Here is a good one. The author in this article feels that hunters and anglers are getting too technologically advanced to kill. Take some time to read it and decide if you agree or disagree - then come back here and read why I disagree.

First off, I wonder if the author could explain this comment near the top of the post.

The sport of hunting for wild animals is rapidly becoming an activity of killing wild animals.

Phew, for a minute their I forgot what hunting was. It’s kind of like saying that a cow slaughterhouse is rapidly becoming a place where the activity of killing large, fenced-in animals for mass processing and neatly shrink wrapping them to feed the public. Some members of the public forget that ‘killing’ is used to get these helpless farm animals on to their plates and fast food trays.

The author then is surprised to hear that high powered rifles are used to shoot deer. This is nothing new. I am still using a gun my grandfather used 60 years ago. Why? Because they can effectively and humanely kill the wildlife I am hunting. One of the anti-seal hunting arguments is that the hunters are using tools that are too primitive. They would rather watch the hunters use high powered rifles (granted they would rather nobody hunted the seals at all). I am a little confused as to the author’s point on this issue.

There is some discussion on the advances in muzzleloader design and how these changes make hunting easy. I am not sure these advances make hunting easier. At least not as easy as getting farm animals into a small area to be slaughtered, but the advances make handling the propellant easier, and providing the right amount of powder to get your bullet to the target.

The article also says this,

The modern muzzle-loader has an optical sight that gathers light and magnifies the target and places a colored dot on the target. That sight calculates how far away the target is and the rifle will shoot with deadly accuracy out to 200 yard and more.

Imagine placing a bullet where you are aiming. As opposed to placing your bullet in an area that will not kill but will injure the animal for a slow painful death. Scopes do not ‘gather’ light (it is only an illusion). Even so, scopes are not a new technology. Red dot scopes do not magnify anything. In fact at further distances they are difficult to work with because the dot gets to big on the far away targets. Red dot sights are not the laser sights that place a circular laser dot on your target. Those are used for tactical weapons. Unlike the article, I hope every shot I take is ‘deadly‘ accurate. After all, I am there to kill/harvest an animal with minimal suffering.

Apparently it is also bad to have an accurate crossbow,

I watched a young man shooting such a crossbow at a target from a measured 20 yards. He shot bolt after bolt into a quarter size spot, shooting from a standing position, without a bow rest. That was truly a deer killer.

I hate to beat a dead horse but is that not the point? It is called hunting-not missing! Hunting ethics dictate quick kills . We should be making sure that our equipment is accurate-especially through practice. It’s like the author of the article is upset that hunters are making sure their kills are humane.

Here is another good line,

The modern hunter does not need much ability to kill a deer. He just finds a spot where he can see the area for some several hundred yards around him and wait for the deer to come by.

Ummm…so now it is wrong for hunters to hunt in a field? I get the feeling the author does not hunt much. If I find a spot in the bush that gives me 50 yards or unobstructed viewing, I’m happy (see the pic). But standing at a watch is nothing new. Yes, you wait and hope a deer walks within shooting range but choosing this spot comes from understanding and observing deer activity in that area. Quite often the spot you watch is in concert with other hunters you are with. They are watching other areas at the same time. I am still watching spots where my grandfather watched before me. How else is the author suggesting that we shoot/hunt an animal?

Now don’t think the article’s author is targeting hunters. There is a poke at fisherman too. The article says,

Now, with a new fish-finder mechanism, he looks at a TV screen that not only tells him where the fish are located, but what kind and how big the fish are. All he has to do is present his bait or lure and catch his limit.

I happen to use a fish finder. I have yet to see a button on it that makes the fish bite your bait or lure. More often than not, I have turned my finder off because it will indicate the area I am in is full of fish but they will not bite what I am putting in front of them. I took a photo of my fish finder’s screen, last spring, that was full of fish. We turned it off (see the pic) because we were frustrated that they would not bite our presentation.

The article has missed the big picture of hunting and fishing. All hunters and anglers are part of a scientific tool used in wildlife management. When we pay our license fees this money goes towards restocking, habitat improvement, enforcement, and research to make sure that fish and wildlife numbers increase and flourish. When we get a deer tag (or a tag for any other species), the expectation from the biologists is that we will be successful in ‘filling’ that tag. If technology helps me shoot that deer humanely and accurately then I am GOING to do it. It is part of a plan. After I get my deer, I can’t use that technology to get more deer. There is no danger that technology will help hunters wipe out deer herds - because we hunt only what is allowed by the wildlife management plan in our area.

For the other 10 months of the year when hunting is not allowed in my area, I do enjoy walking in the wilds and not killing anything. Knowing if I do see something it is because hunters like myself are part of the plan to allow others to see more - even if THEY do not hunt.

Bill Anderson
Muskoka Outdoors