Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

George,

First, let me welcome you to the Hunting notesfile.

I for one, and I am sure there are others who will share this.  Thank you
for not taking an immediate negative attitude, but rather ask what some
other hunters think of your misfortunes.

You said in your note that a majority of the hunters left at your request,
and some of those also appologized.  These people are hunters.  The ones
that shot down your signs and those who either refused to leave your prop-
erty of left with a bad attitude are not.  Those are the people who you
go on to describe as the ones having "The feeling of power".  They are
also the same type of people we would rather see banned from hunting al-
together or at the least make them go through a hunters education course. 

I for one don't have a feeling of power when I go into the field for a day
of hunting.  But rather I feel at peace knowing it is me againt my prey and
nature.  If you go back and read some of the "stories" you will find that
wildlife is definitely not at a disavantage.  Sure we may have firearms,
but you should have your pants scared off of you by an animal 10' from your
"vantage point".  You have to take into consideration that we are visitors
in thier habitat, they have the advantage.

You have the right to post your land and any hunter with any ethics would
respect your wishes.  You also are entitled to your reasons why you don't
hunt, although I do not agree with them.

As far as legal aspects of tresspassing, I am not at all familiar with
Canadian law.  I assume there is something you can do but will leave that
to others who are familiar with the laws of your country.

Again, I wish to thank you for not putting all hunters in one catagory.  I
am confident that with my reply and others to follow you will see that there
are a few bad apples in this barrel.  Both you and I are trying to rid the
barrel of these bad apples without tossing the whole lot.

Greg

    first let me join the previous reply in commisorating on the invasion
    of your posted land.
    
    In .0 you have missed what, to me at least, is the most important
    reason for hunting, and that is herd control.
    
    Man has eliminated most of the predators that used to take the weak,
    sick and old animals. Further man has fenced in the open country and
    restricted the migration of the herds.
    
    Left to themselves many "game" animals will simply starve to death, a
    fate which I assure you is far from pretty. Often they will go berzerk
    faced with a plentiful supply of food just the other side of barbed
    wire fence and charge at it only to die of their wounds hung up on the
    wire.
    
    True amateur hunters get a thrill from hunting: perhaps from the skill
    of the stalk, or the success of a difficult shot. Some of course hunt
    to gain trophies, others to prove they are macho. But at the end of the
    argument you are left with the undeniable fact that if all hunting were
    banned then professional hunters would have to cull the herd.
    
    Certainly in America and Britain, and presumably in Canada, the
    official hunting season, and individual hunters bag limits are defined
    to allow the sport hunters to take the number of animals that the
    authorities have determined have *got* to die that year. If the hunt
    doesn't occur then that number will be culled.
    
    Incidentally in Britain the government - through the Red Deer Commision
    - can tell land owners such as yourself to cull the animals on their
    land: the land owner then has the choice of hunting personally, selling
    the hunting rights to sportsmen, or hiring a stalker to perform the
    cull.
    
    So: yes I would like to see a world in which hunting was done with a
    camera and were nature was in balance, but it isn't, and it won't be
    unless we reintroduce the predators (wolves etc) and remove the man
    made obstructions such as fences, roads, farms and houses from the
    landscape...
    
    /. Ian .\

	George, I a genuinely sorry to hear that some of the people
	in your part of the woods do not respect your sign posted property.
	I think I would have to go with .1 as a reply for that. I
	personally believe that more education of hunters would be
	beneficial for all parts - the hunter, other hunters, the
	game and "innocent" bystanders. But this is a discussion
	which is carried out under a different topic.

	With regards to the reasons why anybody would want to hunt
	let me give you my two cents worth. I am not trying to sell
	you on hunting, but hunters are met with a lot of negative
	conceptions. It is not often that one can discuss hunting
	without the parties of the discussion already belonging to
	one camp or the other. Pity that, I am sure we could benefit
	if listened a bit more.

>>	-Killing. Part of the life in nature is killing and being killed.
>>I do not have a problem to accept  survival as a legitimate reason to
>>kill. What I question is the moral right to kill for the other reasons.

	One of the things modern society has managed to do is to turn
	killing into an abstract concept. People don't have to realize
	that meat is not just something you buy at the butcher's shop.
	Oh, I know that intellectually people know of the process, but
	how many people actually realize that in order for them to
	eat this particular piece of meat there is inevitable death
	that precedes this stage? Killing is something all meat eaters
	are a part of - some people have a less abstract relationship
	to the act of killing that is all. If you personally don't 
	like to think about death and killing, fine, modern society
	does not force you to. For others - farmers, hunters - the
	killing is not necessarily a bad thing it is accepted as a 
	part of the process of obtaining something to eat.

	Now there are many reasons why people hunt (food, trophies
	etc) but I think that for all hunting there is sadness involved
	when the quarry has been killed. But there is also a realization
	of killing being a part of life - some people are closer to that
	part than others.

>>	-Sport. In my opinion the most important part of
>>anything that may be called a sport is a fair play. For some hunters the
>>fair play part of it is that the animal has more than an equal chance to
>>escape. I would be ashamed to call myself a "sportsman" if the animal
>>did not have an equal chance to kill me and did not agree on the rules
>>in the first place. To me hunting may be a skill, not a sport.

	It is actually very difficult to hunt, i.e. it requires
	a lot of skills and preparation. If you look at the proportion
	of successful hunters in a season (maybe around 40%) you
	will understand that the animals have a very good chance
	of beating the hunter at his game. When something requires
	acquiring many skills (shooting, tracking, knowledge of
	habitat, knowledge of behaviour etc) and lots of preparation
	to increase your chances for success then I would accept
	the term "sport". Besides, choosing terms like "sport" is
	a bit meaningless because people have such varying reasons why
	they hunt. I suppose the word "sport" was used to distinguish
	the hunting done as a leisure time activity as opposed to
	hunting as a profession. 

	Some hunters agree with you about it only being true "sport"
	if the game has the possibility to kill the hunter as well.
	All I can say, is that if that is what takes your fancy then 
	it is still possible to have spine tingling experience by
	hunting what is known as "dangerous game". Different kind
	of hunting for different reasons - as you see hunting are
	many things.

>>	-Superiority of a human being. In many ways our society operates
>>on this premise. To me it presents a rather primitive and arrogant way
>>of thinking. Even if I wanted to accept it, I still would see a man using
>>the power of his technology in the wilderness as a violation of the
>>"Prime Directive".

	I really don't buy the "superiority" argument. The world is 
	based on hunting in it's purest form - some species are
	created as predators and some are not. It is true that 
	hunting is a very old form of expression in the human
	species. I think that for people who enjoy this
	form of expression it also amounts to reaching back into a
	subconscious part of yourself and finding almost forgotten
	roots. Much like an angler is pleased to catch a fish,
	a hunter is pleased to obtain his quarry.

	Hunting is often an excuse - but far from the only one -
	for enjoying nature. Look through this file and you will
	see people forgetting to hunt and rather watch a squirrel,
	or experience a high cool mountain meadow, a sunrise seen
	through the leaves of a forest. Hunting allows you to
	experience nature in a different way because it forces you
	to become more alert and aware of your surroundings. When
	I walk in the woods just for leisure I often find myself 
	caught up in myself and not really aware of nature around
	me - maybe I think of work or money or some of all the other
	necessary evils of modern life. Hunting requires a different
	attitude and provides for a closer relationship between you and
	nature.

	Btw, I agree with Ian about
	hunting being an integral part of modern game management.
	It may be unfortunate that the balance of the eco system
	has been upset to make it necessary for man to act as a controlling
	factor, but one thing we should not forget is that modern
	game management has been extremely successful in promoting
	large and healthy game populations. For all land there is a
	limit to it's carrying capacity and one of the central principles
	of modern game management has been to aim for that limit, and
	to take out surplus animals. This to a large extent avoids
	over-population/starvation cycles which occur if game populations
	are left without controlling predators.


							- Mike

    Re describing hunting as a sport:
    
    Words are very powerful, and I admit that the English language is
    constantly changing, but a quick look at one of the more complete
    dictionaries will show you that "sport" encompasses the following:
    
    Outdoor leisure pursuits requiring athletic or other physical skills:
    
    1) field sports (including hunting and shooting, which may be idealised
    into target shooting)
    
    2) equestrianism (often considered a subset of (1) because of the
    prevalence of horse back hunting with dog packs in Britain)
    
    3) the field games played by upper class male youths (rugby, cricket,
    athletics, especially cross country running, and perhaps rowing)
    
    4) the lawn games played by upper class women (tennis et al)
    
    5) games or events performed so that the onlookers may gamble (horse
    racing for example)
    
    In other words sport is the leisure pursuits of the upper classes of
    19th century England. it must be a "leisure pursuit" so it is
    impossible to have a professional sportsman, and moreover it cannot be
    for purposes of profit, which rules out professional soccer, American
    major league baseball or gridiron football (though the college game
    qualifies).
    
    So strictly speaking, much of what the media labels "sport" is either a
    game, or an entertainment. 
    
    Of course at the same time as this definition of "sport" was being
    solidified "gay" usually referred to the life and profession of the
    prostitute (of either sex)... 
    
    /. Ian .\
    

    
    	George,  To add a little to what has already been said, I agree
    with the other replies 100%, especially Mike in .3.  It is certainly
    a wonderful experience to go to the outdoors as our forefathers did.
    For them it was survival, for us it's more of a pastime;  We should
    not forget how we got to be here and who we are.  I also congratulate
    you for being open-minded about hunters, please convince others to
    be the same, and please report all violators!!!
    	Ian, I mildly disagree with you in that we should have an
    ecosystem that removes man from being necessary to prey on wild 
    animals.  I believe this is a very important part of many peoples
    lives and that we can all enjoy the fruits of nature (man and beast).
    Besides, I like Venison too much :')   And I'd hate to see it get
    to the point here in America where only the professional hunters are
    sent out to Cull the herd.  I do like to see predators in the wild,
    just that I'd like to be included on that list.
    
    - Rob 

	George,
 
             Welcome to the Hunting file and thanks for not flaming
   us and calling us a bunch of blood thirsty Rambo type bambi killers.
   
   I'd like to address a couple things you said. Number one if you are
   having a problem with trespassers, make sure your property is posted
   correctly (here i think it's a sign every 50 feet) then call the police
   if the problem persists. Legal Sportsmen/Hunters have nothing to fear if
   they obey the laws. 

   Killing for the sport of it.
    Heck if I hunted just to kill I would have gotten discouraged and quit
    long ago. My tally so far this year is one squirrel, the only reason
    I harvested him was because I thought I would get more. If I knew I was
    only going to get one I would have let him alone. Hunting is'nt that easy,
    you cant just walk into the woods and shoot a deer or any other animal. 

   Feeling superior and powerful.
      After walking all day through mud, snow, swamps, uphill etc. believe
      me you dont feel superior to anything. 

   if you feel like reading through this file you'll find out alot more
    about us. I would like to suggest that you read the note "I hate
    anti's", I started the note and it took off from there. Maybe you'll
    undestand a little more about what we go through.

                                                     Walt

    
    Sorry - I didn't mean to imply that we either could, or should return
    to a large scale pure wilderness ecology. In attempting irony I forgot
    the smiley.
    
    However perhaps you can view "herd control" as the converse of trophy
    hunting. I like venison as much as the next man, but I choose to hunt
    under the direction of a professional stalker ("game keeper") and
    eschew the Monarch of the Glens, for the properly chosen target - the
    weaker animals, hinds past fawn-bearing age or whatever as dictated by
    the stalker. I still get my venison, but of course not usually the
    10-point trophy head.
    
    I don't particularly like the idea of professional culling: amateurs
    are as skilled as professionals and often more intimately interested in
    the well being of the animals. Professionals soon turn into hacks
    (after all it is from the activities of earlier "herd managers" that
    the term originally arose) and indulge in "ear collecting" to get their
    bounty. The epitome of such mindless professional "hunting" is the
    buffalo hunters of the 19th century who hunting the North American
    Bison to the verge of extinction in order to clear the range for
    "civilised cattle" and people...
    
    [incidentally in Britain most deer killed by hunters are sold on to the
    retail butchery trade and appear in the high street shops, just like
    domestic cows, sheep and pigs...]
    
    /. Ian .\

    
    George,
    
               Again as all the others have stated, Welcome to the file and 
    Thank You for being open minded. I agree with about all that was said
    and if you noticed those views are very open and not a direct statement
    as being "told" something. But I really have a question for you. Why did
    you post your land in the first place?
    
                                                             Guy
    

Thanks for the replies. I was pleased to find gentleman hunters in this
conference. And I really appreciated the note about seeking a weaker
animal before the "pride" of gaining a bigger trophy. I think there may
other hunters who have not reached this level and who can benefit from
reading it.
	Not long ago I was observing a wolf. Or was it him observing me?
Standing in the field, looking rather like a pitiful scrawny dog, yet proud
and free. That made me think: Who are we, employed slaves of our economic
"progress", claiming his land?
	The land I am talking about is at the border of a vast space where
the rest the untouched wilderness still struggles to maintain its original
character. It faces a formidable and overpopulated opponent. Clouds of black
flies, mosquitoes, and severe winter conditions against chain saws, bulldozers,
snowmobiles, ... and guns.
	I would not argue that conservation and certain management may be
important in places where the fences have already been built. Here, in 
Canadian North, it is a future that still may be avoided.
	Yes, I thought of the game management role of hunters, it was covered
by the last point of my original note.

George

	George, fully agree about leaving the remaining widerness
	tracts untouched. They are an invaluable inheritance which
	can never be replaced. A functioning ecosystem in its' 
	original form is a truely marvelous occurrence these days.
	Here's to saving all the remaining ones!

	I can see that we have not convinced you to start hunting 
	just yet, :-). Fair enough. A good constructive argument is
	always valuable.

	I would like you to consider, though, the role hunting and 
	hunters have had in conservation of game, creation and
	conservation of habitat - a goal which I am sure you agree
	is applaudable. Countless organizations such as Ducks 
	Unlimited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (name correct?)
	and others each year spend an awful lot of effort and their
	(hunting) members money doing exactly that - and very 
	successfully I may add. We should not forget the taxes levied
	on outdoor equipment (guns, ammo, rods...) which plays a big
	role in conservation. So hunting is not necessarily 
	contrary to conservation efforts. Now I realize that there
	are many forms of hunting, just like there are many types
	of hunters. All is not black and white - even in the hunting
	world. But perhaps it would be good if you saw some of the
	good sides as well as the bad sides.

	Regarding protecting existing untouched wilderness areas
	maybe you should see activities such as hunting (and 
	outfitting in general) as a viable alternative to industrial
	use (I almost said "rape") of the land. Let's face it,
	you and I stand the best chance of conserving as much 
	wilderness as possible if we can show that the land has
	a value (unfortunately in terms of money, but such is
	the society which we have created), that it will support
	an industry. Now traditionally in the wilderness area of
	Canada (and elsewhere) this has meant either logging,
	mining or building hydro electric projects. God only knows,
	that the companies engaging in these activities have not
	tradionally been very ecologically minded. There is a whole
	bunch of people in the outfitting industry who would like 
	to show that there is a different way of exploiting the
	resources. A way which makes the resources reusable, and
	leaves the land in its' original shape. Hunting is one
	very valuable service to offer here.

	Now all the above does not mean that all areas of the wilderness
	should necessarily be hunted. There is plenty of room for
	areas where no hunting is performed - example: grizzly 
	sanctuary in North Western BC (the name escapes me at the
	moment). But do be aware that properly managed hunting is
	a way of exploiting the natural resources of the land in
	a way which will leave the inheritance intact for our
	kids. 

							- Mike
	

    
    re .0
    
    I just thought I would ask, what kind of a nightmare was it during
    hunting season?  I take it this nightmare caused you to post the
    property, or was the nightmare the fact that people were on your land,
    taking wild game (without your permission)?
    
    Answers to these questions will help me better understand where you are
    coming from, thanks.
    
    So you know where I'm coming from:
    
    Hunting has always been a big part of my life, from an early age.  It
    didn't take long to learn that all of the "hunting" occured before a
    particular game animal was killed.  I also learned early that wild
    animals are just that wild.  Noone feeds them during the winter, or
    brings them in from the cold.  The strong survive, they're built for
    survival right down to the last hair/feather.  I know most non-hunting
    people don't understand the disadvantage the hunter faces.  I have
    several close freinds who are not hunters, it wasn't until I took the
    time...many hours, that they now have a better understanding of
    reality.  One non-hunting acquaintance of mine has made the following
    statements, "Geez there are so many hunters on my property, I guess
    it's because there's this big buck...why don't you come on over and
    shoot it with your bow, and you can drive through town and tell
    everyone you shot it on my land...then they won't come back" and "Yeah
    you can hunt on my property, but don't shoot the small ones".
    
    First of all he really believes you simply walk out in the woods, and 
    the deer find you, especially this big buck.  Secondly although he has
    NEVER seen a confirmed buck on his property he still feels I'm going to
    walk out and be able to pick and choose what animal I want to take. 
    Let's say that I'm working on his vast misconceptions, but I don't
    believe I'm really getting anywhere...I really would like to take him
    out with me...
    
    In the end I believe we all choose to do what we feel is right.  I
    don't believe you're wrong for not hunting, likewise I need the same
    consideration.  It is interesting to note that in the early part of the
    1900's there were an estimated 2 million whitetail deer in the U.S.,
    I believe the population today stands over 200 million (these figures
    are from memory - they come from a column I read not too long ago in
    the paper U.S.A. Today).  The fact is although hunting takes from a 
    population, a species that has been legally hunted (for the objective
    of herd management), has NEVER become extinct.  Many people have this
    misconception as well.  Enough rambling...
    
    Again I repeat what others have stated, welcome to the hunting
    notesfile.  Hopefully you will see a side of hunting that you don't see
    on CBS.
    
    Kevin
    
    Sure there
    are going to be times when a deer is pushed to you by someone else,
    
    Kevin

    I wonder if anyone who dislikes hunters has ever thought of the
    good that we do. Meaning the re-introduction or introduction of
    animals in a certin area. For example, the moose in Maine and New
    Hampshire, Turkey's all across the US, the Lynx in New York, various
    exotic game in Texas, Elk in Michigan. The most popular was the
    ringedneck pheasent. The pheasent is not a native bird to this country
    it was brought over by sportsmans money for the purpose of hunting.
    There are also many other non-game animals  that have benefited from 
    Sportsman. These might be chipmunks, skunks, raccoons etc. but it
    came from Sportsmans money. Below are some facts about the dollar
    contributions we have made over the years. If we did'nt do it, who
    would have?
                                                
     (cross posted with authors permission)  
    
                  HUNTING AND CONSERVATION FACTS:
                   The Sportsmen's Contribution

  Through hunting licenses, excise taxes and duck stamps, America's
  18 million hunters annually contribute more than $500 million for
  wildlife and habitat conservation, hunter education programs and 
  funding of state fish and wildlife agencies.

  To date, American hunters have contributed over $6 billion directly
  to wildlife conservation projects. Nearly 4 million acres of wild-
  life habitat have been acquired since 1937 through the Pittman-
  Robertson excise taxes on guns and ammo alone. Without the hunter 
  and his guns, today's wildlife management successes would not have
  been possible.


    

    My thoughts on hunting are much different than yours. I do respect
    other peoples veiws on hunting though. Being your propery you have the
    choice to have people hunt there or not. Hunting for me is a very
    challenging sport that I find most enjoyable. This would not be the
    case if I just went out and shot these poor helpless critters in the
    woods every time I went. For me bagging game is just iceing on the cake
    and the cake hasn't been frosted in a while. But this has not maid my
    hunts less enjoyable. Some of my most enjoyable hunts have been
    watching all kinds of deer while turkey hunting and finding the big
    flock of turkeys while deer hunting and just watching. Spending the day
    alone in the wood quite an experience trying to figure out were and
    what that big bucks doing. There are many more times responable type
    sportsmen/hunters out there then the destructive shoot anything type
    that have no respect for other property that do not want hunting on
    there land. But unfortunately when it comes to hunting and firearms use
    that one jerk can serverly mess things up for a lot I meen A LOT of
    good good people. We are all together on this, working hard to rid are
    sport of these types that so easyly give hunters a bad rep.
    	I know how you feel about this George but the idea I have is to
    have hunt by premission only. If you let a few selected hunters that
    you know on your property to police it for you I'am sure you would see
    a much different situation than a nightmare. 
    
    	Just my thoughts
     	Steve Baker

    	George,
    
    	So far I have only been reading this note and its' replies. I felt
    no reason to put my 2 cents in as some of my fellow hunters have said
    all that I could. But I was wondering, what are your thoughts on what
    has been said to date and what is your impression of the hunters in
    this file? I know words are only words and do not tell of deeds done or
    to be done but in general what are you thoughts.
    
    	By the way, have you thought of contacting a local sportsmens club
    for help with your "slob hunter" problem? We had a land owner down here
    that was having a problem, he contacted the local club, they helped
    post the property with hunting by permission only signs. He gave
    permission to members of the club who helped care for the signs and
    police the land for him. All is well, the land is clean well kept, wild
    life habitat is maintained, the owner is now smiles and the hunting is
    good. ALL won with this effort. By the way, the land owner does not
    hunt nor has he ever hunted but now has friends that do.
    
    	Steve

I think I have already said all I had in my mind but since you gave
the honour to participate in your conference, I will try to respond
to some of the notes.
	What is a nightmare? Shotgun blasts from the the direction
where my wife went to look for the mushrooms, a pickup truck driving
dead slow with two "sportsmen" looking for anything that moves (maybe
just a bad dream), a hero with a semiautomatic and a very large supply
of ammunition who thinks that he had missed WW2....
	About my other thoughts. I can see a basic philosophical
difference between me and the man with a gun. Nature, in my mind,
is a place where all of us really belong. Unfortunately we have
changed living in harmony with nature for the conveniences of our
civilization. Therefore I see a modern man in the woods as a visitor,
a man with a gun as an intruder.
	There are many different kinds of human "predators". Some are
using helicopters, others pickup trucks with search lights, traps,
or just guns. I can see that there are certain standards and ethique
code for hunters I am very happy about. They draw the line that
separates the "real ones" from the "poachers" and the "slobs". But
all of them use the powerful tools of modern technology in the world
that did not choose to accept the human laws. It is not the killing,
it is the gunshot that presents the violence against the harmony in 
nature.
	During all my life I spent hours, days, and sometimes weeks
outdoors. Being there without a desire to control, achieve, or gain
opened a different world to me. I have learnt to see the animals the
same way I see myself. Not better or worse. To find them and observe
them has never been a challenge to me. It was a simple knowledge of
their habits, sometimes luck, or their own curiosity that helped me
to see them. In my eyes I will never justify a feeling of a thrill,
an achievement, or a reward when a hunter is aiming his gun.

(Mike H., aren't you selling your rifle yet :-)

I would like to thank you all for your replies. I learnt that the real
hunter is someone I can live with and I value your conservation efforts.
It also made me realize that the real hunters would be on my side when 
facing the slobs on my property. The "hunt by permission only" sounds
pretty good (in my circumstances).

George

    	Thank you George for entering this note file and "talking" with us.
    Not often do we hunters find a land owner like you, one who will listen
    and try to understand and even accept us for what we are and not the
    rotten apple in the tub. I wish there wer more like you.
    
    	By the way, I hope the permission only works. If you enlist the
    local sports club make it clear that if any member is found abusing
    YOUR land all will lose the permission. As part of the agreement with
    our local land owner the club has a weekend of work we give to the
    owner. This is used to fix what some tresspasser damaged usually very
    small. However this owner is a farmer and we help him get the hay in
    the barn on haying week. If you ask I'm sure they will help you with
    any task you need done to fix-up or improve your land.
    
    	Steve 

    
    re .15
    
    I'm glad you responded, it helps me understand our basic philosophical
    differences.  I won't try to justify any of the actions in the "nightmare",
    obviously it was a nightmare to you.  Perceptions of a situation really is
    in the eye of those doing the perceiving.  I will respect your
    differences of opinion as it appears you respect mine.
    
    thanks,
    
    Kevin