I'd be willing to bet that every single hunter in the world has technically been relegated to only a "shooter" many times during his or her career. But it's what that person does with that moment that makes it "hunting."

Let's take my first hippo kill for example. I was sitting on my butt with my .300 Jarrett along the bank of the Luangwa River. A 30-minute wait to select the right animal. I drilled the bull in the brain from 91 yards away.

To me that was "hunting", factoring in these elements...A) getting into position B) staying still C) selectivity of trophy animal D) precision shot with 180 grain solid E) recovery of animal. To me these steps along the way, all make up what I consider "hunting."

Now granted in the big scheme of things, I can't say I worked my ass off, like in hunting LDE or Mt. Nyala.

Sometimes they fall right into my lap. Sometimes it's a 6-hour stalk or a 2-hour stakeout. Some are more rewarding than others and because of experience and success the individual bar keeps getting raised what's needed for me to derive ultimate satisfaction. And then there have been moments, where I've had a slamdunk gimme' of a shot and I've muffed it! That's why we call it HUNTING.

My point is we can't be so cynical that we find it to criticize others who don't "tough it out" or "work real hard" for a specific trophy. Is one man less of a "hunter" because he didn't do it the way you did it. Hell, we're all "hunters," aren't we?

People know in their minds, their individual limitations which limit/restrict them to a certain method of hunting. Physical/mental toughness, health, money, shooting skills and age are all factors.

Will I ever do leopards with dogs? No. Will I shoot a bongo from a machan? No. That's my personal preference. Neither will I criticize, put down or devalue a person who chooses those methods of take. It's all hunting. When I'm out there at 90 years of age "shooting" that lion from a blind you guys better not criticize me either. I can hear you now Aaron, "Moja, you need to retire your old ass!"

I think what seperates hunting from shooting is that the animal must have the ability to escape or evade the hunter. The smaller the hunting area and the more fencing involved then the less likely that is. In addition, anyone who purchases a particular animal before the hunt as in some canned lion hunts does not qualify IMO as a legitimate hunt. However, I do recognize the conservation benefits such hunts do provide.

Todd has hit the nail on the head. I agree with him 100%, “Do whats legal and what makes you happy..Titles be damned."


Aziz

Regardless of the amount of effort any individual puts forth in the killing of an animal, in the end, whether it be with rifle/handgun/shotgun or bow, we are all shooters.

I seriously doubt that there is a single individual on this or any other site that has ever in their hunting career jumped on any animal or bird that was not already wounded and at deaths door and either strangled it or clamped their jaws around its throat and strangled it.

Were it not for our cerebral developement and our species ability to realize that without using a tool of some kind, we would still be at the bottom of the food chain and the world would never have evolved the way it did.

In my opinion, we have too damn many people that for whatever reason, that are trying to justify why they hunt and trying to elevate themselves in their minds to a higher level of some form.

The only way they have of doing that, in their minds is to find reasons to downgrade others that do not embrace those same exact, so-called principals, and actually this is not a new concept.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Were it not for our cerebral developement and our species ability to realize that without using a tool of some kind, we would still be at the bottom of the food chain and the world would never have evolved the way it did.

IF we are just advanced animals then why are we looking for any morality or "correct way" in hunting. Animals are not held to any moral code, they kill and eat, or sometimes just kill.

Like has already been stated, if you don't like a certain way of "hunting" or "shooting" then don't do it.

quote:

Originally posted by tanz2007:
.....
Like has already been stated, if you don't like a certain way of "hunting" or "shooting" then don't do it.

Hear Hear

I'd also add that "As long as its legal - Don't bitch about what others do, even if you disagree. As its not your business!"

quote:

I think what seperates hunting from shooting is that the animal must have the ability to escape or evade the hunter.

+1

My next hunt in Sep I will be hunting leopard with dogs and for me this is very exciting because I always wanted to do that, and my "ehtics" tells me this is fair chase and the hunt method I want to do.(Baited for 40 days also). And its not about the high success rate beacuse then I would have gone to Zambia or CAR for 100% shot opportunity.

I hunted and shot a big elephant -08 and brained him from around ~100 yards, and some people Ive talked to dont agree thats the way to hunt DG its unethical, because you need to be within 15 paces bla bla bla...

Anyway how do you americans say it, different strokes for different folks..


@Moja - Bongo with dogs or only tracking ?

Im looking into a hunt 2011 or 2012 for a (african)lion hunt with dogs in MOZ - this must stir things up a bit.


AD

Marc,
I agree that we all try to "morally equate" our own preferences and styles of hunting. Bongo from a machan? would I? Maybe. What is the difference in that than sitatunga from a pole machan? is a tree machan then ok ?

My opinion, again MINE is that the chase is what makes the difference. In the hunting of sitatunga it is like chess, you at times single out a specific target and "sit" for him and him alone it may require moving the machan more than once. The machan is not the means to an end. it is what completes the cycle, a tool if you will. The swamps I've hunted, it is not possible to see more than 40-50 yards unless you get above the reeds and papyrus to see into the holes and openings.

Lion hunting from a machan same thing. Getting your cat on bait in the daytime at a time and place of your choosing is the hunt, the machan is simply the tool used to complete the cycle.

Marc, did you major in psychology? your makin me think a little.

Steve

quote:

IF we are just advanced animals then why are we looking for any morality or "correct way" in hunting.

Speak for yourself Bwana Jim, "We" ain't, at least this "We" ain't, but some folks are and constantly.

I hunt any way that is legal and shoot whatever is legal and that I am satisfied with.

I hunt because I like it, no further explanation needed.

The basic premise is all the same whether its from a blind watching a feeder in a 500 acre high fenced pasture or stalking something across open country in the Canadian Arctic, I am there with a gun and my intentions are to kill something.

If all goes right in either case, I will have venison to eat, if not I will still have enjoyed the event, in either case however, the only person I have to justify my actions to are myself.

For 40+ years now I have found no reason to have to justify those actions.

The problems arise with the collective "We's" that due to modern societies change concerning certain activities, some of the more advanced PC crowd believes that to be more readily acceptable to certain members of their normal socio-economic group, they have to justify how or why they do something and how or why that activity is only acceptable if done the way they do it.

Steve,

I think you make a good point. The blind or machan is only part of the culmination of the hunt. The locating of the animal or the area where he lives is where I suppose the actual hunintg comes in. I think that often the people who have not hunted from a blind or machan assume you randomly build a blind and just watch for game to come to the bait, water or whatever. In reality there is nothing random about this type of hunting. The work and thought involved in choosing the location of the blind is the most important part of the hunt. There really is a great deal of skill involved in this type of hunting.

Mark

Is it black and white?
Legal or Ethical/Moral?

The locating, stalking and ethics are the process. Killing is the just the end of the process.

For instance:

1. the animal is somewhere in an unfenced area that is under 500 square miles, but your PH knows the area. Bush country.
2. the animal is in a fenced area that is 100 square miles. Bush country.
3. the animal is in a fenced area that is 10 square miles. Bush country.
4. the animal is in a fenced area that is 1 square mile. Bush country.
5. the animal is in a fenced area that is 20x30 feet square. A corral.

Nearly half of you have put your name and reputation here on the line and stated that you see no difference between any of them and would proudly display the harvested animal mounted on your wall for all the world to see.

Here's where the line is drawn between hunting and shooting an animal.

Would you be willing to tell the absolute truth about which number each animal you have harvested in public was?

Would you say "I'm a Number Five Guy, given a choice".

The choices say a lot about you as a person.

Rich
DRSS

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

IF we are just advanced animals then why are we looking for any morality or "correct way" in hunting.

Speak for yourself Bwana Jim, "We" ain't, at least this "We" ain't, but some folks are and constantly.

I hunt any way that is legal and shoot whatever is legal and that I am satisfied with.

I hunt because I like it, no further explanation needed.

The basic premise is all the same whether its from a blind watching a feeder in a 500 acre high fenced pasture or stalking something across open country in the Canadian Arctic, I am there with a gun and my intentions are to kill something.

If all goes right in either case, I will have venison to eat, if not I will still have enjoyed the event, in either case however, the only person I have to justify my actions to are myself.

For 40+ years now I have found no reason to have to justify those actions.

The problems arise with the collective "We's" that due to modern societies change concerning certain activities, some of the more advanced PC crowd believes that to be more readily acceptable to certain members of their normal socio-economic group, they have to justify how or why they do something and how or why that activity is only acceptable if done the way they do it.

I believe you and I (WE) are saying the same thing about hunting, no argument here. I'll be back home in Texas in September and I am hoping to hunt or shoot something

quote:

1. the animal is somewhere in an unfenced area that is under 500 square miles, but your PH knows the area. Bush country.
2. the animal is in a fenced area that is 100 square miles. Bush country.
3. the animal is in a fenced area that is 10 square miles. Bush country.
4. the animal is in a fenced area that is 1 square mile. Bush country.
5. the animal is in a fenced area that is 20x30 feet square. A corral.

Rich, here is where I see a difference in what some folks are saying and what you are saying.

quote:

Nearly half of you have put your name and reputation here on the line and stated that you see no difference between any of them

I can't speak for anyone else, but for myself, if an individual wants to shoot an animal in a 20x30 pen call it hunting and display the trophy, more power to that person, I don't recall seeing where anyone including me, said that they would do it.

I had a guy out on one of my javelina hunts tell about driving several hundred miles from his home to shoot a cow buffalo(bison) in a stock trailer simply for the head and the right to say he had killed one.

If he wanted to call that a hunt and feel personally that it was, that is his business.

I think or at least I know that for me, the only person I can judge their actions, is me.

I personally would not shoot an animal in a trailer or a 20x30 pen, but I have seen 100 acre high fenced paddocks that a person, I don't care how good they are would be damn hard pressed to kill anything in.

The idea revolves around hunters from Group A telling hunters from groups B/C/D dd infinitum how they should hunt and what is considered an acceptable hunting method or practice.

I can gtarantee that many Texans see no harm what so ever in hunting deer from a stand watching a feeder, while at the same time going totally mental at the idea of hunting a black bear the same way.

Well I ain't one of those type Texans, as I will be in your beautiful state in about 45 days hunting out of Elk City to do just that and hopefully kill 2 bears, one with my 38-55 Chief Crazy Horse and the other with a 1923 built 1907 351 Win. Self-Loader.

I plan to take full advantage of the ability to set in a stand and watch a bait if it means I can finally kill a bear or two.

Is it hunting in my book, you betcha!

Do I give an FRA about what anyone else thinks, NO.

Will I display my trophies and talk about the great time I had on my hunt, you damn right.

The premise at least to me of the whole thread, is why have so many folks set themselves up as a judge to decide what hunting is or should be to everyone besides themselves.

Mark Y. makes a really good point regarding blinds and machans. When the blind is utilized that way, as a "tool" of the hunt, it's much more appealing to hunt from one, instead of just a randomly placed box.

Sitatunga from a machan Andrew? Absolutely in a heartbeat. What other viable alternatives are there? But as far as bongo goes, I'm gonna try to get that trophy first by tracking it. If I strike out then maybe perhaps a machan. And who knows if that fails? Perhaps pygmies and the dogs.

When you're behind the gun, staring down that barrel, it's your hunt and your choice to get it any legal way you want to. Crazyhorse says it a little more emphatically than I stated it, but that's all I'm trying to say.

My nephew is here and read this.

He says the guys that say "If it's legal I will do it" probably go to prostitutes, because they're legal too in some areas. Is that why they have the SHOT Show and and SCI in Nevada?

He also wants to know why you don't just stay home, buy the trophies and have somebody PhotoShop the pictures for you. I have no answer for either of those questions, but I am sure I will get a couple belligerent/defensive answers here by days end...
Rich
DRSS
one or two for this cowboy

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
My nephew is here and read this.

He also wants to know why you don't just stay home, buy the trophies and have somebody PhotoShop the pictures for you.
Rich
DRSS
one or two for this cowboy

Some people like to get outdoors from time to time.

I guess some here are struggling (or not) with the notion that they are "shooters" VS "hunters".

I have heard it said that you can't buy happiness and fulfillment. That you have to somehow earn it.

It appears that some here choose to buy it.

For me, there is a struggle to earn things that attaches a value to them.
We mostly value things inversely proportional to the amount of effort we expend in acquiring them.

So, those of you who disagree with me, I do have one more question.

Why even go on a hunt when you can PhotoShop you in pictures of trophy animals someone shoots for you, and have them mounted and sent to you?

I guess that is what I would like to know.

regards,

Rich
DRSS

That would put that person in the exact same category as obama wouldn't it?

I hate liars, and this would be the worst kind.

How could you ever trust someone like that?

A man that will lie about one thing, will lie about every thing. And a man that will lie will cheat you if the opportunity.

The liar's philosophy is that the end justifies the means. That style is more is more important that substance.

It all comes down to your belief systems doesn't it?

Rich
DRSS

Idaho, I can answer only for myself. And I will.

Around here, we would call your corral metaphor "hunting cows."

There are a hell of a lot of people who routinely do things that are not a violation of any criminal law that I choose not to do. I do not, ever, criticize those people. My own take is entirely philosophical: I do not approve of ANY law that prohibits action, or inaction, beyond homicide, battery, and theft. That, I realize, is something of an extreme position.

I disagree with you only to the extent that you suggest that "corral hunting" tells you, or me, anything at all about the character of the corral hunter.

Good hunting...or shooting, if that characterization works better. Distinction without a difference, if legal.

Just a Hunter,
You forgot the most fitting one.

Don't bring a gun to a knife fight

All these things are personal, of course.

I shoot birds and hunt rabbits because I enjoy everything I get out of the experience. I enjoy shooting rats just as much (no, really) but each brings different enjoyment and is a different experience.

I enjoy hunting in Africa because I was moved by the effect that hunting dangerous game had on me as a person. The fear, the concentration, the difference from anything else.

Then I just got to like Africa and I like hunting so plains game is an excuse to hunt in Africa. Am I interested in big trophies? No. That's just me.

Different people tell me why they do what they do and why they like it. Some of their rationales and preferences differ from mine and I react to their reasoning as I listen to it.

Sometimes I respect their choices for themselves even though they are not for me. Other times I think that the person concerned is an asshole and is motivated by and enthralled by things I find pathetic and despicable, or just plain pointless. What a person does says a lot about who they are.

My personal feelings about people I meet are based on what I learn about them. Some of the practices discussed would make me less than impressed and I would not respect or value the person concerned. Other people earn my respect. It works both ways.

I think it unrealistic to tell us not to have opinions, good or bad, about other hunters. Hunters are just people and we have opinions about what everyone else we come into contact with does or thinks or says. Why should hunters be exempt?

Someone who gets a thrill out of shooting a beast off a trailer so he can brag to people about how cool he is because he shot a lion/buffalo/gerbil/whatever gets no respect from me and probably is not someone I'd care to spent much time with.

We all have our opinions.

quote:

My nephew is here and read this.

He says the guys that say "If it's legal I will do it" probably go to prostitutes, because they're legal too in some areas. Is that why they have the SHOT Show and and SCI in Nevada?

He also wants to know why you don't just stay home, buy the trophies and have somebody PhotoShop the pictures for you. I have no answer for either of those questions, but I am sure I will get a couple belligerent/defensive answers here by days end...

Rich, I could get both beligerent and defensive at the same time, but what good would it do when dealing with amateur physcologists that try to act like they know so much about another person simply from a few words on a computer.

You nor your nephew have ever met me nor hunted with me now have you?

Other folks on this site have and I think they got their moneys worth, at least I hope they did, and I feel that they were given an actual fair chase hunting experience, or at least as fair chase as hunting Javelina gets.

I have never had no desire nor seen the need to visit a prostitute, but I do not hold it against anyone that has.

As I stated elsewhere. it is legal to hunt bear over bait in Idaho, but most Texans I have discussed the matter with, place that right in there with shooting in a cage.

It is funny they don't see shooting deer from a blind watching a timed feeder the same way, but they don't.

I shared a Musk Ox-Caribou camp in 2000 with some guys from Virginia/North Carolina that felt standing on a road wing-shooting whitetail deer with buckshot as dogs chased them by was the epitome of deer hunting, yet hunting them from a stand watching a feeder was beneath contempt.

Where my problem comes in is with people that are so pious, that they want to start questioning a persons morals, simply because they don't share some imagined higher plane as it regards what is and what is not MORAL or ETHICAL when hunting.

Personally, I don't like the idea of people standing as far away as possible and firing away at something.

What is wrong with using ones skill to stalk close for a better shot opportunity?

Fully 95% of the animals I have killed in my 40+ years of hunting have been during spot and stalk situations.

That does not make me a super hunter, nor does it give me ANY right to look down on someone because they choose to hunt in another manner.

At some point, people are going to have to accept the fact that things are not the same in regards to hunting as they are in Texas/Idaho/Africa/ Canada or wherever.

These discussions do nothing more than further divide the ranks of hunters, simply because some folks can not or will not accept the idea that hunting conditions/legalities and accepted methods vary from one location to another and a simple "Blanket Covering All Situations" simply will not work.

Now you and your nephew analyse that.

quote:

or at least as fair chase as hunting Javelina gets.

Steve

Sorry, but I mean for animals that are practically blind and really are not impressed with human superiority.

I know I have experience from only one hunt, but Musk Ox are just about the same way.

They don't see or are never bothered by folks enough to really gain any fear of humans, so "Fair Chase" for either of those species, IMO is a complete joke.

To me the "Hunt" for those species involves getting to where they live, after that it becomes a "Shoot".

Really, when it comes down to the moment of pulling the trigger, your ability as a shooter is what we are taliking about.
I suppose there are folks who can spot, track and stalk an animal and still totally blow the shot. Maybe a good hunter but a crappy shooter.
Or, those long range guys who take 600yd shots. Clearly no hunting involved there, really. At least no moreso than any long range moving target competition.
I am leaning toward just calling it shooting. I would like to shoot an elk. Hunted lots of them, never shot one. In fact, shotgunners often just say "let's go shoot some pheasnts (etc)..." I guess they don't have to pretend that a stroll in the grass with a gun and a dog is anything more than just that. The bird shooting is simply an added bonus.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
My nephew is here and read this.

He says the guys that say "If it's legal I will do it" probably go to prostitutes, because they're legal too in some areas. Is that why they have the SHOT Show and and SCI in Nevada?

He also wants to know why you don't just stay home, buy the trophies and have somebody PhotoShop the pictures for you. I have no answer for either of those questions, but I am sure I will get a couple belligerent/defensive answers here by days end...
Rich
DRSS
one or two for this cowboy

All of your posts have been spot on.


None of you can either hunt or shoot, that's why you have to do it the pathetic way.

So, just exactly how many AR members have you actually met and hunted with?

Me,

I've met hundreds at SCI Reno the past ten years or so. Shot with several dozen the past few years here and there.

Hunted? Nobody hunts big game in groups. Those are whiskey and poker parties, and the phrase "We always fill all our tags" generally gets said and repeated ad infinitum. Africa is one on one.

regards,

Rich
DRSS

I tend to think we should all have our personal ethics because, after all, ours is a very personal passion conducted with very few witnesses (although, despite their creed, PHs will tell!) and no audiences. My problem is when people who have never been there wave their personal ethics in my face. We can and should draw a broad black and white line between legal and illegal hunting. Publicly, we should support legal hunting in all its forms, whether we choose to participate or not. Privately we can draw our own shades of gray, our own personal ethics that give us pleasure in their adherence. But I believe the only black and white should be between legal and illegal. Most methods that are LEGAL are legal in a given area for specific reasons. For instance, dogs are used for leopards primarily in ranch areas where leopards won't come to bait in daylight. My preference (shade of gray) is daylight baiting...but that isn't always possible, and I think hounds beat the shit out of shooting at night (not ethically, PRACTICALLY). Bongo. I've hunted bongo by pure tracking, with one dog, with pygmies and their dogs, and from a machan. The forest varies in density. Where dogs are used, they're used for a reason! Pure tracking is unquestionably more satisfying...but I'd rather have canine friends show me what I'm shooting than shoot a spot of red and wind up with a female bongo. Provided a hunting method is legal, we should support it publicly. Privately, we can participate or not...but don't knock something (that's legal) until you've tried it. Just my opinion. Cheers, Craig

Does anyone genuinely believe the "It's legal, so it's OK" argument? Honestly?

It just seems like a real poor excuse to hide behind. I'm sure if we all sat down and looked at what's legal in places we all find ourselves in, we could all come up with a list of things we think should be illegal!

I don't believe hunting will ever be black and white. There are too many variables that apply to too many opinions. I'm afraid they'll only ever be shades of grey..

All the best
MJ

MJ,

If it's legal it is ok. That doesn't mean you wish to participate or you feel okay with it.

Everyone,

Technically in Africa you are a shooter, unless you are a resident. The PH has the hunting license.

Crazyhorse,

I know deer hunters that have no problem hunting over feeders, but think any hunt with a guide is just shooting.

quote:

Originally posted by CharlesL:
MJ,

If it's legal it is ok. That doesn't mean you wish to participate or you feel okay with it.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I really can't be bothered listing a bunch of things legal in random, third world countries I'm sure you wouldn't see as OK!

A few weeks ago I got myself into position in a scotish forest overlooking a small valley where the resident roe deer feed (Incidentally, no one in this part of the world shoots deer over feeders. Anyone doing so would be ostricised by the shooting / hunting community. And seen as a bit desperate to be honest).

I'd seen a couope of deer head in this direction and so moved around the forest to get into position, anticipating them coming this way. To cut a long story short, I checked my scope to make sure I didn't have rain drops on the eyepiece as I'd forgotten my lens cover. As I looked through the scope a small roe buck, one of the deer that I'd seen earlier walked in front of me. Bang. So, was I a hunter or a shooter in that instance?

You mke a very good point about africa. If ou're being guided by a PH, a tracker and maybe even a second gun, are you a hunter???? Really?

If you're out on your own, stalking an animal on your own in the wild, no pens or cages and ain't shooting over feeding stations, then you are. IMHO of course!

I think Craig's comments should be well understood.
For the sake of preserving our hunting rights, we should generally be in support of any legal method of take regardless of whether we choose to participate in it.
Personally, whether a person feels he "hunted" an animal depends on the hunter (ability, physicality etc.) and the game. The game, being an animal of course, will have different tendancies and habits which can be exploited by the hunter. If the hunter feels he put the requisite amount of effort and skill into the situation, then he hunted - not for us to decide for him.

On my first safari to Africa my sons and I hunted RSA on a 10,000 acre game farm. The only time I saw a game fence was when I asked the PH to drive me to one so I could see what it looked like. We killed 8 animals and some were bang/plop operations while others took a great deal of stalking, running up & down hills, missed opportunities, and a fair amount of sweat. To me, that safari was hunting, not shooting, despite the high fence.

A couple of years later, at a chapter SCI convention, I was in the market for another safari and was discusssing my previous experience with a Zimbabwe operator/PH, who said hunting in RSA was OK "if you don't mind shooting auctioned animals in a paddock." Wow.

Back here in the States, I've been on several tower pheasant shoots, where pen-raided pheasants are tossed off a concealed tower while 25 or so shooters in a circle around the area try to pick them off, rotating to a new station every 10 birds or so. It's not as easy as it sounds, you have to be able to snap shoot pretty quickly, and about 25-35% of the birds aren't hit. I consider this activity a "shoot," not a hunt, but don't have a problem with it. However, several years ago I decribed the tower or European shoot on some hunting website--maybe this one--and unknowlingly started a major argument, during which I was soundly rebuked for participating in, enjoying, and "promoting" what a number of folks considered a prime example of unethical hunting practice.

My sons and I occasionally go on "put and take" quail hunts--here in Georgia that's about the only way you can hunt quail, unless you know somebody with a lot of land and good habitat (which has been managed especially for quail)--then stepping on one or two coveys might be a possibility. Habitat loss, predators, modern farming methods and developmental encroachment have made wild quail hunting a thing of the past in Georgia. Again, I've heard considerable criticism aimed at quail hunting plantations--I suppose I can see the argument, but am I a bad person--a slob hunter (or not even a hunter at all) because I choose to undertake a lawful activity?

There are no easy answers, it would seem . . .

MJ,

If you hunt east Texas riverbottoms, very dense brush, there isn't any place that deer come to feed. The feeders are more for the doe. Each year the state gives us a quota of doe to harvest, notice I didn't say hunt, and those are normally taken over the feeders. The legal bucks, 13" inside width and 4 1/2 years old or more, don't come to feeders here. The brush is so thick here that none of the deer have to come to feeders. In our most recent night deer survey, required by the state biologist, we counted 44 deer in roughly a 5 mile loop, but according my game camera I have not had a deer come to the feeder in months. Now during deer season our best bet is to walk and stalk or setup treestands near the oaks. The deer like the acorns much better than corn.

One thing we do need to consider is how such a hunting technique is viewed by the general public and I don't mean by that "anti-hunters". I couldn't care less what they think. The general public is another matter all together. If we don't have their support we could lose much of what we cherish. If we know of a hunting technique that puts hunters in a bad light with the general public then we need to lobby our resource agency to better regulate it.

As far as the difference in shooting and hunting, I think there is a difference. A driven pheasant shoot in England is called just that a shoot not a hunt. If you do nothing but stand or sit and shoot then it is a shoot in my opinion. That doesn't make it wrong though and I wouldn't critize someone for partaking in one.

465H&H

Excellent Post Craig.

On a much better and more susinct way you made the point that myself and others have been trying to make.

Hunting and all that goes with it is a Personal thing in the vast majority of cases.

As individuals we make the decision whether to participate or not.

The rules and regulations, world wide, give us clear parameters to work within.

The "Ethics" issue is a personal one.

If something makes you uncomfortable, don't do it, it is that simple.

There are no laws that I know of forcing someone to hunt a way or in a manner they are uncomfortable with or feel is unethical.

All the hunter has to do, is choose not to hunt in that location.

To try and set down and create a "Blanket" set of "Ethical" concepts that cover all situations world wide is not only impossible but is totally unneccessary.

Hunting and its future world wide are under enough attacks as is.

Why bad mouth someone else's methods or concepts simply because you don't like it for whatever reason.

A hunt is what the individual makes of it, this has nothing to do with going to prostitutes, or being dominated by your Mother or Father when you were young, it has to do with an individuals rights to get out and enjoy the hunt in the way they see fit, As Long As It Is Legal.

Being social acceptable among the greater community of hunters is not neccessary.

The person doing the hunt, making the kill is doing everything legally and has no problem in living with what they are dioing or showing off their trophy, what gives any of us, as a group or as individuals the right to ostracise that individual, simply because we feel that we are operating on a higher(?) moral/ethical plane?

The vast majority of the bird hunting in France is of birds raised and then released on a property, normally a couple of days before the "hunt". The purchasing and releasing is organized generally by the hunters themselves, since hunting rights are leased to small groups of hunters by the landowners. If this is made illegal, you can kiss goodby to bird hunting in France, even if a few areas with natural populations are able to exist. Because if that becomes illegal, then no shotguns will be sold, and gun and ammo dealers will go out of business, and then there is no reason for the State not to continue on their high moral road and start defining for everyone just what an ethical hunt is and making everything else illegal. And when that happens, it's all over. Imagine if hunting on private property in South Africa is outlawed, based on some "higher moral standard" that it is equivalent to shooting pen raised animals in a paddock. Well, you can also kiss much of the success of keeping land in its natural state, rather than farming it, goodby as well. Sometimes people with those lofty ideals don't think things through. Which is OK if they don't try to convince everyone that they are "right".

Out here in Ky, Ive had a few friends on occasion hunt the fields and woods with no success for a decent buck. One day, by coincidence, they looked out their back door to see a 10pt grazing in the grass. 5 minutes and 30 yards later, a buck was sitting in the back of my friends truck. Do I consider them as hunters? Yes. Does this one incident make the fact that he is a hunter, yes. Simple explanation, the dictionary labels a hunter as this:

hunt·er   
–noun
1. a person who hunts game or other wild animals for food or in sport.

There is nothing more or less added to this definition. Regardless of "effort."

First, thanks to Moja for another thought provoking thread. It is important for us as hunters and sportsmen to face the issue of ethics head-on, not only because we have a personal responsibility to be ethical hunters, but also in the absence of promoting standards within our ranks, we abdicate that opportunity to the anti-hunters who will savor the gift we then give them.

quote:

Originally posted by craig boddington:
Publicly, we should support legal hunting in all its forms, whether we choose to participate or not. Privately we can draw our own shades of gray, our own personal ethics that give us pleasure in their adherence. But I believe the only black and white should be between legal and illegal.

Craig is a hero of mine, and I can honestly say I have virtually every book and DVD he has authored. I have met him several times and have the utmost respect for him, seeing him as the prototypal "ethical hunter". But in this debate I must respectfully disagree with Craig: We can't let persons operating on the margins of decency and propriety, irrespective of their being within the law, define our sport and place it at risk. There are many opportunities in life to behave unethically – without necessarily violating the law – and recent history is replete with examples of people in government and business who approach life with such a wrong-headed, existential attitude towards right and wrong.

Ours is a sport that is, and will always be, under attack. Apart from the ethical obligations we each should apply to ourselves, we must promote at the very least basic self-evident hunting ethics. It was President Theodore Roosevelt who helped to popularize the adoption of ethical behavior in hunting, calling it Fair Chase. Far from being doctrinaire and overly proscriptive, the concept of Fair Chase is nothing less than the application of ethics and principles in hunting, and is both simple and straight forward. What is Fair Chase?

Fair Chase is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild game animals in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.

When those of us opposed to canned hunting raise the issue of ethics, we do so out of respect for the tradition of Fair Chase, as well as a desire to protect the sport we love from those that stand in opposition to all hunting. Canned hunts feature a hunter with an "improper advantage" pursuing animals that are not "free ranging". Failure to recognize something other than the law as the moral touchstone for our personal hunting behavior, such as Fair Chase, may give rise to even more odious forms of hunting, such as Internet Hunting - where a remotely-controlled rifle is connected to a computer, and through the internet, a person can shoot an animal that is tethered or otherwise incapable of escape.



Still legal in some states, it was the repulsion of hunters, as well as organizations such as SCI and NRA, that recognized that just because it was legal didn't mean that it should be morally countenanced. And indeed, hunters have been the vanguard in banning this odious practice in 40 states and making it virtually disappear. Had their attitude been to simply scorn such practices in private rather than public, Internet Hunting may still be legal nationwide and have taken root – and seen popularity that would ultimately poison public perception of all hunters.

It is up to us to protect our sport, and we cannot do so without taking a stand when we witness hunting practices that we know violate the tenets of Fair Chase. How controversial is that?