I guess to continue the argument. When technology exceeds the resources ability to recover things have to change. In hunting it is
restricted seasons, less opportunity. You throw in other variables, predation, bad winters or disease and you have problems. Technology does allow us to be more successful. open sites to scopes, compounds from recurves, better calibers and better bullets. I guess it is a personal decision. Like the OP said, " where does it end". I'm afraid the great spokesman Pogo was right. "We have met the enemy and he is us !"

I don't believe the OP was meant or designed to create an argument. Hunters are for the most point highly opinionated and the more they care for hunting the more opinionated they become.

One thing that I do not believe that has been brought up in this discussion, is not the use of technology, but the misuse of that technology. When any of us grasp the latest or greatest advancement in technology as it pertains to hunting, I want to believe, that we do so to enhance the skills and abilities God gave us and we have developed individually over the years we have been actively hunting.

The reality however, is that a few too many folks view the new developments as a means of replacing or making up for a lack of skills/ability/knowledge. To me, that is where things go sideways.

Take the members of the AccurateReloading forum. While many will disagree with this, I simply do not believe that any of us on this site could be considered an Average hunter. All a person has to do is read just a random cross section of the posts/responses people on this site make, and I see very few, if any of us are in the group of folks that spend maybe 10 days to two weeks at most in the field. Maybe shoot our rifles 2 or 3 times over the course of time between hunting seasons, maybe watch some videos/TV shows, people that don't literally eat/sleep/breath/dream/discuss hunting-firearms on a daily basis.

Who buys into the majority of the "Next Big Thing"? Those folks that for whatever their reason, don't/can't/won't get involved at the same level we are. They want to be successful on their hunts, same as most of us do.

The difference as I see it. Is that as a group, experienced hunters know that success comes at a price. Not necessarily a monetary price, but the price of involvement in the activity.

In our modern world, people that cannot pay the price of involvement, pay the price with money. The darker concept that folks are not mentioning is that as long as someone is willing to spend the cash, there will be someone out there willing to do whatever is necessary to be the person getting that cash. I do not ever see that changing.

Discussions/arguments such as this need to take place, if for no other reason, as one AR member has in his signature If what has been said makes someone stop and think about what is being discussed and not the clash of personalities the original intentions for the discussion were achieved.

Good post CHC and I don't think I would or can disagree with anything you just stated!

Yep. Well stated. This really was a good discussion.

CHC,

That was a really good post and you are correct in that I did not start the thread to cause an argument. Just to get folks to think about how they might perceive an unexpected development concerning the use of technology in the hunting fields. Your latest post made some very valid points.

I have a friend who is a longbow hunter. He recently went to an outfitter to hunt deer. He was asked if he would like them to shoot the deer for them. They explained that often the hunters would spend time back at the cabins drinking and partying with girls. Then they would later write about "their" deer in magazines complete with pictures.
This is what hunting has become.

Often, when discussions go sideways, I feel that it happens simply because the majority of us have such strong feelings on the subject, that our individual feelings take over and we get wrapped up in defending hunting so intensely, because of the changes we have seen take place, that people sometimes overlook the concept that even though another is agreeing in principal, they just view things from a different angle and not everyone is functionally literate enough to state their feelings in a manner that always comes across as understandable as others.

This may be wrong, but most of us that are really passionate about hunting and the outdoors, are upset, over what we have seen happen to hunting during the last 20 or 30 years, and the frustration we are experiencing does not always express itself as we are meaning too.

Just because folks don't agree 100% with someone else that does not make them the enemy. I have watched the changes that have took place in hunting for several years now, not only in the technology of our equipment, but in the attitudes of hunters. I really don't believe there is a practical/reasonable manner to slow down or turn around the way things are headed. Wish there were, but getting folks to embrace the concept that making a kill at any cost, is not the real mark of success, to me at least, it is the total experience with a kill being the end result of a successful hunt. A hunt can be a success with no kill made. Just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
getting folks to embrace the concept that making a kill at any cost, is not the real mark of success, to me at least, it is the total experience with a kill being the end result of a successful hunt. A hunt can be a success with no kill made. Just my opinion.

BINGO!

The shocking truth is that "bagging a trophy" is just something to check off the list for a lot of guys. They really don't care about actually doing it as much as wanting a story and a trophy for the wall. I once asked a serious question of a good friend of mine who is a master hunting guide in Alaska who mostly did brown bear hunts. I asked what types of game or fish did most of his clients like to chase after they had killed their brown bear. I'm thinking if I am out in the Alaskan bush on a guided bear hunt for 10 days and I am dropping at least $20,000 I am going to live the experience to the fullest. He laughed at me. He said that in 20 years of Brown Bear guiding he has never had anyone stay in camp after they killed a bear. In fact a common response was how fast can you get a plane in here to pick me up so I can get back for a cigar, a cocktail, and a steak at the Captain Cook in Anchorage. He even told me of a few times when guys didn't even bother to take there gear and rifle home. They just said I'm out of here fed ex me the hide when its done and just keep my gear and gun I just bought them for this trip anyway.

Crazy your right I think most of the folks on this forum are serious about the love of going hunting and everything thats involved from reloading ammo, sighting in guns, planning trips, making trips, and enjoying the great outdoors. Most of us would still do it even if we never bagged a "trophy" again.

Another excellent post CHC---you're on a roll buddy, LOL!!! I've literally had as much or more fun helping others the last few years than I've had on my own hunts.

The technology is new and has changed some things, but bragging and not putting in the time is nothing new. As far back as the 50s my grandfather used to have waterfowling clients that had ducks mounted, pictures for the wives, stories of sleet and mud, and never set foot in the slough. Party all night and sleep it off all day. The rest was the guides job. The ten years I guided, I would guess I only had 10% that were too drunk or uninterested to hunt. Most were pretty anxious to get the full ride.

quote:

Originally posted by Quintus:
Party all night and sleep it off all day. The rest was the guides job. The ten years I guided, I would guess I only had 10% that were too drunk or uninterested to hunt. Most were pretty anxious to get the full ride.

Two quotes from my most favorite authors come to mind:

From N. Maclean, "A River Runs Through It"

"Florence met him at the door and said nervously, 'I'm sorry, Paul, but Neal isn't up yet. He got home late.'

"Paul said, 'I didn't even go to bed last night. Get him up, Florence.'

"She said, 'He isn't very well.'

"He said, 'Neither am I, but I am going fishing in a few minutes.

"They stared at each other. No Scottish mother likes to be caught with a lazy son in bed..."

This brings me to the 2nd, from E. Hemmingway:

"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk; that'll teach you to keep your mouth shut."

I try to keep quiet, then, especially when I'm drinking!

friar

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:


One thing that I do not believe that has been brought up in this discussion, is not the use of technology, but the misuse of that technology. When any of us grasp the latest or greatest advancement in technology as it pertains to hunting, I want to believe, that we do so to enhance the skills and abilities God gave us and we have developed individually over the years we have been actively hunting.

I have watched a few "long range" you tube videos with some intrest. It presents a bit of a conflict for me. On one hand the knowlege and level of skill I find admirable, and yet I cant help but feel that the practice somehow is taking something away from the sport. After watching this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyj_A19Zo30

A few things became pretty clear to me. The equipment, skill, obvious time spent practicing and learning is somewhat impressive. I am a huge fan of Military snipers. But what I have a problem with here is the attitude. It was not about the animal, it was not about the hunt. Hell, it wasnt even about the shot! What this is about is "1296 yards".. Bragging rights. That is it! Sorry, but that is messed up IMHO. Is that what hunting is becoming about? Where is the love for the outdoors? The connection with nature? I dont see it in this jacked up video?

The shooter says "the animal was taken ethicaly". Hmmm, Really? It was gut shot with a bullet that is expressedly "not recomended for hunting" by the manufacturer.. He even shows the core seperation. I wonder how long it took that gut shot elk to bleed to death?

Where does it end? Well, the "Long range hunting" kick ends for me right there. Im not sitting in judgement over anyone who shoots an Elk over 300 yds. But the point is, when the only thing that matters anymore is "1296 yards". It is time to re-evaluate your purpose.

That video sucks hind tit!!! Those kinds of distances should be left to target shooting since an animal can move a lot in the time it takes a bullet to travel that distance and the animal can't even use any of it's senses to detect danger. Then those aholes skin that cow and say how ethical it was and it was a one shot kill when he damn near hit that big animal in the ass! Bad enough this type of shit goes on, but to film and post it where anyone can witness that crap is unconscionable!!!

WH,

I have to agree with you. Currently, the speakers on my laptop are not working so to get sound I need to plug in earphones. Didn't have them available so I watched this video with no sound. The exact theme you described is what comes across. It's about the range / bragging rights and nothing else. I thought they missed the elk as she just jumped up and started looking around.

I started this thread originally because I've always been the guy stating that as long as it's legal, it's no body's business. I still feel that way for the most part. But I am quickly becoming turned off to the increasing emphasis on technology and less focus on the experience of being afield.

Of course, that is a hypocritical statement and it's what I was originally concerned with. I hate not being consistent in my views. I don't try to rationalize things I know to be wrong. I try to form opinions that I can defend without making exceptions. I can't do that here. I find myself with quite a bit of internal conflict over this technology in hunting issue. At what point is the line drawn? Longbow, compound, pistol, with a scope, high powered rifle, with a scope, with illuminated reticle, long range "shooting system" with calculators, GPS transmitters in animals' ears with hunter possessing a tracking receiver, etc. Honestly I don't know. I'm not sure it is possible to draw the line exactly across the board. Someone earlier restated the old saying of knowing pornography when you see it. That's probably the best answer I can give for my personal line in the sand. Problem is, we all have different points as to where that line is drawn and my line is no more valid that the next guy.

Much to consider during these fascinating and modern times we live in.

Well said Todd.

Todd,

That is exactly the point. When we hunters as a group start saying that this or that method is NOT hunting "Where does that end". You don't like the tech part of modern hunting and I don't either but does that include sophisticated range finding scopes? Should it? I don't think there is a concrete answer. I think we all need to march to our own drummer and let others in the hunting community do the same.

Mark

Hope this doesn't get misconstrued, but isn't that just exactly what caused this conversation to wander off course in the first place. People placing a set definition of what is and what is not hunting, from their own point of view and believing that methods or practices that do not fall within their perceptions, should not be considered hunting, and the folks that participate in those methods should not consider themselves hunters.

One comment that kept being made, and exception taken to, involved the concept, that if the activity was legal in the eyes of the law, no one had the right or reason to gripe. While that may be true, it does not mean people will not state their opposition, and IMO, it does not mean that they are wrong in their assessment, but it also does not mean that every other hunter shares that assessment.

In this day and time, like nearly everything else in our life, what defines hunting and hunters has became a real slippery slope.

No disrespect intended, but I dont need a consensus to help me decide what I believe. To each their own. But sometimes it is time to draw the line and say this is the point where "I" will not go beyond. I have never really considered it quite like this before, But seeing what I posted above has just about convinced me that I should never buy a laser range finder. I have actualy been considering getting one latley too. But now I think maybe that would be opening a can of worms that I dont care to have crawling around on my rifle.. Screw it. When hunting becomes more about the gadgets than the actual event, it defeats the whole purpose.

quote:

No disrespect intended, but I dont need a consensus to help me decide what I believe.

I don't think anyone is trying to push the idea of a consensus among everyone, I don't think humans can come to a consensus on any subject. Even though all of us that have made comments on this subject, have done so because of our individual ideas and attitudes concerning hunting and how we, as individuals believe it should be undertaken. As can be seen from this discussion and ones similar to it, just like not all of us buy into the latest and greatest as far as technology is concerned, not all of us buy into the "As Long As It Is Legal" philosophy either.

From my point of view, hunters can be broken down into various groups. Group 1 are the traditionalists, where ethics are valued more than legalities, "Yes It Is Legal, But Ethically....", Group 2, the "As Long As It Is Legal" group. Group 3, Technology accepting hunters that incorporate the latest and greatest into their hunting to enhance their abilities/knowledge/skills. Group 4 folks that use technology to replace or make up for a lack of skills/knowledge/experience.

That is not completely accurate or even close to accurate and others will have differing views, it is just the lines of divisions that I have noticed.

There are two ends of the spectrum, and we're trying to define both in light of each other: on the one hand, very traditional methods - arrow, spear, musket; on the other - gps w/tags, AI, lazer range finders, long range scopes, portable digital weather stations, handheld processors w/ more power than Apollo & early Shuttle missions.

If we try to define the parameters by the extreme of the other side, we find we cannot make decisions which are "consistent" in all sitations.

Considering the technical spectrum leads us as a hunting society to many different conclusions. This is inevitable, as we are many individuals, albeit trying to find common ground. Here too there are two ends of the spectrum to our thinking: one is, "live & let live/who are we to judge?"; the other is "my way is the only way."

Both ends are false & unhelpful. We live & hunt somewhere in between these two. Game laws are an effort to balance these human ethical considerations, to say nothing of the question of conservation/management.

You may have heard the phrase "the letter of the law" and/vs. "the spirit of the law." Everyday, Game Wardens face this conversation we've been having, and everyday they must ask themselves, "should I write this guy up for a violation?"

We will never be able to establish a set of parameters which will evenly, consistently apply to each, every, and all situations. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. What it does mean is that we should do our best to establish a broad base-line of ethical hunting conduct, knowing that we'll find times where it is more appropriate to apply the "letter of the law", and other times to apply "the spirit of the law."

As someone did say: "these are the times in which we live."

best wishes,

friar