|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
differences
Posted by bushrat on Feb 09 2006
I think when Andy Hall wrote about this for AK magazine, he titled it "Shopping the Mulchatna" or some such. I see the point Frank made about the Kodiak hunt. The Mulchatna "hunt" isn't even close to the same thing as with that the caribou ARE spotted from the air and the plane lands as close ahead or behind the caribou as possible and often the "hunter" (or hunters) takes a caribou within fifteen minutes of exiting the plane. As long as s/he gets the required amount of feet away from the aircraft, it's legal. It's a totally unfair advantage given to the "hunter." If Frank's argument centers around advantage, then even he would have to say this caribou hunt is unethical. Call it what you will but it has nothing to do with fair chase hunting and indeed, if we call it "hunting" then we do us all a great disservice.
We've all gone round and round on this before. Thing of it is, if we allow "hunting" to become easier (or easy, as in shopping the mulchatna herd) and make allowances for time-constraints and possible bad weather moving in, or say that it's "too dangerous" for "hunters" to have the possibility of being stranded in the wilderness on a winter "hunt," then we just erode what hunting was and further turn it into something else entirely. So instead of learning winter camping/survival skills, "hunters" learn that $900 buys them a ride in an airplane from Anchorage out west where they spot caribou from the air, land, shoot, butcher and skin and back home by nightfall. I can see why it's appealing as a way to get fresh, healthy game meat and really have no problem with it as long as the word "hunting" isn't associated with it.
Best, Mark
Previous: World record chignik Feb 09 2006
Next: "hunting" according to chignik Feb 10 2006
 Message Thread:
|
