So we've discussed bait and plots, but what of "growing" deer via supplements. Adding them to an area in an amount that they would not come across naturally. Granted I don't know much about them but isn't that akin to an athlete taking roids? With the intention of larger horns instead of larger arms on a bodybuilder. Does that take away from the harvest knowing it was not all natural?
Suppressors are used in Europe and they would think it unusual that we don't use them. They are used to protect your hearing and also so you don't disturb/alarm non hunters. That's from what i learned on the up north journal when they had a hunter from across the pond on. They also call tree stands high seats!
I'm not aware of anyone doing this outside high fence operations? However I would say it is unethical in my views Sent from my SM-G930V using Bowhunting.com Forums mobile app
That's why I hate deer farms that grow antlers for canned hunts. There is no proof to me that genetics via supplements can be passed on. I think all the inbreeding and mineral supplements within deer farms help create the diseases infiltrating the wild herds today. Genetic alteration can do good on a small scale, for medical purposes. It has no place in the "sporting" world. That's not ethics though, it's greed and ego.
High fence deer farms should not be considered hunting IMO. It should be called something else like shopping. There is no opportunity for the animals on the farm to leave, therefore it is not fair chase and not hunting. You're not hunting an animal on a farm that can't leave, you're buying it off the shelf like shopping for a pair of shoes in a store. I don't believe creating food sources or providing minerals for deer or other animals is unethical in any way. The idea is to help sustain a healthy deer population and promote growth amongst the animals. However law usually dictates if this is allowed. Here in CA, planting food sources or baiting deer is illegal, however I still don't think it's unethical. Ethics, morals and values are different in parts of our country and in other areas of the world. They are based on how a person is raised and what they believe is right and wrong outside the boundaries dictated by law. What is unethical to one person may be completely ethical to another. If something is legal to do, people will then base their decision on their ethical beliefs. Some will go to further lengths to justify their decision and make it "ok". I like law better than ethics. Laws are normally more clearly defined and much easier to debate. Ethics can, and probably will be, debated until the end of time and both people can be right even when disagreeing about something.
I don't have a problem with somebody that wants to high fence hunt, as long as they don't try to pass off the results as being fair chase.
I don't see it as unethical at all. If you lease or hunt timberland by permission, you can only plant certain areas, ones usually too small to benefit the wild life at all. A plot an acre or less is essentially just for hunting and if it is the only planted forage for a hundred acres, it's nutritional impact is negligible. Supplemental feeding protein can give large timber tracts the equivalent protein of agricultural hunting land. [I realize the impact is sketchy at best unless given in copious amounts and that at least three years or more is required to really see a difference. For Southern deer, our stressful period is spring and summer. And protein is highly required. Whereas in the North and Midwest, your deer's greatest stresses are cold winters that last a lonnnnnng time, which makes carbs and fat a big must.] Does killing a big antlered deer in Ag country of the grain belt take away from the harvest? They do grow bigger there. I mean, most folks don't get to hunt deer who have a regular supply of beans, standing corn, and peanuts. I sure as hell don't. LOL. While we're at it, is it fair that all soils aren't equal when it comes to producing deer? I know some of my Carolina hunting brethren look askance at other locals who hunt the midwest, viewing it as a shortcut to a magazine style deer. Pish posh, I say, but you'll never convince them that folks who travel out there aren't cheating one way or another. And on that topic, Southern deer are notoriously skittish, almost as if they are born looking up for tree stands. LOL. I've heard that is not nearly as bad a problem in the midwest (from a local friend who lives to hunt Iowa every three years or so). Is it fair or ethical that all deer don't face the same type of pressure as Southern states with long gun seasons? The only thing I'm trying to say is we need to be careful about what we decide is fair chase for all stakeholders, is all. I wasn't picking on you, KJ. Very interesting post, too, btw.
Some folks even think hunting unpressured land is unethical. "The deer are tame." I disagree. Just because one takes the discipline to not overhunt his woods, or park far from where he hunts, or limits the harvest to an extreme degree, does NOT make the deer tame.
I don't like to use bait, but if I don't put out corn I'll never see a deer. Others that hunt near me keep corn and apples out all season and I got tired of seeing 1-2 deer all season. In NC, suppressors are legal to hunt with, and I'd love to have one to keep from further damaging my hearing. In the next couple of years I hope to get one.
IF you have a neighbor that feeds deer (not for hunting) and has the deer extremely tame. Would it be unethical to shoot the deer while it is eating out of your neighbors hand?
I use 50 pound bags of corn and sweet potatoes. It has been real try here and I basically hunt over dirt
Unfortunately, recently, here in NY, we had a Conservation Officer (game warden) shot by a poacher. The Officer was investigating an illegal hunting report and was shot in the pelvis with a 30-30 while walking through a corn field after dark. The poacher was apparently shooting at either movement he could make out in the dark, or sound. We can all agree in the lack of ethics in that. How does that translate to bowhunting ethics? Well the way I see it is, if you need a light on your sight, or light up nocks, you are likely shooting in too low of light. I have read right on here of guys who will shoot if they can make out the shape of the deer enough to shoot at the chest. No way, I want to see the exact spot I want to hit, the exact strand of hair. If I can't, I don't shoot.
Lighted nocks only aid in recovery of the arrow, and if you've ever had to hunt out of a ground blind you would know why there is a light on the sight. Fiber-optic gathers light adding light is the equivalent of painting a front sight on a rifle a bright color to make easier for eyes to focus on.
I'm in NY and I agree with everything but the light up nocks. I use light up nocks and this is my first year using them. Even in the day they make arrow impact spit easier to see. They are not for shooting at night or last light. I have a great eye and can see my arrows impact. However I have a friend who just has a hard time picking up his arrow flight. He went to light up nocks and now it's no problem. We shoot together and in the daylight in mid summer the light up nocks make a difference to him. But I agree with you on the light up sights and all.
I would disagree that shooting at sound or movement is an ethics issue. Its a safety issue and anyone doing it is a danger to others and should not be tolerated
Well I've read every response in this thread and have come to the conclusion that ethics are subjective. I myself have been judgmental on others hunting practices but for the sake of the sport I am going to try and be more open minded. Strength in numbers. We might not all agree on what is ethical but we all agree we love to hunt and unless we support each other we won't be able to in the future.
It is both ethics and safety. Ethically, how can you expect to make a humane kill if you can't see your target clearly? The safety aspect is obvious.
