Food for thought

Fair chase!
Should be no more complicated than the simple fact that “If an animal has places to HIDE from from its pursuers, then it should be considered Fair Chase!

And even then,the perceptions are purely individual. Some people believe that a “Sure Catch” stocked fish pond is fair chase while others would not be caught dead fishing one of those places.
Some people believe that “Placed Pheasants and Chukers” in a mowed and rowed field is fair chase while others do not like the idea at all!
Some people believe that it is “Fair Chase” if you hunt an Island, even though the only way for an animal to get away from you would be to swim for it.

Also, Some States have already adopted Minimum Acreage for High Fenced Hunting Preserves because of the differences in terrain, for instance, the state of ARKANSAS has a minimum of 500 acres allowable for such a venture while TEXAS flatland is set to a minimum of 1000 acres.

The ONLY legal hunting allowed in SOUTH AFRICA is within high fenced hunting preserves and only culled animals are allowed to be taken because of age or health considerations of the animal and herds.
Also a physically challenged person might very well have the time of his/her life by being allowed to harvest an animal within a preserve where their chances for success, are higher than if they were to be driven around upon public land for two days and HOPE that they MIGHT see an animal at all.

A very large portion of the hunting population in the Eastern part of the U.S.A. all can legally hunt from TREE STANDS at NIGHT over a BAITED area as opposed to here in the western states we cannot even think about such a thing or we risk being arrested and put into jail.

So FAIR CHASE to me simply means that if you sneak up on an animal and miss your shot or you are detected and it RUNS AWAY and HIDES and you cannot find it, then that animal has eluded you and gets to live another day.

Dear John, (Honestly,no pun intended with that opening)

Very good points made and I would have to agree with you on several but, Pope and Young as well as Boone and Crockett are not the be all end all of methodology concerning Trophy Measuring or the experience of the hunt. ie:Non-Typical or simply what one individual considers wall material, another person might think is just table fare and doesn’t really care how or where he killed it, just as long as it is dead and in his freezer.

I myself am a self taught musician and writer, there are organizations including, the Musicians Union, B.M.I., A.S.C.A.P. Musicians Institute Of Technology etc. etc. all of which have set standards and guidelines for people in the music industry to follow.
These rules and guidelines revolve around such things as: Standard Tuning for an instrument.
Guitarists, like myself, Edward Van Halen, Ty Tabor and many others just simply picked up a guitar and tuned them for the resonation’s that occurred and which sounded right for the instrument (different types of wood will resonate in harmony or disharmony with things like, attack and decay dynamics of the individual whom is playing that particular instrument).

Meaning that I could pick up Eric Claptons guitar and amplifier and I would sound nothing like Mr. Clapton and in fact, as accomplished as I might be on the instrument I might sound downright awful using his equipment.

Classical guitar playing has a very strict regimen which one must follow, Thumb in just the right position, Pinky finger firmly placed upon the flat top of the guitar, pluck the strings with first the thumb then index finger followed by third then fourth fingers.
You must even sit properly upon a special stool and then there is another set of guidelines just for the sitting position and a standard stool which must be used.

I can sit on a log in the woods and play classical music just fine and (Oh, horrors of horrors) I use a pick! and people seem to enjoy my classical playing quite well.

Take a Fender Stratocaster and plug it into a stack of Marshall amps and then gently place that guitar into the hands of a Trained Classical Guitarist and watch him try and make any sense of that set up at all!
I learned about that one from my producer at the time (Ronnie Montrose) not name dropping because I left the music industry quite awhile back but, he and I were conversing upon that very subject while I was recording one day.

Point being, that each individual will have his own special interaction and experience with Music,Life and Nature, no matter what organizations guidelines are the industry’s standards.

I really can’t add anything which you have said about hunters being a valuable tool for managing wildlife because, (using an old cliche’) you took the words right outa’ my mouth!
But, I do believe this, by using “only” that particular argument in and by itself, would be a very weak endeavor to try and convince the antis and the fence sitters that what we do is not such a bad thing after all.
We must hit them with several points all at once because they will bring up counter points which will include things like: The value to wildlife is being able to watch them alive and not dead!
or We have trained professionals to go and collect specimens for disease research.

And this one I like best of all: Cleveland Amory ( book: The Cat And The Curmudgeon). While Mr. Amory was alive he said “Hunters say that they provide a service to wildlife when they hunt, I say that they are a bunch of blood thirsty nuts who go out into the woods just to KILL period.

I laugh out loud every time I read that statement (no disrespect to Mr. Amory because I enjoy reading his works) but, he lived in a fantasy world and obviously never had the opportunity to fully enjoy the wilderness experience as a true carnivore should.

Very well put Hank!
I am so glad to see that someone out there understands the difference between “Habitat Enrichment” and simply placing a bag of corn on the ground every three days just to attract and kill a deer.
Most people do not mentally separate the two and blend them all into one category and just call it an unfair advantage, and then in turn, Not! Fair Chase.

For some people who have made the personal choice to follow Pope and Young or Boone and Crockett rules, that it is just what it is and only is, a personal choice.
For others, those rules are just a hinderance that will complicate their goals towards putting meat on the table.

Farming for wildlife is not an entirely new concept and Fish & Game Departments all over the world have been practicing this method for years.
As a matter of fact here in California our Fish and Game raise fish in hatchery’s and release them into the wild and also sell their (our) fish to “Sure Catch Ponds”.
But also here in California, (Totalitarian State that it is) they want to corner the market on this and try to thwart any attempts by the public/private sector to do exactly what they have been doing for several decades now.

I do not know all of the ins and outs of C.W.A. or D.U. but I can imagine that there are plenty of restrictions in what they do (State Imposed of course) but the end result is that the waterfowl populations are most likely ten fold now, as opposed to just a short 20 years ago!
And this can be directly attributed to Habitat Enrichment and our Sport Dollars at work.

Method of take is strictly limited here as well and most of the laws are set into place mainly for the humane aspect of the harvest and nothing more than that alone.
All, other States for instance, do allow Wild Hogs to be taken by: Baited Areas at Night by any means chosen!
Here, we can’t do any of those things and must use 30 calibre or above firearms or Archery only.
And this is again, a personal choice, albeit State Imposed, someone still made the choice to make these decisions and place them into law!

What’s good for the Goose is not always good for the Gander!

Great insight Holly, as always you seem to hit the mark right in the bulls eye!
The one thing which I have tried to express to my fellow hunters for so many years now is, NO APOLOGIES!

First thing to remember is: What we do is entirely “legal” and, until they outlaw hunting, we should make no apologies for doing what has came natural to “The Human Carnivore” for thousands of years now.

Just take a look at what John McCain did, he pandered to his own party and tried to “not” offend anyone and wound up losing the most important race of his life!

Be honest about what you are and what you do and you will succeed in any endeavor!

Hi Jesse,
What I try and explain and “hopefully” get across to people is that, it is all a matter of what the individual considers Fair Chase.
Although B&C and P&Y have set some standards, not everyone is willing or in some cases, can even physically adhere to those set of standards.
For instance, physically challenged persons should be able to sit in a stand within 40 yards of a feeder with a modified bow or firearm (to fit their handicap) and harvest an animal and not receive any disparaging comments about their method of take.

If you choose to use a long range, big bore rifle with scope to harvest your deer then that is your freedom of choice to do so. There are some hard core hunters who would say, that is an Unfair advantage and would rather use a long bow with homemade arrows and stone tipped heads to accomplish the same feat. Neither method of take is better nor less fair than the other just simply “A Personal Choice”

As far as C.W.D. being a probable source traced to Fenced Game Ranches/Preserves, this would be highly unlikely because each animal that is placed within a preserve/game ranch has to be blood tested and “Veterinarian Certified” before introduction into an enclosed area and as a result of that particular “legality”, the animal herds which live within these enclosed areas are of good sound health and disease free.

Some people believe that the use of dogs is not fair chase while others continue to vigorously fight any proposed legislation which would outlaw big game hunting with dogs.
Some people like to fish the sure catch ponds while others would not even step near such a place.
Some people would not hunt in an enclosed area no matter how large it is ie: (South African Hunting Preserves) while those very same people have not the slightest objection to hunting a small 200 acre island in Alaska, even though the only way for those animals to get away would be to swim for it.

In closing I must reiterate something which I have said time and again, The anti’s love nothing more than to divide us and, subjects such as, High Fence Hunting Preserves, stirs up so much controversy that, the antis WILL get their way simply by dividing us upon such silly things as ” FAIRE CHASE”.

Just as a classical trained musician feels compelled to follow a certain set of standards, does not mean that the self taught hard rocker is any less of an artist just because he does not adhere to a rigid set of rules like standard key or how the instrument is to be played.

It is all a matter of what feels right to the individual! The “blessings of liberty” and all you know.
The antis and their buddies “the extreme left” are knocking at your door to take away those rights and we ought’ not make their job any easier by fighting amongst ourselves.

One more thought on fair chase and the use of bait and other tactics that may be viewed as unfair and unsportsman-like by non-hunters. NorCal Cazadora rightly makes a good point about fairness, challenge and the use of bait. But consider that under the right circumstances, a bait hunt can be challenging and in keeping with fair chase.

I’m a Californian living in Michigan who’s had the opportunity to hunt black bear over bait for the last couple of seasons in Canada. For those who may think of bait as unfair, consider the following: terrain; method of take; and function of the hunt. I believe these three factors may make the use of bait challenging enough to constitute fair chase if practiced in some parts of the Continent, while being less challenging in others.

Unlike out West, Ontario is a flat and heavily wooded country where glassing for black bears and planning stalk to within bow or rifle range is nearly impossible. The alternative to bait (dogs) will lead to shooting a treed bear, which does not make us look good on film.

Hunting over bait in Ontario is about an 18 to 20 yard proposition. As Hank said, above, through in a longbow or a muzzleloader, and the situation becomes much more interesting. As with any stalking hunt, the bear might not show up, or he might not be a shooter. The bear could wind you just as easily from a stand over bait as from a ground stalk. A sow might show up with cubs, the bear might not turn broadside. You get the idea…

Unlike many parts of North America, in Ontario, black bears are plentiful to the point of over-population and nuisance. Hunting from stands over bait is challenging enough and serves the purpose of culling the population to the point where bears are no longer a threat to residential neighborhoods and garbage dumps. If bears were hunted from the ground only and without bait as some would suggest is required for fair chase, then hunting could not accomplish this yearly culling.