Pretty interesting/lively discussion on TFL re baiting ethics:

[GunGoBoom]

Some of yall check there, some don't - any thoughts to share here on the subject? I'll prime the pump with the original poster's main question posited.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=184578

My question involves shooting from a tree stand directly overlooking an automatic feed station. What are the generally accepted views of this from a sporting point of view? I mean the guy who shot the buck acted like he had stalked this deer on an arduous hunt, through swamps and over mountains. How proud could he be? A machine chucked some food out, deer naturally came in to eat and he picked one off. It looked like shooting fish in a barrel to me. Might as well cage them up in a 6-foot pen and shoot them from there.

I'll share my thoughts as the thread progresses (if it does).

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It really depends on the law. In some places (Canada) hunting bear over bait is legal. Leopards are routinely hunted over bait, as were tigers.

Some people think hunting with dogs is unsporting -- so did I until I joined a hunt club in Tidewater Virginia and got a taste of hunting in the swamps.

 

[sumpnz]

Having read a good bit of that thread here's my take.

I would probably hunt over a feeder if that was my best chance to actually get some experience hunting. Here in AZ it is specifically verboten to hunt over bait, but I would imagine that needing 9-10 years to get my first deer might just be enough to cause me to loose interest (figure 1 year in 3 to actually get drawn, and 1 hunt in 3 to actually bag a deer and it's not hard to 9-10 years before getting a deer). Luckilly this year I got an elk, and now that I know where to go I'll probably get one most years that I get drawn. But had I been skunked, and not found that spot, who knows how many more times I'd try to go hunting before giving up for seemingly impossible odds.

Growing up my dad never hunted. He went deer hunting once when he was in the Army (circa 1970). One of his buddies was an avid bow hunter and took him out. My dad had a deer dead to rights with that bow, but couldn't do it. Didn't have it in him to kill a deer (probably just as well then he wasn't infantry, or any combat MOS for that matter). So the idea of him teaching me to hunt never even occured to him.

I was 26 the first time I ever got a hunting license. I was 27 before I actually got to go hunting (failed in the draw that first year). Now I'm 28 and have only just killed my first big game animal. If I were Smoke or Art's neighbor and could have hunted over feeders for a year or two it would have done wonders for my confidance and might well have gotten me, by now, into really practicing a lot more of the "sneaky snake" techniques. I'd have been happy to help control their doe population (and thereby fill my freezer), and then try out and hone those skilz on Mr Buck.

 

[TrapperReady]

Regarding this issue, I've always been a proponent of "Truth in Taxidermy". If you shoot a critter with its head in a barrel full of day-old donuts or such, that's how it has to be mounted. You can't kill a bear that had yesterday's Raspberry Jelli-Glazed all over his face and have him stuffed in your living room rising up with teeth bared and claws waving.

In all seriousness, the "shooting from inside a box-blind at a deer eating from under a timed-feeder" is much like shooting preserve birds. It's not that I don't occasionally shoot preserve birds, but I make sure to refer to the activity as "shooting" not hunting.

Since the time when food became generally plentiful enough that hunting became "sport", folks have tended to define their own level of what's acceptable -- mostly within the construct of state and federal game laws. If it's legal, I don't have a problem with it, even if it might not be my cup of tea.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Regarding this issue, I've always been a proponent of "Truth in Taxidermy". If you shoot a critter with its head in a barrel full of day-old donuts or such, that's how it has to be mounted. You can't kill a bear that had yesterday's Raspberry Jelli-Glazed all over his face and have him stuffed in your living room rising up with teeth bared and claws waving.

In all seriousness, the "shooting from inside a box-blind at a deer eating from under a timed-feeder" is much like shooting preserve birds. It's not that I don't occasionally shoot preserve birds, but I make sure to refer to the activity as "shooting" not hunting.

Since the time when food became generally plentiful enough that hunting became "sport", folks have tended to define their own level of what's acceptable -- mostly within the construct of state and federal game laws. If it's legal, I don't have a problem with it, even if it might not be my cup of tea.

Nguyen Quet, the "Robin Hood of Northern I Corps" was shot by an E Company Ranger, who was squatting down at the time with his pants around his ankles.

Maybe we should have given that guy a special Bronze Star.

 

[TrapperReady]

Nguyen Quet, the "Robin Hood of Northern I Corps" was shot by an E Company Ranger, who was squatting down at the time with his pants around his ankles.

Vern, I'm a little confused by the wording of your comment. Was the shooter or the shootee the one with his pants around his ankles? If the former, that must be a "hasty shooting position" I never learned about.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern, I'm a little confused by the wording of your comment. Was the shooter or the shootee the one with his pants around his ankles? If the former, that must be a "hasty shooting position" I never learned about.

The shooter -- he stepped off the trail, squatted down, and saw a hat floating above the brush. Silently grabbing his M16, he rose to a half-crouch, and fired.

I don't think this could be classified as a hasty shooting position, since it requires so much paperwork.

 

[Subby]

If it's legal, go for it. I just find it interesting that you must use bait(lures) when fishing(no snagging, netting, etc) and that's acceptable, but you cannot use bait when hunting. It just strikes me as odd, given that the end result is so similar.

Sub

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If it's legal, go for it. I just find it interesting that you must use bait(lures) when fishing(no snagging, netting, etc) and that's acceptable, but you cannot use bait when hunting. It just strikes me as odd, given that the end result is so similar.

Sub

I have had a fisherman tell me, as if it made him morally superior to a hunter, "I practice catch and release."

My response is, "You hook the fish, traumatize it -- for no other reason than to watch its agony? You don't even have the excuse that you plan to eat it?"

 

[halvey]

IMO is kind of depends on the terrain and "fair chase".

In the case of hunting deer with an automatic feeder, no, it's not "sporting" - at least in my experience of hunting deer in Minnesota. Deer are always on the move and as long as you play the wind right, one will pass you in a stand. No need to bait. Baiting in this case is just lazy.

Bear - different story. There is no possible way to take a bear in the forests of Minnesota any other way. Shots are very short, and you can barely see beyond 25 yards. There no way to just scope out and hope a bear passes or stalk a bear. And dogs aren't allowed in this state for bear. Besides, if you actually go out and do the baiting, to me, that is more ethical.

I have had a fisherman tell me, as if it made him morally superior to a hunter, "I practice catch and release."

What snobs! Reminds me of the preserve "hunts" do the Brits do by pushing a field with 20 guys and 10 dogs. Hardly a fair chase.

 

[GunGoBoom]

I don't think this could be classified as a hasty shooting position, since it requires so much paperwork.

Bwaaahahaha.