|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
It's a tough call, Frank, I admit
Posted by bushrat on Dec 27 2005
Hey Frank,
It's a tough call indeed. What I would personally do isn't really the issue; I try to look at it objectively (operative word is "try") and want to sort out what is "best" for us all as a group. That means some "hunters" are gonna be on one side or the other of the issue, lines drawn, feelings hurt, names called. I think one of the operating premises we should all agree on is that some of us are going to have to (at some time now and in the future) sacrifice certain hunting privileges both for the better of the group as a whole, and for habitat and wildlife population concerns.
I think what Mike Strahan tried to do in an earlier thread---to define fair chase---was the right place to start. But after thinking on it a bit more just now, it seems we also need a definition of "hunting" we can all agree on!
My version of what hunting is may be vastly different from most others. I'm in a unique position since I live so remote and may be more dependant on game than most. I feel that once hunting was labeled a "sport" it was forever changed. Hunting is sometimes defined as "the work of finding and killing or capturing animals for food or pelts." As society changes, it is inevitable that the definition of hunting changes, so it's tough to stick to one "truth" that is true for all time.
When management concerns arise, such as an overpopulation of game, I'm all for taking measures outside the scope of what may be considered ethical, to take care of the "problem." What we do with wolf-control is just that, and should be known as that. It isn't "hunting." If we are going to target both brown and black bears as part of predator-control programs, and change the laws to allow same-day-airborne "hunting" of these animals, then I feel we should stay away from calling it "hunting."
Hunting statutes and laws were enacted to impose certain "fair-chase" principles for the majority of hunters and to create sustained yields of game over time. Lawmakers felt that, overall, hunting should not be a sport that gave too much advantage or surety to the hunter. Check out the Steve Williams speech I quoted from in an earlier thread. He speaks to an unwritten credo among hunters passed down for centuries. And this became law in much of our country, both because of management concerns and for ethical reasons.
As technology and gadgetry become more prevalent, as "hunters" find they have less and less time to spend in the field, and in places like Alaska where the "field" may be too far away in terms of "vacation" time, I suppose it's natural for the human in such circumstances to want an "edge." Whether that edge is an atv to access the country and bring back meat "faster," or an airplane, or a motorized boat, or a compound bow with sight pins, or a scoped rifle, people are now consistently pushing the edge of what's ethical and what isn't, me included. It's a time in hunting history (right now!) where we have the opportunity to either show what we truly believe in, or whether we're going to negate the past and the forbears before us who gave us standards of "fair chase" and "ethics."
I'm thinking toward the future. I have a son who is sixteen. I often think what Alaska will be like when he is in his late forties, as I am now. How will hunting have changed? Will we still have widespread predator populations, or will we have mostly wiped them out where we could? Will there still be so many wild places in which to hunt wild animals in this last frontier? Will hunters have gotten so greedy and consumed with what they wrongly consider their "right" to hunt that they have alienated the non-hunters who decide things in the voting booth?
I may someday "need" the meat from a same-day-airborne hunt, but I'm willing to sacrifice my need for the greater good of hunting. I feel same-day-airborne hunts don't meet any ethical standards of hunting and fair chase. I think hunters are becoming lazier every year, and more prone to accepting questionable fair-chase standards. The "group" as a whole is changing. Now now now, mine mine mine, gimme gimme gimme. Look at the Outdoor Channel. Look at some of the hunting forums. If this doesn't scare you, Frank, as it does me and others, then I don't know what to say. It isn't about making me qualify what is right and wrong, whether or not landing at dusk in a plane to shoot an animal at sunrise is "ethical" or not. In the past, hunters decided that was the "line," land the night before, give the animal a chance to move...a "chance" for you (the hunter) to fail. Without the chance to fail, hunting is forever gone. I will never have a 90% success rate on any given day for any kind of hunting I do here, yet the same-day-airborne hunts have a 90% success rate. And sadly, to my mind, hunters become accustomed to this. They WANT higher success rates! They are demanding it! It's hard to take something away once we give it. The easier we make hunting, the harder it is to bring back some semblance of difficulty. If same-day-airborne "hunting" is "true hunting" to you and others, then I can only repectfully say to you that we have a difference of opinion on what true hunting is. I know it isn't all black and white...but if we aren't careful, in another fifty years "hunters" will have no recollection of what it means to truly have a fair-chase hunt, and why that should be the goal. So I err on the side of too-much "ethics" because I sincerely feel that is where our future lies if we are to continue to have the privilege to hunt, granted by the non-hunting public.
Best to ya, and no offense intended, but I think you already know that,
Mark
Previous: questions for bushrat... fullkurl Dec 27 2005
Next: Comments on high success rates- Michael Strahan Dec 27 2005
 Message Thread:
|
