What's Wrong With This Picture? pun intended

Man will always have an advantage over deer when hunting regardless of the method. Man can reason and work in coordination. If you limit hunters to clubs or spears we still have an advantage. We can always manipulate the deer into predictable movement by working together. The reason hunters decades ago did not have as much success as now, is there are just a heck of a lot more deer out there now. The reason there are more deer is due to all the revenue generated through the sales of hunting licenses, guns, archery equipment, ammo, and the thousands of gadgets that people buy thinking they help them succeed. If you could do a search, I'm sure there have been thousands of "aides" through the years that were going to be the demise of the herds, yet there are more deer now than ever before. And as to the survival of all the gadgets, look in any hunter's closet or trash and that's where most of them will be.
 
I want the sport to be based upon a nearly level playing field between the hunter and the deer.
Click to expand...
That's absolutely preposterous.
There is nothing level on the hunting playing field. Nor should there be. A level playing field means mutual combat. A nearly level playing field would be hunting with a baseball bat and a dirtbike with a quarter-full tank (or better still a horse and tree limb). You don't do that and I don't know of a state that would allow that. No bow, rifle or shotgun has any equivalent defense in nature other than hiding - which basic skill, blind luck and the law of averages can easily defeat.

You don't mean "nearly level playing field" at all. You mean "Butch level playing field." Rules, traditions and regulations - all decided by Butch.

And in your "nearly level playing field" where you really mean "not killing a deer every time you go out" wouldn't it mean that the better the hunter got, the fewer advantages he would be permitted to use? Not based on his comfort level or choice, but based on his skill level. Conversely, a poor hunter should - in your world with this balanced "nearly level playing field" - be allowed more drastic advantages (hunting over bait, spotlighting, whatever). Right?

Butch, I know what you're trying to say but you're also trying to make yourself out to be "fair" and the kind of guy who gives deer "a nearly equal playing field". Ain't so. You're a hunter. From the sounds of it, an ethical hunter. There is nothing "fair" about hunting - even ethical hunting - nor should there be. It is an inherently unfair sport where one participant may very likely end up dead. That is the nature of the beast.

For those of you still confused as to what Butch is trying to convey, let me translate.

He wants there to be a fixed level of difficulty for hunting that can be overcome with experience. He wants less experienced hunters to have a poor chance of getting a deer and more experienced hunters to have a better chance. Butch wants you to use "traditional" weapons, methods and technology. By this he means the weapons, methods and technology that he uses.

I'm still curious as to what makes Mr. Drury's camera system so much worse than asking someone familiar with a piece of property where the deer run?
 
I agree hunting ethics are all about how you specificlly feel is based on how you learnt about hunting and where you are such as that comment about Texas and hunting over bait to some its bad to others its ok :)

Personally I dont like hunting over bait but if thats the way you hunt I wont say anything about it after all hunting over bait is a pretty old thing that has been done for a long time in the history of hunting. Using camaras to make a peice of land into the Truman Show isnt a old traditional way to go hunting. :cool:

Dimitri
 
D,

What exactly does "the old traditional way" mean?


Things fall apart The center can not hold
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

We can control our self (or at least accept responsibility for our act.)
You can't make other responsible. You just can't.

While Yeats invisioned the destruction of our traditions, I find it more reasonable to see it as (to use a poo poo word) evolution of our traditions. The availablity technology forces change upon our sensibilities. You can't stop that. You can only be responsible for you.
 
Fisher traditions are things to stay the same and last a long time generation to generation. Evolution of our traditions isnt a good thing in my mind :o

All the traditions I know and am part of havnt changed for along time and changing them will make them something new and arnt traditions anymore but something new and not what the tradition really is.
The availablity technology forces change upon our sensibilities
Click to expand...
I dont know about that I mean if you want to stick to something in the way it was ment you dont have to use the technology. Technology may or maynot have been avalible in the passed but you dont have to use it. If you want to hunt like you learnt how to hunt when you were little and want to pass the same thing down to the next generation and not include anything new and modern then you dont have too. :cool:

Its up to the individual if they want to stick to the old form of hunting that their grand father taught to there father and there father taught them. Or any other individual that taught you how to hunt in the same ways that they learnt a few decades ago. This passing down of the same core "ethics" and ways for people to hunt is what makes hunting traditional in the sense that someone from X location will get passed down a different way to hunt then someone from Y location. :)

Hunting traditions for different people can be many things and be completly different from each other from different locations and different cultures. But one thing remains the same about all old hunting traditions the use of hi-tech equipment wasnt a part of hunting. Hunting invovles skill and knowlage ether passed down or learnt through experiance and using something to remove the need to have skill or knowlage isnt really hunting I think. :)

Personally I am going to stick to the stuff my hunting friends and my father have been teaching me about hunting because it works and its what there parents did and it worked then too. Why mess with a good thing ?? :D

Dimitri
 
I'm sorry. You missed my meaning.

Traditions are constantly under assault by new methods and means. You can't help that. You are not aware of changes in your hunting, but to live in a changing world means to go with the ebb and flow. You can't help it. 100 years ago very few people could shoot game beyond 100 yard. Now it is possible to shoot accurately with absolutely no hold over to almost 400 yard. Fair???? That's not the right perspective when making generalizations. Regardless of fair or not, it will be done and new traditions will be made. Tradition are perceived as sacred, but they are always changing. When that kid that has been practicing with a 220 swift shoots a doe at 375 yards he has every right to claim his piece of satisfaction. Do I think a 220Swift is a good deer rifle or that was an appropriate shot? Does not matter one iotta. Did his great grand father do the same? No.

Value the sport over your ideals.
 
I understand what you mean Fisher. :)

But why use technology to the point that your skills dont matter anymore and only how good is some piece of equipment you bought ?? Personally I find that cheating. Its just like doing a test in school and using cheat notes if your cheat notes are good you will get a A but if you forget them or dont use them since you dont know really whats on the test you will fail. Hunting to me is kinda like the same way.

Shooting something at 375yards is more skill then your gun. Doesnt matter if your gun can do it or not there are alot of factors that are mixed into a successful shot or a miss.

If Mark can hit a target at 300 yards with iron sights doesnt mean Bill can shoot that good with Marks gun if Bill couldnt hit the side of a barn at 100 yards no ??

Dimitri
 
No, you don't understand what I mean.

That's OK, enjoy hunting and teach others by being a good example (not preaching the way.)
 
Fisher everyone has a right to do what they belive and want within reason and the law.

All these posts are just what I think about hunting and are therefor my opinion :D

Personally the only time someone could say to someone no dont do this do that is if your hunting as a group and the group didnt aprove of such things. :)

Dimitri
 
Good Googlallymoogalay Butch! Everyone by now well understands what you are talking about-hunt your way or don't hunt, period.

Out of everything I can find, approximately 750,000 hunting licences are issued each year, and the harvest is 200-250K on average per year. If this feared technology was going to wipe out the deer herds, I do not see it-in fact, I don't see a dent in it.

As it is, I can take 4 white tailed deer where I hunt by law, and one additional if I choose to turn it over to the state for processing to be given to needy families or whatever.

All yer screaming and hollering is like the golf addict who buys every dingaling gimmick that comes down the pipe. Fact is, if you don't know how to swing a club, no amount of gizmos is gonna make you any more successful.

Same way for hunting. Yeah, if you want to give the camera makers a boost in their trade, you can go and buy one and wire your particular area for technicolor. Is it going to help you? Not if you don't know which end of the rifle to pick up, not if you don't know WHERE to place the cameras which have about a 20-30 yard range, and even if you do, and know how to shoot, what does it gain you? An empty wallet to be sure, and unless he/she wants their weapons, vehicle and even more money confiscated, Mr/s technohunter is going to stop at the limit imposed by their license.

Right now, we have more deer in Texas than at the beginning of the 1900's. On most any given night on my way from Llano to Mason where I hunt, I am going to see about 40 deer just next to the fences on that 32 mile drive, and likely a dozen road kills in addition. The only time this has not been the case was due to the drought and die off back in 96, IIRC.

Be happy with your hunt, and don't get so all up in the air that others don't hunt the way you do. So long as its legal, let find their happiness too. I'm sure that when the inventor comes up with bambi-seeking bullets which only home in on racks of 14 points or more that the wildlife commission is gonna step in.
 
People have used every trick they can from the beginning of time to gain an advantage. They even used to stampede and drive animals off of cliffs by the thousands to their deaths. For food and clothing, that is...certainly doesn't make it sporting, tho...in these days where do you draw the line? Tree Stands, Camo, Scent Lock, attractants, etc...it's a fine line, but you do need SOMETHING, or you'll never, ever bag a deer because of the sense of smell and ability to run and hide.
 
from 454c: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.
Click to expand...
Yes, you would get differing results from differing parts of the country, but the fact that some people support hunting over bait, doesn't make it the right thing to do. Same with hunting with electronic aids, a lot of people use them and like them, but that doesn't make it right.

Trip: 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.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the concept that increasing the number of hunters by lowering the standards of the sport is a good thing. The number of hunters is not relevant to using technological aids that put the hunter at an ever increasing advantage over the deer. At some point the use of ever more powerful technological aids must stop. If we simply want to increase the number of hunters, then all we have to do is allow hunting from the side of the road, allow spot-lighting at night, etc - in other words, allow the sport to deteriorate even further so that more and more people are attracted to it.

fisherman66: 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.
Click to expand...
OK, but remember that hunting is a sport, it is defined by "rules" that create an artificial reality. Sport rules are developed around the creation of the sport, not around basic morals. For instance, the rule about not hunting at night isn't based on any moral premise, it is based on a rule designed to keep the sport in a certain condition.

Ben:That's absolutely preposterous.
There is nothing level on the hunting playing field. Nor should there be. A level playing field means mutual combat. A nearly level playing field would be hunting with a baseball bat and a dirtbike with a quarter-full tank (or better still a horse and tree limb). You don't do that and I don't know of a state that would allow that. No bow, rifle or shotgun has any equivalent defense in nature other than hiding - which basic skill, blind luck and the law of averages can easily defeat.
Click to expand...
Hunting as a sport is based on the premise that it is a challenge for us to kill a deer. We can tilt the playing field so far in our advantage that we could kill deer nearly on demand. Spotlighting is a good example of that. Using electronic devices that overcome the deer's ability to avoid us would tilt the field so much in our favor that eventually it won't be called "hunting" any longer. The deer have far superior senses than ours, with the ability to kill at distance and the use of our superior thinking ability, we can kill deer. It should be a challenge to kill a deer. Shouldn't it?

David: All yer screaming and hollering is like the golf addict who buys every dingaling gimmick that comes down the pipe. Fact is, if you don't know how to swing a club, no amount of gizmos is gonna make you any more successful.
Click to expand...
David, your last post had so many points to it that it is hard to respond to them all, but this one seems to sum them up. What I am afraid of is that technology is in fact making giant strides agains the deer's ability to evade the hunter. Golf gizmos don't generally improve a golfers game, but mostly because the PGA has set some very strict limitations on technology. If the PGA removed those limitations then you would see 450 yard drives routinely, and they would sure enough change the game into something else. The technological devices that I have listed are just the beginning of what is happening to deer hunting - the devices are going to get better and better and better every year. The various wildlife management agencies are not doing what the PGA does - there appear to be no limitations at all on what technology a hunter can use, none zip zilch nada. I suspect that at some point in the future you are going to say to yourself, this has gone too far, I am just saying it before you do.

You also made the point of the need to kill more deer due to increasing deer herds. That may be necessary to manage the deer, but it is not necessarily a part of the sport of hunting. If TPWD deems it necessary to trim the herd more, they can simply raise the limit on how many you can kill per year.

People have used every trick they can from the beginning of time to gain an advantage. They even used to stampede and drive animals off of cliffs by the thousands to their deaths. For food and clothing, that is...certainly doesn't make it sporting, tho...in these days where do you draw the line? Tree Stands, Camo, Scent Lock, attractants, etc...it's a fine line, but you do need SOMETHING, or you'll never, ever bag a deer because of the sense of smell and ability to run and hide.
Click to expand...
Yes, people have and will always contine to use whatever they can get away with, and some things that are flat out illegal. Subsistence hunting and sport hunting are apples and oranges now - it used to be that all hunting was for survival, then there was a period of time where there was survival hunting and sport huntinge going on in various forms, but now in the USA
 
Continued:

hunting is a sport, and as a sport it has rules, and those rules are designed to keep it a sport. As a sport we should have self imposed limitations, called rules, that define what is and what is not acceptable technique. I would like to see the techniques limited in order to keep the sport a sport that is recognizable from generation to generation, and to give the deer a sporting chance under fair chase hunting techniques.
 
Mike P.:No more sights of any kind. Just a bead. Got to give them deer a sporting chance after all.
Click to expand...

Well then, what is it that you believe? That they shouldn't have any chance at all? What are your core beliefs on hunting?
 
My core beliefs: this whole thing that you're all up in arms about really is much ado about nothing. If you don't like it, then don't do it. Unless you're catching them barehanded and wringing their neck, you don't have a leg to stand on with your complaints.
 
Hunting as a sport is based on the premise that it is a challenge for us to kill a deer. We can tilt the playing field so far in our advantage that we could kill deer nearly on demand. Spotlighting is a good example of that. Using electronic devices that overcome the deer's ability to avoid us would tilt the field so much in our favor that eventually it won't be called "hunting" any longer. The deer have far superior senses than ours, with the ability to kill at distance and the use of our superior thinking ability, we can kill deer.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I personally have no problem with others who want to spotlight deer. As long as they're killing the legal amount for which they have tags, I don't care.

I, for one, wouldn't enjoy a spotlighted hunt, but that's me.
It should be a challenge to kill a deer. Shouldn't it?
Click to expand...
I like it to be. I'm just not sure why you or I have to tell others what level of challenge hunting must be for them.
As a sport we should have self imposed limitations, called rules, that define what is and what is not acceptable technique. I would like to see the techniques limited in order to keep the sport a sport that is recognizable from generation to generation, and to give the deer a sporting chance under fair chase hunting techniques.
Click to expand...
Okay, so self-imposed by butch for everyone?

You want a sport people can recognize six generations from now? How about instead of waving our arms in horror at someone using technology to do some scouting, we teach the next generation. Instead of looking down our noses at someone who hunts differently, lets instruct our kids, grandkids and - if we're lucky - great grandkids the "right" way of hunting. The truth is, as pointed out earlier, traditions vary from state to state. The terrain is different. The deer are different. The weather is different. The hunting is different. The traditions have developed differently.

Whereas some folks here think nothing of stand hunting over a feeder, others won't take any less than stalking in unfamiliar territory. Some people have 10 acres to hunt, some have 2,000. Some think having a GPS is okay, others think that ruins the sport for the people who have studied the land and know it well. Some say a scope is fine, others won't touch anything fancier than fixed irons. If you want your version of the sport to survive and thrive, teach it, but don't rely on laws and regulations to do it for you.

Some folks will be tempted by the idea of an easy kill. Some will find that easy kill in technology. Others will hunt without technology, or with less technology (and if they're good or lucky, might still find that easy kill).

Mike,
No more sights of any kind. Just a bead.
Click to expand...
I took my first deer using a foster slug out of a smoothbore 20 gauge with a single bead sight.
Worked for me!
 
Code: 
If you want your version of the sport to survive and thrive, teach it, but don't rely on laws and regulations to do it for you.

BINGO!

Don't know about you, Butch, but I have two small freezers, and by the time I get done with the hunt, I have no more room. Thats fine, but if you are suggesting current hunters take more game to keep the herds manageable, are there fair chase rules on a frigidaire???

The heck with all these RULES-other than safety and not getting greedy. I go hunting to quit thinking about all the rules I have to follow just to make it to the beer store, and I don't even drink!
 
butch50 said:
Trip20 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the concept that increasing the number of hunters by lowering the standards of the sport is a good thing. The number of hunters is not relevant to using technological aids that put the hunter at an ever increasing advantage over the deer. At some point the use of ever more powerful technological aids must stop. If we simply want to increase the number of hunters, then all we have to do is allow hunting from the side of the road, allow spot-lighting at night, etc - in other words, allow the sport to deteriorate even further so that more and more people are attracted to it.
Click to expand...
Butch... see, that's not the concept in my statement. And where the heck does "lowering standards" come into anything I said? How does that go again? Ah, yes:
butch50 said:
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.)
Click to expand...
I thought this was a discussion about "tradition" vs. evolving technology. At least that's what I've been talking about all this time, in lieu of "lowering standards".

One of the biggest problems is that there is little tradition left in hunting because there was no tradition to begin with. That is, there are more hunters than you might realize, who's grandfather or father didn't pass down a darn thing. They've picked it up on their own. A lot of these hunters are going to the gun shop and picking up the latest technology for each season, not knowing that being more "traditional" may highten the experience. And, there have always been, and will always be, hunters who aren't in it for the "experience" that you get from a more primitive weapon. These aren't necessarily bad people - they just get something different out of hunting than traditionalists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top