So, yeah, Bryan’s post is a real good picture for folks to look at from an international point of view.

Americans have long been pretty insulated from what’s going on in the rest of the world as far as hunting and wildlife resources, and we’re pretty spoiled because of the wealth of natural resources and the efforts of conservationists to try to keep them plentiful. But the long term picture… well, I can’t say we’re all that far from seeing the same trends here in the U.S.

It’s not a lost cause, but if folks don’t come together and recognize some basic facts, both about wildlife management and public relations, then it is just a matter of time before all hunting in this country is privately owned and managed. One need only look at Texas for a glimpse of the potential future.

I’ll add this as well… and we’re moving way off of the original point of the discussion, but it’s no less valid…

While the hardcore Second Amendment fundamentalists consider us (Hunters) “Fudds”, I can say with certainty that if sport hunting continues to falter and our numbers decline, an extremely large voice in the gun rights battle will be silenced. An awful lot of people own guns because they hunt, and they’re vocal about gun rights because “gun control” proposals threaten their ability to do so.

Less hunters means less gun owners, and while I certainly understand that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, the reality is that gun rights advocacy will drop sharply if hunting gun ownership drops. I believe this a large part of the reason gun control efforts in places like the UK have been successful… the average person there never has been and never will go hunting. They’re much less likely to defend a right (or privilege) they don’t feel like they need… and let’s face it, while folks can generally get behind someone else owning a gun if that person is using it for something “practical” like hunting, they’re less likely to support it for reasons they consider esoteric (the enjoyment of shooting)or even paranoid (self-defense or defense against a tyrannical government).

It’s all connected, in one way or another.

Kinda puts things in perspective when you think that we are not too far removed from this scenario of which he speaks.

*They must be Veterinarian certified and blood tested before introduction into the state and even before in-state transport into an enclosed area.

Every sport, job, endeavor etc. etc. has a few bad apples who do not play by the rules and we do not blame any of those recognized organizations for mishaps within the professions.
Also, if you stop and think about it, I, and others who do things according to the law, personally would not risk the health of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of animals by letting a possibly diseased animal into said enclosed areas.

That said, I will revisit one of my earlier statements concerning enclosed areas.
It is all a matter of personal preference and I personally have interviewed individuals whom were adamantly opposed to High Fence Hunting, even in South Africa where the enclosures are thousands of square miles large.
These very same people who would not set foot inside such a place had “No Problems” with going to Alaska and hunting a small 200 acre island, even though those animals had no way of escaping their pursuer’s except to “swim” for it out and into the ocean.

Apparently, quite a lot of people feel that High Fence Hunting is O.K. because entrepreneur’s like “Larry Grieve” at “Hogs Wild” have made a very good living at it for a couple of decades now. And the amount of land which he has fenced is relatively small in comparison to others, about 150 acres I am told.

I am speaking from experience when I tell you that there is a good reason why California residents go out of State to Deer hunt every year, There ain’t none here to hunt on public lands anymore!
And the very few deer that are, still here, are virtually inaccessible due to State and Federal land closures.

Like it or not!
High Fenced Hunting, is the “only” legal method of harvesting wild game in South Africa and, due to Poaching, Over Harvesting and poor to non-existent game management here in the U.S.A. it is going to be the future of hunting here as well.

In just a few short years from now, you will see major changes in the Public Land Hunting arena throughout the other 49 States also because, California, is known to be the “precedent” setting State for all of our new laws.

The original premise was that we appear to have gotten so wrapped up in claiming to be uber-ethical hunters, that we’re beginning to strangle ourselves and our sport by setting a standard that is unrealistic and unattainable. “Fair Chase” is the key example I’ve chosen, because the very act of calling hunting “fair” is misleading and, in my opinion, creates a weak spot in the argument (or justification) of hunting.

I’ve never suggested that ethics, either personal or general have no place in hunting… they absolutely do. But I am suggesting that we have an ethical code already in place…and that is the laws and regulations. Beyond that, it’s really a matter of personal choice and values.

There are ongoing/evolving ethical discussions that may continue to change the landscape. Jesse brings up a good one with his mention of CWD and high-fence preserves. While most of the experts now agree that CWD probably already existed in wild herds for decades and did not originate in captive stock, they also agree that practices that concentrate animals in a small area appear to accelerate the spread. As a result, many states are now re-examining their baiting laws and wildlife feeding programs.

So yes, we should continue to discuss these things and continue to change when it’s warranted. But I am suggesting that we keep those changes to ethical issues that have a measurable impact. You can’t measure “fair”, especially not when you’re applying it to wild nature. It’s not fair, it never was, and it never can be.

“Just make sure you close the gate when you leave.”

That’s how many of us hunters see it. That’s how the majority of non hunters see it.

I’m not really sure how objective some can be here since it’s their ox being gored.

You wanna call it a shoot, practice whatever, that’s fine. Calling shooting fenced in animals a hunt just don’t set well.

It seems off that no one touches on the disease part. MO has banned any importation of elk and deer because of the spread of CWD around game farms. Folks are still sneaking animals into states for these farms and ranches. The famous muley hunter Kirk Darner was just convicted in NM for moving elk illegaly. Cases are pending in MO for the same thing.

Wounding game is ethically bad, it is emotionally bad, but it is not bad for nature.

Qualitative decisions do have very real ecological and economic consequences. Your Texas deer grower, for example, does so because there is a market for that experience, and his actions influence the local whitetail gene pool with an eye toward a “trophy”, to increase his revenue/deer. He could have gone into alfalfa growing, or accounting, or some other job. A person hunting a high fence in Texas chose to do that instead of going to Disneyland and spending money there. Both decisions are largely qualitative, but they determine, and are determined by, economic and ecological forces. Visitors to Yosemite want to see “wildlife” up close, and the surrounding communities reap economic rewards, while the herd stays stagnant in the Valley to whatever genetic consequence. These are examples of real results based in large part on qualitative decisions.

Your great list, based on the concept of game management, is an ethical list, separating good behaviour from bad behaviour. Consider that both of my examples in the previous paragraph are herd management examples. So, what is the goal of herd management? I posit that it is largely qualitative. We have some notion of the need to keep parts of habitat, but we have little scientific backing to prove that there is an ecological reason to do so. This planet has had many huge extinctions, and yet it is still a planet that supports life. Many of the same people who argue for herd management argue against introduction of predators, and don’t care a whit for some tiny subalpine herb. Their actions may have a correlative effect in the spread of CWD. So? Why is CWD bad? It’s natural response to stagnant and stationary populations of game that would otherwise be on the move – how is that bad? It is only bad when you consider it from a hunter’s perspective in maintaining a viable herd to hunt, or from the perspective that these animals are suffering more than they otherwise would. But, those are both qualitative reasons.

All of these things have huge qualitative components. Poke any of them, and out pour emotions and even ethics. All management necessarily has goals, driven by our natures, which include emotions and desires. This isn’t bad.

I mentioned in a previous comment that my hunting decisions are open and for all to see and judge and talk about, and if they are found to be wrong, then I should change them. For example, if we determine that pintail populations are still diminishing, and people tell me that we shouldn’t be shooting them, then I may stop, even before a law comes down. I am a person, and I can weigh evidence and wisdom and decide. The law should be the last resort, and in a democratic republic, should come after consultation and consideration. All I am saying is that we should also do this outside the context of the law, taking into account different ideas, making our decisions as rulers of our own fate, and not subject to the whims of others without hearing us or we hearing them… but really hearing them, and speaking about it.

By inferring that it is ethically okay to only tell somebody what they shouldn’t do (i.e., telling me that I shouldn’t say something), we disallow the specific ethical conversations, we move actions into the dark, we stop listening or chiming in with our valuable experiences and input, and then our way of life atrophies. I say, keep these ideas out in the open, speak of what you think is good and bad, and listen to others, and watch the world’s response, and then make your behaviour such that it has a better impact. Ethics is not right only when it is tied to “science”, and it is not one absolute law. There are specifics, and cases, and exemptions, and thank God that we aren’t computers, so we can make room for the gray areas.

Also, Phillip, I don’t mean any disrespect by any of my comments. I hold you in very high regard, and would feel awful if I offended you in any way.

Ethics should include “quantifiable” rationale, but at the same time we shouldn’t exclude emotion and the long-lasting qualitative experiences, either.

True, but also exactly my point.

Who defines YOUR long-lasting qualitative experiences, Josh? Who determines if your reasons and methods for hunting have merit?

What about the guy who goes out and enjoys a hunt on a high-fence ranch? Should he feel any less enjoyment of his experience because Pope and Young don’t consider his hunting to be “fair chase?”

What about the folks down in Texas who essentially farm whitetails like livestock, then take the trophies under automated feeders? Are you going to define their experience for them based on your ethical standard?

If we use personal values or ethics to define hunting for everyone, we begin to exclude other hunters who do not share those values. We divide the community over nothing more than ideas and ideals. To what purpose?

These decisions, in turn, have very real ecological and economic consequences.

Show me the real consequences, and I’ll support making rules out of an ethical position. Otherwise, to each his own.