When does what is cosidered a legal and traditional hunting method in one area or state, cross the line and become basically just a "Shooting" event.

I stirred up the Hornet's nest with my views on the way "hunting" is conducted in Texas. Now my opinions on this subject, are based on my experiences of almost 40 years of hunting in Texas and other places.

Now I am a native Texan, and proud of it, but I also know that I have watched how the face of hunting in Texas has changed, since I killed my first deer in 1970.

DRG, spanked our Pee Pee's and told us to behave and so I am going to abide by his wishes, but I would like to see what others people opinions are on how they view what we call hunting in Texas.

Now I am not going to get into discussions over how things are done in Africa/Austrailia/Europe/Asia, or even Canada. This discussion is about Texas and how things are done here as compared to the rest of the U.S., and what peoples perceptions are of how our system works in Texas.

As an example, or as a starting point, baiting of game. Why is it, and I am not talking about the logistical reasons, that the baiting of black bear is considered okay, and the baiting of whitetails is frowned on.

Again, and I have never really hunted black bear, but I am aware of the fact that under normal circumstances, baiting or using hounds are the two most successful methods of killing a black bear. Spot and stalk is down the line at number 3 as to successful methods. As a side note, I have talked to several Texans that think the baiting of bear is wrong.

When does the use of bait and a stand change from just creating a shooting situation, to a hunting situation. Is it the animal being hunted? Does it have to do more with the way we grew up doing things.

I am not trying to get into the fair chase issue, because personnally, I feel that each of us have our own definition as to what "Fair Chase" hunting involves.

Maybe, as was staed in the other topic, I am the one that is mis-guided, but how come I feel that getting out and still hunting, and spotting and stalking a deer is different than setting in a stand waiting for a feeder to go off and choosing my deer like choosing a stak in a meat market.

Can this be done in a reasonable manner so the Adminstrator or Moderators don't make us all stand in the corner.

Thank You.

Baiting is illegal in CA and tree stands are beginning to show up but I saw a homemade tree stand in 1969 in Siskiyou County,CA that had been built & in use for blacktails decades prior to my visit.There are private fenced hunting preserves in CA where one can hunt for exotics or Elk,Deer,Bison,Sheep,Hogs,etc for a fee so if you've got the cash and you want to hunt you can w/o booking a guide and taking a long drive.To each his own!

What bothers me is the videos i see where the "hunter" takes an animal in an obviously artificial setting and acts like he is such a skilled outdoorsman.
The one video the guy missed the same deer three times in a few hours.it just kept coming back out to the feed.He was so proud of his skill,to take the big one.
Another video the giant buck is standing outside the blind eating in the middle of a dirt road.He wasnt eating dirt.The food was contained in a shallow trench which concealed it from view.
It sure would make it alot easier.No need for reading sign,stalking,stealth,making the long and difficult shot.the stuff that makes hunting,hunting.All you need to do, is know where the bait pile is.
But I had this discussion with several Texans a few months ago.

When I lived in N.MN. I baited bears, for myself and for friends.It was the only way to get them other than cruising roads for thousands of miles hoping to see one.I have no trouble with that as it is the only way to hunt them..I personally have some questions about the remote controled feeders, there are other ways to hunt the deer but the throphy potential can't be evaluated those ways...I don't know...what ever works for the individual person I guess should be OK, as long as legal???

That just the way deer are hunted in
Texas. If you don't like it, don't hunt there.

Remember the big picture. We are all hunters and should not be trying to drive a wedge amongst ourselves, much less give the Anti's anything to use against us. We must each hunt according to our own legal, ethical and moral convictions and respect each others right to hunt in the manner in which he so desires.

Bottom line: If you don't want to hunt over bait, don't hunt in Texas.

In South Texas spot and stalk is not always an option due to our density of brush. I HATE sitting in blinds and only do so if it is pouring down rain, which is rare thankfully for my hunting. I typically hunt out of tripods or tree stands that I erect where I see deer sign and crossings. I use corn as bait to stop the deer as they travel through because once again with our brush density if something is passing through that could be a window of about 2-3 seconds. If I have seen a particular deer in an area I will use corn or hay to lure them out. I have no problem with any of this BUT some will. Most who disapprove have never hunted Texas and dont understand that the above techniques are the optimum way to hunt in dense brush. We had a GREAT p.h. from Africa come down to hunt while he was in the states for a show and insisted to spot and stalk. At the end of the weekend he had 2 javelinas, not hard to kill. His coment was that at first he did not approve of our methods but after trying the stalk method realized it was necessary.

Perry

Perry, thank you very much for explaining the reasons why the hunting methods used in Texas are used there.

Being from Ca, where any kind of baiting is not lawful, I considered the Texas method of timed feeding stations to be unsporting. Your explanation has helped me to look at your state's hunting methods in a different light. I wasn't aware of the challenges you face in Texas. We also have many places such as you described here in California, I just don't hunt them and I do not know if I would hunt at all under our system if that was all that I could hunt.

Thanks again for taking the time and trouble to explain your situation to the rest of us...rusty.

This is such a personal choice question and one which every hunter must face at some point. I hunt in Georgia and baiting is outlawed. I grew up having to understand the signs of deer, setting up, playing the wind, etc. etc. That is what I was used to.

then three years ago I went to Oklahoma (close enough) to hunt deer. Baiting is legal in Oklahoma. The rancher had feeders that went off at set times. There were no trees that you can climb, the landscape was tamarac bushes, fields, and creek bottoms. After two days of not seeing any big bucks come to the feeders, I began hunting out of ground blinds in creek bottoms and river bottoms away from the feeders. I went home empty handed, but I saw some nicer deer. My buddy however shot a 150 class ten point that came out to a feeder on the first day.

Fast forward to two years ago and I go back to the same place thinking to myself, with the flat open landscape and thousands of tamarac bushes, and lots of wind, it almost seemed impossible to set up on deer the way I am used to. The routes, funnels, and paths just don't seem to be in any set place. I hunted over wheat fields that had feeders on them. I ended up shooting a nice big 8 point that scored in the high 120's. Was I proud? I had mixed feelings on the hunt. I had watched this particular 8 point for 3 days work a creek bottom and decided to set up on a field the 3rd day that did have a feeder to see if I could get a shot at him with my muzzle loader. I took him when he entered the wheat field which yes did have the feeder on it. While I felt that yes, I did apply some of my hunting knowledge to take this buck, I shot him on a field with a feeder. I felt a little dirty.

So I go back this past year. I tell the rancher specifically not to set me up on any feeder plots. I either wanted to hunt out of a ground blind (by this time after 2 years prior I had gotten a good feel for this farm and felt comfortable with knowing just enough to set up on deer movement. Again, my buddy shot his 3rd buck in three season from the same stand he shot the 150 class ten point two years prior. Right over a feeder. Didn't seem to bother him at all. Its not my place to tell him I think its a little "canned". That is his personal choice.

I hunted out of a collapsable tri-pod I set up at varying places in the tamarac funnels between different fields. I saw more bucks than I had ever seen. Passed on two 130-140 class ten points and a 130 class 8 point that had 13" tines. All of these deer walked within 20 yards of me. My buddy had seen a big non typical 13 point buck from his feeder stand that would not come into the plot to feed but instead worked the edges on his way to the river.

After he had shot (what he thought was his 13 pointer, but turned out to be a big 9), I moved into that area. I set up 300 yards from that field in a wheat strip overlooking two creek bottoms that snaked through the property and tamaracs through bigger wheat fields down to the river bottom where the deer would go to bed. This all based on topography and where I was told this deer was walking. Well, bling bling, I shot the deer at roughly 60 yards while he was traveling in and out of the creek bottoms. Turned out to be a 14 point non typical that had triple brow tines and double brow tines and is the deer pictured in my sig. Scored roughly 155.

Do I feel like I got a "canned" hunt. No. I think I used my knowledge and smarts to set up on this deer. Besides, I took him with my muzzleloader which to me is a hell of a disadvantage compared to a rifle. Was he heading to the field with the feeder? Yep. Could I see the feeder? nope. Did I care? Nope.

After talking to the rancher he told me after I took that deer that "The bigger deer always seem to be shot in stands away from feeders, I guess they are too smart for that stuff". Wow, you'd think he would have mentioned that to us 3 years ago. Well, next year I'm taking my Bow and I'm sitting in ground blinds in the creek bottoms until I have a shot at a P&Y.

Hunting in General


Way back when, the goal of a hunter was simply to harvest and animal for meat and hide and such. In ANY WAY HE COULD. There was no "fair chase" or "sporting methods" or " Hunting Ethics". Hunters used the most effective weapons and methods they could come up with to kill things and provide meat for family and tribe.

Then at some point we invented "sport hunting" and game management. And we invented official regulations and "hunting ethic" and "fair chase".

We invented them but have never clearly defined them. So there is always a lot of difference of opinion as to what is "fair chase" and what is "not sporting".

Robin

GA Deer Hunter, just to keep this from degrading to what the other topic did, I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT WHAT WE DO IN TEXAS, I am merely asking a question.

When does a hunting practice or condition, change from hunting, too merely shooting?

Not to paint too broad a stroke with the brush, but as I stated in the original post, baiting for black bears is or was an accepted method in most of the states where they are hunted.

Baiting for deer isn't. I understand why black bear have to be baited, and I understand the reasons why here in Texas most of the hunting for deer is done over bait.

Yet, I have talked to people, both resident Texans, and non-residents who come down on our Javelina hunts, that even though the Texans, are used to baiting for deer, they will stand flat footed and say that baiting for bears is wrong or unethical. I have non-residents express those same thoughts on the subject of baiting for deer.

As for your remark about hunters should stick together and not give the Anti's ammunition, I agree wholeheartedly. But after being involved on this Forum and a couple of others, from what I have observed, that just ain't happening, to me of us are too deeply rooted in our convictions of what hunting is and what it should be. In actuallity though, that subject is not really part of what I am trying to get opinions on. Not meaning to offend you or anyone else, but I would like to try and keep this on to the subject as to why some practices are considered hunting and others are considered merely shooting.

You made a very good point in your post. On one of the other forums I am on, ity is fairly a general concensus, that in any given year, very few of the larger bucks killed, are killed at or even near a feeder.

To throw another issue in at this point, something else that came up recently, is the issue of Game Cams. Do they give hunters and unfair advantage, are they just another tool or are they a crutch, o they allow landowners to raise lease prices because of the animals being photographed, even though the hunters success rate on the property doesn't co-incide with what is showing up in the pictures/

To answer your question, Yes, I still think of this as hunting. I have hunted in Texas for the past five years. It was the typical Texas hunt, sitting in a blind overlooking a feeder. Only one of the bucks I killed actually came into the feeder. The rest were chasing does or skirting around the edges.

When you hunt in a different area, you should hunt the are using the tactics and techniques practiced in that area.

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

I shoot most of my deer in a wheat field or at a watering hole. Would the wheat, water hole or a food plot be considered bait?
In other areas I hunt there wouldn't be many doe if not for spreading some corn around. They would be on the other side of the fence.
During the rut no doe = no buck.

When you are out in the woods looking for game you are hunting, no matter the distance you shoot, once you stop hunting you are shooting. 5 yards to 500 yards and beyond.

I hunt over bait and I just hunt in the woods without bait, I stalk game and I sit and wait for game, I hunt from the ground and I hunt from a stand. I just HUNT. When it comes time to pull the trigger, I am SHOOTING.
All you guys that want to prove how good of a hunter you are, get a club and go out hunting. Do it like the caveman did. Track that bear down and beat the hell out of it with your club and kill it, Now that is hunting at the most extreme level.

The evaluation of hunting for food to survive is gone, we all hunt for the pleasure, sure we get the game and eat it, but ask yourself why do you hunt? I do it for the pure pleasure of hunting a yes KILLING something.

Dosen't matter a bit to the game that one shoots it is still dead.

Many of you don't understand the danger of a post like this. I've taught hunter education for 20 years and just helped establish a Master Hunter Certification Course here and I try to convey this message to everyone I teach.

HUNTERS ARE HUNTERS WORST ENEMY. In America, 80% of people do not hunt. Of those, about 60% of them have "no opinion" either way about hunting. That means that a small percentage are rabid animal rights activists and they will use anything we say and do to influence those with "no opinion". Once they do that, hunting will be history.

Over the years of my life, I see hunting has evolved. I grew up as a Baby Boomer in the poor rural south and hunting was a necessity of providing supplemental food for the family. That's no longer true, but sadly, today's kids think milk, eggs, Big Mac's and Outback steaks come from the stores without ever having encountered an animal along the way.

I constantly hear politically correct buzz words and phrases. "I don't hunt over bait. Bullshit. EVERYONE HUNTS OVER BAIT. You may rationalize that if you don't sit over a corn pile or automatic feeder, you don't hunt over bait, but it's a lie you're telling yourself. Tell me with a straight face that you walk out to a soybean field or corn field and find a heavy trail full of deer tracks and say, "Oops. Can't hunt here. Gotta find someplace where the deer aren't eating." We all hunt trails between bedding and feeding areas. If there was no food source nearby, no deer would be there in the first place. Stop rationalizing.
I only hunt fair chase. Another bullshit story. The Drury's can say that but you and I know they hunt lands that have been protected for their use. I made the mistake of hunting an area where a big shot outdoors show was going to be the next week. I was told up front that I wouldn't be able to hunt a certain pasture because "we're saving that for when the movie crew shows up." I told the outfitter it would be my last trip with him and I'd tell anyone who asked what a phony he was. If you want fair chase, you put on your loin cloth and chase the animal down and suffocate it by crushing its windpipe. Do any of you honestly believe that if the caveman had had a GPS, 4-Wheeler, and a big rifle he'd have been dumb enough to use a flint spear on a mammoth?

Hunters are constantly berating others partaking in legal methods. Bowhunters are the worst with the traditionalist against the recurves against the compounds. And God help you if you mention cross bow. Muzzleloaders are almost as bad.

But I've been to the game and fish meetings with the bunny huggers wanting to outlaw certain methods or seasons. You know what's always the first words out of their mouths? "Well, even some hunters agree with us". Everytime you lowbrow a hunter using a legal method, YOUR NAME goes on the animal rights list. Maybe not by name, but damned sure by implication. The same guy who's so noble in his hunting methods still relishes veal cutlets from calves that were nver allowed to walk inside a 2x4 stall. Where's "fair chase" when the eggs you eat are laid by chickens who don't have enough room to flap their wings or set down?

If you don't particularly relish taking an animal under conditions that make you question it, by all means DON'T. They say that ethics is how you act when no one else is watching. My ethics may be entirely different that yours - for better or worse, but just different. Don't feed the bunny huggers.

Mr. Roof, well said.

I hunt near white oak acorns all the time, and actually know which tree's acorns the deer prefer in some spots!

On the livestock descriptions, I saw a whole video narrated by Alec Baldwin, PETA etc. are after the farmers too.......

Personally, I believe each hunter needs to decide for himself what is "sporting" and what isn't. I sure don't want any MORE regulations on what a hunter can or can't do. If one hunter wants to stalk a critter with a blackpowder rifle with iron sights, for instance, fine, I sure don't have a problem with that. The problem arises when this same hunter begins to think that he is superior to all other hunters who hunt differently, thus aren't "sporting". Thus he thinks we need more regulations and laws about how we can hunt.

Where does this "sporting" criteria end? Are laser rangefinders sporting? Are riflescopes sporting? Heck, why should binoculars be sporting? There are always those holy rollers who think their way is the only way.

I am old enough to remember old farmers, at the beginning of deer season, grabbing the old 30-30, jumping on the tractor, and start driving through the brush with the tractor. Well, he is just pushing deer in his own way! Sporting? I don't reckon. He was out to get a deer and didn't want to spend days farting around to do it! I can also remember when game wardens often turned a blind eye to poor people with a family to feed, who happened to shoot a deer out of season because they needed something to eat.

Bottom line, I don't lose any sleep about how somebody in Texas shoots his deer. If he has a tag, and isn't breaking any local laws, he is good to go as far as I'm concerned. YMMV.

Yeah, I agree with George!

quote:

Many of you don't understand the danger of a post like this. I've taught hunter education for 20 years and just helped establish a Master Hunter Certification Course here and I try to convey this message to everyone I teach.

HUNTERS ARE HUNTERS WORST ENEMY. In America, 80% of people do not hunt. Of those, about 60% of them have "no opinion" either way about hunting. That means that a small percentage are rabid animal rights activists and they will use anything we say and do to influence those with "no opinion". Once they do that, hunting will be history.

Over the years of my life, I see hunting has evolved. I grew up as a Baby Boomer in the poor rural south and hunting was a necessity of providing supplemental food for the family. That's no longer true, but sadly, today's kids think milk, eggs, Big Mac's and Outback steaks come from the stores without ever having encountered an animal along the way.

I constantly hear politically correct buzz words and phrases. "I don't hunt over bait. Bullshit. EVERYONE HUNTS OVER BAIT. You may rationalize that if you don't sit over a corn pile or automatic feeder, you don't hunt over bait, but it's a lie you're telling yourself. Tell me with a straight face that you walk out to a soybean field or corn field and find a heavy trail full of deer tracks and say, "Oops. Can't hunt here. Gotta find someplace where the deer aren't eating." We all hunt trails between bedding and feeding areas. If there was no food source nearby, no deer would be there in the first place. Stop rationalizing.
I only hunt fair chase. Another bullshit story. The Drury's can say that but you and I know they hunt lands that have been protected for their use. I made the mistake of hunting an area where a big shot outdoors show was going to be the next week. I was told up front that I wouldn't be able to hunt a certain pasture because "we're saving that for when the movie crew shows up." I told the outfitter it would be my last trip with him and I'd tell anyone who asked what a phony he was. If you want fair chase, you put on your loin cloth and chase the animal down and suffocate it by crushing its windpipe. Do any of you honestly believe that if the caveman had had a GPS, 4-Wheeler, and a big rifle he'd have been dumb enough to use a flint spear on a mammoth?

Hunters are constantly berating others partaking in legal methods. Bowhunters are the worst with the traditionalist against the recurves against the compounds. And God help you if you mention cross bow. Muzzleloaders are almost as bad.

But I've been to the game and fish meetings with the bunny huggers wanting to outlaw certain methods or seasons. You know what's always the first words out of their mouths? "Well, even some hunters agree with us". Everytime you lowbrow a hunter using a legal method, YOUR NAME goes on the animal rights list. Maybe not by name, but damned sure by implication. The same guy who's so noble in his hunting methods still relishes veal cutlets from calves that were nver allowed to walk inside a 2x4 stall. Where's "fair chase" when the eggs you eat are laid by chickens who don't have enough room to flap their wings or set down?

If you don't particularly relish taking an animal under conditions that make you question it, by all means DON'T. They say that ethics is how you act when no one else is watching. My ethics may be entirely different that yours - for better or worse, but just different. Don't feed the bunny huggers.

Wow George, you knocked my socks off. Very well articulated and some excellent points that should be observed by ALL of those who consider themselves hunters on this Board. This chestbeating, backbiting and fingerpointing bullshit has gotten old.

CHC
I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and maybe my thoughts don’t totally address your query, here’s my $.02 worth
Do you think you might be setting up a false premise? Could your query be more aptly discussed as satisfaction vs. ethics. I believe that intellect, the ability to think and reason set us apart from the animal kingdom. We don’t have the keen senses of prey animals or the strength of predators. What we have, is the ability to think, reason and plan. Because of this ability we will never be beasts. Consequently any time intellect is used in the taking of game you are doing what makes us human and sets us apart from the animal kingdom. I think a better question is to query oneself as to whether he derives true satisfaction in the manner in which he takes his game. I’ve shot game as far away as 600 yds. w/ a rifle and as close as 10 yds. with a bow. I typically eat the game animals I shoot and discard the varmints. The day I feel ashamed of myself for the method I employ in killing an animal, be it varmint or game, is the day I’ll hang it up.
GWB

Mr. Roof, you make several good points, but I too have taught Hunter Ed. While I don't have the credentials you do, I believe that as a group, we are more in danger of NOT having these type of questions asked, than asking them.

Hunters as a group, need to stand together against the threat posed by the anti-hunting element. The problem, is that 80% that you mentioned, that don't have an opinion on hunting or are at least, not openly against it. They vote and the image hunters present can influence the opinions of those folks.

Let me ask you this, Do you believe that a hunter should show respect for the animal they have killed and the public, both hunters and non-hunters alike, and try to transport the animal in a manner that is not going to offend people both hunters and non-hunters. Now before you answer, everyone has the right to be offended at anything, but, should hunters as a group be considerate of the game they have killed and the other people that are around them when transporting that game?

One of the things I am seeing from a lot of folks, is that a question like this should not be asked. Do you or anyone else that thinks questions like this shouldn't be asked, really believe that this will have any real influence on how ANYONE thinks?

Geedubya, I appreciate your response, but to try and get the point across, you and a lot of other folks are mis-interpreting my question completely wrong. I am not saying or asking which is better, I am asking, WHY, something such as the baiting of black bear is considered as hunting, while the baiting of deer isn't.

I have shot deer out of stands over feeders, off hand on Do-It-Yourself hunts, by Spot and Stalk, and have had NO PROBLEMS.

I am sorry that people are taking this as an attack on ANY kind of hunting, because I believe that as long as what a person is doing is legal and they are buying a hunting license and have no problem with what they are doing, it is fine.

What I am asking is the WHY. As I pointed out about the hunting of Black Bears, why is that some folks think that hunting deer being driven by dogs, is the epitome of hunting, yet shooting a deer at a feeder is not.

Crazyhorse, I don't mean to be curt or crass, but you're taking the thread on a tangent. Certainly, as I've said, hunting is evolving and must continue to do so if our children's children are to enjoy our sport. I don't carry my game exposed on the fender as they did in the 1930's any more than I'd shoot ducks till the boat was filled. There's nothing wrong with being sensible so that we don't blatantly "turn off" anyone. I recall butchering cows out by the main road, but they don't even allow farmers to slaughter their own beef in most places. Neither to egg producers show the cages or veal suppliers show the stalls. You would be very VERY hard pressed to find pictures of the inside of a processing or slaughter house. (Did you know the .357 was tested on live cattle in the Chicago stock yards? Think that would happen today?) Certainly we have to present a more sanitary appearance and I suspect having camo gun cases and bags in airports will soon go away for that same reason. That's evolving.

Samuel Adams said this years ago. "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather a tireless minority keen on setting brushfires in people's minds" It's truer today than when he said that.

I personally don't care how someone hunts, as long as the game can escape. High-Fences equal a harvest, not a hunt. Maybe that is the Westerner in me, but if an animal can't get away or has been highly accustomed to people then that is just a shoot.

One example is very few people get to "hunt" buffalo. There are only a handful of truely wild herds in North America. The rest is just a shoot, putting meat on the table. I get frustrated to see the domestic elk/deer/buffalo/etc shoots being called hunts. I have cows on my ranch which are more wild than most of the "canned" shoots.

I went on my first Texas hunt this past year. I didn't really have an opinion either way, well maybe I didn't want to sit under a feeder. I have rarely seen wilder deer. Even as they came into to feed they were very skittish, and never ate more than a couple kernels before flinching and looking around. It wasn't the most challenging hunt, but it was a hunt.

In the end we, as hunters, must set standards. We must limit methods of take (spotlighting, 50BMGs, seasons, bag limits, Airplane scouting, harrassment, or whatever) to preserve and protect the resource and the acceptability of hunting. Where those boundaries lie will change over time and a healthy debate within the hunting community could help set the parameters of the experience.

HUNTERS ORANGE. With changing times we sometimes have change our thinking or in this case our hunting habits. I use to love to still hunt and stalk whitetail, but when orange outerwear became necessary this effectively put an end to this style of hunting for me. I am not saying hunters orange is a bad thing, it is now necessary to safely put our increased numbers in the woods today. Now, in most areas you need some type of stand or blind to be successful. As someone above mentioned, whatever you are comfortable with and enjoy, as long as it is legal.

CHC

"Why"

Because of their own personal prejudice.
GWB

I believe this is an excellent debate to have. Running away from these types of discussions and burying our heads in the sand will solve nothing! The thing I have seen from watching these kinds of threads is the minority usually ends up with one defense: lets not pit hunter vs. hunter. I think thats a weak argument.That is of course my OPINION-- (which I am free to change at any time)

How about a poacher? He/she was a hunter-- now they broke the law. Should we fail to condemn poaching because the "anti's" might see we are not united in supporting our hunting brethren?

Oh, I get it-- poaching is ILLEGAL. But "shoot, shovel and shut up" of endangered species is just "civil disobedience?" Its not breaking the law..... hmmmmm......

Or maybe, "poaching" is not "hunting" and is therefore exempt from the debate. Some think long range shooting is not hunting. Some think shooting an animal in an enclosure (of any size) is not hunting.

Everyone has different perspectives.

I think as a group, hunters are better off HAVING these kinds of debates-- even if they pit "hunter vs hunter"

I think they can show the non-hunting world that we are intelligent enough to debate issues amongst ourselves as well as with the world at large. Sometimes they show how childish and uninformed we are at times (myself included) and sometimes they show that we are not a bunch of robots who merely continue to follow old traditions which may have made sense at a point in time-- but may not make sense anymore.

Just my $.01 (I figured I cut the price of my banter in half--- )

IV

Idaho, you're off course as well. Maybe that's why hunting gets bad press from mainstream media: we're too easily distracted from the main topic.

Personally, I don't consider a poacher a hunter any more than I consider canoe paddler a steamship captain. They may be involved in the same venue, but certainly not to the same degree. HUNTER versus HUNTER always hinges on a "me better than you" attitude of the methods used by one or the other. I'm sorry, but you don't get the choice of having it both ways. You are either for LEGAL hunting practices or you are against them. In a fight for survival of this sport, we should've learned long ago, compromise is always about us giving then them taking. That's not compromise. You don't like crossbows, don't use them. You don't like "high fences" (what the hell ever they are. They seem to be like "Saturday night specials". Is it a high fence in 1 acre and not it 400,000 acres like in Africa?) Don't rationalize now, just straight up. What makes one "high fence" OK and the other not. Someone said "as long as the animal can escape." In the Uof Georgia deer pen, a controlled hunt after radio collared and orange collared buck deer was conducted and some deer were never encountered. Did they need an escape or would they have used it had there been. I've hunted pronghorns in Montana where two intersecting LOW FENCES met. Prongs don't usually jump a fence, so was the hunt "ethical" by those standards. I've hunted arroyos where shooting deer was more akin to ducks in a barrel. Was that "ethical"? If someone is conducting hunting in a LEGAL manner, most states have "hunter harassment" laws on the books now. So why should another hunter imply harassment towards another simply because his or her methods don't match?

Off course?
Distracted from the main topic?

Pardon me.

I am a hunter as well. You have a different opinion, you expressed your opinion against mine. Have you not just done what you profess should not be done? (The whole hunter vs. hunter thing)

If this is a debate which you feel does hunting (and hunters as a group) no good to have....why would you continue to participate in it?

Are you a bunny hugger in disguise?

IV

Sorry Mr. Roof, but you are evading the issue. Recently on another forum I am on there was a heated debate, because in North Dakota, legislation is being presented to force people to cover up the game that has been harvested when in transport.

Several people on that forum felt that even though they would not transport game that way, that it was perfectly alright for others to do so.

You seem to have an agenda to push and you are wanting to acuse everyone that doesn't agree with you as being mis-guided or wrong. While I enjoy a good arguement as well or better than most, I promised the administrator that I would behave myself.

Now if you can explain to me why a practice such as shooting black bears over a bait is accepted as a hunting method, and doing the exact same thing to whitetail deer isn't, then we have something to talk about.

To keep trying to point out where me or anyone else is wrong because we don't share your opinion, has nothing to do with the question.

Sorry, Mr CHC, but I think YOU'RE the one with the agenda. Myself, I don't care if hunters hunt bear, deer, moose, caribou or sasquatch over bait. IMHO. YMMV.

Spotlighting:

Many if not all do not allow hunting after dark with spotlights for big game animals. At some point this was a legal practice. Debate amongst or within hunters/hunter groups and the general public changed this.

Aircraft: Many if not all sates do not allow spotting big game from aircraft. Some do not allow you to hunt on the same day you have ben in a "small, private aircraft". AT one point this was legal-- debate changed this.

Greater than 5 round capacity: Many states do not allow hunting with firearms loaded with a magazine that contains more than 5 rounds (Waterfowl-- it is often 3 including the chamber). AT one point this was legal-- debate changed it.

.243 or larger: In Washington, deer must be hunted with centerfire rounds .243 and larger-- in Idaho the limit is .223 and larger. Should this never be debated? Was it debated?? Would quelling all discussions about it have made the situations in either state any better?

I personally don't care about bait hunting, trail cams or smashing a cow over the head with a baseball bat and posing for the picture of your fine trophy.

Others do.
How the others who control our hunting future PERCEIVE hunting-- that concerns me. I do not have the answers to any of the questions noted above--- but I firmly believe hunters should DEBATE AMONGST each other over these issues. If we are doing something "wrong" we should admit it and correct it. If we are doing something we perceive to be "right" and others perceive to be "Wrong" then we should work on changing perceptions.

This is not rocket science.

IV

quote:

Originally posted by B1878:
HUNTERS ORANGE. With changing times we sometimes have change our thinking or in this case our hunting habits. I use to love to still hunt and stalk whitetail, but when orange outerwear became necessary this effectively put an end to this style of hunting for me. I am not saying hunters orange is a bad thing, it is now necessary to safely put our increased numbers in the woods today.

i've often wondered why, if hunter's orange is such good thing, why is it you only have to wear it if you're carrying a firearm? if you go hunting with me but decide not to carry a firearm, you don't have to wear hunter's orange. odd that you being in the same situation as me, other than the firearm, the game department and authorites don't care about your safety one bit. or could it be that the hunter's orange serves as a better "label" to easily identify hunters for the game department...

just thinking out loud here... off topic, of course.

First off, I ain't Mr. anybody. Second off, I don't care how a person kills anything. If they are okay with it, then I am okay with it.

Now, to repeat myself one more time, why do some folks consider one way of doing something as hunting and another way as merely shooting?

Does that make it any easier for you to understand. I could care less if someone crawls in a trailer and shoots an animal in the head.

Is that considered hunting? Or is hunting, setting in a heated blind watching a feeder and shooting, basically from a bench rest, the biggest buck at that feeder. Or is hunting spending days or weeks scouting on public land so that a person can kill a decent buck, because they out forth the effort to find the trails and feeding areas and bedding areas.

In Texas, we are limited to setting in the blind watching the feeder. Now personnally, while I don't like having to do it, I have learned to accept the fact, and have killed deer in that manner.

Why is it, and this is the point that is being missed for some reason, an accepted and legal method of killing deer, is considered hunting by some folks, and just shooting by others, yet most folks that know anything at all about it, consider shooting black bear off a bait as a perfectly normal and legitmate hunting practice.

We do this for our pleasure.
If we know in our heart-of-hearts that we have killed an animal that anyone else could have killed without much effort on any day of the week, then who but an idiot or a jerk would claim it as a hunting trophy? If we don't know that, then a 6-point buck in a 10 acre enclosure might be a "hunting" trophy. Of course, some people are jerks and idiots.

Sorry mudstud, I ain't a troll. I have the trophies on my walls and the pictures and memories and bills to go with them.

You are again avoiding the issue. Why is it, that a mule deer buck I killed off Public Land is considered as a hunting trophy by some, while a whitetail buck that I shot at a feeder isn't. Can you answer that or is all you know how to do is post graemlins because you don't have a real answer?

CrazyHorse,
You had a good question. I was unsure who Mudstud was accusing.

Crazyhorseconsulting, I answered your question in my above post. But you were not obviously satisfied with the answer or for that matter anyone else's. So why continue to push your point?

Debate is fine, but it seems as if we can't agree, so where do we stand? Surly not as one.

Your question was "When does what is considered a legal and traditional hunting method in one area or state, cross the line and become basically just a "Shooting" event."

My answer is "When you are out in the woods looking for game you are hunting, no matter the distance you shoot, once you stop hunting you are shooting. 5 yards to 500 yards and beyond."