Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

	Jerry, it appears that the DOW has no other issue with spring
	bear hunting other than political ones, i.e. the spring hunts,
	as they have been scheduled until now, have not had a negative
	impact on the population to the extent that the DOW has felt
	the need for a reduction in the number of permits issued. From
	your's (and others'?) comments I gather that the only reason the
	DOW has considered limiting or stopping the spring bear hunts is
	to avoid a potentially damaging battle with the bunny huggers.
	Correct? Other places in North America (Candian provinces, etc)
	have scheduled spring hunts. Apart from having higher bear
	populations, I have yet to hear about Canadian bear numbers 
	threatened by the spring hunting. In any event, the DOW would
	be the first to know if a real threat did exist to the CO bear
	population.

	OK, that leaves the questions of ethics. That is always a difficult
	issue. What is regarded as good ethics in one place may be completely
	opposite to the line of thought in the next county/state/country.
	In lots of places baiting is a fully legal and accepted hunting
	practice, and yet in other countries it is not. Who is right and
	who is wrong? Likewise with hunting on hounds - after all lots of
	the bear hunting in the eastern US mountain states (the Smokies
	spring to mind) is done on hounds. I tend to believe that as long
	as the method of hunting in question has not been forbidden by
	the wildlife managing authority, then it is really up to the
	individual to decide what is kosher and what is not. After all,
	it is so easy to condemn a hunting method which one has not tried
	personally - maybe it is not so easy as it looked?

	Btw, regarding the issue of bear sows with cubs, isn't that
	an issue in the fall as well? I know in a lot of places, that
	the bear sow takes the cubs with her into the den for the next
	winter as well. So presumably, it would limit the chance of
	survival of the cubs even if the sow was taken during the fall
	season.

	All in all, as somebody said here (or in FIREARMS) just lately:
	wildlife management is a science and it should be executed as
	such. Sound game populations must be our goal, hunting plays
	an important part in achieveing that goal.

	Just one man's opinion.

							- Mike

Well, I am sad to report that amendment 10 passed.  For those of you who
haven't read the base note (or forgot it), amendment 10 was a ballot
issue in Colorado to stop/ban/outlaw all spring bear hunting.  It
also bans baiting and hunting with dogs as legal hunting methods for
bears.  I don't know the exact numbers, but I believe that it passed
by a rather wide margin.

In the base note, I posed a question of ethics.  Mainly, is it ethical
to hunt bears over bait, or to chase them with hounds?  So far, there
has been only one reply (thanks, Mike).  I've seen enough varied opinions
in this very conference to know that someone must have one on this.
And I would really like to hear some intelligent, well-reasoned
arguments one way or another.

If you don't want to tackle that question, then how about these.
What's the difference between hunting pheasants with a dog and
chasing bears with hounds?  Or between hunting waterfowl over
decoys and hunting bears over bait?

Jerry

P.S.  Proposition 200, the Arizona ballot issue that would ban trapping
on public land, and possibly all hunting as well, failed by app. 52 to
48%.  

    I hope this doesn't start to snowball across the good ol US of A. Or
    anywhere else for that matter. It seems like a sad day at hand......
    							Bret

I don't hunt bears, but I do have a bird dog.

I don't see an ethical problem with the use of dogs.  There is a lot involved
in training and handling a dog (to say nothing of a whole pack of them).
Even with the dog(s) there is no guarantee that the quarry will be where you
send the dog to hunt.  Even if the dog finds the quarry, there is no guarantee
that the quarry will go where the hunter gets a shot at it.

I see hunting ducks over decoys as different from hunting over bait.  
With decoys (as long as you are not using live decoys) you are using 
skill in knowing how to set up the spread and you are relying on your 
skill in calling.

Baiting, whether ducks or deer or bear, is a little different.  In this case,
I think you are training the quarry over time to come to a specific safe
haven expecting a handout and then you double cross him.  

But, baiting for bears may have some other advantages.  Hunting Bear over
bait may give the hunter enough time to assess the bear that the hunter
can be sure that it is not a female with cubs.  As long as the bear population
can sustain the hunting pressure, I don't see a real problem.

	What is considered "good ethical" hunting methods varies
	so much from one location to the next, depending on local
	conditions and the hunting traditions which
	evolved in that environment. If you hunt in one place only,
	it is natural to accept the rules and tradition of your
	home turf as *the* ethical way of hunting, and reject 
	other ways. But if you have the opportunity to venture a
	bit afield you'll be astounded to find how much good hunting
	"ethics" vary from location to location. I firmly believe that
	accepted hunting methods evolve locally largely as a result
	of local conditions and traditions. One should beware of
	stamping the methods used in the next county as unethical,
	just because they differ from what is kosher at home. Atleast
	one should try it out first, then it is up to you to judge 
	for yourself what you personally like, or even consider
	ethical.

	Just a few examples on how hunting methods and ethics differ:

	In the States there are very strict rules about shooting hours
	mostly regulated after sufficient shooting light. In much of 
	Europe, where human populations are so high and concentrated,
	game animals have long since been forced into being almost
	completely nocturnal. So the concept of shooting hours is not
	applied, instead people employ *huge* scopes to gather up every
	available ray of light that will allow the job to be done
	cleanly. Btw, one piece of ethics that fortunately seems to
	be accepted everywhere is the adherence to quick and humane kills.

	The Eastern Canadian provinces allow baiting for bear, British Columbia
	does not. There, bears can be hunted on the relatively open 
	slides and mountain sides in a spot and stalk fashion.
	That option is not viable in the thick bush of the Ontario, say.

	In Namibia (and a lot of other places) shooting on water holes
	is a fully accepted practice, in neighbouring South Africa that is
	considered a no-no. Why the difference, your guess is as good as
	mine...

	In Zimbabwe you can bait for cats (Lions and Leopards), over the
	border in Botswana that is illegal. But in Botswana's Kalahari
	desert, the sandy soil makes it possible to follow the spoor
	of the big cats. That is  not a good option in the thick jess 
	and thorn bush of Zimbabwe.

	I was fortunate enough to hunt for the huge wild Russian Boar
	for just two days this autumn. We were hunting north of Moscow
	in a 700,000 acre army reserve. I preferred to hunt on foot -
	whereas the accepted method of hunting there is the stand hunt
	at night. I tried the foot hunting - and I have to admit it would
	be almost impossible without snow on the ground to soften your
	steps and help in tracking. Talk of dense forest! We also tried
	to do drives, but saw only a Wapiti cow and her calf as they thundered
	past us. Let me tell you one thing about drives (accepted as a
	hunting method in most of the world) insofar as a clean kill is
	concerned, drives are a lot more dicey than, say, standhunting is. 
	Shooting on a drive is really for the experienced and advanced
	rifle man - you need a quick shot on a running animal. Chances of
	a poor hit are pretty large - atleast for somebody with my limited
	talents and experience in shooting at game (different from shooting
	on the range!). Since we could not find any pigs on foot, we sat in 
	stands. Let me tell you one thing which will turn you off completely,
	the Russians use spotlights on their night stands. That is accepted
	ethics there. They use the lights much like red lights are used
	in Africa for Leopards at night. The lights are used as an aid to
	put the sights on the target for a quick shot, not to blind or
	imobilize the animal as it is done in poaching or in culling 
	operations. We waited for two entire coooold nights (12 hour per
	night) in the dark blind - it requires a lot of concentration and 
	enthusiasm, I tell you! :-) As Lady Luck would have it, we only
	saw a sow, and that was not what we were looking for, so my efforts
	were pretty much wasted atleast as far as results are concerned.
	But as with all hunting, you have that spine tingling feeling,
	so had I had another day available I'm sure I would have been in
	the stand the next night again... Hoping, freezing and determined to
	hunt as hard as I could. Btw, if you want to go for one of the *huge*
	pigs, later in the year when the snow has fallen is the time to go.
	When I was hunting there were too many acorns and nuts to be found
	on the forest floor. Did I like the hunt? It is not my preferred 
	method - I like the activity of spot and stalk a lot better. But
	I had the opportunity to try out a different method of hunting, 
	developed locally and according to local conditions. The hunting
	"feeling" is the same, regardless of where or how you hunt.

	Sorry to be so longwinded - it has been known to happen before :-)

							- Mike

    Mike, be as "long-winded" as you like, your contributions are among
    the most informative and injoyable in hunting and firearms.  In the
    U.S. we are relatively restricted in the game types and habitats. 
    Seems that North America is not nearly as diverse as Eurasia and Africa
    is a looonnng way from here instead of a short scoot across that little
    lake of a sea.
    
    We do have Alaska and its bears (and that is on the agenda for '93) but
    just to think: lions, tigers, buffalo, leopard, boar, waterbuck, wildebeest and
    who knows what else.  
    
    BTW, I have read that leopard are especially dangerous as their primary
    food source is baboon and they are expert and taking down primates.  Go
    for the head and strike at everyone in the group in succession,
    lightning fast out of heavy cover, and not much warning.  Sounds like
    an even match for a man with a gun, one on one.  
    
    We ought to start a topic that address hunting situations and their
    solutions.  Different game or same game unique situations.
    
    /bob

>>                      <<< Note 1157.4 by SMURF::PUSHEE >>>
>>                              -< Just my opinion >-

>>Baiting, whether ducks or deer or bear, is a little different.  In this case,
>>I think you are training the quarry over time to come to a specific safe
>>haven expecting a handout and then you double cross him.  

That's a very good analysis.  Thanks.

Jerry

>>                      <<< Note 1157.4 by SMURF::PUSHEE >>>
>>                              -< Just my opinion >-

>>Baiting, whether ducks or deer or bear, is a little different.  In this case,
>>I think you are training the quarry over time to come to a specific safe
>>haven expecting a handout and then you double cross him.  


	I know nothing about bear hunting, but this part of the sport makes me
a tiny bit uneasy.  How sporting is it?  Hard to say.  Most non-hunters I talked
to (and couldn't convince) weren't thrilled to hear that this was even allowed.
"Wow, and you call yourselves _sportsmen?_"  (Sigh!)


*********

	I think a great majority _ASSUME_ that the bear population is in 
jeopardy, as in certain states with certain kinds of bears, it is.  And the
media makes all game sound "endangered" no matter whether it's bears in 
Colorado or elephants in Africa.  

	I expected the measure to pass overwhelmingly, as it did.  I just wonder
when it will quit, or if every election will stretch NRA and pro-hunting dollars
further in trying to defeat these kinds of things.   The Arizona Prop. 200 vote
is scarier still.



Steve

    
    
       As for baiting bears...  What's the difference between that and
    hunting geese in corn fields???
    
       In Maine it's legal to hunt bears with dogs and over bait.  I think
    that seeing an un-aware bear come to a bait would be about as exciting
    as it could get.
    
       I personally would rather hunt them that way than to shoot one that
    has been driven up a tree by a pack of dogs.  I'll admit though that I
    love to see (or hear) good dogs work.
    
    Chuck

    
    
    There is a difference between:
    
    hunting geese or ducks in a corn field and over decoys 
    
    and 
    
    any wild animal over bait that was placed there for the sole purpose
    of attracting that animal.
    
    If you want to compare apples to apples - how about deer and bear
    decoys in an orchard for instance.  
    
    In fact it is quite illegal to hunt waterfowl over bait, federal law.
    
    I agree with Mr. Howhy (sorry forgot your first name) - ethics are 
    very different by geographic area, look at dogging deer down south
    as another example.
    
    The point is convincing - if we have to - non-hunters (not necessarily
    anti's because all hunting is bad to them) that the methods are
    acceptable.  As the anti's push their agenda's farther it makes the 
    methods look more unacceptable to the non-hunters (which is the largest
    population group).  Keep the F&W agencies on our side and let them make
    the rules.  I don't like the idea of going to the general public with
    referrendum questions on a sport.  Why not do this for other
    legislation?  It stinks to me.
    
    Kevin

I agree, I see not ethical problems...

I see no difference between baiting bears and say... hunting deer over 
planted winter rye, bags of corn, or decoys.  This also goes for corn 
fields for geese, decoys for ducks or hunting pheasant with a dog.
Or hunting deer  out of treestands over apple trees.

In fact I see more of an ethic's problem with planting clover/rye and 
hunting over it.

While hunting bear with dogs is not my bag, for lack of the time to do it
, I don't condemn those who do.  As far as i'm concerned theres a whole 
lot more time devoted to preparing and maintaining a good bait, and 
training dogs than the act of pulling the trigger...  Thats just frosting 
on the cake, all the hard work was done weeks in advance, and thats only 
saying that the baits were productive in the first place.

JMHO, Fra

 I just read an article about hunting bear in Maine with dogs, and I have to 
admit it changed my attitude. It was in the November issue of New England
Game and Fish. Seems as though hunting bear with dogs isn't such a sure thing 
after all, and from the account it seemed quite sporting.

    I really dislike baiting in the deer hunting scenario.  It almost
    always disrupts the behavior patterns.  I tend to scout all year, from
    March through September.  Then October comes along and the folks that
    didn't invest the time, back in their four wheel pickup and dump 1/2
    ton of apples, carrots, beets, what have you and suddenly everything
    changes.  More well thought out stands are ruined that way.
    
    If it ever comes to vote, I'll be a'gin it.
    
    /bob

    What's the difference between hunting bear with dogs and hunting
    deer with dogs, as they do in some southern states?
    
    Jeff

    re: -1
    
    >What's the difference between hunting bear with dogs and hunting
    deer with dogs, as they do in some southern states?<
    
    Well for one thing if there is any measurable snow on the ground a
    bear, which has wider feet, can stay on top of the snow easier than 
    a deer, and won't be slowed down, as much, by it. 
    
    Besides if you need dogs to hunt either one of them then that isn't
    much of a hunt. All you have to do is follow the dogs and listen.
    There's no "hunting" to it.
    
    The only time I can see using dogs for hunting is for upland game birds
    and that only saves you energy beating the brush. I hunted pheasant for
    15 years with out a dog and just started using a dog this year. I
    haven't seen any more birds with him than I did without him, at least
    so far. But this is his first year hunting, I'm sure he will improve
    with experience.
    
    Just my .02.
    
    /cowboy\

>>       <<< Note 1157.15 by MPGS::GIFFORD "A pair of 45's beats 4 Aces" >>>
>>                     -< Don't use dogs, hunt 'em yerself. >-

>>    Besides if you need dogs to hunt either one of them then that isn't
>>    much of a hunt. All you have to do is follow the dogs and listen.
>>    There's no "hunting" to it.
    
    /cowboy\,

Have you ever hunted deer with dogs?

I haven't, but I know people who have.  And these are people I know and
respect.  From their description, it is a sporting proposition.  And
for what it's worth, you don't just follow the dogs and listen.  You
try to pick spots where the dogs will drive the deer and take them as
the run by.  Much like drive hunting.

I think that Mike Howhy had the right answer.  It all depends.  And I
think it's wrong for any of us to condemn a hunting method as unethical
until we at least understand how it's done and why it's done that way.

Jerry

    I agree with Jerry.  I know in Louisiana, they hunt with dogs.  I have
    a friend that is from Looozeeeaaaana, and he talked about it.  It's
    just like trout fishing.  Some people fish with flies, some with
    spinners, and some with bait.  whatever the law will allow.
    
    bob
     keep hunting
    

    re -1.
    Jerry,
    
    I don't believe in drive hunting either. It's like driving cattle
    through a shute and waiting at the end.
    
    /cowboy\

    my last node was for .16, this is for .17.
    
    Drive hunting is nothing like those different "ways" of trout fishing.
    In that example the fishermen are all approaching the trout the same
    way, just using different bait. If one fisherman put a sein down
    stream, then went back upstream and walked towards the sein driving
    the fish to it, then that would be the same as drive hunting. One is
    not fishing the other is not hunting.
    
    /cowboy\

    All I am trying to say is, depending on the situation, I don't think
    using dogs is bad.  Personally, in my situation, I would not use it.
    But if I was in a situation where there was a problem controlling the
    deer herd, Like Louisianna, I would use whatever means possible to
    control the herd.  Down south, you don't have winterkill.  Now maybe
    someplace where the herd is well balanced and managed, it's not the
    thing to do, but like Red Newsham said earlier this year, "In the state
    of Georgia, we have more deer harvested from roadkill, than the entire
    herd in Vermont."  Georgia does not have hunting with dogs allowable.
    Some states have a BIG problem with management, and that is one cure.
    
    Some instances in Louisiana are deer running up and down the
    subdivisions, jumping through windows into homes, etc.  I see that they
    have a problem, and it needs to be controlled.
    
    Now this is not to imply that ALL over that state there are big time
    deer everywhere you look.  But they got alot more than we do, etc.
    I would rather see a deer harvested by a gun from hunting with dogs,
    than hit by a car with no edible parts after impact.
    
    Bob
    

Cowboy,  

While I don't agree with your assesment that driving deer with either 
dogs or hunters is sporting, It is your right to think that way. I 
especially can't understand your reasoning about driving deer on what 
I'll assume are planned drives.  Unless you are hunting all alone and in 
what amounts to totally remote areas, you'll have deer driven by you 
almost all the time by other hunters, and while I'll grant you they are 
not planned they are nevertheless driven.

As far as hunting with your dog;

I see absolutely no difference between driving deer, and flushing 
pheasants with a dog... Your using an alternative method to flush game 
for an opportunity to shoot.  Birds which you may have walked past and 
never gotten an opportunity to shoot at had there not been a dog with 
you.  As far as listening to the dogs and just walking through the woods 
to shoot a treed bear... You obviously don't know the work and time it 
entails.

What I find to be offensive is planting a crop (clover/rye/corn etc...) 
for the sole purpose of harvesting a deer.  Especially this crap about 
only providing them with a better mineral supplement for larger antler 
development.  

Fra

>    way, just using different bait. If one fisherman put a sein down
>   stream, then went back upstream and walked towards the sein driving
>    the fish to it, then that would be the same as drive hunting.

Your right it's definately not fishing...  and is like comparing aplles 
to oranges.  However driving deer is a legal way of harvesting 
deer.  Think about all the times you said to yourself;  "i'll get in 
the woods a little deeper or earlier and let the others drive 
them to me".  

You obviously use a longbow or hunt with a muzzleloader, cause it sounds 
to me like your a real purist.

Fra

    Driving deer is by no means a sure thing.  There are plenty of places 
    for deer to make fools of the hunter.  Now while were on the subject of
    what _I_ find offensive I would bring up the guys who place big
    automatic feeders out and then sit in there tower blinds and pick off
    the deer that come to feed.  
    
      And anyone who can't get more birds with a _good_ dog then he can by
    himself must have one helluva nose!
    
    Jeff

    Fra, 
    
    I totally agree 'bout planting crops or baiting deer. It definately
    runs agains my grain.
    
    I've never mentioned anything about the legality of drive hunting, just
    that I don't agree on the method. As far as I know, I've never had a
    deer driven past me, of course I haven't seen very many deer in my
    years of hunting. I've been on sebatical (sp) for quite a few years. I
    just took up deer hunting again a couple of years ago. I have done
    quite a bit of pheasant hunting, and I didn't mind beating the brush by
    myself, I just got tired of my legs and arms getting all torn up by the
    briars, and like I said I don't see an appreciable increase in birds since
    I got my dog, but he's young. I've never gone into the woods earlier or 
    deeper with the intention of having deer driven by me. I usually go in 
    early and deep to get away from the other hunters.
    
    I'm not exactly a purist, this will be my first year with a smoke pole
    and I haven't bow hunted in many moons, although I'd like to take it up
    again. I'd use the best compound I could afford because I believe in a
    quick kill, not that a long bow wouldn't do the trick, I'd just feel
    more comfortable with something that I know is going to hit hard and
    fast.
    
    One thing that bothers me about drive hunting, especially with dogs, is
    that the deer will more than likely be on the run and it increases the
    chances of wounding instead of the clean kill, IMHO. Granted you'd have
    the dogs to track him. It still rubs me wrong. But, just because I
    don't agree with the method doesn't mean I'd agree with anyone stopping
    you (generic you) from doing it.
    
    Enough rambling.
    
    /cowboy\

    
    Another thing to consider with dogs in the south.  An article I read in
    Deer and Deer Hunting made it quite clear that in some parts of those 
    southern states that's the only way to get the deer out of the
    swamps/bayous.  It's a tradition down there, we have our traditions,
    every area is going to be a bit different.   Unless you are born and
    raised in that culture you won't understand.  
    
    We as hunters have to accept a wide range of methods, techniques, etc.
    I personally let the local regulations HELP define my ethics.  In other
    words I will not allow the state to define what is/is not ethical to
    me.  I will stay within the law.  And sometimes I won't do something
    that is legal because it goes against my personal ethics.  It can work
    both ways.  But what can be very scary is the selfish nature of some
    hunters (this is NOT directed at anyone or any string in this
    notesfile).  I know purist rifle hunters that would love to see them
    "damn bowhunters" loose their sport.  I've heard this before and it is
    totally bogus.  We have to stick together or we're going to loose it
    all.  So what's okay within the law for the southern hunters is okay
    for the southern hunters...simple as that.  Until you become a southern
    hunter than it's not an issue anyway.  That's when you make a choice.
    
    Kevin

    ooops! time to put my foot in my mouth.  Earl was so kind to break out
    the Georgia hunting regs to me, and pointed out that there is a
    paragraph with certain stipulations for hunting with dawgs!
    
    mmmm   mmmmmm goood.  shoe leather tastes almost as good as venison!
    
    Bob
    

    
      The comments about "drives" are kinda interesting.  Although I
    could never see myself deer hunting with dogs driving/chasing/
    flushing the deer for me, if its an accepted and legal method in 
    your area, and you are comfortable doing it, fine.  I wouldn't
    do it, just because it goes against what I feel is "right".  I
    also don't agree with using dogs for bear hunting either, but
    then again, Ive never tried it.  I don't condemn it, but I don't
    endorse it either.
    
      However, using hunters for drives is different (in my eyes).  I
    hunt with two other people (others occasionally, but mostly just the
    three of us), and most of the time we "work together" in the woods.
    We don't really consider it "driving" (can you have a "drive" with
    3 people?).  Our general plan is to have one guy post/sit on the
    end of this one particular ridge, and the other two will walk across
    the ridge towards him.  We have pushed lots of deer off that ridge,
    and we've gotten quite a few that way.  Although most of the deer
    bagged this way are shot by the sitter, several have been shot by the 
    drivers.  We don't just walk fast and make lots of noise when we drive,
    it is more like a controlled "Still hunt" (walk a ways, stop....).
    After we drive this ridge, we usually split up and more or less push
    in a general direction (i.e. " "OK, lets head west towards the power
    lines, and meet over there in about 2 hours").  Since we've hunted 
    together for so long and we all know how each other hunts, we have
    had good success hunting this way and we all enjoy it.  
    
      When we hunt other places, we generally do the same thing.  We split
    up, but make plans to possibly be in a certain area at a certain time.
    I don't consider this driving, just working togther.  Its the way I was
    taught to hunt, and I enjoy it very much.
    
      I know people who *do* drive.....  10 people walking, several people
    sitting, pushing thru small areas.  I don't like hunting that way...
    too many people in too small an area.  Nothing I'd enjoy.
    
    -Ron-

    From my point of view, that sounds like a small drive to me.  And I
    have nothing against drives.  We do that once in a blue moon.  Drives
    are methods of hunting, just like tree stands.  Some people don't
    believe in tree stands.
    
    bob
    

    Ron,
    
     Good description of what I think of as driving.(Two of three guys
    working together)
    
    Jeff

Well, I think I've read enough to draw a few conclusions.  One, everyone
has a different idea of what is ethical, and two, everyone draws the
line at a little different place.  Nothing really new or shocking about
that.

But consider this.  It is differences like this that is being used
against us.  In Colorado this year, it was spring bear hunting.  I
know of at least two hunters who fully supported the measure solely
because of the ethics of the situation.  In Arizona, it was trapping
with live-hold traps that was used as a focal point.  In other
states, and at other times, it will be something else.  The point
is that there will always be issues that are devisive among hunters
(or any other "group", for that matter), and our enemies can
take advantage of those issues to do the old "divide and conquer"
bit.

So ask yourself this.  Are you willing to put personal differences
aside, and perhaps support a method that you find unpalatable, in
order to present a united front for ALL hunting?  Or, would you
rather take the moral high ground and unintentionally side with
those that are strongly opposed to everything you stand for just
for the sake of a few individual issues.

It's not an easy decision to make, but I believe that it's one that
we will all have to make.  As the old Phram Oil filter commercial
say, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.".

Jerry

re:                      <<< Note 1157.27 by BTOVT::MORONG >>>
                             -< define "drive"... >-
    
	Ron, other people than you have noticed the difference between
	the small drives you describe, and the large "organized" drives
	you refer to with several shooters and many drivers or beaters.
	The principle of moving the game animals (be it deer, fox, birds
	or whatever) is obviously the same, but there is also a difference
	in the scope of the drive, size of party, number of shooters and
	people involved in general.

	In the German speaking part of Europe, one distinguishes between
	"Druckjagd" (literally "pressure hunting") and "Treibjagd" ("drive
	hunting"). The difference is exactly as you describe it, if you
	were a German hunter you would probably have used the term
	Druckjagd for what you and your friends engage in. FWIW :-)

							- Mike

    
    reply .30
    
    I think you know my response if you read .25
    
    We have to stick together.
    
    Kevin

    re. .25, .30, .32:
    
    I agree that we must be unified in our battle against anti's, but I am
    also a *firm* believer that we as a hunting community must be open
    minded.  Social changes are affecting our sporting activities and to
    ignore them or to shut them out would surely mean the demise of hunting
    as we know it today.
    
    Mark.

I recently talked to the NRA Hunter Services director about the Amendment 10
(anti-Spring bear hunt) sitation in Colorado.  While he directed my letter to
the ILA, he did send me an article from a recent "Sports Afield" magazine
entitled "Silent Spring for Bear Hunters."  This two-page article gave a good
rundown of how various states and provinces have limited Spring hunting, but
only based on political reasons, rather than good game management reasons.  

	In one state, the Spring season represented 30% of the allowable 
season to hunt bears, but after they cancelled, the fall "take" of bears 
doubled - so that overall more bears were taken.  They mentioned that Colorado 
has plenty of bears for the avail. habitat, and until bears start encroaching 
on human habitat (and change some viewpoints on how cute bears are), things will
probably stay the same.  Another interesting point was that in the Spring, 
mothers tend to be bedded down with the cubs, and it is the huntable males that
are out foraging - which helps keep hunters from shooting the wrong sex animal.
Also, the males tend to be lethargic.  So, Spring is actually the best season
for hunting.

	The article wasn't particularly detailed (more than I've recounted 
here), but it was interesting.  


Steve