[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.