Crazyhorse, damned if you aren't all over the place with this one. No wonder you can't get an answer that satifies you. Idaho, I don't know what part of the galaxy you came from, but all I was attempting to do was show others how the mental anguishes that we self impose often have a much greater impact when we vent our spleens publicly.

Here in Delaware for years, it was illegal to POSSESS a red fox, regardless of origin. Made no sense and still we can't just shoot a red fox. We have to be on land where the landowner has a fox management plan. We're lousy with the little bastards. BUT we, as hunters, are fighting and winning the battle. Every state has a sovereign right to its own laws and if a state requires I cover a deer, I cover it anyway or put it inside a closed compartment. It's just something MY ethics dictate. BTW Idaho, if I'm a bunny hugger, I'm in a helluva business. I'm a certified taxidermist and that's my full time job. I don't think very many bunny huggers would do what I do.

Now Crazyhorse, it sounds very strongly that you've reached the 5th stage of hunting. (Yep, there are 5 stages -look it up) and you're now having a personal battle with yourself. NO ONE IS GOING TO ANSWER SUFFICIENTLY. Only YOU will be able to answer your question, and when you do, it probably won't be acceptable to anyone else BUT YOU.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
...You 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." ...

Hey Redhawk, Good answer.

The Deer Season ended where I am earlier this month - but I'm still Hunting! Saw 8 Deer in a field that I currently do not have Hunting/Killing rights on two days ago at 11:33AM. Same herd or another one in the same field right at 24hrs later. Nice watching them and plan to see the Owner.

The serious Hunting generally begins for me on 2Jan of each year, because the Deer Season "closes" 1Jan. I get to spend the next 7 1/2 months Hunting and preparing for the upcoming Season to open. Always something needs doing EVERY DAY in preparation.
---

Now as to the second part of the question, similar to Redhawk, Shooting begins for me when I have decided to make a Kill and when my finger pressure on the Trigger releases the Sear. Distance has NOTHING to do with it.

My thoughts on the entire issue are also similar to Redhawk's - As long as the Method is Legal, I'm for it!

quote:

Originally posted by CHC:
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.

Nope, not at all. You ARE NOT limited to any one Method, you have simply elected to use the Blind and Feeder.

If you want to get down and Stalk(roam around until you find one), I know of no "Laws" that preclude this in Texas. That IS NOT bashing Blinds and Feeders since I'm for ALL Legal Methods.
---

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Golden:
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.

quote:

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

I totally AGREE with both of those points by Steve and Fish.

If you are Hunting where the Game is/has been eating or drinking, you are where there is food and water drawing them in. Saying that an electric feeder or someone tossing corn to the Game is any different, is only fooling yourself.
---

As a final thought, I DO NOT modify any of my thoughts or verbage based on what some peta loonie might think. I Kill animals for myself and others.

And if they decide to "harrass" me while I go about my routine persuits, it will be an incident they will long remember.

Good hunting and clean 1-shot Kills to all you folks.

CHC said: "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?" Because different people have different opinions. Certainly seen on this forum. Really simple.

"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."
In a previous thread, you stated 90% of Texans hunted (or shoot) deer in this manner; now you imply 100%. Interested how you know this to be true. Sure is a big state, with a lot of hunters hunting various terrain.

Greg

The following essay by James Tantillo, who teaches teaches ethics and environmental philosophy at Cornell University, while lengthy is very pertinent to this discussion.

Ethics versus Preferences

When I give lectures on the topic of hunting, I find that there is a need to distinguish between hunting ethics and hunting aesthetics, or between ethics and preferences. Perhaps due to our underdeveloped understanding of ethics, most people today who think about hunting tend to lump all value questions together under the heading "ethics," without regard for whether that classification is accurate or not. Most of what passes for "hunting ethics" today is really hunting aesthetics. I believe that when hunters speak of a "right way" or a "wrong way" to hunt, they generally mean something more like "the way I like to hunt" versus "the way you like to hunt." (We see this in current disputes about the use of antique muzzleloader rifles versus modern inline muzzleloaders; about hunting with hounds versus dogless stalking; or about the merits of compound bows, recurved bows, longbows, and crossbows.)

Aside from hunter safety and the issue of killing animals cleanly, quickly, and humanely, there are very few ethical issues involved in how the practice of hunting is conducted. Hunters and anti-hunters need to be made more aware of this as well. Much anti-hunting legislation that has been passed so far, in the U.S. and elsewhere, has regulated essentially aesthetic aspects of the hunt: the practice of hunting over bait, the use of one type of technology over another, or the hunting of game with hounds. This is a bit like legislating one's preference for vanilla ice cream. If hunters and anti-hunters were more aware of the essentially aesthetic nature of these various
hunting practices, I hazard the guess that there would probably be far less eagerness to regulate or ban certain forms of hunting on the part of either hunters or anti-hunters.

Examples illustrating "hunting ethics" versus "hunting preferences" -

There is a difference between the "morality of hunting" and what many hunters refer to as "the ethics of hunting" (for an example of the latter, see e.g., Posewitz 1994) The first involves the moral discussion of the rightness or wrongness of hunting in general, the latter involves the ethics of a specific hunting practice. The morality of hunting covers all forms of hunting, each with its own individual set of traditions, unique customs, and particular "ethics of practice." In contrast, what most hunters think of as the "ethics of hunting" generally refers to the specific rules that govern a particular form or genre of hunting, or one might think in philosophical terms of different styles of hunting. Each style, genre, or form of hunting has a loyal following and, usually, an internally consistent set of ethical and aesthetic standards that typify the form. I generally hesitate to weigh in on questions of "hunting ethics," which usually involve more aesthetic than ethical issues. One or two examples may illustrate the point. Shooting ducks on the wing is one case: true devotees of duck hunting insist upon the necessity of a "rule" to shoot ducks only on "the wing," i.e. in the air, and not while they are at rest on the water. The phrase "sitting duck" captures the essence of unsporting practice- the shooting at any target that is not "fair game." And yet, shooting a duck on the water may be a far more deadly shot, more likely to kill the bird cleanly, more guaranteed to put a bird "in the bag" than an ethically riskier shot at a duck flying straightaway at a high speed over forty yards distant. "Potting" ducks (as in killing a duck for the pot, i.e. as food) on the water in the latter case is simply a violation of the aesthetic norms that make duck hunting, duck hunting. The question of how ducks are shot during the course of duck hunting is thus largely (not entirely) an aesthetic issue and not an ethical one at all. This distinction is often misunderstood by hunters as well as by anti-hunters.

Another example may cement the point. The practice of "baiting" game animals is constantly debated among hunters as a question of "hunting ethics." (I will ignore for the moment concerns about CWD and the like.) Critics say that baiting is too easy and that it reduces the amount of effort and skills needed to successfully hunt game animals such as deer, bear, or moose. Practitioners of the art of baiting typically respond, "Don't knock it unless you've tried it." Aside from the moral issues surrounding the vice of laziness and related moral concerns about the lack of human character such a vice implies, baiting does not seem to be an "ethical" issue per se as much as it is an aesthetic issue. Let me explain.

In northern Wisconsin there is at least one individual that I know of who begins his daily baiting of deer at least two months before the beginning of deer season. Reasoning that he wants the deer to show up at his stand in the woods when he is there, he goes out to the woods twice a day: once in the morning to lay out his spread of corn, apples, sugar beets, and whatever else he uses to attract deer to his location, and then once again in the evening to take it all away. That's two trips a day, for two months: or 120 trips to the woods, all in the hopes that the deer become habituated to visiting his chosen site only in daylight (legal shooting) hours. During the two months of baiting, this individual also occasionally climbs in his tree stand over the bait pile for the pleasure of simply watching the deer that come by. His enjoyment of deer hunting is thus extended considerably in this way, and during the time period when he is simply a wildlife watcher certainly does not involve killing in any way. All of this is for the privilege of being able to select his own venison, "on the hoof" so to speak, come opening day.

Another deer hunter hunts his own land and sits under apple trees that the previous owners planted some seventy-five to a hundred years earlier. He shoots and kills the first deer that comes along on opening day.
Who is to say which hunter has the richer, more authentic hunting experience? If the primary objection against the practice of "baiting" is that it is too easy and requires little or no effort, then certainly the Wisconsin deer hunter has put far more effort into killing his deer than has his counterpart who has merely staked out his deer stand on opening day and rather opportunistically "hunted" the deer he knows beforehand will frequent his apple trees.
In the case of the habitual deer baiter, what outsiders would criticize as unfair advantage and unsporting practice actually contributes to a year round interest in deer. The deer baiter is probably more of a "hunter-naturalist" or "nature hunter" than most hunters. His shot at close range on opening day is almost assured of being a well-aimed, carefully selected, and quickly killing clean shot.

The second hunter may hunt only deer; and only hunt once a year. His hunting experience lasts approximately an hour, or two at the most, among the apple trees on opening day. He may not give much thought to nature, to deer biology, to the wind or the vagaries of scent, or to much else. (Perhaps he is a college professor who is in a hurry to get back into the office for a 9:30 appointment with a student advisee.) Nonetheless, his shot at close range on opening day is almost equally assured of being a well-aimed, carefully sighted, and quickly killing clean shot. And yet at the moment of the kill, each of these two individuals may feel that pang of remorse: that momentary sense of pity and fear, of attraction and repulsion at what they have done-regret for having killed, but gladness for having done it well. That emotional response may in fact be partly what drives them each year to make the effort that they do make, to get up well before dawn on opening day and to go afield in pursuit of killing a deer. Each individual experiences the hunt in a different way. Each individual takes care to ensure that there is a high probability of killing the animal almost instantly if and when the opportunity to shoot presents itself.

Where these two hunters' experience differs is in the respective style or aesthetics of their hunts, not in the ethics of their hunts. "Ethics" generally is a term that is chronically misused in the popular hunting press. Each hunter follows his own ritual way of preparing for the hunt; each hunter conscientiously minimizes the chances of wounding and losing a deer; and each hunter enjoys the hunt in his own fashion. "Baiting" of game animals seems to attract the same type of criticisms that the potting of sitting ducks does, and for similar reasons. But I think it important to recognize that each form is simply a variation on a theme: the musical metaphor is apt.

Conclusion:
For these and other reasons I believe that for the most part, the state and other people should stay out of these hunters' business. Each hunter experiences the hunt in his own idiosyncratic and highly personal way. Assuming the hunter is respecting the laws designed to protect game populations and human life and property, each hunter acts ethically. Neither hunter is hurting anyone else. (The deer, if well shot, certainly feels almost nothing.) Each hunter's choices, whether hunting over bait or hunting on one's own land, simply implies different aesthetic preferences, and little else. I cannot speak for either hunter's experience, nor would I want to impose my own idiosyncratic hunting values and force my aesthetic preferences on another hunter. I may choose to employ my full powers of aesthetic suasion to convert either or both hunters over to my way of thinking, but that's as far as my legitimate authority in either hunter's affairs should extend. In other words, as a matter of concern for social or governmental intrusion, hunting should be virtually "off the radar screen" for the moral or aesthetic police.

And as a group, hunters are their own worst enemy when it comes to pointing fingers at each other and saying, "My way is better than your way; so let's ban your way." Such arguments are often made by hunters who profess to wanting simply "to clean up hunting's image." In reality, such well-intended efforts by hunters may simply be hastening hunting's demise.

James A. Tantillo teaches ethics and environmental philosophy at Cornell University. A grouse hunting purist, Jim will generally argue until he is blue in the face that the One, True, Correct Way to Hunt Grouse is with a 16 gauge Parker double gun over the staunch point of a well trained English setter. In the spirit of political toleration, however, he also argues until he is equally blue in the face that his retriever and spaniel owning friends be permitted to hunt grouse legally as they see fit, despite their aesthetically misguided preferences for flushing dogs or 12 gauge autoloaders!

Seems like we are having a lot of fun with this one. Mr. Roof, you seem to be able to make a lot of statements about me and what type person I am, yet you don't really seem to be able to stick to the issue or answer a question, without expounding on your beliefs.

Now, to re-ask the question I put to you about transporting a dead animal, you say you cover it, whether it is required or not. So do I, and so do most people. Why, because we feel that even though we may be proud of what we killed, we are respectful of the game and the people that are around us that may not want to see our trophy. But because some folks think it is okay to display a deer in such a manner, a state has decided that if hunters can not act responsibly in the matter, they, the state of North Dakota in thiis case, is looking at passing legislation to force hunters to cover up their kills.

Are such laws like that needed, I don't think so.

Do I see any harm, covering up a deer to the point that only the antlers can be seen when in transport, No I don't. In fact I have noticed that a lot of folks, hunters and non-hunters alike, will smile, wave, give the thumbs up sign, come out of a store and walk up to look at the rack, congratulate the hunter, ask them about their hunt. Not a big deal.

I also see the occasional JackAss with a deer or elk draped over their tool box or strapped on a 4 wheeler, split from crotch to eyeball with its tongue hanging out, rolling down the Interstate on a busy Sunday afternoon. That really presents a good image about hunters, now doesn't it.

No, Mr. Roof, I am not in the 5 stage of hunting, because after almost 40 years, I still really like to kill something. A few months back in fact, I came to an epiphany, and I related it on another forum. While I have started getting more enjoyment out of setting around camp and BS'ing and helping with the meals and seeing other folks get their deer, when I pick up my rifle, I am not satisfied unless I kill something, that is why I am out there.

RedHawk1, sorry that I don't accept your concept on the question as the final answer. But I have always felt that the goal of hunting and carrying a rifle was to end up in a shooting situation or event.

I think it was Geedubya that gave one of the better answers, if not probably the best answer on the subject, Personal Prejudices. Someone finally addressed the concept of the question.

What are the parameters that people use to judge, what is hunting and what is just merely shooting, seems like for some folks, it is the animal being hunted. For otherrs it is the way they learned or were taught and what was accepted by their peers.

MuleRider, over most of the state, landowners want people to set up stands and use them, most folks after using a stand for a while see the benefits of the stand and feeders. It becomes a Personal choice matter, I have no problem with their choice. But , and again here I come in with the WHY, do some people consider the use of such things as merely shooting instead of hunting, but turn it around, and replace the whitetail with a black bear and it automatically becomes hunting to those same people that would not dream of shooting a deer in the same manner.

As I stated elsewhere on that exact issue, we had a big arguement that eventually got locked down, on another forum. The question someone asked was about bear hunting, a large segment of the folks that got involved in that one, people that have no qualms about hunting deer from blinds over feeders, relegated hunting black bear over a bait plie from a tree stand, right up there with baby raping, that even included people using bows.

Same basic set up, shooting an animal that is feeding at a pile of bait that someone put out, expressily for that purpose, yet because of the difference in the animal and the difference in the location and people, one is considerd hunting and the other is not.

HotCore, do you consider setting in a baited blind watching a feeder that is distributing food at timed intervals, on the same level of hunting as what you described your methods as being?

I do have to hunt for a spot to shoot at a deer in my wheat field or water hole.
Also I see no dif. in baiting for a bear or a deer, hell I even use bait when I fish.

I hunt in Texas on 232 acres. If I hunted it like I do on the big places in Colorado or Africa my neighbors would kill the deer I scared their way. Texas is a private propety state with no huge tracts of government land or "open" lands. It is not feasable to do a spot and stalk hunt on small properties. Hunting in a blind or stand over a baited area is the only practicle way to see and shoot game for me. I don't consider it hunting like is done in other states or places with access to public property, but it is the way we have to do it if we want to be in the fields and woods.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

RedHawk1, sorry that I don't accept your concept on the question as the final answer. But I have always felt that the goal of hunting and carrying a rifle was to end up in a shooting situation or event.

QUOTE]

I see, you want someone to agree with your way of thinking and that is the right answer. OK, but I don't think you actually will ever be satisfied with any answer.


As far as covering an animal while transporting it, I could go either way, sometimes I put them in the back of my truck under my cap and some times I just put them on my rack on the back of my truck. All depends how far I am driving. Usually I am within 4 or 5 miles of my butcher shop, so on the back of the rack it goes and off to the butcher shop. I never found a need to drive all around town showing off my animal to anyone, that is what a picture or a good mount is for.

quote:

Originally posted by Brain1:
I hunt in Texas on 232 acres. If I hunted it like I do on the big places in Colorado or Africa my neighbors would kill the deer I scared their way. Texas is a private propety state with no huge tracts of government land or "open" lands. It is not feasable to do a spot and stalk hunt on small properties. Hunting in a blind or stand over a baited area is the only practicle way to see and shoot game for me. I don't consider it hunting like is done in other states or places with access to public property, but it is the way we have to do it if we want to be in the fields and woods.

EXACTLY - there is no way to sneak up on any animal in the cover we have, oak shinrey woven togather mixed with mesquite bushes, vines and all the dead leaves. Then where there is no cover - there is noooooo cover, can't hide behind a blade of grass.

You haven't "SEEN" anything yet. You are focusing on what you think my attitude is. I don't want people to agree with me on this issue.

I want to know if why the way one group of people in one location or state, hunt the way they do, whether from tradition or necessity, are not considered hunters, yet people from another location, hunting in almost the exact same manner, except for another species are thought of as hunters and not just shooters.

You did seem to grasp at what I was getting at about hunters policing themselves on the things they do that portray all hunters in a bad way, so law makers in any state will not be trying to pass more useless laws.

If more people would read and pay attention to what is being asked, instead of trying to read all sorts of BS into why it is being asked, I feel that there would be a lot less misunderstanding.

In reference back to your remark about "Wanting" people to agree with me, HELL NO, I do not want, nor do I like it when folks agree with me, simply because if someone does agree with any of the stuff I state my opinions or observatuions, than that makes me think that things really are as bad as I think they are concerning the future of hunting, and that is something that really bothers me.

I appreciate everyone taking the time to give their opinions, I just wish people could do so, without resorting to personal attacks or insults or character assasssinations, especially toward people they have had no actual dealings with.

Sure you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be running around the context of your original post. You asked, were answered, and now you're stating to Redhawk you don't accept his answer. You're submerged in mind games instead of cut and dry issues and the only person who doesn't see that is you.

How do you view the Jimmy Houston video (posted here a while back), where a buck was put in a 2 acre enclosure and herded back and forth in front of Jimmy’s stand until he finally made the kill. Or the buck that was drugged so bad that they had to lean it against a bush so the hunter could shoot it. Or the better question, how would the 60% of the no-opinion non-hunting crowd view this video.
While there are many hunting methods I consider less than sporting, I will not defend the above two examples as hunting. I don’t necessarily want to see them outlawed (I’m one of them that prefers fewer laws), but don’t call it hunting if the hunting has been removed. If this is what our sport has evolved into, I don’t want any part of it.

quote:

Originally posted by CHC:
HotCore, do you consider setting in a baited blind watching a feeder that is distributing food at timed intervals, on the same level of hunting as what you described your methods as being?

Hey CHC, On the same level? No, but I don't "look down" on anyone using a Legal method. And when I say "no", to me it is really more about the Skill Level of the individual Hunter, his individual experience base and how he goes about describing the Hunt.

In the situation you describe, if the person sitting in that Stand also determined "where" to locate both the Feed(er) and the Stand, and has a successful Hunt, they have applied several "Learned Skills" prior to taking the shot. Determining the best place to take advantage of the sun angles, prevailing wind conditions, terrain features, relation to the bedding and feeding/watering areas, and setting it all up so it is possible to get to the Stand without leaving a Scent Line takes some thought for it all to be just right.

If the person in the Stand simply "showed-up" for the Hunt after the ground work was done, there is still the Skill needed to remain still, remain alert, watch for pieces of a Deer in the understory, never become complacent about being detected,and be prepared to make a "practiced" well placed, clean 1-shot Kill.

Some folks show up reaking of smoke, hop around the Stand like a frog, never practice shooting and still managed to make a Kill. The odds of them getting a Trophy, are slim to none. And their Skill Level is indicated by how prepared they are. Generally they are also "braggers" and are not welcomed back.
---

This will be a bit redundant for some of the long time Board Members, but here are my thoughts on Hunting Skill Levels:

Level 1 – Beginners.
Seeing a Beginning Hunter(of any age) get his First Kill(s) is indeed a Trophy. You can see it in their eyes, in their movements, as well as in their words. The Hunt will be retold with a reverence for the facts and how the kill came about. And retold for the rest of their life with the same respect for the Kill.

Here the Skill is provided by the person assisting the Beginner. But even if it was pure luck by being in the right place, it doesn’t detract from the Beginner’s Kill being a memorable Trophy.

The people taking the Beginners get as much enjoyment from the Hunt as the Beginners do. And to see a proud Father hugging the child after the Kill creates a special "Trophy Bond".

Level 2 – Intermediate.
Next level up seems to be the intermediate hunters who actually Hunt with a particular Method in mind. They have learned some Methods from their Elders, from Books, Videos, the net, but mostly from a few years(5-10) of good old First-Hand Experience.

They have tried things and failed. Might be wind shifts, moving too much, over-using a stand, leaving a scent trail as they Hunt, having a termite food stock that warped, and thousands of other things. Each experience taught a lesson and reinforced that many more Lessons were sure to come. At this level, they must exercise some "learned Skill" rather than having an Elder position them or be providing guidance for them during the Hunt. They employ an intentional Method for the hunt and if they make a Kill using the Method, it is indeed a Trophy.

Level 3 – Seasoned Hunter.
If a person sticks with Hunting, they eventually arrive at this Level. They can view a piece of terrain and develop a Plan without any additional input, for a Hunt that results in the "potential" for a Kill. Making the actual Kill varies in importance. This Hunter typically passes on many more opportunities to Kill than he takes. If the meat is needed, the Kill is made, but it is not necessarily a Trophy.

At this level, a lot of Skill is needed to accomplish a specific task or to Kill a specific Deer. Might even be a wise old Doe that has blown the Hunt for this Hunter on previous occasions. Here the Hunter is having to develop a Flexible Strategy and Pattern the Deer’s movements. It might take a few days, or a month to figure it out, but once the Seasoned Hunter Kills the specific Deer being pursued, it is a Trophy.

Perhaps this same Seasoned Hunter mentions to a buddy that he has noticed a particular Deer on a section of land, shares the pattern he has noticed and encourages the buddy to hunt that Deer using a specific Method. If the buddy follows the advice and makes the Kill, the Seasoned Hunter who recommended the Method also has a Trophy(and a very special one).

Level 4 – Trophy Story.
Here the Skill level of the hunter can be at any level. Something “unique†about the Hunt or the Kill must occur for the retelling of this story to be worthwhile and memorable. It can be “anything†that causes the story to be remembered and retold when hunters get together.

It can be from gut-busting funny, to sad, or anywhere in between. But whatever causes it to be retold. it is remembered forever by those that hear it. I do love Level 4, because it allows even the Beginners to join in.

Good Hunting and clean 1-shot Kills.

This ought'a be a hornets nest!

I don't really have an opinion on baiting. I've hunted over bait and in certain situations felt it OK. In other circumstances it seemed cut & dried. One size don't fit all.

What I really wanted to comment on is stand hunting. While I greatly prefer spot and stalk I'd say the line between "hunting" and "shooting" has to do with selection by the hunter himself. Did you actually choose the site based on your own knowledge or at least choose between several available stands? Or did you sit where somebody told you and shoot what came along? The former is "hunting" since the hunter applied some strategy. The latter is simply "shooting."

Now, if hunting over FOOD bait is unethical does that extend to hunting waterholes, tanks or other isolated water sources in an arid climate? How about the trails leading to them?

Until it degrades to the level (for instance) of the guys who had the computer operated rifle for hire on the net this is something nearly impossible to define. Each must satisfy the question within himself. i.e.- does it feel "wrong" to do this?

I think alot of you people who think hunting over a field is the same as over a feeder are fooling yourself.If it were the same ,why is it that numberous states outlaw one and not the other?

Those of you who think hunting over a feeder is a sure thing are sadly mistaken. In Texas, where this debate is aimed, most hunters would far prefer an oatfield over a mechanical feeder. Rarely are bucks taken eating at feeders. Now hogs is another story but no one cares about swine.

Perry

George roof

What about people wanting to use smokeless powder in their Muzzle loaders.

You sure you ranting against that in the muzzle loader forum.

You are for us or against us stand in the middle of the road and get run over.

For you anti-baiting folks, how much difference is there between hunting whitetails over bait and hunting at the edge of the cornfields? Not much, no corn in Texas, so they bait. I haven't hunted black bear over bait, because I don't like stand hunting that well, prefer spot and stalk. I don't care if someone hunts them over bait, I just don't like it. Stalking bears in many areas, like Maine would be an exercise in futility. Mostly some people like to criticize others methods as a chance to cut another hunter down, and by doing so building themselves up. We sure should be working together, as the sport will suffer with any undue restrictions that are placed on hunting, such as outlawing bait, hound hunting, etc. Some rules and regulation are just plain silly, such as hand fishing for catfish, in some sloughs that will go dry anyway killing the fish.

Dog Shooter, you don't read well do you? I never said one thing about hunting with conventional powder in a muzzle loader. WHAT I SAID was that it didn't meet the specifications of "MUZZLELOADING" as defined by National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association and regardless of which end you put it in, I don't think it's true muzzleloading. If YOUR state allows it, go for it. My state doesn't and I support that. I don' t see it as "evolving" but rather "pushing the envelope". I live in a high density, dinky state that prohibits "high powered rifles for big game" because of range and lethality issues. Here, making a "muzzleloader" that exceeds a .30-30 range is asking for trouble. As I've said everywhere, if it's legal, do it. I just don't want you or anyone else thinking I'd support "bending" the rules or your trying to make me think the comparison of your firearm to a conventional black powder gun is the same thing. It ain't and my story won't change on that one. Now what does any of this have to do with what this post was about???

Mr. Roof, you are the only one playing games, becxause you are still interpreting my question WRONG.

HotCore, you made areally good post, and I think that you have finally gotten the jist of what I am asking.

I do not look down on ANYBODY, or what they consider as hunting. As long as it is legal and they have no problems with it, it is fine with me.

At NO point in this thread, did I state that these were MY thoughts on the issue, or that I agreed with such attitudes.

As many others have so eloquently put it, the way we hunt in Texas is more of necessity than anything else. But as a Texan, and proud of it, I wanted some real opinions and answers, as to why myself and other Texans that have to hunt under the conditions here in our state, are not considered hunters, but just shooters by many people, yet someone in a state a few hundred miles away, is considered a hunter for doing basically the same thing, yet with a different species.

I really don't know what being a Texan has to do with all of this, you keep saying you are a Texan and proud of it. SO WHAT!

It does not matter what State you are from, if it is legal, who gives a shit? Go out and hunt and enjoy yourself.

Hey CHC, This has been one of the better threads I've seen in a good while on AR. It has gotten a lot of people thinking and expressing their views. And it has a lot of people just reading without posting their thoughts. It would be nice if they would jump in too.

Always nice when people can discuss different points of view without personal attacks. I can hand it out as good as I get it, but much prefer to just disagree and keep the discussion civil.

And I sure "learn" a lot more from folks I disagree with. If they have the verbal ability to get a good point across, it isn't wasted on me - especially when it comes to "different" Methods of Hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by Brain1 and Steve Golden:

I hunt in Texas on 232 acres. If I hunted it like I do on the big places in Colorado or Africa my neighbors would kill the deer I scared their way. Texas is a private propety state with no huge tracts of government land or "open" lands. It is not feasable to do a spot and stalk hunt on small properties. Hunting in a blind or stand over a baited area is the only practicle way to see and shoot game for me. I don't consider it hunting like is done in other states or places with access to public property, but it is the way we have to do it if we want to be in the fields and woods.

EXACTLY - there is no way to sneak up on any animal in the cover we have, oak shinrey woven togather mixed with mesquite bushes, vines and all the dead leaves. Then where there is no cover - there is noooooo cover, can't hide behind a blade of grass.

We have some rather tough country to Hunt in our Woods and Swamps too. Lots of (man eating) Green Briers and dense understory. A dead Deer might be 3' from you in this stuff and you are unable to see it laying there.

One of the things we do is "cut Deer Trails" through this shin-tangle during the 7 1/2 months prior to the Season opening. Most of the trails are cut with angled lanes which allow you to ease up these trails and have a chance to spot a Deer on ahead.

And we Sweep or Leaf Blow the trails to get the potato chip crisp leaves to the side of where we will be Sneaking along(Stalking or Still Hunting if that is your choice of wording).

It takes a LOT of time and effort to do all the preparation due to our terrain. If you all did this, would you still be unable to Hunt your Deer by Sneak Hunting?

quote:

Originally posted by jb:
I think alot of you people who think hunting over a field is the same as over a feeder are fooling yourself. If it were the same,why is it that numberous states outlaw one and not the other?

Hey jb, I know the Feds frown on "Baiting" Migratory Birds(Doves, Ducks, Geese, etc) and it is also Illegal to Bait Turkeys where I hunt. So, I don't support Baiting where it is against the Law.

I know where a Lady lives in Coastal NC that DID NOT want Hunters Killing "her" wild Ducks and Geese as they migrated through. So she "Baited the area", put up signs stating that it was Baited and alerted the Game Wardens. Have to admit, she sure thought out the situation and used the Baiting Law in a way it was never intended, but "her Ducks" were protected - there.

How do you see Hunting Deer over a picked Corn field as being different from someone tossing out a sack of corn? Or Hunting a Pecan Grove as different? Or a patch of White Oaks when the Acorns are falling? Or a Creek Crossing?

Good Hunting and clean 1-shot Kills.

To me Hunting is Stalking or being quite going to your stand. Then sitting quitely not moving but very slowly. Either way I feel this is hunting.

Once you see your deer and you get you rifle sights on it and pull the triger this is shooting.

Redhakw, not to turn this nasty, but do you like some of the labels people use toward Indians? I don't think so and I think you will admit to that.

Well, I don't like seeing people brand Texans as just shooting animals and not really being hunters.

Now, tell me what of that, you can argue with or dispute?

I consider myself a hunter, whether I am setting in a stand watching a feeder, or slip along thru the brush trying to bump into something. Just because the majority of what goes on here in Texas, is not what lots of folks call hunting, that does not mean that Texans as a group are not hunters. Does it?

Yes HotCore, on the place I hunted for 13 seasons up on the Texas-Oklahoma border, we operated 4 feeders, but we also cut trails thru the brush, or opened up existing game trails so that we could slip thru the brush easier. For a good while, we rarely hunted the feeders, but basically used them to concentrate the deer. The place we were hunting was only 180 acres, and was surrounded by 5000+ acres that were not hunted. The only way deer would come on to that 180 acres was thru the use of bait. One of the reasons we went to actually hunting the feeders and using the blinds, was because 2 of our wives and the teenage daughter of my former hunting partner started hunting with us. Also a real close friend of mine and my wifes that is confined to a wheelchair started hunting with us.

During the last 4 years we hunted that place, we were able to help him kill his first turkey, coyote, and whitetail deer.

As I have tried to get across, I have no problem with how a person hunts as long as it is legal and they are comfortable doing it.

My problem comes in when people that have no actual knowledge of the conditions in another state or location, or no base knowledge of the habits of the animals being hunted, and the methods needed to hunt those animals, start labeling people as not really being hunters.

I have noticed on here and a couple of other forums I participate in, that there are some folks that get really uncomfortable, anytime such a discussion as this one comes up. They start squirming and posting responses that we should not be discussing such things and giving the ANTI's ammunition.

I have decided to label that as the Sixth Stage of being a Hunter, or better known as "Sticking Our Head Up Our Arses, And Hope People Will Leave Us Alone To Enjoy Our Sport."

On another forum we are having a big discussion about Ted Nugent and some of his latest accomplishments. While I think he has done a lot of good as a spokeman for hunting, I also feel that he has the potential to do damage also, especially with the way the "Fourth Estate" conducts its business on such issues as hunting and gun ownership.

While I am not real hot on his "In Your Face" way of getting his message across, I do think that hunters as a group should become more pro-active on such issues as to how we refer to or about each others way of enjoying their time in the field, or something like the way a game animal is being transported that clearly is offensive. That is just my opinion on the subject.

As for this whole thread, I think that it has been a great discussion and as you stated maybe it has started some folks thinking about their attitudes toward hunters in other states and what they may have to deal with just to be able to hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting: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.

Never been to Texas. Never hunted black bears. I do, however, have a working hypothesis.

I think I know the answer. And it's from a very narrow viewpoint, I'll admit; listening to folks on AR who list themselves as from Texas, and looking through a few issues of Texas Trophy Hunters magazine. It's all about the trophy, the trophy, the trophy! It's the "my antlers are bigger than your antlers" thing. Do any out-of-state hunters come to Texas to shoot a doe? Very few, I'll wager. There are lots who not only come from out of state, but out of country, to hunt whitetailed does in Pennsylvania. It boils down to one thing; you can't eat the horns. You just brag about them! Big Buck contests abound. Texas deer can have the scrawniest bodies, but if their headgear is gigantic, that's all that matters. And that's what rubs non-Texas folks the wrong way.

It is illegal to not only hunt for, but to disturb any deer taking refuge in water in PA. Many folks also think that the same should apply to the dense brush of Texas. Get your John Deere with brush cutter and clear-cut patches or shooting lanes like Hotcore suggested. (God, I'm agreeing with him again!) Sit in your stand or tripod and wait for a legal deer to come into the open. If one doesn't, tough luck. Try again tomorrow. Ringing the self-feeder dinner bell, and passing up deer after deer until Mr. Million Dollar rack shows up is infuriating to those of us who don't know the Texas ways. I'm sure many, many businesses would go belly-up if y'all decided to do things the PA way. Cause Texas deer hunting is BIG business.

Black bears don't have antlers to brag about. The many successful black bear hunters I've talked to, to a man, thought they were all trophies, big or small. Just harvesting one was considered to have won the prize. Does that make any sense?

Makes a lot of sense, and is one of the better observations on as to why things are done the way they are in Texas.

I still don't understand the why's and wherefore's that some folks use to determine that one species is considered a trophy and the manner in which it was taken is considered hunting, while a specimen of another different species isn't.

That is one that there may be no better answer to than Geedubya's answer of "Personal Prejudices."

It really may be that all of us that love to hunt, are so opinionated and our individual feelings toward hunting and the ethics/morals and legalities of how it is conducted across the country, and the world for that matter, are so convoluted that we stop looking at it from the "When in Rome" attitude.

We start equating our perception of how things are done in other places, against how we do things as they pertain to our situation, without having real working knowledge as to why they are done the way they are in those other areas. Just a thought

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Redhakw, not to turn this nasty, but do you like some of the labels people use toward Indians? I don't think so and I think you will admit to that.

Well, I don't like seeing people brand Texans as just shooting animals and not really being hunters.

Now, tell me what of that, you can argue with or dispute?

I consider myself a hunter, whether I am setting in a stand watching a feeder, or slip along thru the brush trying to bump into something. Just because the majority of what goes on here in Texas, is not what lots of folks call hunting, that does not mean that Texans as a group are not hunters. Does it?

Just had to go there. Well screw you and your thread. You ask a question and I think I posted a good response. Not once did I post where you were from or criticize the way you hunted. My hole point about asking you why you keep putting IM AM A TEXAN ANS PROUD OF IT. So what does that have to do with anything with your question of Hunting versus Shooting?
You want to get nasty I can get nasty. My post was not derogatory or inflammatory in any way, it was a legitimate question.

Just for the record, a Texan is not a race but just a place where you live. Native Americans are a race and also has nothing to do with your silly thread.

You want to cast stones go right a head, I can give it back with the best of them. Just for your information, my father is from Donna Texas, but I have never heard him ever say in my 46 years of existence, I AM A TEXAN AND PROUD OF IT.... Under your 10 gallon hat is a pile of shit.

I am done with your silly thread.

I apologise to the membership of Accurate Reloading, DRG, and to Redhawk1.

When I started this thread, I did not intend to insult anyone. Evidently I did just that with my last response to Mr. Redhawk. I am sorry that what I said offened you so much.

I do not apologise for saying that I didn't accept your answer in your first post as the be all, end all answer to the discussion at hand.

This had been a fairly good and enjoyable discussion. I stepped outside of that by trying to get some one to realize that I was just asking a question. That was wrong.

Some of you had been giving some really good answers or had made some excellent comments on the subject. I just feel bad that such a question and the resulting discussion offended someone that bad.

Crazyhorseconsulting

you arent a very good question asker. if you truly intended for this thread to have been informational you could have worded the first post in a different manner.

Okay, enlighten me, How Would You Have Worded It?

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

Now I am a native Texan, and proud of it...

If you're 'now' a native Texan, what were you before?

See how it was worded?

It was worded the way I talk, so that it would not sound as if I had recently moved to the state, and was not uised to the way we hunt down here.

I did not realize that this forum was being monitored by English majors, and that not placing a comma was a good excuse for people to jump to conclusions.

Sorry, I do not buy that analogy. Not using a comma, would not have created that much of a discrepancy in the way some people interpreted the post.

Well, I guess that you should learn not to write at you speak. You asked a question either from a philosophical or an emotional standpoint implying that you were trying to reach a satisfying answer. Every time you were GIVEN what you asked for, you kept changing the subject or the emphasis ON the initial question. One of life's trueisms is that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging.

Next time you think up a "question", make sure it's interrogative in nature and that you're looking for answers. If that's NOT the case, then you're not questioning at all, you're equivocating and offering you OPINION. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Sir, I do not believe it is in your job description anywhere that you can tell a 56 year old man how he is supposed to talk or ask a question. Now, if you can show me that it is, I want my walking papers cause I ain't working for you.

Now, did you understand that or do I need to draw a diagram.

I was not looking for a satisfying anything, I was trying to get some people, one of whom shall remain YOU, to understand what I was asking and that it was not some PROBLEM that I was dealing with.

I do not seem to remember telling anyone that they were misguided or from some other planet.

I believe you did, and have kept on making such allegations about myself and others, simply because in my case, I do not consider you the final authority on anything.

If after your first post and my response to it, instead of going from zero to pompous, you would have asked for a clarifacation on my question I would have been more than happy to try and re-phrase it or explain it better.

Also, I notice you list yourself as a Taxidermist, not an English major, so do you have the credentials to be telling anyone how they should ask a question. Please refer back to the first paragraph of this response.

Well Crazyhorse, seeing as how I'm 61, I don't know what your being 56 has to do with anything. It's a pretty sad litany to hear that after you reach a certain magic age you can afford to stop learning or being taught to interact more cognizantly. But I suppose it all goes back to that hole you've dug. It still isn't deep enough for you.

BTW as if it makes a shit, I did, in fact, major in English with a double major in biology. I am a free lance writer and a bunch of other crap that adds nothing to this discussion. I once had all that flowery stuff on here under my name but it seemed to offend some people, so I removed it. Can't please everyone so you'd better please yourself. Now, in all honesty, without scrolling back, do you even REMEMBER what your initial question was? At 56 that may be very important. LOL

Without looking back, my original question was. "When does a legal and trditional nunting method in one state or area, become just a "Shooting" event. I do believe that is pretty close to what I asked.

It seems like I also went on to give the example that people consider the hunting of whitetail deer from a blind watching a feeder, as "shooting", and not hunting, yet those same folks see nothing at all wrong in shooting Black Bear in virtually the same manner, yet they consider that hunting.

What I was trying to find out, was 1, Why people felt that way, and 2 if the species of animal in question was what was dictating that opinion.

I also remember that Geedubya, was one person that finally gave a reasonable, or at least I felt reasonable answer, "Personal Prejudice".

I also quite clearly remember your first response, stating that such conversations should not be had on an open forum, it was bad for all hunters.

As I stated in another post on this subject, I do not like being labeled as not being a real hunter, simply because of the way I have to hunt in most of Texas.

Also, you are right, I do not care what you majored in. You and a few to many other people wanted to read too much into a fairly simple minded post.

CHC,

Just two questions:

Did you really just call your original post, "a fairly simple minded post?"

Is English still the official language in Texas?



Joe

Since we are no longer discussing shooting, hunting, or anything related to firearms but instead have drifted into a discussion of commas, there is a pretty interesting book on that subject called "Eats, Shoots and Leaves".

The author starts off with a story about how a panda walks into a restaurant and orders a salad. It eats the salad, pulls out a handgun and starts firing. On the way out of the restaurant, one of the other patrons asks why it shot up the place. The panda says "Here. Read all about it." and tosses a descriptive brochure from the local zoo to the ground. The patron picks it up and reads "Pandas: native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

The misplaced comma places an entirely different meaning on the description. Sometimes a comma can be important.

The book is very funny and the author has a flair for the truly ridiculous as she gives a history of the comma, from its original usage in Greek plays through its first use in typesetting. She gives rules of usage but in a way that one doesn't mind learning because, like any true eccentric, this obscure bit of knowledge is obviously her passion and it is fun to indulge her obsessiveness.

What is fascinating to me is to find such interest in subjects like this on a hunting and shooting discussion board. I can't count how many threads I've seen here where people take others to task for grammar, diction, spelling, usage, etc. Guess you never know about folks, do you?

Ovis, the Texan form of english is mostly still in use here. And yes, I said, a "fairly simple minded post." Not sure what is wrong with that statement, since I didn't remember seeing anything when I joined this place about proper use of the English language. By "Simple Minded", I normally deal in fairly simple concepts and ideas. So when I ask a group, such as the membership of AR, I feel like I am asking some really knowledgeable people, more knowledgeable than myself on lots of subjects a reasonable question. I do not like nor intend to ask questions that require a 4 year degree in english or physics to be able to answer. I have a real hard time understanding, and again here is one of my favorite words, "WHY", so many folks want to try and read things in to a simple question. My advice to those of you that either want to correct my speech and typing, ignore my posts. If you want to laugh at them and have a good time, be my guest, just remember I don't handle personal attacks real well, and I hjave promised the Administrator that I would try and behave.

Daks, that was damn funny and was inserted in just the right place. Thanks for the post.