now that the majority of us who frequent this page have gotten our respective panties out of out cracks, i thought i'd bring up a new thread.
in the spirit of goodwill and friendship and all that carebear soft and fluffy crap...
anyway.
What is hunting?
What are we as a group willing to say defines what a hunter is?
Not what is legal, laws change.
Not what is ethical, that is different by state, county and region.
But, what action must take place for the kill to have been considered "hunting" and the killer to be considered a "hunter"
I think we can all agree that If my next door neighbor (who doesnt hunt at all) won the lottery today he could write a big enough check and by Sat. buy clothing, fly to a ranch, be ushered to a stand and shoot a moster buck.
He would have no part in the actual scouting or recovery and wouldnt be asked to. he could sleep and relax in the finest of eminities. be carted to his stand in luxury and have his meals catered and carried to him. down to his preference of sweetner in his coffee or the mustard on his sandwich.
would that define him as a hunter?
Likewise a man with 30 years of experience could be allowed to hunt a small plot by a friend and on the first day get out of his truck to scout and see a B&C buck 50 yards away, raise his rifle and kill the animal dead.
100% good luck. Is that a hunt?

I wrote this for Backwoodsman Magazine a few weeks ago.
Walt

REALITY CHECK
Walt Hampton
1-20-07

Having grown up in the great “deer hunting eraâ€, the years between the 1970 and the present, I have been witness to that most American phenomenon of free enterprise, the commercialization of whitetail deer. Having worked as a wildlife biologist, gunsmith and outdoor writer for all those years has given me a unique insider view of just how and why this phenomenon occurred. We have seen our hunting pastime evolve from a casual, but serious, hobby to a money-making pursuit where bigger, faster and more-modern seem to be the driving forces. What I’m dancing around here is that I’ve seen what the association of money and wildlife has done to deer hunting and I think things are out of control.
In order to delve a bit deeper into this subject we need to define deer hunting, and we do this by identifying the two basic hunters and forms of hunting, and we will use the most simple of terms, traditional and modern. Under each of these we can list the traits, gear, and hunting methods associated with hunter/style and try to get a sense of where deer hunting is headed in the future.
The traditional pursuit of deer brings to mind the solitary hunter, afoot in the wilderness or on the back 40, looking to put meat in the freezer and fulfillment in the soul. His dress is appropriate for the weather and if he carries a daypack in it we find his lunch, a water bottle or other drinking tool, a length of rope, fire starter and any necessary personal items like toilet paper (a true modern convenience), flashlight, tobacco, camera, etc. He still hunts or sits a favorite stump and is on the lookout for the legal deer. If he chooses to further limit himself to adult deer of either sex he knows he is volunteering to cut his chances for a kill but weighs this disadvantage against the satisfaction he knows will come with successfully adhering to a self-imposed standard. His hunt is one of quiet and solitude outside the constraints of the man-made and he hunts simply for his own moral enrichment. The actual killing of a deer becomes secondary to the hunt.
Our modern hunt goes a little differently. Here our hunter rides his ATV to his pre-fabricated box blind, set up overlooking his mechanical feeder loaded with corn. Just in case this enticement is not enough, he ties to his boot a drag-rag loaded with genetically engineered doe-in-estrous urine from a penned-deer facility for the 100 yard walk from his parking place to the steps of his blind. Here (on the upwind side, of course) he hangs a scent wafer over the mock scrape he has built, setting off his aerosol “scent bomb†nearby. Then, wrapped in his carbon-activated scent blocker suit, chewing his chlorophyll gum, with his face painted like a Comanche he will enclose himself in his palace where he clutches his electronic deer call (which will rattle, grunt, bleat and snort-wheeze, batteries not included) and loads his synthetic-stocked, titanium short-magnum, which wears a scope with which one can see the individual craters on Mars.
Of course this is an exaggeration on both parts but it does seem to come uncomfortably close to the truth. Of course there are “modern†conveniences that can add enrichment to the traditional hunt without damaging the experience and in fact may enhance the ethical, sporting pursuit of game. By way of example I offer up your loyal servant; I consider myself a “traditional†hunter. I like old guns and more often than not during the season you will find me toting either a relic such as an 1893 Marlin or a drilling from before the Great War, but because my son and I build modern rifles I will also on occasion carry one of our guns. However, I will use the ATV (we have a Kawasaki Mule) to get to the “jumping off†point and to recover down game, and I’m damn fond of Gore-Tex and Thinsulate, vice waxed cotton canvas or wool for the simple reason that I like to be warm and dry, and besides I’d bet my beagle that Dan’l Boone would trade his buckskins in a heartbeat for those wonderful inventions. I carry binoculars every time I go out and now that the eyes have passed the 50 year mark a scope does make more precise shooting available to me. I am sensible enough to know to use the right firearm and caliber for the situation, and more importantly when not to shoot, and to this end a laser rangefinder has become handy when I hunt the “wide open spacesâ€.
I like to load my own ammunition, like a knife with good steel and my firestarter kit contains butane lighters and waterproof matches. And, oh yes, I always carry toilet paper. My hypocrisy knows no bounds.
What is truly disturbing here is that all one has to do is turn on the television and surf the hunting shows to see “what sellsâ€. In order to get the kills on film, and make no mistake about it, that’s what sells the videos, we see hunter after hunter in the box blind. I’ve stopped watching these shows; I know I’ll throw a cat through the screen if I hear one more nimrod, sitting by his 180 inch whitetail on his corn pile, positioned so you can’t see the 10-foot fence in the background, say “we hunted hard†to take the buck, and I know I’ll pop a gasket if I hear one more greenhorn spout out “HE’S DOWN!†after he shoots the poor thing at 50 yards with his 30-378. Here business and wildlife come down to the basic and fundamental aspect of the hunting video: making money. Money for the sponsors, money for the actors (they really can’t be called hunters, I’m sorry but sitting in a box blind and pulling a trigger does not meet my definition of hunting) and money for those that provide the deer for the slaughter. The hunting video changed the way we perceive deer hunting and has made us all look like fools. What started out as an innocent way of preserving a moment in the woods has become the “snake oil†sales tool of our time.
In the same vein the traditionalist that takes his homespun pursuit too far, so that his level of skill as a woodsman cannot make up for his primitive tools, is every bit as unethical as the everyday poacher. For instance, the pundit that knaps his own flint and makes his own bow and arrows but does not develop the skill to close the distance or the moral fortitude to pass up marginal shots and cripples and loses game would be better off a) with modern weapons; b) staying home; or c) taking up macramé (choose only two). This brings us to that wonderful gift of Game Departments that has done more to divide hunters and encourage infighting than any other single thing, the Special Weapon Season.
Started with the best of intentions, to increase recreational time in the woods, we have archery and black powder special seasons in many states. Suddenly, another market appears! I am old enough to remember Fred Bear and Saxon Pope and the overwhelming excitement of being able to hit the woods before the legions of gun hunters for the early archery season. Of any of the special weapon seasons archery still stands as the one that most nearly keeps with the original intent of increasing recreational time in the woods without damage to the sport or the resource. Next came the compound bow and all of it’s associated developments, including the compound crossbow (legal in many archery-only seasons) and suddenly we have a multi-million dollar industry grown up around what we call now “traditional archeryâ€. True, the archer, whether equipped with long bow or compound, must still possess the woodsmanship skills to close the distance to his game, and in this aspect the archery special season has traditional value. Still, we have fighting between the non-compound-bow folks and those that use compounds, and both of these groups hate the crossbow shooter.
On the other hand, we have seen “primitive weapon†seasons become “black powder†seasons, then become “muzzleloader†seasons as we have found ways to bastardize the cap and ball firearm for hunting purposes, developing the black powder substitute, the powder pellet, the plastic sabot, the 209 primer, scopes, etc. In my own state of Virginia we started out with the law restricting the legal firearm for this special season as “single shot, loaded from the muzzle end, side lock gunsâ€, to allowing in-line guns, then okayed the use of saboted, jacketed bullets and finally allowed scopes. Anyone that has followed the development of the modern muzzleloader can tell you that the modern muzzleloader hunter is now less handicapped afield than the hunter using a black powder cartridge firearm with open sights, or, for that matter, any open-sighted firearm. In Virginia we went from about 9000 hunters when the law did not allow scopes on muzzleloaders to over 100,000 after the change. It isn’t that we’ve added 100,000 new hunters, we simply moved that many gun hunters into the muzzleloading field so they can hunt a week or two earlier than the traditional gun season. This is why I have always felt that, with the exception of early archery season, there should be simply a “deer†season, for any weapon you choose to carry. I except archery because even with the modern technology it is still a 30 yard sport and it requires at least basic woodsmanship to get within 30 yards of a deer, baiting aside. It seems to me that instead of paying attention to the resource, the deer, we are pandering to the manufacturers and forcing our hunting population to participate if they want to “get in on†the goods. In Virginia, if you want to have a chance at that nice buck you scouted during the summer, you had better buy a modern muzzleloader, because if you wait until general firearms season to hunt with your favorite cartridge gun that deer will be neatly wrapped and packed in someone else’s freezer. Instead of enriching our hunting experience by keeping it primitive we’ve simply penalized the folks who use cartridge firearms. I have seventeen notches on my traditional, side-lock .54 caliber muzzleloader, which became obsolete the day scopes became legal on muzzleloaders. Still, I hunt with it as an act of civil disobedience.
We’ve come a long way in our deer story and are truly blessed in the southern states, with high deer populations and liberal limits. We now have more and better opportunities for enjoying our time afield. Those of us that enjoy a more traditional approach to hunting have a responsibility to get other hunters involved with our way of life, and an obligation to resist the commercialization of our sport. To many people perception is reality; how do you want to be perceived?

A hunter is anyone who enters game habitat attempting to kill an animal.
Keep it simple.

quote:

Originally posted by SGraves155:
A hunter is anyone who enters game habitat attempting to kill an animal.
Keep it simple.

I like that a lot SGraves, I like it a lot!

+2

It's in the genes...

quote:

Originally posted by KSTEPHENS:

But, what action must take place for the kill to have been considered "hunting" and the killer to be considered a "hunter"

The hunter must be a member of an internet hunting site. The hunter must put in an amount of time installing modems, PCs and really work at typing to consider a buck earned. Merely stepping on line and posting away doesn't count even if the topic is a record breaker - where's the skill in that?

Some people put in the minimum of effort - just posting about their hunt or merely technical issues - laughable really that they consider this enough.

The true hunter will prepare for a hunt. First off he will post a truly stupid question about what rifle to buy because he's going to hunt a new species (that weighs a bit more). After countless suggestions that ALLWAYS end in an argument that goes on for pages getting more and more inane and stupid the poster ignores all advice and did what he wanted to do in the first place. Subsequent posts will be on topics such as 'what bullet should I use to shoot my xyz' this will degenerate into the premium vs non premium row which benefits many electrons.
Having arrived at the hunting ground the true hunter gets on line and sends update reports - hopefuly these will soon be whilst in the actual field (here is the sh*t I just took' etc)
Having taken the required animal the hunter posts a hunting report which glosses over the real facts, a round of mutual backslapping then ensues until some spoilsport who got bottle instead of tit at birth denigrates the acheivement by questioning ethics, the post then attains a spiritual level of complete fucking pointlessness at which point (how can there be one if it was pointless I hear you ask) the only entertainment is wondering what medication (you know the stuff I obviously forgot to take today) the main participants are failing to take. If the animal wasn't taken and the hunt was guided/outfitted a report is filed warning others not to use the services. This sparks a war of words from just about everyone who hasn't a clue some of which start with my particular favourite 'I've never hunted with xyz but (insert pointless remark)

What really grips my sh*t are people who think that it's ethical to take a buck without any of this work at all - I mean where would we all be if everyone did that!

quote:

Originally posted by SGraves155:
A hunter is anyone who enters game habitat attempting to kill an animal.
Keep it simple.

You mean like this? http://www.limestonemedia.com/funny-video/video/lion2.wmv

Enjoyed the article BUCKMT...Good food for thought.

X

BuckMt- Wow. It is the same where I come from in Michigan. Deer baiting is become such a big business, every gas station has a pile of beets or stacks of corn, carrots and apples in bags. I am fed up with this it has ruined our hunting, it is ruining our youth. It is damaging our reputation as real hunters to be put in a group that baits deer. One thing we have in Michigan that just burns me up is the special youth hunt. It is earlier than any season I think in Sept. Kids up to 18 get to shoot a deer of their choice for a week or ten days. In Michigan there is no better time to slaughter deer than then. No pressure, bucks are jsut getting active in the farm fields. I wonder when you see the 12 year old girl in the paper who just shot a ten point, if she even was holding the gun. Remember the anticipation you felt the last few years you had to wait till you were old enough to hunt. When you finally were able at least in my case you were given a hand me down weapon, like a single shot shotgun, a pocket full of slugs and one of the older guys took you out on a stump and said " Sit here, be quiet,I will be back to get you". I froze my ass off for a few years, l learned some stuff and really earned my first buck ( a spike). What do these young people do for an encore? I pay to go west to hunt on foot without the aid of a vehicle except to get me to a trailhead andIwill continue to do so until I can't anymore. I have sold or am selling all my in-line muzzle loaders, I am presently looking for a flintlock. A few years ago I got rid of all my specialized hunting clothes and I now where wool. I will not hunt out of a box blind like so many do where I come from. Michigan's deer herd is managed by the population of the deer count found in the counties south of the Bay City -Saginaw area. It is influenced heavily by the insurance companies and by the people making money from baiting and selling other paraphenalia. I just wish that people would realize that it isn't about selling something, or killing something, as Americans, this is part of our heritage and it is being pissed away

quote:

Originally posted by 1894mk2:

quote:

Originally posted by KSTEPHENS:

But, what action must take place for the kill to have been considered "hunting" and the killer to be considered a "hunter"

The hunter must be a member of an internet hunting site. The hunter must put in an amount of time installing modems, PCs and really work at typing to consider a buck earned. Merely stepping on line and posting away doesn't count even if the topic is a record breaker - where's the skill in that?

Some people put in the minimum of effort - just posting about their hunt or merely technical issues - laughable really that they consider this enough.

The true hunter will prepare for a hunt. First off he will post a truly stupid question about what rifle to buy because he's going to hunt a new species (that weighs a bit more). After countless suggestions that ALLWAYS end in an argument that goes on for pages getting more and more inane and stupid the poster ignores all advice and did what he wanted to do in the first place. Subsequent posts will be on topics such as 'what bullet should I use to shoot my xyz' this will degenerate into the premium vs non premium row which benefits many electrons.
Having arrived at the hunting ground the true hunter gets on line and sends update reports - hopefuly these will soon be whilst in the actual field (here is the sh*t I just took' etc)
Having taken the required animal the hunter posts a hunting report which glosses over the real facts, a round of mutual backslapping then ensues until some spoilsport who got bottle instead of tit at birth denigrates the acheivement by questioning ethics, the post then attains a spiritual level of complete fucking pointlessness at which point (how can there be one if it was pointless I hear you ask) the only entertainment is wondering what medication (you know the stuff I obviously forgot to take today) the main participants are failing to take. If the animal wasn't taken and the hunt was guided/outfitted a report is filed warning others not to use the services. This sparks a war of words from just about everyone who hasn't a clue some of which start with my particular favourite 'I've never hunted with xyz but (insert pointless remark)

What really grips my sh*t are people who think that it's ethical to take a buck without any of this work at all - I mean where would we all be if everyone did that!

Finally, this whole hunt thing put in perspective. More truth here than most will admit to.

1894's response pretty much summed why I hesitate to (usually refrain from) post hunt reports. Although I love pictures, and love to talk about hunting, the kind of crap I've seen recently here (and elsewhere, it's not exclusive) just wears me down...

Anyway, in my opinion a hunter is someone who pursues an animal with the intent of killing it in accordance with accepted practices, customs, mores, laws, and within his/her personal ethical limitations. Obviously, there are "degrees" of hunting, which is what sparks serious debate.

We ask, did the neighbor with all the cash really "hunt"? Sure. But only to a very minimal degree. After all, he/she did go to field to kill an animal. Did that person truly experience what a hunt can and should be? Nope, he/she robbed him/herself of many of the best activities associated with hunting. If a hunter wishen to cheapen the experience of hunting to the simple killing of an animal, who am I to denigrate them? We're all the same team fellas, and like it or not, those rich SOBs that fly out to Texas/Montana/wherever to shoot a deer/elk/pig/whatever may very well be the most likely preservers of this sport (though what it'll turn in to may be unpleasant to consider).

quote:

We ask, did the neighbor with all the cash really "hunt"? Sure. But only to a very minimal degree. After all, he/she did go to field to kill an animal.

by that same vien, then, would you conside someone who went to a NASCAR driving lesson weekend even a "racecar drive" since they obviously drove a real racecar on a track?
without the surrounding cars (or expriences) would they still be a racecar driver?
would the neighbor continue to be a hunter if he attempted to go out solo?

I think it's a damned good question.

Hunting should involve challenge and a sense of accomplishment.

There are different challenges physical,mental, equipment failures etc. In order to fully realize the challenge the game should have the advantage. This is key, if you remove the game's advantage you've removed the spirit of the hunt.

Different areas of the world accept different hunting methods and depending where you are some methods would be considered poaching in other areas. shooting from a vehicle, over bait, after dark etc. are all accepted somewhere or other. I'd have to include food plots and baiting in these methods. Not for me but acceptable to others under different circumstances than I hunt.

When the method chosen eliminates most or all of the challenge it fails to be hunting anymore. This also removes the sense of accomplishment. I've got some large racks that don't give me as strong a sense of accomplishment than some of my smaller racks that I had to sweat and work for.

If it comes too easily you've cheated yourself.

the chef

quote:

Originally posted by calgarychef1:
Hunting should involve challenge and a sense of accomplishment.

I agree entirely, but note that what some consider a challenge and accomplishment meets with derision and worse from other hunters.

Let me say it succinctly, "45-70."

I'd also add-If a hunter relies too much on thechnology to accomplish his task, he becomes less of a hunter in my eyes. Someone who uses old well worn equipment, is usually out there more than someone with all the new fancy gadgets.

A BP hunter using round balls may be more of a hunter than and inline shooter. Using less efficient methods doesn't automatically make you a better hunter but in the end you have to be a better hunter to score.

For me, hunting is a challenge to test myself. Am I prepared to prepare, work hard, master a skill-set, enter an unknown or unfamiliar territory to match wits with a foe.
I do not hunt for the meat, I hunt for the challenge.

We ask this question in 2007 because rare is the American or European that hunts for the food. Food is cheaper at the store.

I got a great insight into some of this when I read the book "Guns, Germs and Steel" - about the adaptation of man to his surroundings and his ability to alter the environment to support his needs and wants.

I prefer not to get too philosophical on "hunting" as the end result is usually death to the animal, fish or bird. However, much is the same our obsession with sports. The Rockies do not "die" if the Red Sox beat them, but they lose. The World Cup soccer event has only one 'winner' that carries the fleeting victory for a few years, before it fades and they must compete again.

Hunting, competing, writing, singing, working is part of who and humans are... Yet, we always have self doubts until we know "why".

I am not fully aware of "why", but I know that I like to do it and I believe that I do it ethically. I do not believe that I violate any moral laws, country laws or spiritual laws - so I go forward....

quote:

Not what is ethical, that is different by state, county and region.

Ethics, are PERSONAL concepts that each INDIVIDUAL determines on their own.

Anyway, in my opinion a hunter is someone who pursues an animal with the intent of killing it in accordance with accepted practices, customs, mores, laws, and within his/her personal ethical limitations. Obviously, there are "degrees" of hunting, which is what sparks serious debate.

The above is from Desert Rams post, which is actually a better definition than anything else given.

A hunter is anyone who enters game habitat attempting to kill an animal.
Keep it simple.

Steve

The best staement made on the whole topic.

Why can't people accept it, that hunting is and means something different to EACH INDIVIDUAL, and as long as it is legal and the person can live with it in their heart/mind/soul, everyone else needs to back the hell off.

It is perfectly okay for hunters in Alaska to shoot caribou while swimming in the head with 212 rifles, how many on here would view that as hunting???

The Alaska Game and Fish Department says it is okay.

Why can't folks just accept the fact that if the governing body of a state/country/province declares that a practice or group of practices are considered LEGAL HUNTING METHODS, and let it go at that.

Why does everyone want to enforce or instill their personal beliefs/ideas/concepts on everyone else?

quote:

in my opinion a hunter is someone who pursues an animal with the intent of killing it in accordance with accepted practices, customs, mores, laws, and within his/her personal ethical limitations. Obviously, there are "degrees" of hunting, which is what sparks serious debate.

desert ram still one of the smartest guys I ever hunted with. I know he is open minded he came to texas to try the hunting and I hope he comes back some time. living proof you dont have to be a redneck nuckle dragger to love hunting

quote:

Why can't folks just accept the fact that if the governing body of a state/country/province declares that a practice or group of practices are considered LEGAL HUNTING METHODS, and let it go at that.

i guess because there are times when certain regions and states adjust hunting to less than ethical standards to increase thier revenue, tourism responsibility ect ect ect.
If NJ has such a horrible black bear problem that they decide to allow claymores to kill the bears are you going to go along with the premise that "all that is legal" is hunting?
What then is the difference from hnting and what CA paid the NZ pig hunters to do (exterminate by shooting from chopper)?

No, i think there is more to hunting than an easy answer like "whatever is legal" or "if someone kills something".

I consider that i have been on a hunt when i leave the field a better person than when i entered it.
if that came from quiet meditation or from seeing something that inspired me or seeing something I hadnt seen before then i feel ive been hunting.
As well, if i am challenged by the day or if i am in pursuit of an animal i feel i have hunted.
As a hunter we are going to be grouped together with people who do things that we dont consider ethical or are not legal were we hunt. in thier region or group what they did was just fine.
for years poaching deer in WV is/ was a common practice. People were poor and meat was costly.
Some of those guys became amazing trackers, scouters and deer hunters.
Does the fact that thier activity was illigal make thier actions NOT HUNTING?
Did it make them NOT HUNTERS?

a hunter, firstly a sportsman, is a person who follows the laws, hunting ethics, and personal morals in the pursuit and taking of game. They abid by ethics (rules of the tribe) and morals (personal) and the laws.

anything "flavoring" past this point is personal preference, and has nothing to do with HUNTING...

a person can hunt in a situation where he does not kill, as killing is a choice and is NOT required to hunt

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
I hunter is a person who follows the laws, hunting ethics, and personal morals in the pursuit and taking of game. They abid by ethics (rules of the tribe) and morals (personal) and the laws.

anythign "flavoring" past this point is personal preference, and has nothing to do with HUNTING...

HMMM.
so what were those men who tracked and killed game before there were game laws?
before the settling of the west when the country was open?
are they not the tradition makers we want to follow?
or have the new breed of TV's "Bucks of Tecomate" and "Whitetail Revolutions" and such impressed us with thier skills that we wish to immulate them?

On the way out to the Dove fields last weekend we stopped to admire the 7 point (300"ish) bull elk sniffing the cows while they ate from the feeder next to the road. From 30 feet he looked huge.

A mile down the road we saw two 130"ish WT bucks and a 150"ish buck that was named "Droopy" by the ranch hands because his left antler hung lower than his right, feed on corn on the ground. He would have been a long shot of 40-50 yards but thankfully he was standng in the open and the light was good at 4:30 PM in the afternoon.

He could be "hunted" him for about $5,000 and the two smaller bucks could be "hunted" for $3,500 they said.

quote:

Originally posted by KSTEPHENS:

quote:

We ask, did the neighbor with all the cash really "hunt"? Sure. But only to a very minimal degree. After all, he/she did go to field to kill an animal.

by that same vien, then, would you conside someone who went to a NASCAR driving lesson weekend even a "racecar drive" since they obviously drove a real racecar on a track?
without the surrounding cars (or expriences) would they still be a racecar driver?
would the neighbor continue to be a hunter if he attempted to go out solo?

Yes, he is a race car driver - to the very same minimal degree that the rich feller shooting from a box blind that he's never seen before that morning is a hunter. The individual in your example set out to the racetrack to drive a race car and did so. He/she therefore becomes a racecar driver, albeit a very novice one that doesn't come close to meeting the qualifications of one who has done the job professionally for years. Likewise, he/she can be deemed a hunter after the single box blind event, though not to the same degree as the DIYers that continually tout their way as the only true path.

I look at this way, I started hunting as a kid shooting birds off a wire. Sporting? Hell no, but it helped instill in me the love of the pursuit that has driven me to (hopefully) advance as a hunter and become a respectable one that can be looked up to be ensuing generations. Had I not taken that first leap, that first shot at a "defenseless" starling on a wire, I might not be here defending the box blind-sitter that will hopefully develop into someone you can grudgingly respect, or at least quit riding incessantly for not doing it your way. If he/she fails to do that, then it's their concern, not yours. If said hunter is happy to continue as an entry level hunter, and never strive for improvement simply because they don't have to, then there's not much that we can do about it griping on the 'net. But at least we should try to provide the benefit of the doubt until all potential opportunities for development are exhausted and the hunter proves him/herself as a total dolt. I for one am not ready to be charged with the responsibility of making the "dolt call," but go ahead if you wish. I'd rather spend my energy out chasing a deer or elk or pig and trying to teach my kids (or someone else's) to do the same.

Hell, I'm ready to drag my four-year old daughter off on my five-day deer hunt in two weeks if the spousal unit will give in. That's what we should be doing - teaching newcomers instead of bashing them. Take a few minutes to consider what getting into this sport takes (money aside), and you should appreciate the obstacles that some people overcome. Let's help them overcome those obstacles, help them see that there are as many ways of hunting as there are game animals to hunt, and help them proceed down a path that they can become proud of. Sure, there will be those that will never really reach a level that most of us will appreciate, but that's life. If you don't like it, change the channel.

DR: very well said. I agree that there are degrees of hunters. It's not like being pregnant where either you is or you ain't.

It's a sport/hobby/avocation which we all should be able to enjoy to the degree we want to.

I'm a golfer, but a lousy one, and not inclined to put in the extra effort to get better. But I still enjoy playing occasionally.(Probably somewhere there is a golfing website where duffers like me are being bashed.)

I was an avid fisherman growing up, I knew every sandbar, every rod and reel and what bait worked on what days. Now I enjoy going out on the water once in a while, but not to the extent I did.

I consider myself a hunter. Although, clearly not in KS's league. He can look down his nose at me all he wants. I participate at the level that I enjoy.

Now, I do agree that there are some practices today that I don't support in the deer "hunting" arena.

But so what. We can complain about it. Should we press for laws which say: "you can't be called a hunter unless you do X, Y and Z".

Are we going to try to pass laws which say "you can't hunt unless you are willing to hunt in the following way". How productive would that be? (Yes, I know that every state has laws which do that to a certain degree, but I'm not convinced that we need MORE laws and more constraints).

As you say, we should be encouraging more young folks to join our fraternity. Not putting up more barriers to entry.

If your out hunting knowing that you have a camp full of food regardless,some would be less inclined to use every trick in the book to bag an animal.
If your relying on hunting to eat(or otherwise go without), you would most likely find it more acceptable to use what ever trick in the book. Thats simply using ingenuity to survive.
maybe some folk should try not taking so many conveniences with them on a trip, and find out if they have really got what it takes, they will also most likely expand their perspective and understanding of the relevance&relativity of the morals-ethics of hunting and of the methods used.

look at it this way:
Someone puts you in the field with 2 days supplies,but your asked to stay 3-10days at your option. You have been given every concievable hunting method&option:
-Baits,scent,camo, etc
-spears,knives,bow,guns from handguns,flintlocks,opensight mausers to scopedUltramags,
-muzzle breaks,laserRFinders,Binoculars,nightVision
-old or modern survival equipment,
-varying types of transport:,onfoot,horse,atv,Helicopter
Etc,etc,etc.......

Ok lets say, you decide that your going to attempt to stay the full 10 days with the initial idea of using a bow. After the first two days your having no luck,so you decide to relax things some and allow yourself to use an 7x57mauser(2.5x scope) on foot, but things still arent quite working out.
Im rather sure that if you decide to continue your stay beyond the 3-4 day mark, the hunger pains would take priority over ones passing&waiting for an ideal trophy, and also make the idea of night vision,or a 400yd+ capable muzzlebraked laser assisted scopedMagnum, or Helicopter, become much much less of a moral or ethical dilema. It may mean you only need to use them in order to get some food, so you can continue with the personal challenge of being successful with your bow or 7x57mauser.

Walk to work if you can,its good for your health. But if not having a car means you cannot get to work and dont get to eat,then the car is a good thing.

quote:

HMMM.
so what were those men who tracked and killed game before there were game laws?
before the settling of the west when the country was open?
are they not the tradition makers we want to follow?

Just stop and take a minute to look at how much has changed with this country between then and now.

When I first started hunting elk in Colorado in 1992, there were a lot less folks and plenty of places to go.

As of my last hunt there in 2005. many of the places I had hunted were now broken into 3 to 5 acre ranchettes with 200,000 dollar homes on them.

Did the indians keep hunting with bows and arrows once they got ahold of firearms, No.

Did the old Buffalo Runners keep using muzzle loaders when cartridge rifles came out, No.

Did hunters keep using horses when jeeps/4 wheelers/airplanes and helicopters made access easier, in most cases No.

Why is it necessary for hunters/killers, to tear into each other over the minutia of what is and what isn't actually hunting???

We set around and talk about the damage that HSUS and PETA can do to us, and we are working so hard to alienate each other that those folks are just setting and waiting.

The big thing I see, is that those that can not afford to do something are the first to find fault.

I do not think it has one thing to do with the ethics factor, I think it has to do with the jealousy factor.

If the best we can do as a group, is to berate each other and like the various religious groups, claim that those that don't believe or practice things the way we do, then they are less of a person.

Hunting to me is exactly what happened this past week when I shot my 1st elk. It wasnt the last 5 minutes, it was being outdoors, watching the sunrise and sunset. The company of good friends, working hard, and the promise that you just never know whats over the next ridge.

It makes no difference to me whether you walk everywhere or use vehicles to get you in position. Hunting is a unique experience for each person, who am I to judge one persons methods over anothers. We are all out there together and as long as the game is taken safely and quickly, lets just enjoy ourselves and have another beer.

Gentlemaen I wholly agree. I should have qualified the box blind hunter as a box blind baiter. I also see no problem in kids hunting or going off to hunting camp. Mine has been since he was 3-4. However I do feel it is wrong to allow them to hunt an early special season in an area whose deer population is really challenged. As far as tools and devices, golf was mentioned here and I think our hunting is alot like golf in some ways, we have no referees in the field to watch us use the "foot wedge" to get around the tree or mmaybe shoot a little early or a little past shooting hours. It is to each his own, some guys hunt deer with dogs in places but I never will. I just think that alot of us who take to the field need to look at our actions and methods and how they ar eaffecting our heritage of hunting. What public image are we portraying, we have a bad enough reputation with some of the general populace as beer swigging assualt rifle toting, bambi killers.

Okay, in the spirit of this conversation about what is hunting, what are peoples opinions on the following.

1. Hunting Deer/Bear/Feral Hogs/Game Birds with dogs.

2. Hunting any game over a bait of any kind?

3. Shooting anything from a stand or box blind, whether over looking a feeder/food plot/mineral lick, whatever, or not over looking any thing.

4. Using an "Assault-Type" rifle to hunt with.

5. Paying to hunt on private property, low or high fenced?

6. Shooting game with marginal calibers or taking questionable shots at game, i.e., neck/head shots?

7. Killing a game animal, from a vehicle, within 50 yards of a vehicle, with in 1/2 mile, of a vehicle?

8. Using modern in-line muzzle loaders to hunt with during a "Primitive Weapons" season?

9. Using a modern compound bow or a crossbow instead of a traditional recurve or longbow?

10. Using any thing, feed stuffs/scents of any kind/calls/rattling horns to attract game animals?

I'll start with those, since they are all perfectly legal and to lots of folks depending on what part of the country they hunt in are perfectly ethical hunting methods.

What does amke one person a hunter and some one else not, and who in the hell is the judge?

please remember, that hunting is a SPORT, and like all sports, there are rules and conditions... gin rummy, lacross, heck, even basketball has variants

...wondering where one draws the line, and in what circumstance...

is hunting from the car/quad/etc not hunting? what about the parapalegic or polio victim? so, it's okay, in some circumstance, or would one say that "its still wrong, and they need to deal with that?

water can be considered bait, as it is a vital resource, easily controlled.. is hunting ANYWHERE withing 5 miles of a water hole "hunting" in africa? or is this shooting over a baited area?

baits ... is shooting a lion, from a grass blind, over bait, from short range, with the bait in am improved shooting area (cleared) hunting? or is this shooting over bait and in a blind?

is scouting an area, finding where the animals are, and then finding a shooting position, NOT DURING THE ACTUALY HUNT, and preparing the animals demise, and then returning to that prepared area hunting? or is this shooting over a known distance over an attractant?

is hunting a known type of animal in its known area (bears at a stream eating salmon, deer at the edge of fields, prarrie dogs in their town) huting or shooting?

is using a tree to hold your rifle steady while you make a shot hunting? or is this merely shooting, when a "man" shouldn't use anything to improve his skills over the game

is conserving game, choosing when to shoot animals for meat and when to shoot animals for attributes other than meat hunting? or is this genetic manipulation of the herd?

ishaving a scope, or even sights, or a breach loader, or muzzle loader,bow, or now wait, spear, After all, our forefathers were able to HUNT with these things to survive?

The answer to all these questions is, of course "it depends". If one is in a survival situation, all of these, without a doubt, are hunting. However, if one is not starving to death, (or being hunted by the lion), it is sport, and the hunters choice and pleasure how he hunts.

Would i hunt with an unethical hunter? not twice