on ethics and fair chase

[elkoholic]

While I know there is a propensity for some to get a little hot under the collar on these issues, I am curious as to the varying opinions and perhaps the "why" of those opinions. As our technology continues to advance and the drive to succeed at any cost is fueled by the "hunting industry" I feel we are in a downward spiral in the meaning of what it is all about. So. Here goes.

If it were possible to eliminate (it's gone) all scent, sound and sight from detection by your intended quarry, would you? Would you consider this to be ethical or fair chase?

My answer. I believe that fair chase requires that the animal hunted must be allowed the use of all of it's senses and that the total elimination of even one of them is not only a violation of fair chase, but would also be unethical. I do believe that one needs to minimize their presence while hunting in order to be consistently successful, but I do think that using technology to overcome our shortcomings as a means to put more "bone" on the wall is putting more importance on the kill, instead of the hunt.

[hoosierhunter]

Great question! It really makes you think how far you would go to harvest an animal.

I'll answer this is 3 parts as scent sight sound were in the post

Scent-I would use a product to minimize as much scent as possible. Why is because I sweat more than the average person even being in great shape. Also my senses versus a whitetails there is no comparison. He crushes any human.

Sight-This is why we hang stands higher, use ground blinds, etc. I think this one is only far if your on the ground with no blind. Spot and stalk style.

Sound- Rubber coated stands, felt on our bow risers, clothing that is quiet, string supressors, etc.

When you really start to think about it, all of these things allow for extreme advantages from what hunting was 100 years ago. I know this debate is generated from all the "new" scent eliminating devices and such, but when you really think about all the technology hunting has made huge gains, not just scent control.

What about how guns used to be smooth bore and a round ball? Now we have muzzleloaders that can shoot 500 yards(badbull)! We have scopes to allow us to shoot further. Now we have rifled barrels. Our bows now shoot darn near 400 feet per second as compared to about 200 back in the day. Now we have 80% let-off to hold longer. 3D camo. Carbon arrows, expandable broadheads, etc.

The list can go on and on. Just as our technology has evolved so has our game. Deer now are by far smarter than they were 100 years ago. They have to be to survive. Heck it's evolution. Just as we adapt to them they adapt to us.

I guess to me it's like this. I'm sure there were people who didn't like the automobile when it was first made and even thought there was no need for it, but look at where we are today. The changes are coming and we have a choice on whether to embrace them or fight them. Regardless of what individuals think the masses will dictate where we go and we are just along for the ride.

One other thought-Remember a few year back when pope and young was debating to recognize bows with higher than 65% let-off? Wow that was heated for some people but a few years later look where we are. Do they even makes bows with 65% let-off now? If so it's almost a custom order job.

I think this is a great post that really gets you thinking and I'll be interested to see how this thread develops.

[Rhino]

Aren't ground blinds, treestands, and 3D type camo patterns a technological advantage to taking away an animals ability to see? One thing's for sure...currently there is no way to totally eliminate all scent. Reduce your scent profile...yes but not eliminate it...no. One of the closest things we all have to taking away just one of an animals senses, is it's sense of sight through the use of some ground blinds, enclosed shooting houses, treestands with good cover, and 3D type camo patterns. I don't believe that violates the rule of fair chase and I certainly don't believe it's unethical at all.

I've also seen on TV and heard of certain shooting houses some hunters have built that are so air tight they can take away an animal's ability to smell you. Since I fall in the catagory of not having any interest in hunting that way, I fall into the fold of those that won't take that advantage away from game. It's not for that reason though. My main reason for doing so is I want the complete outdoor experience when I'm hunting. I don't want to be enclosed in a shell. I want to enjoy the sights, sounds, and smells of the total outdoor experience.

By the way...aren't we taking away an animal's sense of smell by hunting downwind of it? They certainly can't smell you when that's the case. We are as hunters taking advantage of that loss of their sense of smell. That's certainly not unethical or a violation of fair chase. Your answer is implying it is.

[Rhino]

Do they even makes bows with 65% let-off now? If so it's almost a custom order job.

Sure they do...they're called recurves & longbows.:D:clown:

[dbHunterNY]

Nope, but I'd still kill them for food. I just wouldn't be calling it hunting.

[Ethan Givan]

By the way...aren't we taking away an animal's sense of smell by hunting downwind of it? They certainly can't smell you when that's the case. We are as hunters taking advantage of that loss of their sense of smell. That's certainly not unethical or a violation of fair chase. Your answer is implying it is.

As people use these new scent eliminating products they pay less and less attention to hunting with the wind in their favor. Im not a scent fanatic, so I hunt with the wind in mind, but a deer can still smell where you have walked or touched brush etc.

I think all of this new technology is not necessarily unethical but I do think it is taking some of the skill out of hunting. With these new bows we dont have to find a stand location that will bring deer as close because we can shoot farther and faster and honestly we dont have to practice as much as the guy bowhunting 30 years ago probably did. The camoflauge and the tall deerstands let us get away with more movement, and poor stand location. Trail cams let us have surveilence at all hours of the day to find out when and what deer are using an area instead of having to scout as much. New food plots, and nutritional supplements have been engineered to grow us bigger deer. The list goes on and on, and the bottom line is todays hunters are not as skilled at hunting as hunters were 50 years ago. We rely on technology so much now that if you stripped everything away, gave us a recurve or one of the first compounds ever made, some regular clothes with no scent eliminating products, a knife, and 300 acres of new land to hunt on, Id say less than 5% of todays hunters could even get within bow range of a deer period. Now Im not saying I want to go back and hunt like this, but what Im saying is if the technology continues, which it will, it will eventually get to the point where anyone can buy the right products and kill a deer without much knowledge of what they are doing.

[redkneck]

Great post. Ethics posts always get a lot of attention and ruffles a few feathers. Actually before I read Al's post, I was thinking the same thing about blinds. I know of several around here built at the intersections of pipelines and/or transmission lines where there are basically four lanes planted with shots as far as the eye can see. No wind/sight/sound to worry about much in those places.

I don't know where to draw a line, but honestly if I could make myself invisible and unscented, I'd still be a long ways from guaranteeing a booner on the wall this year. God knows if there was any threat to the term "fair chase" it was the invention of black powder and not a "scent-blocker" suit.

At the end of the day I suppose we all make our own decisions. I still choose to hunt with a compound a lot during rifle season because it is challenging to me. Others have moved on to strictly longbows. I have difficulty killing a deer to mount each year, not so much because of the lack of technology, but more of the fact there is no great abundance of them on our land. Our neighbors help out in that aspect pretty well.

Just my $.02

[redkneck]

One more thought. Like most of you I can stack deer in the cooler like cord wood each year, I think we've long since gained the advantage over deer. It's the BIG one I want to have the advantage over when he steps out.

[Randy]

I'm not sure I see where you are coming from but, a great percentage of killing a deer is being in the right spot at the right time.

Would I walk up to a deer and kill if I could? Is that the question here?

[Rhino]

Here's some food for thought; 50 years ago there were very few deer compared to today. Many areas where deer thrive now didn't even have deer hunting seasons if they even had any deer at all. The overall knowledge of a deer's lifestyle has dramatically improved in just the last 30 years.

Deer have a unique ability to adapt. I can remember when ATV's came out you could ride through the woods and deer would just look at you. Today, if you happen to see one while ridding an ATV it's usually hauling the mail. I have personally witnessed deer hunker down in brush and hide when just hearing an ATV. Some of those flat disappeared for good. I honestly beleive there are a lot of deer that head to bed when they hear ATV's hitting the woods before daylight now. I can also remember when treestands were 1st available. Back in those days deer rarely looked up. These days deer regularily look up because they've learned that's where the danger lurks. Hunters have taken on the role of the wolf.

I don't think we'll ever get to a point (at least in my life time) where technology will provide some hunting product (short of the ones I've previously mentioned) that totally beats a deer's senses. We'll certainly continue to see deer adapt to human pressure too. No matter what might give you a so called technical advantage over a deer's senses, the fact remains that if you're going to kill a mature buck with all that bone on his head you referenced he has to move during daylight hours. No technological product that claims to beat a deer's senses can cause him to move during daylight hours. Also the greater the hunting pressure is, the more nocturnal a mature buck will be.

Now...the other big game animal I hunt is wild turkeys. Sense of smell is not a concern. If it was, we sure wouldn't kill many turkeys. Their main senses of defense is sight and sound. Before white man arrived indians used slates for turkey calls. Wingbones too. Not much has changed there except the wide varity of different calls available today. The basics of reproducing the sounds of wild turkeys remains the same. The only big tech change is camo and hunting blinds. Although I don't use hunting blinds to turkey hunt, I sure hope you're not saying turkey hunters that use them are both breaking the rules of fair chase and they're unethical. I know turkeys are not spooked by hunting blinds like deer seem to be, especially when placed the same day and hunted. No doubt they provide a technical advantage...if a turkey approaches it. On the other hand, they're also a disadvantage IMO to my preferred way to hunt them because they limit your ability to adapt and move. If he doesn't come your way, it's game over.

Outside of that camo helps you blend in but sure doesn't make you invisible. There's an old saying amoung turkey hunters that "a deer sees a hunter sitting on the ground and thinks it's a stump...a turkey sees a stump and thinks it's a hunter". I don't know how many times I had turkeys lock up without me moving a muscle and they sensed something was wrong and walked off. For that reason I learned from them that it's best to set up (when I can) where a gobbler can't see me (and I can't see him) until he's in range. I'll bet there were indians that did the same thing. There will never be a product that makes a turkey hunter invisible (like in the Predator movies) outside of hunting blinds. If there was, I'd bet money game departments would not allow them to legally be used to turkey hunt.

[elkoholic]

By removing the senses of sight, scent and sound, I meant being totally invisible with absolutely no scent or sound coming from your body and hunting equipment. Wearing camo and sitting in a tree stand does not eliminate the quarry's sense of vision, although it makes seeing you and/or recognizing what you are more difficult. The same goes for hunting the wind, which is not consistent and often swirling. Sound is another matter, but many a hunter has lost an opportunity because of some unnatural sound that sent the quarry running. If you are hunting from a scent containing blind that is in place year round, you have basically taken away two of the quarry's senses and added the factor of the deer being used to the blind being there and being harmless. Not my cup of tea, thank you. Where the deer are and when is being handled by those lovely inventions, the trail cameras. I use them, but do not hunt anywhere near them, still I like the pictures though.

There are some good thoughts so far. It sure can make one think. Sort of like playing poker with a marked deck.

[Sambar Hunter]

If it were possible to eliminate (it's gone) all scent

I seriously doubt that a company will be able to design/build a type of clothing that will total eliminate all human scent or odour.

But good thread, and some good comments coming forward.

[Bob LeBlanc]

Isn't there a guy somewhere in the States who has a remotely activated gun and video feed from his 'hunting' site?...He watches the video feed, and aims and shoots from his computer at home.

Completely silent...scent free...unseen.

Ethical?...nope.

Hunting?...not at all.

In the days of yore, it was the skill of the hunter that left him unseen, and unheard, and unsmelled.

Thanks to 'technology', there are very few skilled hunters left, IMHO.

Bob

[wtnhunt]

I get where you are coming from Dave, but in reality unless you go back to hunting the way the indians did with true sticks and strings you are using some sort of technology to your advantage, so what gives????? The argument could be made that any other way is unethical or unfair, sounds like something Tred Barta might say.

Guess I fall somewhere in the same place as Al. I prefer to hunt treestands and use what I have to better my odds, still the biggest key in all of hunting in my opinion is being able to put yourself in the right place at the right time and limiting your games ability to know you are there by concealing your movement and using what you can to your advantage to go undetected.

[Dawg]

If it were possible to eliminate (it's gone) all scent, sound and sight from detection by your intended quarry, would you? Would you consider this to be ethical or fair chase?

I wouldn't do it. Unethical? Yes. Fair chase? No.

It's cheating.

I will, however, use any legal means (I can afford) to help improve my chances of a harvest.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Isn't there a guy somewhere in the States who has a remotely activated gun and video feed from his 'hunting' site?...He watches the video feed, and aims and shoots from his computer at home.

Completely silent...scent free...unseen.

Ethical?...nope.

Hunting?...not at all.

In the days of yore, it was the skill of the hunter that left him unseen, and unheard, and unsmelled.

Thanks to 'technology', there are very few skilled hunters left, IMHO.

Bob

That was in Texas a few years back and was immediately outlawed when it was discovered what was happening. He was just some dufus trying to make a quick buck by using some legal loopholes and was actually stopped before any game was killed.

As to the original question - I'm going to answer it with a couple of questions. Who are the self appointed arbiters today of all things fair chase? The Boone and Crockett Club, named for two of the supposedly greatest hunters and outdoorsmen of the nation. Now, did Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett use sharpened sticks and pieces of flint to kill their game? No, they used the most modern and efficient weaponry and equipment they could find and afford. If they could have gotten their hands on an AR, I think they would have gladly toted one into the woods. Likewise with camo and modern fabrics. How much do you think they would have given for a good set of pac boots and a goretex jacket?

So, to summarize...As long as you're hunting legally it's OK with me. If you want to challenge yourself by limiting your equipment and techniques, great! More power to you. I do the same myself quite often. But at other times I may choose to use some highly sophisticated equipment and I don't need anyone looking down their nose at me because of it.

[elkoholic]

I get where you are coming from Dave, but in reality unless you go back to hunting the way the indians did with true sticks and strings you are using some sort of technology to your advantage, so what gives?????

Even a stick and string was a technological advantage, although in this modern world we live in it would not be considered so. My whole point in this post was to question when (it may already be past) our technology takes us beyond the point of fair chase (by who's definition) will we say enough is enough. Is there that point? When we stack the deck in our favor to the point of certain success, is it hunting? Even though there is little threat of starving to death should we fail to kill, there seems to be this need to be successful, at any cost. Is it ego? Is it competition with other hunters? Are we as ethical as we would like to think we are? My intention is not to judge, but to merely get a read on our hunting lifestyle and to maybe get my fellow hunters to think about the hunt a little more. My hunting here in Montana is unlike most of the members of the forums. During archery season I spend most of my time chasing elk (most of the time unsuccesfully) and only a few times during the season will I sit in a treestand hunting deer. There are no farm fields where I hunt. During rifle season I still-hunt almost exclusively, with intervals of rattling and grunting mixed in. This combined with 50+ years of hunting shapes my views on the lifestyle I love. I honestly believe that the "hunting industry" is steering this hunting heritage to the tune of the all mighty dollar and our need for "success". I am not sure if that is right or wrong.

[wtnhunt]

Even a stick and string was a technological advantage, although in this modern world we live in it would not be considered so. My whole point in this post was to question when (it may already be past) our technology takes us beyond the point of fair chase (by who's definition) will we say enough is enough. Is there that point? When we stack the deck in our favor to the point of certain success, is it hunting? Even though there is little threat of starving to death should we fail to kill, there seems to be this need to be successful, at any cost. Is it ego? Is it competition with other hunters? Are we as ethical as we would like to think we are? My intention is not to judge, but to merely get a read on our hunting lifestyle and to maybe get my fellow hunters to think about the hunt a little more. My hunting here in Montana is unlike most of the members of the forums. During archery season I spend most of my time chasing elk (most of the time unsuccesfully) and only a few times during the season will I sit in a treestand hunting deer. There are no farm fields where I hunt. During rifle season I still-hunt almost exclusively, with intervals of rattling and grunting mixed in. This combined with 50+ years of hunting shapes my views on the lifestyle I love. I honestly believe that the "hunting industry" is steering this hunting heritage to the tune of the all mighty dollar and our need for "success". I am not sure if that is right or wrong.

To me it is the challenge to myself, not competition against anyone else. Really don't have any problems with using scent away sprays or other things to try to get whatever edge I possibly can. So many times even with all the advantages(technology) we take the deer still manage to somehow elude us and leave us scratching our heads. That said I do see your point though and think it could possibly go too far at some point, not sure what that point is though and sure you ask 10 different people you are liable to get 10 different answers. What is ethical and fair to one person may not be to the next.

[Rhino]

Interesting last post elkoholic...gotta answer some of your points bud.

My whole point in this post was to question when (it may already be past) our technology takes us beyond the point of fair chase (by who's definition) will we say enough is enough. Is there that point? When we stack the deck in our favor to the point of certain success, is it hunting?

Is there really anything out there that stacks the deck in our favor for certain success. IMHO...no way! Never will be IMHO. There are claims by certain companies through their advertising that a product does...but...consumer beware! I use charcoal lined suits but I never believed they completely eliminated your scent profile (like some have advertised like...forgetting the wind)...reduce...yes...eliminate...no. Scent eliminater sprays..same thing. Game departments are supposed to be protecting the resource. I don't see them allowing a product to be legal that puts the resource at risk. We'd be back to the days like the market hunters were with game populations being decimated...again.

Even though there is little threat of starving to death should we fail to kill, there seems to be this need to be successful, at any cost. Is it ego? Is it competition with other hunters? Are we as ethical as we would like to think we are?

Good questions! First of all...what is one hunter's idea of "successful" is not the same for another. Like you I'm probably down to less than 1/3 of a tank of fuel in my hunting life. I certainly have a strong passion for hunting but killing critters is not what it's all about. Some of my most successful hunts ended in empty bags. No doubt the kill is important to some hunters to consider a hunt to be successful. I just don't and haven't for a long time now. If there's any competition, it's competing with the game...not other hunters. The odds are staked wayyyy in the game's favor. The only true way to better one's odds is to spend a lot of time in the woods. That's always been the case when it comes to hunting a crafty game animal in his home and still is.

I honestly believe that the "hunting industry" is steering this hunting heritage to the tune of the all mighty dollar and our need for "success". I am not sure if that is right or wrong.

I get your drift. Just the vast number of products available these days can hurt your head. JMHO but there are a lot that are really out there to catch the hunter...not the game hunted. I used to fiddle around with testing different products that came out on the market. There's no telling how much junk I threw away that was nothing more than a gimmic.

Along that same line of thought...have some of these products contributed to a case for diminishing hunting skills? I believe so. Every year there seems to be more and more hunters looking for the magic potion (so to speak) that will put a trophy in front of them. Companies looking to make a $ recognize that and play to it. IMHO the only sure fire way to better your odds to encounter your game pursued are...1) Learn as much about the game you choose to pursue as possible & never assume you know it all... 2) Develop & continue to fine tune your woodsmanship skills using what you know about your game to your advantage... 3) Put your time in.

[Doc]

I believe that at some point in the future, every defense of a deer can be beat. Over my lifetime I have seen too many so-called "impossible" things happen and in no way will I imagine the inability of technology to do the impossible in the area of hunting.

As far as a deer's vision, I believe that we have developed camo that when used properly with other cautions, can completely thwart the deer's vision. In fact I have seen it demonstrated with a deer looking right at me and not recognizing what it was looking at. Also, given the right weapon (not a bow .... lol), movement can be held to an imperceptable level. So while we can and will probably go farther, the deer's vision has been conquered.

I believe they are working feverishly on scent elimination (they are most of the way there already) and its most likely only a few years away that they will perfect that. There's nothing that the profit motive can't conquer.

And of course the element of sound really requires no technology, and only a slight element of body control to defeat the ears of a deer.

So none of the assumptions of the original question are completely beyond possibility. So, are we working toward defeating "fair chase"? If eliminating the defenses of a deer is part of your definition of eliminating fair chase, then I suppose we are well on our way toward doing that. Is that acceptable? That's for each of us to figure out for ourselves. But it really doesn't matter since every aspect of the whole activity of hunting is evolving and accelerating in directions that contine to remove challenges and there really is nothing that will ever turn it back. Every day some new product or procedure re-defines hunting so that it continues to morph into something that doesn't even slightly resemble the hunting that a lot of us grew up with. And that's probably ok with a lot of people. Whoever imagined that hunting activities would include full-scale farming activities and animal husbandry expertise and expenses where hunters would be spending thousands of dollars buying a full line of agricultural fitting and planting equipment....lol.

I find that all of this does bother me somewhat because I still try to have some thoughts and attitudes about hunting being an exercise in self reliance and a bit of a celebration of heritage and culture. But even I haven't completely escaped this idea of "buying" success in hunting. However, I do find myself becoming increasingly disgusted with some of it. I'm probably a good candidate for saying, "enough is enough". But then, I don't really get a vote, do I? ..... So, who cares? lol.

Doc

[John]

Hunting is for population control not sport. Fair chase is silly, hunting is either a sport or it is for population control. Ethics and legality are not the same. I think you should be able to kill a set nimber of deer and the way you do it should be up to you.

[redkneck]

One man’s fair chase is another man’s Q-Beam

The bottom line to me is that once upon a time we hunted around here, doing our best to outsmart deer and take the best the herd had to offer us with a smile. This day and time we are doing the best we can to grow the herd, plots are planted with best intent to provide nutrition and grow horns, and not as much to use as an attractant. I’m passing more and more bigger deer that I used to would have shot at the first chance I had. As the opportunities get more and more, I have begun to hunt with my bow more and more, handicapping myself on scent, vision, and sound by doing what I can to get as close to them as possible. No matter what technology comes around, I don’t see covering the smell of my sweat, breath, and adrenalin at close range. I don’t see the ability to hide my movement as I draw my bow. I guess we all find a point that we each consider to be “sport” and “challenge”. My pediatrician has taken 2 trips to 2 separate fenced enclosures and has filled a trophy room with fine animals, probably at a cost exceeding 50K, but he seemed to really enjoy it, so more power to him. The heads on the wall are not necessarily a measure of a hunter’s skill anymore. I’ve got racks I’ve sawed off that actually mean more to me than a head I have on the wall. Back in the days before trail cams we all hunted like h*** over rub and scrape lines, putting in countless hours only one day to shoot the basket 8 that was there all along, those were the good ole days….. or were they?

[elkoholic]

Hunting is for population control not sport. Fair chase is silly, hunting is either a sport or it is for population control. Ethics and legality are not the same. I think you should be able to kill a set nimber of deer and the way you do it should be up to you.

I am not going to say that is wrong. I will only say, that I find it disturbing. I will add that I do not consider hunting a sport. The idea of a sport brings up the idea of competition and the quarry we after is merely trying to survive, not compete. If all we were worried about was population control we would only shoot the females of the species. Some more interesting thoughts.

[sskybnd]

To me it is the challenge to myself, not competition against anyone else. Really don't have any problems with using scent away sprays or other things to try to get whatever edge I possibly can. So many times even with all the advantages(technology) we take the deer still manage to somehow elude us and leave us scratching our heads. That said I do see your point though and think it could possibly go too far at some point, not sure what that point is though and sure you ask 10 different people you are liable to get 10 different answers. What is ethical and fair to one person may not be to the next.

i feel the same way, but i feel we are years from that ever happening, lets look at it from a deers point of view[not that im a deer or anything] you are an outsider in my home, i know every branch and tree in my home, 40 years ago your average stand was 6ft tall, i got used to looking up for danger, you moved higher i still look up, my eyes are set back to where i have 300 degrees of vision and can detect the slightest movement thats not natural, my sence of smell is 1000 times better than yours if not better, i have 2 ears that rotate 180 degrees and know every sound in my home, turkeys, squrrells, birds and can detect the slightest sound thats out of place. and your going to try to get with in 20 yards of me to shot me with an arrow....

some might not call it a sport and, some might call it a challange, but either way, we as hunters are hunting a wild animal thats sences are superior to ours, so i feel using camo, scent elimenators, and such, just helps us level the playing field a little, i dont feel we will ever get to the point that we will be invisable to the whitetail..

[ruttinbuc]

My thoughts are right there with Doc's. They are in my signature. It has slowly become an endeavor that is far away from the noble tradition it once was. I can type for a day here about my feelings on many of the issues of today. I don't have as much time left to hunt as I'd like to have, but I am going to keep the HUNT in my hunting without the hype!.