View Full Version : Hunting Critics

roy reali
October 11, 2009, 01:34 PM
I am a hunter. I have killed animals, I kill animals, and I will contune to kill animals. I admire or at least respect hunters of all types, even if they hunt animals or use methods I do not. What I find amusing, if not upsetting, is when some hunters critize other hunters. Or even worse, want to ban some forms of hunting.

Those that do this are not much different then then the anti-hunter people. I bet PETA members do cartwheels when they hear hunters put down fellow hunters.

You know the whole think about united we stand, divided we fall. We don't always seem so united.

There are some species I do not hunt. I don't hunt waterfowl. I don't like the taste of the meat and I don't like to sit freezing in a blind at some God-awful hour of the morning. I admire the determination of hard-core waterfowlers. However, even though its not my cup of tea, I don't want any restrictions on those that do hunt ducks.

I won't hunt wolves. They are to dog-like. I am a bleeding heart dog lover. I realize that wolf populations are getting out of hand in some places. This is hurting ranchers and big game hunters. If hunting is determined to be the proper way of fixing the situation, then I salute wolf hunters. If a wolf ever threatened me, a loved one, or my dog, then the heck with sentments, the wolf dies. I would never stand in the way of legal wolf hunting.

When I lived in California I was a member of a pheasant club. I was often critized for this. I agree, pen raised birds have the survival instincts of barnyard chickens. I would rather hunt wild pheasants. So I would ask my critics to get me on some land in the Golden State that had wild birds, I would go in a heart beat. Most of these birds are on private property. You have more of a chance of having the IRS let you slide on tax evasion then getting permission to hunt on private property in California.

Back to the original purpose of this thread.

Why are some hunters so critical of other hunters? Are we not deep-down of the same ilk? Shouldn't we support all forms of hunting? There are folks, some in this current administration, that want to ban all forms of hunting. Lets not help their cause.

October 11, 2009, 02:41 PM
Why are some hunters so critical of other hunters? Are we not deep-down of the same ilk?
Not really as our own personal code of ethics comes into question. What all hunters should realize, is that we are all connected and the bad apple spoiling the bushel comes into play. Some folks claim they are hunters and are really just poachers or killers. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have the elitist, who rarely hunts but often criticise those that do and their methods.

On a realated topic, what about gun owners that put down folks for the guns they own and shoot, like Black Guns, in-line M/L's or even a particular manufacture?

All to often, we are long on opinions and short on respect.

Be Safe !!!

roy reali
October 11, 2009, 04:01 PM
What all hunters should realize, is that we are all connected and the bad apple spoiling the bushel comes into play. Some folks claim they are hunters and are really just poachers or killers.

I am talking about these types of hunters. I am very critical of poachers and law-breakers. I am talking about hunters that critize other hunters that are doing legal hunting. Duck hunting is legal, I don't do, I don't care if anyone else does. I would not hunt bears over bait. If another guy does it and it is legal, I will do nothing to stop him.

If one hunter says another hunter's methods are unfair, that is alright. We can all debate these issues. But there are some hunters want to ban certain types of hunting, or at least that is how they come across.

October 11, 2009, 05:13 PM
I agree, there are some hunters that seem to target other hunters too much. One only hopes they put as much energy into going after the anti-hunters. Hunters should let other hunters pursue whatever game they wish as long as it is within the guidelines of laws and regulations.

October 11, 2009, 07:58 PM
I will agree with the ideals of this thread so far for the most part.

What I DISAGREE with is the "slob" hunter. I have nothing in common with him/her.

Folks who regularly break laws, shoot up water tanks and windmills, leave gates open that should be closed, and generally make a nuisance of themselves aren't of my liking, and are generally not tollerated in my camps.

As far as HOW they hunt, and WHAT they hunt, I won't criticize at all as long as it's a legal animal that's in season, and the method of take is within the boundaries of the law. I've hunted most forms of legal wildlife in the areas I hunt, and enjoy each and every type. I'll continue to do so, and will encourage and teach others to do so, but there are some activities taken outside the law that I cannot condone.

I admit to making many mistakes in my life, many of which I'm not proud of. I don't mean to sound self-righteous, but there are times when we need to clean our own ranks.


October 11, 2009, 08:19 PM
Boy oh BOY this is a GOOD thread!

I will let you know that this type of question is dealt with DAILY on Fishing forums both salt water and fresh water that I hang at, and I too hate to be labeled as a hunter that's a slob, or a fisherman that's a poacher. Yet there are MANY in both arenas that are and hurt the rest of us.

And I can't stand the turn coat style hunters that think that their form of hunting should be the only form and that others should be stopped etc....

October 11, 2009, 09:40 PM
I agree on the good thread!

As a little kid my dad taught me about snares, pitfalls, deadfalls and springtraps. Later it was archery and finally firearms.

I do have some problems with "canned" hunting. There are so many variations and forms of game management that even defining the word "canned" is difficult.

October 11, 2009, 10:58 PM
Without hunting and the revenue it generates many of the herds and flocks, etc., would be in terrible shape. Legal hunters and fisherman make many of the conservation efforts today a reality and have a good track record of keeping the populations at viable levels. If there were no hunting where would the money come from for these efforts? My guess these programs would be the first cut in these economic times.


October 12, 2009, 01:47 AM
My aprents raised me to the tune of "judge not that ye be not judged" and "with the same measure you give it shall be given to you". So I do not jusge other hunters because I may be next, and I share what I have with people because I intend to get treated the same way. Why some people think it works well any other way is beyond my ability to comprehend.

October 12, 2009, 05:17 AM
This is the kind of thing that every hunter safety course needs to spend a bit of time on.

I'll admit I will critise other hunters behavior, even at times when what they are doing is "legal", if it appears to me that what they are doing is in the long run the kind of behavior that will do damage to our freedom to hunt.

It comes down to the old question of knowing you have a "right" to do something because it is "legal" but also realizing that for very good reasons it's best not to exercise that right. The idea is that you exercise self control over the smaller things so that a majority of some sort some place does not decide to "vote" away a more important "right" as a way of dealing with you shabby, yet "legal", behavior.

That's a kind of dificult thing to explain, especially for a guy who sells fish for a living. Hope it makes sense................

roy reali
October 12, 2009, 06:55 AM
On a realated topic, what about gun owners that put down folks for the guns they own and shoot, like Black Guns, in-line M/L's or even a particular manufacture?

Great point. This very thing happened in California. Years ago when the ban as EBR's was taking root, I knew some gun owners that actually favored this. Some of these guys were members of a local trap club. They figured if the state went after "black" guns, they were safe with their shotguns. As you all know, the gun bans in the Golden State didn't stop there. Give it time, their Perazzi's, Browning's, and Remington's will make the list.

We need to remember, one straegy the other side uses is to divide and conquer. We don't need to help them.

October 12, 2009, 08:54 AM
;) Hunting animals is a priviledge. If done the right way it does not present problems for us folks who hunt on a regular basis. Of course, there is always a few idiots out there who try and ruin it for us by not following protocols, rules, etc. This is what the Aniti's look for and make use of in their rants.

Bottom line is, no matter what your feelings are about hunting, there are more deer now in this country (for example) than there was over 100 years ago. Why? Because of hunters, hunting seasons, conservation efforts, hunting rules/regs, food plots, license fees, more game wardens, etc. etc. The hunters paid for all of these reasons and as a result, more game.

If not for hunters, game would overpopulate, starve, get sick from interbreeding, more vehicle collisions and so on. We need hunters to keep everything balanced and in harmony for the wildlife. :)

October 12, 2009, 09:46 AM
I'm not a hunter. I don't think I'd want to sit in a duck blind either, or lay in a camo sleeping bag on the beach and pop out with shotgun when the birds fly over. I don't see much sport in sitting in a tree stand and waiting for a deer to wander by, or shooting a bear over a feeder. To me those things seem more akin to ambushing than hunting. I'm a dog lover too, I consider a wolf a magnificent animal and would not want to shoot one, nor would I want to shoot a mountain lion or a bobcat.

No, I'm not a hunter and I dislike the shooting of an animal just for the sake of killing, but I support the right of people to hunt. I might prefer that some forms of hunting were not used, but if it's legal and ethical, I have no qualms and I won't criticize.

Art Eatman
October 12, 2009, 11:31 AM
Seems to me that the point of the OP is the bum-rapping of hunting styles and methods which are different from what somebody is accustomed to.

We've had numerous threads here through the years where folks get all emotional against hunting with dogs or being a sitting-hunter in a stand, as examples.

One facet of huiman nature is a distrust or dislike of anything which is different from that to which one is accustomed. Examples: You won't lend $20 to somebody you don't know. You check out a new neighbor before really opening up to him about your own life. You play wait and see before really being comfortable working with a new boss or new co-worker.

Same sort of pattern in hunting. Some folks grow up where hunting deer or bear with dogs is legal and the land areas are large enough that the dogs don't bother local-area residents. Others, from different locale, think it's bad. Okay, think that way, but don't go bad-mouthing the other guy.

If a guy has but maybe only one four-day period in a year and little background in hunting, why would you talk against his paying for a guided hunt with some sort of guarantee? He's doing the best he can under his circumstances.

I'd rather walk and stalk than sit in a stand. But I've hunted places where you can't do the walk and stalk thing and expect to see a buck. Forget it. The only success comes from being high enough to look down into the brush--and in fairly flat land with thick brush, there's no alternative to a high stand.

IOw, I don't bad-mouth "different".

October 12, 2009, 11:33 AM
I do hunt, I enjoy every facet of the hunt. Wether it be sitting in a duck blind, tree stand, or a box stand overlooking a bean field. I haven't found anything in life more exilerating, aside from the birth of my kids. I would gladly jump on the oportunity of sitting over a bear bait. I don't believe any form of legal hunting is wrong. Most types and situations go way back and have become heritage. The only form I don't necessarily agree with is dog driving deer. But I won't sign any petition to ban it. I've done it, had fun, and killed a deer doing it. But I won't make it part of my annual routine.

My problem comes from other hunters that think their style is of a superior nature than those of others. Every hunter has his limitations and own preferences. Not everyone is as good as others. Some guys can't walk thru the woods and "read" the signs. So they do what they can to put food on the table and enjoy the sport. It may not be "sport" to some but whatever. Hunting methods are there for a reason. You can't hunt a bear the same way you hunt a deer. You can't hunt squirrel the same way you hunt turkey. And ducks are a whole new ball game all together. Each game and style has it's own challenges and rewards. I like hunting fall turkeys (where legal, outlawed in Arkansas this year). I've used a dog to do it. You find a flock of turkeys, send the dog in to bust up the flock. Then reposition and call them back.

Ambushing is exactly the correct term to use. It's the very core of hunting anything. From full blown Wars between countries, to shooting a squirrel, to a bobcat laying in wait. Every predator ambushes their prey.

In this day and age, where the shooters and hunters aren't as accepted by society, in-fighting no good. We must all be more willing and understanding. Banning together is the only way of survival in the days ahead.

October 12, 2009, 04:16 PM
I do not critize any legal, responsible, ethical hunter that takes his game in accordance with the law and who respects the land.
Our sport should be preserved and insured for our grandchildren!:)

October 12, 2009, 05:28 PM
Roy..... this is so true.

Each of us grew up hunting for different reasons. Some of us due to our own paradigms don't understand and won't try to understand the why's of other fellow hunters.

I started out squirrel hunting because my great granny made really good squirrel gravy and 'Banjo' the Feist loved to tree them.

I went rabbit hunting because our neighbor had some real good beagles and it was an opportunity to shoot an old 16ga single we had.

I went groundhog hunting because that was the way my dad trained Redbone pups for coon. (We dug them out with matticks and shovels after an older dog 'treed' them in their den.)

I went coon hunting because my dad enjoyed it.

I went deer hunting once from a stand and have never been so bored before or since.

I went deer hunting with my uncle a few times and really enjoyed it. He was a stalking hunter.

I went quail hunting with my buddy and fell in love with that sport...... honestly mostly because you work so closely with your dogs.

I went grouse hunting a lot when another buddy got hold of a really good little grouse dog.

I guess everyones' definition of hunting is different depending on what you grew up doing.
My good friend was talking today about using peanut butter nailed to trees near his stand. I'm not so sure about how I feel about that. I asked about legalities... he sez is OK but still.....
I also am not sure how I feel about putting out food for bears either.

I read about elephant hunters. I don't understand why anyone would want to kill something like that but I would never be one to want to ban it. Since I don't understand it, it wouldn't be fair for me to voice an opinion to anyone in authority about it.

It would also be hard for me to shoot something like a wolf or a coyote as well for the same reason as stated above. They are just too dog like..... but I would if they were a threat or killing my cattle.

Heck I saw some pics today of a 12' alligator these guys took while in a 10' jon boat. Now by golly that's what I call a fair playing field! More nerve than me.... that's for sure.

We should only support each other if we want to continue our sport for the next generation.

October 12, 2009, 06:55 PM
All to often, we are long on opinions and short on respect Evening Pahoo! Truer words were never spoken. Also Art Eatman`s post is spot on. Here in Ohio, we don`t have a rifle season for deer. Bow,shotgun and BP season`s only. I hear guys here talking trash about hunting down South or out West using 600YD. rifle`s all the time. "Thats not hunting. If I could use a rifle here, I`d have mounts all over my walls". Thats a very common statement made here and when you get talking to the person making that statement you`ll find they`ve hardly ever hunted out of this state. They don`t consider differences in terrain. I`ll usually say something like "the only place you`ll get a 600yd shot in Ohio is on a freeway":rolleyes:. We need to keep people like grymster on our side by always obeying the laws of hunting, not tresspassing or littering, taking ethical shots and respecting each others 'legal' ways of hunting. Great thread! Rant over.

October 13, 2009, 07:52 AM
Hunting species and tactics vary according to availability and local terrain. What works in Wyoming will get you nowhere in Michigan and vice versa. I agree with the OP in principal but have zero faith that his wishes of we hunters getting along will ever prevail. The fact is that we love to be critical of other people, no matter what the arena. Fords vs Chevy, Mercury vs Evinrude, Honda's vs Yamaha, etc. etc. and the list goes on. You just can't fight human nature and for whatever reason the fact is that mankind can't seem to see eye to eye on almost anything.

Big Bill
October 20, 2009, 06:28 PM
Why are some hunters so critical of other hunters? Are we not deep-down of the same ilk? Shouldn't we support all forms of hunting? Poachers and hunters who use any and every method to make a kill are not of the same ilk as ethical "Fair Chase" hunters. There's a BIG difference. So, don't expect me to respect or like everyone's hunting methods. It just ain't going to happen.

Art Eatman
October 20, 2009, 09:57 PM
BigBill, nobody's talking about poachers. The deal, generally, is that just because I hunt in some particular manner, others are not bound to do the same. I don't see my way as THE only right way to be an ethical hunter.

October 20, 2009, 10:18 PM
Texas isn't Idaho nor Wyoming nor any other state with lots of public land for hunting. There is very little public land open to hunting in TX and LOTS of hunters. If you value your life, it is advisable to lease a farm/ranch/etc to hunt so you can know who else is hunting on the land. Also, much of the hunting area is so densely hunted that you just can't walk/stalk the deer as much as we would like to. I have walked/stalked deer a few times when hunting on large ranches with a small number of hunters where it could be done safely. It is just too dangerous with lots of hunters in a small area. The feeders are mostly to encourage deer to stay on your leased ranch and not go elsewhere. If they move just a short way, they may be on someone else's land and out of your reach. I have never shot a deer actually feeding at a feeder. IME it is mostly does and young bucks that come to feeders in daylight. I sit away from the feeder and look for bigger bucks keeping on the fringes or following the does. Often the deer come after we go back to camp and feeding actually occurs during night time.

October 20, 2009, 10:47 PM
The term 'Fair Chase' can be(and often is) defined differently from person to person. Yours may be a touch different from mine but as long as your obeying all legal forms of hunting in your state, just cause I don`t think its right, doesn`t make it so. We should`nt be so narrow minded. Is it a wonder we have so many religions:rolleyes:?

Uncle Buck
October 21, 2009, 01:37 AM
I agree that we need to support each other, but another aspect I would like to see supported is the trapping. When I was younger, I use to fur trap. I got paid by the farmers for removing pest and I was able to sell some of the hides.
My first wife was very sick and we had some outrageous medical bills. We ate a fair number of racoon's that I trapped and sold the furs from. (The possums never did taste right, so we gave up on those. Woodchuck was pretty good and a skunk would do in a pinch.)
We all hunt for different reasons and hunt in different ways. So long as it is legal I feel I should support it.