Maine hunters and guides win.

[bowtech2]

http://www.pressherald.com/2014/11/04/long-debate-over-bear-hunting-in-maine-ends-at-the-polls/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Curmudgeon]

While I don't like the electorate making management decisions - I think biologists should do that - the ME bear hunting practices are offensive to the idea of "fair chase".

[Doewhacker]

Good for Maine!!!!

[Culvercreek hunt club]

While I don't like the electorate making management decisions - I think biologists should do that - the ME bear hunting practices are offensive to the MY idea of "fair chase".

There, I fixed it for you

[adkbuck]

Good for Maine!!!   The current approach has been working well and is the most effective way of managing and keeping the bear population in healthy balance with the environment and avoiding human-bear mishaps. 

[Curmudgeon]

So, if snares, baiting and hounds are "fair chase" for bears, do you think they would be "fair chase" for deer? Turkey?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

So, if snares, baiting and hounds are "fair chase" for bears, do you think they would be "fair chase" for deer? Turkey?

NY currently allows dogs in Fall season. Wondering if you ever ever done any of the above? It isn't like the are telling you that it is the only way you can hunt. Don't get injured falling off that high horse. So worried about what other people are doing (legally, I might add).

 

And I would love to try deer with dogs.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Culvercreek hunt club

[MACHINIST]

Great!! Time to plan my trip for 2015!

[Mr VJP]

When a state has a bear population that is at capacity, and the dense woods, that expand for millions of acres, demand these practices to control the population of bears, it is not about "fair chase", it's about sound wildlife management.

 

If you don't like snares, baiting and hunting with hounds, you don't do it.  But telling others what should be allowed by law is an arrogant attitude.

 

Maybe we need to enforce fair chase for rats in NYC as well.  No more poisons or baited traps.  We can work much harder to control the rat population that way.

 

[Curmudgeon]

NY currently allows dogs in Fall season.

From DEC's regs:

 

It is unlawful to hunt big game with:

• A firearm or bow aided by any artificial light or a laser that projects a beam toward the target.
• An autoloading firearm with a capacity of more than 6 shells (one which requires that the trigger be pulled separately for each shot), except an autoloading pistol with a barrel length of less than 8 inches.
• A firearm using rimfire ammunition.
• A shotgun of less than 20 gauge or any shotgun loaded with shells other than those carrying a single projectile.
• A bow with a draw weight of 35 lbs or less.
• Arrows with barbed broadheads; arrowheads less than 7/8 inches at the widest point or with less than 2 sharp cutting edges.
• Dogs.
• Aircraft of any kind.
• Bait

We all make mistakes.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

From DEC's regs:

 

It is unlawful to hunt big game with:

• A firearm or bow aided by any artificial light or a laser that projects a beam toward the target.
• An autoloading firearm with a capacity of more than 6 shells (one which requires that the trigger be pulled separately for each shot), except an autoloading pistol with a barrel length of less than 8 inches.
• A firearm using rimfire ammunition.
• A shotgun of less than 20 gauge or any shotgun loaded with shells other than those carrying a single projectile.
• A bow with a draw weight of 35 lbs or less.
• Arrows with barbed broadheads; arrowheads less than 7/8 inches at the widest point or with less than 2 sharp cutting edges.
• Dogs.
• Aircraft of any kind.
• Bait

We all make mistakes.

Turkeys, check your reg.s for that one.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Culvercreek hunt club

[Curmudgeon]

"Fair Chase" seems to be a relatively new construct that is evolving over time. When hunting was necessary to eat, everything and anything was fair. Filling the stomach and feeding the kids was the only priority. The idea of hunting and fishing as "sport" is a direct result of people having leisure time.

 

You all may not like someone telling you how you can and can't hunt, but someone is. Not little, old, "arrogant" me. It's NYSDEC here, and other state agencies elsewhere. I have to think that cultural mores affect their decisions on what is and is not "fair chase." How else would they decide?

 

In the 21st century, would someone please define "fair chase" for me. Please include a clear rationale why different practices are acceptable for some but not other species.

 

I'm having trouble with the too many bears but they are hard to find argument.

 

Just to be clear on the electorate making wildlife management decisions, it has been a disaster in CA re cougars.

[MACHINIST]

I know from talking with a DEC officer 2 years ago they allow people to run bear with dogs for training to go and hunt them in other states.While hunting we found a old bait barrel and called it into the DEC,when they got there they said it was a registered bait site for a houndsman to "train" his dogs on bear for  out of state hunting

[Culvercreek hunt club]

"Fair Chase" seems to be a relatively new construct that is evolving over time. When hunting was necessary to eat, everything and anything was fair. Filling the stomach and feeding the kids was the only priority. The idea of hunting and fishing as "sport" is a direct result of people having leisure time.

 

You all may not like someone telling you how you can and can't hunt, but someone is. Not little, old, "arrogant" me. It's NYSDEC here, and other state agencies elsewhere. I have to think that cultural mores affect their decisions on what is and is not "fair chase." How else would they decide?

 

In the 21st century, would someone please define "fair chase" for me. Please include a clear rationale why different practices are acceptable for some but not other species.

 

I'm having trouble with the too many bears but they are hard to find argument.

 

Just to be clear on the electorate making wildlife management decisions, it has been a disaster in CA re cougars.

As far as I am concerned, I agree it is recreation for the vast majority of us. Who cares what the definition of fair chase is unless you are worried about getting in some record book. If it is legal and you have a good time doing it, isn't that what is important?

[Doewhacker]

"Fair Chase" seems to be a relatively new construct that is evolving over time. When hunting was necessary to eat, everything and anything was fair. Filling the stomach and feeding the kids was the only priority. The idea of hunting and fishing as "sport" is a direct result of people having leisure time.

You all may not like someone telling you how you can and can't hunt, but someone is. Not little, old, "arrogant" me. It's NYSDEC here, and other state agencies elsewhere. I have to think that cultural mores affect their decisions on what is and is not "fair chase." How else would they decide?

In the 21st century, would someone please define "fair chase" for me. Please include a clear rationale why different practices are acceptable for some but not other species.

I'm having trouble with the too many bears but they are hard to find argument.

Just to be clear on the electorate making wildlife management decisions, it has been a disaster in CA re cougars.

Bear hunting in Maine is about wildlife population management and tradition. It's not reasonable to compare Bear to deer or turkey but your type always does.

Did you know that Bear populations in Maine continue to grow under its current management system?

I'm especially happy that Hsus lost this battle in Maine.

[Curmudgeon]

 

It's not reasonable to compare Bear to deer or turkey but your type always does.

 

"My type"? I thought I was unique.

[Doewhacker]

"My type"? I thought I was unique.

No you aren't. You are the type that likes to make management opinions based on what YOU see as right not what the needs of the species are.

Did you know the Dec is open to discussion on alternate bear management options in NY to stop the growth of bear populations in areas of the state where they do not want more bear?

[Mr VJP]

"Fair Chase" seems to be a relatively new construct that is evolving over time. When hunting was necessary to eat, everything and anything was fair. Filling the stomach and feeding the kids was the only priority. The idea of hunting and fishing as "sport" is a direct result of people having leisure time.

 

You all may not like someone telling you how you can and can't hunt, but someone is. Not little, old, "arrogant" me. It's NYSDEC here, and other state agencies elsewhere. I have to think that cultural mores affect their decisions on what is and is not "fair chase." How else would they decide?

 

In the 21st century, would someone please define "fair chase" for me. Please include a clear rationale why different practices are acceptable for some but not other species.

 

I'm having trouble with the too many bears but they are hard to find argument.

 

Just to be clear on the electorate making wildlife management decisions, it has been a disaster in CA re cougars.

 

 

You don't seem to understand, it's not about fair chase, it's about sound wildlife management.  If standard hunting methods are working to control the bear population, as they do in NY, no other methods are needed.  If standard hunting methods don't work, like they don't in Maine, other methods are employed.

 

The arrogance I was referring to was telling the state of Maine their legal practices should be banned because you think they should.  The state of Maine is telling hunters what is OK and you are saying it's not.  

 

Mores have nothing to do with wildlife management.  In NJ when deer got out of control in Princeton, due to a two decade old law banning any discharge of firearm or bow, the town hired sharpshooters who hunt at night over bait with night vision scopes, semi-auto .223's and silencers at a cost to the fools in Princeton of $1000 per deer.  NJ hunters are not allowed to hunt with rifles!  That's not about fair chase, that's about power and control.  Emotional approaches to wildlife management have always turned out to be disasters.  Stick to sound science and biology to control bears.

 

Different practices are acceptable to control certain animals based on the needs of controlling that particular animal.  Rats are an obvious example.

 

When there are too many bears, that are not being found and taken by fair chase hunters, because they are mostly nocturnal, live in inaccessible swamps and woodlands, move very little unless pushed, or cover many miles a day looking for food, typical stand hunting for bears will not produce the desired amount of harvest the wildlife managers are looking for.  Therefore the problems with nuisance bears will grow.  Once the problem gets out of control, it is very hard to get it back under control.

 

NJ is a fine example of bears out of control.  NO bear hunting was allowed by dictatorial fiat, in defiance of all the wildlife biologists.  Hunting was then allowed, but it is barely keeping the high population steady.  Problems persist to this day and a man was just killed by a bear in NJ weeks ago because it was in a state area where no hunting of any kind is permitted.

 

It's OK for the electorate to make wildlife management decisions, as long as they are making them while siding with professional wildlife managers, as they did in Maine, and going against HSUS and other anti-hunting organizations, who's end goal is elimination of all sport hunting, fair chase or not.  Putting emotional questions on the ballot, in defiance of professional wildlife manager recommendations, is foolish and bound to cause problems in the future.

[bowtech2]

There are only 8% of bears taken in Maine by not baiting, dogs and not trapping. Boone and Crocket you can still make the book.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Curmudgeon]

You don't seem to understand, it's not about fair chase, it's about sound wildlife management.  If standard hunting methods are working to control the bear population, as they do in NY, no other methods are needed.  If standard hunting methods don't work, like they don't in Maine, other methods are employed.

 

The arrogance I was referring to was telling the state of Maine their legal practices should be banned because you think they should.  The state of Maine is telling hunters what is OK and you are saying it's not.  

 

Mores have nothing to do with wildlife management.  In NJ when deer got out of control in Princeton, due to a two decade old law banning any discharge of firearm or bow, the town hired sharpshooters who hunt at night over bait with night vision scopes, semi-auto .223's and silencers at a cost to the fools in Princeton of $1000 per deer.  NJ hunters are not allowed to hunt with rifles!  That's not about fair chase, that's about power and control.  Emotional approaches to wildlife management have always turned out to be disasters.  Stick to sound science and biology to control bears.

 

Different practices are acceptable to control certain animals based on the needs of controlling that particular animal.  Rats are an obvious example.

 

When there are too many bears, that are not being found and taken by fair chase hunters, because they are mostly nocturnal, live in inaccessible swamps and woodlands, move very little unless pushed, or cover many miles a day looking for food, typical stand hunting for bears will not produce the desired amount of harvest the wildlife managers are looking for.  Therefore the problems with nuisance bears will grow.  Once the problem gets out of control, it is very hard to get it back under control.

 

NJ is a fine example of bears out of control.  NO bear hunting was allowed by dictatorial fiat, in defiance of all the wildlife biologists.  Hunting was then allowed, but it is barely keeping the high population steady.  Problems persist to this day and a man was just killed by a bear in NJ weeks ago because it was in a state area where no hunting of any kind is permitted.

 

It's OK for the electorate to make wildlife management decisions, as long as they are making them while siding with professional wildlife managers, as they did in Maine, and going against HSUS and other anti-hunting organizations, who's end goal is elimination of all sport hunting, fair chase or not.  Putting emotional questions on the ballot, in defiance of professional wildlife manager recommendations, is foolish and bound to cause problems in the future.

 

VJP -

 

Actually, we don't disagree on much - certainly not the NJ bear and deer situation. Not on emotional ballot issues.  My understanding of the ME thing - aside from my objections to the electorate making decisions - is that the ballot initiative did not apply to nuisance bears. That said, the passage or defeat was about 2 things: "elimination of all sport hunting" and "fair chase". It might have been crafted to appeal to both groups.

 

There is wildlife out of control, and there is recreational hunting. For recreational hunting and fishing "fair chase" matters to me. Can we set aside the former and define the latter? 

 

Edited November 5, 2014 by Curmudgeon

[Curmudgeon]

No you aren't. You are the type that likes to make management opinions based on what YOU see as right not what the needs of the species are.

Did you know the Dec is open to discussion on alternate bear management options in NY to stop the growth of bear populations in areas of the state where they do not want more bear?

 

How presumptuous you are Doewhacker. You don't know me. Maybe you should read some of my posts on species, habitat, deer overpopulation. I'm all about habitat and forest health.

 

We all have opinions. We all contribute to the discussion. I don't make management decisions. I discuss things. If no one agrees with me, that's okay. I am more surprised when they do then when they don't

[Culvercreek hunt club]

There is wildlife out of control, and there is recreational hunting. For recreational hunting and fishing "fair chase" matters to me. Can we set aside the former and define the latter? 

I don't see how we can split the two. Without an adequate result in the later there are usually extensive measures needed in the former.  What we do as recreational hunters IS wildlife control and it is that reason why some "tolerate" us who may not truly favor hunting.

[Mr VJP]

I don't believe "fair chase" can be legislated.  Nor do I think it should be.  One man's ethics may not be the same as another's.  Fair chase is an ideology in the mind of the hunter.  As long as the method of hunting is legal, it's up to the man to decide if he agrees with it.

 

Any hunting method short of trailing and stalking could be considered unfair by some of the true purists.  Using blinds, scents, stands, decoys and calls might be unfair in the eyes of some.

 

If fair chase is your goal, you decide what that requires from you, but you can't dictate to others what it requires from them.

 

[Curmudgeon]

 As long as the method of hunting is legal, it's up to the man to decide if he agrees with it.

 

I think many decisions that result in what is legal are determined by cultural ideas of what is "fair chase". Culvercreek makes a good point about separating the complexity of wildlife control and fair chase.  Fair chase makes scoring more difficult. Wildlife overpopulation requires a harvest. However, much of our hunting is not about controlling populations e.g. turkeys, grouse, even coyotes. Fair chase does matter.

 

Thank you VJP and Culvercreek for your thoughtful comments. I hope Doewhacker reads them. They are a good model.

[Doewhacker]

I think if you want to sidetrack a thread you should start a new thread. I notice you never once got into bear managent effectiveness in Maine. Instead you choose to discuss your opinion on what is fair chase. That's typical of your type.