I shot the dove pictured above. I was on a low fenced/no fenced ranch of 50,000 or so acres. They were coming to a cistern/roost just before dark. I wonder if they had been there before. I had, opening day the year before. Maybe I shot their uncle/aunts. Quien Sabe as the Mexicans say. I do know that I enjoyed killing them, dismembering them, roasting their flesh( wrapped around a jalepeno and then wrapped with bacon) and eating them, just as I do all the pork, venison and fowl that I take AOAP.

I wonder who was the first person that coined the term "opinions vary"?



GWB

On the bright side gentlemen, in the states I hunt in, the traditional hunt and hunt camp is still intact and in fact has improved some. most of the friends I grew up hunting ducks with spoke of deer camps where the first day had some hunting and then the rest of the week was a drunken vacation from the wives. Now me, my friends and now my children and theirs hunt hard, sleep hard, and repeat. Waterfowling has declined at home due to loss of habitat, but deer hunting in MN WI ND SD and IA adds hunters to the ranks every year. We are not, at least up here, on the brink of distruction.

Todd,

Your post certainly has whipped up some emotions and stimulated some to opine. I think that is a fair question "Where does it end"?

Ted was trying to make a show and a high fence Texas hunt is a pretty easy way to do that. He's done quite few on Texas high fence.

What comes to mind for me with your post is the amount of money spent and lengths that some deer hunters will go to kill a big deer. These folks seem almost obsessed with the B&C score and the hunting experience seems of little or no value nor does it matter what method of hunting is used as long as the deer scores very high.

Personally I don't care how people hunt as long as it's legal but it seems to me that some folks have just lost the essence of hunting. With that loss they have cheated themselves out of one of life's most rewarding experiences and that is the hunt itself.

Mark

The anti hunters are forever defining hunting as high fenced, feeder, or even outright poaching. Why are we hunters not defining what is hunting and what is not? Why don't we actively market what is and is not hunting? Why don't we shun those who try to apply the term "hunting" to what is not. We hunters are the only group in this dispute who are not actively defining and defending what is and is not hunting. Our current consensus is that if its legal, then who cares, it's hunting. Well, laws and society itself run on public opinion, not logic, common sense or what you or I as an individual think.

Are we so afraid of hanging separately that we are doomed to all hang together?

While hunting high-fenced, gps tagged deer doesn't float my boat and I would never consider it as an option, as long as it doesn't violate any laws, they are the ones that have to sleep at night. Is it any different than hunting high-fence hunts in Africa? IMHO, hell yes it's different. One small concession we hunted (500 acres)in South Africa had 3 giraffe on it. I never saw one, wasn't looking for one either but there again, I never saw one. Also, I am not concerned with production schedules, putting on a good show for the public to watch or scoring any of the animals I take, legally, in any record book. From my own point of view, some people put too much emphasis on the record books. Seems like most of the "world records" now come from high fence hunting. They raise em, feed em and protect em from the natural predators that they would encounter in the wild. Dose them with steroids and hope they can sell a 10,000 - 25,000. hunt.

Although Ted does some hunts in Africa and Alaska, most of his shows are on either of his high fence places in Michigan and Texas or on the YO high fence ranch in the hill country of Texas. He is not into what most would call the typical fair chase hunts, but rather killing something. In fact, many times he shoots several does or small bucks out of a stand over bait just for the meat and a lot of it is donated to the needy. He's a far out wacko that I'm beginning to think is doing more harm for our Second Amendment rights with his constant theatrical wacko tirades. He is great if he stays under control and I guess I'd still rather have him on our side than the antis, but I really wish he would tone it down a lot in a lot of his interviews!

Just fer shitz N Giggles, a question for ya’ll


But first, a little background.
I do stand hunt over feeders quite a bit. By stand hunt I mean either in a box blind, from a tri-pod or sitting on a stool on the side of a cliff using shooting stix for a rest. The type of quarry will also have a bearing on how I hunt.

This would be typical. I get up in the morning around 5 AM. I leave camp around 5:30 get to where I intend to "hunt" around 6 AM. Shooting light may not be until 7:15 to 7:30. I'll get my binoc and shooting stix out. When I'm set, I'll load a cartridge into the chamber of my rifle. I'll usually sit in that location until I kill or around noon. I then take the cartridge out of the chamber before I do anything else. I'll put my gear back in my pack and I'll make my way back to camp, eat something, take a nap and head back out around 2:30 to 3 and stay till dark. Each instance I will call a "hunt".

I "hunt year round. I hunt deer and hogs pretty much in the same manner. Calling varmints and Turkey or hunting dove are different. We also trap and snare hogs.

When I'm hunting over feeders I generally choose a cliff-side or rise where I have elevation as an advantage. Prevailing winds are southeast so I generally like to be Northeast of my quarry if possible. If elevated and a couple hundred yards away it's not as important.



So take this last season. I have four different locations where I have spin-cast feeders set up. I don’t feed year round at all four due to the cost of corn. I’ll keep a couple going all year then start up a couple more around September. During deer season ( Sept 29 through January 6th I was able to get in +/- 30 hunts as described above. So say I was able to spend at least 90 hours “on stand”. During this time for one reason or another I did not take any deer at the feeders. I did shoot a number of hogs after legal time for shooting deer had past.

On the last day I hunted, I did happen to hear a doe snort. She was at the top of a hill across from where I was sitting in a box blind. I listened and she blew again. I picked her out with my binocs. I ranged her at 310 yards. I had a rifle zero’d at 200 with B&C reticle, first subtension dead on at 300 yds. I used the window ledge for support and my shooting stix and sling to steady my aim. Nailed her. I had been sitting for about four hours that morning. Nothing had come to the feeder that I was watching. I had seen three Aoudad come over the top of the same hill where the doe was much earlier, but as I had shot one the day before I declined to shoot another.

So here is my question. I am in a box blind over a feeder. I’ve been sitting there for several hours. I’ve sat in this location at least six times in recent past for several hours on each occasion and not seen a deer under the feeder. A deer appears about 500 yds. away from the feeder on the side of a hill. I shoot her. Was I hunting?

Opinions will vary!

Best

GWB

for the 10,000th time, "they" don't dose/feed/inject bucks with steroids to grow antlers........and I've never heard of anyone using GPS tagging on deer in enclosures to hunt ...

Was I hunting?

GWB[/QUOTE]
I sit in a tree at edge of a large field, while deer-"hunting". I haven't considered myself (literally) "hunting" .....rather "ambushing". Yet, there is no way to stalk-hunt in the noisy underbrush. So, I wait for the deer to come into the open. Possibly, most whitetail hunters do their hunting in the same manner. When I hunted mule deer, I moved slowly just below ridgelines and over wooded hollows, etc., ....wherever might be productive. I feel that was "hunting" in the real sense. I don't apologise for "ambushing" (please forgive my use of that term.....it feels silly, but more applicable than any other I can come up with); it is generally the only way, and it works.

Lets see,

Wikipedia defines hunting.....

Hunting is the practice of pursuing any living thing, usually wildlife or feral animals, by humans for food, recreation, or trade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting


Seems "hunting" would encompass a broad range of activities.

Best

GWB

To the question why not "define" hunting. As we see, it is as diverse as our locations, customs, and quarry. As soon as hunting is defined it can be restricted as a person or group of people sees fit. Now suppose those people restrict YOUR definition of hunting? We all seem to think that high fences and ear tags are other than hunting. And if we are a gross minority? Now we are FORCED to give up hunting or pay to hunt within a high fence so that, let's say the wolves, deer, and elk can live a "natural life". Just because we may frown on the less than "fair chase" we have NO RIGHT to defigne what others enjoy as right or wrong as long as it does not infringe on our own liberty. Some people find great pride and validation in taking a big set of horns. Others may appreciate the sunrise and the outdoors, and a kill is a bonus and trophy horns are free money. Who made any of us king to say which perspective is right. Y'all keep poken and someday your gonna fall on your own sword. Hunting and shooting will be as it is in Europe, you know the place our forefathers left to find freedom?

If my legal hunting style is used by the antis to change the laws so that you cannot hunt anymore, then am I not, king of your right to hunt?

An important question is, how many undecided voters will become anti hunting voters if they see Ted's amazing adventure. Anyone believe the answer is zero and there is nothing to worry about?

quote:

Originally posted by Geedubya:
Just fer shitz N Giggles, a question for ya’ll


But first, a little background.
I do stand hunt over feeders quite a bit. By stand hunt I mean either in a box blind, from a tri-pod or sitting on a stool on the side of a cliff using shooting stix for a rest. The type of quarry will also have a bearing on how I hunt.

This would be typical. I get up in the morning around 5 AM. I leave camp around 5:30 get to where I intend to "hunt" around 6 AM. Shooting light may not be until 7:15 to 7:30. I'll get my binoc and shooting stix out. When I'm set, I'll load a cartridge into the chamber of my rifle. I'll usually sit in that location until I kill or around noon. I then take the cartridge out of the chamber before I do anything else. I'll put my gear back in my pack and I'll make my way back to camp, eat something, take a nap and head back out around 2:30 to 3 and stay till dark. Each instance I will call a "hunt".

I "hunt year round. I hunt deer and hogs pretty much in the same manner. Calling varmints and Turkey or hunting dove are different. We also trap and snare hogs.

When I'm hunting over feeders I generally choose a cliff-side or rise where I have elevation as an advantage. Prevailing winds are southeast so I generally like to be Northeast of my quarry if possible. If elevated and a couple hundred yards away it's not as important.



So take this last season. I have four different locations where I have spin-cast feeders set up. I don’t feed year round at all four due to the cost of corn. I’ll keep a couple going all year then start up a couple more around September. During deer season ( Sept 29 through January 6th I was able to get in +/- 30 hunts as described above. So say I was able to spend at least 90 hours “on stand”. During this time for one reason or another I did not take any deer at the feeders. I did shoot a number of hogs after legal time for shooting deer had past.

On the last day I hunted, I did happen to hear a doe snort. She was at the top of a hill across from where I was sitting in a box blind. I listened and she blew again. I picked her out with my binocs. I ranged her at 310 yards. I had a rifle zero’d at 200 with B&C reticle, first subtension dead on at 300 yds. I used the window ledge for support and my shooting stix and sling to steady my aim. Nailed her. I had been sitting for about four hours that morning. Nothing had come to the feeder that I was watching. I had seen three Aoudad come over the top of the same hill where the doe was much earlier, but as I had shot one the day before I declined to shoot another.

So here is my question. I am in a box blind over a feeder. I’ve been sitting there for several hours. I’ve sat in this location at least six times in recent past for several hours on each occasion and not seen a deer under the feeder. A deer appears about 500 yds. away from the feeder on the side of a hill. I shoot her. Was I hunting?

Opinions will vary!

Best

GWB

Sure you were hunting and that's the way most everyone down there in that country hunts in order to see game in that terrain with that vegetation. Your post brought back many good memories of "hunts" I did just like that down there and I'd do it again in a heartbeat if I had a place to go.

quote:

Originally posted by SG Olds:
The anti hunters are forever defining hunting as high fenced, feeder, or even outright poaching. Why are we hunters not defining what is hunting and what is not? Why don't we actively market what is and is not hunting? Why don't we shun those who try to apply the term "hunting" to what is not. We hunters are the only group in this dispute who are not actively defining and defending what is and is not hunting. Our current consensus is that if its legal, then who cares, it's hunting. Well, laws and society itself run on public opinion, not logic, common sense or what you or I as an individual think.

Are we so afraid of hanging separately that we are doomed to all hang together?

***Good post and that's why I've always felt the need to publicly say that I'm against these small enclosures that are referred to as canned "hunts" when all it is killing and I don't give a damn if it's legal or not. It is legal killing for a 100% chance at taking a tame animal for the most part that can't get away even if it wanted to. Why should I be for something that is so detrimental to actual hunting that is my passion and that could be a big part of what could bring us all down eventually because of fence sitters that think that may be the way we all hunt? That is the big reason that, IMHO,the words "legal" and "ethics" shouldn't be used together like a lot of people do. That is MY opinion. If ever there came a vote to allow or disallow the farming of game, I can sure tell you where my vote would go, as IMHO it should have never been allowed in the first place. Again, that is just MY opinion.

There are actually not as many 'antis' as you think, and even fewer see Ted. The fact is if it's not Ted it will be someone or something else. We, and I think the politions have seen as a case in point with the wolf situation, that if you go agaist the 'antis' they get desperate, put up a couple of billboards that make them look like wackos, and elections are not lost and life goes on. Maybe we should live without fear of the uninformed few that whine about everything and go back to being wolf hunting men. That seemed to work from 1492 until the Beetles came.

Shooting ducks/geese over decoys. Hunting or not hunting? Shooting anything at a water hole. Hunting or not hunting. Shooting a lion/leopard/bear/deer off of a "Human Introduced Bait". Hunting or not hunting? Shooting anything traveling a traditional migration route. Hunting or not hunting? Shooting anything at night with the of any type artificial illumination. Hunting or not hunting? Shooting anything that was located/treed/brought to bay using a dog. Hunting or not hunting? Shooting anything that was located using a land/air or water based vehicle. Hunting or not hunting?

quote:

Originally posted by DTala:
........and I've never heard of anyone using GPS tagging on deer in enclosures to hunt ...

Well ... That's my point exactly. I had never heard of using a GPS ear tag on deer in an enclosure either. Not until I saw the episode of Ted Nugent's show this past week. His wife DID shoot a deer with an ear tag, then after describing how the blood trail was washed away by rain overnight, she specifically showed the ear tag to the camera, in a close up, and informed the viewing audience that the tag was not just for identification, but also contained a small GPS transmitter and the use thereof is how they located the downed deer! So now you've heard of it!!

Look guys, I'm not trying to define what is or is not hunting based on regional differences in how the sport is pursued. In fact, I've always been a staunch advocate of to each his own and as long as the methods are legal, it's your business and no one else need be bothered by it. That has always been my position. But for the very first time, I found myself at odds with that philosophy when I saw a GPS transmitter being used to locate a deer on an piece of land that already restricts the animals' movements.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for the official labeling of any form of hunting as "not hunting". Rather pointing out, that no matter how accepting you think you are as to different methods of hunting, you may well discover a future line in the sand that changes your perspective. That's what happened to me a couple of days ago when I saw the GPS. It simply caused me to ask myself, where does technology in the pursuit of game animals end? More of a rhetorical than an actual question.

I'm going to leave this discussion with two thoughts. One I already mentioned. While afield, have you ever wondered where the nearest big buck is currently located relative to your position. With this invent of GPS ear tags, if you have the corresponding receiver, you can now know! Question is, would you really want to know or would you rather hunt for him?

Secondly, and this is more of a practical question. Let's say you have purchased a guided hunt on one of these ranches. What would your feelings be if you found out that your guide located your deer of a lifetime by using a GPS tracking device? Obviously, hunting a high fence facility, you have already made some concessions, but would it also be OK to find out that instead of reading sign and scouting, he simply honed in on a radio signal until you got a shot?

Obviously, this episode got me to thinking. Maybe these GPS deer have been around awhile. I don't know. Seems like a new development to me. But now that I know about it, it just seems to open many scenarios that currently have me rethinking my position on hunting ethics. I say that without casting stones at anyone or anyone's methods but rather from the standpoint that it has made me rethink some positions I previously held. I hope this discussion has made you guys think as well. If so, great; but your conclusions are still yours and yours alone.

Cheers guys.

Did not mean to kill the discussion at all. However the topic is, "Where Does It End"! So where does it end? How finite is the line we walk as it pertains to what is or is not hunting in our individual opinions?

The other side of that coin, is what do we label the activities we do not believe are actual hunting situations?

Personally, since all I shoot are doe white tails and feral hogs from an enclosed blind overlooking a timed feeder, even though it is on low fenced property and the animals are free range, I am nothing more than an assassin, plain and simple. To the best of my knowledge, TP&W does not issue Assassin's Licenses.

Not being flippant or disrespectful to anyone, but as a group, we have to be very careful in our modern PC world, in the manner we refer to each other and how we choose to pursue hunting.

Personally, I feel that one word has caused more problems than any other, and that is "SPORT". Hunting is not a sport, it is a basic human tradition. Were it not for hunting, were it not for the fact that God created us with our eyes on the front of our head, just like all the other predators on Earth, were it not for the fact that same God created us with a brain superior to all our fellow inhabitants on this planet, we would not have became the dominant species on the planet.

In my opinion, that brings us back to square one and my previous post, basically how and who decides what is, and what is not HUNTING.

Why is baiting a lion or leopard with a dead warthog really any different than using a timed feeder to attract deer. The objective is the same, to try and kill an animal.

When I was on my Musk Ox hunt in 2000, I shared the camp with two gentlemen from the Virginia/North Carolina area. One day in camp we were discussing "hunting" and they simply could not understand the concept of hunting white tails from a box blind watching a timed feeder. At the same time I was having a difficult time appreciating the idea of standing on a road thru the middle of a swamp, wing shooting white tails with buck shot as the dogs chased them past the hunters.

Are either activities really hunting? Was one situation more of a hunting situation than the other? I can't say, I have done the deer at the feeder for years, never tried the dogs chasing the deer concept. It is probably as exciting as it can be. It is just not something that interests me. With the exception of the one time I hunted quail behind pointers, using dogs except for retrieving or blood trailing a wounded animal has never appealed to me. Does that mean I am not a hunter?

Where does it end? How does it end? Do we as a group need to come up with a more definitive method of determining what should and should not be considered/classified as actual hunting? Do we as a group need to establish a strict set of guidelines to determine who is or who should refer to themselves as a hunter?

There are no easy answers or solutions in a discussion like this. Folks that live in or are used to hunting areas with large or huge amounts of public land, really cannot comprehend what being confined to a couple of hundred acres of even low fenced land is like.

I feel that there are just too many variables, world wide, to establish a narrowly defined/acceptable concept of what is or is not hunting. It will step on someone's toes somewhere.

There is a big distinction here being missed. The high fence stuff is livestock. Artificially inseminated, fed,vaccinated, LIVESTOCK. Does it matter to you if a farmer brings his cattle to a food lot before he brings them to market, or if he sells them to Mcdonalds or Wal-Mart? It doesn't matter, they are his cattle and his business. These canned hunts and hunting outside the fence are an apples and oranges comparison, but you fellows are trying put them on the same plane.

Where does it end? It's not uncommon now for the client to let the guide actually shoot the animal for them while he sleeps in. All the client wanted was the head for his office wall and some grain of truth to build a story around. He may not even own a rifle. Happens way more often than we would like to believe.

quote:

Where does it end? It's not uncommon now for the client to let the guide actually shoot the animal for them while he sleeps in. All the client wanted was the head for his office wall and some grain of truth to build a story around. He may not even own a rifle. Happens way more often than we would like to believe.

The above is a very factual assessment of one of the conditions affecting hunting today. In our modern society, instant gratification and the appearance of being successful in all endeavors, many individuals can and will do anything they deem necessary to achieve that "success".

If I remember correctly, in the African Hunting topic area, it has been alluded too that one of the more prominent PH's is the person that actually shot many animals that now adorn the walls of peoples homes/trophy rooms and are the center of conversation at the dinner/cocktail parties held in those homes. Too many folks these days and for the past couple of decades simply don't have the time or won't take the time to really get involved with the concept of more traditional hunting practices.

For whatever their reasoning, they are more prone to take any shortcuts at their disposal to achieve the apparent success they want to project to other people. I seriously doubt that there is a single member of the AR that cannot find something that is not quite right to them in regards to another persons beliefs/ideas/concepts as to what is and what is not hunting.

Maybe the question should be, "Where Do Such Discussions As This End"? It seems like every time a discussion such as this one comes up, the original intention, is to start some form of dialog to address issues that are in some way detrimental to the public image of hunters/hunting.

The down side, is that much like discussions in the ARPF, we polarize ourselves into the far right and the far left on the issue and only end up creating more animosity toward each other. The folks in the middle, having no real preference or opinion one way or the other. It seems like we either believe hunting/hunters should operate within narrow well defined parameters, or should be free to do what they wish as long as it is legal, with no undefinable middle ground.

Then should we take a stance on what we, as an individual, feel could be defined as actual hunting or not actual hunting, we open ourselves up for all sorts of adverse reactions. When that starts happening, the discussions die, with no progress made in any direction.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Maybe the question should be, "Where Do Such Discussions As This End"?

We're all asking the same thing Crazy. With you around they never seem to end.

Todd, I stand corrected, thank you.

Hi Drummond I see yer killing brain cells again...

Okay, a discussion is started, why didn't someone stipulate who could and could not participate?

When did it become part of the rules of this site, that only certain individuals could have or express an opinion?

For what it's worth I don't think it has anything to do with GPS, TV shows, Hunting, High Fences, or deer. It's all about the $$$. It really is the root of all evil.

Ted and his wife say that they love to hunt. But really they love to make a good living traveling around the world shooting stuff. They are not doing it for free.

Joe ranch owner is the same. He may say he loves deer or he loves hunting but really he loves making money. He has just figured out how to do it with deer.

The fact that "hunting" is a multibillion dollar industry is all you really need to know.

Most of us here don't want to believe it because we grew up with some type of hunting heritage handed down to us by our Dads, Uncles, Grandfathers, etc. Its what we did because we loved to be together with family and friends in the outdoors. Sure we were proud if we shot a "big buck" but we were only slightly less proud when we shot a small doe with rusty old borrowed gun wearing worn out boots. They both ate the same and Grandpa's stories were just as funny.

The world is different now and it's not ever going back to the way it was. Nothing on the Ted Nugent show was illegal. And God Bless them all for making an honest living. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that what they are doing, is what we grew up doing.

Careful there MNHunter. Speaking your mind will get you ostracized. See some of these folks really do not want to address the issues. They want anyone that responds to think just exactly as they do.

Anyone that states an independent/realistic opinion is considered the enemy. Legal hunting methods are not part of the equation with these folks, elitist concepts are what they want to see.

Legalities do not concern them. It is either agree with them or you are the enemy.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Okay, a discussion is started, why didn't someone stipulate who could and could not participate?

When did it become part of the rules of this site, that only certain individuals could have or express an opinion?

Are you for real. Because I'm starting to think that you're just pulling people's chain. In one post, you complain about how you think others are trying to get you to shut up and not allowing for the free exchange of ideas and opinions, putting you down and attempting to silence your voice, then you begin an argument with yourself by stating that we shouldn't be having these discussions at all because it's detrimental to hunters as a whole. Then the very next post, you're back to complaining about how some can participate and some canot.

Which side of the fence are you on Crazy? After all, this is a public forum where people are free to discuss what they are thinking about the subjects outlined in the particular sections. Either you want to participate or not. Please make up your mind. This is a perfect example of what I've attempted to point out in the past where I've actually agreed with you and posted in support of your position, only to have you attack my position, which was your position, in the next post. I've never seen anything like it to be honest!

quote:

Originally posted by MN Hunter:
For what it's worth I don't think it has anything to do with GPS, TV shows, Hunting, High Fences, or deer. It's all about the $$$. It really is the root of all evil.

Ted and his wife say that they love to hunt. But really they love to make a good living traveling around the world shooting stuff. They are not doing it for free.

Joe ranch owner is the same. He may say he loves deer or he loves hunting but really he loves making money. He has just figured out how to do it with deer.

The fact that "hunting" is a multibillion dollar industry is all you really need to know.

Most of us here don't want to believe it because we grew up with some type of hunting heritage handed down to us by our Dads, Uncles, Grandfathers, etc. Its what we did because we loved to be together with family and friends in the outdoors. Sure we were proud if we shot a "big buck" but we were only slightly less proud when we shot a small doe with rusty old borrowed gun wearing worn out boots. They both ate the same and Grandpa's stories were just as funny.

The world is different now and it's not ever going back to the way it was. Nothing on the Ted Nugent show was illegal. And God Bless them all for making an honest living. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that what they are doing, is what we grew up doing.

Good input and insight. I agree as it seems money and bragging rights have replaced the value of the experience. To a large part, that is what I was attempting to portray with my friend from Long Island that shot his Elk on the very first day afield, ever. Now, to him, killing an animal, and doing so quickly, and it being the largest in camp, is the only thing he is interested in. Somehow, I don't think I did anyone any favors bringing him into hunting, including him. I'm sure that given the opportunity, he would be fine with locating a big buck quickly the first morning by using a GPS tracking device and getting the whole thing over with as fast as he can, completely missing out on the "experience". Maybe it's a sign of the times of society moving at a fast pace.

It's a shame however that more TV shows, that really are reaching audiences previously never exposed to hunting, don't value portraying the traditional pleasures of being afield with less emphasis on "scoring". I'm no TV market expert, but I do think there is a place for portraying the ups and downs of a hunt the way it really occurs without always being successful. As long as there is a large group of hunters that are primarily focused on quick success instead of quality of field experience, advancements in technology to pursue game animals will continue unabated. Some places have attempted to put a halt to it such as Colorado's Muzzle Loader seasons. They allow in-line weapons but unless something has changed, they still require open sights and no sabots among other things. Of course, some states consider game animals on high fences private property to be owned by the landowner and therefore public rules do not apply.

Again, I don't have the answers and maybe there really isn't a question to be asked in the first place concerning technology in hunting, especially on private property. I was just really surprised to see the arrival of GPS tracking in hunting. To each his own but I'm going to pass on taking that particular easy route.

Todd Williams
I enjoyed your post. It had me laughing. If you really want to bash your head on your keyboard, consider this: Crazy's vote counts the same as yours. Thanks for the post.

Okay, you asked. I support in principal your statements about the negative aspects a show like the one you described can have in regards to public opinion toward hunting /hunters.

I also believe that each individual has the right to participate in hunting, as long as it is legal. What is wrong with that? Do I consider shooting deer from an enclosed blind overlooking a timed feeder hunting? No I don't. It is shooting, nothing more. What gives me or anyone else the right to tell someone that wants to believe that it is hunting, that they are wrong?

Why does stating that as long as what a person is doing is LEGAL in the eyes of the law, is their business, and it is not my place to tell them they are wrong.

Look at the last few posts. The subject had degraded, like so many similar ones have, because not everyone views the subject from the same point of view. Many of the things mentioned in the discussion, to me are not what I consider hunting. Please tell me how everyone will get on the same page and view things the exact same way?

Was what you described in your original post hunting, in my opinion, no. Is setting up and shooting at animals 800 to 1000 yards hunting? I don't think so. I am not the one that makes the laws. I know what I can and cannot live with in regards to taking the life of another inhabitant of the planet. I am adult enough and open minded enough to understand that not everyone else believes the same way I do.

So you look back at the last few responses, and tell me how I am supposed to believe that my view or opinion is welcomed in this discussion. I don't agree with some of the shortcuts people are taking and then claiming it is hunting, but I simply do not see how things can be changed with out governmental involvement.

Well money is the underlying factor in all of it these days. That is a given.

The other part of this is the ME factor. You know, look at me, recognition, one of the big boys, I've got a number one.

It is becoming a real problem. Much of what many on here say should be ignored, it is all hunting, lets all stick together, blah, blah, blah......... is nothing more than doing what you can afford to do to be recognized and stoke the ego.

This is what I have a problem with backing and saying it is okay. It goes against everything I was ever taught about hunting. I am all for record books and guys honestly going out and even setting a goal for themselves....... but there is much to much happening now that is totally nothing about hunting and all about being recognized for having taken some animal that was raised behind high fence with supplements and a result of a breeding program. Then it is placed in a killing pen and some person sits in a stand and pretends they are hunting........ in an area with nothing but big bucks of bulls that were trailered in for the 'hunters'........... then picked and shot.

That is offensive when the word 'hunting' is used for it.............. and yet I see more and more of it. Oh but that is okay. Don't say anything as we all need to stick together. Except that is not hunting. It is, as many have said in other threads, livestock getting shot.

I am meeting hunters now who have never been on a real hunt where the outcome was not guaranteed and certain. Hunts where it would be wham bam, knock a couple of head off in just a couple of days and back to the corporate grind. They have no idea what is actually involved or the joy of being in the middle of nowhere and hunting where the outcome is not certain and there is not wide screen TV at night.

Somehow I am suppose to say that is OK. You are a brother.

There is a big difference between sitting in an elevated box and waiting to shoot an animal in country that is so thick you can't see them unless they walk out into an opening and sitting in a blind at a waterhole where a feedbunk is located with salt and feed and you are shooting it over the feed bunk.

There is a big difference in shooting a bear or a leopard over bait in free range country and shooting a pen raised bear let out into a small game ranch or a lion booted into a small shooting pen and the 'hunt' lasts a whole day.

Sure times are changing but are we so desperate to defend our hunting heritage that we will support any bastardization of killing animals?

Sorry but when I see someone shoot an elk in a 320 acre pasture from a pickup and then cut the ear tags off to take pictures........ nope I cannot support that and I will not even try and justify that to non-hunters. It's bullshit and does NOT deserve support or even toleration.

I'm with you skyline and I'll go you one more. I wish the "BOOK" had never been established with the hunters names in them since they were really established to honor the animal and not the one who took it. That has changed drastically now with the "look at me" attitude of the younger generations.

You don't have to call them a brother, but why can't you let people use their land and their time as they see fit. I just can't understand how so many people in this country cannot understand the concept of liberty. You can own land, and your niehbor has no right to dictate anyones life but his own. That is the reason you same people are afraid of the anti hunters. You are harboring the same dictatorial viewpoints they are, just to a lesser degree. Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, as long as skyline agrees with what you do and how you do it, otherwise turn in your gun and recieve your lashes. THAT'S bullshit. Sure hope they don't decide shooting a bear with his head in a barrel eating mollasis soaked day old bread and f$#@ing donuts isn't hunting.

You missed the whole point..... as do so many it seems. Of course, you want to shoot pen raised animsls with supplements and studs brought in from elsewhere to increase the size, go ahead. But it is not hunting. According to your perspective i guess we should call shooting the angus in my pasture hunting and maybe set up some measurements for skull size on polled animals?

Oh, right each to their own. I agree. If I can get some of you guys to come and shoot angus...... after all I have lots of bush and ponds. We can even pussy foot around in the bush and stalk them. Will that make it OK?

If people want to shoot elk in a pen they are entitled and I could care less. I totally understand the elk rancher getting money from who ever he can and if that is what he has to do so be it. But don't call it hunting and say I should be okay with it being called hunting.

Nothing I said had to do with liberty or a landowners right to sell a commodity.

quote:

Originally posted by Quintus:
Sure hope they don't decide shooting a bear with his head in a barrel eating mollasis soaked day old bread and f$#@ing donuts isn't hunting.

Which is exactly what happened in Colorado back in the late 80's. My Dad took me on a spring bear hunt in 1985 as a graduation present. Black Bear over bait in Colorado just west of Denver in the Pike National Forrest. Those days are long gone now.

quote:

Which is exactly what happened in Colorado back in the late 80's. My Dad took me on a spring bear hunt in 1985 as a graduation present. Black Bear over bait in Colorado just west of Denver in the Pike National Forrest. Those days are long gone now.

One of the craziest arguments I have ever seen on a forum, concerned hunting bear over a bait pile. Mind you now, this was on a Texas based forum. The whole thing revolved around the concept that one side in the argument was describing hunting bear with that method, and the other side getting completely belligerent because even though they had no problem shooting deer at a timed feeder, they felt that shooting a bear at a bait pile was fundamentally wrong.

The discussion finally got locked down and deleted.

All I know for sure is that my definition of what is hunting and what is merely shooting, works for me, and that it is not my responsibility to force those beliefs on anyone. Are such things as what happened on the show with Nugent going to end up helping bring about the end of hunting, I don't know. I don't see how it could prove beneficial.

Of course, I don't see how beneficial holding another persons opinions, or attacking them for those opinions are for anyone.

Luckily and thankfully, when the guy came up with the internet hunting idea, people jumped on that and got it shut down and got laws enacted to prevent such a concept from becoming a reality.

Getting folks in a state where hunting deer with dogs is both legal and an accepted traditional method, to stop practicing it without passing new laws, just is not going to work. Colorado is a prime example, hunting bear over a bait pile and running bear with dogs, were legal and were accepted traditional methods. Then a few folks decided those were unfair practices and after a hard fought campaign, got those activities outlawed.

That is what it will take to get "Hunting" activities/practices that any of us believe are wrong in our own individual definition of what hunting is, stopped.

Getting people to understand that the use of technology in hunting, can go to far, is going to be really hard to do. Just my opinion.

I think we are almost on the same page just seeing it diffrent. You could get people to shoot an angus for money I have no doubt, and YOU wouldn't have to call it hunting, but if the guy that paid $5.00 a lb. and $2,000.00 trophy fee wants to call filling his freezer with beef hunting, he can. He will. Why let it bother you? As far as bear baiting goes, that is still the prefered method here in MN. Dogs are not legal, and about the only shot you have of seeng a bear here during legal shooting hours is over bait. It's not my cup of tea as I'm not interested in shooting a black bear. Baiting has it's purpose and from what I hear if you make noise, or stink, or miss, or haven't scouted and set up right, you go home empty handed. That sounds like hunting to me.

Yes Sir, we are definitely on the same page. I know what I consider hunting and what I consider not hunting.

When it comes to other people however, all I will accomplish by explaining that what they consider hunting, is NOT hunting, is alienate another person.

The whole discussion can be summed up in one statement, "your damned if you do and damned if you don't".

Start trying to explain to someone that what they did in order to harvest a trophy quality buck, is not really hunting but shooting, your ass is gonna get reamed.

Mention on a site like this that you believe that it is up to the individual to judge for themselves as to whether a legally accepted method is actual hunting or not, and the folks that have a more narrow opinion of what is and is not actual hunting are gonna ream your ass.

Maybe the PTB's that provide us with this site should offer more topic areas? Actual Traditional Hunting as defined by committee. Legal hunting methods, but not to be confused with actual hunting? Methods that amount to nothing more than legalized poaching?

Are any of us that enjoy more traditional hunting methods, qualified enough to pass judgment on others?

A little food for thought from the African Hunting topic section of AR.


quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
You know, we are all a bit funny when it comes to this subject of how far are we going to allow technology to help us hunt.

But, at the end of the day, each of us is going to do what makes him comfortable with - regardless of what we claim.

In my own experience in hunting Afica, I have had some hunts on a fenced farm in South Africa that were more difficult than some hunts I have had in Zimbabwe and Tanzania in the wild.

At my age - 63 now, there is no way I can hunt without a scope.

Can we take that as a negative?

I have shot dangerous game, elephant at 55 yards, buffalo at over 300 yards. Because there was no way we could have gotten any closer.

This, in some people's minds, is unacceptable.


I have jumped out of the truck and shot some animals.

Is that not acceptable?

I am using a high power rifle designed to kill at long range.

Is that not acceptable?

We have sat on baits, and waited for an animals to come to feed and shot them.

Is that not acceptable?

Where does one draw the line?
I assume each of us has a different outlook on this.

I have friend who has a heart problem, and cannot walk very far.

He absolutely loves hunting. While hunting in South Africa, where he could shoot from the back of the truck, he said that was the best hunt he had ever had.


Saeed's post above asks lots of questions, and the only answer is, I say if it bothers your conscience simply do not do it. However there is an old saying that applies here. "When in Rome do as the Romans do!" Just let others do as they see fit as long as it is legal where you hunt, and it doesn't bother you, and let others tend to their own business! The game management makes the rules in their countries as to what you are allowed to do, not what you have to do.