OK guys,

First of all, I'm not typically one of the guys who condemns others methods of hunting. I really hate to hear or read "That isn't hunting" simply because regional differences dictate things being done differently from where I'm used to hunting. I personally have no desire to hunt Artificially Inseminated whitetail deer behind a high fence but I have no problem with others doing it. I've not hunted high fence deer but I have hunted high fences in RSA. I state all of this as a precursor to my post as I realize that I've have found the line at which I finally will stand up and say "That's not hunting". You guys can tell me if I'm being a hypocrite. I'll listen as I really have a problem with what I've just seen.

Doing some work here at the home office today, as I often do, I had the television on in the background, watching the Outdoor Channel. Ted Nugent's show comes on and is featuring a "trophy" whitetail hunt by his wife. Normally, I'm a Ted supporter. Yes, I know he is a wild man and over the top but the way I see it, there are so many wild and over the top antis that we need at least one weapon in our safe capable of taking them on on their own level. He gets attention, and sometimes I think that is what is needed. So I launch into this with reservations.

Shemane, Ted's wife, is archery hunting on a place she refers to as "Big Jims". She takes an archery shot at a large WT buck from a tree stand. No problem so far. Hits it well. It runs off however and surprisingly, later walks back under her stand, arrow now removed, but obviously wounded in what you would think is the perfect spot to shoot a deer. Then I notice it. An ear tag in the deer's left ear. I'm turned off a bit now as I realize it's an AI high fence ranch. Still not a big deal, just not my thing, but I thought Ted's hunting was a bit more pure than that. So be it.

Then Shemane talks about how with the deer up and walking around like it hasn't been hit at all, they were worried about what has happened and are now concerned it might get away to die wounded. She goes on to state that they backed out and it rained overnight. Sounds like the deer will be lost, right? Well no. She finds the deer the next morning and shows us the ear tag. IT ISN'T AN AGRICULTURAL TAG IDENTIFYING A BREEDER BUCK BUT A VERY SMALL GPS TRANSMITTER!!! THAT'S RIGHT, A GPS TRANSMITTER CONTINUALLY REPORTING THE LOCATION OF THE BIG BUCK ON THE RANCH!! You have got to be shitting me! They used the GPS locator to find the downed buck since the rain washed away the blood trail.

Oh, I'm sure they didn't use the GPS locator to establish where the deer was hanging out that day. Didn't use the GPS locator to figure which stand to hunt that day. Didn't use the GPS locator to know where and when the deer was about to walk by her stand. And on and on. I'm sure I don't need to spell out all the implications of locating game with GPS transmitters and how that relates to fair chase.

Maybe I'm a hypocrite but I've finally found the line at which I say, "That isn't hunting". What do you guys think?

+++++++++1

Sounds about right for a high fence hunt.

and a TV show about hunting on them.

You are a hypocrite. They use GPS all the time for alll sorts of animals and hunts, especially when they want to study certain animals. We just had a long discussion here about spike deer and the subject was mentioned. You immediately jumped to all sorts of conclusions you do not know to be fact, like your assumpyion they put the stand up by the GPS. Do you KNOW that for a fact, or are you just jumping because it was a high fence hunt??? Was the deer part of a Dr. Kroll study?

Would you refuse to shoot a bear that was collared? Or a Moose? If you would not, why not? That is a GPS and who knows how you or your guide found them.

I, too, don't like to argue about what constitutes 'hunting' but this is definitely not hunting. It's all in the intent; the main objective wasn't to obtain a buck, it was to produce an entertainment program to be broadcast on TV. The high fence is the studio, the buck is a prop and the 'hunter' is an actor.

Everything that took place was scripted to at least some degree. The producers intended to record something that an audience would want to watch and nobody wants to watch a hunter simply sitting in a tree stand for hours on end.

It's just entertainment. Eye candy, nothing more. Not intended to be instructional nor meant to document how hunting is done in the real world.

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:
You are a hypocrite. They use GPS all the time for alll sorts of animals and hunts, especially when they want to study certain animals. We just had a long discussion here about spike deer and the subject was mentioned. You immediately jumped to all sorts of conclusions you do not know to be fact, like your assumpyion they put the stand up by the GPS. Do you KNOW that for a fact, or are you just jumping because it was a high fence hunt??? Was the deer part of a Dr. Kroll study?

Would you refuse to shoot a bear that was collared? Or a Moose? If you would not, why not? That is a GPS and who knows how you or your guide found them.

Larry,

The difference I see with shooting collared animals in the wild is that those animals are being studied by scientist not associated with the hunt. Therefore, I don't see how a hunter in the field could use the GPS transmitter on a truly wild animal to track it down and shoot it. Shemane specifically stated in this video that the ranch hands used the GPS transmitter to find the deer after it was shot. I have no idea as to whether or not it was used to find the deer prior to it being shot. But it certainly raises questions that are less than palatable IMO. Example: You own a high fence trophy whitetail deer hunting operation. Ted Nugent and wife are hunting your ranch and doing a television show highlighting your facility. You have GPS transmitters on your deer. How far do you go to make sure Mrs. Nugent shoots a trophy whitetail on camera thereby promoting your ranch and hunting opportunities. That is quite a different scenario IMO than hunting the wilds of Alaska and shooting a bear or moose that has a radio collar placed there by who the hell knows until the animal is down and you read the collar's info plaque.

Go back and read my post again. I did NOT say they used the GPS to hunt the deer prior to the shot. I inferred that they could have used it inorder to stimulate critical thinking on the subject and how it relates to ethics. I've stated before, and confirmed again in the post above, that I don't have a problem with others hunting high fence operations and I steer clear of making judgements on others hunt methods. Just stated that I haven't done so for WT deer and don't desire to. I have hunted high fence operations in South Africa but doubt that I would again. It certainly has it's place in conservation in RSA but that is a different scenario than the WT "Trophy" ranching model.

Larry, you seem to be harboring some hard feelings over the discussions we had a while back over Dr. Kroll's research. That's too bad. I don't hold grudges against guys I disagree with. I only mention this subject since I don't know what your reference to Dr. Kroll's research or your last statement "That is a GPS and who knows how you or your guide found them." has to do with the discussion at hand.

If you think I'm a hypocrite for previously standing up for guys rights to hunt in any manner that is legal and locally accepted, but believing that putting a GPS transmitter on game animals for the purpose of locating them to hunt, not to study them, well that's fine. In fact, it's the question I was asking. Other's people's hunting methods have never really bothered me in the past but this one does. Hypocritical of me ... could very well be. If I am being hypocritical, I may have to rethink my position as I really try to not be contradictory. No, no, not to please you or anyone else. Rather, I try to remain true to myself and honestly, this one has me scratching my head a bit mainly because in many states, Texas not included), deer behind a fence are owned by the rancher and not by the state. Therefore, I suppose whatever method the rancher chooses to bring his stock to slaughter, short of being unnecessarily cruel, is his business and no one else's. I just don't see the integrity in electronically locating the game by a hunter.

Although not many on AR will take a public stand in support of AI High Fence whitetail hunting, it obviously has a large following. Just look at the amount of money guys will pay to participate (upwards of $35,000 for a 3 day whitetail hunt) and the number of those ranches / lodges that are popping up everywhere. They were a dime a dozen at the latest SCI Convention in Reno a couple of weeks ago. But I wonder how many of those facilities will now start pre-selling specific deer, offering a guarantee on that specific deer, because it will be located by GPS once the hunter arrives. I suppose time will tell going forward. It remains to be seen if that is the next step. For what other purpose would a high fence operation put GPS transmitters on their deer? Whatever it is, it isn't for me.

It has elements that may resemble hunting, but it isn't hunting.

Technological advancement is part of hunting - there's no way to escape it. But when technology predetermines - or nearly predetermines - the "outcome" of the hunt, then it is no longer hunting.

I would consider taged/gps tracked animals to have crossed over from "hunting" to "killing."

GPS tracking of deer is just the next logical step past trail-cams. And both are a significant step away from the traditional elements of hunting & woodsmanship: reading sign; watching weather; spending time in the woods; oh, and of course "luck."

At some point, our technology precludes us from saying we are hunting. Where that point "is", is difficult to define.

Maybe it's like the Supreme Court Justice who said with regard to pornography: "Can't define it, but know it when I see it."

friar

Why watch the shows anyway? They do not do hunting any justice. Infomercials at best. I dropped all programming years ago.

Kind of interesting, the part about selling individual bucks. 15 maybe 20 years ago I had the boyfriend of my partner's daughter hunting with me. Lad was a Texan. He was explaining the economics of deer hunting Texas style. There was talk of portfolios of different bucks available, and price tags. And taking hunters to the area the bucks frequented and rattling etc. The GPS was no where near small enough for a deer's ear then...but its all about the money.

Oh yea, he took a wild and legal Michigan Black Bear that day. The hounds did not have GPS collars, they did have FM directional collars though.

We are all about technology. Some pretend they are not. Buckskins and flintlocks etc. Then get in a new truck with A/C anti-lock brakes and a talking GPS.

I do not have the funds for such a hunt. If I did, I doubt I would spend them on a canned hunt. I could care less if those that have the funds hunt that way. Its a high fence operation and they are harvesting livestock. If I owned 35,000 dollar livestock, they sure would have a GPS ear tag in them.

The "line" was crossed long before the GPS was put in the deer. After the "line" is crossed who cares what happens? It's livestock, if you want to pay to kill livestock it is your money.

Participating in this activity is fine with me, calling it hunting is crossing the line.

I'd say what she did represents 0.0001% of hunting. If it became the norm I'd quit.

Would I do it? No way. If someone wants to pay to do it in a highly controlled operation it's their prerogative.....VERY loose use of the term hunting though.

quote:

Originally posted by slim buttes:

Participating in this activity is fine with me, calling it hunting is crossing the line.

Slim, that's pretty much where I am on this one as well. I just haven't been willing to call the line until I saw the GPS transmitter. Although I've personally considered the high fence operations to be a livestock round up, I haven't wanted to poo poo someone else's idea of his dream hunt. Using a GPS ear tag is enough to finally make me tell someone their "hunt" was "Bullshit".

I have shot "game" on high fenced ranches. To me it is not hunting per se but it is a way for a bunch of guys from Chicago to get away for a weekend and have some fun and get some meat. Not much game to hunt in Northern Illinois after the regular seasons close. So yes game ranches serve a purpose. Time constraints, disabilities and a multitude of other reasons cause people to hunt on game farms/ranches.

Some people use bows, some shoot at 1000yards, some use dogs or bait. Why people have a problem with how other people choose to hunt always makes me wonder how we will ever beat the anti's if we cannot stop bitching about each other.

I guess it is the same with fisherman. Fly fishers looking down at spinning, spinning at trolling, trollers at bait and of course no one likes netters,except people that like to eat fish.

GPS tagged animals are not as sporting as some methods but so what. If legal I am okay with it.

BigB

The ranch owner possibly has other good reasons to have GPS in his critters. Tracking escaped or stolen animals comes to mind. The idea that they used it to find the animal was good business on his part. The idea that the show advertised it's use is curiously honest, after all, they could have said nothing about it and simply claimed to have "lucked out" on their search the next day.

Didn't see the show, so don't know if it was portrayed as "hunting" or not, but at least the money was spent here in the US helping to keep some people employed.

My take is that in MY mind it is not hunting.

It is not illegal, either.

If Shemane Nugent wants to call it hunting, well, she has a first amendment right to say so.

If I had watched the show, instead of posting here, I would have sent an email to Nugent or his company politely explaining that in my opinion, this act sets back hunters, and that it would better be left off of his show.

No more to it in my opinion than that.

If they want to put that on, then they would need to find a replacement audience member. Ted's over the top antics have made me not watch his show for some time. I guess I don't need to tune in now, either.

No, it is not hunting, but as others have said, if they want to call it hunting, that is their prerogative.

Many folks don't feel that setting in a heated blind waiting for a deer to come into a feeder, even on a low fenced property is actual hunting.

The reason I like going to Colorado and other places is to actually feel like I am hunting.

If it is legal and the people involved have no problems doing it, who am I to say they are wrong. I do believe it gives hunters/hunting a negative appearance to the non-hunting public. JMO.

Todd, sorry. I did not mean to come off so strong. I honestly didn't remember your participation on the other thread, whether agreeing with me or not. I was serious about the deer maybe being part of a study. We just don't know. The fact that the deer was found with the GPS after the fact does not bother me. I just consider it a more expedient tracking dog. As stated by someone else, it could be for loss prevention by the landowner. It doesn't bother me personally more than the high fence hunt itself. Like you, if that is someone's cup of tea, fine.

I have never hunted a high fence ranch and it would depend on how much land was involved and the game hunted as to whether I would. Hogs, heck yes, deer, no thanks, exotics would depend on the acreage. Again, I didn't mean to offend.

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:
Todd, sorry. I did not mean to come off so strong. I honestly didn't remember your participation on the other thread, whether agreeing with me or not. I was serious about the deer maybe being part of a study. We just don't know. The fact that the deer was found with the GPS after the fact does not bother me. I just consider it a more expedient tracking dog. As stated by someone else, it could be for loss prevention by the landowner. It doesn't bother me personally more than the high fence hunt itself. Like you, if that is someone's cup of tea, fine.

I have never hunted a high fence ranch and it would depend on how much land was involved and the game hunted as to whether I would. Hogs, heck yes, deer, no thanks, exotics would depend on the acreage. Again, I didn't mean to offend.

Larry,

We're good my friend. I was hoping there were no hard feelings left over. I can often times be a bit strong on my opinions as well and I thought I might have offended you previously.

Yea, lots of what if's here I suppose. It's just the first time I had ever seen or heard of using a GPS ear tag to track a downed animal and it got the wheels turning. One thing is for sure, technology, whether it be this or AI, or even trail cameras as someone else mentioned, is certainly changing the face of outdoor pursuits. Many things to sort through to figure out where a person stands on his acceptance of that technology. For instance, I really like the Trijicon riflescopes. Illuminated reticle with no batteries. Very high tech. It doesn't even register in my mind as something to be justified, but others feel quite differently about it. From what I understand, several of the European countries have banned Trijicon scopes from use in the hunting fields.

Personally, I prefer the old methods of tracking using a blood trail or god forbid, following the animals' tracks as they do so incredibly over in Africa. But then for the guy who paid the big bucks to shoot his high fenced buck, he wants to take home his trophy. Giving it further thought from earlier when I first saw the show, I suppose the "Who am I to judge" position can still be justified by staying out of it. I can see the desire as the ranch owner to be able to keep track of his high dollar investments against theft or poaching. I'm just worried that it won't be long before the tracking device is used to get into position for a shot.

Funny in that while sitting on a deer stand here in Texas with one of my sons, we have always asked each other "Where do you think the nearest big buck is right now". I've always suggested the hypothetical device that would tell us where they all are and if it existed, would we really want to know? Now I guess that isn't so hypothetical any longer. Why am I surprised by this new development? I really shouldn't be.

I think that hunting videos and the lack of hunting ethics in video's and TV shows, along with the newer generation hunting technology will eventually lead to our demise as hunters. I'm not going to critize someone's methods or weapon of choice but there has to be ethics involved. I'm seeing fewer and fewer ethics in these videos and tv programs. I think what is expressed on the Nugent program is just one example. I just don't think 900 yard elk shots, shooting arrows at running Wilderbeasts as they cross narrow roads and jumping up and down like madmen after killing 4 coyotes is showing much repect for the animal ! Everytime I see something like this I think it is just one more nail in the proverbial coffin. I didn't write the ethics book and I don't mean to be judgemental but I think those of us who have been around awhile instinctivly know this to be true.

Good post bentaframe. While I would not be jumping up and down about killing 4 coyotes in front of a video recorder, I definitely don't have respect for coyotes. Living in an area where coyotes are extremely plentiful and seeing or suffering the effects they have on livestock in my opinion places them on the same level as rats.

But you do make valid points about how hunters are being portrayed, and it is having a negative effect concerning the attitude even hunters are having toward other hunters.

I don't think too many people would tune in every night to watch Joe BaggaDonuts shoot a giant button buck from state land. There is a market for TV shows and big horns sell bows and bullets. Ever try to shoot a giant buck without a second person on camera with two stands and audio concerns and camera angles? Take it for what it is or produce a better show on your own, or DON'T WATCH! As for high fence hunters that don't have a TV show - it's their money, their time, and their own business.

This is an interesting & useful thread, if only because it makes me stop and think: "what constitutes hunting?"

Guy Eastman & sons have picked up on the phrase "fair-chase." While that phrase isn't the last word, I think it captures most of what makes hunting hunting.

I believe the core consideration of hunting is this: does the game hunted have: a. the ability to detect the hunter; and b. the ability to flee beyond the hunter's threat.

Point A. is more subjective - perhaps even arbitrary. The hunter's goal should be to have approached the animal in such a way that he/she is undetected & able to make a high percentage shot. So, whether that means the shot is taken at 14 or 400 yards, I'd consider it ethical.

I believe longer shots don't offend my sensibilty so much becuase the animal can't detect the hunter, but because other elements enter the equation: time of flight/wind; movement of animal; laziness to try getting closer; a desire of ego to shoot further not closer.

So I'm clear, I don't see it as unethical if a hunter takes a shot at 500 - 900 yards (as we have had some conversations recently on AR to this point); but there is more to "check-off" when taking a shot of such distance. If a person is willing to take a long shot, is the person willing to say "not today" if things aren't right? If so, I'd consider that person a hunter!

There's any number of considerations when it comes to fences, cameras, gps, AI, etc. For those who choose to go that route (either as providers or consumers), I have no quarrel with their doing so. I would argue, however, that the essense of hunting is lost in such pursuits, and that words such as "Livestock" and "Harvesting" are actually more descriptive & fitting.

Is this to our benefit as a hunting & shooting community? That I don't know?

friar

After more thought, maybe 900 yard shots and wild coydog dances have prolonged the viability of hunting. When I started handloading the only real premium bullet available was the Nosler Partition, look now. When I started calling ducks you got a Faulks or a Herters call, look now. When I had to buy my first hunting coat I could choose between brown camo and canvas, look now. All this technology and all this marketing has pulled in the next generation. It has caused them to spend their money on hunting and shooting, and maintaned what is needed as a cornerstone of our sport...a strong lobby. Hang on to your traditions and pass them on if you can, that's what our generation was built on. Just don't begrudge the next generation as they update traditions in a new era, or they will pound the last nail.

As long as what is being done is legal and the person doing it has no problem with what they are doing, then conversations such as this one serve what purpose?

Each hunter has their own personal concepts/beliefs/ideas as to what defines hunting to them as an individual. There have been discussions on here in the past concerning what should or should not be considered hunting, or who should or should not call themselves a hunter.

So where does it end, with a group opinion on the subject, or with each individuals opinion on the subject?

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Maybe I'm a hypocrite but I've finally found the line at which I say, "That isn't hunting". What do you guys think?

I'd jump on the bandwagon, but I hunt some places where I know there is game, and why it's there.

That said, I will avoid high-fence places until I'm too lame to do it the regular way.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
As long as what is being done is legal and the person doing it has no problem with what they are doing, then conversations such as this one serve what purpose?

Crazy,

The purpose of the conversation was to stimulate thought among ourselves as to how we individually perceive the direction hunting is going with regards to technology. Specifically for me, in that I've always stayed away from passing judgement on how another man pursues hunting but even with that attitude, I finally saw something that I felt was out of bounds. It made me feel a bit hypocritical and I was wondering what others thought. Is there a line where you will finally say "That isn't hunting". For me, I found that there is, when I previously swore there wasn't. Using a GPS locator on a high fence ranch which has already restricted the animals' movements. What is the next step, tying the animal to a tree?

Remember it wasn't long ago that some guy had set up an operation whereby you could log on with your computer, observe a feeder on a remote ranch, and when the deer or hog came in, you simply remotely controlled the rifle with your computer to put the crosshairs on and pull the trigger. Then a notification would go out to the ranch that you had shot a deer, their field hands would drive out and recover the deer, package it up and ship it to your home. All without ever getting out of your pajamas in the comfort of your home. Thankfully, that method was outlawed. An extreme example for sure, but where on the sliding scale of technology do we draw the line?

Quintus,

Yes, I have been involved with camermen, angles and audio concerns, editing, and actually have been working on producing a hunting DVD for the past several years. I agree with your comments about how these shows, for better or worse, have captured or developed a market for our sport that was being ignored in the past. I still question whether or not we are gaining ground however if we put forward the wrong message. Here is a short example for you. About 18 years ago now, I introduced a friend of mine to hunting. He was from Long Island, NY and had never spent any time in the outdoors. He bagged a bull elk on the very first day I took him afield. Despite my efforts since, as well as our other mutual hunting buddies efforts, he now believes that a day afield spent without killing an animal is a day wasted. He simply cannot appreciate being out there and involved in the chase for its own sake. I'm not sure it was the right thing to do, getting him into hunting. At this point, it isn't my decision to make, but I question myself about it.

I do believe there is a market for hunting shows that show the chase for what it really is, sometimes success, sometimes failure. To capture the true essence of hunting, one would have to show the lows along with the highs. There are a couple of shows that are doing that today and I believe them to be the two most highly respected hunting shows on TV. Jim Shockey's "The Professionals" and Tracks Across Africa. The Professionals just recently won the "Golden Moose" award. Neither of these shows participate in trumped up successes. And the quality of content is very noticeable in comparison.

More to the point of my OP on this thread however, this hunt appeared to me to be a step beyond high fence hunting or even GPS location of a game animal as individual concerns. It was the GPS location of a game animal ON a high fence operation. Sure it's up to the person participating in the activity and it's their money and all, but it isn't my cup of tea. And for the first time, I think anyone who described taking a buck under these conditions to me would get a "bull shit" response from me if they were to brag on the animal.

Friarmeier,

Very thoughtful response sir. Thanks for the insight.

Cheers guys.

Not hunting by my definition.
Despicable is what it is.
Sadly this is the example of what hunting
is to some TV veiwers

quote:

Originally posted by ravenr:
Not hunting by my definition.
Despicable is what it is.
Sadly this is the example of what hunting
is to some TV veiwers

A big +1. Pitiful.

It would be acceptable that the GPS was only used if the animal was wounded and lost.

However to tag a deer and then 'track' it is not hunting as I know it. Whether legal or not.

I can't watch those raving Nugents in the first place. Shooting a poor tame deer under any imaginable circumstances would be an improvement over listening to Ted's incessant blabbering about backstraps and whatnot.

Seems he made an appearance in my state in connection with the hostage crisis that just ended. I reckon he was here in case they needed someone to talk the kidnapper to death.

Let me have it Ted supporters.

quote:

I reckon he was here in case they needed someone to talk the kidnapper to death.

That was too funny.

quote:

where on the sliding scale of technology do we draw the line?

There in lies the problem. Where is the line drawn, and who will draw that line?

Hunters are not going to draw it on their own.

What does that leave? Government intervention?

quote:

Originally posted by safari-lawyer:
I reckon he was here in case they needed someone to talk the kidnapper to death.

Too damn funny Will!

Todd,

You and I have a very similar tolerance for hunting methods. If you hunt in enough countries, continents, states, whatever, you will see that regional differences in hunting are largely based on culture, terrain, cover/visibility.

"That's not how we do it back home." is an admission of ignorance of other acceptable hunting methods outside your "hunting bubble".

Ok, so, you want to shoot a deer with a GPS tracker ... well, I guess it's legal in some states, but for crying out loud, don't do it for a TV show! Jeez Ted, you ought to know better!

People say, "You know, we ought to ban together and stand behind other hunters." In most cases, I would have to agree (feeder hunting, baited Bear, Dogs, all hot topics) but if we do not police our own, we will all be painted with the same brush.

Personally, I do not wish to associate with or be seen supporting such a ridiculous exercise in "hunting".

Part of the human condition has always been our willingness to accept and embrace technology that allows us, or has allowed us as a species, to become the dominant species on the planet.

We started out scavenging the kills of other predators. Then we figured out we could throw rocks. Then we figured out how to sharpen sticks and throw or stab with those, and it progresses on from there.

How do we get people to stop taking advantage of improvements in technology? Not trying to be obtuse or argumentative, but how do we convince people that hunting technology may have or has crossed the line?

It's difficult to state one's whole postion on a forum. I did not post to castigate anyone or any group and I should have stated (in my opinion only) but I would like to make an analogy. I believe that technology and resource eventually hit a wall and at that wall you get the laws of diminishing returns coming into play. The diminishing returns will normally apply to the resource as it is most dynamic and less easily controlled. Now the analogy, I worked as a professional in the Timber industry for 40 years. In that time newer and better technology coupled with increased demand for timber products demanded that we harvest at a rate that was not sustainable. The better technology and goverment mismanagement of the federal resource resulted in the over-cutting of private and state resources. In 1978 we had 23 sawmills and employed appox. 5000 people. At the peak we managed about 800,000 acres all on a sustained yield basis. In April of 2004 the sawmills were gone. Two of us remained to pick up the pieces as the tree farm acreage had been parceled out and sold to other tree farms. These Tree Farms do not managed on a sustained yield basis unless you considered a 80-100 year rotation for harvest. The point being, the better technolgy, demand and goverment mismanagement allowed us to damage the resource. Our tree farm is not an isolated instance. I think this is what we will see in the future of hunting and I didn't even address the public perception which weighs heavily into hunting as well as the timber industry. I know this is our system of economy and I accept that but I think we should put more effort into stewardship and less on the dollar and try to find a balance. I know I'm painting with a broad brush and I don't mean to sound like a college professor because I don't know the anwsers but I have seen the results. Thanks for listening and I apologize if I have offended anyone.

Todd,to your original post, I agree with the premise. Where this conversation throws me is why anyone would want to try and label or include high fence and TV stuff as hunting as it relates to them. Deer were not born with GPS transmitters in their ears. These are farm raised stock just like catfish and hogs and chickens and are raised by a farmers for human consumsion. I can't speak to the TV shows as I don't have cable and have not seen them, but I have filmed some goose hunts for clients back in the day, and it's tough. The thing is, if a guy has the biggest buck in the neighborhood and brags on it every day, but he shot it in a heated barn with a sunrise greenscreen in the back ground, who cares? It's HIS business. Now if folks are putting GPS in wild deer so they can find their deer after a bad shot on a real hunt...and there is the distinction if it matters. I guess my point is if folks don't follow the rules where you hunt turn in poachers. If it's a liceanced game farm, ranch, high-fence opperation, if your not a client it's not your business. This is still at least for now the land of the free. And if the TV show is just bullcrap - watch a diffrent channel, or write the show or the station and tell them why it hurts your cause and you won't support their sponsors. As long as you continue to practice what you call hunting, your obligation is met.

Much of what has been brought up in this discussion is why I don't watch hunting shows on TV.

I shoot deer from a stand watching a feeder. It isn't really hunting, but over much of Texas trying to do spot and stalk hunting is frowned upon by land owners and could prove downright dangerous as small as some of the properties being hunted are.

In my opinion, while the new technologies have created a lot of interest in "Hunting", the tradition of hunting has been pushed to the side, that may sound not quite right, but it seems that the focus has shifted from time spent in the chase, to the equipment, the latest new gadgetry and the competition of killing the biggest trophy, and who is willing to spend the most money for that trophy.

While a good bit of what is called hunting today, is not in the truest sense hunting, in most cases it is legal and has become acceptable to many.

One concept that I have seen presented in the past, is that the future of hunting may lie solely in the hands of the folks operating the high fenced properties.

While I hope that is not the case, with the changes in attitudes of people in general toward hunting and gun ownership, at some point in the future, "Hunters" only option might be going to a place where their "Hunt" consists of renting a gun, being taken to a paddock with a pre-selected animal in it and shooting it.

This statement may be the best we have to live with:

quote:

As long as you continue to practice what you call hunting, your obligation is met.

killing an animal that is contained behind wire or conditioned to an automatic feeder and calling it "hunting" is like visiting a brothel and calling it "dating"

Well said Win458