Excellent read. Thanks for posting packout.

 

+1

It's been several months since I read that article; enjoyed it just as much the second time around. How one feels about hunting on the philosophical level is a very personal thing. I'll leave it at that. ;-)

 

Steve Urkel? Ha

 

Best part of the article...

 

Great read!

When Hunting Became Shooting By Gene Wensel

Jul3 by Jorge Amador

Moderator's comment: Please do not post the entire article, it infringes on the copyright. Please post only a link.

EDIT:

apologies Loke/mod's, only meant to make it easier for all to read...

 

I think the article is spot on.

 

This is a great article in a lot of regards. I love the message behind it from where I stand in hunting and life. But while I agree with a lot of what this article says, I have a hard time with the premise of it. That one type of hunting is better than another. Who's to say that someone who takes a 600 yd shot gets any less enjoyment than those who are 5 yds away. At the end of the day, we are all out enjoying our passions and what we love to do.
This nose in the air superiority attitude is the wrong attitude. We are all sportsman, and we should treat each other with respect.

 

I agree with a few of the ideas he presents, but as a whole it comes off as an over glorification of what he calls the "golden age" of hunting. You, know when hunters were idealistic and their ethics were beyond reproach. Or, perhaps the reality is that during the "golden age" of hunting poaching and party hunting were rampant. Regardless of their weapon, (sorry, thats what it is) many of these sainted hunters took shots beyond their capacity.

I tire of hearing about the myriad ways that technology has destroyed hunting or changed it for the worse. Yes, new technology raises new questions regarding ethics and those issues need to be fleshed out. Open sites and comparitavely primitive ballistics never prevented guys from taking shots beyond their ability. Compound bows have not somehow bred throngs of mental midgets incapable of having respect for the animals they pursue.

In a crowd of largley gun loving acolytes that will argue until we are blue in the face that guns don't kill people, rather people kill people, I am confused that that logic is lost in translation. Now, we are arguing that somehow the weapon/technology we use is influencing and encouraging more unethical behavior and less respect and reverence for the wildlife we hunt. If somehow hunters today are less ethical, it is a direct result of what we have seen and been taught by those who we give influence over our thinking and behavior. Period.

Along those lines...and this is where I agree with the author. Hunting shows and media are changing the way we perceive hunting success. Hunting has gone from a family and friends affair, to a fully commercialized and commoditized industry. Billions of dollars are at stake and corporations, special interest groups and advertisers are spending a lot of time, money and effort to promote their products and ideas. I don't think that the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation factors very heavily in many of their messages. In my mind that is where the connection to our past is being lost and our ethics are being challenged. The technology we use is only a tool, but a tool that has its own set of limitations further curtailed by our own individual capacities.

Success ratios do not indicate that technology has made us more effective in taking game. Horn porn and kill shots, however, seem to be the story of the day. That, more than anything, seems to be taking the focus away from woodsmanship and respect for wildlife. Guys are mocked for taking young animals. Pictures are posted and the focus is solely about "what does he score?" I'm not insinuating that guys aren't working hard for those bucks or that they lack woodsmanship skills or ethics. Only, that media is focused on that aspect of the hunt.

Anyway, just my two cents.

 

Here's a copy of the old timers version of Trophy Hunter Magazine or an Internet Hunting Blog, or any other current media distribution system.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12225/12225-h/12225-h.htm

Every generation has had trophy hunters, meat hunters, subsistence hunters, and all generations have had guides and outfitters and shooter hunters and woodcraftsmen hunters, city hunters, country hunters, road hunters and back pack hunters. Since hunting began, some were better than others and got recognition, respect and envy from their peers.

And every generation has had hunters who have thought that the next generation had gone to hell, sold out, got lazy, gone soft, lost the vision, lost the skill. And they've wallowed in self pity, just like some of the old timers are doing today. Yet......... some old timers are still have a blast, fancy boots, slick duds, stunning optics and all.

As long as conservation wins the war and keeps big game herds at environmental carrying capacity, those that are paying for the long term survival and growth of the resource should get to decide how they want to hunt it. I didn't see anyone hunting with a spear in the 1950's but it wasn't a heck of along time before that, that people were. Maybe this guy wants to go back to chucking lances with rock points. Yea right! IMO he's a hypocrite!

 

One thing for sure, people will always have an opinion how others should be living their lives rather than just living their own.

"Live and Let Live" never sold very well.

 

I thought his delivery and pontificating were over the top and far too negative. I work with youth and see a better side of them than he portrays. But he had an underlying message which tends ring true. We do divide ourselves and thus fight over who gets to shoot the limited resource how and when. We also are gravitating toward a more shoot philosophy- long range is the In movement at the moment. Not all of course, but yards and inches are included in the story much more than they were a decade ago- and more seems to be better.

As our society speeds up and becomes more involved with things, hunting will evolve with it. That is just part of life. I can dream of the past, but I live in the present- and differently than I lived 25 years ago.

 

Throughout time, many have used the best equipment that they could afford. I remember fancy new auto loading rifles, European optics, lightning fast compound bows, and mechanical releases all showing up at my camp in the 80's and being the envy of all. Today, I don't ever take my best, or most accurate equipment hunting. I take the old standby most of the time because of tradition combined with how I LIKE to hunt. I really don't feel like I have changed much over the years other than caring way more about the big picture as I get older.------SS

 

Dahlmer and osageorange, very well said! And Packout, I agree he paints a worse picture of our youth than what I see. I think his take on hunters in general is also flawed.

Are some of the things he mentioned present? Yes. Are some of the things he mentioned worth being concerned about? Yes. But man, you'd think we were all going to hell in a hand basket after reading that. It's just not that bad out there.

I'm not a 'trophy hunter' by any means. But let's be honest with ourselves....two deer in a meadow on a general season tag well within your capabilities of shooting, one is a mature, but small 3-point the other is a solid 4x4 185 inch buck. I know which one I'm shooting, and you all would do the same. And so would the author, and so would the hunters in the golden age. Technology has changed, but we as people have not.

 

An interesting article for sure. BUT....The underlying message is to join a select group of bow people who share one basic thought process about hunting...I'm ok with that.
I also agree with the Herkle statement.
The rest of it is just a "good read" to me. I definitely fall into the category of opportunist hunter(killer if you will)...if it's legal and presents itself, I'm shooting.
I also agree with others comments about there always have been more modern weapons used as time evolves and new inventions made. I don't have any problem sharing the woods with the new stuff. I will continue to use my weapon of choice and hunt "my way". I'm too old to change now.
If a group of people wish to join in make rules to be governed by and hunt accordingly, by all means go for it. Just don't down play my ways because I choose a different path in the same woods.
Before his 30.30 open sights days, the old timers were using single shot rifles either muzzleloaders or breech loaders and before them flintlocks or long bows and before them spears and knives. Give me a break...I can't predict what will come down the pipe in the future, but for sure I can tell you whoever chooses to use the new technology will get "hammered" at first and then it will become the norm in the field.
I totally agree with anyone who denounces "long distance" shooting at big game animals and am very glad to see Boone and Crockett denouncing it as well when talking about "fair chase".
Nuff said.

 

People who can't shoot for crap often like to take shots at marksman. People who can't sneak for crap often take shots at bow hunting. People who can't kill big deer often take shots at trophy hunters. People who only care about inches take shots at those who take a smaller animal for sport and meat. See the connection here? People who can't figure out how to play the draw system take shots at the DWR. Maybe we need an article on how to appreciate each other, mind our own business, and realize how lucky we are to be sportsmen and women.

So....bears butt.....I guess I denounce your denouncement. It's asinine to consider long shooting to be excluded from fair chase while accepting things like deer drives, trail cams, scent killer, tree stands, or the myriad of other advantages that hunters of all disciplines use to achieve success-----SS

 

Well said, shooter!

 

"a more shoot philosophy- long range is the In movement at the moment"

It is for a few and because it's the In movement at the moment a few more will take up the practice. Is it because they've lost the hunting tradition, or the woodsman's skills, or their lazy, as projected by the author and others who, for their own reasons, feel the need to -float - an article they say they think is over the top but then admit they support it's root issue, to discredit or belittle the ever evolving, ever changing tools and practices of the sport of hunting. For some hunters it will be to -take advantage- for other's it may not be, it may be something they do for an altogether different reason. We'll see about those that -take advantage- later but less not assume that -taking advantage- is automatically negative.

Over night- just because some guy said so- shooting- has become politically incorrect. From now on if your a hunter and your a -shooter- your of a lesser class. That the real point here isn't it?

My personal belief is the long range shooting hunters or the "shooters" as your calling them, as if the art of -shooting-is a degraded skill, are enjoying a new challenge. In the past only the military marksmen and a very small handful of civilian shooting enthusiasts took the time and interest in shooting accurately at something over 300/400 yards. The rest of us knew anything beyond a 20 inch drop in a bullet was not a efficient/ethical way to be shooting at big game, so we didn't. Now that technology has made it possible for the rest of us to put a bullet down range, with reasonable expectations of accuracy, without becoming a military marksman or a long range civilian specialist, a bunch more sportsmen want to learn how to do it too. It's not necessarily because they aren't outdoorsmen, or lack woodcrafting skills or their lazy slob hunters, it's because they enjoy the challenge and the reward of being able to put a bullet in a milk jug at 1200 yards, like the pros can do, without being a pro. So the so called -shooters- are developing a new woodsman skill, are they not. Sure they want to try it out on big game but that's part of the motivation for the time and money spent. It part of the outdoor experience, like the old buffalo hunters used to brag about how far they could kill a buffalo. Some hated them and some admired them, they didn't admire the fact that they were decimating the bison but admiring the skill with which they could shoot.

I'm not a long range shooter but I believe the majority of hunters that are, are doing it for the skill it takes, not just to plunk a deer that doesn't know your on the mountain. I'll wager that most of the long range shooters, the guys that are really into it, could take a long bow and get as close to an elk or a deer as most good archery hunters do. I'll wager most of the so called shooters could back pack a load as far into the back country as most solo back country hunters do. I'll wager on average the long rangers are every bit as good much a woodsman as any of the non-long range hunters are, on average.

Some hunters, like some people, enjoy learning how to do the new and cutting edge, they like the challenge of testing themselves against what ever is being pioneered, others feel more comfortable doing things the way they've always done them, they know how it works and their not willing to risk the tried and true with the fresh and new. Most hunters are willing to let both edges of the old vs new do their thing without much concern but there are always a few, in both camps, that feel a need to -put the other in their place- through which ever media source they have access to.

Some of us might consider the early Native North American the ultimate hunters on the continent. I'd be one of those. We're told they started with spears, then the atlatl, then bows, then smooth bore muskets, then rifled muzzleloaders, then single shot rifles, then repeating lever action rifles, and now they use long range rifles and the best optics on the market. They left the old and adapted to the new because the new would allow them to shoot faster, further and hit harder. We're told, each generation of Native American warned each younger generation of the perils of giving up the ancient traditions of the Grand Fathers, each scolding the younger for threatening the proven way of life of those that came before. If the young had always done what the old had counseled we'd still be napping projectile points rather than measuring out high pressure gun powder.

Human nature is to reach. To try to do it better. To succeed. To survive. To do it better, to do it easier, to do it with less energy. To expect human nature to counter human nature is about as un-natural as it gets. The only way we can stop humans from easier, faster, smarter, more efficient is to regulate them and we do and we should, as we need to protect conservation and long term hunting tradition, you can like it or dislike it but it isn't going to change much.

If you want to build a fence, have your family and friends surround a patch of trees and drive a bunch of deer into a artificial pinch corner so you can stab one with a sharpened rock attached to the end of a branch, go for it, the regulations say it's "any weapon".

Post a picture, so we can criticize your barbarian blood lust.

Opp, the Ute's game just started, time to go.