# Fair Chase, Ethical Hunting, Etc.?



## Renegade (Sep 11, 2007)

I'm confused and highly suspicious.

In an effort to "promote" hunting to the non-hunting public, many hunting organizations appear to be playing word games by talking endlessly about fair chase, ethical hunting, etc. Boone & Crockett has even changed the name of their magazine to Fair Chase.

For the last 15 or so years, I have noticed how the hunting community has talked endlessly about ethics and fair chase. This makes me suspious. I would be even more suspicious if I were a non-hunter. 

I have never been to believe the non-hunting public gives two hoots about hunting ethics. If the non-hunting public thinks about it all (which I don't believe they do), they expect hunters abide by game regulations. Reasonable enough. 

So why all the fair chase and ethical rehtoric? Call me paranoid, call me crazy, but I believe there is a concerted effort by many in the hunting community to kill off game ranches because they personally do not like them and are using their "ethics" to undermine game ranches. They will argue that game ranches are bad for the public image of hunting.

They are wrong in my opinion. Game ranches are a wonderful way to introduce new hunters and provide seasoned hunters with enjoyable opportunities. The problem is that the hunting community shuns away from game ranches instead of promoting them. Big mistake in my opinion.

If the hunting community wants a cautious and suspicious eye cast upon it, keep yammering endlessly about fair chase and ethics. When a person, organization or movement constantly yells about how honest and ethical they are, I view them as ripe for an investigation and negative public relations.

Your version and my version of fair chase and ethics may be exact, similar or quite different. Whatever you do, don't speak ill of me regardless if you disagree with my methods--game ranches included.
-----------------------------
reprinted with full permission of the author, Magnum Opus


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

I feel guilty of this sometimes, when I say I don’t want to M.L. hunt around IN-LINES. But I’m not implying that it is not fair to the game, just that it is inconsistent with the spirit of the Muzzle Loader hunt.
In-lines do have a disadvantage compared to cartridge firearms. 
And as far as the wildlife are concerned, if the board of big game control determines that 30,000 bucks should be taken out to keep the herds healthy, it wouldn’t matter if they are all shot with atlatls or M-2 Brownings.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I was kind of neutral on the hunting ranch thing until I saw the worst abuse of this concept in Montana. 40 acre enclosure, high fenced, with 30-40 elk, 30-40 mule deer, 20 bighorn sheep, 20+ pronghorn, and a dozen or so bison. All in the same enclosure. The ground was beaten to a mud pit. Adjacent was the round corral where the animals would be taken for the "sport" to shoot. The dead animal would then be loaded into a trailer and hauled to a local mountain side for the pictures. This was certainly the extreme of all "hunting" ranches - at the bad end of things. Operations like this ARE bad for the hunting community. 

That said, I've seen "hunting ranches" that though they are high fenced, they are far more sporting than say a cow elk hunt on Deseret Land & Livestock on the free roaming wild elk there. But its like many spectral issues out there. I have no problem with a buddy who likes to enjoy a beer with his steak. But if that same guy gets freakishly drunk and wants to drive, I have a problem. Same principle to me with hunting ranches. Many are as you say, opportunities for first time hunters, and many offer VERY challenging hunts. But at the extreme, they are destructive to the hunting community.


----------



## jungle (May 10, 2008)

The general, non-hunting public, in my experience, do have an ethics view on hunting that goes something like this: "As long as they eat what they kill."


----------



## stillhuntin (Feb 14, 2008)

Long ago there was a TV documentary on CBS, sponsored in part by Quaker; titled The Guns of Autumn.
There was a long running series of popular sportsmen (Bing Crosby and Phil Harris; Grits Gresham, Tom's dad; Curt Gowdy... etc, etc.) These sportsmen were shown enjoying a large number of sporting activities, fishing Wyoming, Deer hunting the Jicarilla, bird shooting in Africa. All done in good taste.
"Guns" showed many "unethical" hunting situations including the repeated wounding of big game animals in a small enclosure, before their merciful "harvest". 
The uproar folowing "Guns" resulted in the canceling of "Sportsmen". Their was a noticeable feeling of anti-hunter sentiment caused by that one show.

If there are three of us in this conversation there are 3 books of ethics. Right and wrong based on conscience, not referees. The focus (not just recently) is because the "don't really care" element of our population can be swayed to concerned actions if we continue to leave arrows on rooftops and chase wounded critters through property owners yards. Walk through the local market with bloody camo and totin' a fresh case of cold ones, showing pictures of animals with blood and hanging tongues etc. Our image can help or hurt us to a very great and real degree.

Ethics _can_ be influenced through information/education.

I too get nervous when folks tell me how honest they are etc. The "ethics focus" is being directed at the hunters, not the general public, in most cases IMHO.

I know most won't remember the "popular sportsmen" mentioned above. They were very well known and respected individuals of their time. Oh yeah! I weigh everything that goes into my Badlands Packs by the 1/8th oz.....You will never find a :evil: Quaker :evil: package there, or in my home, if they have the greatest weight/nourishment ratio in the world.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Well said stillhuntin! I remember the shows well. Like you said, fun to watch and done in good taste.... I also had the same response to any Quaker product...it stays in the store...


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

I agree that "Fair chase" is tough to define or regulate, but at the same time there needs be some sort of a "guideline" for what is considered fair or unfair in the pursuit of and taking of game animals . . .

i.e.: paying multiple individuals to locate an animal then watch it till a paid hunter can fly into town, then use radio communication to push the animal to or lead a shooter to a "trophy"... that to me is not fair


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

.e.: paying multiple individuals to locate an animal then watch it till a paid hunter can fly into town, then use radio communication to push the animal to or lead a shooter to a "trophy"... that to me is not fair

I agree 100%, How do you call this guy a hunter at all, he only points the gun and shoots.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

Unethical hunting is a lot like pornogaraphy............It is hard to define but you know it when you see it. :wink:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The "fair chase" thing I see like steroids in baseball. It is a way to define/separate actually hunting wild game, from shooting domesticated, steroid created super trophies. Otherwise, the record books would soon be completely dominated by the roided up animals shot in corrals.


----------

