What's Wrong With This Picture? pun intended

[Ben Swenson]

Armed with heat seeking motion detecting infrared sensors? Besides, when did the fact that there have always been bad...fill in the blank....make it OK for more of the same?

Sorry, I'm not getting the connection here. Are you saying use of technology makes a bad hunter? We have different definitions of bad hunters, I guess. If hunter A uses heat-seeking motion-detecting infrared sensors and they kill one deer cleanly and safely and hunter B doesn't use any "bad" technology and they gut-shoot a deer that gets away and dies six hours later three miles away ... is hunter A the bad hunter? Are they both?
I'd say that the fixation on technology as the defining point of whether you're a "bad" hunter or not is misdirected.

If you need $10,000 worth of high tech to get a deer, you're probably not very talented, but if you kill your deer cleanly and according to the laws of your state, and use the meat, I won't complain a bit.

He uses cameras to scout deer in his absence, 4,600 per year. To me that is extreme, but so that I have some comparison, how many do you take a year? Any guess as to what is average for hunters who use cameras?

Maybe a couple rolls. If I had money to burn, I think it would be awesome to take a few thousand pictures a year. More pictures would mean I'd be more likely to get some really good ones. Keep in mind that a camera might take ten pictures of the same deer within a few minutes. Out of those, I might get one or two that are neat enough to show off. If he's got several cameras out there, he might get a few hundred of the same deer in the same day.

I guess my big issue with you is the way you try to make "fair chase" out to be an objective regulation that you define personally. Ain't so. And you don't have "tradition" to back you up, either. "Traditionally" hunters drove herds of bison of cliffs. "Traditionally", as fisherman was so kind to point out, the wealthy would hunt random animals from trains. "Traditionally", deer would be run down by dogs. The development of the concept of fair chase is a new one. A good one, but a new one - and not nearly the hard-and-fast concept that you proclaim it to be.

I don't think Mr. Drury violated any state laws in doing what he did. Indeed, to my knowledge he made clean kills on the number of tags he had lawfully purchased. How he tracked them doesn't matter to me. If he can crouch by his kill and feel good about it - feel honest about it - then that's good enough for me. If for you to feel good about your kill you have to walk blindfolded into unfamiliar woods, that's fine too. If my mentor has to use a bow and pass anything but the biggest bucks, that's great.

Drury didn't manipulate the actions of the deer. They weren't fenced or forced to stay in the area. He observed them and harvested a couple. That he used cameras to do some of the observation is utterly immaterial. It is absolutely equivalent to someone asking another person who is familiar with the land where the deer are most likely to be. He is not a bad hunter because he does things differently than you.

 

[fisherman66]

Funny that you should mention relaxed fishing. My Brother and I have a planned fishing trip for two weeks from now. We decided that we are going to fish from the bank, with el-cheapo spincast reels, plastic bobbers and minnows.

You're using live bait??? How unethical!! I'd expect a traditionalist such as yourself to carve a plug from balsa.

Sarcasm replaces discourse - how cool is that? Hopefully we will return to hunting by fair chase methods, but reality is that we won't - we will continue down this slippery slope until people are saying it is just fine to put transmitters on the deer so that they can be tracked down at will.....

The truth is I admire your hunting style and I would like to emulate it as I become more skilled. I also think you are riding a nose bleed high horse when you suggest everyone behave such as yourself.

 

[butch50]

Sorry, I'm not getting the connection here.

What is fair chase hunting? It certainly can not be strictly and narrowly defined, but it can be reasonably well defined. Only a decade ago, two at the most, the only advantage the average hunter had over deer was his own brain, and how far away he could kill from. Correct me if I am wrong about that. The average hunter did not have any advantage over the deer except those two things. Generally the deer retained the advantage over the hunter because of it's superior senses, it's well honed defense mechanisms, and it's superlative knowledge of it's home terrain. Uncommon was the hunter who killed a deer every season.

Then along comes technology, and the hunter is gaining more and more advantages over deer every year. At the pace that technology is advancing, and the uses that technology is being put to for hunting purposes, the deer will someday be at a complete disadvantage to the new age techno-gadget equipped hunter. We are in the early to middle stages of a technology creep that is ruining hunting. We are much like the frog in the slowly heated water.

Should we just sit by and watch as technology takes over hunting? Don't any of those gadgets that I listed early on in this thread at least make you wonder what is going on here?

There is another whole fair chase issue dealing with high fences and feeders that I don't want to go into on this thread. This one is about technology.

You're using live bait??? How unethical!! I'd expect a traditionalist such as yourself to carve a plug from balsa.

Live bait, you bet. I haven't used live bait since I was 10 years old - that is really returning to tradition.

I also think you are riding a nose bleed high horse when you suggest everyone behave such as yourself

I hate it that I come of as you characterize me - but I don't know how else to try and get my point across. I am shouting as loud as I can at you that hunting is degenerating, technology is becoming TOO GOOD for hunting.

Here is a science fiction hunt for you to consider: I have 100 acres to hunt on. I make a grid of the area and mount thermal-mass-sensor/transmitter on a grid over the entire 100 acres. Say I mount 200 thermal-mass-sensor/transmitters. These things are programmed to pick up on deer, by sensing body heat (they are effective at long distances) and measuring it against the mass of that heat - then when it does "sense" a deer, it transmits a signal to a computer that is back at the deer camp. The computer takes in data from all of the sensors and can plot the location of every deer in that 100 acres, in real time. The computer tracks past position and current position, and can even project where each deer is going as well, if I bought the add on software that has an AI based decision making tree from data base information collected nation wide. When I get up in the morning I check the computer to decide where I will hunt that morning, and using a palm pilot like device, (and a hand held thermal-mass sensor for the final stalk) I can stay in constant touch with the computer to stay current with all the deer.

Far fetched? I hope so, although I suspect the technology is already available. That is one simple scenario.

 

[fisherman66]

You have gotten you point across. I think most people believe what you are saying. I do for sure. I just think you make a poor advocate when you mix personal freedoms in.

If I own the land I should be able to manage the deer population as I see fit; within the boundries of the law, using the tools of my choice.

Is that more like ranching than hunting? Absolutely.

I'll call it that. "Honey, have you seen the rifle, I'm going ranching."

My issue is with personal freedoms, not the method you encourage.

 

[butch50]

If I own the land I should be able to manage the deer population as I see fit; within the boundries of the law, using the tools of my choice.

That leads into that whole high fence thing I don't want to go into.

But, could we not pass hunting regulations that restrict the use of technological aids? Remeber when those electronic fish caller gizmos came on the market a long time ago? They were apparently so effective that they were made illegal very quickly. Why not make electronic ears and infra-red sensors, and automatic cameras and robot decoys illegal too?

 

[fisherman66]

You have a problem with all those gadgets for RANCHING?

I thought we finally could meet in the middle.

 

[butch50]

OK, here we go.

If you own land, and you want to raise deer as alternative livestock, then as far as I am concerned the game laws and the game seasons should not apply to what you do on your land, with certain stipulations up front.

First: You hve to high fence your land so that your deer stay on your land, and wild deer do not wander onto your land.

Second: Right after high fencing your land you should call in the State wildlife biologists to make a survey of the deer trapped inside.

Third: You write a check to your State Wildlife management fund of $2,500 for each deer trapped inside your land, to pay the State for the resource that you are now commandeering.

Alternatively you can fence it in, and remove all wild deer to outside your fence; then stock it with deer that you can buy at the San Antonio alternative live stock auction.

After that what you do on your land inside your high fence with the deer that you have purchased is 100% your business, just as it is with cows and horses and goats and pigs and sheep.

But if you are hunting on private property for wild deer that can roam across your land at their will, then I say you should be hunting under the laws of the land, and hopefully under the ethics of fair chase.

 

[Trip20]

As someone pointed out, a lot of urbanites are involved in hunting which require them to take off from work, plan an expensive mini-vacation...etc. They want to bag a deer. Period.

That is true and so WRONG! Hunting isn't about bagging a deer every trip. In fact, these same people spend so much money on hunting that they feel that they MUST bag a deer. The instant gratification group sucks. Pure and simple sucks.

See, this is why your gettin the "holier than thou" and "nose-bleed high horse" comments. You think you have the right to tell people like the guy in the above scenerio he should not expect to come home with meat just because due to his lifestyle he's turned to high-tech camo, a tree stand, a trail camera, and the latest bow technology.

Like a pimp giving a swift backhand to a hooker, fisherman66 said:

Yes, gizmos and gadgets are rediculious at some point. And the more you use the further it takes you from nature and fair chase. Who gets to draw that line? The answer to that question is beautiful: You get to draw the line for you.

*bolding added*

 

[butch50]

Like a pimp giving a swift backhand to a hooker, fisherman66 said:

So Fisherman66 is a pimp and I am a hooker? This in a discussion about hunting ethics? Lovely, just delightfully lovely.

You think you have the right to tell people like the guy in the above scenerio he should not expect to come home with meat just because due to his lifestyle he's turned to high-tech camo, a tree stand, a trail camera, and the latest bow technology.

I can not respond to your comment because it is a non sequitur (non se·qui·tur NOUN: An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.)

Try again, harder this time.

 

[Ben Swenson]

Only a decade ago, two at the most, the only advantage the average hunter had over deer was his own brain, and how far away he could kill from. Correct me if I am wrong about that. The average hunter did not have any advantage over the deer except those two things. Generally the deer retained the advantage over the hunter because of it's superior senses, it's well honed defense mechanisms, and it's superlative knowledge of it's home terrain. Uncommon was the hunter who killed a deer every season.

That's an interesting theory.
Perhaps some of the older hunters would like to comment.
Several I've spoken to have told me that human hunters have always used whatever advantages they could ... even ones we might consider unethical today.
In the state of Indiana, it is illegal to hunt over bait (anything you bring to the area for animal consumption). In the past, many hunters itching for an advantage would ignore this regulation. Many still do, for that matter. Some years ago, I went hunting with a friend at a cabin his family owns. Some distant friend of the family had gotten the idea he could hunt there and decided to bring along several friends of his (2 of them police officers, at that). There were about six people there when we drove up to the cabin. Those hunters didn't have a bit of electronic equipment with them except cheap two-way radios. They ended up leaving without problem, but when we started walking away from the cabin we noticed that they had cut up apples and scattered corn all around the back porch. We hunted farther out, but it was obvious that the intent was to sit on the porch and blast a deer when it walked up.

People who want an advantage will find it. If you make it illegal to bait, people will develop (for instance) a DeerTrak5000 electronic sign reader. If you make it illegal to use that electronic tracking system, they'll develop some unbelievably effective scent lure - the SnortMaster Killit binary scent bomb. If you make the scent lures illegal, they'll make a man-portable hunting lodge with all the comforts of home and gun ports and they'll hike it out a ways, sleep in it and be ready to kill deer as soon as they wake up. If you make it illegal to use the HuntSleepKill kit, they'll come up with a DeerStunner hand grenade or a SoooperSniffer electronic scent reader. If you ban that, they'll develop something else.

You said that ten or twenty years ago a hunter had only his own brain. That's not true. A hunter had a powerful rifle, possibly some optics, effective camoflauge and insulated clothing. They had scents and lures and baits and decoys and all manner of little tricks both legal and illegal. Hunters use their brain to seek out other advantages, and as sure as you outlaw one advantage they'll either seek out another legal advantage or resort to more effective illegal advantages.

If someone does decide to use real-time thermal imaging to hunt on their own property, and they take the legal number of allowed deer, that's fine with me. It wouldn't make for a hunt that I would enjoy, but their hunting like that doesn't affect me. I don't think the SoooperSniffer/DeerStunner/HuntSleepKill/SnortMaster/DeerTrak 5000 equipped hunter is getting as much from the hunt as I am (even if he's successful and I'm not) but his enjoyment and connection (call it spiritual if you want) to the hunt is not my business.

And here is the true sticking point for us. I'm not militant about the techniques that other hunters use. I don't suffer by other hunters using technology - they do. It isn't my duty to make sure they have a good hunt, or a hunt they'll tell their kids about, a hunt they'll be proud of. Their problem, not mine. You see "your" sport degenerating because someone else doesn't do things the way you want them to. Is it affecting how you hunt? Is it affecting how your kids hunt? Is it affecting how your grandkids will hunt? Well now, that depends on you, doesn't it? But as long as you are hunting with good methods and whatever your definition of "fair chase" is, and as long as you're bringing up people to hunt like you do - don't worry about it. It isn't your job to make sure everyone hunts "the Butch way".

 

[butch50]

Several I've spoken to have told me that human hunters have always used whatever advantages they could ... even ones we might consider unethical today.

No doubt of that. Subsitence hunters did what they had to do to survive and commercial hunters killed as much as the possibly could. If I was hunting for survival, I wouldn't be talking about hunting ethics - I would drive the deer over a cliff if I had to.

I want the sport to be based upon a nearly level playing field between the hunter and the deer. With strong ethics. Technology is too good now to be using against deer, it tilts the playing field too much.

For example: At one time spot lighting deer wasn't illegal. It wasn't illegal because there weren't any portable lights good enough for it to have even come to anyones awareness to make it illegal. Then portable lights reached a point of development to where spotlighting deer was not only feasible, but people were doing it. Eventually spotlighting deer was made illegal. That is an example of a technology that came into being, was misused, and was outlawed. I am saying the same thing about a lot of the new technology. A lot of these new technological edges are too much, they ruin the sport, and they should not be used.

If you make it illegal to use the HuntSleepKill kit, they'll come up with a DeerStunner hand grenade or a SoooperSniffer electronic scent reader. If you ban that, they'll develop something else.

Agreed, they will, but that is no reason to accept what they are doing either.

You said that ten or twenty years ago a hunter had only his own brain. That's not true. A hunter had a powerful rifle, possibly some optics, effective camoflauge and insulated clothing. They had scents and lures and baits and decoys and all manner of little tricks both legal and illegal.

OK I over-generalized, my error. I did say they had their brain, and the ability to kill from distance which means a rifle. Yes, they also had binoculars, and some very crude and rather ineffective scent products compared to what is available today. I am not aware of any decoys being used until recently, and even those decoys have only recently become very lifelike and robotic. The tricks they had came from their brain, and I imagine that it is possible that some of those tricks were illegal - but illegal is illegal, then or now.

And here is the true sticking point for us. I'm not militant about the techniques that other hunters use. I don't suffer by other hunters using technology - they do. It isn't my duty to make sure they have a good hunt, or a hunt they'll tell their kids about, a hunt they'll be proud of. Their problem, not mine. You see "your" sport degenerating because someone else doesn't do things the way you want them to. Is it affecting how you hunt? Is it affecting how your kids hunt? Is it affecting how your grandkids will hunt? Well now, that depends on you, doesn't it? But as long as you are hunting with good methods and whatever your definition of "fair chase" is, and as long as you're bringing up people to hunt like you do - don't worry about it. It isn't your job to make sure everyone hunts "the Butch way".

Whose duty was it to protest the use of portable lights to spot light deer with? If you were a hunter when that was becoming a problem, would you have had the same response?

 

[454c]

Man I should've known better than to click on this thread.I just should've.

I gotta ask,what exactly does an electronic fish call sound like?

And when did hookers become part of hunting?I missed that chapter in the hunting regs.Is this included in the price of the tags?

As far as high tech gizmos,why does anybody need them?We just load up in the jeep and shoot anything that jumps up.Oooops!Sorry Butch.I should've asked if you was sitting down before I typed that one.(J/K)

Back on topic,every hunter has his/her own ethics.

 

[fisherman66]

This in a discussion about hunting ethics?

NO, for you this is a discussion about morals.

For me it is a discussion about ethics.

I agree that hunters OUGHT to act ethically. You pass JUDGEMENT on on how they act.


When you understand the difference between morals and ethics we will be on the same page.

 

[butch50]

The fish call sounded like a worm snoring. IIRC it made a clicking or buzzing kind of sound. From what I heard it worked great on Cottonmouths too!

Back on topic,every hunter has his/her own ethics.

Here is a definition for ethics that I will throw out for you to think about:
The standards for behavior expected of and by hunters and commonly followed throughout the sport, whether expressly communicated by hunting laws or not.

 

[butch50]

When you understand the difference between morals and ethics we will be on the same page.

Well, let's discuss that.

Morals definition: The accepted standards of right and wrong that are usually applied to personal behavior.
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072480823/student_view0/glossary.html

Ethics definition: The philosophical study of moral values and rules.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:ethics

As I understand it then, morals are the individual building blocks for personal beliefs of right and wrong, and ethics is a branch of philosophy dedicated to the study of those building blocks and their final assemblies. What's your take on it?

 

[fisherman66]

The standards for behavior expected of and by hunters and commonly followed throughout the sport, whether expressly communicated by hunting laws or not.

You have subplanted morals for ethics.


A. Descriptive Ethics or Morals: a study of human behavior as a consequence of beliefs about what is right or wrong, or good or bad, insofar as that behavior is useful or effective. In a sense, morals is the study of what is thought to be right and what is generally done by a group, society, or a culture. In general, morals correspond to what actually is done in a society.



1. Morals is best studied as psychology, sociology, or anthropology. Different societies have different moral codes.



2. Morals is a descriptive science; it seeks to establish "what is true" in a society or group.



3. Often morals are considered to be the shared ideals of a group, irrespective of whether they are practiced.



4. In the sense of descriptive ethics or morals, different persons, groups, and societies have different moral standards. This observation is seen as true by all sides.




a. We would commit the fallacy of equivocation to conclude from this observation that there is no universal ethical (q.v., below under I, B) standard.




b. We can only conclude by observation that there appears to be or is no universal moral standard. For more on this distinction see the notes on the Case Study: Moral Rules and Ethical Standards.




c. This confusion between descriptive and prescriptive ethics occurs quite often by persons untrained in philosophical analysis.


B. Normative Ethics or Prescriptive Ethics: the study of moral problems which seeks to discover how one ought to act, not how one does in fact act or how one thinks one should act.



1. More specifically, (normative) ethics is the discipline concerned with judgments of setting up norms for ...




a. When an act is right or wrong--e.g., is it wrong to liter on campus when we pay someone to pick up the litter.




b. What kinds of things are good or desirable—i.e., is knowledge to ge sought for its own sake or for money; is money to be sought for its own sake or for power? And so on.




c. When a person deserves blame, reward, or neither—e.g., a person who stole your wallet returns it intact two weeks later, how doe you judge his actions? What is appropriate to say?



2. From the terms introduced so far, you can see that different things can be meant by the terms: ethical, unethical, moral, immoral, nonmoral, amoral, and nonethical.




E.g., how would you describe the action of a mechanic who throws a tire iron over in a corner after changing a tire? Think about probable consequences both mental and physical.

 

[butch50]

Fisherman66 - it appears that you copied somebody's opinion , with which I disagree because it is lumping morals and ethics right into the same bucket as indistinguishable - did you read and understand that before you copied it?

These posts are happening so fast that some of them are tripping over each other, see my post just previous to this one, that was being typed at the same time as this one. I am saying something entirely different.

I am going to be gone all weekend, will pick this back up next week. Hope everyone has a good weekend.

 

[454c]

Useing that definition,it will still depend on who and even where you ask.

If you walk into a bar in texas and yell out "People who hunt in blinds over feeders are unethical" ,you would probably be thrown out in worse shape than you went in.If you did the same thing in wyo.,you might get drinks on the house.
This is just an example as I haven't hunted in either state.

 

[Trip20]

You think you have the right to tell people like the guy in the above scenerio he should not expect to come home with meat just because due to his lifestyle he's turned to high-tech camo, a tree stand, a trail camera, and the latest bow technology.

I can not respond to your comment because it is a non sequitur (non se•qui•tur NOUN: An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.)

You cannot repond to my comment because ____________ (insert appropriate dodge technique).

Thanks for the english language lesson, butch. Nonetheless, through out this entire thread, and another thread about muzzle loaders, you've been telling us all how you feel we should hunt, what we should be able to use for equipment (and not use), and......etc. I don't need to post your quotes, one only needs to read the threads.

My conclusion does follow the premises and evidence put forth by your inferences and conclusions in earlier posts of yours. Therefore, your pithy definition need not apply. Although, bowing out with a witty dictionary quote is much easier than actually defending yourself.

You must know, through out this thread, and the other, I've respected your hunting ethics. Your way and my way are closer than you might think. Believe it, or not.

What I do not respect is your idea that unless it's done your way - it's an "abomination". People who do things other than your way get called "slobs hunters", "morons"...., they "should get disgusted with themselves when looking in the mirror",...etc. C'mon now.

Hiding behind a smoke screen of tradition is bogus. Tradition is a relative thing - your traditions are just different than others, and apparently different than those who make the law. There are probably some who believe unless we're out in the field with bare hands and loin clothes that it's unfair. Well be my guest, I'd rather take my Remington 700 and some warm clothes. Oh and I take a cell phone (turned off) in case there's an accident - that probably makes me a slob hunter I dunno.

What you view is a deterioration of a sport, may be what others view as it's possible savior. Numbers are down. In my latest F&S (talk about a rag that throws products in your face) there is an article that states (paraphrasing wording but not numbers) "for every 100 hunters only 69 take their place". That is the average among all 50 states. There are states where it's as low as the teens... That's not good in anyone's book.

 

[fisherman66]

Fisherman66 - it appears that you copied somebody's opinion , with which I disagree because it is lumping morals and ethics right into the same bucket as indistinguishable - did you read and understand that before you copied it?

Yes; I copied it and yes, I understand it.

They are not lumped together.

Morals have a greater social element to ethics and tend to have a very broad acceptance and provoke a "Judgement". Morals are far more about good and bad than other values. We thus judge others more strongly on morals than ethics.

I agree with your morals. You can (and are in this case) right individually. The problem occurs when you apply it to society at large. You have no right to judge. Do what's right for you (and advocate for what you think is right, but you don't have the right to pass judgement on those who are not like you.

I have enjoyed the debate. I wish you nothing but the best. I hope to one day hunt with a recurve bow to take my first real trophy. That is, in my mind, justification for hanging a head on my wall. If other's don't share that justification -- it won't matter to me because it is a moral issue not an ethical one.

I suppose I could be baited back into the conversation, but at this point I don't know what else to say. We disagree.