In a previous discussion, the topic dealt with what some of us felt were practices that possibly do/did more harm to the perception of what hunting is. Especially in the view of the non-hunting public. The anti's already have their mind made up and their agenda is to stop hunting in any form. There are folks however that are, for various reasons non-hunters. They are not against hunting and do like to eat game meat when it is offered to them, but they just don't hunt.

As an individual, what do you consider actual hunting and not just shooting? For myself, even though the majority of the time in the field here in Texas, I am limited to a box blind. To me, that is nothing more than shooting, more so since with white tails all I shoot are antlerless.

My idea of hunting, and I have done it here in Texas many times although I prefer going out of state, is Spot & Stalk/Stumble On, for Big Game. For me it is the movement, the act of trying to find a shoot-able animal, the work and effort of using the wind, studying the terrain, finding trails/feeding areas/bedding areas, being alert enough to spot game either moving or standing still. Being familiar enough and competent enough with my rifle to take the shot offered, or not take it.

In the end, we are all shooters. For me it is the interim between when I leave camp and the shot is made or the time comes to return to camp that makes it a hunt, not just a shoot.

In my opinion, one is not actually better than the other, the results are still the same, but to me the one offers an element of uncertainty that I personally get more enjoyment from.

For me any time one uses unnatural food Attractants as a means to draw game near it is shooting not hunting.

Puting bait out falls into this.

Food plots made just for game comes close

All this on a high fence operation even more so.

Yes I have shot/hunted wild game over bait deer and bear. But it is more shooting then hunting.
I have had critters get away.

The hunt is more in the baiting finding the right place for the bait getting the animals to come.

But then I belive that once you decide to shoot its all shooting from there the hunt is over and the shooting begains.

The only animals I've ever hunted that involved feeders/bait were black bears in Manitoba on a flyin hunting/fishing trip and deer in Texas. Both animals in those areas just about have to be baited in order to get them out of the thick, nasty stuff they live in or you would never see one. I still call that hunting because you need to try to find the best spots to set things up using the terrain and elevation to your advantage and then patience kicks in waiting for days many times for what you are looking to shoot. I sit in treestands, as well as on the ground and even in a couple of permanent, comfortable blinds when the weather gets nasty up here in Michigan along with doing some still hunting when conditions are right. However, to be very honest, after I started hunting deer, elk, and antelope out in Wyoming where it is a lot of spot and stalk on foot at varying distances, it has become by far my favorite way to hunt and I can't wait to get out there every Fall.

Real hunting in my book anyway, means spot and stalk, no food plots, trail cams, tree stands, box blinds, or feeders.

While I can agree that spot and stalk is truly one of the purest forms of hunting what is it really? Going out into the wilderness and trying to beat an animals natural senses with our brain and wilderness skills. Here in Northern MN in the thick woods and swamps a few rugged souls do what we call still hunting. Basically spot in stalk without the spot. Walking through the wilderness so slowly and quietly so as to not spook a deer and walk up on one. Later when the snow flies we have tracking in the snow. An different skill set but equally as pure a hunt. I would even argue that sitting in a tree stand or ground blind is a pretty pure form of hunting because anyone who has done it can tell you if you don't have the skill to pick the right place to sit or the fortitude to sit for long periods of time you won't be very successful.

Just to throw a wrench into this...

Attractants taken to another level: what about doe calls? bleets? antler rattling? For that matter, how is antler rattling different than a buck bomb during the rut?

How is hunting from a blind really any different than being in a full scent-lok ghillie suit?

Anyway, back on point: I have done a considerable amount of hunting from a Texas box blind. It fills the freezer quite nicely. I do however consider it more akin to "shopping with a gun" than actual hunting.

Taken another way, technology has advanced significantly. Better rifles, better ammo, better scopes, better camo, better...well, everything. I'm not quite sure that the animal senses have kept pace...

For me though it's more and more all about the spot and stalk. I'd rather get busted 100 yards from the game than snipe at 600 yards.

I'd repose the question: Why don't we celebrate the deer that got away? Instead of celebrating we often get "awww, better luck next time"...and then we go buy a burger at Jack in the Box on the way home from the hunt, cranking up the heater in the car as we go.

I'm rather of the opinion that we should celebrate the critters smart enough to avoid the shot!

PR: I must admit though that I'm absolutely sure that as I get older (43 now) that box blind is going to become more and more attractive each day!

If the animal is wild and free, and the methods used are legal, it's hunting. I have my own preferences as to how I like to hunt, but if somebody else wants to do it a different way, that's alright with me. After all, we do this for fun, right?

Here's the thing, the anti's don't care what methods we use for hunting, they tar us all with the same brush, and they view us as subhuman troglodytes who get off on torturing innocent animals. Like Ben Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or we shall most assuredly all hang separately."

once more,


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


See ya'll next week I'm off after hogs and varmints for the next four days.

Best

GWB

Let me put it another way - is it "real" hunting if you have a guide? Isn't the guide doing the hunting and you're just there to pull the trigger?

Was Jack O'Connor more of a real hunter if he took a 5 or 6 day ride on horseback just to get into the hunting area than someone who flies into camp via float-plane.

Are you more of a real hunter if you don't use a scope or a range-finder - or wear clothing made of miracle fabric rather than wool.

If you don't own your own boar, trailer, dozens of decoys and own a retriever can you call yourself a duck hunter?

Lighten up guys not everyone can live in prime hunting country or is young and tough enough to sleep on the ground and eat nuts and berry's - everyone makes choices and there are enough anti-hunter's out there we don't need to point fingers at each other.

quote:

Originally posted by kjjm4:
If the animal is wild and free, and the methods used are legal, it's hunting. I have my own preferences as to how I like to hunt, but if somebody else wants to do it a different way, that's alright with me. After all, we do this for fun, right?

Here's the thing, the anti's don't care what methods we use for hunting, they tar us all with the same brush, and they view us as subhuman troglodytes who get off on torturing innocent animals. Like Ben Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or we shall most assuredly all hang separately."

This is my thoughts exactly, especially the last comment. And THAT, kids, is why the antis sometimes get an advatage over us, while we are sniping at each other over opinions (they are really nothing more) they are organized and focused. Same goes for the gun grabbers, we piss on each other over this gun or that gun, and it's supposed suitability for what ever use, and in the meantime, they are focused on banning all of them.

Another Kumbaya thread. The proposed orthodoxy is that hunters must support anyone's method of pursuing game. BS. I'm not going to. I object to some methods of hunting. I certainly object to how much of hunting is portrayed on TV. I'm confident that you will all vote to continue hunting, so what do I care? Your in the bag already. Nor do I care about the Antis for the same reason. I only care about those that might vote against my hunting, but might not.

It's really not as important what one hunter thinks of another. There are 3 groups of people in any given US population. Hunters, Anti-hunters and non committed. There are multiple surveys of different areas and the US as a whole. Hunting will end in any given area as soon as enough people vote it down either by statute or changing present constitutions. Hunters are going to vote to keep it. Antis will all vote to stop it. Those two numerically tiny groups are a given. It is the uncommitted, the uncertain and the uninterested who will decide this. They are the vast majority. If you want to keep hunting, you must get a majority of them to vote with us. If you spend any time talking to the uncommitted, they will educate you on what they think about this. For some it is all about what hunting looks like, for others it's how hunters talk about it, for others it is about how you hunt and for others it's about what you hunt.

Martin Luther

quote:

It's really not as important what one hunter thinks of another. There are 3 groups of people in any given US population. Hunters, Anti-hunters and non committed. There are multiple surveys of different areas and the US as a whole. Hunting will end in any given area as soon as enough people vote it down either by statute or changing present constitutions. Hunters are going to vote to keep it. Antis will all vote to stop it. Those two numerically tiny groups are a given. It is the uncommitted, the uncertain and the uninterested who will decide this. They are the vast majority. If you want to keep hunting, you must get a majority of them to vote with us. If you spend any time talking to the uncommitted, they will educate you on what they think about this. For some it is all about what hunting looks like, for others it's how hunters talk about it, for others it is about how you hunt and for others it's about what you hunt.

Really good analogy of how things actually are.

Excellent post SG Olds!!!

Spot and stalk is how I hunt!

I would think that a good definition of hunting is when you are required to push yourself. It is not hunting for me to sit in a blind 8 hours waiting for some unsuspecting animal to wander in range. I do consider it hunting if I go out and stalk the timber and hills with my legs for a couple hours.

quote:

I would think that a good definition of hunting is when you are required to push yourself. It is not hunting for me to sit in a blind 8 hours waiting for some unsuspecting animal to wander in range. I do consider it hunting if I go out and stalk the timber and hills with my legs for a couple hours.

So, where do handicapped individuals fall within your concept of what hunting is? Now I do agree that Spot & Stalk is actual hunting, but what happens to those folks that for whatever reason are unable to get out and hike for hours, several days in a row hoping to find something to shoot? They have to pay the same prices for licenses and tags as those of us that can get out and walk.

It is a very thin tight rope we walk when we try to define what is hunting and what isn't hunting, once we move beyond the Individual definition. When we start trying to define hunting and do not take into consideration that there are many folks, that for various reasons, that cannot participate in the activity at the same level as those of us that are younger/in better physical shape or health or live and hunt in areas with little or no Public Land and are restricted in what they can do on Private Land they hunt.

As I have said, I do not view the deer shooting I do around home as anything more than assassinations. I am no better than Oswald when he shot Kennedy. I know where the deer will be/when they will be there/and almost the exact range. If it is cold I have a heater I can turn on, I can take drinks and snacks with me if I want too, but since I only shoot does, I will be in the stand maybe 30 minutes before I make the kill. That is not hunting, it is murder, pure and simple, but Texas Parks & Wildlife says that it is a form of hunting and to participate I have to buy a hunting license. Same license as someone doing spot & stalk hunting on the Davy Crockett National Forest in south east Texas.

The latter example is hunting and deserves to be called hunting. The former is not hunting even in the broadest sense of the word, but as SGOLDs stated very succinctly in his response:

quote:

It's really not as important what one hunter thinks of another. There are 3 groups of people in any given US population. Hunters, Anti-hunters and non committed. There are multiple surveys of different areas and the US as a whole. Hunting will end in any given area as soon as enough people vote it down either by statute or changing present constitutions. Hunters are going to vote to keep it. Antis will all vote to stop it. Those two numerically tiny groups are a given. It is the uncommitted, the uncertain and the uninterested who will decide this. They are the vast majority. If you want to keep hunting, you must get a majority of them to vote with us. If you spend any time talking to the uncommitted, they will educate you on what they think about this. For some it is all about what hunting looks like, for others it's how hunters talk about it, for others it is about how you hunt and for others it's about what you hunt.

The problem with joining in the condemnation of certain hunting methods in an effort to keep the fence sitters on our side is that, much like gun control, the anti-hunters are content to chip away at our hunting privileges. Every time we allow them to take away something, say banning hunting over bait, or running deer with hounds, it's a victory for them, and it reduces the number of hunters. Then they come back for something else, and there are fewer of us to fight it.

We somehow managed to survive the loss of the use of punt guns to hunt with.

Adapt to the circumstances of our current society and make hunting a honored and respected pursuit to non hunters. We can defend those who turn the indifferent against us, but how does that help.

We can only adapt so far.

Does adapting mean that handicapped individuals are to be excluded because they physically cannot get out and tramp the hills?

Does adapting mean that the elderly are to be excluded because physically they can no longer get out and do spot and stalk.

Where does adapting stop? With the anti-hunting segment, as you pointed out, they want it all stopped.

What will be accomplished for hunters, by excluding/adapting, by reducing the overall numbers of folks trying to hunt, simply because of physical handicap or age and infirmity.

You made a really great response and statement earlier in this discussion, but it reads now, like anyone that doesn't or can't hunt the way you do, should be excluded.

Am I misinterpreting what you are saying?

Outlawing Punt Guns is one thing.

Making regulations excluding people that due to handicap/age or because of regional conditions that dictate how the killing of game is to be done, in my view only translates into fewer hunters left to support the activity.

If I am misunderstanding you I apologize, I just do not see how taking legally recognized methods away from people will do anything to help save hunting.

Outlawing punt guns put real people out of work. It did not limit the options of old and or crippled people to spend their leisure time doing one thing or another. So I suggest your position is incorrect as to the implied importance of one or the other. At least to my way of thinking.

The point is that if we do not police ourselves in what we do, what we say, how we hunt and how we portray hunting, then someone else will. If we actually want to preserve hunting, we need to drop the defensive BS. I would gladly give up hunting if it bought the remaining hunters 25-50 more years. Therefore I will gladly limit what I say, how I hunt and how I portray hunting.

I understand your point, I just view it from the other side of the coin.

Punt guns/sink boxes along with any of the other devices or methods used by Market Hunters, in my opinion, falls under a completely different venue, than recreational/sport hunting. I really can't see a true comparison between Market hunting/Meat hunting for the RR such as Cody did or for the hide market as many folks did that reduced the buffalo herds, and doing a deer drive with dogs or people during the open season in Virginia or the Carolinas.

It is nothing I want to do, but is it something I want to see outlawed. You are correct in that we as a group need to police ourselves, finding some form of common ground to begin that policing seems, to me at least, the hardest obstacle to get around.

Again, I do feel your statement about hunters not being the people that need to be convinced that our sport needs to be preserved, but the folks that don't hunt , but are not anti-hunting, are the ones that need to be talked too and are the ones that can or will decide the future of hunting.

I agree that there are certain hunters that are slobs and make us all look bad, and we all need to be vigilant in policing our own ranks. What I meant us that we shouldn't turn on each other regarding methods that aren't dangerous, unsustainable, or obviously unethical.

Examples of what I'm talking about would be archery hunters hating guys who use crossbows, or spot and stalk hunters looking down on people who hunt from stands, or condemning people for hunting over bait, or running game with hounds.