Is it more difficult to hunt using a gun scope or a telephoto?

[RandyMN]

Serious, I have nothing against any hunters out here.

But in all honesty, it's easy to throw some corn out and shoot a deer or throw bird feed and shoot birds. I hear stories from hunters about how they put salt blocks and corn, then wait for the season to perch themselves on a stand and just wait, then shoot!

Now photographers can set up a blind just as well, but when it comes right down to it, isn't a photographer looking for lighting, composition, background and trying to get the end result where the prey looks great?

Then compare that to a hunter, and I know bow hunters have much more difficulties as they need to get closer than the hunter with a scope, but when it comes down to actual difficulty in shooting, it seems to me that the photographer has the more difficult job...

I am not looking for any debate because I think hunting is as important as photography and it has it's purpose. But I think the days of tracking and hunting for food are far gone compared to today's sport hunting.

And quite honestly, most of my wildlife photo's come from chance and not by purposely setting up blinds while looking for that perfect shot.

[gjl711]

I agree, hunting with a camera is much more difficult. Hunting with lead you are considered successful if you come back with a deer strapped to your hood. With a camera you have all the same challenges, plus you need to get closer, plus you need to come back with an interesting image, not just a buck strapped to the hood.

[gjl711]

Oh, plus you have all the guys shooting with lead mistaking you for game to deal with as well. :)

[jsinon]

As an avid hunter I would have to say I personally wouldn't be taking any advice from so called "hunters" shooting over bait. Not only is it unethical it is probably illegal, I know it is around here. As to perceived difficulty, I think it depends on location. Here in New England the woods are usually pretty thick and shots are usually in the 50-75 yard range. Out west where the country is more open and shots are much longer, that is a little different story. It still requires skill, just not as much of the stalking part. I would, as a handgun hunter, put my skill at getting close enough for a clean shot up against any photographer getting their shot.

John, unfortunately I have to agree with you on your last point. There are far too many Yahoos out there giving us a bad name, and they are the only ones to make the news. My feeling is that I should be able to walk out in the woods dressed in brown with fake antlers on my head and not have to worry about getting shot. One of the most important rules taught in hunter safety courses is "know your target"

Either way, both take skill to do well and that's where I'm going to leave it.

[RandyMN]

jsinon, thanks for that bit of insight as my wife works with hunters that tell her they use bait, so I though that was normal.

I'm not quite sure why anyone would hunt with a hand gun??? I suppose if you were hunting squirrels with a .22 and a scope. I have one of those and can see very well how that would work well. But squirrels can be shot too easily from my deck!

But what I hear you say is that hunting with a hand gun challenges what the photographer deals with, but I heard nothing about hunting with a scope and a rifle. Easily at 75 to 100 yards both hunter and photographer can get their shot, but in heavy wooded area I'm guessing the photographer would need to get closer to acclomplish the same trophy.

Therefore it sounds like the photographer still has the greater challenge.

[jsinon]

The "bigger challenge" is all relative. It depends on the end result you are looking for.

As for why hunt with a handgun, I guess I kind of think along the same lines as you do as to the perceived "ease" of hunting with a scoped rifle. I hunt with a scoped, large caliber revolver and learning to shoot it well enough for me to feel comfortable hunting with it took a lot of range time. Oh, and I like to be different. Among all my hunting friends I am the only handgun hunter. I don't even own a rifle anymore. I think part of your perception my come from the fact that a rifle hunter has the "possibility" of taking a shot that would be well out of range for a photographer to get their "shot." The reality around here is much different and in many cases the ranges deer are shot with either a camera or a gun is probably quite comparable.

[Naturalist]

As a hunter I would have to agree that the days of tracking and hunting game as a sole source of food are pretty much gone unless someone chooses to live out in the sticks.

For the most part, today's hunters are used as a conservation management tool, being allowed to take the surplus animals which is why bag limits and number of minimum antlers, etc. can vary from one season to another. When the surplus animal population goes down, so do the bag limits, lengths of seasons, and other factors so that the remaining population is permitted to rebound and strengthen.

Back to your point, however, while the typical bowhunter may have a maximum range of 60 yards for a descent shot, and most animals are taken by firearms within 200 yards, many outdoor photographers have lenses that can capture acceptable images from hundreds of yards away, and I believe you are correct in stating that the photographer has the more difficult time since he is concerned with lighting, background, etc.

[gjl711]

... many outdoor photographers have lenses that can capture acceptable images from hundreds of yards away,...Hundreds?? Heck, even a 500mm lens gives you a FOV of about 12 feet at 100 yards on a crop camera. I think most wildlife photogs out there have either the 100-400 or a 400mm prime. Usually I try to get within 20~30 yards for larger game and birds is within 10~15 yards at most.

[DigitalSpecialist]

It seems that were generalizing hunting, and photography? I for one love shooting wildlife with a camera, more so than with a firearm! Hunting in Missouri is usually done from a stand, or stalking. The area determines the weapon of choice, Bow, Handgun, or Rifle.

I take much of my hunting skills into the field to shoot wildlife with a camera, and that is where both subjects combine skills in many ways. I really enjoy stalking my prey with a camera, most times your on the move for hours. And many times your stalking prey during off season or before season begins. Many call this cheating, because I can then turn around and hunt for the same animals I've photographed!

Ironically, when I am shooting its for personal pleasure, and I haven't hunted in years. But, keeping up the skills is a must!

[Mtn Breeze]

Here in N.Z. (unlike many other countries) we have no 'management' of our game animals. All our species (Wapiti, red deer, thar, chamois, sika, fallow, wild pigs etc ) can be hunted all year round with no bag limits. So, they are all very, very wary and cunning.

I've been hunting for around 25 years firstly with a rifle (9 years) and since then with a bow. Now of course the camera and 100-400 comes with me and my bow on all my trips.....and sometimes on their own !!!

Anyway, I love a quote I heard once from Kurt Russell......"When you see an animal with a rifle, it's all over........when you see an animal with a bow and arrow, it's only just begun".

Having participated in all three 'disciplines', I'd say that bowhunting and photography hunting are on a par with required distances to get a good result. The difference is, as has already been mentioned, the additional components that are needed to make an ok image or a great image. Easy enough to get into 30-40 metres and get a frame filling shot but if other factors are not taken into account the photo will be very average. Mind you we have the wind (scent), available cover (sight), ground conditons (hearing) etc to overcome to obtain that 'great' shot. All in all, for me, that what makes the whole wildlife photography thing such a buzz.

As far as the baiting aspect goes, it's all ethics and moral orientated isn't it. Another example over here is spotlighting for game at night. I would never think of doing it because I consider it unsporting aside from it being dangerous. Even on private land where it is legal I wouldnt think of it. I think baiting is in that same 'ethical' league. It's the challenge of one on one, man vs beast type of idea that appeals to me.

Cheers, Matt.

[BradM]

I guess I would take a different tack on this, shooting wildlife is much easier than hunting the same species for a number of reasons. The primary being is that a photographer is not limited to a specific time period in which to capture their quarry as a hunter is.

If a photographer is out trying to get a shot during the hunting season is working under a real handicap, the quarry is much more wary and there are others chasing the same animals and spooking them from distances much further away than the photog would like them to be.

As to the lighting and background issues, these are always a consideration but a large part of a good wildlife shot is the enviornmental aspect of the image so it comes down to exposure and composition because as to the other considerations the animal is where it is. You can't change that unless you have a tame animal you can pose or decide shooting in zoos or game parks is the type of wildlife one wants to shoot.

Shooting wildlife as far as I am concerned is much like bow hunting when is comes to the perferred distance of being from the subject even though I can stretch the focal length of the lens out to 1400mm with decent IQ with the use of extenders being closer always results in better image.

[RikWriter]

Having done both, I can tell you that at least in my experience, it is far far easier to hunt with a camera. When you hunt game with a gun, you're restricted to certain areas, certain times of year and certain methods of hunting---eg, you can't stop your car by the side of the road and shoot out your window if you see a deer.
With a camera, you can enter wildlife refuges and state and national parks where the animals feel safer and haven't been hunted, you can go any time of year, including when the animals are most likely to be out and about, you don't have to worry about the sort of safety issues you have to concern yourself with when gun hunting and you can shoot pictures out of your car, near buildings, near other people, etc...
It's MUCH easier to hunt with a camera...it really isn't even close.

[mikerault]

I agree with BradM, a photographer can go any time and shoot animals and has a much better chance to get a good shot because of it. I went out this season (admittedly for the first time in several years) for 5 days of hunting in prime white tail deer habitat (plenty of wild food (acorns, hichory nuts, grass), bedding areas (clear cuts and other delibratly maintained areas for bedding) and water sources. Out of 40-50 hours in the field I didn't see one deer. I saw birds, squirrels, ground squirrels but that was it. Even had a hawk fly in and land in a tree right beside me (I was on the ground).

In one test they placed a buck in a 100 ac. area with 10 hunters, normal cover, thye didn't get him. The scientests but a streamer on the bucks antlers, they still didn't get him.

I primarily go into the woods for quiet time and no distractions, if I can harvest a deer, even better!

For those that detract from using a gun and scope, try hitting a target in light to medium cover from 50 yards with a scope and gun, it is a challenge.

No, I wouldn't shoot over bait, that is unlawful and takes some of the fun out of it.

Mike

[RandyMN]

Thanks for all the great feedback!

Seems like there is really no easy answer as too many variables come into play. Both have similar challenges, but rifle hunters are restricted to certain seasons and they also only have typically one shot to get it correct.

[mikerault]

besides...the last time I took 50 or so pictures I didn't have to soak my shoulder from the bruising. When I sighted in my scope that I put on my 8mm mauser it took around 50 shots to finally dial it in...that wouldn't have been so bad except on the same day I had to do my Son-in-laws 30-06 which also took another 50 shots. My shouder was a bit black and blue afterwards...

[Mtn Breeze]

Brad, Rik, Mike.

Hhmmmmm.......interesting !! Different countries, different situations, eh. In the States you have hunting seasons, bag limits (even antler limits ?), etc. Over here, as I say, our game animals get no reprieve at all.

I kind of find it hard to comprehend when I hear stories or see photos of monster Whietail bucks in backyards, huge Wapiti wandering down streets and just the other day on this site a largeBighorn ram on a tarseal road !!! (And in one instance a photo of a massive bull Moose literally mounting a statue of a bison....that was funny). I guess wildlife photography here might be a bit like you guys attempting yours during the hunting seasons over there ??

[RikWriter]

Brad, Rik, Mike.

Hhmmmmm.......interesting !! Different countries, different situations, eh. In the States you have hunting seasons, bag limits (even antler limits ?), etc. Over here, as I say, our game animals get no reprieve at all.


Well, it depends on the state to some extent, but the more populated the area, the more limits on hunting. I was just in Kentucky for a few days hunting with my son and we saw a grand total of one deer, deep in the thicket and for only a brief moment during hunting hours. A half hour after dark, we saw dozens of deer feeding in a nearby field. The damn things aren't stupid...

[Mtn Breeze]

A half hour after dark, we saw dozens of deer feeding in a nearby field. The damn things aren't stupid...


LOL.......that cracks me up Rik. Prolly also the reason why we keep going back after the little blighters....:lol:. If we harvested an animal everytime or got that perfect image on every outing it'd all become very ho-hum, eh !!

Cheers.

[jsinon]

LOL.......that cracks me up Rik. Prolly also the reason why we keep going back after the little blighters....:lol:. If we harvested an animal everytime or got that perfect image on every outing it'd all become very ho-hum, eh !!

Cheers.


Ditto that. My main enjoyment from hunting comes from the things I see that others don't because they are home comfy in there beds. If I came home with a deer or a limit of ducks or geese every time I went out it would loose its appeal real fast. The challenge of outsmarting an animal that in their own element is smarter and better equipped than I am is what hunting is all about for me. Hunting success for me comes from seeing what I'm after, be it a nice deer, ducks coming in to a beaver pond, geese over a corn field, what ever. Actually pulling the trigger and putting meat on the table is a very distant second and just the occasional icing on the cake.

Over all, both successful hunting and photography are very difficult to do well for a lot of the same reasons and a few that apply to each specifically.

[SS308]

The "bigger challenge" is all relative. It depends on the end result you are looking for.

As for why hunt with a handgun, I guess I kind of think along the same lines as you do as to the perceived "ease" of hunting with a scoped rifle. I hunt with a scoped, large caliber revolver and learning to shoot it well enough for me to feel comfortable hunting with it took a lot of range time. Oh, and I like to be different. Among all my hunting friends I am the only handgun hunter. I don't even own a rifle anymore. I think part of your perception my come from the fact that a rifle hunter has the "possibility" of taking a shot that would be well out of range for a photographer to get their "shot." The reality around here is much different and in many cases the ranges deer are shot with either a camera or a gun is probably quite comparable.
Jsinon, I also hunt with a handgun out here in Wyoming. I also photograph wildlife, both have their uniqe difficulties.

[duffguy808]

Bow hunting is definitely harder than a lens or a riffle. I do all three.

[reelly1]

I agree that taking them with camera is easier than rifle. Due to as stated, not being restricted on times or locations. It is a lot easier to get landowner persion to get photos than to shoot across it with a rifle.

BTW most states perfectly legal to bait deer for hunting on private land. But a lot of states forbid baiting for bear. I for one have hunted over bait. And not had much more luck than hunting over no bait. The bigger bucks are normally smarter then that.

[Agent 655]

I deer hunt with a muzzle loader. It is a modern inline one, but I still only get one shot at a deer! You have to worry about range with the muzzle loader also since the bullet is MUCH slower than a centerfire hunting rifle.

At least with a camera you get to take many shots. Even using a high power rifle most ethical hunters will only strive to take a single shot.

[Grafixwld]

I have hunted with rifles, pistols, muzzle loaders, and with stick and string ( recurve bows and cedar arrows ) for over forty years. I have hunted seriously with a camera for a few years. Getting close to the animal is not really an issue with me as I practice the same skills with a camera as I do with anything I hunt with.

Here's my thinking, is it easier with a gun and scope?, I guess it depends. One often doesn't get a shot in a prescribed hunting season where camera season is constant. One can't hunt with a gun in a national park. It's not like Yellowstone. I read an article a while back where a photographer got some pics of bears from about a mile away with a 500 L and I believe two 2x tcs stacked. I can't crop with a scoped rifle nor can I accurately shoot that far.

Shooting them with a camera isn't difficult to me at all. The problem is making them look good as I'm learning.

Phil

[chauncey]

Interesting post in that I wouldn't have thought there were this many of us involved in both of these hobbies.

I have and will continue to bait, whether it be a bird feeder or a bag of corn in the field, in the pursuit of both of these hobbies.

Haven't tried a tethered goat yet. :lol:

[RikWriter]

Haven't tried a tethered goat yet. :lol:

"T-rex doesn't want to be fed, he wants to hunt!"

(Sorry, obscure movie reference there...)

[itallushrt]

I agree, hunting with a camera is much more difficult. Hunting with lead you are considered successful if you come back with a deer strapped to your hood. With a camera you have all the same challenges, plus you need to get closer, plus you need to come back with an interesting image, not just a buck strapped to the hood.

Try bow hunting large game and you will quickly find that success isn't coming back with a "deer strapped to your hood.".

BTW, I've never in my life seen or known anyone to strap any animal, dead or alive, to their hood and baiting birds with any type of feed for the purpose of hunting is illegal.

[Al_at_MMO]

When it comes to baiting any kind of game animal, be it large game, fur bearer, or bird, it is always best to check with the state agency that takes care of your fish and game.

It maybe be legal or illegal where YOU live, but that does not mean it is legal or illegal where I live.

As for where I live, in New Hampshire, unlike what was posted, it IS legal to bait for game animals from September 1st to April 14th. You need a permit for state land, or written land owner permission if on private land and the bait site must be registered with the local game warden. There are also limits on the number of bait sites allowed for some species.

The point being, checking is the best policy.

As to the original question, I don't think it's any harder to hunt with a camera than any other weapon if you know the animal you are after and can spend enough time in the field to make use of that knowledge. Finding the time, that's the hard part for me.

Al

[itallushrt]

When it comes to baiting any kind of game animal, be it large game, fur bearer, or bird, it is always best to check with the state agency that takes care of your fish and game.

It maybe be legal or illegal where YOU live, but that does not mean it is legal or illegal where I live.

As for where I live, in New Hampshire, unlike what was posted, it IS legal to bait for game animals from September 1st to April 14th. You need a permit for state land, or written land owner permission if on private land and the bait site must be registered with the local game warden. There are also limits on the number of bait sites allowed for some species.

The point being, checking is the best policy.

As to the original question, I don't think it's any harder to hunt with a camera than any other weapon if you know the animal you are after and can spend enough time in the field to make use of that knowledge. Finding the time, that's the hard part for me.

Al

I don't know if your response was directed to me, but waterfowl (which granted I was not specific in stating and simply said birds) are Federally managed. As such it is illegal in EVERY state to bait waterfowl or other migratory birds for the purpose of hunting.

I did not say anything about baiting for big game species because it does vary from state to state as these are state owned and managed animals.

[timmyeatchips]

With a gun, it doesn't matter if the deer looks ugly after you shoot it

[SS308]

With a gun, it doesn't matter if the deer looks ugly after you shoot it

Yum, Yum...backstraps!:D

[Al_at_MMO]

You said Birds - no qualification, just Birds. Yes, water foul are protected from baiting. But turkeys are birds, and there are places where they are baited legally. We may know these things because we hunt, but the non hunter may not. Telling the Conservation Officer "I read it on the internet" isn't going to cut it. You could loose your gear, your car or truck and your right to hunt.

My point was to check with the state agency where you are going to photograph for accurate information. If you ask, you will be informed and much better off.

The question of the ethics of baiting came up earlier in the discussion. I find it much more unethical to go into the woods with a gun, bow, muzzle loader or camera not knowing the laws pertaining to where you are going to hunt or photograph than weather you bait legally for game.

Again, apologies if you took what I wrote as a snide comment towards you. It just wasn't meant that way and i perhaps should have looked at it through your eyes before I hit the Send button.

Al

[416bw]

Great thread!

I'm of the 'easier with a camera' crowd. No need to pack out meat, no need for MOA accuracy, no penalty for missing, lot fewer rules.

I will say equipment seems to cost more for taking pictures. I don't have a single $1700 rifle (close maybe, with Leupold scope) but I've got a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS that cost that much alone.

I don't bait, but realize it's an just another hunting method. In reality it's better on the animal as the hunter is propositioned, knows the distance, has time to judge the animal to insure rules are followed, and is more likely to make a single well-placed shot.

How about a thread of hunting pictures? Nice, respectable versions?

[skipper34]

besides...the last time I took 50 or so pictures I didn't have to soak my shoulder from the bruising. When I sighted in my scope that I put on my 8mm mauser it took around 50 shots to finally dial it in...that wouldn't have been so bad except on the same day I had to do my Son-in-laws 30-06 which also took another 50 shots. My shouder was a bit black and blue afterwards...

50 shots to sight in? Why so many? It can be done with a fraction of the shots you took.

[Mike55]

It all depends ;) There are unethical hunters, and ethical hunters. There are unethical photographers and ethical photographers.

Both ethical hunting and ehtical photograpy are *much* harder than the unethical choices.

How many times did I just type ethical? Wow. That said, I feel that getting a GOOD shot of wildlife is harder than most hunting.

[Mike55]

How about a thread of hunting pictures? Nice, respectable versions?


Now we are entering a territory where total and complete lack of skill is involved IMHO. Taking pictures of dead animals to me is pointless. Much more skill to get them on your memory card when they were alive. To me it says, " I really want to show you this animal, but I wasn't good enough at wildlife photography to get it aive so here it is, limp and lifeless".

[416bw]

To me it says, " I really want to show you this animal, but I wasn't good enough at wildlife photography to get it aive so here it is, limp and lifeless".

In that context, I'd agree. I was talking about documenting a hunt, not killing animals to take a picture.

[416bw]

Here's an example of what I think is a nice picture, documenting the end of a successful hunt...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/BrianW/Spring%20Fling/ktandblackbear2.jpg

It could be argued that the rifle is distracting. It's fairly untouched. A bit of cropping and I cloned out her boot which was visible near the bears head. Some sharpening would be nice. It was taken with with an XTi and the kit lens.

[snowyowl13]

Sad!

[RikWriter]

Sad!

That's your opinion.

[Mike55]

Here's an example of what I think is a nice picture, documenting the end of a successful hunt...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/BrianW/Spring%20Fling/ktandblackbear2.jpg

It could be argued that the rifle is distracting. It's fairly untouched. A bit of cropping and I cloned out her boot which was visible near the bears head. Some sharpening would be nice. It was taken with with an XTi and the kit lens.


I still don't get this kind of picture, no offense. For example, I would find an image of the woman holding the rifle much more interesting, or a picture of the bear while it was alive. Just my opinion. I understand it was your wish to document the end of a successful hunt. But I just don't see the point of "showing" a dead mammal.

[RikWriter]

I still don't get this kind of picture, no offense. For example, I would find an image of the woman holding the rifle much more interesting, or a picture of the bear while it was alive. Just my opinion. I understand it was your wish to document the end of a successful hunt. But I just don't see the point of "showing" a dead mammal.

The point is showing it to those who are interested in hunting, I would suppose. If you aren't, then you aren't the target audience.

[rgfrison]

My personal experience, I hunted the majority of my life, and have taken Deer, Elk, Bear and numorous small game and birds with rifle, bow and shotgun. I am basicly a beginner when it comes to photography. With that said photography is very difficult for me. The ranges in photography are very similar to bowhunting. The bowhunting season the animals are not as spooked as with rifle season and here it coincides with the elk rut. Rifle I would consider the least difficult of all. Photography compares closely in several aspects to bowhunting except you have to deal with light issues as well. I don't hunt anymore, and I still get the same rush clicking the shutter as I did pulling the trigger.;)

[BradM]

While I don't find these kind of images appealing either, it isn't so much emotional for me. I would perfer to see a shot of the live animal but the problem I have with these images is that is too much like looking a images of some elses kid except the pose is always the same.

I don't care to look at people kids pic's but at least the pose and scene may change With the after pose of hunting it is always the hunter, rifle, bow, spear gun etc. and dead animal.

Boring.

[Naturalist]

Congratulations on a successful bear hunt 416bw!

[RikWriter]

While I don't find these kind of images appealing either, it isn't so much emotional for me. I would perfer to see a shot of the live animal but the problem I have with these images is that is too much like looking a images of some elses kid except the pose is always the same.

I don't care to look at people kids pic's but at least the pose and scene may change With the after pose of hunting it is always the hunter, rifle, bow, spear gun etc. and dead animal.

Boring.


What would you suggest? The hunter in the midst of gutting the animal? THAT might be interesting...not boring at any rate, but a bit gorey!

[416bw]

With the after pose of hunting it is always the hunter, rifle, bow, spear gun etc. and dead animal.

Boring.



Well hugging live animals is considered harassment. :)

But yeah, usually the same pose. I do try to make sure tongues aren't hanging out, no blood and guts, use a flash especially if the hunter is wearing a hat.

[416bw]

Congratulations on a successful bear hunt 416bw!

It was successful. S.E. Alaska, nice size black bear. She shot it, hunting with her husband, it was just my boat.

[snowyowl13]

That's your opinion.
Yep! I would also point out that I speak as a hunter with many years of experience hunting from one side of Canada to the other. Now I hunt with my camera. "Sad" was my reaction to the picture. I hope the young lady eats all of the bear.

[RikWriter]

Yep! I would also point out that I speak as a hunter with many years of experience hunting from one side of Canada to the other. Now I hunt with my camera. "Sad" was my reaction to the picture. I hope the young lady eats all of the bear.

When I read about you not hunting anymore, I can't help but think "sad."

[BradM]

What would you suggest? The hunter in the midst of gutting the animal? THAT might be interesting...not boring at any rate, but a bit gorey!

I don't suggest anything I only stated my reasons for not caring for these images, repeatitive and boring.

Well hugging live animals is considered harassment. :)

But yeah, usually the same pose. I do try to make sure tongues aren't hanging out, no blood and guts, use a flash especially if the hunter is wearing a hat.


And hugging dead animals is an accepted behavior? ;)

I am certainly not against hunting, I have done so for years, I support Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited and a few other local programs. I have served a number of years on my states Dept Fish & Wildlife Law Enforcement Advisory Board as well as some fisheries boards. I have put thousands of dollars and similar number of hours behind my support of hunting and fishing rights.

But if I had a choice of viewing photos of some elses trophy or some random strangers stills of his colonoscopy, I'd take the latter.

[Al_at_MMO]

repeatitive and boring

To you. But to many many hunters, young and old, these types of photos are not meant to be "art" they are meant to be keepsakes - and while you may find them boring, they stir memories of hunts with family and friends, times spent in the great outdoors together, sunrises and sunsets, cold mornings, sparkling spring creeks, mountains cloaked in fog, meadows full of deer or elk, the damp smell of the forest -

If that is boring to you..... your statement

if I had a choice of viewing photos of some elses trophy or some random strangers stills of his colonoscopy, I'd take the latter.

pretty much sums up where your head is.

Said in a nice way of course :)

Al

[chauncey]

Al, while I might disagree with most of your post, your closing line put me on the floor. :lol: :lol:

[BradM]

To you. But to many many hunters, young and old, these types of photos are not meant to be "art" they are meant to be keepsakes - and while you may find them boring, they stir memories of hunts with family and friends, times spent in the great outdoors together, sunrises and sunsets, cold mornings, sparkling spring creeks, mountains cloaked in fog, meadows full of deer or elk, the damp smell of the forest -

If that is boring to you..... your statement



pretty much sums up where your head is.

Said in a nice way of course :)

Al

What is wrong with stating I find an image or style of image boring? This is a photography site, it is about photography. I didn't say I had anything against the image except it is trite, hackneyed, lacking freshness or in simple words boring to me.

But to your post why would I or anyone care about some random strangers "cherised memories" shared via a 3rd party?

That is nonsense, there is no connection to be made with the person involved. It like saying I should be weeping at a co-worker's cousin's wedding or birth images. That is insane.

However if some elses snapshot evokes your cherised memories good for you, enjoy the vicariously evoked nostalgia. I have a life full of my own memories and experiences, I don't need anothers image to recall my own.

[SS308]

Ditto on your successful bear hunt 416!

There are two types of people, those that hunt and those who wish they could...:lol:

[Tom Reichner]

I don't suggest anything I only stated my reasons for not caring for these images, repeatitive and boring.

. . . if I had a choice of viewing photos of some elses trophy or some random strangers stills of his colonoscopy, I'd take the latter.

I agree, Brad.

I am an avid hunter and have been so for the past 28 years (since I was 12 years old!)

However, I really couldn't care less about someone's "trophy shot". Such images simply don't appeal to me - I don't find them interesting at all.

I rarely buy hunting magazines anymore, simply because they show so stinking many of these dead animal/trophy photos. As a hunter, I want to see photos of live game animals.

I am a member of Ducks Unlimited, and greatly appreciate their bimonthly magazine. Sure, there are a few images in every issue that show a hunter with his day's bag. But the vast majority of the images in every issue are of live waterfowl. I actually learn more about ducks by viewing live photos of them.

I wish other hunting magazines would take this approach and infuse their issues with dozens of live game animal photos every month. Then I would actually buy them again.

[dipps]

it's tougher with a scope/gun. with a camera you don't have to dress out the deer, or try to drag a 150lbs carcass 300 or 400 yards out of a woods while also carrying your gun and dressed in thick apparel meant to keep you warm in subzero temps/wearing boots that weigh 1.5 lbs each. :lol:

[mikerault]

If you hug a tree and it doesn't want you to is it rape?

Mike

[Mike55]

mikerault - you may be interested in knowing that the best hunting in the country for a variety of big game is unroaded national forest and BLM land. Hunters should be tree huggers too, unless the only thing they are interested in is whitetail deer and rabbit ;)

[RikWriter]

mikerault - you may be interested in knowing that the best hunting in the country for a variety of big game is unroaded national forest and BLM land. Hunters should be tree huggers too, unless the only thing they are interested in is whitetail deer and rabbit ;)

And considering that much of the money that states use for conservation comes from hunting/fishing fees, more conservationists should support hunting. But they don't.

[Mike55]

Tons of conservationists support sustenance hunting for big game. Where you start getting into "slippery" territory is trophy hunting, trapping and no-keep varmint hunting.

Every outdoor pursuit, wether photography or hunting has it's ethical and unethical side.

Also, I'm not sure what you are defining as "conservation". The highest form of that is protecting complete wildlands and keeping them intact (wilderness, roadless protection and various types of animal habitat such as secure denning). There's a very good reason why people all over the U.S. travel to Yellowstone for wildlife photography, and to the national forests surrounding Yellowstone to hunt. The Yellowstone ecosystem is 18 million acres, much of it intact wilderness on federal land such as national forests and Yellowstone itself. These lands are funded via taxes.

Some good reading and a map at the link below. Many people just focus on Yellowstone park itself, but there's much more to it than that:

http://www.greateryellowstone.org/ecosystem/

[RikWriter]

Tons of conservationists support sustenance hunting for big game. Where you start getting into "slippery" territory is trophy hunting, trapping and no-keep varmint hunting.


No, there's no slippery slope involved as long as the quotas are scientifically calculated and enforced by the state. The hunters' "state of mind" isn't an issue as to whether they are helping to balance the populations.

[BradM]

No, there's no slippery slope involved as long as the quotas are scientifically calculated and enforced by the state. The hunters' "state of mind" isn't an issue as to whether they are helping to balance the populations.

I'm sorry but that is a load of:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/crap.jpg


As I mentioned previously I have worked for years closely with my states Fish and Wildlife Dept., I have had a close relationship with Canada's Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans and the bottomline is there can be NO scientific & accurate calculation of the number of a species ergo there can be no accurate quota defined.

Spend some time with those biologists tasked with defining how these quotas are defined and set and they will tell you it is only supposition and finally decided by politics of the dollar whether commercial or sportsmen interest.

This "science" is statistical in nature and based on catch or take records and supposed survival rates for young. And this method has been proven time and time again to be inaccurate, often radically inaccurate.

One of the the "best" or most often monitored species are the salmon runs of the Pacific west coast and these formerly huge runs of salmon, which wild runs are supplemented by hundreds of hatcheries up and down Canada and the states (since the 1930's in Washington).

But many of these runs are now endangered and species that rely upon these fish are endangered. There has been fish counts of runs that once numbered in the millions in my lifetime now come in at a couple dozen.

The methods used to calculate and set quotas never worked and expecting them to do so is ignoring the direct relationship to the hsitory of this "science".

[RikWriter]

I'm sorry but that is a load of:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/crap.jpg


As I mentioned previously I have worked for years closely with my states Fish and Wildlife Dept., I have had a close relationship with Canada's Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans and the bottomline is there can be NO scientific & accurate calculation of the number of a species ergo there can be no accurate quota defined.

Spend some time with those biologists tasked with defining how these quotas are defined and set and they will tell you it is only supposition and finally decided by politics of the dollar whether commercial or sportsmen interest.

This "science" is statistical in nature and based on catch or take records and supposed survival rates for young. And this method has been proven time and time again to be inaccurate, often radically inaccurate.

One of the the "best" or most often monitored species are the salmon runs of the Pacific west coast and these formerly huge runs of salmon, which wild runs are supplemented by hundreds of hatcheries up and down Canada and the states (since the 1930's in Washington).

But many of these runs are now endangered and species that rely upon these fish are endangered. There has been fish counts of runs that once numbered in the millions in my lifetime now come in at a couple dozen.

The methods used to calculate and set quotas never worked and expecting them to do so is ignoring the direct relationship to the hsitory of this "science".

The salmon are endangered not by individual fishing but by commercial fishing.
And it is your spurious comparison and bad assumptions that are http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bradklr/crap.jpg

[BradM]

Your simplified response of commercial fisheries as the problem is inaccurate but lets say it is all of the problem.

How were the quotas set for commercial fisheries?

By the same techniques you advocate as a solution.

[Mike55]

No, there's no slippery slope involved as long as the quotas are scientifically calculated and enforced by the state. The hunters' "state of mind" isn't an issue as to whether they are helping to balance the populations.

Honestly, that doesn't really mean anything. As far as balanced populations, that's only a problem because we kill too many predators or push them out of their habitat.

[Mike55]

The salmon are endangered not by individual fishing but by commercial fishing.



A combination of overharvest and loss of suitable river habitat for spawning caused by excessive road building and silt.

[RikWriter]

Your simplified response of commercial fisheries as the problem is inaccurate but lets say it is all of the problem.

How were the quotas set for commercial fisheries?

By the same techniques you advocate as a solution.


The quotas for commercial fisheries are set by how high a bribe the commercial fishing operations can afford.

[RikWriter]

Honestly, that doesn't really mean anything. As far as balanced populations, that's only a problem because we kill too many predators or push them out of their habitat.

Well, not exactly. Predators don't "live in a balance" with their prey, exactly. Predators tend to hunt down just as many of their prey as they possibly can, until the number of prey that can be hunted easily goes down to the point that the predators start dying off. At that point, the prey species have a breather and re-populate, and then the predators re-populate and it starts all over again, unless something like a disease or natural disaster push one species or the other over the edge and they die off in the area entirely.
Given human civilization (and no, it's not going away, sorry), such a predator-prey swing is untenable, as neither species has the elbow room it once did.

[Mike55]

Well, not exactly. Predators don't "live in a balance" with their prey, exactly. Predators tend to hunt down just as many of their prey as they possibly can, until the number of prey that can be hunted easily goes down to the point that the predators start dying off. At that point, the prey species have a breather and re-populate, and then the predators re-populate and it starts all over again

That's balance.


unless something like a disease or natural disaster push one species or the other over the edge and they die off in the area entirely.
Given human civilization (and no, it's not going away, sorry), such a predator-prey swing is untenable, as neither species has the elbow room it once did.

You are right about the elbow room, but those clashes are still going on all around us in places like Isle Royale, Boundary Waters (see recent moose news), Yellowstone, etc.

[RikWriter]

That's balance.




You are right about the elbow room, but those clashes are still going on all around us in places like Isle Royale, Boundary Waters (see recent moose news), Yellowstone, etc.

And in the Yellowstone area, the reintroduced wolves are doing just that to the elk. The wolves will survive it, unless we hunt them to extinction again, though I worry about the elk. In areas where there is a greater human presence and less room to roam, the wolves are going to have to be artificially controlled to keep them from killing off the whole elk populations in those areas.

[Mike55]

And in the Yellowstone area, the reintroduced wolves are doing just that to the elk. The wolves will survive it, unless we hunt them to extinction again, though I worry about the elk. In areas where there is a greater human presence and less room to roam, the wolves are going to have to be artificially controlled to keep them from killing off the whole elk populations in those areas.


Actually the wolf numbers in Yellowstone park are way down. The cause is parvo virus which attacks young pups. Check it out here:

http://www.nps.gov/yell/parknews/09004.htm

Elk numbers are up by about 500 animals from last year:

http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2009/03/Yellowstonewolfnumbe.htm

The most important "management" tool is optimal habitat, and this park has it in spades.

[RikWriter]

Actually the wolf numbers in Yellowstone park are way down. The cause is parvo virus which attacks young pups. Check it out here:

http://www.nps.gov/yell/parknews/09004.htm

Elk numbers are up by about 500 animals from last year:

http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2009/03/Yellowstonewolfnumbe.htm

The most important "management" tool is optimal habitat, and this park has it in spades.

Yeah, the wolf numbers are down...don't know if I would call them "way" down. As I said, disease can sway the numbers one way or the other. It's different in areas without the habitat protection Yellowstone has.
You can say that habitat is a good management tool, but the fact is, we aren't gaining more habitat, we're losing it. I don't see that changing...there's too much money involved.

[chauncey]

Aah...'tis a sad world when the survival of a fish or wolf or elk consumes more of our thought process than does the survival of a child next door.

[RikWriter]

Aah...'tis a sad world when the survival of a fish or wolf or elk consumes more of our thought process than does the survival of a child next door.

Huh?
What child next door?

[advaitin]

Land management of wildlife, in cooperation with responsible hunting, has brought game animals numbers up to levels unheard of in the first half of the 20th century. Fees (and regulations) for the hunters helped this come about. This does not carry over to the oceans, however, and more factors are in play than the number of commercial fishermen. I suspect that we are approaching a day when we may see a great death of most sealife because of changes to the seas that we know little about.

My personal attitude has changed over the years, I hunted and fished as a youth, but now would do so only if I had to in order to survive. That doesn't mean I'm anti-hunting, although I've seen a number of hunters (and fisherman) whose habits and actions are despicable, to say the least. I respect those hunters who respect their quarry and who try to leave as little footprint in the woods as possible.

[chauncey]

Huh?
What child next door?

And therein lies my point!

[RikWriter]

Huh?
What child next door?

And therein lies my point!

Well, no...my next door neighbors are a retired lady that lives alone and a lesbian couple with no kids. My across the street neighbors are are a retired Vietnam vet and his wife and a young couple with no kids.
But while I get your point, and agree somewhat, I think it's likely that the people who ignore the troubles of their neighbors are also not likely to care about wolves or elk either.

[Mike55]

Aah...'tis a sad world when the survival of a fish or wolf or elk consumes more of our thought process than does the survival of a child next door.


It's a sad world when all we leave for the child next door is another child next door.

The elk, the wolf and the fish are indicators for our own survival. If the world isn't good enough habitat for them, that means it's become less fine habitat for *us*.

[RikWriter]

It's a sad world when all we leave for the child next door is another child next door.

The elk, the wolf and the fish are indicators for our own survival. If the world isn't good enough habitat for them, that means it's become less fine habitat for *us*.

I think that's a specious argument. We are far more adaptable a species than wolves or elk...hell, we're like rats or cockroaches in that respect.
I make no bones about it...I want elk and wolves and bears around because they're cool.

[Mike55]

I think that's a specious argument. We are far more adaptable a species than wolves or elk...hell, we're like rats or cockroaches in that respect.
I make no bones about it...I want elk and wolves and bears around because they're cool.

I want elk and wolves around because that means there's still roadless country, which means there's still clean air somewhere and room to roam. It means there are still wild trout rivers, and I love flyfishing. It means there are still places void of light pollution in the night sky so I can still see the milky way. Plus, I'd like for the child next door to inherit a world that is more than strip malls and concrete. It's not just about wolves and elk, but quality of life, lifestyle choice, clean air and wilderness. Those are all part of the package. And oh yeah, wolves and elk are cool too.

[Tom Reichner]

Aah...'tis a sad world when the survival of a fish or wolf or elk consumes more of our thought process than does the survival of a child next door.
The children next door are humans, which are in no present danger of extinction. There are many times more humans today than there were 100 years ago, 200 years ago . . .

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the elk, the bison, wolf, sage grouse, salmon, etc.

For every wild bighorn sheep alive today, there were approximately 60 bighorns 200 years ago.

Humans, as a prolific species, are doing fine. Unfortunately, our biological success has come at the expense of wild populations of game animals and nongame species alike. So it does seem that the wildlife are the ones that need the bulk of our "thought process" and help.

[chauncey]

Species come and go, we will, they will, 'tis part of the process.

[Mike55]

Natural causes are the process. Most of the species in trouble are being pushed out from development. We have a responsiblity to practive an evolved self awareness and be good stewards of our home, both for our own species and others.

[RikWriter]

Natural causes are the process. Most of the species in trouble are being pushed out from development. We have a responsiblity to practive an evolved self awareness and be good stewards of our home, both for our own species and others.

We ARE a natural cause. How are humans less natural than an asteroid strike or a solar flare or a volcanic eruption?

[chauncey]

Our only responsibility is to survive as a species, in any way possible.
Would any of you sacrifice your child to save the wolves?

[Mike55]

Our only responsibility is to survive as a species, in any way possible.
Would any of you sacrifice your child to save the wolves?


In order to survive, we need clean air, clean water and open spaces (farming, ranching, hunting, etc), both provided by wilderness/roadless areas at the highest levels. We are not advanced enough yet to kill off every layer of habitat on this planet and sustain ourselves with our technology.

Also, an evolved species realizes that it's not just about them, and takes appropriate steps to ensure that quality of life is sustained. A planet with nothing but humans and concrete, while lacking things like marine life, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, the milky way at night and pristine lands is a significant reduction in the quality of our life, both fur current generations and future generations. It would be incredibly short sighted and selfish to hand the planet down to our grandchildren in worse condition than we found it.

[Mike55]

We ARE a natural cause. How are humans less natural than an asteroid strike or a solar flare or a volcanic eruption?


Because we have the abiity to choose and course correct. A solar flare or volcanic eruption does not.

[RikWriter]

Because we have the abiity to choose and course correct. A solar flare or volcanic eruption does not.

So what? That doesn't make us less natural. Humans are a natural part of this world, just like every other animal. Our technology is no less natural than a beaver's dam, an ant's nest, or a beehive. We're just better at it.

[snowyowl13]

Aah...'tis a sad world when the survival of a fish or wolf or elk consumes more of our thought process than does the survival of a child next door.
I think that you are jumping to conclusions that are completely baseless. Because I (or others) care about wildlife does not mean that we don't care about children or work for their welfare. Start a thread about child welfare if you want to discuss the subject, on this one we are talking about wildlife.

[chauncey]

You are right of course Dan. :lol:
Was merely testing the water to see how many suffer from hoof-n-mouth disease.
Just find it amazing that folks out there think that mankind is the key to the survival of the planet, was here before us and will be here after us.

[Random22]

take this from a hunters pov. I am a huge archery hunter, love being in the woods every day. I am ever so close to getting my 500d and i will gladly trade my bow for that one awesome picture.

[ducklabdad]

Getting back to the "original post here" Not a debate on Humans versus nature etc...
Serious, I have nothing against any hunters out here.

But in all honesty, it's easy to throw some corn out and shoot a deer or throw bird feed and shoot birds. I hear stories from hunters about how they put salt blocks and corn, then wait for the season to perch themselves on a stand and just wait, then shoot!

Now photographers can set up a blind just as well, but when it comes right down to it, isn't a photographer looking for lighting, composition, background and trying to get the end result where the prey looks great?

Then compare that to a hunter, and I know bow hunters have much more difficulties as they need to get closer than the hunter with a scope, but when it comes down to actual difficulty in shooting, it seems to me that the photographer has the more difficult job...

I am not looking for any debate because I think hunting is as important as photography and it has it's purpose. But I think the days of tracking and hunting for food are far gone compared to today's sport hunting.

And quite honestly, most of my wildlife photo's come from chance and not by purposely setting up blinds while looking for that perfect shot.

First They are two totally different things.

Let me check this in that I am 54 years old and have been a hunter since age 6 and a Photographer since age 11.

I dearly love both "Hobbies" as today for me that is what both are. Some people make a living from either or both I do not but have made some money in both hobbies.

A "hunter" looking only for the first animal he can kill, may use bait and kill the first animal that he shoots. Many "photographers" are satisfied to get any deer on medium"

Trophy hunters are looking only for a really nice "trophy" "Wall hanger" and will not settle for anything less. Many true "photographers" are looking for only that saleable, bookworthy, or "Wallhanger" photograph.

Both are what do I want out of the hobby and what am I willing to put into it.

To answer your question however. It is much easier, though not easy, to get a good photo of any animal than to shoot just any animal, due to no closed seasons and almost endless available places to "shoot" these animals with a camera than a gun or bow.

You also answered your own question when you stated the last sentence of the question presented, in that "your best wildlife photos came by chance!"
As a photographer we have the opportunity to carry our cameras almost anywhere we go today, and can shoot from our car, in the neighbors pasture, State and National parks and Wildlife management area's 365 days a year.

Hunters generally do not have the chance to get that "kill' by chance, they have to have the tags, license, permits and equipment to hunt a specific animal in a specific season in a specific area, during very specific hours and days.

I apologize for the long winded response, I Love This United States of America, and I hope that I do not see the day that they do try and take the things I love about this country away from me. Long live hunting and Photography, so similar and yet so different.