What's Wrong With This Picture? pun intended

[DimitriS]

The problem with hunting and keeping the older traditional methods the same is that compared to other sports hunting has no real "playbook" like most sports do and the fact that hunting in different locations means different styles and therefor different "playbooks".

Hunting cant be standardised so this is what causes younger hunters that didnt learn from someone older to change and do different things. And once these people outnumber thouse who get taught by someone else then the people who know the older ways might even go and use the newer ways because "its what everyone else does". So something needs to be done I think to the people that dont learn to hunt from someone else if you want to keep the sport traditional (I do ) but that needs alot of work books based on state your hunting etc because everywhere is different from what this discussion has brought up

Maybe someone should write a book about their "version" of hunting ?? Not about general hunting like they do in most books trying to cover as much different styles as possible but just one style for the whole book

Once I kill a deer this year using "older" methods that I was taught without any high tech gear like camaras etc I will post a picture

Dimitri

[butch50]

My core beliefs: this whole thing that you're all up in arms about really is much ado about nothing.

At this point you say it is nothing and I say it is extremely important that we stop the use of ever better technology in hunting - at some time in the future I bet you will be saying the same thing, but by then the technology will be way beyond what it is now.

Honestly, I personally have no problem with others who want to spotlight deer.

:barf:

The heck with all these RULES-other than safety and not getting greedy.

And that is kind of what I am saying - the ever expanding use of ever improving technology is a form of greed.

I thought this was a discussion about "tradition" vs. evolving technology. At least that's what I've been talking about all this time, in lieu of "lowering standards".

And I thought the discussion was going something like this: The use of new technology is helping to attract new and more hunters to the sport and helping to control deer populations, which is good for the sport - and then I said that lowering the standards of the sport to attract new hunters is not a good idea. To me, the use of technology to gain more and more advantage on the deer is lowering the standards of the sport. It is anti-thetical to fair chase.

Hunting cant be standardised

Fair chase hunting is an idea that can be built into the hunting laws by limiting the use of technology - as has already been done in some cases.

[Foxman]

I'm with the this is beyond ethical camp. This guy just wants bigger trophys to hang on the wall. the whole idea of a trophy is that it is exceptional and not just in the size, very often it is the hunt which the trophy signifies not how lucky the deer was to feed well that year. As for the "schmuks shooting little 8 pointers", they are the guys doing deer managment, the ones shooting the big trophy bucks are just greedily satisfying their own egos. The correct way of deer management is to try to take sufficient of each sex to get near to one to one ratio. The deer should then be split into age groups taking the biggest percentage as young bucks and mature and young does only a few of the mature bucks should be taken as a self indulgence on trophys, the rest should be allowed to continue to mature. within that sick or injured or very old and declining animals should be taken when the opportunity presents itself. The age of a deer rarely influences the size of the trophy after the second year only the environment and the feed quality.

[Mike P.]

butch50,

Unless a game species is in threat of endangerment, I'll never want to outlaw improved technology to hunt them unless it's something dangerous to other hunters. I consider your opinions to be very much like those of anti-hunters that have fought to ban bow hunting, hunting with dogs, trapping, etc. because of their holier-than-though attitude about what is ethical. And if there is one thing about me, I am not at all a fan of anti-hunters, anti-trappers, or anti-fishermen. What they do might not be my cup of tea, but it isn't like they're trying to force me to drink it.

[Ben Swenson]

Fair chase hunting is an idea that can be built into the hunting laws by limiting the use of technology - as has already been done in some cases.

You still haven't explained to me how scouting with cameras violates "fair chase" more than scouting with a professional guide or someone otherwise very familiar with the land you're hunting on.

So the guy knows where the deer tend to run. He's still got to get into position, wait or stalk until he gets his shot and take it - just like you going to your buddy's property and him telling you where some of the best spots to set up might be. Your buddy learned that the hard way - you didn't. Him telling you where to go is just as much if not more "cheating" and "unfair" as this guy carefully studying the movement of deer on his land, isn't it?

If you're going to be up in arms about Drury's hunting methods, shouldn't you be consistant and demand that no one ask or inform anyone else of where the deer are on a given piece of property?

[butch50]

Unless a game species is in threat of endangerment, I'll never want to outlaw improved technology to hunt them unless it's something dangerous to other hunters.

It sounds as though the difference between us is that I am "process oriented" and you are "results oriented". I believe that the hunt is the thing, and not the kill. The hunt is the process, so to speak. For me hunting is about the hunting of the deer, and the killing of the deer is the end result. That end result should be a challenge to achieve, and the more electronic gadgets you use, the less challenge there is.

You still haven't explained to me how scouting with cameras violates "fair chase" more than scouting with a professional guide or someone otherwise very familiar with the land you're hunting on.

It never occurred to me before reading this article that using scouting cameras could become a problem - but this guy takes 4,600 photos a year and that got me to thinking about it.

The difference is that by having cameras in multiple locations simultaneously, it gives the hunter an "unfair" advantage. Getting scouting results by spending personal time in the field is to me a far different thing than having the woods wired with spy cams in multiple locactions that take photos on 24/7 basis. No single human can accomplish that or anything near that, without artificial aids. Getting information from your buddy or a professional scout isn't the same thing, if they spent time in the field to gather that information.

[Foxman]

I'm with butch 50, he is saying the right things here. If you want to just use the most effective technology, the Celts had it over here a thousand years ago. It was called the Tainchel, basically you got all your relatives and friends together you built a barrier at the top of a suitable blind Corrie ( valley, probably partly where Corral comes from) and then you drove in the deer from 20 miles around, shut the gate and speared and battered them all to death, 100% success rate! even faster now with a rifle.
The bottom line is, a real hunter enjoys the hunt, the planning, the observation of everything, developing the skill to out think the animal, being out in the wilds, the choosing to shoot or not, the learning to be a hunter not just a good shot.
Like Harley used to say " Anything else is less"

[Art Eatman]

Our entire society is gadget-oriented. We use technological "marvels" on a regular basis, and a lot of today's tools were things of science fiction a mere decade or five back.

Hand-held IRs, laser range-finders and radios are part of daily life. Why would anybody expect a lot of hunters to shun them?

As a kid, I plowed behind a horse. My grandfather bought a Farmall 12, with a hand-crank starter; I thought I'd died and gone to heaven. Then he got a Case, with a "real" starter; even better. Now they have all-wheel drive with a cab and A/C and radio. Even TV, maybe.

Heck, I remember using a crank and telling the telephone operator what number I wanted--and today's kids take picture-taking cell phones for granted.

We went from simple bows to recurve to compound. We went from muzzle-loaders to cartridge-firing repeaters to semi-auto. From iron sights to scopes.

All this is the natural progression of tool-using societies. Homo Sap does that. That's why I say that if you like the old style, great--but don't try to use yesterday's ideas of a "proper tool" to bumrap today's people. Teach by example and explain your reasoning, but avoid the negative, judgemental mouth music. It's the ancient thing from Aesop: You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Art

[rgoudy1975]

I have never been an avid hunter, though I don't condemn it. I worked with a fella in GA for a while that totally disobeyed the kill limits. Each year he'd kill as many deer as he could. I always hated that, and I told him so. That's unethical.

Also, he'd always brag about the equipment he used to get them. Eventually, I got burnt on him talking about it so I suggested he start hunting deer with a knife.

[DimitriS]

rgoudy,

You didnt knock him out so +1.

I cant stand poching. :barf:

Dimitri

[Ben Swenson]

All this is the natural progression of tool-using societies. Homo Sap does that. That's why I say that if you like the old style, great--but don't try to use yesterday's ideas of a "proper tool" to bumrap today's people.

There are some folks posts that I always look forward to reading. Clear, concise, and correct.

The difference is that by having cameras in multiple locations simultaneously, it gives the hunter an "unfair" advantage. Getting scouting results by spending personal time in the field is to me a far different thing than having the woods wired with spy cams in multiple locactions that take photos on 24/7 basis. No single human can accomplish that or anything near that, without artificial aids.

True, but then again I don't know a single human that hunts at all without artificial aids.
The disconnect is that you think "My artificial aids are good and traditional. Anyone else's are unfair."
My hunting buddy and I will often both scout an area we intend to hunt together. We share information and essentially we can cover two areas at the same time - something no single human can accomplish. Shouldn't that be just as unfair?

Getting information from your buddy or a professional scout isn't the same thing, if they spent time in the field to gather that information.

But you didn't gather it. You didn't take part in that part of the process. If you find out where the deer are running from another person, you aren't getting any more of the hunt that you so laud than Mr. Drury did. Less, because Drury actually spent the time scouting the trails, setting up the cameras and learning about the deer through the photographs. Asking a scout or your buddy is just getting it without any of the work yourself.

Your position is wildly inconsistent.

[Mike P.]

The difference is that I don't stick my nose where it doesn't belong and don't have a such a high and mighty attitude that I want legislation passed that adheres to a my way or the highway attitude. You're no different than an anti wanting to outlaw hunting lions with dogs because they don't FEEL that it is fair or an anti wanting to outlaw bow hunting because they don't FEEL an arrow isn't lethal enough. As with so many things, if you don't like, don't do it. It's not like technology is endangering the deer population, other hunters, or the sport itself. Elitist attitudes like yours on the other hand can damage the sport however.

[butch50]

The difference is that I don't stick my nose where it doesn't belong

Mike P: Your nose does belong in how far we will allow technology to advance into the huntint sport. Do you disagree that the technology is rapidly improving? Do you disagree that at some point the technology will get so good that hunters will have a huge advantage over the deer they are hunting? Do you think that is a good thing? I don't. I think it is a bad thing. Technology improves exponentially it appears. We did not have portable thermal sensors or robot deer decoys or electronic ears that amplify hearing 9 times, or suits that lock in body odors, or spy cams 10 years ago, maybe not even 5 years ago. But technology breeds technology and 10 years from now the technology will be so far beyond what it is now that what we have now will be considered primitive. Hide and watch, and at some point in the future when the use of super technology gets to the point that it disgusts even you; remember that you kept your nose out of it. Try stopping it then.

All this is the natural progression of tool-using societies. Homo Sap does that. That's why I say that if you like the old style, great--but don't try to use yesterday's ideas of a "proper tool" to bumrap today's people.

Technological improvements are wonderful. Especially in medicine. Technology is pretty much what our society thrives and depends on. Advancing technology is great, I love it, and use tons of it - for instance this forum and the masses of technology that make it possible. I use lots of new improved tools, and love them.

However, having said that, hunting is in a different category than normal every day life. Hunting is a special thing, a special place we go to in our heads and in the fields, it is a nearly sacred thing that we do. Fair chase hunting is hunting at it's finest and best, and hunting as it should be. Technology should be frozen when it comes to hunting - improvements in guns and ammo? Fine. Improvements in optics? Fine. Improvements in warm weather clothing? Mostly fine. Using electronic eyes and ears? :barf:

[Art Eatman]

Butch, while I share your general view of "how to hunt", I'd like to emphasize that you can teach by friendly example. Might be helpful to speak of the issue of upgrading the challenges one sets oneself.

As far as opinions and judgements, I've always figured that if I stuck my finger into a glass of water and then pulled it out, the hole that was left was an indication of how important my opinions were in the grand scheme of things...

, Art

[butch50]

Art: No doubt you are correct. I should be less inhumane to my fellow hunters. I hereby officially apologize to anyone and everyone that I personally insulted.

I am not changing my position, just my manners.

[Art Eatman]

There ya go!

I've thought about this for a long time. Face it, if you buy all the high-tech toys that Cabela's sells, you'll look like the Michellin Man and waddle like a duck!

Rifle, shells, spare shells, handgun, binocs, IR dealie for finding a lost deer, laser range-finder, radio, 17 knives, block and tackle to hang the deer, space blanket, maps, compasses, flashllights, whetstone, trail mix, MREs, fourteen gallons of water, six layers of clothing and a seeing-eye dog.

What'd I forget?

, Art

[Capt. Charlie]

What'd I forget?

GPS, Night vision, Wolf's Ears, laptop computer (you can always play Deer Hunter on it if you can't find the real thing ), portable stand (on wheels and motorized, of course ), Predator drone aircraft for aerial surveillance, and a partridge in a pear tree.

[Wraith]

I think the most useful piece of information we can pull from this discussion is:

Hunting is not a sport, it is a marketing device.

[DimitriS]

(you can always play Deer Hunter on it if you can't find the real thing ),

Too much technology on a hunt will make it seem like a game of Deer hunter
Too easy and fast to kill a deer when you cant do that just by skill hense my objection to using technology

What he did to kill that deer = too much technology

Dimitri