Maine hunters and guides win.

[mike rossi]

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.

 

The issue really is not if it is fair chase, but if it is sporting. Trap shooting pigeons out of a box is fair chase, because the birds can escape, but it is not sporting. Turkey shoots in which turkeys are tied to a stake and shot at is not fair chase because they cant escape without an act of God...

 

The use of foot snares, hounds, and bait for bears would qualify as fair chase and sporting. But hunting is a sport which the regulations pertaining to method have historically been guided by what the local hunters deem sporting. But the agency does not  accommodate the sporting community if doing so would conflict with sound conservation or management. If the state wildlife agency thinks the method would result in excess harvest, the agency might not allow the hunters to have it their way and set greater restrictions. Likewise, if the agency wants a heavier harvest, they will allow methods that will effect that result even if some hunters protest.

 

In NY some hunters thought the crossbow was not sporting in the bow season. However, the DEC prioritized population control over the cultural wants of a segment of hunters. Some hunters in Maine may think traditional  bear hunting methods are not sporting. Maine DIW however, feels the current harvest level should be maintained and would have rejected the referendum even if it was proposed by sportsmen.

 

Interestingly, Maine's infamous Question 1 was not driven by sportsmen, it was driven by anti hunters. It was crafted by persons who even though they do not hunt, opine what is sporting.

 

Never the less, in the context of method, it is easy to separate population control / nuisance and disease abatement from recreational hunting. Same as it would be easy to separate the outlawed practices of market hunting with modern day sport hunting. For example, in a CWD containment area, deer will be shot around the clock and with the aide of lights. That has no place in sport hunting.

 

Relaxed regulations and/or an array of methods allow sport hunting to function as a population control tool; however this creates  problems with the recreation aspect for some hunters and tarnishes the public's image of hunting/hunters. As controversies evolve, as they always do, discussions become convoluted and the recreational aspect of hunting gets lost. At this point opponents of hunting feel if a non lethal alternative exists the justification for hunting is removed. Since this has been occurring so long, most hunters are no longer able to articulate why they hunt, at least in a manner that will strike a cord with the public majority. This is compounded when new hunters are coached by other hunters. Those new hunters can not effectively defend hunting. Then that in turn creates a problem with recruiting new hunters who become wary or turned off by poor articulation. I hate to say this, but some Darwinism might be operating and we are only recruiting the less mentally endowed. I am not saying the antis are recruiting rocket scientists to their side because obviously that isn't true.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

The issue really is not if it is fair chase, but if it is sporting. Trap shooting pigeons out of a box is fair chase, because the birds can escape, but it is not sporting. Turkey shoots in which turkeys are tied to a stake and shot at is not fair chase because they cant escape without an act of God...

 

The use of foot snares, hounds, and bait for bears would qualify as fair chase and sporting. But hunting is a sport which the regulations pertaining to method have historically been guided by what the local hunters deem sporting. But the agency does not  accommodate the sporting community if doing so would conflict with sound conservation or management. If the state wildlife agency thinks the method would result in excess harvest, the agency might not allow the hunters to have it their way and set greater restrictions. Likewise, if the agency wants a heavier harvest, they will allow methods that will effect that result even if some hunters protest.

 

In NY some hunters thought the crossbow was not sporting in the bow season. However, the DEC prioritized population control over the cultural wants of a segment of hunters. Some hunters in Maine may think traditional  bear hunting methods are not sporting. Maine DIW however, feels the current harvest level should be maintained and would have rejected the referendum even if it was proposed by sportsmen.

 

Interestingly, Maine's infamous Question 1 was not driven by sportsmen, it was driven by anti hunters. It was crafted by persons who even though they do not hunt, opine what is sporting.

 

Never the less, in the context of method, it is easy to separate population control / nuisance and disease abatement from recreational hunting. Same as it would be easy to separate the outlawed practices of market hunting with modern day sport hunting. For example, in a CWD containment area, deer will be shot around the clock and with the aide of lights. That has no place in sport hunting.

 

Relaxed regulations and/or an array of methods allow sport hunting to function as a population control tool; however this creates  problems with the recreation aspect for some hunters and tarnishes the public's image of hunting/hunters. As controversies evolve, as they always do, discussions become convoluted and the recreational aspect of hunting gets lost. At this point opponents of hunting feel if a non lethal alternative exists the justification for hunting is removed. Since this has been occurring so long, most hunters are no longer able to articulate why they hunt, at least in a manner that will strike a cord with the public majority. This is compounded when new hunters are coached by other hunters. Those new hunters can not effectively defend hunting. Then that in turn creates a problem with recruiting new hunters who become wary or turned off by poor articulation. I hate to say this, but some Darwinism might be operating and we are only recruiting the less mentally endowed. I am not saying the antis are recruiting rocket scientists to their side because obviously that isn't true.

Mike, Maybe my brain is fried from the political focus of the last two days, but I have no idea if you are agreeing with my statement or disagreeing. I stick to my statement that as hunters our primary use by our Environmental regulatory agency IS as population management. Maybe not for all species but for the high profile ones, specifically deer. Also we are a cash cow.

[Curmudgeon]

Thanks Mike for the distinction between "sporting" and "fair chase". Well done.

[BizCT]

http://www.boone-crockett.org/huntingEthics/ethics_fairchase.asp?area=huntingEthics

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[adkbuck]

 I noticed that there seems to be an element present here that I have seen in previous threads.  If the self-acclaimed expert is truly hunter and a champion of our sport I would be very surprised.  The use of intimidation and moral superiority used by the individual seems to me to be an annoying imposition on any sincere forum member.    I  have found that it just isn't worth the energy it takes to respond. 

[NFA-ADK]

I might not think this hunting is fair chase but no way in hell would I take it away from the state.  I do understand its use especially in population control.  Basically I hate when any hunting is trampled on by people with no knowledge of the woods. 

 

PS:  Its unethical to hunt unless your using a wooden bow and arrow stalking on the ground.  All other forms are unethical. 

OK time to pack my 30-30 and 44 Mag.

 

[BizCT]

http://www.boone-crockett.org/huntingEthics/ethics_fairchase.asp?area=huntingEthics

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To me if its 100% legal and the animal is free range in the wild, it's fair chase in my book.

A wild deer shot in NY in a food plot is the same as a wild deer shot in CT over bait.

A coyote called in with an e caller is the same as one shot over bait.

As long as it's legal and he animal is wild

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited November 5, 2014 by Biz-R-OWorld

[DirtTime]

WTFC's? It's Maine. This is a NYS hunting site......

We have enough to deal with. Keep it home and maybe Cuomo won't win again next year.

[Doewhacker]

WTFC's? It's Maine. This is a NYS hunting site......

We have enough to deal with. Keep it home and maybe Cuomo won't win again next year.

Who cares about Hsus loosing a battle to end hunting in a different state? Well that's a silly question.

[DirtTime]

NO! I mean maybe stop looking at other states and start looking at our own. It's not a silly question. NY is always under fire. We are the example/exception to prove a false set of rules. I get the post, but maybe we need to focus on what's wrong in NY, and try to get it right, and not worry about other states. Worrying about the neighbors lawn won't make your grass grow. 

[MACHINIST]

I really don't see the deal hear.Leave the other hunters alone.Trapping a bear is the same as trapping any other animal.Why because its a bear is it different.I will tell you as other will also that hunting baited bear isn't a guarantee .If you think it is you are sorely mistaken.The bear are just as tough to kill.Really its no different than waiting for a deer by a apple,white oak,pear or beech tree,its also no different than planting a late season food plot for deer hunting thats full of oats or sugar beets to lure them in to kill them.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

Amazes me how some on here can call this fair chase but high fence is not. Would we still be ok with it if we took the bear out of the picture and put Bambi in there?   I think not for most.

[bowtech2]

NO! I mean maybe stop looking at other states and start looking at our own. It's not a silly question. NY is always under fire. We are the example/exception to prove a false set of rules. I get the post, but maybe we need to focus on what's wrong in NY, and try to get it right, and not worry about other states. Worrying about the neighbors lawn won't make your grass grow.

Reason I posted cause this could be us one day. Also there clubs in ny that donate to help maine hunters a guides win this. I've hunt twice in Maine. This would have hurt a lot of good people. Also look how much Hsus spend on trying to shot this bill down.

[adkbuck]

Bowtech2,  I hunted Maine a few times for deer and yes, the outfitters there all depend on the bear season in which baiting is central for their survival.  Thanks for posting.   

[BizCT]

Amazes me how some on here can call this fair chase but high fence is not. Would we still be ok with it if we took the bear out of the picture and put Bambi in there? I think not for most.

A wild Maine bear can run for miles and miles, whereas a fenced in bear can only run until he hits the face. Pretty big difference in my opinion as well as the record vooks

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mike rossi]

Mike, Maybe my brain is fried from the political focus of the last two days, but I have no idea if you are agreeing with my statement or disagreeing. I stick to my statement that as hunters our primary use by our Environmental regulatory agency IS as population management. Maybe not for all species but for the high profile ones, specifically deer. Also we are a cash cow.

 

I disagree that hunting as recreation can not be separated from its function as a population control tool. 

 

In opposition to Question 1, Maine DIW justifies uses of bait, hounds, and foot snares to control bear populations. The DIW was reconciling the role these three methods have in boosting bear harvest and therefore being important in population management. That is not the same as your assertion that the primary use of hunters IS population management.

 

Hunting benefits the conservation of all wildlife, not just game and reaches beyond nuisance wildlife or population control. In essence you are stating that controlling over-population is the most important function of the wildlife department within the DEC. That may be the perspective of hunters but it is not true and that idea would not appeal to the public majority. The public at large would, however, be receptive to the broader benefits derived from hunting and that is where we MUST begin to focus. 

 

Restated to be clear that I am not going back on myself: Population control was relevant to Question 1 and the initiative was indeed reconciled with population control. However the population control card is not relevant to every controversy surrounding hunting and does not resonate with everyone.

[Curmudgeon]

Hunting benefits the conservation of all wildlife, not just game and reaches beyond nuisance wildlife or population control. In essence you are stating that controlling over-population is the most important function of the wildlife department within the DEC. That may be the perspective of hunters but it is not true and that idea would not appeal to the public majority. The public at large would, however, be receptive to the broader benefits derived from hunting and that is where we MUST begin to focus. 

 

Restated to be clear that I am not going back on myself: Population control was relevant to Question 1 and the initiative was indeed reconciled with population control. However the population control card is not relevant to every controversy surrounding hunting and does not resonate with everyone.

 

I do some public speaking that brings hunting into the discussion - 6 events this year including 2 conferences. Since these are often groups that contain many non-hunters, even some anti-hunters, I say right off that I am a hunter. That puts the antis on notice. As an invited guest who requires a payment or project donation to speak, I have never heard any anti-hunting comments. I provide little rationale for my actions in presentations - just a mention of the ecological effects of deer overpopulation and my personal agricultural impacts. If I felt a need to give more detail, I could get into my feelings about CAFOs and the meat industry - how buying your meat in plastic wrap is just a way to avoid taking responsibility for the killing of an animal. I do not know how to explain to a non-hunter the thrill of a grouse bursting out of the brush, or the great social/family bonding and cooperation that results in venison in the freezer.

 

I see arguments here that we are hunting for the good of the species. It is true that uncontrolled deer will destroy their own habitat, however, as MIke says, it "is not relevant to every controversy surrounding hunting and does not resonate with everyone." Non-hunters often see things from the perspective of the individual animal not the species.

 

Mike is also correct in saying "an array of methods.....can tarnish the public's image of hunting/hunters." Folks can object to being told how to hunt. However, this is something we all need to be concerned about. If hunters cannot agree on whether something is sporting, the general public is certainly going to have difficulty with it. We need to convince the general public that hunting is a respectable tradition.

 

It is not only new hunters that cannot effectively articulate why they hunt. I can't - at least not well. And, I'm someone who regularly speaks to non-hunters about hunting.

 

Hunters are a shrinking minority. They provide a vital service to society that cannot be met by other means. The public - especially those who are ecologically literate - can understand the impacts of too many deer: agricultural; car accidents; yard damage; habitat destruction; etc. They are harder to convince about other species.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2014 by Curmudgeon

[Four Season Whitetail's]

A wild Maine bear can run for miles and miles, whereas a fenced in bear can only run until he hits the face. Pretty big difference in my opinion as well as the record vooks

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A wild Maine bear can only run so far with dogs on his AZZZZ and that is far from fair chase. You see it all depends how you few like to put a spin on things. As long as you feel good about it then its fine but if someone else does the same kinda thing with just a different animal, they get their panties in a bunch.

 I chased coons for years and that was a blast but was it hunting? Was it fair chase?  I think that answer would be ..............................

 The farthest from it!  

 If i go to the bottom of Letchworth and kill a buck on his terms then i hunted..If i send a dog down there to run his butt up to me or untill he can run no longer...Yeah BIGGGGG Difference!

[BizCT]

If it's legal hunting and the animals are wild, it's fair chase according to the record books and me. Hunting deer with dogs in lechworth would not be because it's illegal. Nor would hunting animals that can't escape an enclosure. Pretty simple.

Poach any yotes lately?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited November 6, 2014 by Biz-R-OWorld

[Four Season Whitetail's]

If it's legal hunting and the animals are wild, it's fair chase according to the record books and me. Hunting deer with dogs in lechworth would not be because it's illegal. Pretty simple.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yea there ya go..Spin things...Its legal to high fence also and i would say more sporting than walking behind a pack of dogs that are hunting for me but if thats what makes ya feel good because its in some book then have at it but its far from fair chase in many hunters eyes. Its killing and population control yes but lets call it what it is without the sugar.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I think that tradition does frame what we think of as fair chase. If we look at how deer and other game are hunted in other states, that differ from our tradition, we likely have different views. Some may view the running of deer or bear with dogs as not fair chase but then turn around and enjoy a great afternoon running snowshoes with a few hounds. Is it really different because of the species? I find myself conflicted on the response.  

[BizCT]

Yea there ya go..Spin things...Its legal to high fence also and i would say more sporting than walking behind a pack of dogs that are hunting for me but if thats what makes ya feel good because its in some book then have at it but its far from fair chase in many hunters eyes. Its killing and population control yes but lets call it what it is without the sugar.

A fence is a fence. If you search long enough in an enclosure you will find what's in there. Just because some guy in Maine has dogs doesn't mean it's 100% he will get a bear. He needs to find a bear track to start. I can go I a bear hunt and there's no guarantee that I will shoot a booner. However, I can go on a guaranteed 200" whitetail hunt. In fact, in some cases I believe you can pick the deer you want to shoot before you get to the enclosure for the canned hunt. I've never been on a bear hunt, but I bet guys on this site have either over bait or with dogs and came home empty handed.

Lastly, I don't find sitting in a treestand very sporting. I think it's way harder to walk or run miles behind dogs then to sit in a treestand and kill a whitetail.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited November 6, 2014 by Biz-R-OWorld

[mmkay]

help me out here folks...

dogs chasing bears is not ok and not ethical hunting

dogs chasing phesants and grouse is ok and ethical hunting

I see no difference. in the end the goal is to get a clean shot at the animal regardless of if its in a tree or flushed from the underbrush.

[Curmudgeon]

help me out here folks...

dogs chasing bears is not ok and not ethical hunting

dogs chasing phesants and grouse is ok and ethical hunting

I see no difference. in the end the goal is to get a clean shot at the animal regardless of if its in a tree or flushed from the underbrush.

 

That's a really tough question. Culvercreek raised the same issue in a different way I think bears repeating:

 

"I think that tradition does frame what we think of as fair chase. If we look at how deer and other game are hunted in other states, that differ from our tradition, we likely have different views. Some may view the running of deer or bear with dogs as not fair chase but then turn around and enjoy a great afternoon running snowshoes with a few hounds. Is it really different because of the species? I find myself conflicted on the response."

 

I wish someone else would take a stab at your question but here goes. This is strictly personal so I expect the snipers out there to attack again.

 

Our feelings about what is ethical, fair-chase or sporting varies among us. For evidence just read the parallel discussion on this thread. There are our personal feelings. Then there is the issue Mike raises about the public impressions of hunters.

 

As an individual hunter, species low on the food chain are my prey species: rabbits, deer, game birds. I see them through a different lens than omnivorous and predatory species. Carnivores and omnivores are only targets when they impact my household economy.

 

When birds are flushed - by people or dogs - there is little stress. They do this all the time. A walk through the woods sets them off. Rabbits run the way they do as a survival strategy evolved before firearms. I do not believe it stresses them. I care about the individual animals I hunt and kill. I do not like the idea of inducing prolonged stress whether from dogs or snares. I believe coyotes and bears are badly stressed from long running by hounds.

 

Putting myself in Joe public's shoes, birds count less than mammals - just as fish count less than birds. Joe finds a bear held up for hours in a snare offensive. He thinks running bears and coyotes with hounds for long periods is cruel. That baiting is unfair.

 

Does Joe matter? There are those who don't care what the public thinks. They will do what they want if it is legal - or in some cases even illegal. This approach is short-sighted.

 

When I tell non-hunters and anti-hunters that I hunt, I hope it accomplishes something good. I hope they see that they share some common values with a hunter.

 

Sorry if you read this before editing. It decided to post itself before I was finished.

 

 

Edited November 6, 2014 by Curmudgeon

[WNYBuckHunter]

WTFC's? It's Maine. This is a NYS hunting site......

We have enough to deal with. Keep it home and maybe Cuomo won't win again next year.

 

What affects another state can and will affect us here eventually.

 

BTW, please stop trying to tell people what they should and shouldnt post or talk about on this forum. As long as its within the forum rules, people can talk about whatever they want.

 

Thanks