The Hog Blog

Like a lot of folks in the last few days, I’ve been dying to hear from Ted Nugent about his side of the story.  There are a lot of unanswered questions, and it really seems like a few answers would go a long ways toward easing some of the hostility.  Unfortunately (or not), in light of his No Contest plea, I doubt a lot of detail will be forthcoming… but who knows. 

Anyway, Nugent’s website is now carrying the following message:

To my Fellow Outdoorsmen…. You may have read the news that I pled no contest to two misdemeanor game violations. I should have been better informed, more aware and I take full responsibility. The honorable hunting lifestyle is my deepest passion.

Ted Nugent

Somehow, I doubt this is the last we’ll hear as the pressure is really coming on.

You can read Nugent’s account of the hunt (less the bits about spikes and bait) on Archery News Online.

Well, most of you have probably heard or seen the news (old news) about Ted Nugent’s recent run in with CA DFG regulations.  On Friday, he and his camera man entered No Contest pleas to the charges, accepted the fines, and are in the process of moving on.

I was going to move on past this one too, since it’s getting so much coverage already, such as this post by my friend and fellow Skinny Moose blogger, Dan “Moose” McLaughlin.  But as I read the various posts on other sites and see the comments and pure vitriol, I decided that I would be remiss if I didn’t cover it too… at least to some extent… for a couple of reasons.  First of all, I’ve spent a bit of time offering commentary on the good, bad, and ugly of several hunting programs.  This is right in context with some of those commentaries, since the violations were filmed, produced, and aired on national television.  In fact, this is how the violations were discovered… a CA DFG warden saw the episode and watched as Nugent arrowed a spike buck! 

Another reason I thought I’d throw my two cents into the fray is that this did happen right here in CA, my (current) home state.  Hell, Moose is all the way back in NC and he got the scoop on me.  How slack am I?  So…

Here’s a quick synopsis of what went down, for anyone who hasn’t seen this yet.  Last fall, Nugent came out to the El Dorado County foothills to shoot a blacktail buck for his TV show, Spirit of the Wild.  In the process of filming the episode, Nugent and co. violated three DFG regulations.  He shot a spike buck, hunted with the use of bait, and he failed to have his tag countersigned. 

California game laws require that a buck has at least one fork in the upper 2/3 of one antler.  Brow tines do not count as forks.  Of the regulations violated, this one is probably the most clear.  I haven’t seen the episode, so I don’t know the circumstances around the killing of the spike buck.  I do know that it’s very possible to mistake a spike for a forked horn on first glance (I’ve done it several times), but to make the mistake and take the shot at bowhunting range just seems careless.  But there must have been some kind of extenuating circumstances, because he was not charged for shooting the spike.

Baiting rules seem pretty clear also.  Food baits are not legal.  Scent attractants are.  The bait in question is C’mere Deer, a spray product that emulates the scent and flavor of food.  When sprayed on rocks or stumps, deer are attracted to the scent, and actually lick or gnaw the scented object.  In the eyes of CA DFG, this constitutes a food attractant.  It’s a technicality, right or wrong, that tends to confuse a lot of CA hunters.  Nevertheless, a professional guide should understand the regulations. 

Countersigning the tag is probably one of the most oft-broken rules out there for deer hunters.  The law requires the successful hunter to have the tag signed by an authorized official as soon as possible after harvesting the animal.  The signature is basically a testament that the official saw the animal, and that it is legal game.  The CA Fish and Game website has a list of authorized officials, and it includes law enforcement officers, fire officials, DFG wardens and biologists, butchers, notaries public, and many, many more (the glaring ommission, in my eyes, is that licensed guides cannot countersign a tag).  However, many hunters don’t bother with this step, either because it’s inconvenient or they simply don’t know about it.  Of course, if I had an illegal deer in my possession, I probably wouldn’t go get the tag signed.

With the possible exception of the first, these violations aren’t particularly heinous.   Why the uproar?   

Nugent brings out the extremes in people.  Folks tend to love him or hate him with extreme prejudice.  Personally, while I’m a pretty big fan of his music, I’ve never liked his political grandstanding, in-your-face, all-or-nothing approach to politics.  Like some other musicians from the 70′s (e.g. Charlie Daniels), his recent right-wing patriot extremism flies in the face of the personna many of us fans recall from his heyday and seems fairly disingenuous.  I’ve always seen him as something of a buffoon, politically, spouting off whatever comes out of his head with the same aplomb as his impromptu, on-stage raps.  His hunting program follows the same balls-to-the-wall approach, and there’s a zeal there for the kill that can be somewhat off-putting to many viewers.  This last is relevant, because I have a feeling it’s part of the reason for the current fiasco.  Kill first, think later. 

But at the end of the day, I don’t know what happened.  I wasn’t there.  I haven’t read the court records, and Nugent hasn’t (to my knowledge so far) offered up his own explanation. 

So it raises the question… does he deserve one of these?

I received the following email yesterday.  The salutation was addressed to “Mike”, so I’m not sure it was meant for me specifically.  After reading through it, I can say that if it was meant for me, then the author really hasn’t followed a lot of what I’ve written over the years regarding the need for hunters to get past the distrust of the “tree huggers” and work on the extensive common ground (like this essay). 

The message certainly contains some things I take issue with, including my pet peeve of comparing the land ethic of the aboriginal societies (Pomos and Miwoks in this case) with modern society as if the population of a few thousands is even relevant compared to the populations of tens of millions.  But beyond that, he raises some interesting points that are worth consideration and discussion.  So I thought I’d share it here now, whether it was intended for me or not:

Glad to see you addressing thie issue from the hunter’s point of view.  I think you got it right as far as the politics go.  Not so sure from how you present yourself that you really grasp the environmental movement, how complex it is, and how many people are active in it, what their real motivation is, and the fact that quite a few hard core environmentalists are hunters and fishermen. 

I am a 4th generation Sonoma county native who was born in 1936 and grew up hunting and fishing around here, probably over 200 days a year, from the time I was 5 until I was 18 or so. When I started duck hunting the limit was just being reduced from 25 (50 in possession) to 15—and all the hunters were totally pissed off!  After 4 years in the infantry I decided I didn’t want to be killing anything any more, nor did I need to blow off any more ordinance, so I set my weapons aside and found other ways to stay deeply involved with Nature. But I still respect hunters and hunting.  Read the rest of this entry »

So this follows on last night’s rant, re: intentional bad shots on hunting television shows.  What I’ve got to say isn’t new here.  In fact, I’m probably repeating myself because I know I’ve covered this ground before.  But so what?  It’s my blog. 

I’ve talked to and heard from a lot of hunters who have a range of opinions about TV hunting programs.  Most seem to feel that the programs glorify the wrong aspects of the hunt, emphasize the kill over the hunting experience, and highlight questionable ethics.  In fact, if I tried to sum it up anecdotally, I’d think the overall feeling was pretty damning and there shouldn’t be many sportsmen watching this stuff. 

But the truth is that there are at least three networks wholly dedicated to this kind of programming, along with several other channels featuring at least some hunting/fishing programs.  Someone must be digging it, because the sponsors and advertisers are sure dumping in the cash to keep it alive.  I have to say that on many levels, I’m glad to see this.  With the decline of print media and the rise of the short attention-span culture, television and Internet sources are the go-to media outlets for hunting entertainment.  It’s one more way to perpetuate the sport, to introduce it to new audiences, and maybe even to recruit new hunters.  It’s also an excellent conduit to promote ethics and sportsmanship.  I know for a fact that many viewers are using these programs to learn more about hunting techniques, styles, tools, game species, etc. 

That level of influence comes with a responsibility, and this is where I think that some of the hunting programming, and the networks that host them, really fall short. 

Now I’m not suggesting that hunting programs become didactic, proselytizing ethics sermons.  In fact, I’d hate that, because it would kick off that ever narrowing spiral of, “this is the only right way to hunt.” 

However, I do think that hunting programs definitely should hold their content to a higher standard than, perhaps, the average hunter.  By this, I mean that the average hunter gets over-excited and takes a bad shot from time to time.  They’ll stretch one out past their limits, take a bad angle, or try a low-percentage shot out of desperation.  It’s human nature, exacerbated by the fact that big game hunting is a sport that may offer the average hunter only one shot opportunity in a year.  (And let’s not even go into the economic pressure when a hunter has paid a lot of money for a hunt.) 

Even a highly ethical hunter can fall to temptation or bad judgement from time to time.  I understand this.  These are the real life things that happen in the field.  Sometimes they end well.  Sometimes they don’t.  But that doesn’t mean it needs to show up on the television or computer screen.  Honesty is an important thing, but it’s a virtue that doesn’t translate well to mass media.  Public opinion isn’t usually formed by the subtext of an action…it comes from what they actually see.  Read the rest of this entry »

This is just a quick one…

OK, so I’ve been here with the house and the TV pretty much to myself for the last few days since  Kat’s off in Dallas taking care of her mom.  It’s not necessarily something to be proud of, this newfound couch potato status, but there ya go…  Anyway, of course I’m watching horn porn.  I know, I’ve gone on about it before, but you take the good with the bad.  Or maybe not!

But good goddammit… if I see one more asshole, like the guy on Endless Season Outdoors, shoot another animal in the ass, guts, or leg at ranges way outside of reason…  well, I don’t know what I’ll do except get more pissed off.   I mean, really guys!  Is it that damned important to get your footage on TV that you’ll show stuff like this?  Sure, the guy killed the animal, but a 283 yard shot on a buck running dead away? 

Sorry, but that’s just bullshit.  Excuse the language if it offends you, but I’m so aggravated right now I can hardly stand myself.  It’s bad enough that people still do stuff like that, but it’s inexcusable to show it to the world on television!  You turn off the camera, say, “sorry, we can’t use that,” and you go on to the next hunt.  Or you at least set it up as an example of what NOT to do.  But to not only film the shot, but to stand around and share high fives with the hunter and camera crew afterward…  that’s just wrong.

Signing off.  I’ve got an email to write to the Endless Season Outdoors staff.

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the discussion we’re just wrapping up over at Tovar’s Mindful Carnivore blog.  While I definitely recommend that, if you haven’t, you should go check out the discussion there, I’ll summarize some of it.

It all began with Tovar’s post regarding one of the biggest threats to hunting.  It wasn’t anti-hunters he pointed out, but folks from within our own ranks… the slobs. 

As you might expect, there was a lot of general agreement from the hunters who read and comment on his blog.  It’s the folks giving us the black eye on the public stage who contribute the most to negative opinions about hunters.  Those negative opinions turn into negative votes when issues affecting hunters come before the voters.  It’s made worse when these exceptions are made to look like the rule in animal rights/anti-hunting campaigns.  Etc. Etc…. I’ve written about this many times, as has almost every hunting blogger, columnist, and author who’s ever discussed ethics. 

The discussion might have dropped off pretty quickly, if not for the appearance of “Ingrid“, a non-hunter who works in animal rehabilitation.  Ingrid has joined in more than one conversation on Tovar’s blog, and has dropped in at Holly’s NorCal Cazadora blog as well (I don’t think she’s ever posted here).  While Ingrid is quick to point out that she’s not outright opposed to hunting, she has a lot of issues with what she sees as an overly cavalier attitude by most hunters toward the well-being of the animals we hunt… an attitude that even fosters outright cruelty.  She’s a loud proponent of the idea that hunters should take a deeper consideration for the animals’ welfare, and should change our behaviors accordingly.  This includes curtailing certain methods of hunting, although I can’t say I’ve heard her actually enumerate specific behaviors or methods (she certainly didn’t in this discussion thread). 

This spurred a lot of thoughtful responses on the blog, and the conversation took a lot of interesting twists.  I won’t try to recap it all here, but there’s one tangent she hit on that I wanted to address at the time.  Her point was that a lot of hunters, when challenged on a method or practice, tend to fall back on the “it’s tradition” argument.  To her, that’s a worthless argument.  I tried to craft a reply at the time, but I was too busy with work and the conversation quickly left that point behind before I could get back to it.  I got involved in other points, and left that one lay for the time being.

It might have stayed there in the dust if I hadn’t hit on this recent post over on Eric Nuse’s Fair Chase blog.  Actually, the post is a re-print of a piece from the Outdoor Wire in which Simon Roosevelt (Great, great grandson of Theodore) has challenged Boone and Crockett record-holders to be public and vocal about their love of hunting, why they do it, and who they are.  Roosevelt’s argument is that by doing so, these hunters will present a positive image to the public that will help to counteract the negative stereotypes, bad press, and myths that so many non-hunters now hold. 

Here’s part of what the piece said:

Simon Roosevelt, whose great, great grandfather was the 26th President of the United States, legendary sportsman, consummate conservationist and founder of the Boone and Crockett Club, delivered the remarks as part of his keynote address at the Club’s recent 27th Big Game Awards in Reno, Nev.

Roosevelt said all hunters share a legacy with early Club members who developed the hunter-funded, science-based system that helped to recover that era’s devastated wildlife and habitat. That system remains the lifeblood of conservation still today. But those who achieve special status within the hunting community have a chance to join TR and his contemporaries in accomplishing “something even more important-more crucial for the long-term success of conservation-that is, fundamentally changing the way Americans think,” he said.

Although 80 percent of U.S. citizens now live in cities, they understand the importance of natural resources and sustainable use, says Roosevelt, but, “What they don’t understand is how we as hunters fit, or maybe better said, that we fit, and why we’re important. If we fail to get this message across, we will continue to lose hunters and hunting access, and ‘hunting’ may well come to mean nothing more than high-fence farms and park culling.”

Boone and Crockett record holders openly communicating who they are, what they do and their love of doing it-even when they don’t take an animal-will lead to greater public support of hunting, says Roosevelt. And that, in turn, will spur more resources for today’s conservation challenges: climate change, habitat loss and fragmentation, and diseases.

As I read this, I thought back to Ingrid’s point.  At first, I had sort of agreed with what she was saying.  Simply claiming that we hunt a certain way because it’s traditional is not a very good justification for a practice or method.  But that point of view didn’t sit completely well, and I was having trouble putting my finger on why.  I mean, I do agree that if a certain hunting practice is damaging the habitat, the resource, or private property then there’s no justification… tradition or otherwise.  And I do realize that, for some people, poaching, tresspassing, and illegal behavior could certainly be considered tradition.  But many positive aspects of the hunt such as conservation, woodsmanship, and marksmanship, are completely defensible on the strength of their roots in tradition… and vice versa, hunting as a tradition is defensible because of what that tradition instills.

I’d even go so far as to suggest that some of the more controversial topics, such as running hounds, can be at least partially defended on the basis of tradition… if we can explain what that tradition means, where it comes from, and how important it is to the participants.  Think about it.  Tradition is about a lot more than a single outcome.

The fact is, when it comes to addressing public perceptions, I think it’s entirely valid to say that we do things a certain way because it is tradition.  Hell, I’m pretty sure there are a lot of hunters like myself whose enjoyment of the hunt comes in part from the memories and traditions handed down through generations.  It may not be the only reason we hunt of course, but it can be a pretty big part of the whole.  I think of hunting camps all over the country where generations of hunters have gathered over the years and passed along stories, knowledge, and… yeah, traditions.  I think of the personal traditions, passed from parent to child over and over again as each grows up and passes it along in turn.  Tradition is a real and powerful motivation.

And non-hunters understand that.  They know what tradition means, and for most people it carries a sort of wholesome, family-values flavor.  And I believe that this is a critical part of the kind of communication Roosevelt was talking about in his speech.  This “it’s tradition” angle shouldn’t be the Achilles heel of our public relations.  It should be one of our strongest selling points. 

Think about it.  The concept is used throughout our own community and industry, whether it’s the “Hunt with your kids, not for them,” bumper-sticker slogans or the polished, Madison Avenue ad campaigns. It’s a purely emotional appeal, but that’s sort of what PR is really all about.  And it works.  Why would we think that, if it’s effective on hunters, it wouldn’t also sell to non-hunters?

I realize, of course, that a full-fledged defense of hunting can’t rely solely on emotion.  It must include the practical, quantifiable benefits the sport provides.  But we have that ammunition already at hand.  If we can capture the minds of the public with fact, then there’s no reason not to go for their hearts too.

Now here’s the interactive part of this…

Sure, if you’d like to make a regular comment, go ahead.  But I’m also asking for folks to share some of the hunting traditions that underlie their practices, habits, and motivation for the hunt.  How was it passed down, and how will you pass it along?  If you don’t come from a hunting environment, or don’t have the background of a hunting tradition, what sorts of things might you pass along as a mentor to other hunters?

This is sort of a randomly assigned association in my terribly fogged up mind this afternoon, but that’s OK.  It’s MY blog, and I can be weird from time to time.

So with that in mind, and in light of some really good ethics and animal cruelty discussion over at Tovar’s blog, my eye was caught by this report of a very different kind of animal cruelty, perpetrated of course not by hunters, but by theme park employees. 

From the AP:

Police said authorities at Six Flags Great America ejected two off-duty employees from the theme park after they allegedly attacked a female colleague dressed as “Porky Pig.” Gurnee Police Sgt. Jon Ward says two young men took a photo with Porky on Monday afternoon, and then punched the mascot in the head 10 to 15 times.

Read more: http://tinyurl.com/24hbxfh

OK, so that’s a pretty goofy story and has nothing to do with the content of this blog.  I really just used it as an excuse to direct ya’ll over to Tovar’s for this great conversation.

It’s been awhile since I rolled this one out, but after seeing this piece over at the Moose Droppings blog, I just felt like it was time to dust off the trophy. 

For those who haven’t seen it before, the Adam Henry award is a special prize for the losers out there who give our sport and community a bad name. Why “Adam Henry”?  In the phonetic alphabet used by some law enforcement and emergency service, words are used to represent letters, so Adam = A and Henry = H.  This is a shortcut for Asshole, which of course is something they can’t just say over the radio. 

So today’s big winner is hunting television host, Gary Finch. 

According to documents filed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife, Finch and his cameraman were caught hunting turkeys over bait.  Following some questioning, it turns out that not only had they illegally killed birds on the bait that morning, but the previous day Finch had actually killed two turkeys, a violation of the daily limit regulations.  Finch, an Alabama resident, was also (allegedly) hunting illegally on a FL resident hunting license. 

Hunting television and video already tread a thin line in the eyes of the non-hunting public.  Rumors of unethical and illegal behavior are rife, and while I’m sure they’re often over-inflated, incidents like this one make it that much more difficult to defend the rest.   I’m sure there’s a lot of pressure on hunting celebrities and their guides to make each hunt successful and video-worthy, but breaking the law simply isn’t the right answer. It makes us all look bad.  One stupid stunt like the one pulled by Finch, or some of the other highly publicised celebrity hunters undoes all the positive press our community has generated over the years.

So here’s to you, Mr. Finch!  Thanks for all you’ve done for the sport, the community, and the industry!   You deserve this award!

Well, the ethics discussion has certainly taken on a life of its own… or rather, regained the life it previously had.  There’s nothing particularly new about this conversation, but there is much to learn, and often the learning isn’t so much in the words folks are writing, but in how we think about them and how they impact our actions. 

I’ve gone a bit astray from the original roundtable idea.  When I suggested the running conversation, the idea was to read one another’s points and ideas, and then post our extended comments to our own blogs.  This would keep the conversation from bogging down in a single comment string on one site, and would enable the conversation to reach a much wider array of readers.  It would also allow the discussion to take different directions, as folks could build off of ideas spurred by someone’s point. 

Recently, with two posts over at the Fair Chase Hunting blog, I got pulled directly into the conversation in the comments, and failed to continue it here on the Hog Blog.  The first was Eric Nuse’s original response to the roundtable idea, What is Hunting – A Philosophical View, and in it he lays out the ideas presented in a paper he wrote following a retreat that must be similar to Galen Geer’s “symposium” (the post that sort of kicked all of this off). 

Eric’s post generated some pretty good discussion, including a few comments that I think made the perfect illustration of how personal the concept of “ethical hunting” can get… and how quickly that personal definition excludes other hunters’ methods and motivations.  But even better, it offered the opportunity to begin to differentiate “ethics” from aesthetics… both in semantic terms and philosophical. 

The second was a follow-up based on that initial discussion, wherein Eric tries to separate the notions of Ethics Versus Preferences, which I consider the keystone of my own position as well.  At some point, preferably early in the discussion, we have to learn to separate the “I” from the picture, before we start trying to apply definitions of “right” and “wrong” to the larger community.  The conversation also illustrated how convoluted the discussion becomes, and pretty much ended up with the idea that we need to simplify the issue… although exactly how to simplify becomes a tricky question in itself. 

Oddly enough, or maybe not so oddly, Galen put up his own post to a similar ends… the discussion gets unwieldy with so many esoteric ideas, so maybe we should start with a simple idea.  His suggestion was to begin with this idea:

If we agree that the key to being an ethical hunter is full use of skills and allowing the game to fully use their natural ability to survive then the outcome is ethical hunting. If we can accept that premise does this become a functional foundation to build on?

 I’m not sure if that idea simplifies anything or not, but it is a starting point.  The complexity becomes a question of definining a “full use of skills”.  What does that mean?  Is it a justification for the new, untrained hunter to hunt over bait inside a high-fence enclosure?  Does that then mean that there is no justification for an experienced hunter to do the same?  While I can sort of see the logic there, I think that it is a vague differentiation that would be lost on non-hunters (not to mention that it’s a logical leap and a value judgement with which I disagree).  But maybe it’s as good a starting point as any. 

But to the idea of simplicity… to the need to simplify… 

As these conversations have dug deeper and deeper, I am brought back to what I consider a critical question.  What is the objective of this discussion?  If there were to be a singular, definitive outcome, what would it be? 

I’m not saying it’s a pointless use of our energies to simply debate on the academic level.  Great ideas are being generated and expanded, and maybe some preconceptions are being challenged.  I think some folks might realize that the ideas of “fair chase”, “ethics”, and “morals”, are bigger than any individual perspective.  These are good things, and if that’s all we get out of this exercise, then I can deal with that. 

But it seems that we’re digging pretty hard for something more substantial… I’m just not clear on what that is. 

One of my reasons for asking this, maybe belatedly, is because we must understand that if we start to really dig for truth, we’re going to have to tip some sacred cows.  Hunting is not a “noble sport”, no matter how we couch our justifications and arguments (and there are some strong ones).   We can wrap it in pretty concepts and grandiose ideals, but it boils down to recreational killing… blood sport.  This is the reality that I think we’re trying to reconcile here. 

And I just keep wondering… to what ends?

Some great stuff seems to be coming out of the running ethics discussions, as well as the spin-offs (intentional or not) from the two posts by Thinking Hunter, Galen Geer, in which he first describes the ethics problem and considers holding a “symposium” for discussion, and then goes into some thoughts about an approach to the hunter’s ethics problem. 

Arthur has put up a couple of good posts on his Simply Outdoors site, including this one.  Chad Love, the Mallard of Discontent, takes a run at it in his surly post about the SHOT Show and the proliferation of high-tech gadgetry.  And finally (in my list, not necessarily in order of appearance or relevance), there’s Eric Nuse’s considered response on his Fair Chase Hunting blog.  (I know this is a lot of links, but if you’re interested in the topic or conversation, it’s worthwhile.  Honest.  Otherwise, Holly, the NorCal Cazadora has mentioned setting up a new blog to collect these threads in a single location… great idea for a way to utilize our spare time.)

It is the comments on Eric’s blog that spurred my return to the topic, particularly those from someone named Shaun.  Shaun’s posts hold tight to what I consider the traditional argument for hunting ethics… that without a certain ethical ideal, what we’re doing is not really “hunting”, but simply killing.  I can understand that perspective, and even agree with it to a point.  But it also smacks of that elitist attitude that fails to take into consideration that every individual has their own set of values, and their own motivations for hunting. 

Is the person who hunts a high fence with a rifle a lesser hunter than the man who hunts the far outback with nothing more than a bow? And if so, isn’t the man who hunts with a rifle a lesser hunter than the one who hunts with a bow… or the man who hunts with a compound bow a lesser hunter than the one who hunts with a traditional bow?

Why, exactly? Because they don’t live up to your standard? 

I don’t know why people can’t see the endless, downward spiral of this desire to define someone else’s experience based on their own values.  Once you start, it doesn’t end… it can’t end once it’s started: 

• A fence isn’t “hunting”. 
• A scoped, high-powered rifle isn’t “hunting”. 
• A compound bow isn’t “hunting”. 
• Any missile weapon isn’t “hunting”. 

It’s a rhetorical trap.  At some point, you have to recognize that there’s no such thing as “fair chase”… and short of running them down by foot and biting their heads off, every tool or weapon we use gives us “unfair advantage”.  That’s the point of inventing tools.

Shaun says hunting really is the “natural outdoor experience in pursuit of a game animal.” 

Help me out here.  What is “natural”?  What is “fair” when it comes to predators killing prey?  Is it somehow supposed to be based on the uncertainty of the kill… The level of effort required? 

I have known hunters to enter a high fence and leave again empty-handed. In one of the posts that started all of this, Galen Geer describes exactly such an experience.

I have a place I hunt where I am surrounded by over 200,000 acres of unfenced, wild lands.  Beyond that is more open land, eventually bounded on one side by the Pacific Ocean, on two sides by urban areas (Bakersfield and Los Angeles), and on the other side by the Mojave desert.  Yet on this place, I have a spot where I know that I can walk less than one mile two hours before sunset, wait an hour or so, and kill a wild hog.  It’s the closest thing to a sure thing that I’ve ever seen.  Even so, I’ll hit this spot at least a couple times per year, because I know that I can count on it.  When it comes down to it, I’m there to kill a hog.  If I simply want a walk in the woods, I can do that much cheaper and closer to home. 

Is that any different than hunting under a feeder where I know the animals will usually appear within five minutes of the whirring motor?  Why?  And if that’s not wrong, then why is it wrong to hunt in a fence with the same expectation of success?  Does hunting that spot lessen my experience or my enjoyment of that experience? 

A bigger question… If, for whatever reason, I can’t hunt according to the standard set by people like Shaun, should I simply forego hunting altogether?  I appreciate the fervor, but it simply doesn’t apply across the board.  Motivations vary.  Abilities vary.  Values vary. 

Hunt and live according to your personal ethic, but it’s a dangerous road to project your own values onto others… especially if your best rationale is some arbitrary concept of what the hunting experience should entail. 

That doesn’t mean, however, that we shouldn’t promote our own ideas of hunting ethics… nor that, should we choose to take the challenge, we don’t strive to elevate our own ethics. 

We should definitely throw our ideas on the table, dissect them, and see where it leads.  That’s why I got involved with this conversation, and why I am encouraging others to take it on as well.  The discussion is good and valuable, even if it’s primarily academic.  I’m just still not convinced that there’s a defined right or wrong answer to the questions.  Let’s keep it civil and keep it going.