I think there is a difference between learning how to hunt and outsmarting animals through learnt skills then just using technology to your advantage. A hunters that learnt how to outsmart and be good at hunting is different then using technology and using it to out do deer so you can just kill them all.

I don't think Drury uses technology to "kill them all", just do some serious scouting beforehand.
Couldn't we say the same thing about using any technology to our advantage? Like long range weapons, scents, attractants, binoculars, or whatever?

Deer learn how to adapt and survive hunting season and the elements. Hunters with experiance learn how to outsmart these older smarter deer. They both put there time and effort to get better at what they are doing so a hunter that can go into the bush and have a deer in a hour isnt a unfair advantage.

I've built and used several trail cameras. Never used them in an area I planned on hunting, but it was neat to get some shots of some critters doing their thing when there weren't any people around.
Now, Drury went out and put them around his property. Then he went back and checked them often, collecting thousands of pictures of deer. He mapped out where they were and when. He learned where they moved and what times they would likely be in a given location. He used cameras to do some of the leg work, but he learned an awful lot about the deer at the same time.
Now he's better at hunting than he was before. Poring over pictures of deer and recording timestamps for hours on end is a fair bit of work, isn't it?

A hunter with little expericance using camaras/other technology to try and gain my advantage artifically is wrong and unfair last I checked deer dont have any technology to help them survive.

How do you excuse the use of a firearm or bow to kill at a distance in the first place? Isn't that using technology to try to gain an artificial advantage that is a little unfair?



Butch,

Think of it this way. Hunting is a sport that has evolved from what once was a necessity. We don't hunt now because we have to, but we are descended from people who recently did hunt out of necessity. Hunting for sport should reasonably emulate the hunting of the past, it is what our sport is about, emulating the past. Hunting in the past put men and game on a reasonbly level plane - the men had brains and guns while the animals had super senses and instincts plus intimate knowledge of the terrain. A man with a gun who paid attention could kill deer, but it wasn't a given and it wasn't easy. Moving beyond that to the point where killing deer is far more certain is improper advantage.

I don't hunt to emulate the past. I hunt to spend some quiet time in nature, to feel closer to it and to harvest some fine meat. I hunt to learn about deer, to get an opportunity to watch animals. I hunt because I enjoy hunting. Not to playact.

I don't wear buckskin and moccasins. I wear insulated coveralls and good, heavy boots.
I don't carry antique weapons, I carry precise, modern weapons - whether I'm toting a compound bow with a release and very comfortable letoff or a Remington 870 with a rifled barrel and easy-to-see sights, a modern-manufacture blackpowder rifle or a Smith and Wesson .357.
I don't use primative propellants or projectiles, I use modern ammunition (unless I'm using a frontstuffer, but it is still far more accurate, more consistant and more reliable than the old stuff). My arrows wear modern broadheads, have aluminum shafts and plastic nocks.
In areas I'm unfamiliar with, I bring a GPS with an integrated radio.

If I'm emulating the past, it is emulating the tactics that worked.

Okay, I've got a question for you folks. Have any of you ever hunted with some old, experienced hunter who knows all the tricks? Maybe on a bit of property that he's intimately familiar with? Maybe he was your dad, or grandpa or uncle or just a friend. I have. He didn't shove me in the direction of the forest and say "Go find your own deer, punk." He lead me to a spot where he knew deer were active (something he had learned from years of hunting the area). He knew what direction they'd probably come from and about the time they'd be most likely to come and he told me what to look for. He told me where I could sit to have the best chance of getting a shot because he wanted me to have a good first hunt.

Was that an improper advantage?

If you go to hunt on a friend's property, do you ever ask where the deer have been running? Ever talk about where the freshest sign is? Even if you haven't gone out there on your own?

Is that an improper advantage? You haven't done anything but sit and talk with someone. You haven't even studied pictures and marked locations on a map. I'd argue that talking with a very experienced, very knowledgable hunter familiar with an area could be much more of an advantage than having a few thousand pictures to sort through and analyze yourself.

I don't think I'd be interested in doing what Mark Drury did. Doesn't sound like fun to me. Still, I'm not about to climb up on a high rocking horse and pretend I'm so much better than him because I like to get my advantages from people rather than pictures.

A true "fair" hunt would mean grabbing a broken tree limb and stalking a deer to beat to death. I doubt many of you are doing that.

[butch50]

Quote from Ben: I don't hunt to emulate the past.

Actually, yes you do. You don't hunt for food or skins for clothing - you hunt as a sport and that sport is based upon tradition and that tradition is an emulation of the past. Or else you only hunt for the prurient pleaure of killing animals - it is one or the other. Either you hunt for sport and that sport is based on tradition or you are one of those people who just want to kill things.

What would happen to basketball if they lowered the baskets to 8 feet? What would happen to golf if the PGA didn't have strict limitations on balls and clubs? What would happent to baseball if they didn't have strict limitations on balls and bats? Those are traditions. What would happen to any sport if they said - hey use any technology that you want to, change the rules any way that suits your purpose? All sport are artificial realities, with rules of the game that every one plays by. Take away those rules, based on the traditions of the sport, and you have nothing at all.

Quote from Ben: Okay, I've got a question for you folks. Have any of you ever hunted with some old, experienced hunter who knows all the tricks?

There, right there, you have absolutley nailed the finest of all of the hunting traditions. The passing of knowledge, the passing of traditions themselves from older to younger hunters. There is no finer tradition than to be taught by an old hunter. If anything represents the sport of hunting, it is the mentorship of the experienced hunter. Improper advantage? Not at all.

Let me show you a few improper advantages: These are direct quotes from a The Sportsmans Buide Hunting catalog that I received this week:

Dont' Settle for just any decoy when you can have this Mojo Motion Deer Decoy...the full body decoy flicks it's tail and moves it's head/neck....remote controlled from up to 350 feet

Nocturnal Nightmare Daytime Feeder trains hungry deer to come out during the day when your awake and waiting...An advanced digital timing unit only allows access to the gravity feed trough style feeding area during daylight/hunting hours...

Aimshot HeatSeeker infrared spotter tracks down any heat source up to 300 yards...The same heat-seeking/motion technology that military and law enforcement types depend on....

StealhCam - It's your eyes for 24/7 scouting!

So where do you draw the line? What is your puking point? When do you say it is too much? At what point will you say, that is an improper advantage? These things disgust me. :barf: