I have not seen the article, and while I do tend to agree that many high fence places are basically a shopping situation, the subject of the discussion concerns each individuals concept as to what is or isn't hunting.

I am not real sure that making such an opinion based on a magazine article is actually an example of thinking for onesself. Others mileage may vary.

On the Musk Ox hunt I did out of Cambridge Bay Nunavut back in 2000, the "Hunt" was getting to Cambridge Bay, shooting a Musk Ox that has millions of acres to wander over was like walking out in someone's pasture and shooting a cow, same with the caribou I killed on that trip. The idiot and 5 more with him walked over a mile to watch the Musk Ox the guy I was partnered with get skinned.

Was that hunting or wasn't it, no fences, plenty of room for critters to roam, just stupid critters, nothing more/nothing less.

I admit that if the outcome is not in doubt, it may not be what many consiuder hunting, but many do, and I am not sure trying to convince folks that they are not really hunters does any of us any good.

Different thoughts as in state laws

This is true of bait....here in Missouri if your hunting over bait....

You are breaking the law and are in turn a poacher

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
I have not seen the article, and while I do tend to agree that many high fence places are basically a shopping situation, the subject of the discussion concerns each individuals concept as to what is or isn't hunting.

I am not real sure that making such an opinion based on a magazine article is actually an example of thinking for onesself. Others mileage may vary.

On the Musk Ox hunt I did out of Cambridge Bay Nunavut back in 2000, the "Hunt" was getting to Cambridge Bay, shooting a Musk Ox that has millions of acres to wander over was like walking out in someone's pasture and shooting a cow, same with the caribou I killed on that trip. The idiot and 5 more with him walked over a mile to watch the Musk Ox the guy I was partnered with get skinned.

Was that hunting or wasn't it, no fences, plenty of room for critters to roam, just stupid critters, nothing more/nothing less.

I admit that if the outcome is not in doubt, it may not be what many consiuder hunting, but many do, and I am not sure trying to convince folks that they are not really hunters does any of us any good.

Exactly he is a self serving asshole who isn't helping the hunting world at all.

You know I might have had a little more respect for him if he didn't shoot a deer, at least he stuck to his guns and said "in my mind this isn't hunting". But he didn't, he took his free hunt paid for by Beretta then, shat all over the industry after taking a deer.

It's not a good article and the hypocrite dirtbag just did it so he could hold his own "elitist ethics" above the heads of the readership.

If you want to fly the flag that you are anti-high fence, then do it. But don't be such a weasel as to shoot something behind a high fence for free then shit on the industry that gave you that chance.

To me the hunt for muskox is really about the experience of the far northern latitudes.

quote:

To me the hunt for muskox is really about the experience of the far northern latitudes.

During my entire hunting career, and because I am not picky with what I shoot, it is everything leading up to the kill and then returning home is what makes the hunt in my mind.

quote:

if the outcome is not in doubt

while it might not be true hunting, it may mean that I am not a true hunter too some folks because unless I just do not see anything to shoot or what I see is not legal, I rarely ever come home without game. My sole intention when I pick up the rifle is to kill something, and the first legal critter I run across that I can get a shot at is going to win a free trip to my home.

The purpose for starting this discussion was or is to see what people think hunting is, using their own definition, and there has been a lot of good input. I appreciate all the comments that have been made.

I can appreciate that, I don't care if every hunt ends in blood or not.

But I prefer a lot of them to end in a kill.

4 or 5 hunts in a row without taking an animal makes for a pretty boring time out.

quote:

Originally posted by MOA TACTICAL:
I can appreciate that, I don't care if every hunt ends in blood or not.

But I prefer a lot of them to end in a kill.

+1... If anything I can enjoy being outside, in the wilderness, all day long. Then again I bring a gun along for a reason.

I've done only one hunt I felt wasn't completely fair and it was a pheasant hunt at a game ranch I was invited to join this past year. Sure, no fences, but frankly those birds were dumb as rocks and made for easy targets. It was fun but spending all day walking to bust one wily rooster is more fulfilling to me. At least the birds still tasted good.

I agree with the "outcome is not in doubt" sentiment, because without "doubt" there is no chase and challenge- and that is where the hunting comes in. Just because you shot an animal doesn't mean it was a hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by MOA TACTICAL:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
I have not seen the article, and while I do tend to agree that many high fence places are basically a shopping situation, the subject of the discussion concerns each individuals concept as to what is or isn't hunting.

I am not real sure that making such an opinion based on a magazine article is actually an example of thinking for onesself. Others mileage may vary.

On the Musk Ox hunt I did out of Cambridge Bay Nunavut back in 2000, the "Hunt" was getting to Cambridge Bay, shooting a Musk Ox that has millions of acres to wander over was like walking out in someone's pasture and shooting a cow, same with the caribou I killed on that trip. The idiot and 5 more with him walked over a mile to watch the Musk Ox the guy I was partnered with get skinned.

Was that hunting or wasn't it, no fences, plenty of room for critters to roam, just stupid critters, nothing more/nothing less.

I admit that if the outcome is not in doubt, it may not be what many consiuder hunting, but many do, and I am not sure trying to convince folks that they are not really hunters does any of us any good.

Exactly he is a self serving asshole who isn't helping the hunting world at all.

You know I might have had a little more respect for him if he didn't shoot a deer, at least he stuck to his guns and said "in my mind this isn't hunting". But he didn't, he took his free hunt paid for by Beretta then, shat all over the industry after taking a deer.

It's not a good article and the hypocrite dirtbag just did it so he could hold his own "elitist ethics" above the heads of the readership.

If you want to fly the flag that you are anti-high fence, then do it. But don't be such a weasel as to shoot something behind a high fence for free then shit on the industry that gave you that chance.

MOA:

You have no idea why he wrote that story. I don't get some people. We have one famous writer here who never says ANYTHING bad about anything, including his hunts (I booked a shitty one after reading his glowing report) and then a guy writes a story that was pretty honest and you jump all over him for shitting on the industry.

I don't care if he did or didn't shoot a deer, he wrote how HE felt about this - not what Beretta felt.

Are you somehow involved in high fenced hunting?

quote:

I don't care if he did or didn't shoot a deer, he wrote how HE felt about this - not what Beretta felt.

I could be wrong, no great incident there.

I think the point being made, is that if the guy accepted the hunt, NO ONE FORCED HIM TO TAKE IT, to turn around and bite the hand that fed him seems wrong.

He knew what he was getting into BEFORE he went on the "hunt", why didn't he have the balls to turn the "hunt" down???

Why not instead of accusing people of being involved in the HF "hunting" industry, you take a moment and look at the motivations of this writer or whatever he is, and why he accepted the "hunt" if his goal was to trash the situation?

Unless you're going out to a penn and grabbing something, the moment you set out to find and catch/kill an animal, you're hunting. Big/small gun, roadside, flashlight, net, noose...all irrelevant. (IMO)

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by MOA TACTICAL:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
I have not seen the article, and while I do tend to agree that many high fence places are basically a shopping situation, the subject of the discussion concerns each individuals concept as to what is or isn't hunting.

I am not real sure that making such an opinion based on a magazine article is actually an example of thinking for onesself. Others mileage may vary.

On the Musk Ox hunt I did out of Cambridge Bay Nunavut back in 2000, the "Hunt" was getting to Cambridge Bay, shooting a Musk Ox that has millions of acres to wander over was like walking out in someone's pasture and shooting a cow, same with the caribou I killed on that trip. The idiot and 5 more with him walked over a mile to watch the Musk Ox the guy I was partnered with get skinned.

Was that hunting or wasn't it, no fences, plenty of room for critters to roam, just stupid critters, nothing more/nothing less.

I admit that if the outcome is not in doubt, it may not be what many consiuder hunting, but many do, and I am not sure trying to convince folks that they are not really hunters does any of us any good.

Exactly he is a self serving asshole who isn't helping the hunting world at all.

You know I might have had a little more respect for him if he didn't shoot a deer, at least he stuck to his guns and said "in my mind this isn't hunting". But he didn't, he took his free hunt paid for by Beretta then, shat all over the industry after taking a deer.

It's not a good article and the hypocrite dirtbag just did it so he could hold his own "elitist ethics" above the heads of the readership.

If you want to fly the flag that you are anti-high fence, then do it. But don't be such a weasel as to shoot something behind a high fence for free then shit on the industry that gave you that chance.

MOA:

You have no idea why he wrote that story. I don't get some people. We have one famous writer here who never says ANYTHING bad about anything, including his hunts (I booked a shitty one after reading his glowing report) and then a guy writes a story that was pretty honest and you jump all over him for shitting on the industry.

I don't care if he did or didn't shoot a deer, he wrote how HE felt about this - not what Beretta felt.

Are you somehow involved in high fenced hunting?

No I am not, just passionate about the idea that we should all stick together.

I don't like what he did, I think they should have published an counter article in the same magazine about the pro side of high fence hunting from another writer.

If the magazines cave to the idea of one type of hunting over another the assholes against hunting will seperate us and conquer.

First, I support any hunter pursuing their hunting passion in whatever legal way pleases them. Having said that, I have my own preferences and ways of thinking about hunting. I don't know if I can present this in an organized way, so I'll just throw things out there.

I see hunting to be connected to obtaining meat that I want to eat. I am a good cook. I like to cook and have good wine with excellent meals that I cook. Big game meat fits in with that passion very well. There is little better than a well cooked and sauced Elk backstrap steak served with a 2000 Ridge Geyserville Zinfandel red wine. Game meat is healthy and good for you. In this context, I don't hunt things I don't want to eat. I don't want to eat coyote, so I don't hunt coyote. I don't like coyotes to attack and kill deer where I hunt deer (or used to hunt deer, now I don't hunt deer but elk instead), but I don't hunt them. I don't hunt bear because it is not clear to me that bear is generally conceded to be good eating. Likewise with mountain goat. I haven't heard this is good eating, so I don't plan to go mountain goat hunting.

I also don't want to hunt in some unnatural situation. It is difficult to define what I mean. I don't plan to go big horn sheep hunting because this is a rare and exceptional event to be drawn for such a hunt. The meat is exceptionally good to eat, I'm told. But it doesn't seem like this hunt fits into my idea of hunting being something you can do every year -- you can't hunt big horn ever year. I prefer to hunt do-it-yourself, because this is more natural to me. I don't hold out for a big head because I'm not a trophy hunter and big horns are not, for me anyway, what hunting is about. I prefer to hunt the animal in their home under ordinary conditions -- no corn feeders firing up at a specific time to feed the animals, no food plot planted in April with the idea that this will maximize antler growth and what have you.

I want a good hunt. I paid a trespass fee to hunt pronghorn on a ranch. After spending some time glassing from a hill, we walked down the hill, through the Ranch yard, back to our truck to get a drink or to leave off jackets as the day warmed up. There were some pronghorn standing in the driveway about 50 yards away. We could have shot them right there staring at us, shooting off hand. We didn't we went and stalked them elsewhere on the ranch. But this didn't feel quite right. It was almost as if they were domesticated animals. My first elk hunt I couldn't find any elk. While driving a road to go to a different hunting site some cow elk crossed the road. I entertained the thought of parking the truck, fetching my rifle, walking off the road the legal 50', and shooting one of those cows. But that didn't feel right either. Not illegal, in either case, just didn't feel like hunting.

As I said above, I'm not a trophy hunter. It seems very perverted to me to judge the quality of your hunt by measuring the inches of the antlers/horns/dimensions of the head of your quarry. That seems a long ways from what I think of as hunting. Maybe people were taught to do this in a day when there were fewer animals: maybe it was a way to promote the enlargements of herds. Males do not control the rate of reproduction: females do. If you don't kill females the population will increase at the same rate even though you subtract a few males from the herd. The remaining males will just pick up the slack. I can imagine them saying smuggly "It's tough work servicing all these females, but SOMEBUCK has gotta do it! Heh! Heh! Heh!" I can appreciate that taking a bull/buck may be more challenging than taking a cow/doe. I can appreciate that taking a bull/buck with an above average rack is more difficult than taking a bull/buck with a mediocre rack. But what would stand out for me and influence the quality of a hunt would be maybe the quality of the stalk I made to get into position to take my shot; how I adapted to difficult unexpected hunting conditions to find animals; how I handled the care of my killed game; how I comported myself in camp -- help keep things cleaned up, seeing a partner was over the hill with fatigue and cooking his dinner while he relaxes in a chair. Those would mean more to me than the different between taking a 6x6 bull versus a 5x5 bull or a 4x4 bull or a cow elk. Also, I don't feel I have to kill an animal to be hunting. It does help, but it isn't necessary. The thing that is most rewarding is the hunting itself. There is a way of being alert, of being relaxed but watchful while hunting that I like. There is a way of being integrated into the mountains and trees while hunting that I don't feel when I'm backpacking.

But . . . these are just my preferences. I support all hunters pursuing their hunting passion in whatever legal manner suits them.

As an after thought. I hunt DIY. I find the idea quite attractive of paying to go on an elk pack hunt further back in than I can go myself on a DIY hunt without pack animals. I like the idea of riding horses into the wilderness. I like the idea of having a cook make good breakfasts and dinners. I like the idea of riding a horse 90% of the way to my hunting spot. I like the idea of having someone else gut and cut my elk up. Now, I've gutted two elk and cut up four elk myself. I walk long ways -- 4 miles, 6 miles, even 7 miles -- to get my shot at my elk. I usually have a bagel with cream cheese for breakfast and cook up some elk stew for dinner after a hunting day. I'm not saying I can't do those things, just that the idea of riding a horse for 6 miles and walking 1/2 mile is kind of attractive. I probably won't pay to go on one of these hunts, but I do confess that while I'm hoofing it back to the tent 4 miles back in after dark the thought of such a deluxe pack-in outfitted elk hunt is attracted. It might not feel like hunting, however, to have it made easy or to have a guide put me on the elk and all I have to do is pull the trigger. I don't know. Not a dilemma I have to solve, as I'm not planning to shell out $5,000 for that experience.

To me hunting is the enjoyable pursuit of game. Now the most important word in that definition is enjoyable. Some of the things that take the joy out of a hunt for me are:

1. Canned hunts for just released animals.
2. Any animal moved from one continent to another or moved to non-native habitats. I.E. Gemsbuck in Natal.
3. High fenced hunts in any way shape or form.
4. Sharing a camp with whiners.
5. Safari Companies that don't keep their word.
6. A grouchy PH. (Even if its my fault he is grouchy!)
7. From tree stands or ground blinds except for ducks or leopards.
8. Especially over feeders of any shape or form.
9. Bird hunting with out at least one of my Small Munsterlanders.
10. If its too hot or too cold.
11. Hunting an animal that doesn't have the sense to run and hide.

I'll get back to you when I come up with more.

465H&H

See the Africa hunt report of Don_G. That's a good definition for me. I'm fine with a rifle version as well. I guess a lot of people say if it's legal it's fine, but I complain about stupid politicians and burrocrats so I have to go with " just because it's legal doesn't mean it's OK".

quote:

Now the most important word in that definition is enjoyable. Some of the things that take the joy out of a hunt for me are:

So, because NOT EVERYONE believes the exact same way as you, they should be denied what THEY find enjoyable????????????

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Now the most important word in that definition is enjoyable. Some of the things that take the joy out of a hunt for me are:

So, because NOT EVERYONE believes the exact same way as you, they should be denied what THEY find enjoyable????????????

Crazy,

You ask how I define hunting and I give my definition of what it is for me. Where did I say everyone has to believe the same that I do? Where did I say it should be made law? Why are you so damning of how others want to hunt? If we don't want to hunt the way you do we are wrong? It looks like you ask these ethics questions just so you can find someone to be pissed off at.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Now the most important word in that definition is enjoyable. Some of the things that take the joy out of a hunt for me are:

So, because NOT EVERYONE believes the exact same way as you, they should be denied what THEY find enjoyable????????????

Crazy,

You ask how I define hunting and I give my definition of what it is for me. Where did I say everyone has to believe the same that I do? Where did I say it should be made law? Why are you so damning of how others want to hunt? If we don't want to hunt the way you do we are wrong? It looks like you ask these ethics questions just so you can find someone to be pissed off at.

465H&H

.465 H&H, and I love your tag line,

You just make too many dichotomies. Sometimes it's ok to shoot out of a blind, other times it's not?

If we hadn't moved species from one continent to another, we would have no Red Deer in Argentina / New Zealand / etc, no brown trout in America, no wild boar in the US, the list can and will go on.

Let's take it easy on one another. I don't like a .223 on deer, having served in the military. But I don't want to lose another hunter to my ambiguity about shooting ability and cartridge performance.

We need to expand our hunting horizons, not limit them. I think I understand and appreciate all the items listed on your list of what is hunting.

I hate black guns, yet, I have bought my son two of them just so he will want to go out and chase after our whitetail here in the Southern Appalachians.

I am working hard everyday to keep our hunting heritage alive.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
To me hunting is the enjoyable pursuit of game. Now the most important word in that definition is enjoyable. Some of the things that take the joy out of a hunt for me are:

2. Any animal moved from one continent to another or moved to non-native habitats. I.E. Gemsbuck in Natal.

465H&H

Walt, would like to respectively disagree regarding #2. I hunt Sika deer in Maryland from which they escaped/released from captivity about 100 years ago. It is one of my passions. They don't get any wilder than in the marshes of Dorchester County. I have been considering a hunt for Aoudad (Barboury Sheep) or Nilgai in Texas. They are also free range/ escapees, and thriving in the habitat. Just my opinion.

Respectfully,

quote:

Originally posted by DoubleDon:

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
To me hunting is the enjoyable pursuit of game. Now the most important word in that definition is enjoyable. Some of the things that take the joy out of a hunt for me are:

2. Any animal moved from one continent to another or moved to non-native habitats. I.E. Gemsbuck in Natal.

465H&H

Walt, would like to respectively disagree regarding #2. I hunt Sika deer in Maryland from which they escaped/released from captivity about 100 years ago. It is one of my passions. They don't get any wilder than in the marshes of Dorchester County. I have been considering a hunt for Aoudad (Barboury Sheep) or Nilgai in Texas. They are also free range/ escapees, and thriving in the habitat. Just my opinion.

Respectfully,

md and Don,

Please reread what I said. I said that hunting under these conditions take the joy out of hunting for me. Consequently, I don't do it. If you enjoy it, that is ok by me, have fun. Of course there are exceptions to these and I listed a couple of them. There are others such as although the ringneck pheasant is introduced it is my favorite upland game bird. Why is it an exception? Because after the opening hour of the season they are wilder than they would be in their homeland. Plus they are gaudy! Although I will never again hunt one on a put and take operation. They are dumb!

Apparently there is some confusion on what my definition of hunting is. Let me clarify it.

Walt's definition of hunting:
"To me hunting is the enjoyable pursuit of game."


Everything after that are some of the things that make a hunt enjoyable or not for me. Everyone here is entitled to make a similar list and almost all will be different than the others.

465H&H

465 H&H, YOU are the one damning people on their choices, not me!

quote:

Why are you so damning of how others want to hunt?

One more time for old times sake, I Do Not Care How A Person Hunts As Long As It Is LEGAL And They Are Enjoying IT.

What WORD in that sentence do YOU NOT understand??????????????????????????

I apologise if I misread your intentions with your list. I do not see anyone asking you or trying to force you to chanmge your mind. I am just trying to find out if you hold other peoples choices against them, or if you view folks that do not share your POV about hunting as some how inferior?

I am still battling with myself over going to Africa. I have the opportunity. I can come up with the funding. In the back of my mind it is the dream of a lifetime, except for one little problem, it is a "Trophies Only" hunt for me, I cannot bring the meat home, and I do not give a crap about how many starving pygmies in Africa the critters I might kill would feed.

I hunt because I like game meat to eat. In my dysfunctional little world, the trophy is the meat, the trophy is the details in getting to the hunting area, the trophy is meeting and hunting with folks I have not or would not have ever met. Setting in my home looking at a skull with a representative set of horns and knowing I had actually been to Africa would be important. Being able to pull out a couple of kudu steaks 3 or 4 months after I got back home and grilling them on a mesquite fire is what would make the whole experience worth the effort. It is that last little part that is causing me to be uncertain about an African hunt.

I am sure that sounds really stupid to you and many others, but it is the way I feel about hunting.

Crazy quote:

465 H&H,

YOU are the one damning people on their choices, not me!



Crazy;
I am confused. Can you show me where I damned anyone for the way they hunt? I'm waiting to hear!

I included the part about you condemning me for the way I enjoy hunting so that you can see what you did to me. Didn't feel good did it?

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:


I hunt because I like game meat to eat. In my dysfunctional little world, the trophy is the meat, the trophy is the details in getting to the hunting area, the trophy is meeting and hunting with folks I have not or would not have ever met. Setting in my home looking at a skull with a representative set of horns and knowing I had actually been to Africa would be important. Being able to pull out a couple of kudu steaks 3 or 4 months after I got back home and grilling them on a mesquite fire is what would make the whole experience worth the effort.

I think I can relate

GWB

I did not/have not condemned you for anything.

Did this sentence escape your reading of my response:

quote:

I am just trying to find out if you hold other peoples choices against them, or if you view folks that do not share your POV about hunting as some how inferior?

How about this one:

quote:

I Do Not Care How A Person Hunts As Long As It Is LEGAL And They Are Enjoying IT.

Did that one somehow slide past you unnoticed?

how about this one:

quote:

I apologise if I misread your intentions with your list. I do not see anyone asking you or trying to force you to change your mind.

Did you not see that, or did you just respond without even reading my response?

I enjoy many different types and styles of "hunting", depending on state, area, animal, and my feelings at the time. Basically, if it's legal I've probably done it. I do enjoy challenging myself somewhat tho, and I can do this by varying any of the myriad of things you use to hunt such as weapon, distance, time of year, etc.

In modern use, the term refers to regulated and legal hunting of any kind, as distinguished from poaching, which is the killing, trapping or capture of animals contrary to law.

Again, if its legal, I like it.

Crazy,

We are arguing in circles and getting no where. Let's see if we can agree with these statements. I only speak for what I find enjoyable in hunting and don't condemn anyone for feeling different. You do not condemn me for my choices a I don't for yours.

465H&H

CHC

You said:

quote:

I am still battling with myself over going to Africa. I have the opportunity. I can come up with the funding. In the back of my mind it is the dream of a lifetime, except for one little problem, it is a "Trophies Only" hunt for me, I cannot bring the meat home, and I do not give a crap about how many starving pygmies in Africa the critters I might kill would feed.

I hunt because I like game meat to eat. In my dysfunctional little world, the trophy is the meat, the trophy is the details in getting to the hunting area, the trophy is meeting and hunting with folks I have not or would not have ever met. Setting in my home looking at a skull with a representative set of horns and knowing I had actually been to Africa would be important. Being able to pull out a couple of kudu steaks 3 or 4 months after I got back home and grilling them on a mesquite fire is what would make the whole experience worth the effort. It is that last little part that is causing me to be uncertain about an African hunt.

I am sure that sounds really stupid to you and many others, but it is the way I feel about hunting.

I agree completely with your sentiments. In its essence, hunting is about obtaining food. There's nothing wrong with keeping a momento of a successful hunt but when the trophy becomes the focus, hunting degenerates into a mere game or sport.

With that said, I say you should go to Africa if you have the opportunity to do so. Some of us have a stronger hunting urge than others and you sound like such a person. There's nothing wrong with satisfying that urge as long as the meat is used. Maybe God, Mother Nature or evolution (take your pick, they all work) gave us a strong hunting urge to help feed the rest of the "tribe."

Shooting one cow elk will provide all of the wild meat I can use in a year or maybe 2. But shooting only one animal a year couldn't begin to satisfy my hunting urge. So I do agricultural damage control and give the deer away to those who can put it to use.

In your case, you can "feed the pygmies" in Africa while providing your for your own meat with local game. It's all in keeping with being the "tribe's" hunter and provider.

I'd like to go to Africa but have other hunting priorities at this time. (Next on the "bucket list" is moose but I may not be able to do it due to physical issues.) If I ever got to Africa it would would be for plains game. I can't see the point of shooting lions, elephants and such.

quote:

We are arguing in circles and getting no where. Let's see if we can agree with these statements. I only speak for what I find enjoyable in hunting and don't condemn anyone for feeling different. You do not condemn me for my choices a I don't for yours.