Persistence Hunting

[TheJason]

ESP since it’s legal to use a snow machine as a method of take in WY for coyotes ... people do it in CO as well.

Well, there is moral superiority in saving a fawn I guess.

 

[Treeshark]

I’ve read on this before, first became aware of it after reading the book “Born to Run.”

This dude is an elite runner, has won or placed very high in the most competitive/grueling ultra races in the US. He has been trying to kill an antelope this way for several years now without success. If by “luck” he actually succeeds one day, I think it is awesome. Good for him- to me it’s no different than using hounds to run bears/cats, except he’s using his own legs.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

This thread exemplifies the prevalence of hunter superiority among us. People are actually arguing that it is unethical for a human being to literally run down the second fastest land animal on Earth to exhaustion and finish it with a bow. I read the article and think the guy is a hunter as much as anyone and wants to give the animal the most fair advantage. That seems more noble than dialing your scope for 900 yards and shooting an elk. The only thing more fair chase would be to run it down and break its neck with his bare hands rather than use a recurve.

None of you complainers are morally superior in your method of hunting than this guy.

 

[Bigjay73]

Geez, this thread went down the shitter. Lessons in "moral superiority" from the internet is like lessons in integrity from the Catholic church. Im catholic before any of you lose your minds.

 

[corndog1]

Why the disparity?

There isn't any after I've thought about it.

 

[TheJason]

If this guy was hunting wolves like this (impossible I know, but hypothetically), how many would have the same opposition?

 

[rwc101]

I have no interest in running an animal down (or up a tree) with hounds or anything else. Maybe I get a gold star since my "moral superiority" is somewhat consistent.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

When people say a guy is unethical and wrong because he wants to kill things in way that more closely resembles how predators in nature hunt, they are in fact claiming moral superiority by it's very definition. They claim he is wrong and their way is right. What they do is good and what he does is bad. Moral superiority is as close of a definition I can think of in the English language what what is being done by those trashing him.

Maybe someone else can enlighten me on a better way of phrasing what is happening when others react in disgust for how this guy chooses to legally hunt....and then compare his way to their own way as being ethically inferior.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

If this guy was hunting wolves like this (impossible I know, but hypothetically), how many would have the same opposition?

I would feel the same

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

When people say a guy is unethical and wrong because he wants to kill things in way that more closely resembles how predators in nature hunt, they are in fact claiming moral superiority by it's very definition. They claim he is wrong and their way is right. What they do is good and what he does is bad. Moral superiority is as close of a definition I can think of in the English language what what is being done by those trashing him.

Maybe someone else can enlighten me on a better way of phrasing what is happening when others react in disgust for how this guy chooses to legally hunt....and then compare his way to their own way as being ethically inferior.

Is it wrong to claim moral superiority?

 

[MTTW]

If this guy chased me up hill for 400 yards I would be exhausted to the point he could approach me and give me a Dutch rub. I am confident that I would fully recover with no lasting effects. I don't know why some guys think antelope are such a bunch of snowflakes. Being exhausted to the point of being unable to continue running is not that big of a deal in my mind. I reach that level of exhaustion often.

 

[rwc101]

You don't have to claim moral superiority to have a discussion on the ethics surrounding a method of take. The world isn't divided between the ethical and unethical. Just people who make a mixture of ethical and unethical decisions. The people against discussions of ethics sure like to wade in and declare who is morally superior and the real reasons why people hold their views.

Nobody here is calling for a ban on persistence hunting, so the hand wringing over people sharing their opinions on the practice is overblown. This is a forum, "a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged."

 

[Nameless Range]

If this guy was hunting wolves like this (impossible I know, but hypothetically), how many would have the same opposition?

That’s a fair point.

I don’t think I would feel the same way, but then again, I am perfectly fine with folks trapping wolves, yet the thought of a pronghorn in a foothold trap bothers me. Am I being inconsistent? Maybe. I think there’s a lot of nuance and perfectly defendable speciesism involved in why we’re ok with different methods of harvest for different critters. I think it’s a long conversation and I definitely don’t want to argue over it.

I admit I have never seen a pronghorn so exhausted that it’s fear couldn’t override its body and carry it out of traditional bow range, but I can imagine how much suffering it would take to get there, how it may be detrimental to other animals in the herd, and how uncalled for it would be in my mind. I’m surprised some folks have a problem when such a position is taken.

As to moral superiority, that was sorted out on the wood vs synthetic stocks thread a while back. Real men leave the bow at home and channel their inner Royce Gracie.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

Is it wrong to claim moral superiority?

No. Not at all. And saying so would be the definition of it...

It does, however, seem incongruous to claim moral superiority, then deny claiming it, then proceed to bash and mock someone for bringing it up as if stating it is somehow taboo.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

You don't have to claim moral superiority to have a discussion on the ethics surrounding a method of take. The world isn't divided between the ethical and unethical. Just people who make a mixture of ethical and unethical decisions. The people against discussions of ethics sure like to wade in and declare who is morally superior and the real reasons why people hold their views.

Nobody here is calling for a ban on persistence hunting, so the hand wringing over people sharing their opinions on the practice is overblown. This is a forum, "a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged."

I just find it funny that a typical ethics conversation regarding methods of take usually boils down to claiming one method is more fair chase than another, and therefore somehow better and more ethical... then this guy comes along and tries for years to actually run down the fastest land animal on the continent and kill it and he is bashed for being unethical.

 

[rwc101]

I just find it funny that a typical ethics conversation regarding methods of take usually boils down to claiming one method is more fair chase than another, and therefore somehow better and more ethical... then this guy comes along and tries for years to actually run down the fastest land animal on the continent and kill it and he is bashed for being unethical.

Well, to be clear, I think what he is doing is the definition of fair chase. I also think that the pursuit of fair chase and ethical kills (defined by the reduction of suffering to the greatest extent possible) are at odds. We can chase animals down until they suffer heat stroke and be completely fair chase or we can use the latest gizmos to blow an animal away with ease. My personal definition of an ethical hunt balances the two. Again, good luck to him. Not my cup of tea and I won't try to stop him.

 

[TheJason]

I don’t think I would feel the same way, but then again, I am perfectly fine with folks trapping wolves, yet the thought of a pronghorn in a foothold trap bothers me. Am I being inconsistent? Maybe. I think there’s a lot of nuance and perfectly defendable speciesism involved in why we’re ok with different methods of harvest for different critters. I think it’s a long conversation and I definitely don’t want to argue over it.

I’m not in it to argue either. I was posing the question because I see the inconsistency all the time and it drives me nuts.

 

[Bigjay73]

No. Not at all. And saying so would be the definition of it...

It does, however, seem incongruous to claim moral superiority, then deny claiming it, then proceed to bash and mock someone for bringing it up as if stating it is somehow taboo.

I think you're overthinking this topic

 

[Hawk Tuah]

Well, to be clear, I think what he is doing is the definition of fair chase. I also think that the pursuit of fair chase and ethical kills (defined by the reduction of suffering to the greatest extent possible) are at odds. We can chase animals down until they suffer heat stroke and be completely fair chase or we can use the latest gizmos to blow an animal away with ease. My personal definition of an ethical hunt balances the two. Again, good luck to him. Not my cup of tea and I won't try to stop him.

I would agree that I think it is fair chase. I see what you are saying and do think it is a valid reaction. I do not participate in trapping for similar reasons, although I think trapping and hunting are intertwined and will always advocate for the legality of both.

I know you aren't calling for a ban on it or anything like that, but I think that if hunters themselves go too far on that train of thought then the conclusion can become brain shots only and only on game that is unaware of the hunter's presence because that is the only kill with zero pain or fear. I wouldn't do persistence hunting either, but mostly because the only antelope I could catch on foot would either be stuck in a barbed wire fence or just fell from its mother womb.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Technology is so advanced that we need to have a ton of parameters on hunting methods, or else most of the big game would be gone in a few weeks. There are always going to be back and forth discussions about what those parameters should be, in respect to efficiency and ethics. States set the lines differently, and then individual hunters need to decide for themselves what's acceptable to them within those parameters.

I'm in favor of withholding judgement of any hunter who's methods are legal, while at the same time having discussions about how state rules could be changed, or how individuals could refrain from certain methods for the benefit of everyone's enjoyment of hunting, as well as our public image.

I think persistence hunting will always be such a minuscule following due to the physical demands of the endeavor that it would be a waste of time to try and get it banned, restricted, etc. If there is a non-hunter out there who becomes interested in hunting because of persistence method, then I think it's a win for all of us in respect to our declining hunter numbers in NA.

As far as harassment of animals is concerned, we all engage in a tremendous amount of harassment. I mean, we're out there persecuting animals to the point of trying to kill them. Granted, most of us attempt to do so in a way that minimizes suffering, but none of us are perfect in that endeavor and over a long enough period of time we end up causing a lot of short- and long-term suffering to the animals we pursue.