Jump to content

Deer hunting vs. deer shooting


Recommended Posts

The guy you described isn't the guy I described.  As for the $10,000 quail hunt, not a lot of respect there either but there is a distinction: those quail are planted (or "liberated") not wild, like deer are.

It's called hunting, not killing.  If it's not about the hunt then people should stay home.

You labeled a man by his hunting method.  The man I described is exactly as you described.  Putting out bait as the quickest means to the end with little regard for in between parts that you cherish.  My point being that hunting with sustenance as the focus is as basic and clean as it gets and you calling it slob hunting is wrong.

There are no wild quail in the world?  Why begrudge a man who kills them with gun that's more expensive than yours?  Have you seen one of those guns, they are beautiful and I'd own one if I could.  

By definition killing is part of hunting and the defining factor of success or failure.  That's not on opinion, just proper English.  

I understand that you can find the hunt itself, even an unsuccessful one, more rewarding than a full freezer, but that doesn't make your rewarding experience communing with nature, by itself, a hunt.  

If your hunting is not about filling your belly as nature intended, you should think about what your doing and maybe stay home because without that part of the equation, your just murdering animals for the joy of it; like a fat house cat that has no need to kill, but still does just because of those primal needs.  How can you find civility, morality and superiority in that?  

And I'm just arguing to make a point.  I'm pretty confident that we are on the same page.  We have disdain for those that only want that one part of the hunt.  The kill.  And they have no appreciation of the what becomes before or after.  What I'm hoping is that you can understand that the after part is the single most important part, otherwise you are just sight seeing and or murdering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Brad Eden

    7

  • MAArcher

    7

  • garyRI

    5

  • Pinecobleguy

    4

"because as it goes right now, almost 100 percent of the deer that are shot are taken from a tree stand "

I bet he is at least about 50% off on this one... I've taken most of my deer from the ground, even with archery equipment. And where I hunt I see more people on the ground than in treestands and they still harvest deer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a person is hunting legally I couldn't care less how they take their animal.

Why is it so hard for people to mind their own business these days? I have no idea who this guy is but I'm pretty certain I wouldn't enjoy hunting with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10pt2.jpg

Proud to be a deer hunter, and how I killed this buck isn't anyone's business but mine.

Wow.  

I'll settle for where, exactly, rather than how.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The guy you described isn't the guy I described.  As for the $10,000 quail hunt, not a lot of respect there either but there is a distinction: those quail are planted (or "liberated") not wild, like deer are.

It's called hunting, not killing.  If it's not about the hunt then people should stay home.

You labeled a man by his hunting method.  The man I described is exactly as you described.  Putting out bait as the quickest means to the end with little regard for in between parts that you cherish.  My point being that hunting with sustenance as the focus is as basic and clean as it gets and you calling it slob hunting is wrong.

There are no wild quail in the world?  Why begrudge a man who kills them with gun that's more expensive than yours?  Have you seen one of those guns, they are beautiful and I'd own one if I could.  

By definition killing is part of hunting and the defining factor of success or failure.  That's not on opinion, just proper English.  

I understand that you can find the hunt itself, even an unsuccessful one, more rewarding than a full freezer, but that doesn't make your rewarding experience communing with nature, by itself, a hunt.  

If your hunting is not about filling your belly as nature intended, you should think about what your doing and maybe stay home because without that part of the equation, your just murdering animals for the joy of it; like a fat house cat that has no need to kill, but still does just because of those primal needs.  How can you find civility, morality and superiority in that?  

And I'm just arguing to make a point.  I'm pretty confident that we are on the same page.  We have disdain for those that only want that one part of the hunt.  The kill.  And they have no appreciation of the what becomes before or after.  What I'm hoping is that you can understand that the after part is the single most important part, otherwise you are just sight seeing and or murdering.

Yeah, were definitely not on the same page.  I doubt anyone here just hunts to fill the freezer.  I enjoy what I am lucky enough to kill but I enjoy the hunt more than anything else, and I am not the least bit interested in the "quickest means to the end."

Your example of a subsistence hunter is not going to be sitting out in a $300 blind.  He may hunt over a bucket of bait but regardless, that's not the guy I was describing.  The guy I was describing does not hunt for food, he hunts to kill and he measures is success by the size of his deer or the weight of his game bag.

As for "begrudging the man who kills them with a gun that more beautiful than yours", I can assure you, that's not the case.  (You'll just have to trust me on that one)  Lastly, "killing is part of hunting and the defining factor of success of failure, that's not "proper English, that's a subjective opinion, one that I definitely do not share.

I've spent 40+ years hunting deer with bows, slug guns, muzzleloaders and rifles, most often out of a tree stand some of which were fashioned out of 2x4's, or a pile of brush and I've spent more years than that chasing pointers for quail (real, wild quail) and setters for grouse.  Slobs are slobs, regardless of what they hunt.  There are no shortcuts, it's not supposed to always be easy.  Grown-up make their own decisions about how they pursue their sport, but keep in mind the ethics we learned hunting are ethics we apply to every day life.  There are things for which there should be no shortcuts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A writer's first mission is to get published (mission number two is to get paid for same). This guy accomplished his mission and as a bonus got us to waste time wrangling about his drivel.

The only hunting/fishing magazine I get is Fur, fish & Game. It has more content than the typical seasonal recycled articles (& because of the trapping focus is terrifically politically incorrect).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The author of the article is a good friend of mine. I've shared many a field goose hunt and striper fishing trips with him. It was through his recommendation I got the job writing monthly for NH Hawkeye. It is not like Dick to knock legal means of take. So I reached out and asked him what got under his skin?

His short reply "Watching some of the TV shows with people in tree-top hotel-style blinds shooting deer in "food plots" is one reason. Another is listening to people talk about "apples are the only way".

A rebuttal followed describing the amount of work my BIL and I have done at Habitat Improvement to release the wild apple trees. Our bait doesn't come in buckets, it hangs off the trees. I'm very proud of our accomplishments and told him so.

All writers get a hair across their _ss sometime in their career. I'm sure his inbox is flooded with hunter comments as he posts his email address in every article.

A little off subject about the kindness and character of this gentlemen occurred at my dad's funeral in 2013. After the service Dick approached me and shook my hand. In his palm was his old NH F&G Conservation Officer badge. His gift told me of a friendship that will never get old. Through thick and thin and beyond bias this is a man we could all call a friend.

I plan to return that badge come the sad day Dick meets his creator. I am going to shake his grandson's hand and into his palm entrust that symbol of a true sportsman.

My BIL sent me this picture a week or so ago.

Yes, "apples are the way".

DeereatingapplesatDarels09-12-14.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

10pt2.jpg

Proud to be a deer hunter, and how I killed this buck isn't anyone's business but mine.

Wow.  

I'll settle for where, exactly, rather than how.

Sitting on my ass with my back against a rock, at the top of a mountain in my old mid-Maine town of Frankfort.

The hunt itself, in its entirety, is quite interesting, from scouting the beech ridge, the climb in the dark, to the bleat calls, to the buck grunting back, to the split second of opportunity to get on him and kill him.

Hunting deer is a solitary pursuit for most. The only audience we have to critique and judge us are the trees and squirrels and clouds. For me at least.

PS, just saw coalmans post.  Have to agree that the TV shows with people in box blinds looking down on a feeder, and shooting a "trophy buck" when it moves from behind an auto feeder post makes me ill. But I live in Maine, a different animal altogether than south Texas, so try hard not to judge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of our daughters live in TX and are married to hunters.

The notion of hunting from (uncomfortable) hanging tree stands is one thing (that require a ton of thought & scouting to properly position taking wind, approach & other factors into consideration). Then there is TX hunting over feeders. It absolutely is shooting & not hunting.

Nothing personal about Coalman's friend's writing. I think most hunting & fishing articles are drivel. But good for him for earning a living writing about hunting & fishing. I bet it gets him onto private property I would kill to get access.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, were definitely not on the same page.  I doubt anyone here just hunts to fill the freezer.  I enjoy what I am lucky enough to kill but I enjoy the hunt more than anything else, and I am not the least bit interested in the "quickest means to the end."

Your example of a subsistence hunter is not going to be sitting out in a $300 blind.  He may hunt over a bucket of bait but regardless, that's not the guy I was describing.  The guy I was describing does not hunt for food, he hunts to kill and he measures is success by the size of his deer or the weight of his game bag.

As for "begrudging the man who kills them with a gun that more beautiful than yours", I can assure you, that's not the case.  (You'll just have to trust me on that one)  Lastly, "killing is part of hunting and the defining factor of success of failure, that's not "proper English, that's a subjective opinion, one that I definitely do not share.

I am a subsistence hunter and I do it out of a $250 blind on occasion.  Subsistence hunting isn't just someone who hunts because they have to.   Its someone who hunts because you have to in order to assume your natural roll in life.  To live solely from what you get at the grocer is an artificial life.

I never said anyone here hunts "just" to fill the freezer.  What I'm saying is that it should be, in part, the goal of everyone here.  Animals are not toys in your sports game.  We may enjoy pursuing and killing them, but it shouldn't be a game (aka, sport).  And if you don't want to take the quickest means to the end, I don't begrudge you that.  In fact I envy you if you have the time.  I just don't think its right for you to condemn those who do because its been done that way far longer than its been a "sport".

As for proper English, I can't argue with you there any more than I'd argue with someone who thinks 1+1 is anything other than 2.  Going out and killing something to eat, is the original definition of "hunting".   The term "sporting" is a much, much younger term.  And there lies our difference.  You said it yourself, you think killing animals is a sport.  I think it is a natural act of life, no different than breathing or picking an apple off a tree to eat.

".... it's not supposed to always be easy."  I would correct you in saying that its not supposed to be a game made challenging by arbitrary rules or ethics.

I've enjoyed unsuccessful hunts.  But I would have enjoyed them more if I killed something and I'm not abashed to admit it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10pt2.jpg

Proud to be a deer hunter, and how I killed this buck isn't anyone's business but mine.

Wow.  

I'll settle for where, exactly, rather than how.

Sitting on my ass with my back against a rock, at the top of a mountain in my old mid-Maine town of Frankfort.

The hunt itself, in its entirety, is quite interesting, from scouting the beech ridge, the climb in the dark, to the bleat calls, to the buck grunting back, to the split second of opportunity to get on him and kill him.

Hunting deer is a solitary pursuit for most. The only audience we have to critique and judge us are the trees and squirrels and clouds. For me at least.

PS, just saw coalmans post.  Have to agree that the TV shows with people in box blinds looking down on a feeder, and shooting a "trophy buck" when it moves from behind an auto feeder post makes me ill. But I live in Maine, a different animal altogether than south Texas, so try hard not to judge.

Tell us the truth.  You found it that way didn't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
the Cambridge Online Dictionary defines blood sport as "any sport that involves animals being killed or hurt to make the people watching or taking part feel excitement"
 We hunt we Kill game we feel Excitement that is the definition of a Blood Sport.  We do not hunt because we have to provide food to our family we hunt because we enjoy it and like it or not it is a Sport.

Hunting is about you pitting your skill against the animal you are hunting for I dont care what the animal is it is you against your prey period.

I could place a pile of apples in my back yard and sit watching tv until a deer came out to feed on them to you that is hunting to me that is nothing more then killing there is no hunting involved but according to you I filled my Natural Role in Life because I killed a animal to feed my family.  

Hunting is not always about killing it is always about enjoying the time spent outdoors in the hunt.  The end result of the hunt does not always have to be killing it is so much more then that.

We all know that you do not like the rules that are in places and it is your choice if you choose to follow them or not I am not going to tell you how to live your life.

We can always take the easy way out in life. We can always claim that the rules do not apply because they are contrary to what a person may believe but that does not make it right.  How you choose to spend your time is up to you.  I prefer to spend my time in the hunt and I will pit my skills against the prey I am hunting I do not feel the need to place a item out to gain the advantage ".... it's not supposed to always be easy."

You kill game the way you want I will hunt game the way I want because in the end we each have ethics we have to live with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone who takes to the hunt without any desire to seal the deal should probably just carry a camera. I'm not saying a hunt isnt enjoyable and isn't worth it if a kill doesn't happen. A good deal of my hunts end with no protein procured and all are worth the effort. But Iget more satisfaction if I am successful.

This entire Topic troubles me as ME is on the eve of a referendum that will ban baiting, hounding and trapping black bears. The premise and campaign by Washington DC based anti-hunting lobby HSUS is those methods aren't fair chase and are cruel. No matter that hunting is by and large a management tool for wildlife agencies. Sometimes its good management to make it easier and more available to kill more deer and even bear. The management of bear by the MEIF&W will be crippled if this passes and they are against it. If some here had their way we would all be running around naked but for a loin cloth, shooting at critters with a handmade longbow, arrows and flint broad heads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
northern_hunting_mom

I hunt for meat and I don't have to. I hunt for the enjoyment of the outdoors and the challenge of outwitting my prey. It does not have to be an either/or scenario.

I think it is subsistence hunting, even when I won't starve if I am unsuccessful. Many will call hunting a sport, even subsistence hunting. The main focus of my hunting is for meat but I get a lot more enjoyment from it than just meat on my plate.

I don't restrict my shot due to antler size. I use a tool that increases my chances to the highest possible degree. I am making a good argument for being a non-sporting deer shooter. I am unapologetic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of hunt in my dictionary is: to chase (game) for food or sport, to try to find: search, seek. To chase; harry; a search.

If you shoot a deer, call it deer shooting. If you hunt for your deer, you should have the distinction of being a "deer hunter."

He starts off by answering his own question, but not well.  And he is confusing the original definition of hunt, with the more modern definition that as grown to include "sport".  And it perplexes me that so many share a twisted logic that playing games, sporting, with your food, is somehow more moral than those that "shoot" their deer to fill a freezer in the most efficient manner they choose.  

Deer are food, not toys.  I don't mean that you can't enjoy a hunt.  But saying that someone hunting over a food plot isn't doing it right is like saying that because someone didn't make yummy noises after tasting an ice cream cone, is doing it wrong.  Its just absurd.  

"Sport" hunting and its disguise as "noble tradition" is what's grotesque, in that it has changed so much from its original origins, taking us away from our natural human roots as hunter gatherers that have to take our substance from what nature provides in order to survive.  

What logic can take you to the view that a "sport hunter" who goes home empty handed because he didn't use a bait pile, only to buy a beef steak that was brought to him through all manner of abominations to nature.  Is "hunting the right way"? And while he's eating that antibiotic laden steak, delivered to him via manure lagoons, animal abuse, diesel emissions, overgrazing, ecological destruction, etc., etc. he sits back and bad mouths they guy who shoots a deer over apples and naturally feeds his family for a couple months?  I see no logic in that.

Not to mention the fact that there are so many factors that have changed hunting in recent times that its just not possible to make a reasonable comparison between hunting 50 years ago and today.  Today, many people work longer hours than ever before.  Oddly enough, the people that can afford to hunt don't have the time to do it.  That makes taking every advantage to ensure success in a limited time very attractive and often a necessity.  

So I'd correct his final statement:  If you shoot a deer, call it hunting in the most traditional and noble sense of the word.  If you play with your food and call it "Sport Hunting", know it for what it is, a recent and distasteful invention of man.  

If the merits of a tradition is its longevity, has your "hunting tradition" been around as long as this?:

Genesis 27:3 - Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me venison;

Notice it wasn't qualified with "But only if you kill it under the arbitrary rules set up by your ignorant brothers who forsake Gods grand design in favor of their own."

I'm not very religious and maybe this will get post holed for referencing the bible (which I haven't read).  But I think it serves to illustrate the hypocrisy of modern "Sport Hunting" and the outright lie that it is some how more moral than sustenance hunting.

Like I said, I think its great if you can enjoy your hunting, and the "sporting" aspect of it.  But I just can't see any argument to justify that all hunting has to be "sporting enough" to meet some arbitrary threshold.  Rather, I think its easier to spot the threshold where it becomes to sporting and less hunting.

I'm hard pressed to find one truthful sentence in the article.

I agree with this fella! Not much more that I could add...

P.S. to all the haters that like to preach against box blinds and "texas deer hunting". Try it some time. Sit in a box blind by your self day after day..usually all day....for two months (or until you actually get lucky enough to shoot a deer). Its a mental game that gets old real quick. And yes, most Texans probably would like to spot and stalk, but depending on how much property you have to hunt it can be impossible. I've also froze my arse off in an open tripod stand in the morning and sweated it off in the afternoon sun.

Hunting is hunting, do it however you'd like...who cares?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...